Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind

Julia Annas
UNIVERSITY O !A"IORNIA PRESS
#e$%eley & "os An'eles & O(fo$d
) *++, The Re'ents of the Uni-e$sity of !alifo$nia
P$eface
P$eface
I .e'an the p$o/ect of 0$itin' this .oo% in *+123 and it has .een th$ou'h a nu4.e$ of
diffe$ent -e$sions5 It 0as o$i'inally intended as pa$t of a la$'e$ colla.o$ati-e 0o$% on
Hellenistic philosophy as a 0hole6 .ut the la$'e$ 0o$% la''ed 0hile 4y chapte$ %ept on
'$o0in' and 7I hope8 i4p$o-in'3 until finally it see4ed 4o$e app$op$iate to let it e(pand
to a 4o$e app$op$iate len'th as an independent pu.lication5 Since *+12 I ha-e 0o$%ed
pe$iodically on the .oo% as 0ell as on othe$ $esea$ch3 and I ha-e .een a.le to 0o$% in
4o$e depth on so4e topics $ele-ant to the .oo%3 such as Epicu$ean e4otions3 Stoic
episte4olo'y3 and Epicu$us9 difficult -ie0s on a'ency5 The .oo% has i4p$o-ed f$o4 this3
and also f$o4 the c$itical distance one can achie-e 0hen $etu$nin' to fa4ilia$ 4ate$ial
afte$ an inte$-al5 My ai4 has $e4ained the sa4e6 I hope to p$o-ide a clea$ int$oduction to
a fascinatin' su./ect3 one that 0ill help to 4a%e the su./ect accessi.le to $eade$s 0ith
diffe$in' .ac%'$ounds3 philosophical and classical5
The$e is no a$ea of ancient philosophy 0hich is officially called :philosophy of 4ind:6
.ut as p$acticin' philosophe$s all %no03 the official de4a$cations of one9s su./ect 4atte$
4ay not ans0e$ to the 0ays the su./ect de-elops3 and I hope that $eade$s 0ill a'$ee that
0hen 0e loo% at the te(ts3 0hat 0e find is in fact philosophy of 4ind5 The cont$i.utions
of the Stoics and Epicu$eans ha-e lon' suffe$ed ne'lect and so4eti4es conte4pt3 pa$tly
f$o4 lac% of sy4pathy 0ith thei$ funda4ental p$inciples and pa$tly f$o4 4isconceptions
as to 0hat the
; -iii ;
Stoics and Epicu$eans 0e$e t$yin' to do5 I ha-e t$ied to .e .oth sy4pathetic and c$itical3
.ut 4y p$incipal ai4 is to p$esent a clea$ -ie0 of the Stoic and Epicu$ean theo$ies3 thei$
4a/o$ ad-anta'es and so4e p$o.le4s they face5
I spent the acade4ic yea$ *+12<1, at the !ente$ fo$ Hellenic Studies in =ashin'ton3 >5
!53 as a /unio$ fello03 doin' $esea$ch fo$ this .oo%5 I a4 -e$y '$ateful to #e$na$d ?no(3
then the di$ecto$3 and to e-e$yone at the !ente$ fo$ 4a%in' that such an en/oya.le yea$5
The !ente$ is an ideal place fo$ $esea$ch3 and li%e 4any /unio$ fello0s3 I only 0ish I
could $etu$n a'ain5 Se-e$al people $ead and co44ented on the fi$st co4plete d$aft of the
.oo%5 I a4 especially '$ateful to Myles #u$nyeat3 Jonathan #a$nes3 Tony "on'3 Ma$tha
Nuss.au43 #$ad In0ood3 !h$istophe$ @ill3 and Malcol4 Schofield5 Othe$s 0ho ha-e
helped 4e 0ith po$tions of the .oo% a$e >a-id Sedley3 Si4on "au$sen3 @isela St$i%e$3
and Stephen E-e$son5 I ha-e .enefited f$o4 discussion of pape$s $ele-ant to pa$ts of the
.oo% at the >u%e Uni-e$sity !onfe$ence on T$adition and Inno-ation in Epicu$eanis4 in
the sp$in' of *+1+ and the ifth Inte$national Sy4posiu4 Hellenisticu4 in Sya43 $ance3
in Au'ust *+1+5 In the sp$in' of *+1+ I 'a-e a se4ina$ at the Uni-e$sity of A$iAona .ased
on 4ate$ial f$o4 the .oo%5 I lea$ned 4uch f$o4 the '$aduates ta%in' the se4ina$3
especially f$o4 Stephen "au$ence and f$o4 Victo$ !aston 7-isitin' that se4este$ f$o4
the Uni-e$sity of Te(as at Austin85 Su.seBuently 4y collea'ue Ro. !u44ins $ead the
0hole 4anusc$ipt and 4ade -alua.le co44ents3 4any of 0hich fo$ced 4e to .e 4o$e
c$itical of c$ucial a$'u4ents o$ to 4a%e the p$o'$ess of the a$'u4ent clea$e$ fo$ $eade$s
0ho a$e not specialists in ancient philosophy5 In 4y final $e0$itin' I ha-e .een helped .y
detailed co44ents f$o4 Tony "on' and f$o4 a $efe$ee fo$ the Uni-e$sity of !alifo$nia
P$ess5 =ith all this 'ene$ous help I a4 especially so$$y fo$ 4ista%es and confusions that
$e4ain3 fo$ 0hich I alone a4 of cou$se $esponsi.le5
I ha-e .een aided in t0o .outs of 0o$% on the .oo% .y ha-in' study lea-e f$o4 the
Philosophy >epa$t4ent at the Uni-e$sity of A$iAona3 and I a4 -e$y '$ateful fo$ this3 as
0ell
; i( ;
as fo$ the sti4ulatin' at4osphe$e and .eautiful su$$oundin's I en/oyed at Tucson5 I a4
also '$ateful to Jonathan #a$nes fo$ /oint se4ina$s on Hellenistic philosophy 0hich 0e
held in O(fo$d and fo$ continuin' to inspi$e and sti4ulate 4y inte$est in Hellenistic
philosophy .y his o0n 0o$%5 I a4 -e$y '$ateful to Michele S-atos fo$ p$epa$in' the
Inde( "oco$u4 and fo$ eno$4ous assistance 0ith the @ene$al Inde(5
The .oo% is dedicated to 4y hus.and3 >a-id3 0ho has .een suppo$ti-e and helpful
intellectually and in e-e$y othe$ 0ay th$ou'h the -a$ious sta'es of the .oo%9s p$o'$ess
7includin' pe$iods 0hen the$e 0as no p$o'$ess83 and to ou$ dau'hte$3 "au$a3 0ho has
.een a sou$ce of /oy fo$ all ei'ht yea$s of he$ life3 and se-en of the .oo%9s5
P$eface
Int$oduction
; * ;
Int$oduction
Mode$n philosophy of 4ind3 li%e 4ost a$eas of philosophy3 ha$%s .ac% f$o4 ti4e to ti4e
to p$edecesso$s in the ancient 0o$ld5 Usually the p$edecesso$ sin'led out is A$istotle3 the
'$eat founde$ of the su./ect5 A$istotle9s >e ani4a and Pa$-a natu$alia a$e the fi$st 0o$%s
to study psycholo'ical pheno4ena se$iously in a philosophical 0ay5 Rootin' :study of
the soul: fi$4ly in .iolo'y3 A$istotle9s 0o$%s a$e the ancesto$s not only of philosophy of
4ind3 as that is studied in philosophy depa$t4ents3 .ut also of syste4atic psycholo'y3 the
4o$e pu$ely scientific study of psycholo'ical and 4ental pheno4ena5 And A$istotle9s
app$oach is still of inte$est to 4ode$n philosophe$s3 as is 0itnessed .y the hu'e a4ount of
$esea$ch de-oted in the last t0o decades to unde$standin' A$istotle9s theo$y of the soul
and classifyin' it as physicalist3 dualist3 o$ functionalist5C*D
A$istotle9s successo$s3 the philosophe$s of the Hellenistic o$ postEA$istotelian pe$iod3
ha-e .een co4pa$ati-ely ne'lected5 This is a pity3 .ecause the theo$ies a$e sophisticated
and inte$estin'5 It is also so4e0hat su$p$isin'3 since e-en f$o4 the pe$specti-e of 4ode$n
inte$est the Hellenistic theo$ies ha-e a '$eat deal 4o$e in co44on 0ith 4ode$n conce$ns
than A$istotle9s does5 u$the$4o$e3 Hellenistic accounts of pa$ticE
C*D
; F ;
ula$ pheno4ena3 such as pe$cei-in'3 a$e often of '$eat inte$est in thei$ o0n $i'ht5 Thus3
.oth on '$ounds of thei$ int$insic inte$est and f$o4 the -ie0point of 4ode$n conce$ns3 it
see4s $easona.le to e(pand ou$ pictu$e of ancient philosophy of 4ind to include
A$istotle9s '$eat successo$s5
Hellenistic philosophy of 4ind has .een 'ene$ally ne'lected in the histo$y of $ecent
schola$ship .ecause Hellenistic philosophy 'ene$ally has .een unde$-alued3 an i4.alance
that is no0 .ein' co$$ected5 In the $ecent past3 ho0e-e$3 this pe$iod of philosophy of
4ind 0as thou'ht especially 0o$thy of ne'lect5 It 0as dis4issed as c$ude3 as a 4e$e
th$o0.ac% to ea$lie$ ideas3CFD and e-en as a type of theo$y 0hich 0as patently
inadeBuate3 .ut 0hose faults 0e$e o-e$loo%ed in the haste to 'et to 0hat 0as $eally
supposed to 4atte$3 na4ely3 the ethical conclusions5C2D
=hy 0as Hellenistic philosophy of 4ind held to .e c$udeG The 4ain $eason is that all the
4a/o$ theo$ies a$e physicalist6 they hold that the 4ind is 70ith $efine4ents 0e shall
e(a4ine8 so4ethin' physical5 And until su$p$isin'ly $ecently the philosophical
.ac%'$ound of schola$s inte$p$etin' Hellenistic philosophy 0as one in 0hich the
do4inant theo$y 0as dualis45 Hence 0e f$eBuently find schola$s dis4issin' Hellenistic
theo$ies as inadeBuate in p$inciple on the '$ounds that they 4e$ely study the 4ate$ial
conditions fo$ 4ental acti-ity to .e possi.le3
CFDC2D
; 2 ;
and o4it 4ental acti-ity itself5C,D Mo$e $ecently inte$p$ete$s ha-etended to ha-e an
intellectual .ac%'$ound in 0hich it is physicalis4 that is do4inant and dualis4 that is not
ta%en se$iously5 And this 4a%es it easie$ fo$ us to unde$stand the Hellenistic theo$ies3 fo$
in that pe$iod also physicalis4 0as seen as the no$45
The te$4s :physicalis4: and :4ate$ialis4: ha-e .een used fo$ 4any diffe$ent %inds of
theo$y5 The theo$ies that 0e shall e(a4ine in detail3 those of the Stoics and Epicu$eans3
a$e theo$ies of a %ind 0hich I shall call physicalist5 :Physicalis4: he$e co-e$s theo$ies
0hich clai4 that e-e$ythin' that e(ists is physical5 :Physical: he$e in tu$n 4eans :falls
unde$ the la0s of physics5: So4ethin' is physical if and only if it can .e desc$i.ed and
e(plained usin' only the concepts and 4ethods of physics5 So 4uch is t$ue of ancient and
4ode$n theo$ies5 Ancient -e$sions of physicalis4 0ill diffe$ f$o4 4ode$n ones to the
e(tent that ancient physics diffe$s f$o4 4ode$nHthat is3 conside$a.ly5 In its ancient
fo$43 physicalis4 is the theo$y that e-e$ythin' that e(ists3 includin' the soul3 falls unde$
phusi%e3 enBui$y into the constituents and st$uctu$e of the uni-e$se5 On this definition3
A$istotle is a physicalist3 althou'h he defines the soul as the fo$4 of the .ody3 .ecause
A$istotelian physics e-e$y0he$e studies fo$4 as 0ell as 4atte$5CID The ancient notion of
phusi%e 0as .$oade$ than ou$ notion of physics3 and the$e 0as nothin' in the ancient
0o$ld co$$espondin' to the 4ode$n thesis that physics is pa$adi'4atic fo$ the othe$
sciences3 o$ that they can .e $educed to it in so4e unified 0ay5 !o$$espondin'ly3 ancient
-e$sions of physicalis4 a$e less st$on' and 4ethodolo'ically less $est$icted than 4ode$n
ones5
Ancient physicalis4 is a 0ea% notion3 .ut not a contentless one5 So4e philosophe$s did
deny it5 To deny physicalis43 in
C,DCID
; , ;
the ancient 0o$ld3 is to deny that the soul falls unde$ scientific study3 to clai4 that the
soul is not pa$t of the natu$al 0o$ld and ope$ates in 0ays that cannot .e unde$stood .y
studyin' that 0o$ld5 This position is often called dualis43CJD since it i4plies that the$e a$e
t0o $adically diffe$ent %inds of thin' in the uni-e$se3 the physical thin's and the
psycholo'ical o$ 4ental thin's3 0hich a$e diffe$ent in %ind and do not fall unde$ the sa4e
%ind of enBui$y5
In antiBuity the$e a$e no defende$s of dualis4 e(cept Plato and the Platonic schools3 0ho
a$e -e$y 4uch the e(ception5 Plato hi4self in se-e$al dialo'ues and pa$ticula$ly the
Phaedo clai4s that souls a$e :sepa$ate: f$o4 .odies and in e-e$y 0ay a co4pletely
diffe$ent %ind of entity5 He not only accepts3 .ut e4phasiAes3 the fact that on his -ie0 the
$elationship of soul and .ody is deeply p$o.le4atic5 Plato .elie-es that it is deeply
4yste$ious and that 0e do not unde$stand it5 Platonic dualis4 0as 4a$'inal and
uninfluential du$in' the Hellenistic pe$iod5 It 0as $e-i-ed in the Middle Platonist schools
.ut e-en then 0as fa$ f$o4 do4inant5CKD "ate$ it 0as to ha-e a spectacula$ $e-i-al in the
ti4e of the Neoplatonists3 and th$ou'h the Platonic schools it 0as to ha-e a sta$tlin'
effect on !h$istianity3 tu$nin' it f$o4 a 4etaphysically neut$al $eli'ion into a $eli'ion
appa$ently co44itted to a dualistic -ie0 of the soul3 a -ie0 0hich has had lastin'
influence fo$ 4any centu$ies5C1D #ut in the Hellenistic pe$iod dualis4 0as not 0idely
-ie0ed as a philosophically se$ious position5 Physicalis4 0as ta%en fo$ '$anted as the
no$43 and not ta%en to $eBui$e special a$'u4ent5
Ancient physicalis43 it is clea$3 is e(t$e4ely 0ea%5 It is Buite distinct f$o4 $educti-is43
the thesis that ite4s of one %ind 7in
CJDCKDC1D
; I ;
this case3 souls8 can .e :$educed: to ite4s of anothe$ %ind 7in this case3 .odies85 Mode$n
fo$4s of $educti-is4 often $ely on .$id'in' la0s to :$educe: one science to anothe$3 and
unsu$p$isin'ly this is a.sent in the ancient 0o$ld3 0he$e science did not 4a%e the 4ode$n
%ind of appeal to la0s5 Still3 0e can see a $eco'niAa.le i4pulse to0a$d $educti-is4 in
so4e ancient philosophe$s3 nota.ly so4e of the p$eESoc$atics5 >e4oc$itus distin'uishes
.et0een the Bualities that 0e can e(pe$ience3 and 0hat the$e is :in t$uth3: na4ely3 ato4s
and -oid5 Ana(a'o$as clai4s that e-e$yday tal% of chan'e is 4isleadin' and does not
ans0e$ to anythin'6 0hat $eally 'oes on3 at a le-el fa$ .elo0 pe$ception3 is Buite diffe$ent5
One of the autho$s in the Hippoc$atic 4edical co$pus 'i-es a $educti-e account of -a$ious
psycholo'ical pheno4ena in te$4s of the influences of cli4ate5C+D These autho$s a$e not
4e$ely physicalists6 they add the clai4 that ou$ p$ephilosophical tal% of souls3 fo$
instance3 does not ans0e$ to anythin' $eal6 souls a$e /ust ato4s and -oid3 fo$ e(a4ple5
#ecause these autho$s do not specify any pa$ticula$ 4echanis4 fo$ $eduction3 thei$
position $e4ains so4e0hat indete$4inate6 it is not clea$3 fo$ e(a4ple3 0hethe$ 0hat is in
4ind is $educti-is4 p$ope$ 7the$e a$e Ls3 .ut they can .e $educed to Ys8 o$ eli4inati-is4
7the$e a$e $eally no Ls3 only Ys85
The i4pulse to0a$d $educti-is4 nascent in so4e p$eESoc$atics3 and so 4uch st$on'e$ and
4o$e sophisticated in 4ode$n theo$ies3 is -i$tually a.sent f$o4 Hellenistic philosophy of
4ind6 it appea$s only 4a$'inally in so4e 4e4.e$s of A$istotle9s school5 Indeed3 0e
actually find Epicu$us a$'uin' a'ainst >e4oc$itean $educti-is45C*MD Hellenistic
physicalis4 is non$educti-e6 it is a 'ene$ally accepted position that 0e hu4ans a$e pa$t of
the natu$al 0o$ld3 and in-esti'ated .y the no$4al p$ocesses of enBui$y into that 0o$ld5
acts a.out hu4ans3 0hethe$ thei$ .odies o$ thei$ souls3 co4e unde$ phu E
C+DC*MD
; J ;
si%e3 natu$al science5 #ut natu$al science is not assu4ed to lead us to deny o$ to
$einte$p$et fa4ilia$ facts a.out ou$sel-es3 o$ to t$y to $educe the4 to othe$ %inds of fact5
If physicalis4 is as 0ea% a position as this3 is the$e anythin' distincti-e a.out the
Hellenistic theo$ies 0hich /ustifies us if 0e see the4 as nea$e$ to 4ode$n physicalis4
than A$istotle isG So fa$ 0e ha-e 4e$ely 4a$%ed off Platonic dualists f$o4 e-e$y.ody
else and noticed a fe0 p$eESoc$atic $educti-ists5 A$e the$e any 'ene$al diffe$ences of %ind
.et0een A$istotle and his successo$s in thei$ studies of the soulG Intuiti-ely it has al0ays
.een felt that3 0hethe$ it has .een seen as a 'ood o$ a .ad thin'3 A$istotle9s successo$s a$e
physicalists in so4e st$on'e$ sense than A$istotle is5 #ut if they a$e not $educti-ists3 and
physicalis4 is a 'ene$al3 sha$ed assu4ption3 0he$ein does the diffe$ence lieG
=hile it 0ould .e a 4ista%e to e(a''e$ate the diffe$ences3 the$e a$e so4e 'ene$al points
that can .e laid out in an int$oducto$y 0ay5 i$stly3 the$e is a sense in 0hich the
Hellenistic theo$ies a$e 4o$e scienceEd$i-en than A$istotle9s is5 This should not .e
4isconst$ued as clai4in' that A$istotle9s theo$y is independent of his science5 On the
cont$a$y3 it is fi$4ly located in his .iolo'ical 0o$%s5 It is3 ho0e-e$3 pa$t of A$istotle9s o0n
scientific 0o$% and outloo%6 it fits 0ith his .iolo'y and 4etaphysics .ecause all of the4
in-ol-e applications of his o0n 4etaphysical conceptions3 such as fo$4 and actuality3
4atte$ and passi-ity3 and so on5 The >e ani4a fits into A$istotle9s o-e$all philosophical
p$o/ect6 it is not cut to fit the science in pa$ticula$5 #y cont$ast3 the$e is in the Hellenistic
pe$iod3 in 0hich the$e ha-e .een 'ene$al scientific and 4edical ad-ances3 a 'ene$ally
a-aila.le scientific pa$adi'4 fo$ the study of hu4an psycholo'y5 And althou'h Stoic and
Epicu$ean accounts of the soul a$e clea$ly intended to fit 0ell 0ith othe$ pa$ts of Stoic
and Epicu$ean philosophy3 they a$e also /ust as clea$ly intended to fit the 'ene$al
scientific pa$adi'45 This point is 4uch 4o$e i4po$tant fo$ the Stoics than it is fo$
Epicu$us3 0ho is 'ene$ally inclined to 'i-e 4o$e 0ei'ht to co44on sense than to
science6 .ut he too feels that he 4ust
; K ;
ta%e account to so4e e(tent of the co44only accepted scientific assu4ptions a.out
hu4ans5 The Hellenistic pe$iod 0as a 'olden a'e fo$ 4edical3 scientific3 and
technolo'ical disco-e$ies3 and it 0as a 4o$e selfEconsciously :scientific: e$a than the
p$ecedin' one6 as in all such e$as3 philosophy tended to .e 4o$e concessi-e to0a$d
science than it had .een5 This is 0hy this .oo% .e'ins 0ith a study of the scientific and
4edical .ac%'$ound .efo$e 4o-in' on to the 4a/o$ theo$ies the4sel-es5
Secondly3 A$istotle9s physicalis4 includes the 4etaphysical notion of fo$43 0hich is
diffe$ent in %ind f$o4 the 4atte$ 0hose fo$4 it is5 A$istotle ta%es hi4self to ha-e
ad-anced on the c$ude thin%in' of the p$eESoc$atics3 0ho t$ied to e(plain the functionin'
of li-in' .ein's in te$4s 4e$ely of the physical constituents5 #y cont$ast3 A$istotle thin%s
that he needs to appeal to fo$4 adeBuately to e(plain the idea of function3 0hich is
c$ucial fo$ li-in' .ein's5 Thus he c$iticiAes >e4oc$itus fo$ sayin' that -ision is the
4i$$o$in' of the thin' seen .y pa$t of the eye6 if that is all it is3 he says3 0hy do 4i$$o$s
and othe$ $eflecti-e su$faces not seeGC**D To e(plain seein' 0e need to appeal not only to
0hat the eye is 4ade of .ut to the 0ay the eye functions6 and nothin' sho$t of
A$istotelian fo$43 diffe$ent in %ind f$o4 4atte$3 0ill do this5 The Hellenistic theo$ies all
$e/ect this %ind of 4o-e6 they e(plain the functionin' of the eyes3 ea$s3 and so on in te$4s
of the physical st$uctu$e of the $ele-ant pa$ts of the .ody and in te$4s of physical
p$ocesses that a$e co44on to the 0o$%in's of diffe$ently functionin' pa$ts5
It is this 4o$e than anythin' else 0hich has led to thei$ .ein' conside$ed nai-e
th$o0.ac%s 0ho had lea$ned nothin' f$o4 A$istotle9s c$iticis4 of >e4oc$itus5 #ut this is
p$e4atu$e6 fo$ the Hellenistic theo$ies3 0$on' and nai-e thou'h they appea$ to us3 ha-e
4ade '$eat ad-ances o-e$ the p$eEA$istotelian theo$ies5 The Hellenistic thin%e$s offe$
e(planations not in
C**D
; 1 ;
te$4s of 4i$$o$in' .ut in te$4s of hi'hly theo$etical entities3 defined .y sophisticated
theo$ies 0hich e4.ody $ecent scientific ad-ances5 They a$e thus /ustified in thin%in' that
thei$ theo$ies and e(planations appeal to fa$ '$eate$ co4ple(ity of st$uctu$e than those of
the p$eESoc$atics did5 And it is .ecause of this that the Hellenistic thin%e$s thin% that they
do not need to appeal to 4etaphysical notions li%e that of A$istotelian fo$45 Thus thei$
theo$ies a$e 4etaphysically fa$ 4o$e econo4ical than the A$istotelian %ind6 they appeal
to an unde$lyin' co4ple(ity of st$uctu$e to e(plain the functionin' of li-in' thin's3 not
.ecause they a$e una0a$e of the %ind of appeal to fo$4 that A$istotle 4a%es3 .ut .ecause
they thin% that scientific e(planation 0ill in fact do the /o.5 It is not clea$3 of cou$se3 that
they a$e $i'ht he$e5 And the conte4po$a$y fo$ce and po0e$ of thei$ theo$ies is -e$y easy
fo$ us to 4iss3 .ecause 0e cannot ta%e thei$ theo$etical te$4s 7pneu4atic tension3 ato4s
and -oid8 se$iously f$o4 the scientific point of -ie05 Still3 the idea that the co4ple(ity of
the unde$lyin' st$uctu$e alone 0ill e(plain the functional o$'aniAation of li-in' thin's3
0ithout appeal to p$inciples li%e fo$43 is one that is ta%en -e$y se$iously in 4ode$n
philosophy of 4ind6 e-en if it is 0$on'3 it is ce$tainly not nai-e5 Schola$s a$e often pained
and .affled .y the lac% of Hellenistic $eponse to 0hat 0e see as A$istotle9s po0e$ful
a$'u4ents a.out fo$4 and function5 Often the p$o.le4 is sol-ed .y the assu4ption that
A$istotle9s school t$eatises 0e$e not 'ene$ally a-aila.le until And$onicus9 edition in the
fi$st centu$y #5!5 #ut it is /ust as li%ely that these ideas d$e0 no $eaction .ecause they
0e$e seen as outdated3 and thus needin' no $esponse5C*FD
inally3 and 4ost st$i%in'ly3 A$istotle9s account of the psuche o$ soul is clea$ly 4a$%ed .y
his focus on findin' 0hat distinE
C*FD
; + ;
'uishes e4psucha 3 li-in' thin's5 o$ A$istotle the soul is the p$inciple of life3 and this
d$i-es 4any of his conce$ns6 he is inte$ested not /ust in the 'ene$al p$inciples of
functional o$'aniAation fo$ li-in' thin's3 .ut in aspects of li-in' such as .$eathin' and
sleepin'5 His lon' account of pe$ception focuses on the causal 4echanis4s of pe$cei-in'
$athe$ than on its pheno4enolo'y o$ content5 The Hellenistic theo$ies3 on the othe$ hand3
0hile thin%in' of the soul as the p$inciple of life3 do not p$i4a$ily focus on this6 they a$e
4o$e inte$ested in 0hat 0e call the 4ind o$ 4ental pheno4ena5 Thei$ accounts of
pe$cei-in'3 thin%in'3 and so on a$e 0ea% 0he$e A$istotle9s a$e st$on'3 na4ely3 in 'i-in'
accounts of the diffe$ent 4echanis4s of the senses and othe$ o$'ans and in e(a4inin'
thei$ 0o$%in's in .iolo'ical detail5 They a$e3 ho0e-e$3 st$on' 0he$e A$istotle is 0ea%3
na4ely3 in 'i-in' an account of the content of 4ental acti-ity and the 0ays in 0hich this
is $elated to ou$ a.ilities to thin%3 to use concepts3 and to en'a'e in lan'ua'e use5
Althou'h the Hellenistic theo$ies9 inte$est in the 4ental is in so4e 0ays diffe$ent f$o4
the %ind of inte$est that 0e tend to find standa$d3 since they a$e uninte$ested in Buestions
of p$i-ile'ed access o$ the %ind of ce$tainty 0hich 4ental e-ents can p$o-ide3 0e shall
see that the 4a/o$ theo$ies focus Buite st$on'ly on the 4ind3 as 0ell as on the p$inciple of
life5 So4eti4es schola$s a$e $eluctant to call A$istotle9s theo$y a theo$y of the 4ind3 since
fo$ hi4 the psuche o$ soul is so clea$ly the p$inciple of life and not to .e identified 0ith
0hat 0e thin% of as the 4ind5 =hile the point is te$4inolo'ical3 it is pe$haps 0o$th
sayin' that if 0e 0ant to $est$ict the te$4 :philosophy of 4ind: to theo$ies 0hich focus
st$on'ly on 0hat 0e thin% of as the 4ind and the 4ental3 then the Hellenistic theo$ies a$e
the fi$st syste4atic philosophies of 4ind5C*2D
C*2D
; *M ;
In 4any 0ays these points .$in' the Hellenistic theo$ies close$ to 4ode$n conce$ns than
A$istotle9s %ind of theo$y is5 #ut I a4 not of cou$se clai4in' that this is the only $eason
fo$ ta%in' the4 se$iously5 I hope that this .oo% 0ill con-ince the $eade$ that these
theo$ies a$e philosophically inte$estin' in thei$ o0n $i'ht3 and that they dese$-e 4o$e
se$ious study than they ha-e $ecei-ed until $ecently5 I hope that this .oo% 0ill help us to
achie-e pictu$es3 $athe$ than ca$icatu$es3 of theo$ies 0hich a$e 0ell 0o$th the effo$t of
depictin'5
The Hellenistic a'e con-entionally e(tends f$o4 the death of Ale(ande$ the @$eat in 2F2
#5!5 to the .attle of Actiu4 in 2M #5!5 Philosophically3 this is an a'e in 0hich the
esta.lished schools3 those of Plato and A$istotle3 continue3 .ut in chan'ed o$ $educed
fo$43 and 4a/o$ ne0 philosophical 4o-e4ents a$ise5 u$the$3 f$o4 the philosophical
point of -ie03 2M #5!5 is not the end of anythin'5 #y the fi$st centu$y #5!5 the 4a/o$ ne0
schools had .een esta.lished3 and apa$t f$o4 the $ise of Middle Platonis4 and the
$ene0al of sceptical schools the philosophical scene $e4ained essentially unchan'ed until
the d$a4atic $ise of Neoplatonis45 I shall 'i-e a .$ief and selecti-e account of the
philosophical .ac%'$ound3 focused on unde$standin' ou$ 4ain conce$n3 the philosophy of
4ind of the Stoics and Epicu$eans5
a8 The School of Plato
Plato died in 2,K #5!5 His o0n 0o$%s continued to .e $ead in the Hellenistic pe$iod3 and
his a$'u4ents a.out the :sepa$ate: natu$e of the soul in the Phaedo 0e$e studied and
c$iticiAed5C*,D #ut his successo$s in the Acade4y3 du$in' the pe$iod 'ene$ally called the
Old Acade4y3 see4 to ha-e .een inte$ested in the soul only in the conte(t of a syste4atic
and 4athe4atiAed 4etaphysics5 Thus Speusippus called the soul :the fo$4 of the allE
e(tended3: and Lenoc$ates called it a :selfE4o-in' nu4.e$5:C*ID >ou.tless 0e 0ould
ha-e a .ette$ idea of 0hat these
C*,DC*ID
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; ** ;
fo$4ulae 4eant if 0e had fulle$ and 4o$e sy4pathetic accounts of thei$ conte(t5
Ho0e-e$3 it is 0o$th notin' that A$istotle3 0ho had access to such a conte(t3 found the
:selfE4o-in' nu4.e$: fo$4ula a.su$d6 he pou$s sco$n on it in the >e ani4a3 0hethe$
fai$ly o$ not 0e cannot tell5C*JD Lenoc$ates9 successo$s3 Pole4on and !$ates3 see4 to
ha-e concent$ated on ethics3 and the Acade4y 0as then tu$ned .y its ne(t head3
A$cesilaus3 to a $epudiation of do'4a and a sceptical stance to0a$d the doct$ines of all
schools3 especially the Stoics5 The sceptical o$ Ne0 Acade4y continued until the fi$st
centu$y #5!5 6 its 0ea%enin' fo$4 of scepticis4 p$o-o%ed a .$ea%a0ay 4o-e4ent 0hich
adopted a 4o$e e(t$e4e scepticis4 and $e-i-ed the le'end of Py$$ho the sceptic3 and
afte$ the sac% of Athens in 1K #5!5 the Acade4y as an institution died out5C*KD In the ne(t
centu$y Pluta$ch and othe$s p$oduced 0hat is called Middle Platonis43 a syste4atic set of
doct$ines .ased on Plato9s dialo'ues5 None of these 4o-e4ents cont$i.uted anythin'
positi-e to philosophy of 4ind in this pe$iod5
.8 The School of A$istotle
A$istotle9s o0n philosophy of 4ind did not found a st$on' t$adition in his o0n school5
The sto$y 0ill .e told 4o$e fully 7in chapte$ *3 section c83 since it is pa$t of the sto$y of
the scientific .ac%'$ound to the Hellenistic theo$ies5 A$istotle9s successo$s Theoph$astus
and St$ato continued scientific $esea$ch6 .ut the school the$eafte$ concent$ated 4o$e on
ethics and3 pe$haps .ecause of the dest$uction of its $esea$ch facilE
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDC*JDC*KD
; *F ;
ities in 0a$s3 0as in a fai$ly $unEdo0n condition du$in' the Hellenistic pe$iod5 The heads
of the school afte$ St$ato 0e$e no.odies3 and the "yceu4 finally pete$ed out as an
institution afte$ the sac% of Athens3 li%e the Acade4y5C*1D The fi$st centu$y #5!5 3
ho0e-e$3 sa0 the fi$st schola$ly edition of A$istotle9s school t$eatises3 and the .e'innin'
of 0hat has continued e-e$ since3 schola$ly te(tE.ased e(e'esis of A$istotle5 Ale(ande$ of
Aph$odisias3 a co44entato$ of the second centu$y A5>5 3 is the 4ost nota.le e(ponent of
this and is often in-alua.le as a sou$ce fo$ the Hellenistic theo$ies 0hich he co4.ats f$o4
an A$istotelian point of -ie05
Thus in the pe$iod afte$ A$istotle the philosophies of Plato and of A$istotle 0e$e not
nea$ly as do4inant as 0e 4i'ht infe$ f$o4 ou$ o0n -ie0 of thei$ $elati-e i4po$tance5
Indeed3 4any of the ne0 schools d$e0 thei$ inspi$ation f$o4 Soc$ates $athe$ than f$o4
Plato5 A4on' these 0e$e the !ynics3 0ho $e/ected con-entions3 and the !y$enaics3 0ho
held that ou$ final end is pleasu$e5 The only schools 0hich cont$i.uted to philosophy of
4ind3 and 0hich 0e shall loo% at in depth3 0e$e the Stoics and Epicu$eans5
c8 The Stoics
Stoicis4 0as founded .y Neno of !itiu4 7.5 22,83 0ho ca4e to Athens and tau'ht in the
Stoa Poi%ile o$ Painted Po$ch5 Neno see4s to ha-e laid the foundations of 4ost of Stoic
theo$y3 thou'h it is often ha$d to distin'uish his cont$i.utions f$o4 late$ ones5 =hile
Neno 0as initially influenced .y the uncon-entional !ynics3 he founded a definiti-ely
philosophical school3 in 0hich pupils 0e$e t$ained to a$'ue3 and he de-eloped a
syste4atic theo$y 0ith distincti-ely Stoic lo'ic3 physics3 and ethics5 His pupils A$iston3
He$illus3 and !leanthes de-eloped diffe$ent e4phases in Stoicis45 !leanthes 0as the
official head of the school3 and his successo$ !h$ysippus 7c5 F1MEFMK #5!5 8 0as in effect
the second founde$ of the Stoa5 !h$ysippus
C*1D
; *2 ;
had a syste4atic and po0e$ful 4ind and 0$ote -olu4inously6 the$eafte$ :official: Stoic
-ie0s 0e$e 'i-en thei$ fo$4 .y hi45 His successo$s3 nota.ly >io'enes of #a.ylon and
Antipate$ of Ta$sus3 4ade cont$i.utions of thei$ o0n .ut 0ithin the lines of o$thodo(y5
Ho0e-e$3 t0o late$ fi'u$es3 Panaetius 7c5 *1IE*M+ #5!5 8 and Posidonius 7c5 *2IOIM
#5!5 83 0e$e seen as diffe$in' si'nificantly in thei$ app$oach and a$e often called Middle
Stoics5 o$ ou$ pu$poses this 4atte$s only 0ith $e'a$d to Posidonius9 theo$y of the
e4otions3 0hich is indeed distinct f$o4 the standa$d Stoic -ie03 and in inte$estin' 0ays5
d8 The Epicu$eans
Epicu$us 72,*EFKM #5!5 8 founded a ne0 school of philosophy in his fa4ous @a$den at
Athens and 0as a p$olific 0$ite$ on 4any aspects of his syste4atic philosophy5 =e ha-e
so4e of his 4o$e popula$ 0o$%s3 0hich ha-e co4e do0n in the 4anusc$ipts of the late$
.io'$aphe$ >io'enes "ae$tius3 and 0e also possess la$'e nu4.e$s of f$a'4ents of school
t$eatises and lectu$es3 f$o4 the Epicu$ean li.$a$y of papy$us $olls found at He$culaneu45
Epicu$us9 school 0as fa4ous3 o$ noto$ious3 in antiBuity fo$ its fidelity to the thou'ht of its
founde$3 and th$ou'hout the Hellenistic pe$iod 0e find no outstandin'ly o$i'inal
Epicu$ean thin%e$s5 =e do ha-e3 ho0e-e$3 t0o sou$ces f$o4 the fi$st centu$y #5!5 0ho
help '$eatly to fill out ou$ %no0led'e of Epicu$ean philosophy of 4indP the Ro4an poet
"uc$etius3 0ho 0$ote a si(E.oo% poe4 on topics in Epicu$eanis43 and the f$a'4enta$y
papy$us $olls of Philode4us3 an Epicu$ean philosophe$3 f$o4 the He$culaneu4 li.$a$y5
As al$eady 4ade clea$3 the Hellenistic a'e 0as one 0hich 0as a0a$e of '$eat scientific
ad-ances5 Science .eca4e di-o$ced f$o4 philosophy and de-eloped on its o0n3 c$eatin'
a situation 0he$e philosophe$s had to ta%e account of an independent scientific t$adition5 I
shall not he$e 4a%e a 'ene$al
; *, ;
su$-ey of Hellenistic science and 4edicine3C*+D .ut in the ne(t chapte$ I 0ill s%etch the
scientific and 4edical .ac%'$ound necessa$y fo$ us to 4a%e p$ope$ sense of the Stoic and
Epicu$ean theo$ies5 If 0e si4ply .e'in3 fo$ e(a4ple3 0ith the Stoic clai4 that the soul is
pneu4a and that pneu4a is :.$eath3: 0e 4ay not only .e .affled .ut conclude3
inco$$ectly3 that the theo$y is so4e %ind of philosophe$s9 fantasy5 It 0ould in fact .e
intelli'i.le to its fi$st audience as a theo$y 0ith a $especta.le scientific .ac%'$ound6 so it
is to this that 0e 4ust fi$st tu$n5
C*+D
; *I ;
Int$oduction
PART ONE THE #A!?@ROUN>
PART ONE
THE #A!?@ROUN>
; *K ;
*
The Medical and Scientific #ac%'$ound
a8 A$istotle
A4on' the '$eatest of A$istotle9s achie-e4ents is the de-elop4ent of an e(tensi-e and
i4p$essi-e .iolo'y5 #ut as 0ell as p$oducin' a distincti-e .iolo'ical co$pus of his o0n3
A$istotle .e'an the de-elop4ent of 0hat 0as to .e the 4ain concept of the -e$y diffe$ent
.iolo'y and 4edical theo$y of the Hellenistic a'e5 =hat is 4ost st$i%in' a.out Hellenistic
4edical theo$y3 .y cont$ast 0ith A$istotle9s 0o$%3 is the p$o4inence it 'i-es to the notion
of pneu4a3 0hich o$i'inally 4eans :.$eath5: #ut the sta$t of the spectacula$ $ise of
pneu4a to theo$etical hei'hts in fact can .e found in A$istotle hi4self5
=hy 0ould .$eath .e i4po$tant to a .iolo'ist3 apa$t of cou$se f$o4 the in-esti'ation of
the p$ocess of .$eathin' itselfG The ans0e$ see4s 4o$e o.-ious if 0e $ecall that fo$
A$istotle the soul o$ psuche is p$i4a$ily the p$inciple of life and thus is 0hat 4a%es the
diffe$ence .et0een a li-in' and a nonli-in' thin'5 =hat is it that 4a%es a li-in' .ody .e
ali-eG T$i-ially3 the p$esence of soul5 It is soul 0hich 4a%es the .ody function as a li-in'
.ody5 Ho0e-e$3 can 0e say anythin' 4o$e p$ecise than thisHcan 0e locate the 0o$%in's
of the soul in any one pa$ticula$ p$ocess 4o$e than any othe$G !onspicuously3 a
; *1 ;
co$pse ceases to .$eathe and .eco4es cold6 and f$o4 an ea$ly date .ody heat o$ .$eath o$
.oth 0e$e $e'a$ded as candidates fo$ the pa$ticula$ -ehicle of the soul9s functionin'5 It is
not su$p$isin'3 the$efo$e3 that A$istotle inclines to the -ie0 that eithe$ heat o$ .$eath is the
i44ediate .odily -ehicle of the soul5 The idea is pe$haps unsophisticated3 .ut o.-ious
enou'h5
o$ A$istotle the$e is not 4uch to choose .et0een heat and pneu4a as the soul9s
i44ediate -ehicle3 and indeed he 4a%es no syste4atic atte4pt to 'i-e pneu4a a specific
$ole in psycholo'y5 Thus the$e is no de-eloped :pneu4a theo$y: in the .iolo'ical 0o$%s3
and it is easily 4issed5C*D In the 4ain it is heat 0hich A$istotle $e'a$ds as 4ost di$ectly
necessa$y fo$ the p$esence of soul5CFD #ut in a fe0 passa'es3 scatte$ed in the co$pus3
A$istotle says un4ista%a.ly that it is pneu4a3 not heat3 0hich is $eBui$ed fo$ the soul9s
functions of 4o-e4ent3 $ep$oduction3 and sensation5 @i-in' this $ole to pneu4a is not in
opposition to 'i-in' it to heat6 fo$ 0e find that the$e can .e :soul heat: in the pneu4a 5C2D
Ho0e-e$3 heat does not fi'u$e in the 0ay pneu4a p$oduces ani4al 4otion o$ sensation3
C,D and the standa$d function of .$eathin' in A$istotle9s psycholo'y is a coolin' one5 So
0e can infe$ that A$istotle has not thou'ht th$ou'h the $oles of pneu4a and of heat in a
la$'e o-e$all theo$y5CID
C*DCFDC2DC,DCID
; *+ ;
o$ A$istotle3 pneu4a is not a special su.stance6 it is /ust 0a$4 ai$5CJD The pneu4a
i4po$tant in li-in' thin's diffe$s f$o4 o$dina$y 0a$4 ai$ in .ein' :connate3: su4phuton3
a functionin' pa$t of ani4al 4eta.olis43 and as such acBui$es no ne0 o$ su$p$isin'
p$ope$ties5CKD Nonetheless3 :connate pneu4a : acBui$es a 4o$e and 4o$e e(tended $ole5
In >e 4otu ani4aliu4 *M it .$in's a.out 4o-e4ent 0ithout itself .ein' alte$ed6 the$e a$e
no const$aints on its pushin' and pullin'3 since it is hea-y $elati-e to 0hat is natu$ally
li'ht3 and -ice -e$sa6 it 'i-es ani4als thei$ st$en'th5 It see4s3 in the odd and possi.ly
co$$upt passa'es at >e 'ene$atione ani4aliu4 K,,a2 and K1*aF*3 to play a $ole in all
sensation5 It also has a c$ucial $ole in $ep$oductionP it diffe$entiates the pa$ts in the
e4.$yo at K,*.2KO2+ and see4s to .e the -ehicle fo$ t$ans4ittin' the soul in the st$an'e
passa'e at K2J.2MOK2Ka*3 0he$e the pneu4a is said to contain so4e su.stance i4po$tant
fo$ all soul functionin' and a%in to the :fifth ele4ent: 4a%in' up the sta$s5
So4e ha-e .een te4pted to syste4atiAe A$istotle9s scatte$ed $e4a$%s into a
$econst$uction 4a%in' pneu4a cent$al to his psycholo'y6 .ut this is a 4ista%e3 'i-en the
scatte$ed and unsyste4atic natu$e of the e-idence5C1D It 0ould also .e 0$on' to thin%3 as
so4e ha-e3 that pneu4a is 4eant to ope$ate in a 0ay 0hich i4po$ts so4ethin' :di-ine:
into an othe$0ise .iolo'ical account5 These passa'es to'ethe$ su''est that pneu4a is
4o$e than /ust an o$dina$y ite4 in the A$istotelian 0o$ld5 #ut 0e should .e cha$y of
4a%in' A$istotelian .iolo'y fla'$antly .$ea% the la0s of A$istotelian physics5C+D It is
4o$e plausi.le to
CJDCKDC1DC+D
; FM ;
hold that pneu4a is /ust an o$dina$y physical su.stanceH0a$4 ai$Hand that A$istotle9s
4o$e sta$tlin' clai4s a.out it co4e f$o4 the thou'ht that it 0ill acBui$e ne0 and pe$haps
su$p$isin' p$ope$ties 0hen functionin' in a unified and selfE4aintainin' li-in' .ein'5C*MD
A$istotle has no o-e$all cohe$ent -ie0 of the .iolo'ical $ole of pneu4a6 pe$haps he 0ould
ha-e de-eloped one if he had li-ed lon'e$5 Ho0e-e$3 0e find in A$istotle an e(a4ple of
the 0ay pneu4a can lea-e its intuiti-e .ase and .eco4e a theo$etical entity3 indeed one
0hich can e(pand to fill the needs of theo$y5
The passa'es a.out pneu4a in A$istotle a$e not inte'$ated into his o0n psycholo'y5 It
0as left to the Stoics to de-elop the idea that all the functions of a li-in' thin' can .e
e(plained .y the 0o$%in's of a sin'le su.stance ope$atin' in diffe$entiated 0ays3 and to
identify this 0ith pneu4a 5 And it 0as left to the Hellenistic docto$s to connect pneu4a
0ith a cent$aliAed syste4 li%e the hea$t o$ the ne$-es5 #ut A$istotle had ta%en the fi$st
step in 4a%in' pneu4a a theo$etical entity that could .e thou'ht to do 0o$% in .iolo'y5
.8 Hellenistic Medical Theo$y
In the Hellenistic pe$iod the$e 0e$e si'nificant ad-ances in 4edical disco-e$ies3 and
4edical theo$ies en/oyed '$eat p$esti'e5C**D Much $esea$ch 0as done in the ne0
scientific cente$ of Ale(and$ia3 $athe$ than in esta.lished philosophical cente$s li%e
Athens5 As a $esult of these disco-e$ies 0e find e4e$'in' a ne0 scientific pa$adi'4 of
hu4an functionin'3 one 0hich
C*MDC**D
; F* ;
affected the philosophe$s9 unde$standin' of 0hat they needed to 'i-e an account of5 The
Stoics 0e$e 4o$e influenced .y cu$$ent 4edical $esea$ch than the Epicu$eans3 .ut e-en
the latte$ sho0 un4ista%a.le si'ns of a0a$eness of conte4po$a$y 4edicine5 Epicu$us9
'ene$al idea of the hu4an soul and ho0 it functions3 and of the app$op$iate 4ethods of
e(plainin' it3 is fa$ close$ to the Stoics9 than to A$istotle9s5C*FD
P$a(a'o$as of !os 7fl5 c5 2MM #5!5 8C*2D i4p$o-ed %no0led'e of the -ascula$ syste46 he
had a theo$y of the pulse and distin'uished a$te$ies f$o4 -eins5 Ho0e-e$3 he 4ade the
influential 4ista%e of concludin' that only the -eins contain .lood5 The a$te$ies 70hich in
a co$pse 0ould .e found e4pty8C*,D he too% to .e a syste4 of hollo0 channels
o$i'inatin' in the hea$t and $a4ifyin' th$ou'h the .ody3 endin' in tiny channels called
neu$a 7a 0o$d at this ti4e co-e$in' .oth tendons and ne$-es85 In a li-in' ani4al the
a$te$ial syste43 li%e the -enal syste43 0ould .e pu4pin' so4ethin' out6 uneBuipped 0ith
theo$y o$ o.se$-ation 4a%in' it plausi.le that this could .e .lood3 P$a(a'o$as too% it to
.e pneu4a 5 =e ha-e seen ho0 .y this ti4e pneu4a could .e thou'ht of as ha-in' an
e(panded theo$etical $ole5 This assu4ption 4ade possi.le fu$the$ e(planationsP the
pulsin' of the a$te$ies3 fo$ e(a4ple3 0as ta%en to .e due to .u..les a$isin' in the -eins
and ente$in' the a$te$ies th$ou'h the hea$t5
C*FDC*2DC*,D
; FF ;
P$a(a'o$as9 pictu$e3 ho0e-e$ c$ude and confused3 0as si'nificant in at least t0o 0ays5
i$stly3 it is li%e 0hat 0e find in A$istotle in that pneu4a in a li-in' thin' is asc$i.ed
4any si'nificant p$ope$ties3 .ut in a 0ay 0hich is enti$ely consistent 0ith physicalis45
Pneu4a is not a .iAa$$e su.stance 0hich /ust happens to e(ist in natu$e6 it is /ust a
fa4ilia$ su.stance3 .ut one 0hich is ta%en to e(plain -a$ious functionin's in a li-in'
.ein' and 0hich is the$efo$e ta%en to ha-e p$ope$ties 0hich 4a%e it adeBuate fo$ the /o.5
C*ID
Secondly3 0hat 0e 4i'ht call P$a(a'o$as9 a$te$ialEneu$al syste4 7a$te$ies not .ein'
clea$ly distin'uished f$o4 ne$-es8 o$i'inates in the hea$t6 0e ha-e a pictu$e3 ho0e-e$
e$$oneous3 of a syste4 0hich does so4e of the /o.s of 0hat 0e call the ne$-ous syste43
and 0ith a cent$al o$'an di$ectin' it5 The hea$t pu4ps out .lood th$ou'h the -eins to
nou$ish the .ody3 and pneu4a th$ou'h the a$te$ies to 4a%e it sensiti-e and $eacti-e5 =e
ha-e 0hat is lac%in' in A$istotleHa cent$aliAed 4echanis4 0hich e(plains 0hy the .ody
is a sensiti-e and $eacti-e 0hole5 And pneu4a plays an i4po$tant $ole in this5C*JD
He$ophilus of !halcedon 7fl5 c5 FKM #5!5 8 and E$asist$atus of !eos 7fl5 c5 FJM #5!5 8
4ade spectacula$ disco-e$ies a.out the -ascula$ and ne$-ous syste4s5C*KD =o$%in' in the
ne0 $esea$ch institute at Ale(and$ia unde$ the p$otection of the Ptole4ies3 they 0e$e a.le
to i'no$e the hithe$to i4p$e'na.le @$ee% ta.oo
C*IDC*JDC*KD
; F2 ;
a'ainst dissectin' hu4an co$pses5 Ha-in' steeled the4sel-es to -iolate t$adition in
cuttin' open the dead3 they 0ent on to cut open the li-in'5 !elsus tells us that
:He$ophilus and E$asist$atus did 0hat 0as .y fa$ the .est thin' in cuttin' open ali-e
c$i4inals they $ecei-ed f$o4 the %in's out of p$isons: to o.se$-e thei$ inte$nal 0o$%in's5
C*1D 7Histo$ies of 4edicine a$e 'ene$ally silent a.out the 4o$al c$i4e pe$fo$4ed to 4a%e
a scientific disco-e$y58 At d$eadful p$ice3 the ne$-ous syste4 0as disco-e$ed6 E$asist$atus
co$$ected P$a(a'o$as9 confused pictu$e .y sho0in' that the ne$-ous syste4 is Buite
distinct f$o4 .oth -enal and a$te$ial syste4s and is cente$ed in the .$ain5 #ut E$asist$atus
too% o-e$ f$o4 P$a(a'o$as his 4ost influential 4ista%e3 na4ely3 the -ie0 that the hea$t
dist$i.utes .lood th$ou'h the -eins to nou$ish the .ody3 and pneu4a th$ou'h the a$te$ies
to ene$'iAe and sensitiAe it5C*+D
One can see that the ea$lie$ 4odel see4ed co4pellin'3 e-en in the face of ne0
disco-e$ies3 and that theo$etical econo4y 0ould su''est that the ne0ly disco-e$ed .$ainE
cente$ed syste4 should .e e(plained as fa$ as possi.le on the 4odel of the supposedly
unde$stood -ascula$ syste45 On the othe$ hand3 the$e a$e o.-ious e4pi$ical p$o.le4s6
.lood flo0s i44ediately f$o4 a cut a$te$y3 fo$ e(a4ple3 and the ad hoc e(planations
'i-en fo$ this a$e e(t$e4ely unco4pellin'5CFMD Still3 the theo$y had continuin' po0e$3
0hich could not .e counte$ed
C*1DC*+DCFMD
; F, ;
until %no0led'e of the 0hole a$ea 0as funda4entally i4p$o-ed3 fo$ e(a4ple3 .y
disco-e$y of the ci$culation of the .lood5CF*D The theo$y that the a$te$ies contain pneu4a
is a classic e(a4ple of a theo$y 0hich su$-i-ed continual e(posu$e to 0hat should ha-e
.een a deadly counte$e(a4ple3 until a .ette$ alte$nati-e theo$y 0as a-aila.le5
The idea that the ne$-ous syste4 0o$%s .y so4ethin' li%e hot ai$ sounds so i44ediately
ludic$ous to us that it is 0o$th 4a%in' the point that 0hat counts as an illu4inatin' 4odel
fo$ physical o$ psycholo'ical p$ocesses3 $athe$ than as a 4isleadin' o$ co4ic one3 4ay
0ell depend on facto$s e(te$nal to the de-elop4ent of science5 Thus in the Victo$ian
pe$iod3 0hen $ecent ad-ances in technolo'y 0e$e illust$ated fo$ 4ost people .y the stea4
en'ine3 stea4 p$opulsion sounded pe$fectly natu$al as a 4odel fo$ psycholo'ical acti-ity5
This sounds peculia$ to us3 .ut that is .ecause to us stea4 p$opulsion is no lon'e$ an
ad-anced 4odel of technolo'y5 Ou$ cu$$ent 4odels fo$ the 4ind a$e .ased on co4pute$s3
and these 0ill dou.tless sound as .iAa$$e to ou$ successo$s as the 4odel of stea4
p$opulsion does to us5 In the Hellenistic pe$iod the appeal of pneu4a to e(plain hu4an
functionin's de$i-ed not f$o4 technolo'ical de-elop4ents as such3 .ut f$o4 the p$esti'e
of ad-ance4ents in e4pi$ical 4edicine3 such as those de$i-in' f$o4 the disco-e$y of the
ne$-ous syste45
Theo$etical econo4y led to the connection of the ne$-ous syste4 0ith pneu4a6 .ut it led
at once to 0hat see4ed li%e undesi$a.le duplicationP 0hy do 0e need t0o syste4s to
dist$i.ute pneu4aG E$asist$atus found the o.-ious solutionP hea$t and .$ain dist$i.ute
diffe$ent %inds of pneu4a 5 This 4a%es the .est o-e$all sense of the ne0 disco-e$ies
0ithout $adical theo$etical depa$tu$es5 Ai$ .$eathed in 'oes to the lun's and thence
CF*D
; FI ;
to the hea$t3 0hence it is dist$i.uted as -ital 7Aoti%on 8 pneu4a6 so4e of this 'oes to the
.$ain3 0he$e it is t$ansfo$4ed into psychic 7psuchi%on 8 pneu4a 5 The fo$4e$ accounts
fo$ lo0e$ functions li%e 4eta.oliAin'6 the latte$ fo$ hi'he$3 psycholo'ical functions5CFFD
Thus pneu4a tu$ns out to .e an e-en 4o$e $esou$ceful theo$etical entity than A$istotle
had en-isioned6 to e(plain diffe$ent types of hu4an functionin' 0e postulate diffe$ent
types of pneu4a 5 This theo$etical fle(i.ility is not yet a 0ea%ness3 .ut it is clea$ that
the$e a$e fe0 e4pi$ical const$aints on e(planato$y appeal to pneu4a 5 It is a dan'e$ously
handy theo$etical tool5
This 0as the .$oad scientific pictu$e of the functionin' of li-in' .ein's that de-eloped
du$in' the Hellenistic a'e and .eca4e a-aila.le to educated co44on sense5 The Stoics3
in pa$ticula$3 adopted the idea that pneu4a is a sin'le3 .ut hi'hly diffe$entia.le3 -ehicle
0hose 0o$%in's can e(plain a 0ide -a$iety of hu4an functionin'5 They %ept3 ho0e-e$3
P$a(a'o$as9 o$i'inal confused pictu$e of one pneu4a syste43 $athe$ than t0o3 located in
the hea$t3 and thus they failed to 4a%e use of the 4ost upEtoEdate and3 0e can see3 4o$e
co$$ect theo$y3 0hich 'a-e the .$ain so4ethin' li%e its p$ope$ $ole5 Thei$ $easons fo$ this3
as 0e shall see3 0e$e not scientific5 Ho0e-e$3 one of the 4ost i4po$tant featu$es of the
Stoic theo$y 0as its adoption of the 4odel of a cent$aliAed syste45 The Stoics a$e in de.t
to conte4po$a$y science not /ust in 4a%in' soul pneu4a .ut in 4a%in' its association
0ith the .ody ta%e the fo$4 su''ested .y the disco-e$ies of the Hellenistic docto$sP it is
0hat 4a%es the li-in' .ody function3 .y d$i-in' a cent$aliAed syste4 that is lin%ed to all
pa$ts of the .ody5
It is easy fo$ us to find the Stoic -ie0 of the soul as a hea$tEcente$ed pneu4a syste4
a.su$d3 .ut if 0e loo% at it in this
CFFD
; FJ ;
0ay3 0e a$e in dan'e$ of 4issin' the point that it d$a0s on the 4ost sophisticated
scientific 4odel a-aila.le5 @i-en Hellenistic 4edical disco-e$ies 7i4pe$fectly unde$stood
as they 0e$e8 and the de-elop4ent of pneu4a as the 4ost adeBuate theo$etical entity
a-aila.le to account fo$ diffe$ent hu4an functionin's in a unified 0ay3 the Stoics 0e$e
d$a0in' on the .est a-aila.le account of the 4ind6 fo$ althou'h they had 4any 0$on'
.eliefs a.out it3 they '$asped the funda4ental ideaP the soul is located in the 0o$%in's of
a cent$aliAed syste4 0hich accounts fo$ the .ody9s functionin'5 @i-en a 4o$e co$$ect and
accepta.le scientific account3 they 0ould ha-e located the soul in the 0o$%in's of the
ne$-ous syste45
c8 A$istotle9s "e'acy
A$istotle left a school de-oted to $esea$ch in an A$istotelian spi$it3 not to the p$ese$-ation
of A$istotelian doct$ines5 Much late$3 in the second centu$y A5>5 3 0e find Ale(ande$ of
Aph$odisias de-elopin' a psycholo'y e(plicitly desi'ned to .e faithful to A$istotle6 .ut
his i44ediate successo$s in the Hellenistic a'e 'o thei$ o0n 0ays3 and his ideas of the
soul a$e ta%en up une-enly and 0ith no -e$y i4p$essi-e $esults5
#oth Theoph$astus and Meno3 his i44ediate pupils3 did %eep upEtoEdate 0ith the
inc$easin' i4po$tance of pneu4a in conte4po$a$y 4edical theo$y5CF2D Indeed Meno in
his histo$y of 4edicine $eads pneu4a $e4o$selessly .ac% into ea$lie$ theo$ies5CF,D =e
also find A$istotle9s o0n a4.i-alence a.out the
CF2DCF,D
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; FK ;
$oles of heat and pneu4a $ep$oduced in >iocles of !a$ystus3 0ho 0as esta.lished .y
=e$ne$ Jae'e$ as a youn'e$ conte4po$a$y of A$istotle5CFID o$ >iocles3 the .ody9s o0n
heat cont$i.utes to the fo$4ation of the fou$ hu4o$s6 .ut pneu4a3 0a$4 ai$ 0e .$eathe in3
functions e(tensi-ely in the .ody3 .ein' cente$ed in the hea$t and dist$i.uted f$o4 it as
:psychic: pneu4a 5CFJD It see4s to .e identified 0ith the :soul po0e$: 0hich is said to
:ca$$y: the .ody and p$o-ide its a.ility to 4o-e5CFKD >iocles did not distin'uish a$te$ies
f$o4 -eins and thou'ht of .oth .lood and pneu4a as dist$i.uted in a sin'le syste4 f$o4
the cent$al hea$t5CF1DPneu4a thus ene$'iAes the .ody f$o4 a cent$al sou$ce 7in a 0ay
$e4iniscent of that desc$i.ed in >e 4otu ani4aliu4 *M8 and has ta%en o-e$ sensation and
thou'ht5
A dis4al little 0o$% %no0n as On Pneu4a has co4e do0n to us in the A$istotelian
co$pus3 thou'h it 0as clea$ly 0$itten in the late$ "yceu43 since the autho$ %no0s of
E$asist$atus9 disco-e$ies5 Assu4in' that 0e ha-e :connate pneu4a3 : it $aises Buestions in
an indecisi-e 0ay a.out pneu4a 9s $elation to pe$ception and 4o-e4ent and its location
in the a$te$ies o$ tendons5 On Pneu4a is a dep$essin' 0o$%3 sho0in' clea$ly that
4edicine and psycholo'y in the "yceu4 0e$e a0a$e of3 .ut
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDCFIDCFJDCFKDCF1D
; F1 ;
not a.$east of3 the 0o$% in the shiny ne0 $esea$ch cente$ at Ale(and$ia5CF+D
Only St$ato of "a4psacus has a philosophically inte$estin' and de-eloped pneu4a theo$y
of the soul3 $e4a$%a.ly si4ila$ to the Stoics95 Unfo$tunately3 0e %no0 of it only
piece4eal and often th$ou'h StoicEinfluenced sou$ces5C2MDPneu4a is3 fo$ St$ato3 eithe$
identical 0ith the soul o$ its i44ediate -ehicle enli-enin' the .ody5 It is annoyin' that
0e do not %no0 his p$ecise position on as funda4ental a point as this6 pe$haps he
identified soul and pneu4a usin' StoicEtype a$'u4ents3 o$ pe$haps he $etained an
A$istotelian -ie0 of the soul as the .ody9s fo$43 0ith pneu4a as its i44ediate -ehicle5
C2*D St$ato see4s to ha-e $etained A$istotle9s -ie0 that the pneu4a $ele-ant to life 0as
:connate: to the .ody5C2FD Ho0e-e$3 his pneu4a plays a la$'e$ $ole than A$istotle9s6 it is
sp$ead th$ou'hout the .ody .ut has a :$ulin' pa$t: o$ cent$aliAed o$'an in the head5C22D
St$ato9s 4ost inte$estin' -ie0 a.out the soul 0as that it is st$ictly a unityP no pa$t of it is
:sepa$a.le3: li%e A$istotle9s sepa$a.le thin%in'3 and thou'ht and pe$ception a$e not
4utually independent6 they a$e .oth p$ocesses 7%ineseis 8 of the sa4e %ind3 and3 fu$the$3
:pe$cei-in' 0ithout thin%in' is co4pletely i4possi.le3: since e-en if ou$ senses a$e in
0o$%in' o$de$ 0e do not ta%e anythin' in unless thin%in' is also p$esent5C2,D St$ato
suppo$ts this 0ith the alle'ed fact that if ou$ attention 0ande$s 0hile $eadin'3 0e cease to
pe$cei-e the lette$s5 P$esu4a.ly3 he is thin%in' of $eadin' aloud3 as 0as
CF+DC2MDC2*DC2FDC22DC2,D
; F+ ;
standa$d in the ancient 0o$ld3 and the pheno4enon he has in 4ind is that of findin'
oneself3 th$ou'h inattention3 $eadin' out so4ethin' 0hich is not in the .oo% .efo$e one5 It
is still cont$o-e$sial ho0 one should desc$i.e this5 St$ato clea$ly $e/ects the -ie0 that
so4ethin' has .eco4e sc$a4.led in one9s thin%in' .et0een the pe$ceptual input and
one9s -e$.al output5 He fa-o$s the solution that the pe$ceptual input itself 4ust ha-e .een
faulty in so4e 0ay5
In a hi'hly inte$estin' passa'e f$o4 Pluta$ch the follo0in'3 0hich 0as to .e an i4po$tant
the4e fo$ the Stoics3 is asc$i.ed to St$atoP
Not only ou$ desi$es .ut also ou$ '$iefs3 not only ou$ fea$s and en-ies and
Schadenf$euden .ut also ou$ hu$ts and pleasu$es and pains and in 'ene$al all sensation
co4es a.out in the soul6C2ID it is not in the foot that 0e feel hu$t 0hen 0e stu. it3 no$ in
the head 0hen 0e .an' it3 no$ in the fin'e$ 0hen 0e cut it5 o$ e-e$ythin' else lac%s
sensation e(cept the 'o-e$nin' pa$t 7he'e4oni%on 86C2JD the .lo0 is Buic%ly $elayed to
this3 and its sensation 0e call pain5 =hen noise sounds in ou$ ea$s 0e suppose it to .e
outside us3 addin' to the sensation the distance f$o4 its o$i'in to the 'o-e$nin' pa$t
7he'e4oni%on 85 Si4ila$ly3 0e suppose the hu$t f$o4 a 0ound to .e not 0he$e it had
sensation3 .ut 0he$e it had its o$i'in3 ta%in' the soul to .e d$a0n to0a$d the place 0he$e
suffe$in' occu$$ed5 7Ut$u4 ani45 an co$p56 f$a'5 *** =eh$li8
The soul is affected as a 0hole and is $ational as a 0hole6C2KD and its -ehicle is the
physical su.stance pneu4a 5 It all sounds
C2IDC2JDC2KD
; 2M ;
so Stoic that it is a pity that 0e %no0 so little of St$ato on the soul5 =e possess
e(tensi-ely only his c$itical $e4a$%s6 Oly4piodo$us in his co44enta$y on Plato9s Phaedo
p$ese$-es 4any of St$ato9s c$iticis4s of the a$'u4ents fo$ the soul9s i44o$tality5C21D
St$ato3 :the natu$al scientist3: is the only one of A$istotle9s successo$s in the "yceu4 0ho
studied the soul fo$ its o0n sa%e5 A4on' othe$ 4e4.e$s and associates of the "yceu4
0e find 4e$ely incidental and often f$an%ly 0ei$d -ie0s a.out the soul5 T0o
conte4po$a$ies of Theoph$astus3 A$isto(enus and >icaea$chus3 .eca4e noto$ious fo$
thei$ clai4 that the soul is a :ha$4ony: o$ attune4ent of the .ody5 A$isto(enus 0as a
4usical theo$ist and p$o.a.ly did not 0$ite specifically on the soul3 0hile f$o4
>icaea$chus 0e ha-e so4e state4ents .ut no a$'u4ents5C2+D #ut 0e can p$oduce so4e
plausi.le .ac%'$ound3 since Pluta$ch tells us that >icaea$chus 0as a constant opponent of
Plato3C,MD and it see4s that3 li%e St$ato3 he 0as opposin' the Phaedo 9s a$'u4ents fo$ the
soul9s i44o$tality5
In the Phaedo the theo$y is put fo$0a$d that the soul is an :attune4ent: of .odily ite4s6
Soc$ates sees that denyin' the soul e(istence as a su.stance distinct f$o4 the .ody
unde$4ines any .elief in the soul9s i44o$tality3 thus the theo$y is $efuted5 The theo$y is
p$opounded .y Pytha'o$eans6 and A$isto(enus and >icaea$chus3 0ho had Pytha'o$ean
inte$ests3 su$ely sa0 the4sel-es as p$oducin' a ne0 i4p$o-ed -e$sion of the -ie05
A$istotle still finds it necessa$y to $efute at so4e len'th the theo$y that the soul is an
:attune4ent5:C,*D Ho0e-e$3 the$e a$e 4any unsol-ed puAAles he$e5 =e do not %no0 0hy
C21DC2+DC,MDC,*D
; 2* ;
the Phaedo 9s a$'u4ents $etained such fascination fo$ 'ene$ations of "yceu4 schola$s3
no$ 0hy that theo$y is associated 0ith Pytha'o$eanis4 0hen it see4s in st$ai'ht conflict
0ith the Pytha'o$ean -ie0 that souls outli-e .odies and t$ans4i'$ate .et0een the45
"astly3 and 4ost f$ust$atin'ly3 0e do not $eally %no0 0hat the attune4ent theo$y is 5 In
the Phaedo it shifts a$ound a4on' a -a$iety of positions6 it is ne-e$ clea$ 0hethe$
indi-idual souls can sha$e the sa4e attune4ent o$ not5C,FD A$istotle also a$'ues a'ainst a
nu4.e$ of alte$nati-es5 One 0ould e(pect >icaea$chus .y this point to sho0 so4e
sophistication and p$ecision in a$'u4ent5 #ut all the indications a$e that he had a 4e$ely
c$ude and a''$essi-ely stated -ie0P the$e is no such thin' as the soul3 and ou$ intuiti-e
distinction .et0een li-in' and lifeless thin's ans0e$s to nothin' $eal5C,2D Unless ou$
sou$ces 4is$ep$esent a 4o$e nuanced -ie03 >icaea$chus 0as 4e$ely t$yin' to attac%
Plato .y clai4in' that the soul 0as :nothin' .ut: an attune4ent of ele4ents3 and so not
i44o$tal6 0e ha-e no t$ace of a 0ide$ inte$est in the soul5C,,D
=e find a totally diffe$ent attitude in He$acleides of Pontus 7c5 2+MO2*M #5!5 8 and
!lea$chus of Soli 7fl5 c5 FIM #5!5 85C,ID
C,FDC,2DC,,DC,ID
; 2F ;
He$acleides .elon'ed as 4uch to the Acade4y as to the "yceu43 and !lea$chus ad4i$ed
Plato and 0$ote an enco4iu4 on hi45C,JD #oth of the4 0e$e inte$ested in
pa$apsycholo'y and outEofEtheE.ody e(pe$iences5 !lea$chus told the sto$y of !leony4us3
0ho afte$ .ein' laid out fo$ dead $eco-e$ed afte$ th$ee days 0ith sto$ies of the #eyond3
late$ $eco'niAin' on ea$th so4eone he had 4et The$e5C,KD Acco$din' to P$oclus3
!lea$chus con-inced A$istotle that the soul is :sepa$ate: f$o4 the .ody and can ente$ and
lea-e it .y 'ettin' hi4 to .e p$esent at a sQance 0hen a .oy9s soul 0as :d$a0n out of
hi4: 0ith a 0and3 lea-in' hi4 i4pe$-ious to pain3 and then :put .ac%5:C,1D He$acleides
0$ote popula$ 0o$%s in 0hich si4ila$ sto$ies fi'u$e5 It all sounds -e$y Ed0a$dian5C,+D
#ecause of these sto$ies3 and thei$ association 0ith Platonic3 as 0ell as A$istotelian3
thin%in'3 .oth !lea$chus and He$acleides ha-e .een $e'a$ded as 4a-e$ic% dualists in a
physicalist a'e5 #ut 0hile 0e a$e -e$y ill info$4ed a.out !lea$chus3 He$acleides 0as no
dualist6 he $e'a$ded the soul as co4posed of a physical su.stance3 li'ht5CIMD No$ do 0e
need to suppose that eithe$ 0as a dualist6 they sho0 no inte$est in dualist a$'u4ents3 and
thei$ conce$ns do not de4and it5 E-e$y a'e 0hich3 li%e the Hellenistic and Victo$ian a'es3
sees '$eat ad-ances in science and technolo'y and in 0hich science has p$esti'e 0ill tend
to ha-e its ca4p follo0in' of pseudoscience5 =hen the 4ind and soul a$e discussed in
te$4s ta%en f$o4 science and 4edicine3 the $eaction ta%es the fo$4 of pa$apsycholo'y
0ith 4essa'es f$o4 the #eyond3 'a44a $ays3 and so on5 In a scientific a'e ideas 0hich
a$e $eally i4a'inati-e and spi$itual 4ay e4e$'e in a pseudoscientific fo$4 0hich
C,JDC,KDC,1DC,+DCIMD
; 22 ;
$ende$s the4 ludic$ous $athe$ than p$ofound5 =e do .est to see !lea$chus and
He$acleides as inte$ested in the spi$itual aspect of the soul3 $athe$ than as cont$i.uto$s to
philosophy of 4ind5 It is unfo$tunate that they li-ed in an a'e in 0hich thei$ ideas had to
.e e(p$essed in unsuita.le fo$4s5
$o4 late$ 'ene$ations in the "yceu4 0e 'et nothin' .ut fitful spu$ts of info$4ation5
A$iston of !eos $e-i-ed 7pe$haps a'ainst the StoicsG8 a sha$p distinction .et0een the
$ational and non$ational soul5CI*D !$itolaus identified the soul 0ith aethe$3 the fifth
ele4ent5CIFD #ut 0e ha-e no idea 0hat these isolated .its of doct$ine 4eant in thei$
conte(ts5 The "yceu4 ne-e$ had an o$thodo( :line: on the soul3 and3 apa$t f$o4 St$ato3
A$istotle9s follo0e$s did not p$oduce any o$i'inal o$ st$i%in' ideas a.out it5 Thei$ inte$ests
lay else0he$e3 and the initiati-e 'i-en to philosophy of 4ind .y A$istotle9s >e ani4a
passed f$o4 his o0n school to the ne0 schools of the Hellenistic pe$iod5
CI*DCIFD
; 2I ;
PART ONE THE #A!?@ROUN>
PART T=O THE STOI!S
PART T=O
THE STOI!S
; 2K ;
F
The Soul and the Mind
a8 Physicalis4
The Stoics a$e un4ista%a.ly physicalists6 they clai4 that soul is .ody3 a physical thin'3
and .y a physical thin' they unco4p$o4isin'ly 4ean a th$eeEdi4ensional solid o./ect5C*D
Soul is pneu4a3 0hich3 as 0e ha-e seen3 .y this date is not 4e$ely co44onsensical
.$eath3 .ut a theo$etically 4o$e po0e$ful entity5 The Stoics 4ade e(tensi-e use of
pneu4a in thei$ 'ene$al physics6CFD in identifyin' soul 0ith pneu4a they 0e$e
confo$4in'3 as 0e ha-e seen3 to the 'ene$al shift in scientific
C*DCFD
; 21 ;
pa$adi'4 on this topic since A$istotle5 =e shall $etu$n to the Buestion of 0hat
identification 0ith pneu4a co4es to6 fo$ the 4o4ent 0e shall concent$ate on Stoic
'$ounds fo$ identifyin' soul 0ith a physical ite4 in the fi$st place5
One 4i'ht thin% that in p$inciple the Stoics do not need to a$'ue fo$ physicalis4 a.out
the soul3 fo$ they thin% that e-e$ythin' that e(ists is physical any0ay5 Ho0e-e$3 this does
not in fact settle the 4atte$6 fo$ 0hile they do hold that e-e$ythin' that e(ists is physical3
they hold that the$e a$e thin's 0hich do not e(ist5 Thei$ hi'hest 'enus is the ti o$
:so4ethin'3: 0hich co-e$s not only thin's that e(ist3 the physical thin's3 .ut also thin's
that :su.sist3: 0hich a$e not physical5 These a$e ti4e3 place3 the -oid3 and le%ta3 ite4s to
0hich 0e shall $etu$n .ecause they play an i4po$tant $ole in the Stoic account of 4ental
acti-ity5 The 'ene$al physicalis4 of the Stoics the$efo$e does not settle the 4atte$5 In any
case3 0e 0ould e(pect the Stoics to offe$ so4e a$'u4ents di$ected to the physicality of
the soul in pa$ticula$3 since they clai4 that thei$ theo$ies a$e suppo$ted .y ou$ :co44on
conceptions3: o$ the consensus of ou$ intuitions5 So3 0hen they 4a%e a clai4 0hich on its
o0n is counte$intuiti-e3 as they f$eBuently do3 0e e(pect to find so4e effo$t on thei$ pa$t
to sho0 that the clai4 in Buestion cohe$es 0ith o$ is suppo$ted .y a $easona.le nu4.e$ of
ou$ othe$ intuitions5C2D And3 /ud'in' f$o4 the nu4.e$ of a$'u4ents that 0e find fo$ the
physicality of the soul3 the clai4 that soul is .ody 0as thou'ht to need suppo$t3 'i-en the
0ay that it $uns up a'ainst so4e at least of ou$ intuitions5
=e ha-e a nu4.e$ of ancient Stoic a$'u4ents on this point6C,D 4ost of the4 tu$n out to
.e p$o.le4atic3 .ut one at least 'i-es
C2DC,D
; 2+ ;
us so4e insi'ht into the Stoics9 4oti-ation3 and the othe$s can .e unde$stood in the li'ht
of it5 >io'enes "ae$tius $epo$ts that acco$din' to the Stoics :the soul is a Cnatu$eD 0hich
can pe$cei-e5 This is the pneu4a connate to us6 the$efo$e it is a .ody5:CID This3 of cou$se3
only sho0s the soul to .e .ody if pneu4a is .ody6 and this 0ould .e con-incin' to a
Stoic3 0ho al$eady accepted this3 .ut 0ould not see4 to ha-e 4uch i4pact on
unco44itted co44on sense5 An o.-ious $eto$t 0ould .e that if the soul $eally is
pneu4a3 then pneu4a cannot .e a physical entity5
Te$tullian $epo$ts an a$'u4ent of Neno9sP
*5 =hat lea-es the ani4al 0hen it dies is .ody5
F5 The ani4al dies 0hen connate pneu4a lea-es it5 The$efo$e3 f$o4 7*8 and 7F83
25 !onnate pneu4a is .ody5
,5 Soul is connate pneu4a 5 The$efo$e3 f$o4 728 and 7,83
I5 Soul is .ody5CJD
:!onnate: he$e 4eans only that the pneu4a is so4ethin' 0e a$e .o$n 0ith3 pa$t of ou$
physical natu$e as hu4an .ein's5 This a$'u4ent see4s not only to sha$e the fault of the
p$e-ious one .ut to au'4ent it6 no one inclined to $e/ect the conclusion 0ould accept the
fi$st p$e4ise3 and the a$'u4ent see4s doo4ed to con-ince only the con-e$ted5 P$o.a.ly
0e should ta%e se$iously the su''estion that 4any of Neno9s :a$'u4ents: 0e$e ne-e$
4eant to .e 0ays of con-incin' nonEStoics3 .ut played the diffe$ent $ole of encapsulatin'
Stoic .eliefs in 4e4o$a.le and st$i%in' fo$45 On this -ie03 they played a peda'o'ical
$ole6 they cla$ified the Stoic position and 4ade it easie$ to lea$n3 .ut a$e not to .e
conside$ed as :a$'u4ents fo$ physicalis4: in any o$dina$y sense5CKD
CIDCJDCKD
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; ,M ;
!leanthes offe$s an inte$estin' .ut .afflin' a$'u4entP
*5 !hild$en a$e li%e thei$ pa$ents not only in .ody .ut also in soul 7i5e53 they $ese4.le
the4 in cha$acte$3 not /ust in loo%s85
F5 "i%eness and unli%eness a$e p$ope$ties of .ody3 not of non.odily thin's5 The$efo$e
25 The soul is .ody5C1D
Once a'ain 0e ha-e a p$o.le4 o-e$ the accepta.ility of one of the p$e4ises3 in this case3
7F85 =hy 0ould anyone not al$eady con-inced of the t$uth of physicalis4 accept thisG If
!leanthes had any a$'u4ents fo$ 7F83 0e do not %no0 of the45C+D
The sa4e p$o.le4 afflicts an a$'u4ent of !h$ysippus9P
*5 >eath is the sepa$ation of soul f$o4 .ody5
F5 Nothin' non.odily is sepa$ated f$o4 .ody3 fo$ nothin' non.odily touches .ody5
25 The soul .oth touches and is sepa$ated f$o4 .ody5 The$efo$e
,5 The soul is .ody5C*MD
He$e the fi$st p$e4ise is /ust p$etheo$etical co44on sense6 .ut the second i4po$ts a
definition of sepa$ation as the opposite of :touchin'5:C**D E-en if 0e allo0 !h$ysippus
that only .odies can touch3C*FD 0e do not ha-e to '$ant that only thin's
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDC1DC+DC*MDC**DC*FD
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; ,* ;
0hich touch can .e sepa$ated5 Ale(ande$ si4ply denies the a$'u4ent6 the$e a$e pe$fectly
'ood uses of :sepa$ate3: he clai4s3 in 0hich thin's a$e sepa$ated 0hich a$e not .odies3
and do not touch one anothe$5C*2D
Althou'h this a$'u4ent is sca$cely satisfacto$y3 it does point to so4ethin' i4po$tantP the
Stoics a$e p$essin' the point that it is ha$d to 4a%e sense of the inte$action of physical
thin's 0ith nonphysical thin's5 Touch is a %ind of inte$action6 the Stoics9 4ost successful
a$'u4ent3 to 0hich 0e no0 tu$n3 can .e seen as a 4o$e 'ene$al -e$sion of this point5
Anothe$ of !leanthes9 a$'u4ents is3 .y cont$ast 0ith all the othe$s3 co'ent and inte$estin'
7unfo$tunately3 0e do not %no0 .y co4pa$ison 0ith the othe$s ho0 p$o4inent it 0as fo$
the Stoics8P
*5 Nothin' non.odily suffe$s to'ethe$ 0ith 7su4paschei3 is affected to'ethe$ 0ith8 .ody3
no$ .ody 0ith the non.odily6 only .ody 0ith .ody5
F5 #ut the soul suffe$s 0ith the .ody 7e5'53 0hen it is ill o$ cut8 and also the .ody 0ith the
soul 70hen 0e a$e asha4ed the .ody 'oes $ed3 pale 0hen af$aid3 and so on85
The$efo$e
25 The soul is .ody5C*,D
This can .e $eadily si4plified to the follo0in'P
*5 Only .odies inte$act5
F5 Soul and .ody inte$act5
The$efo$e
25 Soul is .ody5
If any co44onsense .elief is 0ell ent$enched3 it is that soul and .ody inte$act5
E4.a$$ass4ent leads to .lushin'3 a cut
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDC*2DC*,D
; ,F ;
leads to pain5 On its o0n this is not decisi-e suppo$t fo$ any theo$y of the soul6 fo$ it is as
co4pati.le 0ith dualis4 as 0ith any fo$4 of physicalis4P soul and .ody 4i'ht .e
diffe$ent %inds of thin' and inte$act in a sui 'ene$is 0ay5 The Stoics3 ho0e-e$3 hold
anothe$ .elief 0hich unde$pins this a$'u4ent5 They thin% that the inte$action of soul and
.ody 4ust .e st$ai'htfo$0a$d causal inte$action5 And 0hate-e$ analysis of causation 0e
'i-e3 it 4ust su$ely .e unifo$4 fo$ souls and .odies5 It 0ould .e unaccepta.ly ad hoc to
ha-e one %ind of causation fo$ .odies and anothe$ fo$ souls6 it 0ould a4ount in effect to
acceptin' that soulE.ody inte$action 0as /ust a 4yste$y5 @i-en this .ac%'$ound .elief
a.out causation3 the a$'u4ent is st$ai'htfo$0a$d5 =hate-e$ the appea$ances3 souls3 0hich
inte$act 0ith .odies3 4ust the4sel-es .e .odies3 fo$ only .odies can causally act and .e
acted upon5C*ID
A$istotle points to inte$action of soul and .ody .ut concludes not that soul is .ody3 .ut
that it is the .ody9s non.odily fo$45C*JD The Stoics do not ente$tain this possi.ility
se$iously6 and they do so not .ecause they a$e do'4atically co44itted to physicalis43
.ut .ecause they ta%e soulE.ody inte$action se$iously and a$e also thin%in' of inte$action
as causal inte$action5 =he$eas A$istotle associates cause 7aitia 8 0ith e(planation and3 as
is 0ell %no0n3 clai4s that the$e a$e fou$ i$$educi.ly diffe$ent %inds of e(planation3 only
one of 0hich 0e thin% of as causal e(planation3 the Stoics 7and indeed postEA$istotelian
philosophe$s 4o$e 'ene$ally8 thin% that the co$e notion of a cause is 0hat 4o-es
so4ethin' o$ 'ets so4ethin' doneHa conception o.-iously 4uch close$ to the 4ode$n
one5C*KD Thus the Stoics a$e a.le to 4o-e di$ectly and econo4E
C*IDC*JDC*KD
; ,2 ;
ically f$o4 co44on sense3 and thei$ -ie0s on causation3 to thei$ conclusion a.out the
physical natu$e of the soul5
All of these a$'u4ents ha-e t0o i4po$tant featu$es5 One is that they a$e a p$io$i3 li%e
4ost 4ode$n a$'u4ents fo$ physicalis45C*1D They do not $ely on the esta.lished success
of any science6 they e4e$'e f$o4 $eflection on the -ie0 of the soul a-aila.le to co44on
sense3 to'ethe$ 0ith conside$ations a.out causality5 Thou'h si4ple3 they a$e po0e$ful
and ha$d to $efute5 Secondly3 they a$e not $educti-e5 Soul is a %ind of .ody3 .ut nothin'
follo0s /ust f$o4 this as to ou$ 'i-in' up o$ 4odifyin' any of ou$ othe$ .eliefs a.out the
soul5 Ou$ co44onsense -ie0 of ou$ inne$ life has not yet .een affected in any 0ay5
.8 Soul in the =o$ld
Stoic physics is st$i%in'ly un4ode$n in that thei$ natu$al 0o$ld is ali-e6 fo$ the Stoics
cos4olo'y is cos4o.iolo'y5 :!h$ysippus in the fi$st .oo% of his P$o-idence3
Apollodo$us in his Physics3 and Posidonius say that the 0o$ld is a li-in' .ein'3 $ational3
ani4ate3 and intelli'ent5:C*+D Thus ou$ souls a$e not the only thin's in the uni-e$se that
can .e called soul3 fo$ :soul penet$ates th$ou'h the 0hole uni-e$se3 and 0e .y sha$in' in
it as a pa$t a$e ensouled5:CFMD The $easonin' .ehind this is si4ply an e4ploy4ent of 0hat
0as late$ to .e called the p$inciple that the cause is '$eate$ than the effectP 0e cannot
unde$stand ho0
C*1DC*+DCFMD
; ,, ;
$ational li-in' thin's can .e p$oduced in a uni-e$se the 4ate$ials of 0hich lac% these
p$ope$ties to any de'$ee5CF*D
This 4i'ht see4 to cast a diffe$ent li'ht on the conclusions of the last section5 Soul is a
physical .ody3 and so it is pa$t of the natu$al 0o$ld5 #ut the natu$al 0o$ld tu$ns out itself
to .e so4ethin' 0hich is ali-e5 So nothin' see4s to ha-e .een achie-ed .y the p$e-ious
a$'u4ents6 0e see4 indeed to ha-e 'one $ound in a dep$essin'ly s4all ci$cle5
In fact no $eal 4ethodolo'ical diffe$ence is 4ade to Stoic philosophy of 4ind .y the
thesis that the natu$al 0o$ld is itself a %ind of li-in' thin'5 It is t$ue that that thesis
$e4o-es 4ost of the 4oti-ation fo$ $educti-is45 The Stoics a$e not in the position of
4ode$n theo$ists 0ho clai4 that all 4ental e-ents a$e physical e-ents and the$e.y $educe
the natu$e of the 4ental to that of the physical3 $e4o-in' the notion of the 4ental f$o4
ou$ e-e$yday pictu$e of the 0o$ld5 Rathe$3 they place the hu4an soul in a scientific and
4etaphysical pictu$e of the uni-e$se in 0hich the$e is continuity .et0een hu4ans and the
$est of natu$e5 =e a$e not ensouled .ein's in an othe$0ise soulless uni-e$se6 the natu$e of
the soul and 4ind3 that is3 is not /ust in itself p$o.le4atic fo$ the Stoic 0o$ld-ie05 Apa$t
f$o4 this3 ho0e-e$3 the la$'e$ pictu$e of the cos4os as a li-in' thin' has st$i%in'ly little
effect on the 0ay that the Stoics e(plain the natu$e of the hu4an soul5 The hu4an soul is
not diffe$ent in %ind f$o4 the 0o$ld soul in that .oth a$e pneu4a6 .ut 0e shall see3 in ou$
account of the functionin' of the hu4an soul3 that the hu4an soul is -e$y specific in a
nu4.e$ of 0ays 0hich do not ca$$y o-e$ to the 0o$ld soul5CFFD
u$the$3 0hile the Stoics p$ided the4sel-es on the 'ene$al and holistic cha$acte$ of thei$
philosophical theo$y3 it is also t$ue that -a$ious pa$ts of it a$e de-eloped in co4pa$ati-e
inE
CF*DCFFD
; ,I ;
dependence f$o4 one anothe$5 The detail of Stoic lo'ic o$ ethics3 fo$ e(a4ple3 cannot .e
de$i-ed f$o4 'ene$al Stoic 4etaphysical p$inciples5 Si4ila$ly 0ith philosophy of 4ind6
althou'h it is e4.edded in a 'ene$al account of the uni-e$se3 none of its cent$al definin'
theses a$e de$i-a.le f$o4 7o$ e-en uniBuely app$op$iate to8 the 'ene$al p$inciples5
The 0o$ld soul is3 ho0e-e$3 $ele-ant to one Buestion a.out the hu4an soul5 Soul is .ody3
.ut 0hat %ind of .odyG $o4 !h$ysippus on0a$d the e-idence is o-e$0hel4in' that the
soul is pneu4a3 and the$e is so4e e-idence that this 0as also the -ie0 of Neno and the
ea$ly Stoics5CF2D #ut the$e is a 4ino$ st$ea4 of e-idence that fo$ the ea$ly Stoics the soul
0as fi$e3 na4ely3 hot 4atte$5CF,D Of cou$se these -ie0s can .e $econciled6 pneu4a is
o$i'inally /ust 0a$4 ai$3 and sayin' that soul is fi$e o$ heat 4ay 4e$ely .e a c$ude 0ay of
sayin' that pneu4a functions .y 0ay of the heat in it5CFID #ut the split in the e-idence
loo%s se$ious if 0e ta%e into account not only Neno9s and !leanthes9 sc$appy f$a'4ents on
the hu4an soul3 .ut thei$ 4o$e e(tensi-e discussions of the 0o$ld soul6 !leanthes
distinctly identifies its essential 0o$%in' 0ith heat and locates its :$ulin' pa$t: in the sun5
And hu4an souls can ha$dly .e 4ade of diffe$ent stuff f$o4 the 0o$ld soul5
=e see4 to ha-e one of the fe0 cases 0he$e the$e is a chan'e of doct$ine in the ea$ly
Stoa3 and the$e is 4uch to .e said fo$ the solution su''ested .y se-e$al schola$sP Neno
and
CF2DCF,DCFID
; ,J ;
!leanthes p$o.a.ly thou'ht the hu4an soul to .e pneu4a3 .ut 'a-e a c$ucial $ole to the
heat it in3 locatin' the 0o$ld soul in the functionin' of cos4ic heat5CFJD !h$ysippus3
ho0e-e$3 esta.lished pneu4a as 0hat .oth hu4an souls and the 0o$ld soul a$e5
This 4ino$ point is inte$estin' fo$ t0o $easons5 One is that it sho0s the influence of
4edical science5 =e ha-e seen in pa$t * that the notion of pneu4a 0as si'nificantly
de-eloped .y 4edical 0$ite$s in the Hellenistic pe$iod5 !h$ysippus th$e0 o-e$.oa$d the
ea$lie$3 4o$e pictu$esBue theo$y in fa-o$ of one that too% o-e$ an i4po$tant featu$e f$o4
the cu$$ent scientific pa$adi'4 in the $ele-ant a$ea5 In othe$ 0o$ds3 he 0as 4a%in' his
p$edecesso$s9 theo$ies 4o$e scientifically upEtoEdate5 The othe$ point is that the $esultin'
theo$y is -e$y econo4ical and po0e$ful5 If 0e 4a%e the effo$t to distance ou$sel-es f$o4
ou$ o0n scientific %no0led'e3 0e can app$eciate its si4plicity3 co4.ined 0ith its ta%in'
its sta$tin' point f$o4 cu$$ent 4edical science5 Pneu4a functions e-e$y0he$e in the
0o$ld6 it is the sin'le theo$etical ite4 that e(plains the functionin' of stones and plants as
0ell as of hu4ans5 The diffe$ences in the 0ay it 0o$%s in3 fo$ e(a4ple3 ani4ate and
inani4ate thin's a$e e(plained in te$4s of diffe$ence of :tension: 7tonos 8 of the pneu4a 5
CFKD Thus 0e ha-e a sin'le su.stance3 pneu4a3 and a sin'le 4echanis43 tension3 to
e(plain a 0ide -a$iety of pheE
CFJDCFKD
; ,K ;
no4ena in a cohe$ent 0ay5 =e ha-e a scientifically unified pictu$e of the 0o$ld3 0ith no
'ap of p$inciple .et0een 4ental and physical5
c8 The SoulE#ody Relation
Ho0 a$e the t0o %inds of physical su.stance3 .ody and soul3 $elatedG They a$e a case of
total .lendin' o$ 4i(tu$e 7%$asis di9 holon 85 =e find this idea $unnin' th$ou'h Stoic
accounts f$o4 Neno to Hie$ocles 7second centu$y A5>5 85CF1D Hie$ocles e4phasiAes that
soul is not in .ody li%e a su.stance in a containe$6CF+D thei$ $elation is 4o$e inti4ate and
tho$ou'h than that5 Ho0e-e$3 total .lendin' is not e(planato$y of the soulE.ody $elation
in pa$ticula$6 indeed the Stoics used that $elation as a :clea$ 0itness: of 0hat total
.lendin' is3 assu4in' that 0e ha-e a clea$ intuiti-e idea of the soulE.ody $elation as a
peculia$ly inti4ate one3 an idea 0hich 0e can then e(tend to othe$ cases5C2MD
In Stoic physics3 the$e a$e th$ee 0ays in 0hich stuffs can .e $elated5C2*D One is
/u(taposition3 of 0hich an e(a4ple is a 4i(tu$e of .eans and '$ains of 0heat5 Ho0e-e$
p$actically i4possi.le it 4i'ht .e to so$t out the diffe$ent %inds 7co4pa$e the he$oine9s
tas% in fai$y tales83 they do not .lend6 the stuffs $etain thei$ o0n p$ope$ties .ecause they
do not fo$4 a ne0 stuff5 Anothe$ is fusion3 as in coo%in'5 The e''s3 flou$3 and othe$
in'$edients fo$4 a ne0 stuff 0ith ne0 p$ope$ties6 they do not $etain thei$ o0n p$ope$ties
and a$e not $eco-e$a.le f$o4 the ne0 stuff5 The thi$d is total .lendin'5 T0o stuffs a$e
.lended th$ou'h and th$ou'h so that the$e is no pa$t of the .lended 4i(tu$e 0hich does
not consist of .oth6 yet each of
CF1DCF+DC2MDC2*D
; ,1 ;
the o$i'inal stuffs $etains its o0n p$ope$ties and is in p$inciple $eco-e$a.le f$o4 the
.lendin'5C2FD E(a4ples apa$t f$o4 the soulE.ody $elation a$e heat and i$on :.lendin': to
p$oduce hot i$on3 and 0ate$ and 0ine .lendin' to fo$4 0ate$y 0ine5
The theo$y is o.-iously desi'ned to co$$ect A$istotle3 0ho denies that t0o stuffs can fo$4
a ne0 stuff 0ithout losin' thei$ o$i'inal p$ope$ties3 clai4in' that one cannot .lend a d$op
of 0ine 0ith a la$'e a4ount of 0ate$3 fo$ the 0ine 0ill lose its o0n p$ope$ties5C22D
!h$ysippus clai4s in o.-ious opposition that a d$op of 0ine can .lend 0ith the 0hole
ocean5C2,D This noto$ious e(a4ple .$in's to the fo$e the point that the Stoic theo$y of
total .lendin' appea$s pa$ado(ical 0hen applied to -e$y uneBual Buantities5 If a d$op of
0ine totally .lends 0ith the ocean3 then the$e is no pa$t of the 0ineEandEocean that is not
constituted of 0ine and of ocean3 each $etainin' its o0n p$ope$ties and in p$inciple
$eco-e$a.le5 #ut this 4eans that the d$op of 0ine 0ill ha-e to pe$-ade the enti$e ocean5
Then3 ho0e-e$3 the 0ine and the ocean 0ill ha-e to occupy the sa4e space as each othe$
and as the 0ineEandEocean .lend6 and ho0 can this .e 0hen they ha-e -e$y uneBual
BuantitiesG
The Stoics add to thei$ p$o.le4s he$e .y 4a%in' the e(t$ao$dina$y clai4 that this theo$y
can .e esta.lished f$o4 ou$ intuitions a.out 4i(tu$es5C2ID Ancient opponents3 0ho attac%
the theo$y on 4any f$onts3 ce$tainly sho0 that this is 0$on' and e-en pe$haps that the
theo$y is un intuiti-e5 #ut it is not in fact pa$ado(ical5 #ecause the Stoics ha-e a
continuu4 theo$y of 4atte$3 they do not ha-e a p$o.le4 0ith di-idin' s4all Buantities6
the$e is a su.di-ision of the d$op of 0ine fo$ e-e$y su.E
C2FDC22DC2,DC2ID
; ,+ ;
di-ision of the ocean5 u$the$3 pa$ado( is $e4o-ed if 0e distin'uish3 as a $ecent schola$
does3C2JD .et0een Buantity as -olu4e3 the a4ount of space occupied3 and Buantity as
4ass3 0hich $e4ains in-a$iant th$ou'h chan'es in -olu4e5 Thus a s4all 4ass of 0ine3
0hen .lended 0ith the ocean3 0ill ta%e up a 4uch la$'e$ -olu4e3 na4ely3 the -olu4e
occupied .y 0ineEandEocean5 #ut since 4ass is distinct f$o4 -olu4e3 the$e is no p$o.le4
0ith the s4all Buantity 74ass8 of the 0ine and the la$'e Buantity 7-olu4e8 of the 0ineE
andEocean5
Total .lendin' is found in 4any types of case5 Is the soulE.ody $elation $easona.ly to .e
thou'ht of as a case of itG Is it3 fu$the$3 an intuiti-ely fo$ceful :0itness:Ha st$i%in'ly
'ood caseHof this $elationshipG If 0e $e4e4.e$ that intuiti-ely the soul is 0hat 4a%es a
li-in' thin' .e ali-e in the 0ay app$op$iate to that %ind of thin'3 then ce$tainly this
p$esupposes that the ite4 in Buestion has no pa$t 0hich is /ust soul o$ /ust .ody5 So it
see4s that .ody and soul cannot .e si4ply /u(taposed5C2KD #ut could not soul and .ody
.e fusedG =hy should 0e p$efe$ total .lendin' as an e(planationG The point of insistin'
on total .lendin' $athe$ than fusion in othe$ cases is to acco44odate the clai4 that the
t0o ite4s $etain thei$ actual p$ope$ties5 #ut 0e ha-e no idea of 0hat the distinct
p$ope$ties of soul a$e6 0e encounte$ ensouled .odies and soulless .odies 7afte$ death8 .ut
ne-e$ souls othe$ than in an e4.odied state5 So 0e ha-e no e4pi$ical $eason to de4and
an analo'ue3
C2JDC2KD
; IM ;
in the case of soul and .ody3 fo$ cases li%e 0ine and 0ate$3 0he$e the actual distinct
p$ope$ties a$e clea$5C21D Total .lendin' acco44odates the point that .ody and soul ha-e
the sa4e $elation th$ou'hout the e(tent of the ensouled .ody3 0hile .ein' unli%e in
Buantity 7it .ein' assu4ed that soul is a fine$ %ind of .ody than .ody85 #ut fusion 0ould
cope 0ith this point /ust as 0ell5 At 4ost3 the$efo$e3 the Stoics can say that thei$ account
is co4pati.le 0ith co44on sense and :fol% psycholo'y:6 it is ha$dly esta.lished .y it5
In any case the intuiti-e le-el of tal%in' a.out soul and .ody is not .asic5 o$ soul is
pneu4a6 and pneu4a functions e-e$y0he$e in the 0o$ld3 .ut not in the sa4e 0ay6 $athe$
it 0o$%s at diffe$ent le-els of :tension5: To unde$stand ho0 the soul 0o$%s 0e 4ust loo%
fu$the$ at these le-els5
7d8 The Scale of #ein's
In the 0o$ld a$ound us 0e see ite4s that a$e nothin' 4o$e than collections of othe$
sepa$a.le thin's3 such as a$4ies3 floc%s3 cho$uses6 they a$e not unified sin'le ite4s5
Ships3 houses3 and the li%e3 0hose pa$ts ha-e .een put to'ethe$ in a 0ay to stop the4
sepa$atin'3 a$e .ette$ e(a4ples of unified ite4s3 .ut they a$e still clea$ly co4posite6 0e
ha-e one ite4 only .ecause diffe$ent ite4s ha-e .een put to'ethe$ in a 4o$eEo$Eless
te4po$a$y 0ay5 #ut the$e is an o.-ious diffe$ence .et0een all of these and thin's that a$e
:unified: 7heno4ena 8 o$ :'$o0n to'ethe$: 7su4phue 83 .ecause they ha-e an inte$nal
p$inciple of unity 4a%in' the4 into sin'le ite4s5C2+D This is $ou'hly the distinction
0hich A$istotle 4a$%s as holdin' .et0een thin's 0hich do not3 and thin's 0hich do3 ha-e
a natu$e5 In Stoic philosophy these a$e thin's 0hich a$e held to'ethe$
C21DC2+D
; I* ;
.y pneu4a 5 They fo$4 a hie$a$chy as the pneu4a has diffe$ent de'$ees of tension3 0hich
$esult in e-e$ 4o$e unified functionin'5 The$e is a scala natu$ae o$ scale of thin's f$o4
the lessE to the 4o$eEunified in functionin'3 f$o4 floc%s of sheep at the .otto4 to li-in'
thin's at the top5C,MD
The lo0est fo$4 of unified functionin' is he(is 7state83 found in thin's li%e stones 0hich
do no 4o$e than cohe$e6 in the43 unity of functionin' co4es to no 4o$e than holdin'
to'ethe$5 Plants3 0hich '$o0 and $ep$oduce3 a$e held to'ethe$ and 4ade cohesi-e in thei$
functionin' .y phusis o$ natu$e5 Ani4als3 0hich pe$cei-e and act3 cohe$e as they do
.ecause of psuche 3 soul3 and $ational ani4als 7hu4ans and 'ods8 .ecause of nous 3
intelli'ence5 It is o.-ious that 0hat inc$eases in de'$ee of unification is not the thin'
itself .ut its functionin'5 Thus inc$ease in tension of the pneu4a is associated not 0ith
'$eate$ physical cohesi-eness and sta.ility3 .ut 0ith inc$ease in the di-e$sity and
fle(i.ility of .eha-io$ and $esponse3 fo$ inc$ease in these $espects de4ands a '$eate$
de'$ee of unification as a functionin' .ein'5 Ani4als3 fo$ e(a4ple3 '$o0 and $ep$oduce3
li%e plants3 .ut they do these thin's in 4o$e co4ple( and fle(i.le 0ays3 pe$cei-in' and
$eactin' to the 0o$ld in 0ays not a-aila.le to plants5C,*D Rational ani4als do all these
thin's3 .ut in 0ays that they a$e a0a$e of and can a$ticulate in lan'ua'e6 and .ecause
they can a$ticulate to the4sel-es 0hat they a$e doin'3 they a$e a0a$e of alte$nati-es in
0ays that ani4als a$e not3 and can choose .et0een those alte$nati-es5 This st$i%in'
inc$ease in co4ple(ity and fle(i.ility is possi.le .ecause $ational .ein's a$e in tu$n 4o$e
unified as functionin' .ein's
C,MDC,*D
; IF ;
than ani4als a$e5 It is 0ith $ational .ein's that 0e find the notion of a unified self3
so4ethin' p$o4inent and c$ucial in Stoic philosophy of 4ind5
The Stoic hie$a$chy $ecalls A$istotle9s hie$a$chy of %inds of soul6 as in A$istotle3 hi'he$
le-els affect and can t$ansfo$4 the 0o$%in's of the lo0e$5C,FD The fetus in the 0o4.3 in
Hie$ocles9 e(tensi-e account3 has only phusis 3 natu$eC,2D Hit is 0hat 0e 0ould call a
hu4an -e'eta.le5 Only at .i$th does it acBui$e soul3 and .eco4e not only ali-e .ut ali-e
in the 0ay app$op$iate to a hu4an .ein'5 Its no0 .ein' a.le to pe$cei-e and $eact
t$ansfo$4s its life into the life of so4ethin' 0hich is 4o$e than a plant5
The hie$a$chy is f$eBuently cha$acte$iAed in te$4s of the diffe$ent %inds of 4o-e4ent
app$op$iate to each le-el3 in a 0ay 0hich focuses ou$ attention on 0hat I ha-e called
co4ple(ity and fle(i.ility5 This co4es out 4ost e(plicitly in a passa'e of O$i'enP
Of 4o-in' thin's3 so4e ha-e in the4sel-es the cause of 4o-e4ent3 0hile othe$s a$e
4o-ed only f$o4 0ithout5 Thus thin's that a$e ca$$ied a$e 4o-ed only f$o4 0ithout3 li%e
lo's and stones and e-e$ythin' 0hich is 4atte$ held to'ethe$ only .y state 7he(is 85 5 5 5
"i-in' thin's and plants and3 in a 0o$d3 0hat is held to'ethe$ .y natu$e 7phusis 8 and soul
7psuche 8 ha-e in the4sel-es the cause of 4o-in'5 5 5 5 Of thin's 0ith the cause of 4o-in'
in the4sel-es3 so4e a$e said to 4o-e f$o4 7e% 8 the4sel-es3 so4e .y 7apo 8 the4sel-es6
f$o4 the4sel-es in the case of thin's 0ithout soul3 .y the4sel-es in the case of thin's
0ith soul5 Thin's 0ith soul 4o-e .y the4sel-es 0hen an apE
C,FDC,2D
; I2 ;
pea$ance 7phantasia 8 occu$s and calls fo$th an i4pulse 7ho$4e 85 No0 in so4e ani4als
0hen appea$ances occu$ and call fo$th i4pulse it is thei$ natu$e 0hich deals 0ith
appea$ances 7phusis phantasti%e 8 in an o$de$ly 0ay and 4o-es the i4pulse3 as 0hen in
the spide$ the$e is an appea$ance of 0e. spinnin' and i4pulse follo0s to spin a 0e.6 it is
its natu$e 0hich deals 0ith appea$ances that calls it fo$th to this in an o$de$ly 0ay3 and
nothin' else in the ani4al othe$ than this natu$e dealin' 0ith appea$ances has .een
con-inced5 5 5 5 #ut a $ational ani4al 7lo'i%on Aoion 8 has $eason as 0ell as the natu$e
dealin' 0ith appea$ances3 $eason 0hich /ud'es the appea$ances and nullifies so4e 0hile
acceptin' othe$s3 so as to lead the ani4al in acco$dance 0ith the45 7>e p$inc5 25 *5FO2 CR
SV F5 +11D8C,,D
This passa'e 4a%es clea$ that the hi'he$ fo$4s of pneu4a tension a$e e(plainin' e-e$
4o$e co4ple( and fle(i.le fo$4s of .eha-io$5 A plant 0hich '$o0s3 .loo4s3 and
p$oduces seed is :4o-in': and chan'in' acco$din' to its natu$e6 it is not /ust .ein'
4o-ed .y so4ethin' else3 li%e a stone5 A spide$ spinnin' its 0e. is actin' in 0ays -astly
4o$e co4ple( than the plant6 it is $ecepti-e to info$4ation co4in' in f$o4 its
en-i$on4ent3 and $esponds to it5 It is sensiti-e to :appea$ances: and can cope 0ith and
$espond to the45 Still3 the$e is so4ethin' 4echanical and instincti-e a.out its .eha-io$
0hen co4pa$ed to that of $ational .ein's 0ho can a$ticulate options to the4sel-es and
choose .et0een the43 and 0hose actions a$e thus not laid do0n .y patte$ns of instinct3
.ecause they can 4a%e use of :$eason5:
Soul3 then3 is not /ust pneu4a 3 .ut a specific le-el of pneu4a 3 0ith the de'$ee of tension
$eBui$ed fo$ it to function as pneu4a psuchi%on 3 the pneu4a of a soul3 unifyin' a .ody
and ena.lin' it to pe$cei-e and act in ce$tain 0ays5 The .ody 0ith 0hich the soul
inte$acts is not ine$t 4atte$6 it is a .ody
C,,D
; I, ;
al$eady held to'ethe$ and ena.led to function in -e'etati-e 0ays .y pneu4a in the fo$4
of phusis o$ natu$e5 So the soul inte$acts 0ith an al$eady li-in' .ody3 a .ody functionin'
in the 0ay app$op$iate to plants3 0hich a$e ali-e5 And the li-in' .ody in tu$n is unified .y
natu$eEpneu4a holdin' to'ethe$3 and ena.lin' to function app$op$iately3 an ite4 that is
al$eady cohesi-e3 held to'ethe$ .y stateE o$ he(isEpneu4a 5 =e do not 'et to anythin' not
unified .y pneu4a till 0e 'et to the decayin' co$pse 7and e-en then3 as the Stoics
$e4a$%ed3 the .ones a$e p$etty solid85
This sche4a has so4e 4ildly su$p$isin' $esults5 Acco$din' to the Stoics3 '$o0th and
0hat 0e 0ould call the 4eta.olic functionin's a$e not due to soul3 .ut to natu$e5 In
%eepin' 0ith this they say that plants ha-e natu$e3 .ut no soul3 and that e4.$yos .efo$e
.i$th3 0hen they acBui$e soul3 a$e ali-e in a 4e$ely plantli%e 0ay5 One st$i%in' $esult of
this is that 4eta.olic functionin' in a li-in' pe$son is asc$i.ed to the .ody3 not to the
soul5 Thus not all the cha$acte$istic 0ays a li-in' pe$son functions a$e due to he$ soul5
Soul is not3 as it is in A$istotle3 0hat 4a$%s the li-in' f$o4 the nonli-in'5 The$e a$e so4e
li-in' thin's 7plants8 that do not ha-e soul6 and not all the functions of li-in' thin's
0hich a$e ensouled a$e due to thei$ soul5
Soul is3 $athe$3 0hat ani4als and hu4ans sha$e6 it is 0hat 4a%es the4 4o$e than
-e'eta.les5 It is thei$ pe$cepti-e and $eacti-e functions 0hich a$e due to soul3 and3 in the
case of $ational .ein's3 thei$ $ational 4ode of pe$cei-in' and $eactin'5 Ho0e-e$3 the
Stoics often use :soul: anothe$ 0ay6 Se(tus says that so4e Stoics clai4ed that :soul: had
t0o distinct uses5 One of these applies to soul as 0hat ani4ates the 0hole co4pound5
The othe$ applies to soul as he'e4oni%on o$ :'o-e$nin' pa$t5: =e shall see3 in the ne(t
section3 that it is not too 4isleadin' to thin% of this as the 4ind3 and in this use the Stoics
0e$e thin%in' of the distincti-ely 4ental side of hu4an functionin'5 Se(tus adds that this
use3 fo$ the 4ind3 is 0hat 0e thin% of 0hen 0e use ce$tain ph$ases 0hich cont$ast soul
and .ody5C,ID !e$tainly in the late$ Ro4an Stoics li%e SeE
C,ID
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; II ;
neca and Ma$cus Au$elius 0e find -e$y f$ee use of te$4inolo'y 0hich d$a0s a sha$p3
al4ost Platonic cont$ast .et0een the 4e$e .ody and the allEi4po$tant 4ind o$ $ational
soul5C,JD =hen .ody and soul a$e sha$ply cont$asted in this 0ay3 it 4ay see4 that these
0$ite$s a$e lapsin' into dualis43 o$ at least dualist 0ays of tal%in'5 This does not follo03
fo$ the cont$ast of .ody and soul in these passa'es is ethically 4oti-ated3 not the outco4e
of dissatisfaction 0ith physicalis45 Nonetheless3 it .$in's out a st$i%in' featu$e of the
Stoics9 use of :soul5:
The Stoics a$e ce$tainly $e-isin' co44on sense 0hen they na$$o0 the use of :soul: to the
4ind instead of applyin' it3 as A$istotle does3 si4ply to the 0hole $an'e of life functions5
They a$e also c$eatin' a p$o.le4 fo$ thei$ o0n theo$y5 The soul that is totally .lended
0ith .ody is soul in the sense of 0hat unifies the li-in' .ody as a .ody of a pe$cepti-e
and $eacti-e %ind5 #ut soul in the na$$o0e$ sense of the he'e4oni%on is not this5 Rathe$3
as 0e shall see3 the he'e4oni%on is located in pa$t of the .ody5 And it p$o-ides a
4echanis4 0hich e(plains 0hy the 0hole .ody functions as it does3 as a 0hole .ody5
o$ .oth these $easons3 it cannot .e identified 0ith soul 0he$e that $efe$s to 0hat is
totally .lended in e-e$y pa$t of the .ody6 it 4ust .e soul in a diffe$ent sense5
=e can app$eciate that this p$o.le4 is Buite acute if 0e $ecall !leanthes9 a$'u4ent fo$ the
physicality of the soul5 That $elied on the causal inte$action of soul and .ody5 =e can
no0 see that in that a$'u4ent :.ody: 4ust $efe$ to the total .lend of soul and .ody3 0hile
:soul: $efe$s to the he'e4oni%on 5 o$
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDC,JD
; IJ ;
soul in the sense of 0hat is totally .lended 0ith the .ody cannot possi.ly .e 0hat
causally inte$acts 0ith .ody6 the notion of total .lendin' $ules that out5 So it is not si4ply
that the Stoics ha-e thei$ o0n technical notion of soul 70hat is totally .lended 0ith the
.ody8 and also fall into an intuiti-e 0ay of spea%in' f$o4 ti4e to ti4e3 0hich cont$asts
soul 0ith .ody5 o$ the pu$poses of thei$ o0n a$'u4ents they need a notion of soul 0hich
cont$asts 0ith that of .ody3 and thus a$e fo$ced into usin' :soul: in t0o 0ays3 one fo$ the
4ind and one fo$ 0hat is totally .lended 0ith the li-in' .ody to p$oduce 0hat 0e
intuiti-ely call :.ody5:
It 4i'ht .e o./ected that the$e is no $eal p$o.le4 he$e3 since no i4po$tant Stoic
a$'u4ents $est on usin' the notion of :soul: a4.i-alently5 Ho0e-e$3 the p$o.le4
unde$lines the 4a'nitude of the step the Stoics too% 0hen they 4o-ed f$o4 usin' :soul:
not /ust fo$ 0hat distin'uishes the functionin' of pe$cepti-e and $eacti-e .ein's3 .ut also
fo$ 0hat distin'uishes the thin's 0ith 4inds f$o4 the $est of natu$e5 It is a .i''e$ step
than they 0e$e pe$haps fully a0a$e of5
e8 Soul and Self
=e ha-e seen that the unity of functionin' is i4po$tant fo$ the Stoics in the case of .oth
the ani4al and the hu4an soul5 Indeed thei$s is the fi$st philosophy of 4ind 0hich
st$esses 0hat 0e 0ould call the unity of the self5C,KD As 0ell as its $ole in thei$ accounts
of pe$cei-in' and othe$ psycholo'ical pheno4ena3 Stoic conce$n 0ith the self e4e$'es in
an e(plicit discussion of a topic $ele-ant to the Stoics9 4o$al philosophy6 fo$ they hold
that 4o$al de-elop4ent ta%es off f$o4 a natu$al .asis in all of us3 0hich they hold to .e a
conce$n 0ith the self .ased on %no0led'e of the self5 Acco$din' to !h$ysippus the fi$st
o./ect of affinity o$ fa4ilia$iAation that a hu4an hasH
C,KD
; IK ;
that is3 the fi$st thin' 0hich it has di$ect 4oti-ation to pu$sueHis its o0n constitution and
the selfE%no0led'e it has of it5C,1D !ice$o $epeats the pointP as soon as 0e a$e .o$n 0e
see% 0hat is fa4ilia$ to us3 and this p$esupposes that 0e ca$e fo$ ou$ o0n constitution3
0hich in tu$n p$esupposes that 0e ha-e a sense o$ pe$ception of ou$sel-es5C,+D
$o4 .i$th on3 then3 0e ha-e selfEpe$ception5 =hat e(actly is it3 ho0e-e$3 that 0e
confidently asc$i.e to ne0.o$nsG =e ha-e a fai$ly e(tensi-e account of selfEpe$ception
f$o4 Hie$ocles9 Ele4ents of Ethics3 containin' se-e$al a$'u4ents to sho0 that 0e ha-e it
continuously f$o4 .i$th5 =e can hope3 then3 that .y loo%in' at the a$'u4ents3 and the $est
of Hie$ocles9 account3 0e can 'lean 4o$e accu$ate info$4ation a.out 0hat selfEpe$ception
is5CIMD
The fi$st a$'u4ent appeals to ani4als9 and hu4ans9 .eha-io$5CI*D =e /ust %no0 that ou$
eyes a$e fo$ seein' and ou$ le's fo$ 0al%in'6 0e do not ha-e to e(pe$i4ent and find out
facts li%e these .y t$ial and e$$o$5 Indeed3 the idea that I 4i'ht ha-e to find out3 .y t$yin'
and failin' to see 0ith 4y ea$s3 that I see 0ith 4y eyes is ludic$ous5 And this sho0s that
the$e a$e so4e thin's that 0e %no0 a.out ou$sel-es /ust .y .ein' ou$sel-es6 an ani4al
pe$cei-es itself as .ein' the %ind of ani4al it is3 functionin' the 0ay it does5 So4e
ani4als9 .eha-io$ patte$ns a$e .iAa$$e3 and Hie$ocles 'i-es us 4any e(a4ples3 appealin'
to :0ellE%no0n facts: such as the :facts: that so4e
C,1DC,+DCIMDCI*D
; I1 ;
sna%es spit thei$ -eno4 0ithout ha-in' to .ite thei$ -icti4 and that .ea-e$s3 0hen .ein'
pu$sued .y hunte$s 0ho 0ant to %ill the4 fo$ the oil in thei$ testicles3 0ill cast$ate
the4sel-es in o$de$ to su$-i-e5 The point of appealin' to unusual3 $athe$ than
co44onplace3 .eha-io$ is to unde$line the point that ho0e-e$ e(otic the $esponse3 the
ani4al ne-e$ has to lea$n it6 it al$eady %no0s ho0 to .eha-e li%e the %ind of ani4al it is5
Hie$ocles 'oes on to a$'ue3 a'ain f$o4 the .est e(planation of .eha-io$3 that selfE
pe$ception is continuous th$ou'h life and that it sta$ts f$o4 .i$th5CIFD Apa$t f$o4 ani4als3
his p$i4e e(a4ples a$e the 0ays hu4ans .eha-e in cha$acte$istic and 'oalEdi$ected 0ays
du$in' sleep 7cols5 ,5I2OI52M85CI2D
He has th$ee 4o$e technical a$'u4ents to sho0 that all pe$ception is 0hat he calls selfE
pe$ception5 One is that pe$cei-in' an o./ect3 ho0e-e$ 4ini4ally3 in-ol-es pe$ception of
oneself6CI,D tastin' so4ethin' s0eet3 fo$ e(a4ple3 in-ol-es a0a$eness that :I a4
s0eetened5: All pe$cei-in' has a su./ect as 0ell as an o./ect6 4entionin' only the o./ect
lea-es out pa$t of 0hat pe$cei-in' is5 Thus all pe$cei-in' p$esupposes selfEpe$ception5
This is a hi'hly inte$estin' point6 ?ant 0as late$ to p$oduce a fa$ 4o$e ela.o$ate
a$'u4ent fo$ this conclusion5
The second a$'u4ent is 4o$e .afflin'P all :do4inant po0e$s: 7he'e4oni%ai duna4eis8
apply fi$st to the4sel-es5CIID The he(is of a stone has to 4a%e itself cohesi-e to 4a%e the
stone cohesi-e6 the phusis of a plant has to 4a%e itself '$o0 .efo$e it 4a%es the plant
'$o06 the soul 0hich 4a%es an ani4al pe$cei-e o./ects 4ust fi$st 4a%e itself pe$cepti-e
of itself5 The a$'u4ent see4s o.-iously fallacious6 and in any case it is the ani4al3 not its
soul3 0hich is supposed to pe$cei-e itself5
CIFDCI2DCI,DCIID
; I+ ;
The thi$d a$'u4ent3 unfo$tunately f$a'4enta$y in pa$t3 'oes as follo0sP soul and .ody a$e
.oth .odies and inte$act th$ou'hout3 .ein' totally .lended5CIJD Soul is a pe$cepti-e
po0e$6 thus the$e is a constant t0oE0ay :'$asp: of soul .y .ody and .ody .y soul5
Ho0e-e$3 it is ha$d to see ho0 this can a4ount to an ani4al9s pe$cei-in' itself5 It 0ould
see4 to a4ount to the clai4 that 0e a$e al0ays a0a$e of e-e$y pa$t of ou$ .ody and ou$
soulHa clai4 eithe$ st$i%in'ly false o$ -e$y unclea$5
Althou'h his 4o$e technical a$'u4ents fail to esta.lish it3 Hie$ocles9 use of e(a4ples and
the e(planation he offe$s fo$ the4 do 4uch to esta.lish his conclusion3 that pe$ception3 in
.oth ani4als and hu4ans3 p$esupposes selfEpe$ception3 and that pe$cei-in' .ein's a$e
capa.le of selfEpe$ception continuously and f$o4 .i$th5 =hat e(actly does Hie$ocles
4ean3 in 4ode$n te$4sG !lea$ly not consciousness3 if that is ta%en to .e o$ in-ol-e an
e(pe$ience o$ a0a$eness of oneself5 That see4s $uled out .y his $an'e of e(a4ples3
0hich focus on ani4als $athe$ than on hu4an e(pe$ience5 He see4s to 4ean that an
ani4al has3 p$io$ to e(pe$ience 7coded into it3 as 0e 4i'ht say83 a conception of itself3
unde$stood as a conception of .ein' a %ind of ani4al3 plus a $efle(i-e capacity to '$asp
that it is that %ind of ani4al5 Only in hu4ans3 ho0e-e$3 is this a$ticulated in thou'ht5
If this is $i'ht3 then to unde$stand a sna%e9s peculia$ .eha-io$ 0hen it is3 say3 spittin'
poison3 0e ha-e to say that so4ethin' is 'oin' on in it 0hich 0e ha-e to $ep$esent as
so4ethin' li%e :I94 a spittin' sna%e3 so I9ll spit the poison6 I don9t need to .ite5: Ho0e-e$3
the sna%e is not thin%in' thisP it /ust acts .ecause of the 0ay its natu$e is fo$4ed5 Only
hu4ans can a$ticulate such thou'hts6 so 0e a$e not att$i.utin' selfEa0a$eness to the
sna%e5 =e a$e $e4inded of !h$ysippus9 $eaction to the .eha-io$ of a do' 0hich sniffs its
p$ey
CIJD
; JM ;
do0n t0o $oads and then sets off3 0ithout sniffin'3 do0n the only othe$ a-aila.le $oad5
!h$ysippus clai4ed that 0hat 0as 'oin' on in the do' 4ust ha-e the fo$4 of :Eithe$ p o$
B o$ $6 .ut not p and not B3 the$efo$e $:6 fo$ only so can 0e e(plain the $e4a$%a.le fact
that the do' 'oes off do0n the thi$d $oad 0ithout needin' to sniff3 ha-in' 0o$%ed out that
the thi$d $oad is the only possi.le $oute5 Ho0e-e$3 !h$ysippus 0as ada4ant that the do'
0as not thin%in' :Eithe$ p o$ B: and so on5 Rathe$3 so4ethin' 0as 'oin' on in the do'3
and d$i-in' its .eha-io$3 0hich in a hu4an 0ould .e so4ethin' 0hich the hu4an could
thin%5CIKD Si4ila$ly3 the point that ani4als ha-e unified sel-es 7o$3 as 0e 4i'ht .ette$ put
it3 a$e unified sel-es8 does not i4ply that they a$e li%e $ational hu4ans in .ein' a0a$e of
.ein' unified sel-es5
This line of thou'ht a.out selfEpe$ception is an inte$estin' one5 It see4s open to the
o.-ious o./ection that sufficiently co4ple( and cha$acte$istic plant .eha-io$ see4s to
de4and selfEpe$ception to e(plain it5 It is clea$ that the Stoics 0ould not ha-e accepted
the conseBuence that so4ethin' is 'oin' on in a plant 0hich 0e ha-e to $ep$esent as :I94
a $ose3 so I9ll .loo4 no0: o$ the li%e6 .ut it is not clea$ ho0 they 0ould ha-e 4et the
o./ection5 The a.su$dity of ha-in' a $ose thin% that it is a $ose is i$$ele-ant3 since the
Stoics do not hold that a sna%e o$ a .ea-e$ is thin%in' that it is a sna%e o$ a .ea-e$5 A$e
the$e any diffe$ences of p$inciple .et0een plants and ani4als to 0hich the Stoics could
appeal to 'i-e the4 independent suppo$t fo$ $e/ectin' the e(tension of selfEpe$ception to
plantsG Pe$haps it could .e held that plant .eha-io$3 0hile often e(t$e4ely co4ple( and
sensiti-e to diffe$ent conditions3 falls sho$t of the %ind of co4ple(ity that $eBui$es selfE
pe$ception to e(plain it5 Plants cannot lea$n3 fo$ e(a4ple6 thei$ enti$e .eha-io$al
$epe$toi$e is p$o'$a44ed into the45 If so4ethin' li%e this could supply a plausi.le line
of de4a$cation3 the Stoics 0ould .e left 0ith a -ia.le
CIKD
; J* ;
clai45 Of cou$se so4e ani4alsHsocial insects3 fo$ e(a4pleHsee4 4o$e li%e plants in
this $espect than li%e othe$ %inds of ani4als5 #ut if so3 this 0ould .e '$ounds fo$ denyin'
the4 selfEpe$ception5
f8 Pa$ts and aculties of the Soul
=e ha-e seen that fo$ the Stoics the$e is a sense in 0hich soul is 0hat is totally .lended
0ith the .ody6 .ut the$e is also anothe$ sense in 0hich it can .e cont$asted 0ith the .ody3
a sense in 0hich it $efe$s to the 4echanis4 0hich is causally $esponsi.le fo$ the
functionin's of a hu4an .ein'5 In this sense the soul is localiAed6 it is a cent$aliAed
syste4 0hich is $esponsi.le fo$ the diffe$entiated functionin' of the sensesHand3 the
Stoics add3 -oice and $ep$oduction3 ta%in' these to .e distinct functions5 Hence the soul
itself is said to ha-e ei'ht pa$tsP the fi-e senses 7si'ht3 hea$in'3 touch3 taste3 s4ell83 -oice3
$ep$oduction3 and the he'e4oni%on o$ 'o-e$nin' pa$t5:CI1D =e ha-e an e(tensi-e
passa'e f$o4 !h$ysippus that suppo$ts thisP
The soul is pneu4a connate 0ith us3 e(tendin' as a continuu4 th$ou'h the 0hole .ody as
lon' as the f$eeEflo0in' .$eath of life is p$esent in the .ody5 No0 of the pa$ts of the soul
that ha-e .een assi'ned to the se-e$al pa$ts Cof the .odyD3 that of the4 0hich e(tends to
the t$achea is the -oice6 that to the eyes3 si'ht6 that to the ea$s3 hea$in'6 that to the
nost$ils3 s4ell6 that to the ton'ue3 taste6 that to the enti$e flesh3 touch6 and that 0hich
e(tends to the testicles3 possessin' anothe$ such lo'os3 is se4inal5 That pa$t 0he$e all
these 4eet is in the hea$t3 .ein' the 'o-e$nin' pa$t 7he'e4oni%on 8 of the soul5 This
.ein' so3 the$e is a'$ee4ent a.out all othe$ pa$ts3 .ut a.out the 'o-e$nin' pa$t of the soul
the$e is disa'$ee4ent3 so4e placin' it in one $e'ion3 othe$s in anothe$5 5 5 5 Thus the place
see4s to elude us3
CI1D
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; JF ;
since 0e ha-e neithe$ a clea$ pe$ception Cof itD3 as 0e had 0ith the othe$s3 no$ su$e si'ns
f$o4 0hich this 4atte$ 4i'ht .e infe$$ed6 othe$0ise disa'$ee4ents a4on' physicians and
philosophe$s 0ould not ha-e '$o0n so '$eat5 7@alen PHP F1KO1+?3 *KM de "acy8CI+D
The pa$ts do not diffe$ in co4position6 the soul is all /ust pneu4a 5 They diffe$ in
location6 each e(tends 7die%ein 8 th$ou'h a diffe$ent pa$t of the .ody5 They also diffe$ in
function6 since the ton'ue can .oth taste and touch3 0e infe$ that .oth touchE and tasteE
pneu4a e(tend th$ou'h it5 #ut the Stoics 4a%e little of distinctness of function as
opposed to distinctness of location5
The he'e4oni%on cent$aliAes the senses and othe$ functions3 li%e an octopus 0hose
tentacles a$e the e(tensions of pneu4a to the senses3 o$ a spide$ sittin' in the 4iddle of its
0e.3 sensiti-e to e-e$y chan'e in it5CJMD =hat happens in the sense o$'ans is
:t$ans4itted: 7diadidonai 8 to the he'e4oni%on and $eco$ded the$e6 the Stoics :intend
this3 that the 4o-e4ent a$oused in a 4e4.e$ .y a contact f$o4 0ithout .e t$ans4itted to
the seat of the soul9s $ule3 so that the ani4al 4ay pe$cei-e it5:CJ*D Thus they co4e to say
that the sense o$'ans a$e affected3 o$ e-en that the pain is the$e3 .ut that the pe$ception of
the pain happens in the he'e4oni%on 5CJFD
Althou'h 0e ha-e seen that the Stoics $e/ected the 4ost $ecent and co$$ect account of the
4atte$3 0e can clea$ly see the influence of a 4odel Buite una-aila.le to A$istotle3 that of
the ne$-ous syste45 =hen a sense o$'an is distu$.ed3 the pa$t of the soul app$op$iate to
that o$'an t$ans4its the 4essa'e 7-isual fo$ the eyes3 olfacto$y fo$ the nose3 and so fo$th8
to the soul9s cent$aliAin' o$'an5 Once 0e accept pneu4a as
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDCI+DCJMDCJ*DCJFD
; J2 ;
the t$ans4ittin' 4echanis4 and the hea$t3 $athe$ than the .$ain3 as the cente$3 the 4odel is
easy to t$anspose into 4ode$n te$4s5
The influence of the 4odel is p$ofound3 as can .e seen in at least th$ee 0ays5 i$stly3 0e
ha-e seen that 0hen the Stoics distin'uish t0o senses of :soul3: they tend to ta%e the
second3 4o$e $est$icted one to $efe$ not to the enti$e 4echanis4 of the ei'htEpa$t soul3 .ut
/ust to the he'e4oni%on 5 !lea$ly3 they tend to thin% that the soul is 3 p$ope$ly spea%in'3
the he'e4oni%on6 and 0e can see 0hy they thin% this3 since it is the$e that 0hat happens
in the $est of the soul is $e'iste$ed5 The $est of the soul3 its $e4ainin' pa$ts3 co4es to loo%
li%e e(t$a lin%s in a causal chain .e'innin' 0ith the .ody5 Pluta$ch co4plains that the
Stoics c$a4 all the e-ents of ou$ psycholo'ical life into the tiny space of the
he'e4oni%on6 this has so4e analo'ies 0ith 4ode$n o./ections to ta%in' all ou$ 4ental
life to occu$ in the .$ain5
Secondly3 Stoic philosophy of 4ind is deeply influenced .y the thou'ht that the soul is a
co44unication 4echanis45 If the he'e4oni%on $ecei-es input f$o4 all the othe$ pa$ts3
$e'iste$s3 unifies3 and 4a%es sense of it3 then it 0ill at once see4 o.-ious that 0hat it
$ecei-es a$e 4essa'es3 that it t$ans4its info$4ation3 that it ope$ates in a lan'ua'e
co44on to all the senses3 and so on5 This thou'ht does not $e4ain at the le-el of
4etapho$5 The Stoics9 detailed accounts of pe$ception and action a$e e(plained in te$4s of
the $eception and inte$p$etation of a$ticula.le content5 !ontent is do4inant in Stoic
philosophy of 4ind3 and one $eason fo$ this is that thei$ .asic 4odel of the 4ind is one
0hich encou$a'es the4 to focus on the content of e(pe$ience $athe$ than on its
pheno4enolo'ical Bualities5 This is pe$haps the 4ost distincti-e and o$i'inal featu$e of
Stoic philosophy of 4ind6 its distance in this $espect f$o4 A$istotle can to so4e e(tent .e
e(plained .y the diffe$ences .et0een thei$ unde$lyin' 4odels5
Thi$dly3 the Stoics st$ess the unity of the soul fa$ 4o$e than A$istotle does6 a'ain 0e can
see an unde$lyin' 4odel 0hich facilitates and encou$a'es this5 #ein's capa.le of pe$E
; J, ;
cei-in' and $eactin' a$e unified sel-es6 and the$e a$e 4any 0ays in 0hich the accounts of
pe$cei-in' and actin' $ely on the$e .ein' a unified self 0hich does the pe$cei-in' and
actin'5 Ani4als as 0ell as hu4ans a$e sel-es6CJ2D an ani4al9s he'e4oni%on3 ho0e-e$3
0ill unify its psycholo'ical e-ents in a 4e$ely auto4atic and instinctual 0ay5 #ecause
hu4ans a$e $ational3 e-e$ythin' in a hu4an he'e4oni%on 0ill .e o$'aniAed and
inte$p$eted in a $ational 0ay5 o$ the Stoics the hall4a$% of $ationality is the a.ility to use
lan'ua'e3 and hence 0e find that the hu4an he'e4oni%on functions th$ou'hout in te$4s
of a %ind of lan'ua'e6 hu4an3 .ut not ani4al3 e(pe$ience is seen in te$4s of
co44unication and content5 Hence the$e is a di-ision of %ind .et0een ani4al and hu4an
inne$ life5 And hence the Stoics denied to ani4als not only $easonin' .ut e4otions and
e-en desi$es6 since ani4als cannot a$ticulate and inte$p$et in lan'ua'e the content of thei$
e(pe$ience3 they ha-e only Buasi fo$4s of 0hat in hu4ans a$e desi$es3 e4otions3 and so
on5
@i-en these points3 the he'e4oni%on can .e thou'htof3 not too 4isleadin'ly3 as the 4ind3
and the Stoic theo$y of the soul as a theo$y of ou$ 4ental life5 As such a theo$y3 it is
st$i%in'ly unE!a$tesian6 the Stoics sho0 no inte$est in the %inds of conce$n 0hich led
>esca$tes to his conclusions a.out the 4ind5 The contents of the he'e4oni%on a$e not
ta%en to .e accessi.le to int$ospection .y p$i-ile'ed inne$ -ie06 no$ a$e they
episte4olo'ically .asic3 no$ in any inte$estin' sense p$i-ate5 #ut the he'e4oni%on is -e$y
li%e a nonE!a$tesian 4indP it cent$aliAes3 unifies3 and inte$p$ets 0hat 'oes on in the $est of
the soul5 E-en the intellectual associations of 4ind as opposed to soul attach to the
he'e4oni%on6 in ca$eless accounts it is so4eti4es $efe$$ed to as the dianoia3 a standa$d
0o$d fo$ :thou'ht5:
CJ2D
; JI ;
As 0ell as pa$ts3 the soul has faculties o$ po0e$s 7duna4eis 85 The Stoics define a
duna4is as 0hat .$in's a.out 4any e-ents and cont$ols the su.o$dinate acti-ities5CJ,D A
duna4is of the soul 0ill .e a po0e$ o$ disposition to p$oduce 4ental e-ents5 So4e
schola$s ha-e thou'ht that the Stoics cannot $eally ha-e thou'ht that the soul contained
pe$4anently diffe$entiated po0e$s6 fo$ they thin% that only physical pa$ticula$s e(ist3 and
hence it is thou'ht that they 0ould ha-e had difficulties o-e$ the e(istence of
dispositional po0e$s5CJID This has led to the asc$iption to the4 of the st$an'e -ie0 that
the$e a$e no lastin' diffe$entiations in the soul6 $athe$ they a$e left3 on this account3 0ith a
soul 0hich is unifo$4 and chan'es 0ith e-e$y 4ental e-ent 0ithout e-e$ acBui$in' lon'E
te$4 diffe$entiations5 #ut 0e ha-e no 'ood $eason to land the4 0ith this -ie05 Since they
a$e physicalists3 they can si4ply ta%e $efe$ence to dispositional po0e$s to .e in effect
$efe$ence to the unde$lyin' diffe$entiated st$uctu$es3 since that is 0hat these po0e$s in
fact a$e5
Neno and !h$ysippus3 0e a$e told3 put the soul9s po0e$s to'ethe$ li%e Bualities in a
su./ect3 positin' the soul as a su.stance e(istin' .efo$e the po0e$s5CJJD In othe$ 0o$ds3
so4e of the soul9s po0e$s .elon' to it the 0ay Bualities .elon' to a su./ect5 Thus so4e
Stoic po0e$s o$ faculties can .e distin'uished .y the fact that they .elon' to diffe$ent
su./ects5 Thus the po0e$s of si'htEpneu4a 0ill diffe$ f$o4 those of hea$in'Epneu4a3
since the latte$ is a diffe$ent su./ect3 .ein'
CJ,DCJIDCJJD
; JJ ;
a physically distinct st$etch of pneu4a 5 This 0ill se$-e to distin'uish dispositional
po0e$s 0hose su./ects can .e distin'uished3 fo$ e(a4ple3 .y diffe$ent location5 Ho0e-e$3
othe$ po0e$s ha-e the sa4e unde$lyin' su./ect and diffe$ only in thei$ :indi-idual
Buality: 7idiotes poiotetos 86 and this3 of cou$se3 0ill .e t$ue of the i4po$tant case of the
he'e4oni%on :fo$3 /ust as the apple has in the sa4e .ody its s0eetness and its scent3 so
the he'e4oni%on has put to'ethe$ in the sa4e C.odyD appea$ance 7phantasia 83 assent
7sun%atathesis 83 i4pulse 7ho$4e 83 and $eason 7lo'os 85:CJKD =e hea$ else0he$e of the
:$ational state: 7he(is lo'i%e 8 and the :i4pulse state: 7he(is ho$4eti%e 85CJ1D The
functionin' of the 4ind3 o$ he'e4oni%on3 can thus .e classified as the 4anifestation of
fou$ diffe$ent po0e$s5 Appea$ance is 4anifested in ou$ $eception of info$4ation th$ou'h
the senses 70hat 0e $ecei-e is itself called appea$ance85 Assent is 4anifested in ou$
inte$p$etation of the info$4ation 0e $ecei-e5 I4pulse is 4anifested in ou$ actin' on it5
Reason is 4anifested in the fact that hu4ans do all these thin's in a $ational 0ay3 one that
is a$ticula.le in lan'ua'e5
=hy3 in that case3 is it distin'uished he$e as a po0e$ sepa$ate f$o4 the othe$ th$eeG
Pe$haps the point is that althou'h 0e all ha-e it3 0e need to de-elop it into a 4atu$e
disposition5 Althou'h $ationality unde$lies and info$4s all ou$ 4ental life3 it is still a
disposition 0hich is de-eloped f$o4 e(pe$ience and f$o4 0hat 0e lea$n to do 0ith
e(pe$ience5 It
CJKDCJ1D
; JK ;
does not auto4atically acco4pany the e(e$cise of the othe$ po0e$s in the 0ay in 0hich it
ou'ht to do5 This points to an inte$estin' diffe$ence .et0een $eason and the othe$ po0e$sP
$eason is a po0e$ that 0e can i4p$o-e 5 u$the$3 ou$ only 0ay of i4p$o-in' the othe$
po0e$s is .y i4p$o-in' ou$ $eason5CJ+D
#oth ancient and 4ode$n c$itics ha-e accused the Stoics of :$ationalis4: a.out the soul6
they ha-e .een supposed to ha-e too si4ple a -ie0 of the soul3 one in 0hich the soul is
0holly $ational5 It is t$ue that $eason is i4po$tant in the Stoic soul6 .ut its $ole should not
.e 4isunde$stood5 The soul9s co4position is si4ple6 it is /ust pneu4a 5 #ut this does not
p$e-ent it f$o4 ha-in' ei'ht pa$ts3 includin' the cent$aliAin' he'e4oni%on6 and this
functions in fou$ distinct 0ays 0hich each 4anifest a diffe$ent po0e$ of the soul3 of
0hich $eason is only one5CKMD =e shall find the Stoics sayin'3 pa$ticula$ly in connection
0ith the e4otions3 that the soul contains no ele4ent that can oppose $eason5 =hat they
4ean is not in any opposition to any of the a.o-e3 and it is not the thesis that $eason is a
pa$ticula$ly st$on' and .ullyin' ele4ent in the soul 0hich $ep$esses any opposition5
Rathe$3 $eason is not sepa$a.le6 it is in-ol-ed in e-e$y acti-ity of a hu4an soul5 Since
$ationality is 4anifested in lan'ua'e use3 this thesis that the enti$e soul is $ational3 that is3
that e-e$y 4ental e-ent is $ational3 ta%es the fo$4 of a thesis that e-e$y 4ental e-ent
in-ol-es so4e analo'ue to the use of lan'ua'e5CK*D =e shall see this in detail in the
follo0in' chapte$5
That $eason is in-ol-ed in e-e$y 4ental e-ent is3 fo$ the Stoics3 a4on' othe$ thin's a
t$uth a.out the 0o$%in's of pneu4a 5 Reason is pneu4a at a hi'he$ de'$ee of tension
CJ+DCKMDCK*D
; J1 ;
than the $est of soulEpneu4a6 consistently 0ith the $est of the physical theo$y3 this 0ill
4a%e the soul physically 4o$e cohesi-e5 Thus not only 0ill the soul .e 4o$e cohesi-e
than the physical .ody3 the $ational soul 0ill .e 4o$e cohesi-e than non$ational soulE
pneu4a 5 And since 0hat is 4o$e cohesi-e is less easily dest$ucti.le3 0e can unde$stand
0hy it .eca4e o$thodo( Stoic doct$ine that the soul 0ill su$-i-e the pe$son9s death3 the
4o$e $ationally de-eloped souls lastin' lon'est5CKFD !leanthes .elie-ed that all souls 0ill
su$-i-e death6 !h$ysippus3 only those of the 0ise5CK2D This see4s to .e a disa'$ee4ent
o-e$ the necessa$y de'$ee of pneu4atic tension5 This thesis is clea$ly a 4ino$ and
so4e0hat .iAa$$e .yp$oduct of the physical theo$y and has no ethical $epe$cussions5
Souls last lon'e$ than .odies3 .ut they a$e not i44o$tal5 And 0hat su$-i-es is not the
indi-idual pe$sonality6 death is the end of 4e3 and thou'h so4ethin' su$-i-es3 it is not
continuous 0ith 4e and 0ill not .e $e0a$ded o$ punished fo$ 0hat I ha-e done5CK,D
!h$ysippus is e-en said to ha-e tau'ht that post4o$te4 souls 0e$e sphe$ical5CKID Pa$tly
no dou.t this is .ecause since Plato ci$cula$ 4otion had .een thou'ht the 4ost
app$op$iate fo$ $eason6 .ut a $ole is also p$o.a.ly played .y the fact that I cannot
se$iously thin% that 4y 4ental life 0ill .e continuous 0ith p$ocesses in a pneu4atic
.alloon3 0hich is 0hat 4y soul 0ill .e afte$ 4y death5
=e ha-e seen that 4uch of the Stoic theo$y of the soul is influenced .y conte4po$a$y
4edicine3 pa$ticula$ly the disE
CKFDCK2DCK,DCKID
; J+ ;
co-e$y of the ne$-ous syste45 The Stoics 4ade3 ho0e-e$3 one $athe$ la$'e concession to
fol% psycholo'y5 They did not follo0 E$asist$atus in locatin' the he'e4oni%on in the
.$ain5 Instead 0e find that !h$ysippus 0$ote at len'th defendin' the -ie0 that the
he'e4oni%on is located in the hea$t3 $e-e$tin' to the ea$lie$ and c$ude$ -ie0 0hich is
found in P$a(o'o$as5CKJD "i%e @alen3 0ho c$iticiAes !h$ysippus e(tensi-ely3 0e 4ay .e
puAAled .y this $e/ection of science in fa-o$ of a$'u4ents f$o4 intuition3 ety4olo'y3 and
e-en poet$y5CKKD
Ho0e-e$3 !h$ysippus9 p$o.le4 is clea$ enou'h5 ol% psycholo'y and o$dina$y tal% a.out
the soul places e4otions and feelin's clea$ly in the hea$t6 0hen affected .y fea$ o$ othe$
e4otions3 that see4s to .e 0he$e 0e feel thin's happenin'5 To 4aintain that fea$3 fo$
e(a4ple3 0as $eally .ein' felt in the .$ain 0ould sound odd6 0e do not feel af$aid in the
head5 #ut the Stoic -ie0 of the soul3 as 0e ha-e seen3 4a%es e-e$y 4ental e-ent in-ol-e
a $ational3 a$ticula.le ele4ent3 so4ethin' t$ans4itted to the he'e4oni%on and inte$p$eted
the$e5 If the he'e4oni%on is in the head3 this 0ould su''est that3 in ancient te$4s3 the
soul could .e di-ided6 fea$ could .e felt in one location3 .ut the info$4ation insti'atin'
the fea$ 0ould .e $e'iste$ed so4e0he$e else5 This 0ould th$eaten the Stoics9 0hole -ie0
of the soul3 in 0hich e-e$y
CKJDCKKD
; KM ;
4ental e-ent in-ol-es the $e'iste$in' of info$4ation5 Hence !h$ysippus has no $eal
choice6 thou'h f$o4 the passa'e a.o-e it is clea$ that he 0as unce$tain and not -e$y
happy on this point3 he had to follo0 fol% psycholo'y and inte$p$et the docto$s9
disco-e$ies to suit6 the .$ain clea$ly plays a $ole3 .ut it has to .e a su.o$dinate one5CK1D
It can ce$tainly .e a$'ued that !h$ysippus should not ha-e .een so i4p$essed .y the
e4otions in this $e'a$d5 The Stoics hold3 afte$ all3 that the pain I feel in 4y foot is not
$eally in 4y foot3 .ut in the he'e4oni%on3 althou'h it is ce$tainly o.-ious to co44on
sense that if I feel it any0he$e3 it has to .e in 4y foot5 =hy not 'i-e a si4ila$ account of
the fact that fea$3 elation3 and so on a$e felt in the hea$tG =e could feel fea$ and othe$
e4otions in the hea$t3 and yet it could .e t$ue that 0hat is felt in the hea$t is /ust the
e(pe$ience 0hich is $e'iste$ed in the he'e4oni%on 5 If the Stoics had .een p$epa$ed to
'i-e an account of the e4otions unifo$4 0ith thei$ account of pain3 they could ha-e
a$'ued that the he'e4oni%on 0as in the head3 e-en thou'h fea$ is felt in the hea$t5 It is
not clea$ 0hy !h$ysippus found co44on sense so 4uch 4o$e co4pellin' 0he$e the
e4otions a$e conce$ned5CK+D
Ho0e-e$3 0e should not .e too $eady to follo0 ancient c$itics in $e'a$din' !h$ysippus9
4o-e as 4e$ely $et$o'$ade science5 Rathe$3 he is inte$p$etin' li4ited scientific
disco-e$ies in the li'ht of a philosophical theo$y a.out the soul and 4a%in' the
assu4ption3 'ene$ally unBuestioned3 that co44on sense fo$4s a const$aint a'ainst
e(tensi-e $e-isions of ou$ -ie0s a.out 0hat the soul is5
CK1DCK+D
; K* ;
2
Pe$cei-in' and Thin%in'
a8 Pe$cei-in'
Pe$ception and i4pulse define soul3 0hich 4a$%s off ani4als and hu4ans f$o4 plants5
The Stoics ha-e e(tensi-e accounts of .oth the 0ay 0e pe$cei-e3 and the 0ay 0e $eact to3
the 0o$ld a$ound us5 A pe$ception is3 as 0e 0ould e(pect3 a physical e-ent5 #ut it is one
0hich c$ucially in-ol-es thou'ht and lan'ua'e6 the Stoic theo$y3 thou'h in so4e 0ays
unde-eloped3 is the 4ost inte$estin' ancient account of pe$ception3 and the one 0hich
4ost syste4atically e(plo$es the aspect of pe$ception that 0e call content5C*D
:Pe$ception 7aisthesis 8 is said .y the Stoics to .e 7*8 the pneu4a e(tendin' 7die%on 8 to
the senses 7aistheseis 83 7F8 the app$ehension th$ou'h the43 728 the 4a%eup of the sense
o$'ans3 in 0hich so4e people a$e defecti-e5:CFD Thus :pe$ception:
C*DCFD
; KF ;
is used of the enti$e physical p$ocess3 includin' the .odily pa$ts in-ol-ed5 The 0o$%in's
of the senses ha-e a unifo$4 e(planation in te$4s of pneu4aP the 0ay in 0hich :.ody
affects .ody: in the case of the soul has to .e .y pneu4atic tension5 Hence the$e can .e
little to say a.out the diffe$ences .et0een the senses3 e(cept that pneu4atic tension ta%es
a pheno4enolo'ically diffe$ent fo$45 So4eti4es co4plications a$e $eBui$edH0ith the
distance senses3 fo$ e(a4ple3 since pneu4a3 .ein' .ody3 has to function .y contact5 =ith
hea$in'3 the pneu4a in the ea$s 4a%es contact 0ith the distu$.ance in the ai$ caused .y
the soundin' o./ect5 #ut si'ht is ha$de$3 fo$ it is counte$intuiti-e to suppose that o./ects
distu$. the ai$ /ust .y .ein' seen5 The solution is that the seein'Epneu4a in the eye 4a%es
an o./ect -isi.le .y :tensin': the ai$Epneu4a into a %ind of illu4inated cone 0ith the
o./ect at .ase and eye at ape(6 the tension of this ai$ is e(pe$ienced as si'ht5C2D The
p$o.le4 0ith this %ind of solution is not /ust that it is 0ildly 0$on'6 all ancient theo$ies
a$e fa$ off the 4a$%3 at least 0he$e seein' is conce$ned5 The p$o.le4 is $athe$ that 0e see
ho0 fatally easy it is to adapt pneu4a to theo$etical need3 0hen the$e is little o$ no
e4pi$ical const$aint on e(plainin' di-e$se pheno4ena .y di-e$se 0o$%in's of pneu4a 5
A pe$ception is 4o$e than a physical e-entHit is e(pe$ienced .y the pe$cei-e$ as
so4ethin' 0ith content 5 =hen discussin' pe$ception f$o4 this point of -ie03 $athe$ than
/ust 'i-in' the physical pneu4a sto$y3 the Stoics sepa$ate the t0o sta'es of appea$ance
7phantasia 8 and assent 7sun%atathesis 85 These a$e the4sel-es3 of cou$se3 .oth physical
e-ents5 An appea$ance is the 0ay so4ethin' appea$s to so4eone5 The notion is not
li4ited to pe$ceptual appea$ances3 .ut the Stoics in fact thin% that all appea$ances a$e
appea$ances to ou$ senses3 e-en thou'h this does not li4it the4 to p$o-idin' info$4ation
solely a.out 0hat is a-aila.le to the senses5 =hen an o./ect st$i%es a pe$cei-e$ in so4e
0ayH-isually3 tactually3 o$ 0hate-e$Hthe pe$cei-e$ $ecei-es an appea$ance5 The $esult
C2D
; K2 ;
is an :i4p$int: 7tuposis 8 in the soul5 :I4p$int: is a 4etapho$ f$o4 sta4pin' a seal3 and
the ea$ly Stoics unde$stood this in diffe$ent 0aysP
!leanthes unde$stood the i4p$int in te$4s of $ecess and p$o/ection3 /ust li%e the i4p$int
of seals on 0a(3 .ut !h$ysippus thou'ht such a thin' a.su$d6 fo$ fi$stly3 he says3 0hen the
4ind is p$esented 0ith 7phantasiou4enes 8 a t$ian'ula$ and a sBua$e thin' on one
occasion3 then the sa4e .ody 0ill at one and the sa4e ti4e ha-e $ound it t$ian'ula$ and
sBua$e shapes si4ultaneouslyHo$ e-en ci$cula$H0hich is a.su$d5 Also 0hen se-e$al
appea$ances co4e a.out in us si4ultaneously the soul 0ill contain fa$ too 4any shapes3
0hich is e-en 0o$se5 So he hi4self supposed that :i4p$int: 0as used .y Neno in place of
:alte$ation3: so that the definition is li%e thisP :An appea$ance is an alte$ation of the soul:6
so 0e no lon'e$ 'et the a.su$dity of the sa4e .ody9s $ecei-in' fa$ too 4any alte$ations at
one and the sa4e ti4e 0hen 4any appea$ances co4e to'ethe$ in us6 fo$ /ust as the ai$
$ecei-es countlessly 4any diffe$ent .lo0s to'ethe$ 0hen 4any people a$e tal%in' at
once3 and i44ediately sustains 4any alte$ations3 so the he'e4oni%on 0ill unde$'o
so4ethin' analo'ous to this 0hen it $ecei-es -a$ious p$esentations 7poi%ilos
phantasiou4enonD 85 7Se(t5 E4p5 Math5 K5 FF1O2* CR SV F5 IJD8
Appea$ances a$e $ep$esentations6 pe$ception is a p$ocess 0he$e.y thin's a$e $ep$esented
to the a'ent in -a$ious pheno4enolo'ically diffe$ent 4odes5 The Stoics st$ess this aspect
of pe$ception fa$ 4o$e than does A$istotle3 0ho also lays 4uch less e4phasis than they
do on the functional unity of the a'ent to 0ho4 thin's a$e $ep$esented .y the -a$ious
senses5C,D The e4phasis of the theo$y see4s to chan'e 0ith !h$ysippus3 /ud'E
C,D
; K, ;
in' f$o4 the a.o-e passa'e5 Neno and !leanthes appea$ to ha-e unde$stood the
$ep$esentati-e natu$e of appea$ances in a 0ay that has pe$enially .een found te4ptin'P an
appea$ance to a pe$cei-e$ of a $ound thin'3 say3 is itself in so4e 0ay $ound in fo$45
!h$ysippus sa0 that this can lead to a.su$dities3 and p$oduced a theo$y in 0hich the 4ind
is affected .y appea$ances3 .ut in a 0ay 0hich in-ol-es the $eception and a$ticulation of
info$4ation in lin'uistic fo$43 $athe$ than in-ol-in' i4a'es o$ anythin' si4ila$ in
st$uctu$e to the thin' $ep$esented5
Ho0 $adical is !h$ysippus9 chan'e to the ea$lie$ theo$yG It is easy to thin% of Neno and
!leanthes p$oducin' a classically .ad %ind of theo$y3 one 0hich pu$po$ts to e(plain ho0
the a'ent pe$cei-es3 say3 a $ound thin' .y 'ettin' so4ethin' $oundHthe $ep$esentationH
into the pe$cei-e$5 In a c$ude fo$43 this %ind of account clea$ly 4a%es no p$o'$ess3 since
the $ound ite4 inside the pe$cei-e$ still $eBui$es inte$p$etation and unde$standin' as 4uch
as the $ound ite4 outside the pe$cei-e$5 Ho0e-e$3 it is unce$tain /ust 0hat Neno and
!leanthes thou'ht 0as the $elation .et0een $ep$esentation and the pe$cei-e$9s $esponse3
CID and possi.ly they had so4ethin' 4o$e sophisticated in 4ind5 It 4ay ha-e .een that
they thou'ht of the i4p$int as so4ethin' con-eyin' the fo$4 o$ st$uctu$e of the thin'
pe$cei-ed3 and p$oducin' pe$ception .y 0ay of that st$uctu$e5 =e ha-e no idea of the
detail that they 0ould ha-e $eBui$ed to spell out this idea in any plausi.le %ind of 0ay3
.ut it is not in p$inciple a .ad idea to thin% that a $ep$esentation functions .y .ein' in
so4e 0ay li%e in st$uctu$e to 0hat it $ep$esents5 This is in no 0ay inco4pati.le 0ith the
idea that the info$4ation con-eyed could .e spelled out in lin'uistic fo$45 And so
!h$ysippus 4ay 0ell ha-e co4plicated3 $athe$ than $eplaced3 his p$edecesso$s9 theo$y5 At
any $ate f$o4 !h$ysippus on0a$d 0hat 0as found 4ost st$i%in' a.out the theo$y 0as the
e(tent to 0hich it analyAed pe$ception in te$4s of the
CID
; KI ;
$eception of content and its a$ticulation in lin'uistic fo$45 #ut this does not e(clude the
thou'ht that a pe$ceptual appea$ance $ep$esents its o./ect in a 0ay 0hich is li%e it in
fo$45 Indeed3 so4e such app$oach offe$s a 'ood chance of doin' /ustice to the %inds of
pheno4enolo'ical diffe$ence that the$e a$e .et0een the senses5
Assent is an e-ent in the soul also3 in 0hich the soul $eacts $athe$ than /ust .ein' affected5
A.out this 0e ha-e only 4etapho$ f$o4 Neno5 He 0ould hold out his hand and co4pa$e
the outst$etched hand to appea$ance6 closin' the fin'e$s a little he co4pa$ed to assent5CJD
#ut as 0ell as .ein' physical e-ents3 appea$ance and assent in-ol-e 0hat I ha-e called
content3 0hich the Stoics e(plain in te$4s of $easonP :Of appea$ances3 so4e a$e $ational
7lo'i%ai 8 and so4e non$ational 7alo'oi 8P $ational a$e those of $ational ani4als3
non$ational3 of ani4als that a$e non$ational5 The $ational ones a$e thou'hts 7noeseis 83 the
non$ational ones ha-e no na4e5:CKD In hu4ans3 $ational ani4als3 $eason is in-ol-ed in
e-e$y 4ental e-ent6 this is e(plained in the case of pe$ception .y sayin' that ou$
appea$ances3 the 0ay thin's st$i%e us pe$ceptually3 a$e actually thou'hts5 Pe$cei-in' is
thin%in'3 not the $eception of $a0 data5 Pe$cei-in' and thin%in' a$e not sepa$ate faculties6
fo$ hu4ans the$e is no 0ay of ta%in' in info$4ation a.out the 0o$ld that does not in-ol-e
thin%in'5
This is fu$the$ e(plicated .y the association of $ationality and thin%in' 0ith the use of
lan'ua'e5 An appea$ance is $ational3 o$ is a thou'ht3 .ecause it in so4e 0ay contains o$
$ealiAes content 0hich can .e a$ticulated in lan'ua'eP :The appea$ance leads the 0ay3 and
then thin%in'3 0hich can e(p$ess itself in lan'ua'e 7e%laleti%e 83 puts fo$0a$d in lan'ua'e
0hat the effect p$oduced .y the appea$ance is5:C1D =e can e(p$ess this .y sayin' that fo$
hu4ans thei$ appea$ances ha-e
CJDCKDC1D
; KJ ;
content3 0hich can .e a$ticulated in lan'ua'e5 =e could call this content p$opositional
content3 since it is e(p$essed in a p$oposition o$ :saya.le3: a le%ton 5
:A le%ton su.sists in a 0ay co$$espondin' to a $ational appea$ance3 and a $ational
appea$ance is one 0he$e one can esta.lish in lan'ua'e the o./ect of the appea$ance5:C+D
A saya.le o$ le%to$ is 0hat is e(p$essed o$ 4eant in an utte$ance6 it is :0hat is said: 0hen
so4eone uses lan'ua'e3 in a .$oad use of :sayin': 0hich co-e$s not only state4ents .ut
p$aye$s3 co44ands3 0ishes3 and 4o$e5 7St$ictly3 this is a co4plete le%ton6 the$e a$e also
inco4plete le%ta co$$espondin' to pa$ts of utte$ances3 nota.ly p$edicates3 0hich 0ill .e
conside$ed in the chapte$ on action5 In this section3 le%ton is used fo$ a co4plete le%ton 58
C*MD A le%ton is inco$po$eal and thus is not to .e identified 0ith any thou'hts o$ 0ith any
of 0hat 'oes on in one9s head 0hen one says so4ethin'5 It is in so4e 0ays te4ptin' to
identify le%ta 0ith 4eanin's and to ta%e co4plete le%ta to .e p$opositions3 0he$e
p$opositions a$e thou'ht of as the 4eanin's of sentences5C**D Ho0e-e$3 le%ta ha-e so4e
p$ope$ties 0hich p$opositions3 ta%en as the 4eanin's of sentences3 do not usually ha-e5
They a$e tensed6 they can chan'e thei$ t$uth -alue3 and they can :pe$ish: o$ 'o out of
e(istence5 Thus they a$e not to .e identified 0ith 0hat is 4eant .y a sentence 0he$e that
is thou'ht of as .ein' ti4elessly t$ue5 On the othe$ hand3 they cannot .e identified 0ith
0hat is 4eant on a pa$ticula$ occasion6 othe$0ise they could not chan'e thei$ t$uth -alue5
C*FD In this conte(t 0hat is 4ost i4po$tant a.out le%ta is that they a$e 0hat is con-eyed
in lan'ua'e3 and a$e not to .e identified eithe$ 0ith the lan'ua'e itself o$ 0ith the thin' o$
state of affai$s $efe$$ed toP
C+DC*MDC**DC*FD
; KK ;
The thin' si'nifyin' is the utte$ance3 :>ion3: fo$ e(a4ple6 the thin' si'nified Cthe
le%ton D is the actual thin' sho0n .y it3 0hich 0e '$asp as it su.sists fo$ ou$ thou'ht3 and
0hich fo$ei'ne$s do not unde$stand althou'h they hea$ the utte$ance6 the $efe$ent is the
e(te$nal o./ect3 fo$ e(a4ple3 >ion hi4self5 7Se(t5 E4p5 Math5 15 *F CR SV F5 *JJD8
"e%ta a$e con-eyed in lan'ua'e6 in ou$ 4inds they a$e con-eyed in a lan'ua'e of
thou'ht5
Pe$ception in hu4ans in-ol-es le%ta3 since it in-ol-es $ecei-in' an appea$ance 0hich is a
$ational appea$ance3 one containin' p$opositional content3 and also in-ol-es assent to the
le%ton e(p$essin' the content of that appea$ance5 Pe$ception3 in othe$ 0o$ds3 4ay .e an
e(pe$ience 0ith a ce$tain %ind of pheno4enolo'ical feel3 .ut 4o$e i4po$tantly it is
$eception of and co44it4ent to info$4ation a.out 0hat is pe$cei-ed5 In pe$ception3 only
one %ind of le%ton is in-ol-ed3 na4ely3 state4ents o$ a(io4ata6 fo$ pe$ception in-ol-es
assent to so4ethin'9s .ein' the case3 not to a 0ish o$ a p$aye$ o$ an i4pe$ati-e that it .e
the case5C*2D And a(io4ata o$ state4ents a$e le%ta 0hich a$e t$ue o$ false3 as opposed to
co44ands3 p$aye$s3 and so on5C*,D Thus in a pe$ception the$e is an appea$ance 0hich
contains o$ $ealiAes content3 and an assent in the pe$son9s soul to a state4ent 0hich
a$ticulates this content5 Pe$ception is a ta%in' in of3 and $eco'nition of3 info$4ation6 to
ha-e a pe$ception is to assent to the t$uth of a state4ent 0hich is t$ue o$ false3 and thus to
ha-e a co$$espondin' .elief5C*ID
C*2DC*,DC*ID
; K1 ;
Assent3 0hich occu$s in e-e$y pe$ception3 is o.-iously not a conscious act3 o$ lite$ally
a$ticulated in 0o$ds5 The Stoics a$e co44itted to ou$ 4ental life consistin' in la$'e pa$t
of the 4a%in' of state4ents in a 4ental lan'ua'e o$ lan'ua'e of thou'ht6 insofa$ as this
occu$s in e-e$y pe$ception3 0e a$e o.-iously not a0a$e of it3 and its natu$e cannot .e
indicated pheno4enolo'ically5 It is pe$haps .est concei-ed .y co4pa$in' an ani4al9s
instincti-e $eaction to a sti4ulus 0ith a $eaction to the sa4e o./ect on the pa$t of a
hu4an3 0ho conceptualiAes the o./ect 4o$e o$ less accu$ately and fo$ 0ho4 it can ha-e
4any diffe$ent %inds of si'nificance5 Indeed so4e of ou$ sou$ces o-e$state this point .y
clai4in' that fo$ hu4ans pe$ceptions a$e assents5C*JD This is a 0ayHan unnecessa$ily
pa$ado(ical 0ay3 as 0e so4eti4es find 0ith the StoicsHof puttin' the point that
pe$ception essentially in-ol-es assent5 #y e(cludin' facto$s othe$ than assent at ti4es3 the
Stoics a$e 4a%in' the point that pe$ception is not a t0oEsta'e p$ocessP $eception of an
uninte$p$eted senso$y 'i-en plus a sepa$a.le conceptualiAation of it5 The$e a$e no
pe$ceptions 0hich do not in-ol-e conceptualiAation and thin%in'P a ?antian %ind of
thesis3 fo$ 0hich ?ant 0as3 a'ain3 to p$o-ide fa$ 4o$e co4ple( a$'u4ents5
It is cent$al to the Stoic analysis that 0hen I pe$cei-e an o./ect3 one and the sa4e ite43
the appea$ance3 is .oth a physical alte$ation of 4y soulEpneu4a and an ite4 $ealiAin'
p$opositional content3 0hich can .e assented to and p$oduces a t$ue o$ false .elief5 The$e
ha-e to .e ite4s 0ith .oth these aspects6 othe$0ise 0e could not 'i-e an adeBuate
account of hu4an3 as opposed to ani4al3 pe$ception5 Mode$n philosophe$s of 4ind 0ho
see the 4atte$ in .$oadly this 0ay di-ide on the deep Buestion of 0hethe$ 0e 4ay assu4e
that the$e a$e ite4s 0ith .oth these aspects o$ 0hethe$ the pa$t of the sto$y in-ol-in'
content should ulti4ately .e $educed to a pu$ely physical sto$y5 The Stoics a$e not
te4pted to any $educti-e
C*JD
; K+ ;
p$o'$a4 and do not ha-e any 0o$$ies a.out the $ole of le%ta in thei$ philosophy of 4ind
in pa$ticula$5
Ho0e-e$3 the$e is a p$o.le4 in p$inciple 0ith le%ta3 0hich a$'ua.ly .eco4es 4o$e
salient in the philosophy of 4ind5 The Stoics a$e physicalistsP e-e$ythin' that e(ists is
physical5 Ho0e-e$3 as 0e ha-e seen3 they allo0 that so4e thin's :su.sist: 0ithout
e(istin'3 li%e ti4e and place and le%ta 5 =hat does :su.sistence: co4e do0n toG It is .est
thou'ht of as a de-ice fo$ ena.lin' us to e(plain the fact that 0e 4a%e state4ents3 0hich
appea$ to .e t$ue state4ents3 a.out thin's 0hich do not e(ist3 since they a$e not physical
pa$ticula$s5 Places su.sist in that 0e can tal% t$uly a.out thin's that do e(ist .ein' in
places3 althou'h places do not e(ist5 Si4ila$ly3 le%ta o$ saya.les su.sist in that 0e can
tal% t$uly a.out people sayin' 7co44andin'3 p$ayin'3 and so on8 thin's3 althou'h le%ta
a$e not physical pa$ticula$s5 These ite4s a$e not li%e fictional entities in that they ha-e a
le'iti4ate place in ou$ atte4pts to desc$i.e and e(plain the 0o$ld6 .ut since they a$e not
physical3 they do not e(ist3 and3 since they do not e(ist3 they can ha-e no place in a causal
sto$y5
#ut ho0 can ite4s 0ith no causal po0e$ the4sel-es 4a%e the -e$y $eal diffe$ence
.et0een ani4al and hu4an pe$ceptionG Is this not a diffe$ence that has to .e spelled out
causally3 in te$4s of a physical p$ocessG The Stoics 4eet one aspect of this p$o.le46 the
4ind o$ he'e4oni%on of hu4ans can .e affected .y le%ta3 they say3 althou'h it is not a
di$ect causal influence3 since the hu4an 4ind is the %ind of thin' that can $espond3
0ithout physical contact3 to the content of an appea$ance5 A pupil can i4itate o$ $ep$esent
the 4o-e4ents of a d$ill inst$ucto$3 0ithout .ein' physically 4anipulated .y the
inst$ucto$ .ut /ust .y $espondin' to the inst$ucto$9s o0n 4o-e4ents in a 0ay that
p$oduces $ep$esentations of the45 Si4ila$ly3 the hu4an 4ind can $espond to physical
sti4ulations in a 0ay 0hich p$oduces $ep$esentations of thei$ content3 althou'h the
content does not itself p$oduce a physical effect5C*KD
C*KD
; 1M ;
The Stoic position thus see4s to .e analo'ous to that of 4ode$n theo$ies 0hich hold that
ou$ a.ility to $ep$esent content to ou$sel-es is not to .e e(plained causally3 .ut $ests on a
fact of a diffe$ent %ind5 The$e is a .asic iso4o$phis4 .et0een t0o st$uctu$esP the
st$uctu$e of causal inte$$elations3 in 0hich the physical states of the 0o$ld and of the
pe$cei-e$ a$e e4.edded3 and the st$uctu$e of se4antic inte$$elations3 in 0hich is
e4.edded the si'nification of the content of the physical states5 Thus ou$ 4inds $ep$esent
the content of the physical states in-ol-ed in pe$ception3 .ut not .ecause of causal
inte$action5 Si4ila$ly3 the Stoics say that ou$ 4inds a$e affected :not .y 7hupo 8 le%ta .ut
in $elation to 7epi 8 the45:C*1D This is a hi'hly i4po$tant point3 and it is a '$eat pity that
ou$ e(tant sou$ces a$e not 4o$e fo$thco4in' on it6 the Stoics the4sel-es do not see4 to
ha-e found the point as p$o.le4atic as they should ha-e5
The Stoic account of pe$ception is st$i%in'ly 4o$e adeBuate and inte$estin' than that of3
fo$ e(a4ple3 A$istotle3 0ho $eco'niAes only in a spo$adic and unenthusiastic 0ay the
a$ticula.le content of pe$ception5C*+D Not the least ad-anta'e is that the o./ects of
pe$ception a$e not tied to A$istotelian special sensi.lesHcolo$3 sound3 and so onHand
co44on sensi.les3
C*1DC*+D
; 1* ;
li%e shape5 =e can pe$cei-e -alues3 fo$ e(a4ple3 since these ce$tainly appea$ to us3 and
the i4p$int of the4 can .e $ealiAed in a p$oposition and assented to in a state4ent5
In Stoicis4 ou$ 4ental acts a$e3 /ust as 4uch as the $est of the 0o$ld9s e-ents3 pa$t of the
continuous chain of causes 0hich is ate5 Assent 0ill .e a p$oduct of cha$acte$ and ha.it
and one9s past up to that point5 The Stoics do not infe$ f$o4 this that pe$ception is /ust
so4ethin' that happens in us3 0ithout .ein' up to us to .$in' a.out o$ 4odify5 Rathe$3
.ecause they thin% that the :p$incipal cause: of 0hat 0e do is ou$sel-es3 ou$ p$esent state
and the 0ay this has de-eloped into ou$ cha$acte$3 they thin% that the$e a$e diffe$ences
.et0een 0hat people can pe$cei-e3 and that these diffe$ences a$e due to the people
the4sel-es3 0ho can .e held $esponsi.le fo$ the45 T0o people can loo% at the sa4e
o./ectHfo$ e(a4ple3 a t$ee5 #ut one o.se$-e$ 4e$ely sees a t$ee6 the othe$3 0ho %no0s
4o$e3 sees a sil-e$ .i$ch5 In a pe$fectly 'ood sense3 they a$e seein' the sa4e thin'3 .ut
they see it diffe$ently3 in 0ays that $eflect diffe$ences .et0een the45 7And note that the
one 0ith 4o$e %no0led'e has a .ette$ clai4 to .e seein' the 0o$ld as it $eally is6 the t$ee
$eally is a sil-e$ .i$ch3 not /ust a t$ee58
>iffe$ent people3 then3 0ill ha-e diffe$ent pe$ceptual .eliefs 0hen faced .y the sa4e
o./ects3 .ecause they ha-e diffe$ent thou'hts 0hich $eflect thei$ diffe$ent de'$ees of
unde$standin' of 0hat is 'i-en the4 in the appea$ances5 This e(plains 0hy the Stoics put
so 4uch st$ess on ou$ de-elopin' 'ood ha.its in the 0ay 0e deal 0ith appea$ances5
:Nonp$ecipitancy is %no0led'e of 0hen one should assent3 and 0hen not5 5 5 5
Nonf$i-olity is a state of $efe$$in' appea$ances to $i'ht $eason5:CFMD
:So4e appea$ances a$e e(pe$t 7techni%ai 83 othe$s ine(pe$t6 at any $ate a pictu$e is
o.se$-ed diffe$ently .y an e(pe$t and an ine(pe$t pe$son5:CF*D A none(pe$t 0ill /ust see
fi'u$es6 the e(pe$t 0ill see fi'u$es that $ep$esent 'ods5 The e(pe$t is $i'htH the$e $eally is
that si'nificanceHand the none(pe$t is 4issin'
CFMDCF*D
; 1F ;
so4ethin'5CFFD =hat is 4o$e su$p$isin' to us is the clai4 that the appea$ance is itself
:e(pe$t5: The e(pe$t is not seein' anythin' that is not the$e fo$ the i'no$a4us to see5 It is
the fault of the i'no$a4us that he fails to see 0hat is the$e to .e seen3 .ecause he fails to
unde$stand the content of 0hat is p$esented to hi45
So4e appea$ances a$e :e(pe$t:6 othe$s a$e :c$edi.le5: The Stoics also thin% that so4e a$e
:app$ehensi-e: o$ %atalepticP they $ep$esent thei$ o./ect faithfully and could not fail to do
this3 so that if you ha-e one3 you '$asp its o./ect and could not .e 0$on' a.out it5
Schola$s ha-e .een t$ou.led that the appea$ances the4sel-es ha-e these p$ope$ties6
should it not depend on us 0hethe$ an appea$ance is3 fo$ e(a4ple3 c$edi.leGCF2D #ut the
Stoics ope$ate 0ith an assu4ption defended in thei$ 4etaphysicsP this 0o$ld is the $ichest
possi.le5 O./ects $eally do ha-e all the p$ope$ties that 0e can pe$cei-e the4 to ha-eP the
t$ee $eally is a sil-e$ .i$ch3 not /ust a t$ee6 the fi'u$es in the pictu$e $eally do $ep$esent
'ods5 The appea$ances they i4p$int on us $eflect this $ichnessP the t$ee 'i-es us the
appea$ance of a sil-e$ .i$ch6 the pictu$e 'i-es us the appea$ance of fi'u$es that $ep$esent
'ods5 =e 4ay3 of cou$se3 ha-e confused and inadeBuate thou'hts3 and if 0e do3 0e 0ill
ha-e confused and inadeBuate pe$ceptions5 Mo$e %no0led'e3 and the e(e$cise of the
intellectual -i$tues3 0ill en$ich and cla$ify ou$ thou'hts3 and 0e 0ill see the t$ee and
pictu$e 4o$e clea$ly and %no0led'ea.ly5 The$e is a sense in 0hich 0e a$e seein' the
sa4e thin's3 .ut the$e is also a sense in 0hich 0e a$e seein' the4 fo$ the fi$st ti4e5
The Stoics say disappointin'ly little a.out the e(act $elation .et0een the appea$ance and
the state4ent assented to3 0hich contains the content of the appea$ance3 and the$e a$e t0o
diffe$ent 4odels each of 0hich can captu$e the a.o-e position3
CFFDCF2D
; 12 ;
na4ely3 that pe$ception is pa$tially dependent on the pe$cei-e$5 One is thisP 0e all ta%e in
the sa4e appea$ances3 .ut the i'no$ant and the %no0led'ea.le 0ill assent to diffe$ent
state4ents on the .asis of the45 The i'no$a4us ta%es in the appea$ance of a sil-e$ .i$ch6
he$ $esultin' 4ea'e$ .elief that she is seein' a t$ee $esults f$o4 he$ assentin' to only pa$t
of the info$4ation contained in the appea$ance5 This pictu$e does /ustice to the $ealist side
of the theo$yP 0e all pe$cei-e the sa4e 0o$ld5 Nonetheless3 it in effect int$oduces t0o
sta'es of a %indP $eception of info$4ation and selecti-e assent to it5
The alte$nati-e pictu$e st$esses the point that pe$ceptions a$e assentsP to ha-e a pe$ception
/ust is to $ecei-e an appea$ance and to assent to all the info$4ation in it5 Thus the $elation
.et0een the appea$ance and the state4ent is -e$y di$ectP an appea$ance contains a sin'le
state4ent3 and ha-in' that appea$ance /ust is assentin' to the info$4ation contained in the
appea$ance and e(p$essed in that state4ent5 On this 4odel3 the diffe$ences .et0een the
i'no$ant and the %no0led'ea.le a$e accounted fo$ .y thei$ ha-in' diffe$ent appea$ances5
Ho0 is this co4pati.le 0ith the thou'ht that appea$ances the4sel-es a$e e(pe$t3
%ataleptic3 and so onG Indeed3 if they a$e3 the$e 4ust .e so4ethin' a.out the pe$cei-e$s
the4sel-es 0hich e(plains thei$ endin' up 0ith diffe$ent pe$ceptual .eliefs5 Appea$ances3
on this -ie03 0ill .e the sa4e fo$ e-e$yone in the /ou$ney f$o4 o./ect to sense o$'an6 .ut
in the fu$the$ /ou$ney f$o4 sense o$'an to 4ind they 0ill .e affected .y the pe$cei-e$9s
o-e$all state3 0hich e(p$esses itself in pneu4atic tension5 The i'no$a4us assents to a
-a'ue o$ 0$on' state4ent .ecause only a -a'ue o$ 0$on' appea$ance has 4ade its 0ay to
the he'e4oni%on6 info$4ation has .een lost en $oute f$o4 sense o$'an to he'e4oni%on
0hich in a pe$son 0ith 4o$e cohe$ent and fi$4e$ .eliefs3 and thus st$on'e$ tension3 0ould
ha-e .een $etained5 Thus 4y pe$ceptions3 and hence 4y pe$ceptual .eliefs3 a$e a function
of t0o facto$sP the 0ay the 0o$ld i4pin'es on 4e3 and 4y o-e$all psychic state5
Appea$ances thus unde$dete$4ine the pe$ceptual .eliefs that pe$cei-e$s 0ill co4e up
0ith5 >iffe$ence in de'$ees of
; 1, ;
%no0led'ea.ility 0ill 4a%e least diffe$ence 0ith '$oss physical o./ects li%e t$ees and
ta.les5 Ho0e-e$3 0e can see that in the case of -alues3 fo$ e(a4ple3 diffe$ences 4i'ht .e
la$'e$ and 4atte$ 4o$e5 The case of -alues also sho0s us that diffe$ences 0ill not al0ays
co4e do0n 4e$ely to de'$ees of dete$4inateness6 the Stoics thin% that 4ost people a$e
$adically 0$on' in thei$ 4o$al /ud'4ents and that this is .ecause in thei$ deli.e$ations
they see Buite the 0$on' thin's as .ein' 4o$ally salient5
The e-idence does not $eally co4pel us to eithe$ of these inte$p$etations5 No$3
unfo$tunately3 is it p$ecise on anothe$ i4po$tant 4atte$P the e(act fo$4 of pe$ceptual
.eliefEstate4ents5 P$esu4a.ly these a$e the sa4e in fo$4 as o$dina$y state4ents 0hich
0e no$4ally utte$5 If so3 then the t$uth -alues of the co4pound state4ents 0ill .e 'i-en
.y the t$uth conditions of the ato4ic state4ents to'ethe$ 0ith the $ules fo$ the lo'ical
constants in Stoic lo'ic5CF,D =hat of the t$uth conditions fo$ the ato4ic onesG o$ the
Stoics3 an ato4ic state4ent is t$ue if one of t0o conditions is fulfilled5 One is that it is a
definite state4ent3 one in 0hich the $efe$$in' te$4 is a sin'ula$ te$4 4a%in' di$ect
$efe$ence3 such as :He 7that 4an8 is 0al%in'5: 7And3 of cou$se3 that the 0o$ld is as the
definite state4ent says it isHthat he is in fact 0al%in'58 The othe$ is that the$e is a t$ue
co$$espondin' definite state4ent5 o$ e(a4ple3 :So4e.ody is 0al%in': is t$ue if :He is
0al%in': is t$ue5 If 0e a$e to thin% of ou$ inne$ pe$ceptual .eliefEstate4ents on the sa4e
4odel3 then it 0ould appea$ that the t$uth of ou$ o$dina$y pe$ceptual clai4s 0ill depend
st$ai'htfo$0a$dly on the t$uth of definite state4ents $epo$tin' pe$ceptual ostensions3
pointin's out of pe$ceptual p$ope$ties5 Ho0e-e$3 no e(tant Stoic te(t e(plo$es this aspect
of the theo$y5
So fa$ 0e ha-e .een e(a4inin' standa$d3 no$4al pe$ception5 The Stoics a$e not -e$y
inte$ested in a.no$4al pe$ceptual e(pe$iences no$ in in-esti'atin' the pheno4ena of
sleep3
CF,D
; 1I ;
d$ea4s3 and the li%e5 Sleep is .$usBuely said to .e a :slac%enin' of the pe$cepti-e tension
$ound the he'e4oni%on 5:CFID The$e is a diffe$ence .et0een appea$ance 7phantasia 8 and
4e$e appea$in' 7phantas4a 8P the latte$ a$e :see4in's in the 4ind such as happen in
sleep5:CFJD Mad4en ha-e appea$ances 0hich do not co4e f$o4 any $eal o./ect5CFKD o$
the Stoics these fo$4 a collection of not -e$y inte$estin' facts3 0hich can easily .e
e(plained in a 0holly natu$alistic 0ayP the senso$y appa$atus of sleepe$s and the 4ad is
not functionin' p$ope$ly3 and it leads the4 to ta%e as the appea$ance of an o./ect 0hat is
not so5 Nothin' philosophically si'nificant han's on it5
It is easy to see 0hy this is so5 o$ the Stoics3 these cases a$e not episte4olo'ically
i4po$tant5 7The sceptics thin% they a$e6 .ut that is pa$t of anothe$ sto$y58CF1D The Stoics
thin% that thei$ natu$alistic theo$ies 'i-e the4 e-e$y $i'ht to say3 0ith !h$ysippus3 that the
appea$ances of the 0a%in' /ust a$e clea$e$ than those of the sleepin'5CF+D This is not to .e
const$ued as an episte4olo'ical clai43 no$ is it a $epo$t on the pheno4enolo'y of the
e(pe$iences5 It is at .otto4 a scientific clai4 a.out the unified syste4 of pneu4a and
ho0 it 0o$%s in o$dina$y and a.no$4al ci$cu4stances5
u$the$3 the Stoics do not feel the inte$est in these cases fo$ thei$ o0n sa%e that3 fo$
e(a4ple3 A$istotle does6 and $easona.ly5 Once the enti$e life of the 4ind is to .e
e(plained in te$4s of the ope$ation of pneu4a3 it is o.-ious that the$e is nothin' to say
a.out sleep3 d$ea4s3 and so on e(cept that they a$e due to 0hate-e$ tu$ns out to .e the
app$op$iate tautenin' o$ $ela(in' of pneu4atic tension5C2MD
CFIDCFJDCFKDCF1DCF+DC2MD
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; 1J ;
.8 Thin%in'
The Stoics ha-e no sepa$ate account of thin%in'6 afte$ pe$ception3 inte$est shifts to the
episte4olo'ical notions of app$ehension and %no0led'e5 $o4 the account of pe$ception
0e can see 0hy6 to unde$stand 0hat pe$cei-in' is3 is al$eady to unde$stand 0hat thin%in'
is5 Thin%in' is the a$ticulation of content in pe$cei-in'5
This is 0hat 0e 0ould e(pect f$o4 tho$ou'h'oin' e4pi$icists3 and the$e a$e t0o
i4po$tant co$olla$ies5 One is that the Stoics ha-e no conceptual $oo4 fo$ pu$e thin%in'3
0he$e that is ta%en to .e thin%in' that is in no 0ay $eliant on e(pe$ience5 In opposition to
the Platonic and A$istotelian t$aditions3 they ta%e all thou'ht to .e de-eloped th$ou'h
e(pe$ience and .y $eflection on e(pe$ience5 Such a -ie0 faces p$o.le4s in accountin' fo$
4athe4atical thin%in'6 indeed fo$ the Stoics 4athe4atics can only .e -e$y a.st$act
science5 They say al4ost nothin' a.out it and fail to e(plain 0hy 4ost 4athe4aticians
7and philosophe$s influenced .y 4athe4atics3 li%e Plato8 .elie-e that 4athe4atical
thin%in' does not depend on e(pe$ience5 In %eepin' 0ith this3 they $e/ect3 in thei$ ethics3
the Platonic -ie0 that philosophy is a peculia$ly a.st$act %ind of thin%in' li%e
4athe4atics3 and do not thin% that the only app$op$iate life fo$ a philosophe$ is the
:conte4plati-e: life so -alued .y Plato and A$istotle3 the life de-oted to a.st$act study5
Anothe$ co$olla$y is that they 'i-e a hi'hly e4pi$icist account of concept fo$4ation5 The
4ind o$ he'e4oni%on is at .i$th li%e .lan% pape$3 and e(pe$ience 0$ites on it5 Sin'le
e(pe$iences .uild up 4e4o$y3 and in the no$4al cou$se of e-ents 0e 0ill natu$ally .uild
up .oth p$econceptions 7p$olepseis 83 0ays of conceptualiAin' 0hat 0e pe$cei-e3 and
concepts 7ennoiai 83 0hich a$e theo$etical and $ely on teachin'5 !oncept fo$4ation is
e(plained enti$ely in te$4s of ou$ a.ility
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CD
; 1K ;
to inte$p$et and 'ene$aliAe f$o4 the pa$ticula$ data of sense 0hich conf$ont us5 The Stoics
he$e selfEconsciously oppose an e4pi$icist account to one 0hich holds that so4ethin'
li%e Platonic o$4s is $eBui$ed to e(plain ho0 0e can e4ploy concepts5C2*D
In a .$utally a..$e-iated passa'e in one of ou$ sou$ces 0e find an e-en 4o$e sta$%ly
e4pi$icist pictu$eP
Thin's thou'ht of a$e thou'ht of li%e this 5 5 5 .y contact3 pe$cepti-e thin's6 .y
$ese4.lance3 analo'ous to 0hat is p$esent3 fo$ e(a4ple3 Soc$ates f$o4 his pictu$e6 .y
analo'y3 eithe$ .y inc$ease3 li%e Tityos o$ the !yclops3 o$ .y lessenin'3 li%e the Py'4y5
7The cente$ of the ea$th 0as thou'ht of .y analo'y f$o4 s4alle$ sphe$es58 #y
t$ansposition3 fo$ e(a4ple3 eyes on the chest6 .y co4position the Hippocentau$ is thou'h
of6 .y opposition3 death5 So4e thin's a$e thou'ht of .y a %ind of t$ansposition3 li%e le%ta
and space5 It is .y natu$e that /ust and 'ood a$e thou'ht of6 also .y p$i-ation3 fo$ e(a4ple3
handless5 7>5 "5 K5 I2 CR SV F5 1KD8
This is not a c$ude e4pi$icis43 fo$ the 4ind is not thou'ht of as passi-ely acceptin' o$
4echanically shufflin' a$ound the data p$o-ided .y e(pe$ience5 Rathe$3 the 4ind is
co4pletely in-ol-ed all alon' the line5 =e ha-e seen fo$4ulations such as that $ational
appea$ances a$e thou'hts3 and that pe$ceptions a$e assents5 These a$e conscious atte4pts
to a-oid t0oEsta'e analyses 0hich posit fi$st the senso$y 'i-en and then $ational
$eflection on it5
C2*D
; 1+ ;
,
Action
The soul is defined .y pe$ception and also .y i4pulse3 the acti-e and $eacti-e po0e$ in
the soul 0hich ena.les the ani4al not only to ta%e in info$4ation a.out the 0o$ld .ut also
to 4o-e a$ound and act in it5 :I4pulses a$e the o$i'in Co$ o$i'insD of action5:C*D
=e ha-e seen 7in chapte$ F3 section d8 that the Stoic account of the scale of .ein's laid
'$eat st$ess on the inc$eased co4ple(ity and fle(i.ility of 4o-e4ent in the case of thin's
0hich ha-e inc$eased pneu4atic tension3 and thus inc$eased functional unity5 In
pa$ticula$3 the$e is a '$eat diffe$ence .et0een ani4als and hu4ans in the 4atte$ of
i4pulse5 In ani4als i4pulses a$e called fo$th auto4atically and instinctually3 as 0ith the
spide$ 0hich spins a 0e. .ecause that is the 0ay it is .uilt to function5 Hu4ans3 ho0e-e$3
ha-e a choice as to 0hethe$ and ho0 they $eact to sti4uli5 Natu$e 'ets the c$edit fo$ 0hat
ani4als do3 :.ut $eason ha-in' .een 'i-en to $ational .ein's3 li-in' $i'htly acco$din' to
natu$e .eco4es fo$ the4 0hat is acco$din' to natu$e6 fo$ $eason supe$-enes as the
c$afts4an
C*D
; +M ;
of the i4pulse5:CFD Hence 0e a$e $esponsi.le fo$ ou$ actions as ani4als a$e not3 and a$e
p$aised and .la4ed acco$din'ly5
This sha$p line .et0een ani4al and hu4an action is one that 0e all d$a03 4o$e o$ less
unco4fo$ta.ly3 .ut the Stoics ce$tainly 0ent fa$the$ than needed in thei$ insistence on a
diffe$ence of %ind .et0een hu4ans and ani4als5 Since ani4als lac% $eason3 they clai4ed3
they do not ha-e e4otions o$ desi$es3 0hich $eBui$e $eason3 and ha-e 4e$ely an analo'ue
of these thin's5 The Stoics 0e$e uni4p$essed .y the co4ple(ity of so4e ani4al .eha-io$3
C2D continuin' to hold that ho0e-e$ si4ila$ ani4al .eha-io$ 4i'ht .e to hu4an3 its
e(planation had to .e co4pletely distinct5 Thus !h$ysippus held that 0hen a do' sniffs
do0n t0o out of th$ee t$ac%s and then 'oes off afte$ its p$ey do0n the thi$d 0ithout
sniffin'3 so4ethin' is 'oin' on in the do' of the fo$4 :Eithe$ p o$ B o$ $6 .ut not p and
not B3 so $5: #ut he denied that any thin%in' 0as 'oin' on in the do'6 the i4p$essi-e
natu$e of the case 4e$ely unde$lines ho0 i4p$essi-e natu$e is in the 0ay it 0o$%s in
non$ational ani4als5 !h$ysippus is not in the least te4pted to Bue$y the a.solute natu$e of
the distinction he d$a0s .et0een $ational and non$ational .ein's5C,D This is
uncon-incin'6 in the Hellenistic 0o$ld the$e 0as a continuin' de.ate on :the $eason of
ani4als3: and the Stoics 0e$e not uni-e$sally thou'ht to ha-e the .ette$ case5 u$the$3 the
Stoics see4 to ha-e .een affected fo$ the 0o$se .y holdin' to such a sha$p line .et0een
hu4ans and othe$ ani4als5 "i%e the late$ !a$tesians 0ho held that nonhu4an ani4als
0e$e 4e$e 4achines3 they 4o-ed too $eadily f$o4 the -ie0 that hu4ans a$e diffe$ent in
%ind f$o4 nonhu4an ani4als to a detach4ent f$o4 the feelin's and needs of those
ani4als5 The Stoics openly $e'a$ded the4 as $esou$ces fo$ hu4ans to use3 e-en sayin'
noto$iously false and silly thin's such as that the pi'9s soul is li%e a %ind of salt to
CFDC2DC,D
; +* ;
%eep the flesh f$o4 'oin' off3 so that 0e can eat it5CID The Stoics9 account of hu4an
4ental life 4a%es a '$eat ad-ance in st$essin' its $ational3 lan'ua'eEin-ol-in' natu$e5 It is
a pity that it has a shado0 side3 of conte4pt fo$ non$ational ani4als3 0hich do not use
lan'ua'e5 The Stoics a$e at any $ate inte$ested in i4pulse only as $e'a$ds its $ole in
hu4an action5 =hat 0e lose in .iolo'ical $ealis4 0e 'ain in a theo$y of i4pulse and
action 0hich is closely tied in 0ith Buestions of $esponsi.ility and action5CJD
=hat then distin'uishes a hu4an i4pulseG =e ha-e a useful3 thou'h /a$'onE$idden3
su44a$iAin' account of i4pulse in one sou$ceP
They say that 0hat 4o-es an i4pulse 7ho$4e 8 is nothin' .ut an i4pulso$y 7ho$4eti%e 8
appea$ance of 0hat is then and the$e app$op$iate3 and that i4pulse is in 'ene$al a
4o-e4ent of the soul to0a$d so4ethin'5 The species of i4pulse3 they say3 a$e o.se$-ed
to .e that 0hich co4e a.out in the $ational ani4als3 and that in the non$ational ones6 .ut
these ha-e no CdistinctD na4es6 fo$ desi$e 7o$e(is 8 is not $ational i4pulse3 .ut a species of
$ational i4pulse5 As fo$ $ational i4pulse3 it 0ould p$ope$ly .e defined .y sayin' that it is
a 4o-e4ent of the 4ind to0a$d so4ethin' in-ol-ed in actin'6 and to this is opposed
counte$i4pulse 7apho$4e 83 a %ind of 4o-e4ent Cof the 4ind a0ay f$o4 so4ethin' in
actin'D5 In a special sense3 they say that o$ousis is also i4pulse3 since it is a species of
p$actical i4pulse5 O$ousis is a 4o-e4ent of the 4ind to0a$d so4ethin' in the futu$e5 So
up to no0 :i4pulse: is used in fou$ 0ays and :counte$i4pulse: in t0o5 :I4pulse: is used
in fi-e 0ays if one adds the i4pulso$y state 7he(is ho$4eti%e 83 0hich they actually call
i4pulse in a
CIDCJD
special sense3 and f$o4 0hich i4pulses co4e a.out5 Of p$actical i4pulse the$e a$e
se-e$al species 5 5 5 includin' p$othesis3 an indication of acco4plish4ent6 epi.ole3 an
i4pulse .efo$e an i4pulse6 pa$as%eue3 an action .efo$e an action6 enchei$esis3 an i4pulse
to0a$d so4ethin' al$eady in hand6 hai$esis3 a .oulesis f$o4 $easonin' .y analo'y6
p$ohai$esis3 a hai$esis .efo$e a hai$esis6 .oulesis3 a $easona.le desi$e 7o$e(is 86 thelesis3 a
-olunta$y .oulesis 5 7A$ius >idy4us apud Sto.5 Ecl5 F5 1JO11 =achs4uth CR SV 25 *J+3
*K23 *K*D8CKD
$o4 this unp$epossessin' passa'e se-e$al points e4e$'e5 One is that i4pulses a$e
co$$elated 0ith :i4pulso$y appea$ances:6 he$e 0e should unde$stand :i4pulso$y: f$o4
i4pulse3 not the othe$ 0ay $ound5 The i4pulso$y appea$ances a$e /ust those that do in
fact p$oduce an i4pulse3 and the$e is no inte$estin' independent cate'o$iAation of these5
The Stoics a$e not ope$atin' 0ith a pictu$e of the 0o$ld in 0hich all facts a.out the 0o$ld
a$e ine$t3 and so need the addition of so4e 4yste$ious e(t$a in'$edient .efo$e action can
.e p$oduced in $esponse to the45 They accept the co44onsense pictu$e3 na4ely3 that
so4e facts do3 on occasion3 lead so4e people to act5 The$e is no special 4yste$y a.out
these cases6 this is /ust the %ind of fact that they a$e5 Anothe$ is that the Stoics appea$ at
least to ha-e .een consciously distancin' the4sel-es f$o4 A$istotle9s account of action6
A$istotle9s fa-o$ed te$4s o$e(is and p$ohai$esis appea$ in -e$y t$i-ial $oles5 #ut if the
Stoics 0e$e consciously distancin' the4sel-es3 it 0as not a success6 the te$4s $eappea$ed
in Epictetus in so4ethin' li%e A$istotle9s usa'e5C1D
CKDC1D
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; +2 ;
T0o hi'hly i4po$tant points e4e$'e f$o4 the passa'e5 On the one hand3 the$e a$e 4any
-e$y diffe$ent %inds of i4pulse to actionHin pa$ticula$3 one only touched on he$e3 .ut
c$ucial to the Stoics3 that .et0een desi$e fo$ -i$tue 7the only thin' that is 'ood8 and desi$e
fo$ othe$ thin's 70hich a$e 0o$th ha-in'3 .ut .y co4pa$ison 0ith -i$tue3 a$e
:indiffe$ent:85 #ut3 on the othe$ hand3 all these diffe$ent %inds of 4oti-ations can .e
'i-en a sin'le analysis3 fo$ they can all .e e(plained as an i4pulse5 This is a unifyin'
analysisHho0e-e$ co4ple( an intention3 ho0e-e$ to$tu$ed a decision3 the$e is so4ethin'
in .oth 0hich 0e can isolate as :the i4pulse:H.ut it is not $educti-e5 =e a$e findin' a
co44on fo$43 not a lo0est co44on deno4inato$5C+D
Ho0 does $eason3 cha$acte$istic of hu4an i4pulse3 ente$ inG >io'enes tal%s of $eason as
:c$aftin': i4pulse6 O$i'en of its choosin' .et0een i4pulses5C*MD !le4ent tells us that
$eason helps us to disc$i4inate a4on' appea$ances and not .e ca$$ied a0ay .y the45C**D
!h$ysippus 0ith cha$acte$istic o-e$state4ent calls i4pulse :a pe$son9s $eason p$esc$ipti-e
of actin'5:C*FD =hat holds these cha$acte$iAations to'ethe$G
It see4s as thou'h the$e is a ce$tain pa$allelis4 .et0een action and pe$ception6 in .oth
cases the$e is an appea$ance3 and 0hat is up to the $ational a'ent is to accept o$ $e/ect it5
=e find indeed that $eason in the action case functions in the fo$4 of assent5C*2D Ou$ .est
sou$ce tells us in 4o$e detailP
They say that all the i4pulses a$e assents3 .ut that the p$actical ones contain the 4oti-e
ele4ent5 Actually3 assents a$e to one thin'3 and i4pulses to0a$d anothe$6 asE
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDC+DC*MDC**DC*FDC*2D
; +, ;
sents a$e to state4ents 7a(io4ata 8 of a %ind3 and i4pulses a$e to0a$d p$edicates
7%ate'o$e4ata 83 those that a$e so4eho0 contained in the state4ents to 0hich they assent5
7A$ius >idy4us apud Sto.5 Ecl5 F5 11 =achs4uth CR SV 25 *K*D85C*,D
Thus to unde$stand ho0 an i4pulse can eithe$ .e an assent o$ in-ol-e one3 0e fi$st ha-e
to loo% at Stoic p$edicates5
A p$edicate is not a .it of lan'ua'e3 .ut so4ethin' e(p$essed in lan'ua'e6 it is technically
an :inco4plete saya.le 7le%ton 83: 0hich can .e co4pleted in -a$ious 0ays to fo$4 0hat
is e(p$essed in co44ands3 p$aye$s3 and so on6 and 0hen co4.ined 0ith a su./ect te$4
p$oduces a state4ent 7a(io4a 83 e(p$essed in an utte$ance5C*ID :A p$edicate is 0hat is
said of so4ethin'6 o$ an ite4 0hich can 'o into a const$uction 0ith one o$ 4o$e su./ects3
as Apollodo$us says3 o$ an inco4plete saya.le Cle%ton D 0hich 'oes into a const$uction
0ith a su./ect te$4 to p$oduce a state4ent5:C*JD P$edicates a$e o.-iously not to .e
identified 0ith 0o$ds on the one hand o$ 0ith ite4s li%e p$ope$ties on the othe$5 The$e is
no -e$y intuiti-e account of a Stoic p$edicate6 to 'et the idea 0e do .est to thin% of a
co4plete le%ton e(p$essed in a state4ent3 and thin% of 0hat $e4ains 0hen one $e4o-es
the su./ect te$43 the $efe$$in' ele4ent in it5 =hen tal%in' a.out p$edicates the Stoics tend
to use the standa$d fo$4 :to A3: the infiniti-e fo$4 of the -e$.3 a fo$4 0hich sho0s
inco4pleteness in that it cannot .e used on its o0n to 4a%e a state4ent5 =hen the
p$edicate is co4pleted .y a su./ect te$4 to p$oduce a co4plete le%ton e(p$essed in a
state4ent3 I shall say that the p$edicate is satisfied5C*KD
C*,DC*IDC*JDC*KD
; +I ;
P$edicates ha-e an i4po$tant $ole in the Stoic analysis of causal state4entsP
E-e$y cause is a .ody 0hich is the cause to a .ody of so4ethin' non.odily6 fo$ e(a4ple3
the %nife is a .ody3 and is the cause to a .ody3 the flesh3 of the non.odily p$edicate to .e
cut3 and a'ain the fi$e is a .ody3 and is the cause to a .ody3 the 0ood3 of the non.odily
p$edicate to .e .u$nt 5 7Se(t5 E4p5 Math5 +5 F** CR SV F5 2,*D8
P$esu4a.ly 0e a$e to unde$stand :The %nife is the cause to the flesh of a p$edicate: as
follo0sP the action of the %nife 0ill $esult in a t$ue state4ent p$oduced .y co4pletin' a
p$edicate 0ith the app$op$iate su./ect te$45 In this case the %nife causes it to .e t$ue that
the flesh is cut3 that the$e is a t$ue a(io4a :The flesh is cut5: Only .odies ha-e causal
efficacy6 so the causal $elation holds .et0een t0o physical ite4s3 0hich ha-e to 4a%e
physical contact5 #ut the causal $elation is a th$eete$4ed $elation6 0e ha-e not unde$stood
that this is a causal $elation until 0e .$in' in a p$edicate that is satisfied as a $esult of the
holdin' of the causal $elation5 The p$edicate is satisfied 0hen one ite4 acts on anothe$5 In
ou$ e(a4ples it is al0ays desc$i.ed in te$4s of the effect of this action3 $athe$ than the
cause 7the flesh9s .ein' cut3 not the %nife9s cuttin'83 p$esu4a.ly .ecause it is 4o$e natu$al
to desc$i.e causal acti-ity in te$4s of 0hat it .$in's a.out3 $athe$ than 0hat .$in's it
a.out5 It is uninfo$4ati-e to .e told that the %nife is the cause to the flesh of the %nife9s
cuttin'3 althou'h in p$inciple this 0ould see4 to .e as 'ood an e(a4ple of a satisfaction
of a p$edicate as is the 4o$e fa4ilia$ state4ent that it is the cause of the flesh9s .ein' cut5
Actin' and doin' a$e a %ind of causal acti-ity6 and 0e can see the sche4a fo$ action as a
pa$ticula$ case of the causal sche4a5 E-e$y action 0ill in-ol-e an i4pulse3 and i4pulses3
0e a$e told3 a$e di$ected to0a$d p$edicates5 Intuiti-ely put3 0e do not 0ant thin's3 0e
0ant to .$in' thin's a.out 5 As !le4ent puts it 7in te$4s of desi$e83 :no one desi$es d$in%3
.ut to d$in% the d$in%a.le6 not inhe$itance3 .ut to inhe$it6 li%e0ise not %no0led'e3 .ut to
%no03 not 'ood 'o-e$n4ent3 .ut to .e
; +J ;
0ell 'o-e$ned5:C*1D Suppose that I desi$e a d$in%5 On the Stoic -ie03 0hat I st$ictly
desi$e is not the d$in%3 conside$ed as a physical o./ect5 Rathe$3 I desi$e to .$in' a.out the
satisfaction .y 4e of the p$edicate to d$in% 5 That is3 I desi$e that it .e t$ue that I d$in%5
=e can see ho0 it can .e said that I desi$e the p$edicate itself6 fo$ the -e$.al e(p$ession
of Stoic p$edicates is the infiniti-e3 to d$in%3 and it can .e said of 4e that I desi$e to d$in%3
thou'h 4o$e st$ictly 0hat I desi$e is 4y .$in'in' a.out 4y satisfaction of the p$edicate to
d$in% 5 Thus I fulfill the causal sche4a6 fo$ I a4 the cause to 4yself of the p$edicate to
d$in%3 that is3 I .$in' it a.out that I satisfy the p$edicate to d$in% 5 =hat 4a%es this a case
of action $athe$ than 4e$e causality is the fact that I .$in' this a.out .y ha-in' an
i4pulse5
I4pulse in-ol-es assent5 =hat I assent to see4s to .e3 in Stoic sou$ces3 a state4ent as to
0hat I ou'ht to do to .$in' this a.out5 Thus A$ius says 7see p5 +* a.o-e8 that the
appea$ance that 4o-es the i4pulse is of so4ethin' as .ein' then and the$e :app$op$iate3:
the 0o$d .ein' co'nate 0ith the Stoic te$4 fo$ %inds of action 0hich one ou'ht to do5
And Seneca tells us3 :I ou'ht to 0al%6 I 0al% only 0hen I ha-e said this to 4yself and
app$o-ed this .elief of 4ine5:C*+D Assent thus see4s to .e 'i-en to state4ents of the
fo$4 :I ou'ht to 5:CFMD The :ou'ht: he$e is of cou$se 'ene$al3 and has no su''estions of
special 4o$al fo$ce5 Vi$tuous actions a$e a %ind of action6 .ut
C*1DC*+DCFMD
; +K ;
the 'ene$al Stoic sche4a fo$ action co-e$s the4 to'ethe$ 0ith o$dina$y cases of non4o$al
action5 They a$e all cases 0he$e the a'ent accepts that she ou'ht3 he$e and no03 to do A3
since A is the app$op$iate thin' to do3 he$e and no05
The pictu$e is si4ply this5 I desi$e to d$in%5 That is3 I desi$e the .$in'in' a.out .y 4e of
4y satisfyin' the p$edicate to d$in% 5 I assent to the state4ent :I ou'ht 7he$e and no0 and
so fo$th8 to d$in%:6 fo$ unless I assent to this3 I a4 not $eally ha-in' an i4pulse fo$ 4y
.$in'in' a.out the satisfaction of the p$edicate6 I a4 4e$ely hopin' that it 0ill happen3 o$
the li%e5 If I assent3 ho0e-e$3 I act3 and so d$in%5
=hat e(actly3 in the a.o-e pictu$e3 is the i4pulseG The$e appea$s to .e a conflict in the
e-idence he$e5 =e ha-e seen the clai4 that i4pulses a$e assents3 0hich i4plies that they
a$e assents to state4ents6 .ut this clai4 is at once 4odified to the clai4 that i4pulses a$e
di$ected to0a$d p$edicates 0hich a$e so4eho0 contained in state4ents 0hich a$e
assented to5 Ho0 a$e these -e$y diffe$ent clai4s supposed to fit to'ethe$G u$the$3 0e
see4 to 'et 4utually conflictin' clai4s a.out the $elation of i4pulse and assent3
supposin' the4 to .e distinct5 One pictu$e is that assent p$ecedes i4pulse3 and is
necessa$y fo$ it3 0hile the othe$ is that i4pulse p$ecedes assent5CF*D
Possi.ly the Stoics 0e$e confused he$e3 o$ diffe$ent Stoics held diffe$ent -ie0s 0hich
0e$e late$ conflated5 The$e is3 ho0e-e$3 a fai$ly si4ple solution to these p$o.le4s3 0hich
is to assu4e that :i4pulse: is he$e .ein' used in t0o distinct3 .ut easily conflated3 0ays5
"et us distin'uish i4pulse *3 a .$oad sense3 f$o4 i4pulse F3 a na$$o0 sense5 I4pulse * is
the enti$e pheno4enon consistin' of i4pulse F and assent5 This 4a%es sense of the
e-idence as follo0s5 I4pulse F is a 0antin' o$ a desi$in' to do so4ethin'3 and so is
di$ected at a p$edicate5 =hen this is follo0ed .y assent to a state4ent of the fo$4 :I
ou'ht 7he$e and no08 to A3: then 0e ha-e i4pulse *3 0hich in-ol-es assent to a
state4ent pa$t of 0hich is the p$edicate
CF*D
; +1 ;
to 0hich i4pulse F is di$ected5 This e(plains 0hy the Stoics can say that i4pulses * a$e
acts of assent6 this is not all that they a$e3 since they also in-ol-e i4pulses F3 .ut the
fo$4ulation sayin' that they a$e acts of assent e4phasiAes the point that only 0hen 0e
ha-e assent do 0e ha-e an i4pulse *5 I4pulse F is pa$t of i4pulse * in /ust the 0ay that
the p$edicate is pa$t of the state4ent5 The p$o.le4 conce$nin' the o$de$ of i4pulse and
assent can also .e sol-ed5 I4pulse F p$ecedes assent3 fo$ I ha-e to 0ant to d$in% .efo$e
assentin' to the state4ent that I ou'ht he$e and no0 to d$in%5 #ut assent can .e said to
p$ecede i4pulse *3 since i4pulse * $eBui$es assent to the $ele-ant state4ent3 na4ely3 that
I ou'ht he$e and no0 to d$in%5 It see4s3 then3 that the$e is no confusion in the Stoic
account of i4pulse3 and 0hile the Stoics 0ould ha-e a-oided e-en the appea$ance of
confusion if they had e(plicitly distin'uished i4pulse * f$o4 i4pulse F3 they a$e not led
into any confusions a.out the45
As 0ith pe$ception3 assent is the point at 0hich thin's a$e :up to: the a'ent5 It is not up to
4e ho0 the 0o$ld appea$s to 4e6 as a $esult of past ha.its and so on I cannot help it that
so4e thin's no0 appea$ desi$a.le to 4e and othe$s not5 So I cannot help desi$in' 4y
.$in'in' a.out the satisfaction of ce$tain p$edicates and not othe$s5 #ut 0hat I can help is
assentin' to the co$$espondin' state4ents of :I ou'ht to :6 fo$ 0ithout such an assent
the$e 4ay .e a 4e$e desi$e to .$in' a.out a ce$tain state of affai$s3 .ut the$e 0ill not .e
the full i4pulse to .$in' it a.out3 and so the$e 0ill not .e the action5
The position of assent 'ene$ates an inte$estin' p$o.le4 0ithin Stoic theo$y of action6 fo$
is assent not itself an actionG On the one hand3 0e a$e d$a0n to say no3 fo$ an analysis of
action ou'ht to .e no$4ati-e a.out p$e-iously disputed cases6 su$ely actions a$e defined
as the effects of i4pulse and assent3 so that assent cannot itself .e an action5CFFD If 0e a$e
i4p$essed .y this3 0e a$e li%ely to thin% of assent as an antecedent of action3 so4ethin'
li%e an intention5 On the othe$ hand3 assent
CFFD
; ++ ;
is the fi$st ite4 in the chain 0hich is clea$ly :up to us5: If it is an action3 it is a -e$y
special %ind of action6 0e a$e not no$4ally a0a$e of it3 and it see4s a.su$d to say that an
action ta%es place 0ithin the .ody3 in the he'e4oni%on 5 #ut the$e is an isolated3 .ut -e$y
si'nificant3 passa'e indicatin' that the Stoics 0e$e happy 0ith the idea that actions a$e
0ithin the .ody5 Seneca says that !leanthes and !h$ysippus disa'$eed on 0hat 0al%in'
is5CF2D !leanthes said it 0as pneu4a sent to the feet .y the he'e4oni%on6 !h$ysippus
said that it 0as the he'e4oni%on itself5 The dispute is less i4po$tant than the fact that
.oth say 0hat 0al%in' is 0ithout .$in'in' in the 4o-e4ent of the feet5 =al%in'3 the
action3 and not /ust the antecedents of action3 ta%es place in the soulEpneu4a 5
In fact it is not so i4plausi.le to locate actions 0ithin the .ody5 The Stoics9 inte$est is in
0hat is3 and 0hat is not3 :up to 4e:6 and 0e 0ould e(pect this to sho0 up in a conce$n
o-e$ 0hat I can p$ope$ly .e said to do 5 Suppose I o$de$ the ca-al$y to cha$'e3 .ut the
4essa'e 'oes 0$on'3 the ca-al$y stays put3 and the .attle is lost5 In a sense I ha-e lost the
.attle3 and 0ill accept $esponsi.ility fo$ that3 .ut in a st$ict sense this is not 0hat I did6
0hat I did 0as to send the 4essa'e5 So 0hat I do if it succeeds can .e desc$i.ed in te$4s
of its effects3 .ut not if it does not succeed5 This line of thou'ht can easily .e e(tended to
4essa'es that fail to a$$i-e 0ithin the .ody as 0ell as outside it5 Thus3 if all 'oes 0ell3 I
4o-e 4y le's6 if I a4 suddenly pa$alyAed3 I ha-e still assented to 0hat no$4ally .$in's
a.out the 4o-e4ent of the le's5 =e lac% enou'h info$4ation to say e(actly 0hat
!h$ysippus9 position 0as3 .ut the Seneca passa'e su''ests the follo0in'P :0al%in': is
desc$i.ed in te$4s of the 4otion of the le's3 that is3 of the no$4al effects of assentin' to
the content of the o./ect of i4pulse5 Still3 0hat I p$ope$ly do 0hen I 0al% is /ust to assent
Hthat is3 0hat I $eally do is the e-ent in the he'e4oni%on3 not its effects in the le's5 On
this -ie03 actions a$e all $eally in the he'e E
CF2D
; *MM ;
4oni%on3 since they a$e $eally assents3 and they a$e diffe$entiated .y .ein' desc$i.ed in
te$4s of thei$ no$4al effectsP :0al%in'3: :$idin'3: :cha$'in'3: and so on a$e actions
desc$i.ed in te$4s of nea$e$ o$ $e4ote effects5 All 0e e-e$ do is assent6 the $est is up to
natu$e5 And that 4ay let us do0n e-en 0ithin ou$ .odies3 ne-e$ 4ind outside the45CF,D
This -ie0 is 4o$e att$acti-e than 0e 4i'ht at fi$st suppose5 i$stly3 it locates action
0he$e $esponsi.ility is5 =e a$e not no$4ally $esponsi.le fo$ the causal effects of ou$
actions3 only fo$ the actions5 The Stoics a$e si4ply countin' as effects of the action the
.odily 4o-e4ents 0hich 0e 4i'ht no$4ally count as pa$t of the action5 This is3
fu$the$4o$e3 so4ethin' 0hich 0e 4i'ht 0ell e(pect the4 to do3 'i-en thei$ -ie0s that
pain $esultin' f$o4 da4a'e to the foot3 fo$ e(a4ple3 is felt in the he'e4oni%on3 not in the
foot5 The -ie0 of action /ust desc$i.ed is the o.-ious counte$pa$t to this5 u$the$3 the
p$o.le4 of 0hethe$ assent is an action o$ not can .e neatly sol-ed5 It is not an action li%e
othe$s3 since it is not caused .y i4pulse and assent5 #ut then this is e(actly 0hat 0e
0ould e(pect5 o$ assents a$e the actions .y doin' 0hich 0e do all othe$ actions6 if they
did not c$ucially diffe$ f$o4 all othe$ actions3 0e 0ould ha-e an infinite $e'$ess5 Thus
they occupy e(actly the conceptual $oo4 ta%en up .y .asic actions in so4e 4ode$n
theo$ies of action5CFID
#ecause of the position of assent3 it is clea$ that the Stoics do not ha-e a si4ple 4odel
0he$e.y 4y actions a$e those of 4y .odily 4o-e4ents that a$e p$oduced .y 4y .eliefs
and desi$es5CFJD Rathe$3 fo$ the Stoics3 .eliefs and desi$es a$e the causes of assent 5 Mo$e
st$ictly3 .eliefs a$e the causes of assents to -a$ious pe$ceptual .eliefs3 0he$eas .eliefs and
desi$es in
CF,DCFIDCFJD
; *M* ;
co4.ination a$e the causes of those assents that a$e identified 0ith actions5 T0o people
can assent to the sa4e pe$ceptual .eliefs in f$ont of a cold d$in%6 only the one 0ith a
desi$e to d$in% 0ill assent to :I ou'ht he$e and no0 to d$in% that: and $each fo$ the 'lass5
CFKD Assent is 0hat distin'uishes f$ee hu4an a'ency f$o4 instincti-e ani4al .eha-io$5 It
is nonetheless caused .y desi$es and .eliefs and is /ust as 4uch a physical state as these
a$e5 If the$e a$e p$o.le4s he$e3 they a$e p$o.le4s 0ith Stoic co4pati.ilis4 in 'ene$al5
The Stoics do not 'i-e special attention to the step 0he$e.y assent .$in's a.out action3
that is3 the actual 'ettin' 4o-in'5 This is .ecause of thei$ thesis that the soul is unified in
.ein' $ational6 once $eason has .een e(e$cised in 'i-in' assent3 the$e is no fu$the$3
distinct ele4ent in the soul that could $esist3 so action 4ust follo0Hunless3 of cou$se3
e(te$nal facto$s of an e-e$yday %ind inte$-ene5 =hy then do 0e not al0ays act as 0e see
that 0e shouldG The Stoics analyAe such cases as cases not of assent 0hich is not
follo0ed .y action3 .ut as cases of inco4plete o$ shiftin' assent5CF1D
The Stoic theo$y of action plays an i4po$tant $ole in Stoic ethics in the theo$y of
oi%eiosis o$ fa4ilia$iAation5 The Stoics .elie-e that ou$ initial natu$al i4pulses fo$ selfE
p$ese$-ation a$e 0hat de-elop into ou$ a.ilities to $eason p$actically3 and also into ou$
a.ility to $eason 4o$ally5CF+D The theo$y also fi'u$es in one of the Stoics9 de.ates 0ith
the sceptical Acade4y5 Ancient fo$4s of scepticis4 clai4ed that the $esult of adoptin' a
c$itical3 sceptical attitude 0as suspension of .elief5 A co44on o./ection 0as that li-in'
0ithout .eliefs is i4possi.le3 so that the sceptical selfEdesc$iption is incohe$ent5 The
sceptics appealed to the Stoic account of action to 4a%e thei$ $eply5 Sceptics3 of cou$se3
cannot appeal to .eliefs of thei$ o0n6 $athe$3 they al0ays ha-e to 4eet thei$ opponents on
thei$ o0n '$ound5
CFKDCF1DCF+D
; *MF ;
The sceptics 4ay ha-e appealed to the Stoics9 o0n theo$y .ecause the c$iticis4 had co4e
f$o4 Stoics in pa$ticula$5C2MD A$cesilaus3 the head of the sceptical Acade4y3 clai4ed that
pe$ception and i4pulse a$e in fact sufficient fo$ action3 and assent3 p$esupposin' .elief3 is
not $eBui$ed5 :I4pulse3 a$oused .y sensation3 4o-es us in the shape of the action di$ected
to0a$d a suita.le 'oal6 a %ind of castin' 0ei'ht has .een put in the scale of ou$ 'o-e$nin'
pa$t3 and a di$ected 4o-e4ent is set afoot5:C2*D The Stoic $eply is o.-iousP this is not
action .ut 0hat 'oes on in spide$s and do's5 In hu4ans the$e has to .e assent3 .ecause
that is 0hat defines hu4an3 as opposed to ani4al3 action5
The a$'u4ent can 'o se-e$al 0ays5 One could call into Buestion the Stoics9 sha$p cutoff
line .et0een hu4an and ani4al action and de4and 4o$e adeBuate defense of it5 O$ one
could e(plo$e the idea that a hu4an life could .e li-ed 0ithout .eliefs3 li%e that of an
ani4al5 If it could3 the$e is a fu$the$ Buestion3 Ho0 can the sceptics defend it usin'
$ational 4eans li%e a$'u4entsG #ut that ta%es us into a diffe$ent a$ea5C2FD
C2MDC2*DC2FD
; *M2 ;
I
The E4otions
e0 Stoic doct$ines ha-e .een as c$iticiAed as the Stoic theo$y of the pathe o$ e4otions6
C*D f$o4 antiBuity the theo$y has .een attac%ed as counte$intuiti-e and e-en a.su$d5 Much
of this is due to 4is$ep$esentation6 pa$ts of the theo$y ha-e .een $ipped f$o4 thei$ conte(t
7especially the thesis that e4otions a$e .eliefs8 and c$iticiAed in isolation f$o4 othe$
theses that 4a%e sense of the45 #ut it is also t$ue that the theo$y to so4e e(tent $edefines
the o$i'inal pheno4ena3 as 0e can see f$o4 the clai4 that the ideal 4o$al a'ent 0ill not
ha-e pathe 5 This $uns a'ainst the no$4al usa'e of pathos in @$ee%3 acco$din' to 0hich
the pathe a$e in the4sel-es neithe$ 'ood no$ .adP 0hat 4atte$s is ho0 one handles the45
#ecause of this3 so4e ha-e
C*D
; *M, ;
p$efe$$ed to t$anslate pathe as :passions: o$ the li%e6CFD .ut this $is%s 4issin' the 0ay that
the Stoics 4ean to .e tal%in' a.out the e4otions3 as 0e unde$stand the43 althou'h they
a$e $e-isin' co44onsense .eliefs a.out the45
An e4otion is a %ind of i4pulse6 thus 4uch that has .een said a.out i4pulse 7in chapte$
,8 ca$$ies o-e$5 An e4otion is a 4oti-e cause .$in'in' a.out action6 it is an i4pulse to
.$in' a.out a state of affai$s3 ta%in' effect -ia the a'ent9s assent to a state4ent that she
ou'ht to .$in' a.out that state of affai$s5 Still3 it is an i4pulse :in e(cess3: and this $aises
special p$o.le4s5 The 4ain featu$es of the theo$y a$e .$ou'ht to'ethe$ in a su44a$y .y
A$ius that follo0s3 and a$e .est laid out to'ethe$ and then discussed indi-idually5
An e4otion 7pathos 83 they say3 is an i4pulse 0hich is e(cessi-e 7pleonaAousa 8 and
diso.edient to $eason 0hich is dictatin'6 o$ an Ci$$ationalD 4o-e4ent in the soul cont$a$y
to natu$e 7all e4otions .elon' in the soul9s he'e4oni%on 86 so that e-e$y upset 7ptoia 8 is
an e4otion3 and a'ain e-e$y e4otion is an upset5 E4otion .ein' of such a %ind3 0e 4ust
suppose that so4e a$e p$i4a$y and lead the 0ay3 0hile othe$s ha-e thei$ $efe$ence to
these5 P$i4a$y in the 'enus a$e these fou$P desi$e 7epithu4ia 83 fea$ 7pho.os 83 pain
7lupe 83 and pleasu$e 7hedone 85 >esi$e and fea$ ta%e the lead3 desi$e .ein' di$ected to0a$d
appa$ent 'ood3 and fea$ di$ected to0a$d appa$ent e-il5 Pleasu$e and pain supe$-ene
7epi'i'nesthai 8 on these3 pleasu$e 0hen 0e 'et 0hat 0e 0e$e desi$in' o$ escape 0hat 0e
0e$e fea$in'3 and pain 0hen 0e fail to 'et 0hat 0e 0e$e desi$in' o$ happen on 0hat 0e
0e$e fea$in'5 =ith all the soul9s e4otions3 since they call the4 .eliefs3 the .elief is
unde$stood as a 0ea% supposition3 and the :f$esh: Cpa$tD
CFD
; *MI ;
as 0hat 4o-es an i$$ational cont$action Co$D elation5 7Sto.5 Ecl5 F51151O1+52 =achs4uth
CR SV 25 2K1D8C2D
All the ele4ents he$e a$e echoed in othe$ sou$ces3 thou'h not al0ays to'ethe$5
=hat 4a%es an e4otion an :e(cessi-e i4pulse: is its .ein' diso.edient to the dictates of
$eason5 This cannot 4ean that the a'ent9s p$actical $easonin' $esults in decision3 .ut an
i4pulse conflicts 0ith this5 An i4pulse is itself $ational6 !h$ysippus called i4pulse :a
pe$son9s $eason p$esc$ipti-e of actin'5:C,D Since an i4pulse .$in's a.out action .y 0ay of
its content3 the action is thus fa$ $ational5 An i4pulse :diso.edient to $eason: cannot .e
.loc%in' the $easonin' that leads to action6 it is the $easonin' that leads to action5 It 4ust3
then3 .e diso.edient to $eason in a no$4ati-e senseP $i'ht $eason3 the $easonin' that
should ha-e .een follo0ed5 =e al0ays act fo$ a $eason3 .ut 0e can al0ays as% if it 0as a
'ood $eason3 the $esult of intelli'ent $eflection and de-eloped $ationality5
@alen in his pole4ic a'ainst !h$ysippus9 theo$y of the e4otions in On the >oct$ines of
Hippoc$ates and Plato , and I p$ese$-es a Buotation f$o4 !h$ysippus in 0hich he
elucidates the sense in 0hich an e4otion is an e(cessi-e i4pulse and a 4o-e4ent in the
soulP
i$st one 4ust %eep in 4ind that the $ational ani4al is .y natu$e such as to follo0 $eason
and to act 0ith $eason as his 'uide5 #ut often he 4o-es in anothe$ 0ay to0a$d so4e
thin's and a0ay f$o4 so4e thin's in diso.edience to $eason 0hen he is pushed too 4uch5
#oth definitions $efe$ to this 4o-e4entP the unnatu$al 4otion a$ises i$$ationally in this
0ay3 and also the e(cess in the i4pulses5 o$ this i$$ationality 4ust .e unde$stood as
diso.edient to $eason and $e/ectin' it6 and 0ith $efe$ence to this 4otion 0e say in
o$dina$y usa'e that so4e pe$sons a$e
C2DC,D
; *MJ ;
pushed and 4o-ed i$$ationally3 0ithout $eason and /ud'4ent5 o$ 0hen 0e use these
e(p$essions it is not as if a pe$son is ca$$ied a0ay .y e$$o$5 7PHP 2J1OJ+?3 F,* de "acy
CR SV 25 ,JFD8CID
Ou$ no$4al tal% of :i$$ational: i4pulses su''ests that they a$e not $ational at all6 .ut fo$
the Stoics o$dina$y lan'ua'e is /ust 0$on' he$e3 fo$ the$e can .e no such thin' as a totally
non$ational i4pulse3 at least not in undefecti-e hu4ans5 =e '$asp the pheno4enon3 .ut it
is not 0hat 0e thin% it is3 na4ely3 $eason -e$sus so4ethin' de-oid of $eason3 .ut $athe$
'ood $eason -e$sus .ad3 inadeBuate $eason5
a8 E4otions as I$$ational Mo-e4ents in the Soul
An e(cessi-e i4pulse is not /ust a 4o-e4ent in the soul3 .ut an :upset3: a hiccup in the
:e-en flo0: of the 'ood life5 The physical specification of this can only .e an upset in the
$i'ht o-e$all pneu4atic tension of the he'e4oni%on 5 #ut the$e is 4o$e to say3 .ecause
the e4otions3 .ein' i4pulses3 a$e co4ple( pheno4ena6 they ha-e content3 as all i4pulses
do3 and they a$e an especially i4po$tant %ind of i4pulse3 since they affect ou$ li-es
'$eatly3 fo$ 'ood o$ .ad3 and they a$e educa.le5
Just as the .ody has 'ood o$ .ad tension3 so does the soul5 In the .ody3 this ta%es the fo$4
of fitness and taut 4uscles3 ena.lin' the .ody to pe$fo$4 0hat is needed5 In the soul it
ta%es the fo$4 of fi$4ness of cha$acte$6 li%e an unde$e(e$cised .ody una.le to pe$fo$4
physical tas%s 0hich it should .e capa.le of3 the soul 0ith poo$ tension 0ill $espond
0ea%ly 0hen it should .e $espondin' fi$4ly5 =e ha-e al$eady seen that this idea plays a
$ole in the theo$y of pe$ception6 so4eone 0ith pe$fectly functionin' sense o$'ans 4ay
nonetheless assent to -a'ue o$ 0$on' pe$ceptual .eliefs .ecause only a -a'ue o$ 0$on'
appea$ance has 4ade it to the he'e4oni%on 5 =ith i4pulses3 and especially 0ith the
e4otions3 the state of one9s
CID
; *MK ;
o-e$all pneu4atic tension affects not only 0hat one ta%es in .ut ho0 one $eacts5
!h$ysippus used the e(a4ple of Menelaus conf$ontin' Helen at T$oy3 dete$4ined to %ill
he$ .ut then fee.ly 'i-in' in .ecause he felt o-e$co4e .y he$ .eauty5 The $esult of his
seein' Helen 0as his assentin' to the i4pulse to e4.$ace this lo-ely 0o4an3 0hich 4ade
hi4 fail to act as he had $esol-ed 0as $i'ht5CJD E4otional .eha-io$ is thus due to a
0ea%ness in the soul as a 0hole5 Menelaus acted on 0hat he sa0 to .e a .ad $eason
.ecause his 0hole cha$acte$ 0as 0ea%6 an i4pulse 0as e(cessi-e in hi4 0hich a st$on'e$
cha$acte$ 4i'ht ha-e $esisted5 Thus the state of soul allo0in' the e4otion to ha-e its 0ay
7not the e4otion itself8 is a 0ea%ness6 the pe$son is 4entally fla..y and should shape up5
=e can $eco'niAe3 of cou$se3 the 4etapho$ of 4ental health3 de-eloped in Plato9s
Repu.lic 5CKD
$o4 this co4es the thou'ht that e4otions a$e diso$de$s 0hich can .e cu$edP one of
!h$ysippus9 .oo%s on the e4otions 0as called The$apy and Ethics 5C1D Actin' on e4otion
is actin' fo$ a .ad $eason th$ou'h 0ea%ness of cha$acte$5 #ecause e4otions a$e $easons3
this in-ol-es a conflict in p$actical $easonin'6C+D and fu$the$ and .ette$ $easonin' 0ill
$e4o-e this5 "oo%ed at f$o4 the physical point of -ie03 the $esult is a lite$ally
st$en'thened cha$acte$3 0ith st$on'e$ pneu4atic tension5
!h$ysippus in fact put conside$a.le ene$'y into $estatin' Plato9s psycholo'y in te$4s of
the Stoic physical3 unita$y soul5 Health in the soul3 fo$ e(a4ple3 he decla$ed to .e li%e
health in the .odyP a 4atte$ of p$opo$tion3 ha$4ony3 and .lendin'5C*MD This clea$ly
$ecalls the Repu.lic6 and in his fi$st .oo% on e4otions !h$ysippus 0$ote a %ind of
epito4e of Plato9s -ie0s on the t$ainin' of child$en and thei$ 4oti-ations5C**D
Unfo$tunately3
CJDCKDC1DC+DC*MDC**D
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; *M1 ;
ou$ sou$ce fo$ this is @alen3 0ho fails to unde$stand !h$ysippus and is conce$ned to
defend Plato3 so 0e ha-e little helpful idea as to ho0 Plato9s tal% of pa$ts of the soul 0as
t$ansposed into Stoic te$4s5 P$esu4a.ly3 ha$4ony .et0een pa$ts of the soul 0as $estated
as so4ethin' li%e ha$4oniously unified functionin' of the 0hole soul in a 0ay
app$op$iate to all the di-e$se 0o$%in's of its diffe$ent pa$ts and capacities5 =e ha-e one
$athe$ opaBue co44ent f$o4 !h$ysippusP :They a$e pa$ts of the soul th$ou'h 0hich its
$eason and disposition of its $eason a$e constituted5 And a soul is .eautiful o$ u'ly .y
-i$tue of its he'e4oni%on .ein' in this o$ that state 0ith $espect to its o0n p$ope$
di-ision5:C*FD
.8 E4otions as #eliefs
The A$ius passa'e does not 4a%e 4uch of the theo$y9s 4ost cont$o-e$sial featu$eP
e4otions a$e .eliefs 7do(ai 8 o$ /ud'4ents 7%$iseis 85 Ou$ 4ost e(tensi-e discussion of
this co4es f$o4 the hostile @alen3 0ho has in/ected into 4any inte$p$etations t0o of his
o0n clai4s 0hich a$e patently 0$on'5 One is that the thesis that e4otions a$e /ud'4ents
is a 0illfully ludic$ous and fa$fetched idea6 the othe$ is that it 0as an inno-ation .y
!h$ysippus3 $eplacin' a 4o$e $easona.le -ie0 held .y Neno and !leanthes5C*2D
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDC*FDC*2D
; *M+ ;
E4otions can .e said to .e .eliefs in /ust the sa4e 0ay that any i4pulse can6 thus the$e is
no p$o.le43 as @alen p$etends the$e is3 0ith co4.inin' the thesis that e4otions a$e
.eliefs 0ith the thesis that they a$e e(cessi-e i4pulses5 Assent to a state4ent a$ticulatin'
the content of the :i4pulso$y: appea$ance is pa$t of e-e$y i4pulse6C*,D in assentin' to the
state4ent the a'ent is co44ittin' he$self to a co$$espondin' p$actical .elief5 =e ha-e
seen that i4pulses could actually .e called assents3 and this is clea$ly 0hy they a$e
so4eti4es called .eliefs5
@alen 4o$e than once clai4s that !h$ysippus cont$adicted Neno on this issue3C*ID and
that !h$ysippus said that e4otions a$e /ud'4ents 0he$eas Neno thou'ht the4
:cont$actions3: :$ela(ations3: :elations3: :dep$essions3: and the li%e3 0hich :supe$-ene:
on /ud'4ents5 #ut 0e can see f$o4 one incautious passa'e that @alen is .ein' dishonest
he$e5C*JD =e shall sho$tly see that Neno9s account of the :f$esh: opinion actually
de4ands that e4otions .e /ud'4ents5 It is clea$ that fo$ the Stoics e4otions ha-e to .e
inte$p$eted in 4any 0aysP as 4o-e4ents3 as i4pulses3 as .eliefs5 !lea$ly3 Neno laid less
st$ess than did !h$ysippus on the .elief ele4ent6 .ut 0e ha-e no '$ounds to suppose a
chan'e of doct$ine5
C*,DC*IDC*JD
; **M ;
So4e pheno4ena 0ill cause t$ou.le fo$ a theo$y that e4otions a$e .eliefs6 fo$ so4eti4es
0e feel fea$3 elation3 o$ dep$ession3 0hile lac%in' any app$op$iate .elief5 =e 4ay e-en
ha-e a fi$4 .elief that the$e is nothin' to fea$3 and still 0ince5 #ut this fa4ilia$
pheno4enon is not a $eal difficulty fo$ the Stoics6 fo$ the a.sence of .elief p$ecisely
disinclines us to thin% that he$e 0e ha-e an e4otion5 These a$e distinct3 thou'h $elated3
pheno4ena3 0hich ca4e at so4e point to .e called p$opatheiai3 :p$eEe4otions5:C*KD
c8 E4otions as In-ol-in' a :$esh: #elief
The A$ius passa'e p$ese$-es this point in o.-iously inco4plete fo$43 .ut it can .e pieced
to'ethe$ f$o4 othe$ sou$ces5 The .elief aspect of the e4otion 0as analyAed into t0o
pa$ts5 As !ice$o puts it3 :it has .een adeBuately stated that dist$ess is a .elief a.out a
p$esent e-il3 a .elief includin' thisP that it is $i'ht to feel dist$ess5:C*1D This is3 he adds3
Neno9s addition of a :f$esh: 7$ecens 8 .elief to the .elief a.out e-il5 This fits 0ith A$ius9
state4ent that the :f$esh: 7p$osphatos 8 pa$t of the .elief 'ets 4o-in' the i$$ational
cont$action o$ ele-ation5 A$ius desc$i.es the causal histo$y6 !ice$o desc$i.es it f$o4 the
-ie0point of the a'ent9s $easons5 It see4s that the .elief pa$t of an e4otion contains one
pa$t assentin' to so4ethin' .ein' a
C*KDC*1D
; *** ;
'ood 7o$ .ad8 thin' and anothe$ assentin' to so4ethin' li%e :I ou'ht to $e/oice 7o$ c$y8
o-e$ it5: This is the pa$t that p$oduces action3 li%e s4ilin' o$ c$yin'6 indeed it is /ust the
pa$t that has the fo$4 of a .elief that no$4ally leads to action5 So3 ho0e-e$ t$a'ic I thin%
so4ethin' is3 unless I ta%e it to .e so4ethin' I should c$y o-e$3 I 0ill not actually c$y6
this is the pa$t of the thou'ht 7not3 of cou$se3 a conscious thou'htS8 that 'ets the tea$s
flo0in'5
!ice$o adds the o.-iously $i'ht point that :f$esh: he$e has nothin' to do 0ith ti4e5
A$te4isia thou'ht he$ hus.and9s death not /ust sad .ut so4ethin' to 4ou$n o-e$ all he$
life6 he$ :f$esh: .elief lasted yea$s5C*+D Ho0e-e$3 !h$ysippus discussed the :f$esh: .elief
in so4e connection 0ith ti4e3 since @alen p$ese$-es pa$t of his co44ents on 0hy people
e-entually cease to feel e4otions 0ith the o$i'inal fo$ce3 althou'h $etainin' thei$ o$i'inal
.eliefs a.out the e4otions9 o./ects5CFMD !h$ysippus ad4its that this is ha$d to account fo$6
ti4e alone cannot 4a%e a diffe$ence3 so the$e 4ust .e so4e alte$ation in the .elief5 The
passa'e is tendentiously p$esented and cut off .y @alen3 .ut the solution see4s to .e that
0hile 0e continue to thin% the thin' .ad3 fo$ e(a4ple3 0e cease to find it so4ethin' to
c$y o-e$5CF*D He 4entions causes of lau'hte$ and 4ay ha-e in 4ind so4ethin' li%e the
follo0in' point5 On hea$in' a /o%e fo$ the fi$st fe0 ti4es 0e find it funny and lau'h at it5
Afte$ the t0entyEsi(th hea$in'3 0e still find it funny 7nothin' has happened to chan'e ou$
opinion of that8 .ut no lon'e$ lau'h at it5 =e ha-e lost the :f$esh: .elief that this is
so4ethin' to lau'h at3 the .elief that actually 'ets us to lau'h5 So the :f$esh: pa$t of the
.elief 0ill .e one that 0e tend to lose 0ith ti4e3 thou'h it is not /ust its $ecentness in ti4e
that 'i-es it its fo$ce5
C*+DCFMDCF*D
; **F ;
d8 The Ta(ono4y of the E4otions
Many sou$ces list the .asic fou$ e4otions6 A$ius adds that desi$e and fea$ a$e p$io$ to the
othe$ t0o and a$e di$ected at appa$ent 'ood and e-ilHthe appa$ent 'ood3 .ecause
i4pulses di$ected at the $eal 'ood can ne-e$ .e e(cessi-e3 and so e4otions5CFFD Pleasu$e
and pain a$e seconda$yP they :supe$-ene: on the othe$ t0o5 :The Stoics say that pleasu$e3
if it e(ists3 is a supe$-ention3 0hen natu$e see%in' .y itself finds 0hat suits the ani4al9s
constitution5:CF2D =e do not %no0 e(actly 0hat the Stoics too% supe$-enience to .e5 The
intuiti-e conception of supe$-enience is so4ethin' li%e thisP ce$tain conditions 0ill
p$oduce pleasu$e3 .ut the$e a$e no 'ene$al necessa$y lin%s .et0een types of condition and
p$oduction of pleasu$e5 Thus pleasu$e $esults f$o4 en'a'in' in ce$tain types of acti-ity in
ce$tain 0ays6 .ut the$e is no 'ua$antee5
The$e is a p$o.le4 he$e3 ho0e-e$6 pleasu$e so const$ued is an :indiffe$ent:6 that is3 it is
so4ethin' 0hich is not 4o$ally 'ood o$ .ad and so does not add to o$ det$act f$o4 the
a'ent9s happiness5CF,D !an this .e the sa4e as the pleasu$e 0hich is a pathos3 and thus
al0ays 4o$ally .adGCFID A pathos is an i4pulse3 and so so4ethin' 0hich in-ol-es the
a'ent9s assent3 0hich does not see4 to .e t$ue of a supe$-ention5 The si4plest solution is
that the Stoics do not thin% that the$e a$e t0o funda4entally diffe$ent %inds of pleasu$e3
.ut that pleasu$e can play eithe$ of t0o $oles in ou$ li-es5 If it si4ply supe$-enes on 0hat
0e a$e doin'3 then it is 4o$ally neut$al5 #ut if ou$ 'ettin' pleasu$e depends on ou$ assent
to so4e .elief3 then the pleasu$e itself is a pathos3 and so .ad5 Pleasu$e is all $i'ht 0hen it
co4es un.idden3 as it 0e$e6 .ut not if an i4pulse is $eBui$ed fo$ us to ha-e it5
CFFDCF2DCF,DCFID
; **2 ;
The Stoics 4ade 4uch use of definitions3 and 4any of ou$ sou$ces contain lon' lists of
su.sidia$y definitions of e-e$ 4o$e finely '$ained e4otional states3 unified .y the .asic
ta(ono4y 0hich de$i-es e(cess in i4pulse f$o4 0$on' attach4ent to the appa$ent 'ood
o$ e-il3 0ith pleasu$e and pain $esultin' f$o4 this5 The Stoic definitions a$e intellectualist
.y co4pa$ison 0ith the accounts in the A$istotelian t$adition6 they lay 0ei'ht on assent
and thus on the a'ent9s conception of the state of affai$s3 $athe$ than on the less
intellectual aspects of e4otion5CFJD
e8 @ood eelin's
So fa$ 0e ha-e not e(a4ined the thesis 0hich 0as usually found to .e the 4ost sta$tlin'P
all pathe a$e 4o$ally .ad3 and the 'ood pe$son 0ould .e apathes3 0ithout the46 fo$3
st$i%in' as this thesis is3 it does not e4e$'e f$o4 any of the conside$ations 0e ha-e
loo%ed at so fa$3 0hich ha-e .een conside$ations f$o4 philosophy of 4ind5 Had Stoic
ethics .een diffe$ent3 the Stoics 0ould not ha-e held this thesis6 .ut as it is3 it de$i-es
f$o4 funda4ental conside$ations in thei$ ethics5
The Stoics hold that $eason3 0hen de-eloped p$ope$ly in a natu$al 0ay 7so4ethin' that
no.ody actually achie-es in ou$ con-entional and pe$-e$ted societies8 leads the a'ent to
ha-e a clea$ '$asp of the diffe$ence .et0een the -alue of -i$tue and the -alue of any othe$
%ind of ai45 Thus at a ce$tain point the $ationally de-eloped pe$son 0ill see that
e-e$ythin' that he has hithe$to held to .e a $easona.le o./ect of pu$suit is -alua.le3
indeed3 .ut in a 0ay that is si4ply o-e$$idden .y the clai4s of -i$tue5 =e can co4pa$e
this to ou$ distinction .et0een 4o$al and non4o$al -alue5 Thus the pe$son 0hose $eason
is $i'ht o$ co$$ect3 the standa$d of the -i$tuous pe$son3 0ill -alue -i$tue in a 0ay 0hich
ensu$es that the clai4s of
CFJD
; **, ;
-i$tue 0ill al0ays o-e$$ide clai4s de$i-in' f$o4 othe$ thin's that 0e no$4ally conside$
'ood3 such as health3 0ealth3 po0e$3 and so on5 He 0ill not lose inte$est in these thin's3
.ut his pu$suit of the4 is al0ays st$on'ly conditional on thei$ consistency 0ith 0hat
-i$tue $eBui$es5 The Stoics put this .y sayin' that the $ational pe$son $ealiAes that only
-i$tue is 'ood3 e-e$ythin' else .ein' :indiffe$ent5:
It is this position 0hich i4plies that all e4otions a$e .ad6 fo$ e4otions such as an'e$3
fea$3 and so on all p$esuppose an attach4ent to non-i$tuous ai4s6 I cannot .e an'$y at an
insult unless I thin% that social hu4iliation is a .ad thin'3 'ettin' one9s o0n .ac% a 'ood
thin'3 and so on5 #ut all such thou'hts in-ol-e co44it4ent to 4ista%en -alues5 Hence
the e4otions3 althou'h they a$e $ational in that they all in-ol-e co44it4ent to .eliefs
a.out thin's3 a$e in conflict 0ith $i'ht $eason in that they 'et in the 0ay of ou$ acceptin'
and li-in' .y the 4o$al point of -ie0 0hich $eason $e-ealsP the point of -ie0 f$o4 0hich
nothin' .ut -i$tue and -ice 4atte$5 E4otions thus a$e not 'ood3 since they do not
encou$a'e us to .eco4e attached to 4o$al -alue5 They a$e not e-en neut$al3 .ut positi-ely
ha$4ful3 since they encou$a'e us to .eco4e attached to -alues 0hich 4ilitate a'ainst
'i-in' 4o$al -alue the sup$e4acy that $eason de4ands5
Nothin' in this pictu$e de4ands that the -i$tuous Stoic 0ould o$ should .e affectless3 and
this 0ould .e a 4isinte$p$etation of apatheia6 fo$ 0hile pathe a$e al0ays .ad3 the$e a$e
so4e co$$espondin' 'ood states3 eupatheiai 5CFKD If you a$e -i$tuous3 and thus you$
i4pulses a$e all in acco$d 0ith $i'ht $eason3 you 0ill not feel fea$3 .ut you 0ill feel
so4ethin'6 you 0ill .e in the effecti-e state of p$ecaution 7eula.eia 85 Si4ila$ly3 you 0ill
feel 0ish 7.oulesis 83 not desi$e3 and /oy 7cha$a 83 not
CFKD
; **I ;
pleasu$e5 The$e is no $ational analo'ue to feelin' pain5 Eupatheiai a$e achie-ed only .y
the -i$tuous pe$son3 0hose i4pulses a$e not e(cessi-e6 they a$e the states you 0ill .e in if
you a$e attached in the $i'ht 0ay to 4o$al -alue3 and thus3 0hile ca$in' in the no$4al 0ay
fo$ thin's 0ith non4o$al -alue3 do not 0$on'ly -alue the4 in a 0ay 0hich could lead
you to 'i-e 4o$ality less than its p$ope$3 o-e$$idin' place5 Since eupatheiai a$e defined
-ia ideal conditions3 it is not -e$y su$p$isin' that 0e ha-e no -e$y intuiti-e idea of 0hat
they 0ould .e li%e5
f8 The Unity of the Soul
This theo$y of the e4otions is 4a$%ed th$ou'hout .y t$e4endous st$ess on the soul9s
unity5 The soul is di-e$sified3 .ut functions as a 0hole6 it has no pa$t 0hich could conflict
0ith the cent$aliAed $ational he'e4oni%on 5 Ou$ e4otions and feelin's3 tu$.ulent and
dysfunctional thou'h they can .e3 cannot .e asc$i.ed to an i$$ational pa$t of the soul o-e$
0hich the a'ent has only indi$ect cont$ol5 They a$e so4ethin' done .y the 0hole soul3
/ust as 4uch as 0ise and conside$ed actions5 !h$ysippus9 4ost fa4ous e(a4ple fo$ a
pe$son actin' e4otionally 0as a 4an $unnin' instead of 0al%in'P
=hen a 4an 0al%s in acco$dance 0ith an i4pulse3 the 4otion of his le's is not e(cessi-e
.ut is in so4e 0ay co44ensu$ate 0ith the i4pulse3 so that he 4ay stop 0hen he 0ishes3
o$ chan'e his pace5 #ut 0hen pe$sons $un in acco$dance 0ith an i4pulse3 this so$t of
thin' no lon'e$ happens5 The 4o-e4ent of the le's e(ceeds the i4pulse3 so that they a$e
ca$$ied a0ay and do not o.ediently chan'e thei$ pace Cas they did .efo$eD the 4o4ent
they set out to do so5 I thin% that so4ethin' si4ila$ to these C4o-e4ents of the le'sD
happens also in i4pulses .ecause of an e(cess .eyond the $ational 4easu$e3 so that 0hen
a 4an e(e$cises the i4pulse he is not o.edient to $eason6 and 0he$eas the e(cess in
$unnin' is te$4ed cont$a$y to
; **J ;
the i4pulse3 the e(cess in i4pulse is te$4ed cont$a$y to $eason5 7PHP 2J+OKM?3 F,MO,F
de "acy8CF1D
E4otional .eha-io$ is seen not as inte$nal conflict o$ .$ea%do0n3 .ut as the 0hole unified
pe$son .ein' out of cont$ol5 The 0al%e$ can adapt to ci$cu4stances3 the $unne$ cannot6
.ut the $unne$ is /ust the 0al%e$ 'oin' too fast3 not the 0al%e$ afflicted .y lac% of
coo$dination5 $o4 this st$ess on unity flo0s the othe$ st$i%in' featu$e of the theo$yP 0e
a$e $esponsi.le fo$ ou$ e4otions3 /ust as 0e a$e fo$ ou$ 4o$e conside$ed actions5 =e
cannot sho-e the4 off on a con-eniently non$ational pa$t of us and say that an e4otional
out.u$st 0as :not $eally 4e: o$ the li%e5 E(cessi-e i4pulses ha-e .een assented to3 /ust as
4uch as the ones that acco$d 0ith $i'ht $eason5
!o44on sense3 .oosted .y Platonic and A$istotelian theo$y3 tends to the alte$nati-e3
inne$Econflict 4odel of e4otion3 0ith a soul di-ided .et0een $ational and i$$ational pa$ts5
One thin' this tends to lead to is a distancin' of oneself f$o4 the pa$t la.eled i$$ational6 it
and its i4pulses co4e to .e seen as :lo0e$3: and fo$ Plato at least as the :.estial: pa$t of
oneself6 one identifies3 as 0e put it3 0ith the $ational pa$t3 0hich has the othe$ pa$t
74ostly8 unde$ cont$ol5 #ut if the 0hole soul is $ational and undi-ided3 0e a$e
indissolu.ly identified 0ith ou$ e4otions and thei$ e(p$ession5 The Stoics3 in a 0ay
inte$estin'ly li%e ea$ly Sa$t$e3 insist that e4otions in-ol-e the 0hole soul and a$e
e(p$essed in all its acti-ities6 they a$e not p$oduced .y a su.o$dinate and potentially alien
fo$ce 0ithin us5 If I 'et an'$y3 I a43 says !h$ysippus3 li%e the outEofEcont$ol $unne$P 0hat
4a%es 4e do it is :outside 4e3 not inside5:CF+D A late$ passa'e 4a%es clea$ that the
outside fo$ce is :the con-incin'ness of appea$ances3 and inst$uction5:C2MD Actin'
e4otionally is not .ein' o-e$co4e .y 4y :lo0e$ self:6 it is .ein' o-e$i4p$essed3 th$ou'h
0ea%ness of cha$acte$3 .y the 0ay the
CF1DCF+DC2MD
; **K ;
situation appea$s5 I a4 fully $esponsi.le fo$ assentin' to that appea$ance instead of
thin%in' thin's th$ou'h 4o$e fully5C2*D
Th$ou'hout antiBuity the Stoic theo$y 0as 0$on'ly ta%en to i4ply an e(t$e4e
intellectualis4 a.out the e4otions5 Yet 0e ha-e f$o4 !h$ysippus -i-id desc$iptions of
i$$ational .eha-io$P 0hen in a passion 0e .ite the %eys and %ic% the doo$ 0hen it fails to
open Buic%ly enou'h and ta%e out ou$ an'e$ on inani4ate o./ects li%e .alls of 0ool5C2FD
!h$ysippus also discussed a%$asia and its 4ost fa4ous lite$a$y e(e4pla$3 Medea3 at
len'th5C22D o$ the Stoics3 of cou$se3 these pheno4ena sho0 not that the$e a$e 0a$$in'
pa$ts of the soul .ut $athe$ that 0e can co4e to identify 0ith .ad3 as 0ell as 0ith 'ood3
$easons5 As Pluta$ch puts it3
they say that the e4otion is not distinct f$o4 $eason3 and that the$e is no dispute o$ ci-il
0a$ .et0een t0o thin's3 .ut a tu$nin' of one and the sa4e $eason to .oth sides3 0hich 0e
do not notice .ecause of its suddenness and speed6 fo$ 0e do not '$asp that it is the natu$e
of the sa4e aspect of the soul to desi$e and to chan'e one9s 4ind3 to feel an'e$ and feel
fea$3 to .e ca$$ied to0a$d 0hat is sha4eful .y pleasu$e and to .e ca$$ied .ac% a'ain and
'et a hold of itself5 7Vi$5 4o$5 ,,Jf CR SV 25 ,I+D8C2,D
#ut Pluta$ch states the theo$y only to co4plain that it is ludic$ously false to the facts6
0he$eas of cou$se it is clai4in' to $edesc$i.e those facts5
C2*DC2FDC22DC2,D
; **1 ;
E-en the 4o$e fa-o$a.ly disposed can accept the 0$on' pictu$e of 0hat the Stoics a$e
doin'5 !ice$o in Tusculan >isputations , 4a%es a 'allant atte4pt to co4p$o4ise .y
co4.inin' Stoic accounts of the e4otions 0ith a Platonic di-ision of the soul into
$ational and i$$ational pa$ts5 The $esult is 4e$ely edifyin' 4uddleP !ice$o pe$sists in
t$eatin' the Stoic ideal of .anishin' pathe as a 4o$e $i'o$istic -e$sion of othe$ theo$ies9
de4and to 4ode$ate the pathe3 failin' to see that 0ithin the diffe$ent theo$ies pathe ha-e
Buite diffe$ent i4plications5 The Stoics e4e$'e as edifyin'ly hi'hE4inded3 .ut co4ically
un$ealistic3 a.out the e4otions6 and this 0as the ca$icatu$e that su$-i-ed in 4ost popula$3
and e-en philosophical3 discussions5C2ID
One Stoic3 Posidonius3 4ade a $eal and une(pected 4odification to the theo$y5C2JD He
c$iticiAed !h$ysippus and appea$ed to $e-e$t to a Platonic pictu$e of distinct $ational and
non$ational faculties in the soul5 Unfo$tunately3 ou$ info$4ation he$e co4es f$o4 @alen3
0ho uses hi4 as a stic% 0ith 0hich to .eat !h$ysippus3 and it is ha$d to %no0 ho0 4uch
of the PlatoniAin' is $ead in .y @alen5
@alen p$ese$-es only one 7oftE$epeated8 a$'u4ent3 one a'$eein' 0ith Posidonius9
cha$acte$ as an indefati'a.le sea$che$ fo$ causes5C2KD =hen an i4pulse is e(cessi-e3 0hat
4a%es it soG The cause cannot .e $eason3 fo$ $eason is a'ainst the action and cannot .e
$esponsi.le fo$ its o0n defeat5 So it 4ust .e a fu$the$3 i$$ational ele4ent in the soul5
Ho0e-e$3 0e al$eady %no0 the causeHit is 0ea%ness of cha$acte$3 0ea% tension in the
0hole soul5 @alen ta%es this as an a$'u4ent fo$ asc$i.in' e4otions to a pa$t of the soul
distinct f$o4 $eason3 .ut as so conside$ed3 it is fee.le5
It is possi.le3 of cou$se3 that @alen is unfai$ly $ep$esentin' Posidonius as 4uch 4o$e of a
Platonist than he 0as3 and that
C2IDC2JDC2KD
; **+ ;
his $eal -ie0 0as consistent 0ith o$thodo( Stoicis43 and 4uch less e(t$e4e5C21D =e
%no0 that Posidonius9 inte$est in the e4otions 0as connected 0ith an inte$est in thei$
educa.ility3 and he see4s3 as fa$ as 0e can 'li4pse his position th$ou'h @alen3 to ha-e
.een conce$ned 0ith 'ene$al patte$ns of p$edisposition to e4otions5 His clai4 4ay ha-e
.een that hu4ans ha-e sta.le patte$ns of non$ational :e4otional 4o-e4ents: 7patheti%ai
%ineseis 8 0hich 4a%e us inclined to e4otions5C2+D Thus 0e 4i'ht .e said to co4e
al$eady eBuipped 0ith :e4otional 4o-e4ents: of a $eacti-e and a''$essi-e %ind3 0hich
p$edispose us to an'e$5 This does not 4a%e an'e$ itself i$$ational 7thus @alen is 0$on' in
assi4ilatin' Posidonius to the Platonic -ie0 0hich places an'e$ in a distinct3 non$ational
pa$t of the soul85 So Posidonius 4ay 0ell ha-e %ept to the o$thodo( Stoic -ie0 of 0hat
e4otions a$eP they a$e /ud'4ents and so on3 and thus $ational5 #ut he thou'ht that he
could 'i-e a .ette$ and 4o$e con-incin' account of the e4otions if he allo0ed that 0e
had ce$tain :e4otional 4o-e4ents: in the soul 0hich 0e$e not the4sel-es e4otions .ut
e(plained 0hy 0e tend to .e p$one to co44itin' ou$sel-es to 0$on' -alues and thus to
feelin' e4otions5 Thus his -ie0 0ould .e o$thodo( at co$e .ut 0ould allo0 4o$e 0ei'ht
than !h$ysippus did to facto$s 0hich encou$a'e so4e philosophe$s to posit a non$ational
pa$t of the soul3 and to asc$i.e e4otions to it5
This is an att$acti-e inte$p$etation6 it 0ould e(plain 0hat is othe$0ise puAAlin'3 na4ely3
0hy Posidonius thou'ht of his -ie0
C21DC2+D
; *FM ;
as a Stoic -ie05 O-e$all3 ho0e-e$3 its ad-anta'es a$e .alanced .y disad-anta'es5
Posidonius can ce$tainly 'i-e a 4o$e plausi.le account than !h$ysippus of 0hy I 4ay
continue to feel dep$essed and '$ie-in'3 fo$ e(a4ple3 lon' afte$ I sho0 e-e$y othe$ si'n
of ha-in' lost the .elief on 0hich the '$ief 0as .ased5C,MD And he can 'i-e a .ette$
account of 0hy people in 'ene$al a$e inclined to 'et an'$y3 feel fea$3 and so onP this is fo$
hi4 an aspect of ou$ co44on hu4an natu$e3 not a consensus in the %ind of 4ista%es that
0e 4a%e5 Ho0e-e$3 !h$ysippus9 account can 'i-e a .ette$ account of so4ethin' -e$y
i4po$tant fo$ the Stoics3 na4ely3 ou$ $esponsi.ility fo$ ou$ e4otions5 Indeed3 on
Posidonius9 account it 0ould .e possi.le pa$tly at least to $e/ect $esponsi.ility fo$ ha-in'
an e4otion3 on the '$ounds that one 0as .u$dened 0ith e4otional 4o-e4ents that 0e$e
not unde$ one9s cont$ol to ha-e o$ not3 and 0hich 4ade it un$easona.ly difficult to $efuse
to ha-e the e4otion in Buestion5C,*D
C,MDC,*D
; *F* ;
PART T=O THE STOI!S
PART THREE THE EPI!UREANS
PART THREE
THE EPI!UREANS
; *F2 ;
J
Ato4is4 and A'ents
a8 Physicalis4 and Reducti-is4
Epicu$ean and Stoic theo$ies of the soul a$e often st$uctu$ally -e$y si4ila$ and so4eti4es
also si4ila$ in detail5 The t0o theo$ies ha-e -e$y diffe$ent 4etaphysical .ac%in'P the
Stoics ha-e a continuu4 theo$y of 4atte$ and hold that the uni-e$se is ani4ate and $uns
.y la0s 0hich $e-eal the 0o$%in's of p$o-idence3 0hile the Epicu$eans ha-e an ato4ic
theo$y of 4atte$ and $e/ect all appeal to p$o-idence and any %ind of teleolo'y5 They also
ha-e diffe$ent ethical conte(tsP the Stoics thin% that $ationality is 0hat is c$ucially
i4po$tant in ou$ ethical de-elop4ent3 0hile Epicu$us holds that ou$ final end is pleasu$e3
and that this is $e-ealed to us di$ectly .y ou$ feelin's5 Ho0e-e$3 the t0o theo$ies sha$e a
co44on physicalist f$a4e0o$% of thin%in' a.out the soul and in 4any 0ays ha-e fa$
4o$e in co44on 0ith each othe$ than eithe$ does 0ith a theo$y li%e A$istotle9s5 The chief
diffe$ences a$e due to the fact that the Stoics a$e hea-ily influenced .y conte4po$a$y
4edical and scientific theo$ies3 0he$eas Epicu$us is less i4p$essed .y scientific $esults
and 4o$e $eliant on a co4.ination of co44onsense fol% psycholo'y and st$ai'htfo$0a$d
philosophical a$'u4ent5C*D
C*D
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; *F, ;
:The soul is a .ody of fine pa$ts3 sp$ead o-e$ the 0hole asse4.la'e5:CFD Epicu$us has one
.$is% a$'u4ent fo$ the soul9s physicality3 0hich appeals to the p$inciples of Epicu$ean
physicsP e-e$ythin' in the 0o$ld 4ust .e e(plained in te$4s only of Epicu$us9 4e$'e$
ontolo'y of ato4s and -oid5C2D This applies to the soul in /ust the sa4e 0ay that it applies
to e-e$ythin' else5 Thus3 he says3 0e cannot concei-e of anythin' e(istent that is not
.ody3 e(cept the -oid5 The -oid can neithe$ act no$ .e acted on5 #ut soul clea$ly does
.oth5 The soul the$efo$e 4ust .e .ody5 The c$ucial p$e4ise he$e is that only .ody
7ulti4ately3 ato4s8 can act o$ .e acted on5 "uc$etius de-elops a diffe$ent a$'u4ent3 f$o4
inte$actionP the soul 4o-es the .ody3 and 0hat happens to the .ody affects the soul5C,D
Hence the soul is a .ody5 "uc$etius $elies on the 4o$e $ounda.out p$e4ise that
inte$action $eBui$es touch and that this $eBui$es .ody5
=e ha-e seen the Stoics use -e$sions of these a$'u4ents6CID they a$e pa$t of sha$ed
Hellenistic philosophical cu$$ency5 They 4a%e it clea$ that Epicu$us is a physicalist3 as
defined in pa$t *5 Study of the soul is pa$t of phusi%e3 enBui$y into the natu$al 0o$ld6
Epicu$ean phusi%e $eco'niAes only t0o %inds of .asic ite43 ato4s and -oid3 so the soul
4ust .e accounted fo$3 in so4e 0ay3 in te$4s of ato4s and -oid5
Epicu$us is so4eti4es thou'ht to ha-e a.andoned physicalis4 7o$3 alte$nati-ely3 to ha-e
4ade his -e$sion of physicalis4 untena.le8 .ecause he 4odified >e4oc$itean ato4is4
.y allo0in' a $ando4 :s0e$-e: a4on' the ato4s6 the s0e$-e is connected in ou$ chief
sou$ces 0ith ou$ ha-in' f$eedo4 of
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDCFDC2DC,DCID
; *FI ;
action3CJD and it is often concluded that f$ee hu4an actions a$e3 fo$ Epicu$us3 due to
e-ents 0hich .$each $e'ula$ Epicu$ean physical la0s5
The s0e$-e 0ill .e discussed in chapte$ 16 fo$ no0 it is enou'h to note that the a.o-e
conclusion 0ould .e confused5 The s0e$-e int$oduces an indete$4inate ele4ent into
physics3 .ut this is a thesis 0ithin physics3CKD not an a.andon4ent of physicalis45 It
co4plicates the physical pictu$e .ut is not a .$each of it5 It is not defined in te$4s of
sol-in' a p$o.le4 of f$ee a'ency6 it is /ust a facto$ in the physical 0o$ld3 0hich ope$ates
in us3 and also ena.les the p$oduction of 0o$lds to 'et 'oin'5
It is often assu4ed that Epicu$us 0as not only a physicalist .ut a $educti-ist5 Possi.ly the
tone of so4e of his 0$itin's 4ay ha-e 'i-en a handle to thisP Epicu$us is so4eti4es
a''$essi-ely philistine3 and 0e find Se(tus as%in' the Epicu$eans ho0 pleasu$e can e(ist
in :the heap of ato4s: they call the soul5C1D #ut it is clea$ that Epicu$us is not a
$educti-ist f$o4 a st$i%in' passa'e in .oo% FI of On Natu$e3 f$a'4ents of 0hich 0e
possess5C+D Epicu$us a$'ues in this passa'e a'ainst the thesis that all e-ents in the 0o$ld3
includin' ou$ actions and thou'hts3 co4e a.out :of necessity5: He allo0s that the t$uth
a.out the physical 0o$ld is 'i-en .y ato4ic theo$y3 0hich is 7apa$t f$o4 the s0e$-e3
0hich is not 4entioned in this te(t8 dete$4inist5 So at the ato4ic le-el3 e-ents do happen
:of necessity5: #ut it is a 4ista%e to conclude f$o4 this that3 at the 4ac$oEle-el3 4y
actions happen of necessity5 It see4s as thou'h they 4ust6 fo$ 4y action of a$'uin'3 say3
is ato4s 4o-in' in -a$ious 0ays
CJDCKDC1DC+D
; *FJ ;
0hich co4e a.out of necessityP so ho0 can it not co4e a.out of necessity that I a4
a$'uin'G A'ainst >e4oc$itus Epicu$us a$'ues that this in-ol-es one in a .lindness to
oneself that lands one in a selfE$efutin' position5C*MD
He .e'ins f$o4 the fact that 0e ha-e p$actices of p$aise3 .la4e3 and the li%e3 0hich 4a%e
sense only on the assu4ption that 0e a$e a'ents capa.le of choice .et0een pe$cei-ed
alte$nati-es3 and not /ust nodes in causal chains5 He cont$asts these p$actices 0ith the 0ay
0e t$eat 0ild ani4als3 0hich 0e do not t$eat as a'ents .ut 4e$ely handle as .est 0e can5
C**D Epicu$us then add$esses the $educti-ist opponent 0ho clai4s that these .eliefs and
p$actices a$e unde$4ined .y the t$uth of dete$4inistic ato4is43 since all ou$ actions a$e
:4e$ely: 4o-e4ents of ato4s3 so that e-en ou$ -e$y p$aisin' and .la4in' a$e :of
necessity5: Epicu$us 4aintains that
such an a$'u4ent $efutes itself Clit5 tu$ns itself upside do0nD and ne-e$ can esta.lish that
e-e$ythin' is such as the thin's 0hich a$e said to happen acco$din' to necessity5 Rathe$3
he co4.ats a pe$son on this -e$y point as thou'h it 0e$e .ecause of hi4self that the
pe$son 0e$e .ein' silly5 And e-en if he 'oes on ad infinitu4 sayin' that the pe$son is
doin' that acco$din' to necessity3 al0ays f$o4 a$'u4ents3 he is failin' to $eason in that
he asc$i.es to hi4self the cause of ha-in' $easoned co$$ectly
C*MDC**D
; *FK ;
and to his opponent the cause of ha-in' $easoned inco$$ectly5C*FD 7A$$i'hetti C2,5F1D6
Sedley *+123 *+6 "on' and Sedley *+1K3 FM ! CIDECJD8
Epicu$us is usin' a standa$d ancient :o-e$tu$nin': a$'u4ent5C*2D It in-ol-es 0hat 0e
0ould call p$a'4atic selfE$efutation5 The$e is no fo$4al selfEcont$adiction3 .ut 0hat the
pe$son says o$ puts fo$0a$d is3 it is clai4ed3 unde$4ined .y he$ 0ay of sayin' it o$
puttin' it fo$0a$d5 An e(a4ple 0ould .e p$o-in' that the$e is no such thin' as p$oof5 If I
p$o-e to you that the$e is no such thin' as p$oof3 then 0hat I p$o-e 7that the$e is no such
thin' as p$oof8 is p$a'4atically $efuted .y the fact that I p$o-e it5 If I 0in3 I lose5
Epicu$us clai4s he$e that $educti-ists li%e >e4oc$itus fall into a t$ap of this fo$4 and that
they a$e :.lind to the4sel-es: .ecause they fail to notice this point5
The $educti-ist holds that .ecause all hu4an actions a$e 4o-e4ents of ato4s3 hu4an
actions a$e :necessitated:6 thus they a$e not $eally up to us3 as 0e suppose the4 to .e3 and
the$e is $eally no such thin' as f$ee hu4an actin'5 If so3 of cou$se3 the$e is $eally no such
thin' as a$'uin'3 c$iticiAin'3 and so on6 0hat 0e thin% to .e such is :nothin' .ut: ato4s
4o-in' in the -oid in 0ays that they ha-e to 4o-e5 Ho0e-e$3 the $educti-ist a$'ues
a'ainst Epicu$us to this effect3 states and defends his -ie03 c$iticiAes Epicu$us fo$ 'ettin'
it 0$on'3 and so on5 And all this unde$4ines his thesis3 since it p$esupposes that the thesis
is 4ista%en5 Hence he is landed 0ith a conflict .et0een his thesis and 0hat he is doin' in
statin' and defendin' his thesis5 He can of cou$se $et$eat3 ad4ittin' of 0hat he says that it
0as necessitated5 #ut the $et$eat can ne-e$ .e Buite fast enou'h6 in ad4ittin' this he is
p$esupposin' the falsity of his thesis5 As Epicu$us points out3 at e-e$y sta'e of his $et$eat
0hat he does is in conflict 0ith the thesis he holds5
Epicu$us does not he$e 4eet the 4o$e sophisticated dete$4inist 0ho clai4s that the
necessitation app$op$iate to ato4ic
C*FDC*2D
; *F1 ;
4otions is not in conflict 0ith hu4an a'ency .ecause it is co4pati.le 0ith it5 Epicu$us is
he$e conce$ned only 0ith the opponent 0ho t$ies to unde$4ine ou$ e-e$yday concept o$
p$olepsis of a'ency5 The opponent3 he says3 is t$yin' to chan'e ou$ concept of 0hat it is
to act5 #ut he has not succeeded in doin' this unless he can e-ade the selfE$efutation
a$'u4ent3 and othe$0ise he is in effect /ust chan'in' a 0o$d .y callin' :necessitated:
0hat 0e call f$ee a'ency3 and this is futile3 since it 4a%es no $eal diffe$ence5C*,D
Epicu$us9 is the fi$st in a lon' line of a$'u4ents to esta.lish non$educti-e physicalis4 .y
sho0in' that $educti-is4 7at least in a dete$4inist -e$sion8 cannot .e consistently stated5
So3 the$e a$e facts a.out ato4s and facts a.out hu4an a'ency3 and each set of facts 0ill
.e $eal6 it 0ill .e 0$on' to t$eat the latte$ as a 4e$e appea$ance of the fo$4e$5C*ID =e
should note that this a$'u4ent does not sho0 that Epicu$us is not a dete$4inist5 It sho0s
that he thin%s that3 p$ope$ly unde$stood3 dete$4inis4 4ust .e co4pati.le 0ith ou$
co44onsense unde$standin' of ou$sel-es and of the 0o$ld5 The a$'u4ent is thus 4o$e
p$ope$ly anti$educti-ist than antidete$4inist5C*JD
Epicu$us is thus /ustified in distin'uishin' .et0een 0hat happens .y necessity o$ .y
chance f$o4 0hat depends on us
C*,DC*IDC*JD
; *F+ ;
7pa$9 he4as 85C*KD It is note0o$thy that Epicu$us does not clai4 that thin's a$e up to us
7eph9 he4in 8 .ut that they depend on us 7pa$9 he4as 85 He is defendin' the intuiti-e idea
that 0e a$e a'ents3 and see4s not to 0ant to defend a -e$y st$on' and possi.ly unintuiti-e
-e$sion of the idea5C*1D
In pa$ticula$3 4o$al de-elop4ent is $eal6 "uc$etius insists that .y $easonin' the indi-idual
can o-e$co4e handicaps of inhe$ited te4pe$a4ent5C*+D In se-e$al unfo$tunately
f$a'4enta$y and difficult pa$ts of On Natu$e FI Epicu$us insists that ou$ ato4ic
constitution is to .e distin'uished f$o4 ou$ :de-elop4ent: 7apo'e'enne4enon 83 0hich
depends on us5 It depends on 4e3 not /ust 4y ato4s3 ho0 I de-elop and 0hat %ind of a
pe$son I .eco4e6 e-en thou'h it is a t$uth of physics that I a4 ato4s5 This is a defense of
co44on senseP 4y physical 4a%eup and the e(pe$ience I ha-e put so4e const$aints on
0hat I can .eco4e3 .ut still ho0 I de-elop depends on 4e5 As Epicu$us e(plains3
f$o4 the fi$st .e'innin' 0e ha-e seeds di$ectin' us3 so4e to0a$d so4e thin's3 othe$s
to0a$d othe$s3 othe$s to0a$d .othHin e-e$y case seeds3 0hich 4ay .e 4any o$ fe03 of
actions3 thou'hts3 and dispositions5CFMD Thus it depends on us at fi$st a.solutely 0hat
.eco4es of 0hat is al$eady a de-elop4ent3 0hethe$ of one o$ anothe$ %ind3 and the thin's
0hich of necessity flo0 in f$o4 the en-i$on4ent th$ou'h the po$es depend on us 0hen
they co4e a.out at so4e ti4e3 and depend on ou$ .eliefs that co4e f$o4 ou$sel-es5
7A$$i'hetti C2,5FJD6 Sedley *+123 2JO2K6 "on' and Sedley *+1K3 FM ! C*D8
C*KDC*1DC*+DCFMD
; *2M ;
Epicu$us clea$ly has '$eat $eliance on ou$ co44onsense -ie0 of ou$sel-es as f$ee3
de-elopin' a'ents5CF*D
In this passa'e3 0hich is unfo$tunately .oth hi'hly technical and -e$y f$a'4enta$y3
Epicu$us tal%s of3 on the one hand3 the self 7:0e:8 and the de-elop4ent and3 on the othe$3
of the ato4s3 the natu$e3 and the constitution5 So4eti4es the de-elop4ent see4s to
depend on the self 7as in the a.o-e passa'e83 .ut the te(t as a 0hole suppo$ts the -ie0
that Epicu$us is si4ply tal%in' a.out an a'ent 0ho de-elops5 So4eti4es the a'ent is
identified 0ith he$ de-elop4ent3 so4eti4es the de-elop4ent is discussed sepa$ately3 as
.ein' an aspect of the a'ent as a 0hole5 On the othe$ side3 the constitution 7so4eti4es the
o$i'inal constitution8 is distin'uished f$o4 the de-elop4ent5 The de-elop4ent chan'es
the o$i'inal constitution and 'ets it to chan'e o$ :'$o0: in so4e $espect5 The natu$e is
si4ply the natu$e of the constitution6 and li%e0ise the ato4s a$e the ato4s of the
constitution5 The$e is no i4plication that the self o$ the de-elop4ent a$e nonato4ic3 .ut
the ato4s of the constitution can .e cont$asted 0ith the ato4s 0hich i4pin'e f$o4 the
outside and help to p$oduce the de-elop4ent5CFFD
Epicu$us thus sees us3 co44onsensically enou'h despite the /a$'on3 as de-elopin'
a'ents3 indeed as a'ents 0ho de-elop ou$sel-es5 Althou'h hu4ans a$e ato4ic co4pounds
li%e any othe$3 they diffe$ f$o4 othe$ %inds of ato4ic co4pounds in that thei$ '$o0th and
functionin' is not to .e e(plained solely in te$4s of auto4atic $esponse to sti4uli f$o4
outside5 Ho0 they de-elop depends to so4e e(tent3 thou'h not totally3 on the4sel-es3 on
0hat they do 0ith the info$4ation they ta%e in3 ho0 they decide to $eact selecti-ely to it3
and 0hat %inds of cha$acte$ and dispositions they .uild up5CF2D Thus Epicu$us
CF*DCFFDCF2D
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; *2* ;
is conce$ned to do /ustice to fol% psycholo'y9s .elief that 0e a$e a'ents 0ho 4o-e and
de-elop ou$sel-es5 This point on its o0n does not dete$4ine eithe$ the outline o$ the
detail of any 4etaphysical conception of the self6 it is a 4ini4al .asis co4pati.le 0ith a
nu4.e$ of diffe$ent %inds of theo$etical e(planation5 As to ho0 such selfEde-elop4ent is
possi.le 0e find in the f$a'4ents only the point that 0e ha-e f$o4 the -e$y sta$t :seeds3:
potentials fo$ de-elopin' one 0ay $athe$ than the othe$5 This is ta%en fo$ '$anted and not
fu$the$ defended5
The only hint 0e find in the $e4ains of this .oo% as to ho0 0e de-elop ou$sel-es lies in
the $efe$ence to the info$4ation 0e ta%e in f$o4 the en-i$on4ent dependin' on the
.eliefs 0e ha-e5 It is .ecause 0e ha-e $eason and can fo$4 .eliefs that 0e de-elop as
a'ents6 this is clea$ al$eady f$o4 the passa'e f$o4 "uc$etius 0hich tells us that .y
de-elopin' ou$ $eason 0e can o$de$ the $est of ou$ natu$e and o-e$co4e the tendencies
0e a$e .o$n 0ith5CF,D Reason3 ho0e-e$3 ta%es 4any fo$4s6 0e shall see in the ne(t
section that they a$e not all li4ited to hu4ans5
The$e is one passa'e of .oo% FI 0hich see4s to su''est so4ethin' st$on'e$ than the
co44onsense pictu$eP
Many Cde-elop4entsGDCFID 0hich ha-e a natu$e 0hich is capa.le of .eco4in' p$oducti-e
of .oth this and that th$ou'h the4sel-es do not .eco4e p$oducti-e3 and it is not .ecause
of the sa4e cause in the ato4s and in the4sel-es5CFJD These in pa$ticula$ 0e co4.at and
$e.u%e 5 5 5
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDCF,DCFIDCFJD
; *2F ;
in acco$dance 0ithCFKD thei$ natu$e3 0hich is distu$.ed f$o4 the .e'innin'3 as is t$ue of
all ani4als6 fo$ in thei$ case the natu$e of the ato4s has cont$i.uted nothin' to so4e of
thei$ actions3 and to the e(tent of thei$ actions and dispositions3 .ut the de-elop4ents
the4sel-es contain all o$ 4ost of the cause of so4e of these thin's5 As a $esult of that
natu$e so4e of the ato4s9 4otions a$e 4o-ed in a distu$.ed 0ay3 not in e-e$y 0ay
th$ou'h the ato4s3 .ut th$ou'h 0hat ente$s 5 5 5 f$o4 the en-i$on4ent into the natu$al 5 5 5
co4.attin' and ad-isin' 4any people to'ethe$3 0hich is opposed to the necessa$y cause
of the sa4e %ind5 Thus 0hen so4ethin' de-elops 0hich has so4e distinctness a4on' the
ato4sCF1D in a diffe$ential 0ay 0hich is not li%e that f$o4 a diffe$ent distance3CF+D it
acBui$es a cause f$o4 itself3 then t$ans4its it at once to the p$i4a$y natu$es and in so4e
0ay 4a%es all of it one5C2MD 7A$$i'hetti C2,5F*OFFD6 Sedley *+123 2JO216 "on' and
Sedley *+1K3 FM # C*DOCJD6 "au$sen *+113 *KO*18
This passa'e has .een 4ade the .asis fo$ clai4s that Epicu$us holds that 0e a$e not /ust
a'ents in the co44onsense unde$standin' of selfEde-elope$s3 .ut sel-es in a 0ay that
t$anscends ato4is4 alto'ethe$5C2*D Ho0e-e$3 it is i4po$tant to note that this passa'e
conce$ns diso$de$ed people3 in 0ho4 so4ethin'3 thou'h it is not clea$ /ust 0hat3 has
'one 0$on'5 u$the$4o$e3 e-en in these people it is only so4e of thei$ actions to 0hich
the ato4s cont$i.ute nothin'3C2FD and e-en then 0e a$e told that the de-elop4ent
accounts fo$ all o$ 4ost of the
CFKDCF1DCF+DC2MDC2*DC2FD
; *22 ;
cause of 0hat they do5 This is3 the$efo$e3 not an account of no$4al a'ency3 and so cannot
'i-e us Epicu$us9 o0n -ie0 of hu4an a'ency5
Ho0e-e$3 it is inte$estin' to us e-en as an account of de-iant a'ency3 and it is a pity that
it is so ha$d to see /ust 0hat has 'one 0$on'5 Epicu$us says that the condition of :all
ani4als: is distu$.ed f$o4 the .e'innin'6 this 4ay 0ell include hu4ans3 and see4s to
e4.ody the idea that 0e achie-e the desi$a.le Epicu$ean ethical end of unt$ou.ledness
7ata$a(ia 8 as 0e 4atu$e3 .y i4posin' o$de$ on ou$ initially diso$de$ly natu$e5 =hat is
0$on' 0ith the a'ents he$e is that they a$e li%e i44atu$e3 diso$de$ly a'ents5 Ho0e-e$3
this does not see4 to .e 0hat they a$e the4sel-es3 since the passa'e su''ests that they
a$e pe$-e$se o$ de-iant3 $athe$ than i44atu$e5 Pe$haps the nea$est 0e can 'et to a 'ene$al
inte$p$etation of 0hat is 'oin' on is that t0o thin's a$e t$ue of these a'ents5 The 0ay they
a$e de-elopin' is at odds 0ith thei$ constitution5 They a$e de-elopin'3 o$ t$yin' to
de-elop3 in 0ays that do not fit the 0ay they ha-e de-eloped hithe$to5 Secondly3 thei$
constitution is3 as a $esult3 diso$de$ly3 li%e the initial state of i44atu$e a'ents5
Ho0e-e$ 0e inte$p$et the details of this passa'e3 the o-e$all pictu$e 0hich e4e$'es is that
of an Epicu$us 0ho is i4p$essed .y the fact that hu4ans a$e a selfE4o-in' %ind of thin'3
0ith potential to de-elop in di-e$se 0ays3 .ut 0ho does not $eact .y a.andonin'
physicalis45 =e shall see fu$the$ that he is Buite in'enious in 0o$%in' out details of a
tho$ou'hly physicalist account of the soul5 He is a0a$e that the$e is a tension .et0een
$educti-e physicalis4 and ou$ co44onsense -ie0 of ou$sel-es3 0hich he 0ants to
p$ese$-e3 and he $esponds 0ith an a$'u4ent to sho0 that $educti-is4 cannot3 in p$inciple3
.e t$ue5 It is clea$ e-en .y this point that Epicu$us9 account is ans0e$in' to a nu4.e$ of
const$aints5 His philosophy of 4ind 4ust .e physicalist3 and in pa$ticula$ 4ust .e
de-eloped 0ithin his -e$sion of ato4is45 It is also3 as 0e shall see3 an e4pi$icist account5
#ut it also ta%es -e$y se$iously 0hat 0e .elie-e a.out ou$sel-es3 and 0he$e this conflicts
0ith a possi.le 0ay fo$ his theo$y to de-elop3 it is the theo$y he $e/ects
; *2, ;
and not ou$ intuiti-e pictu$e of ou$sel-es as de-elopin' a'ents5 =e ha-e to 0ait until late$
to find out 0hat 4a%es us f$ee a'ents5C22D
.8 Soul in the =o$ld
The Stoic cos4os is ani4ate3 desi'ned .y p$o-idence3 and pe$4eated .y $eason5 The
Epicu$ean cos4os is none of these thin's3 and this 4a%es a .i' diffe$ence to the place in
it of hu4an .ein's5
The 4otions of ato4s in the -oid 'i-e $ise to co4pounds a4on' 0hich a$e ani4ate3
sensin'3 .ein's6 .ut the ato4s the4sel-es a$e inani4ate6C2,D Epicu$us $e/ects the
panpsychist de4and that life .e p$esent in the ulti4ate constituents of 0hat has life5
Hence the$e is no Epicu$ean 0o$ld soul6 li-in' .ein's do not display in the4sel-es the
0o$%in's of p$inciples of life also at 0o$% in the uni-e$se as a 0hole5
u$the$3 Epicu$us $e/ects p$o-idence and any teleolo'y3 .oth fo$ the 0o$ld as a 0hole and
fo$ its pa$ts5C2ID Since the 0o$ld is not an o$de$ed 0hole3 hu4ans ha-e no pa$ticula$
place in it6 the$e is no scale of .ein's5 :The soul is a peculia$ %ind of thin'3 li%e nothin'
else5:C2JD o$ Epicu$us the$e is also nothin' li%e Stoic $ationality 0hich pe$4eates the
0o$ld and 'i-es it 7in 4any senses8 si'nificance5 Rationality does not cut hu4ans sha$ply
off f$o4 ani4als as it does fo$ the Stoics5 Ani4als as 0ell as hu4ans act f$eely6 at least
"uc$etius illust$ates the e(istence of f$ee i4pulse 7li.e$a -oluntas 8 f$o4 the e(a4ple of
ho$ses in a $ace5C2KD u$the$3 a passa'e in On Natu$e FI distin'uishes .et0een 0ild and
ta4e ani4als .y the e(tent
C22DC2,DC2IDC2JDC2KD
; *2I ;
to 0hich thei$ $eaction is st$ai'htfo$0a$dly caused .y input f$o4 the en-i$on4ent3 o$
depends on the ani4al itself5C21D
The Epicu$eans in fact ha-e a position st$i%in'ly diffe$ent f$o4 the Stoics9 on :the $eason
of ani4als5: Not only does "uc$etius tal% of ho$ses ha-in' li.e$a -oluntas 3 he tal%s of
ho$ses and dee$ as ha-in' a 4ind5C2+D Ho0e-e$3 He$4a$chus3 an ea$ly Epicu$ean3 denies3
in a discussion of /ustice and ani4als3 that ani4als ha-e lo'os o$ $easonin'5 That is3 he
says3 0hy 0e can 4a%e no cont$acts 0ith the45C,MD Hu4ans3 as opposed to ani4als3 ha-e
ad-anced in ci-iliAation .ecause they can $eason a.out 0hat is in thei$ inte$ests3 0he$eas
ani4als ha-e only :i$$ational 4e4o$y5:C,*D
A$e these 4utually cont$adicto$y -ie0s on the pa$t of diffe$ent .$anches of the schoolG
They see4 $athe$ to .e a 4atte$ of diffe$ences of e4phasis5 =e find a 4o$e nuanced
-ie0 in a late$ head of the school3 Polyst$atus5C,FD Ani4als3 he says3 sha$e .$oad 'ene$al
featu$es 0ith us .ut a$e i4po$tantly diffe$ent5 They ta%e in3 .ut do not unde$stand as 0e
do3C,2D ce$tain thin'sP p$udential concepts 7healthy3 e(pedient83 ethical concepts 7fine3
.ase83 $eli'ious concepts 7sac$ed3 p$ofane83 and si'ns 7se4eia 85 The last a4ounts to the
clai4 that ani4als ha-e no infe$ential $easonin'6 this e(plains3 fo$ Polyst$atus3 0hy they
cannot fo$esee p$o.le4s3 lea$n f$o4 the past3 assess thei$ o0n
C21DC2+DC,MDC,*DC,FDC,2D
; *2J ;
inte$ests3 o$ $eflect on thei$ li-es as 0holes5C,,D So ani4als :do not sha$e in $easonin'3 o$
not one li%e ou$s5:C,ID Yet Polyst$atus thin%s it $idiculous to deny that 0e a$e in 'ene$al
0ays li%e ani4als3 as the Stoics do5
The o.-ious 0ay to 4a%e all this consistent is to $eco'niAe that ani4als ha-e so4e
$easonin' capacities3 .ut not othe$s6 in pa$ticula$3 not the ones that distin'uish hu4ans3
0hich 0e ine-ita.ly call the hi'he$ ones5 This is a co44onsense conclusion3 .ut it has an
i4po$tant3 thou'h o-e$loo%ed3 conseBuenceP fo$ the Epicu$eans $ationality is not a sin'le
%ind of thin' .ut a cluste$ of capacities3 so4e of 0hich ani4als sha$e 0ith us and so4e
not5 =e shall see that Epicu$us f$eBuently falls into difficulties o-e$ the status of the
$ational pa$t of the soul3 and 4uch of his philosophy of 4ind 0ould ha-e .enefited f$o4
ta%in' 4o$e to hea$t this conseBuence of denyin' a sha$p cutoff .et0een hu4ans and
othe$ ani4als5C,JD
?u$ia do(a 2F encapsulates the Epicu$ean attitude to 0hat di-ides us f$o4 ani4alsP :As
fo$ those ani4als that cannot 4a%e cont$acts a.out not ha$4in' one anothe$ o$ .ein'
ha$4edHto0a$d these the$e is no /ust o$ un/ust6 and si4ila$ly 0ith those nations that
cannot o$ 0ill not 4a%e cont$acts a.out not ha$4in' o$ .ein' ha$4ed5:C,KD =e do not
o0e duties of /ustice to ani4als6 .ut this is 4e$ely .ecause they do not ha-e enou'h
$easonin' capacity to 4a%e and %eep cont$actsHso4ethin' t$ue of so4e hu4ans also5
And 0e can see f$o4 .oo% I of "uc$etius ho0 deeply a4.i-alent the Epicu$eans a$e
a.out the :p$o'$ess: of ci-iliAation and the 0ays in 0hich
C,,DC,IDC,JDC,KD
; *2K ;
0e ha-e used ou$ $easonin' to diffe$entiate ou$sel-es f$o4 ani4als5
c8 The Natu$e and St$uctu$e of the Soul
:The soul consists of the s4oothest and $oundest ato4s3 '$eatly supe$io$ Csc5 in these
$espectsD to those of fi$e5:C,1D The soul ani4ates the enti$e .ody 0ithout dependin' on
.ul% o$ .$ute fo$ce3 4e$ely .ecause of the natu$e of its co4position5 :The soul p$o-ides
natu$e 0ith the $eason fo$ the Cp$esence o$ a.sence ofD life5 o$ e-en thou'h it does not
possess the sa4e nu4.e$ of ato4s as the .ody3 .ein' placed in it 0ith its $ational and
i$$ational ele4ents3 ne-e$theless it enco4passes the 0hole .ody and3 .ein' .ound .y it3
.inds it in its tu$n3 /ust as the sho$test dash of acid /uice cu$dles a -ast Buantity of
4il%5:C,+D
The soul is a co4.ination of fou$ %inds of soul ato45 It is puAAlin' that Epicu$us9 o0n
"ette$ to He$odotus J2 so unde$states the doct$ine as to .e se$iously 4isleadin'3CIMD .ut
0e %no0 f$o4 othe$ sou$ces that the soul is constituted of ato4s of fou$ %indsP fi$eli%e3
ai$li%e3 pneu4a Eli%e3 and na4eless5CI*D The clai4 that the fi$st th$ee %inds of ato4s a$e
li%e the ato4s of fi$e3 ai$3 and so on p$esu4a.ly a4ounts to so4ethin' li%e the follo0in'5
The soul does not contain /ust the %ind of fi$e that 0e find in fi$eplaces3 .ut so4ethin'
0hich is li%e that in .asic
C,1DC,+DCIMDCI*D
; *21 ;
$espects3 .ut 4o$e $efined 7it does not .u$n the $est of the soul3 fo$ e(a4ple85 The idea 0e
ha-e of it co4es f$o4 ou$ idea of fi$e3 indeed fo$ Epicu$us it has to3 since he is an
e4pi$icist and holds that ou$ concepts a$e .uilt up f$o4 0hat 0e encounte$ in e(pe$ience5
Thus ou$ concept of it is si4ply so4ethin' fi$eli%e3 since 0e ha-e no di$ect access to it in
e(pe$ience6 all 0e can do is si4ply e(tend the e(pe$iential conception that 0e do ha-e5
The .asis fo$ this account of the soul9s co4position is /ust the co44onsense o.se$-ation
that :a ce$tain thin .$eath 4i(ed 0ith heat lea-es the dyin'3 and heat3 fu$the$3 .$in's ai$
alon' 0ith it5:CIFD It is nota.le he$e that pneu4a has $etained its co44onsense 4eanin'
of :.$eath3: in cont$ast to its d$a4atic theo$etical de-elop4ent in A$istotle and the
4edical 0$ite$s5 So fa$ is Epicu$us f$o4 0hat 0as to .eco4e the scientific 4ainst$ea43 in
0hich pneu4a is essentially 0a$43 that his pneu4a is cha$acte$istically cold5CI2D
"uc$etius de-elops a theo$y a.out diffe$in' cont$i.utions 4ade .y the fi$st th$ee
ele4ents5CI,D ie$ce lions ha-e a p$eponde$ance of heat6 ti4id sta's illust$ate the
do4inance of cold pneu4a3 and placid co0s that of sta.le ai$5 He 'oes on to apply the
idea to e(plain diffe$ences of te4pe$a4ents .et0een indi-idual hu4ans6 it is not clea$
0hethe$ this is his o0n cont$i.ution3 o$ ho0 it is to .e e(tended f$o4 the idea of type
diffe$ences5
The fou$th3 na4eless ele4ent has a p$i-ile'ed position5 It '$eatly e(ceeds the othe$
ele4ents in the fineness of its pa$ts 7lepto4e$eia 8 and :thus is 4o$e sensiti-e to
7su4pathes 8 the enti$e asse4.la'e5:CIID Acco$din' to Pluta$ch it is f$o4 this na4eless
ele4ent that the$e co4es a.out :that .y 0hich the a'ent /ud'es and $e4e4.e$s and lo-es
and hates3 and in 'enE
CIFDCI2DCI,DCIID
; *2+ ;
e$al the intelli'ence and $easonin'5:CIJD Acco$din' to ATtius the fou$th ele4ent is the
only one that can p$oduce sensation5CIKD So the fou$th ato4 type see4s to .e $esponsi.le
fo$ sensation3 thou'ht3 e4otion3 and 4e4o$y5
=hy is the fou$th ele4ent na4elessG Epicu$us is ha$dly $eluctant to coin ne0 /a$'on
else0he$e5 He$e he is const$ained .y his e4pi$icis4 a.out concepts and lan'ua'e5 =e
ha-e so4e idea of 0hat the fi$eli%e ato4s in the soul a$e li%e f$o4 ou$ e(pe$iences 0ith
fi$e3 0hich ha-e led us to p$oduce the 0o$d :fi$e:6 ou$ concept of the in'$edient in the
soul 0o$%s out0a$d f$o4 this5 #ut in the case of the fou$th %ind of ato4 the$e is nothin'
in ou$ e(pe$ience capa.le of 'i-in' us any3 e-en pa$tial3 idea of 0hat it is li%e5 Not only
do 0e ne-e$ encounte$ it3 0e ne-e$ e-en encounte$ anythin' that stands to it the 0ay fi$e
in fi$eplaces stands to the fi$eli%e ato4s in the soul5 The na4eless %ind of ato4 is the
only pu$ely theo$etical entity in Epicu$eanis45 E-en in the case of ato4s and -oid 0e can
concei-e .oth .y e(tension f$o4 thin's in ou$ e(pe$ience 0hich a$e indi-isi.le and
e4pty5
Many ha-e found the ano4alous natu$e of the na4eless ato4s an e4.a$$ass4ent5 !$itics
ancient and 4ode$n ha-e clai4ed that he$e Epicu$us is d$i-en .ac% upon a so4ethin' he
%no0s not 0hat3 and that this $eally a4ounts to an a.andon4ent of physicalis46 fo$ the
na4eless %ind of ato4 is physical3 .ut3 in appealin' to so4ethin' that has no e(pe$iential
.asis 0hate-e$3 Epicu$us is /ust p$o-idin' a standEin fo$ e-e$ythin' that is ha$d to e(plain3
'i-en a physicalist position5CI1D It is undenia.le that Epicu$us is 0ea%enin' his
e4pi$icis4 he$e to a '$eat e(tent6 0e ha-e to $ely on the$e .ein' a theo$etical entity
0hich does a '$eat deal of 0o$% in the theo$y .ut of 0hich 0e ha-e no idea at all f$o4
e(pe$ience5 #ut this need not .e seen as o./ectiona.le6 indeed it can .e seen as 4e$ely
$ealistic5 Ou$ idea of the soul 'oes fa$ .eyond 0hat 0e can
CIJDCIKDCI1D
; *,M ;
$eadily e(t$apolate f$o4 the natu$es of fi$e3 ai$3 and pneu4a 5 No$ is the$e any $eason to
thin% that Epicu$us is a.andonin' physicalis43 thin%in' of the fou$th %ind of ato4 as in
effect a 4a'ic addition 0hich 0ill .$in' to life so4ethin' that physicalist p$inciples
cannot account fo$5CI+D
The $ole of the fou$th ele4ent e4e$'es f$o4 "uc$etius5CJMD The 4otions of the ato4s3 he
says3 so inte$penet$ate that they cannot .e sepa$ated3 no$ can thei$ p$ope$ties .e di-ided
off5 The ato4s 7the %inds of ato43 p$esu4a.ly8 a$e li%e the 4any po0e$s of a sin'le
.ody5 A li-in' c$eatu$e is one thin'3 althou'h it has 4any p$ope$ties li%e s4ell3 heat3 and
taste6 si4ila$ly3 the %inds of ato4 fo$4 :a sin'le natu$e5: =e a$e $e4inded of the
co4pa$ison of the Stoic unified soul 0ith its diffe$ent po0e$s to an apple 0ith its
diffe$ent p$ope$ties5 The fou$th ele4ent is the po0e$ that 4a%es the soul into a unityH
0ithout it3 "uc$etius says3 the othe$ th$ee %inds of ato4 0ould not hold to'ethe$ and .e
ena.led to function as they in fact do in an ani4ate .ody5CJ*D
The fou$th ele4ent is :hidden deepest: in the soul3 as the soul is in the .ody6 it is :the
soul of the soul: and :$uns thin's in the enti$e .ody5: !lea$ly the fou$th ele4ent is not
spatially fa$thest inside3 .o(ed in .y the othe$ th$ee5CJFD The soul3 afte$ all3 is not .o(ed
in .y the .ody5 Rathe$ the soul is :hidden: in the sense that 0e do not encounte$ it in
e(pe$ience5 =e see clea$ly enou'h the effects of ha-in' a soulP it ani4ates and di$ects the
.ody5 #ut the soul itself is not open to o.se$-ation5 Si4ila$ly3 the fou$th ele4ent is 0hat
:ani4ates: the soul5 Althou'h 0e cannot o.se$-e the soul3 0e can 4a%e infe$ences
CI+DCJMDCJ*DCJFD
; *,* ;
as to its natu$e3 and in pa$ticula$ infe$ the e(istence of a %ind of ato4 0hich 'ets the soul
to function as a 0hole3 and 0hich is distinct f$o4 the othe$ soul ele4ents 0hose natu$e
0e can pa$tially desc$i.e f$o4 e(pe$ience5
Soul and .ody3 as "uc$etius says3CJ2D a$e 4utually dependentP soul is li%e the scent in a
pe$fu4e 0hich you cannot $e4o-e 0ithout dest$oyin' the su.stance5 And the fou$th
ele4ent stands to the soul as the soul stands to the .ody6 it and the othe$ soul ele4ents
a$e 4utually dependent in that 0ithout the4 it 0ould ha-e nothin' to :ani4ate3: and
0ithout it they 0ould not hold to'ethe$ as a sin'le %ind of thin'5 Ho0 does the fou$th
ele4ent do thisG It cannot .e .y ope$atin'3 in a see4in'ly 4a'ical fashion3 on its o0n5
Rathe$3 it 4ust3 .y its pa$ticula$ly fine natu$e3 ena.le the othe$ ele4ents to co4e to'ethe$
in a ne0 so$t of co4pound5 It 4a%es the soul a unity in the st$ai'htfo$0a$d sense that its
natu$e fo$4s the necessa$y .asis fo$ the othe$ ato4 %inds to cohe$e in a co4pound that
has the p$ope$ties of a soul5 The int$oduction of the fou$th ele4ent 4a$%s an insistence
that the$e is a physical diffe$ence .et0een souls and othe$ %inds of .ody5
In one 0ay this fits 0ell into Epicu$ean theo$yP the soul9s ope$ations a$e supposed to
in-ol-e pa$ticula$ly fine3 in-isi.le p$ocesses3 and the fou$th ele4ent se$-es to e(plain
ho0 the soul3 thou'h physical3 can ha-e a peculia$ly fine st$uctu$e ena.lin' these to
occu$5 #ut in othe$ 0ays the 4o-e see4s unde$4oti-ated5 Epicu$ean physics and
cos4olo'y ope$ate 0ith ato4s and -oidP ato4ic 4otions and the $esultin' co4pounds
they 'i-e $ise to a$e all 0e ha-e to e(plain the -a$ied pheno4enal 0o$ld5 aced .y a
co4ple( and selfE$ep$oducin' %ind of thin' li%e a t$ee3 an Epicu$ean has to ad4it that the
0ay it '$o0s and $ep$oduces is accounted fo$ .y its patte$n of functional o$'aniAation3
0hich is sta.le enou'h to esta.lish t$ees as thin's 0ith pe$sistin' natu$es5 @i-en an
ontolo'y as 4ea'e$ as that of ato4s and -oid3 and a $e/ection of teleolo'y3 patte$ns of
functional o$'aniAation a$e $eBui$ed to e(plain a 0o$ld
CJ2D
; *,F ;
0he$e thin's fall into species 0ith sta.le .eha-io$5 #ut 0hy 0ill the app$oach dee4ed
adeBuate to e(plain the speciesEspecific .eha-io$ of t$ees not suffice to e(plain the
.eha-io$ of peopleG To $e-e$se the point3 if 0e need a special %ind of na4eless ato4 to
e(plain 0hat souls a$e3 0hy do 0e not need anothe$ %ind of ato4 to e(plain 0hat t$ees
a$eG
It 4ay .e that Epicu$us si4ply thou'ht that ani4als and hu4ans a$e so diffe$ent in thei$
co4ple(ity f$o4 thin's li%e t$ees that the sa4e type of e(planation 0ould lea-e
so4ethin' out in thei$ case5 Mo$e li%ely3 he 4ay ha-e thou'ht that appealin' 4e$ely to
patte$ns of functional o$'aniAation in the case of hu4ans to e(plain 0hat is cha$acte$istic
of the4 0as p$o.le4atic f$o4 the point of -ie0 of ato4ist 4ethodolo'y5 It is all $i'ht to
say that a t$ee is the %ind of thin' it is .ecause its ato4s a$e o$'aniAed in a pa$ticula$
sta.ly functionin' 0ay5 #ut to say this of hu4ans 4i'ht sound dan'e$ously close to
A$istotle3 and 0ould -e$'e on $eco'niAin' a 4etaphysical p$inciple li%e fo$4 as .ein' as
.asic fo$ e(planation as 4atte$5 If it $eally p$o-ides an e(planation to say that I pe$cei-e
and act .ecause the$e a$e sta.le pe$cepti-e3 $eacti-e3 and so on patte$ns of functionin'
0hich 4y soul ena.les 4y .ody to ca$$y out3 these patte$ns see4 to ha-e a la$'e
e(planato$y $ole5 And 0e can see 0hy Epicu$us 0ould find this p$o.le4atic6 la$'e
diffe$ences of e(planato$y $ole ou'ht3 in a physicalist syste43 to ha-e a physical .asis5
Thus the na4eless ato4 type3 fa$ f$o4 si'nalin' a $et$eat f$o4 physicalis43 $e-eals
confidence in the adeBuacy of physicalis4 as a theo$y of the soul5 The$e is a physical
diffe$ence .et0een souls and othe$ %inds of thin'6 so 0e do not need anythin' li%e
A$istotelian fo$4s to e(plain the 0ay the soul functions5
Is this 4o-e successfulG A$istotle a$'ues that i'no$in' the $ole of fo$4 lea-es us una.le
to e(plain functionin'5 Is the postulation of a physical diffe$ence3 a ne0 %ind of
in'$edient3 adeBuate to 4eet this %ind of challen'eG =e 4i'ht feel unhappy 0hen 0e
$ecall that the in'$edient is na4eless3 since theo$y postulates so4ethin' of 0hich
e(pe$ience 'i-es us no
; *,2 ;
idea5 A successful challen'e to A$istotle 0ould $ely on achie-ed science and point to
ac%no0led'ed co4ple(ity of st$uctu$e to do the e(planato$y 0o$% assi'ned to fo$45 #ut
not only is Epicu$us not in a position to appeal to such science3 he is in 'ene$al not -e$y
inte$ested in lo0Ele-el3 0o$%in' science5 He accepts ato4is4 as the .est a-aila.le
scientific theo$y and tends to assu4e that 0hat is needed can .e 0o$%ed out 0ithin
ato4is43 0ithout 0aitin' fo$ actual $esea$ch5 Thus in his appeal to na4eless ato4s the$e
is a conside$a.le ele4ent of faithHthe %ind of faith in science 0hich philosophe$s often
ha-e 0ho do not do any actual science5
Epicu$us9 account of the soul t$ies to inte$p$et co44on sense in te$4s of ato4ic theo$y5
Unli%e the Stoics3 he does not t$y to push the inte$p$etation of soul in the di$ection of the
4ental5 He accounts fo$ 4uch of 0hat 0e call the 4ental .y the $ational soul3 .ut the
$ational soul is 4e$ely a pa$t of the 0hole soul3 and that is clea$ly ta%en to .e the physical
.asis of all the functionin's of a li-in' thin'5 =e can see f$o4 a f$a'4ent of >io'enes of
Oenoanda ho0 closely Epicu$us stays to co44on senseP
Often 0hen the .ody has .een .$ou'ht to su$$ende$ .y a lon' illness3 and $educed to such
thinness and 0astin' that the d$y s%in is al4ost adhe$in' to the .ones 0hilst the natu$e of
the in0a$d pa$ts see4s e4pty and .loodless3 ne-e$theless the soul stands its '$ound3 and
does not pe$4it the c$eatu$e to die5 And this is not the only indication of sup$e4acyP the
se-e$in' of hands3 and often the $e4o-al of 0hole a$4s o$ feet .y fi$e and steel cannot
undo the .onds of life5 So '$eat is the s0ay of life held .y that pa$t of us 0hich is soul5
7$a'5 2K3 cols5 FO28CJ,D
Soul is 0hat 4a%es us ali-e3 and so functionin'5 This is a co44onplace3 .ut
Epicu$eanis4 st$esses the i4po$tance of $i'htly unde$standin' the co44onplace5
CJ,D
; *,, ;
d8 Pa$ts of the Soul
The soul is not unifo$46 :the $ational pa$t: 7to lo'i%on 8 is located in the chest3 0hile the
$est3 :the i$$ational pa$t3: is diffused th$ou'h the 0hole .ody5 This pa$t of the theo$y3
su$p$isin'ly a.sent f$o4 the "ette$ to He$odotus 3 is 0ell attested in a scholiu4 on the
lette$ and3 in the sa4e 0o$ds3 in >io'enes of Oenoanda5CJID "uc$etius 4a%es 4uch of it6
he calls the pa$ts ani4us and ani4a 3 ele'ant "atin 0hich unfo$tunately loses the point
that the ani4us is the $ational pa$t and the ani4a the i$$ational one5
The $ational pa$t is $esponsi.le not only fo$ $easonin' and co'nition .ut fo$ e4otions
such as :fea$s and /oys5: "uc$etius says that in it a$e located .oth the unde$standin'
7consiliu4 8 and the 'o-e$nin' 7$e'i4en 8 of life5CJJD In fact the i$$ational soul tends to
.e thou'ht of as $esponsi.le solely fo$ pe$ception3 in 0hich $ole it has so4e
independenceP the eyes the4sel-es see3 $athe$ than .ein' 0indo0s th$ou'h 0hich the
$ational soul sees5CJKD
The$e is a clea$ cont$ast 0ith the Stoics3 0ho put pe$ception and i4pulse to'ethe$ as
cha$acte$iAin' the 0hole soul3 and 0ho ta%e thin%in' to .e in-ol-ed in all the soul9s
acti-ities5 In fact3 0hile the Epicu$ean $ational soul is .ound to $e4ind us in so4e 0ays
of the Stoic he'e4oni%on Hit cent$aliAes all the soul9s acti-ities3 fo$ e(a4pleHthe$e a$e
st$i%in' diffe$ences5 o$ the Epicu$eans sensation is $e'iste$ed in the sensin' o$'an6 fo$
the Stoics the sensation is $e'iste$ed in the he'e4oni%on 5 Thus the Epicu$ean $ational
soul is not in-ol-ed in all e-ents in the soul in the 0ay that is t$ue of the he'e4oni%on 5
And 0hile the Stoics co4e to use :the he'e4oni%on : to $efe$ to the soul as a 0hole3 this
is not the case 0ith the Epicu$ean
CJIDCJJDCJKD
; *,I ;
$ational soul5 In fact "uc$etius says e(plicitly that 0hen he $efe$s to the soul as a 0hole
he 0ill use ani4a 3 the 0o$d fo$ the i$$ational soul5CJ1D This is su$p$isin'3 and in 4any
0ays unfo$tunate5 One 0onde$s 0hethe$ he 0ould ha-e done so as $eadily had he .een
usin' 0o$ds 0hich $eflected the fact that the pa$ts a$e int$oduced .y Epicu$us in 0ays
that 4a%e clea$ thei$ $elation to $ationality5
The $ational soul is located in the chest3 .ecause this is the $e'ion of e4otions5CJ+D This
is $e4iniscent of !h$ysippus9 insistence that the he'e4oni%on is in the chest and not the
head5 T0o inte$estin' f$a'4ents of >e4et$ius "acon sho0 that late$ Epicu$eans had to
contend3 4uch as !h$ysippus did3 0ith the disco-e$y of the function of the .$ain and the
ne$-ous syste45CKMD >e4et$ius 4entions Epicu$us9 -ie0 that the location of the soul9s
$easonin' pa$t allo0s of enBui$y that is .oth p$actical 7p$a'4ati%e 8 and $ational 7%ata
lo'on 85 The$e is a clai4 that it is o.-ious that 4o-e4ent and e4otion :d$a': to0a$d the
chest5 :Many docto$s: a$e 4entioned3 0ho use so4e inducti-e $easonin' 7se4eiosis 8 to
esta.lish that $easonin' is in the head5 =e see4 to ha-e a f$a'4ent of a conf$ontation
-e$y si4ila$ to the Stoic one5CK*D Scientific $esea$ch points to the $ole of the .$ain6 .ut
the philosophe$s $efuse to a.andon fol% psycholo'y5
Ho0e-e$3 the Epicu$eans9 $esponse diffe$s in t0o 0ays5 i$stly3 they a$e in 'ene$al not
4uch i4p$essed .y the lo0e$ le-els of science5 Secondly3 they do not ha-e !h$ysippus9
$eluctance to di-ide the soul6 fo$ the Epicu$ean $ational soul is not the $ational aspect of
the 0hole soul5 The 0hole soul is not $ational6 the $ational soul is a pa$t of the 0hole3 as
4uch a pa$t as is a hand o$ an eye5CKFD It o$'aniAes and so do4inates
CJ1DCJ+DCKMDCK*DCKFD
; *,J ;
the soul9s acti-ities3 so that it can function as a $elati-ely independent pa$t3 0hile the
i$$ational soul depends on it5CK2D It is located in a specific pa$t of the .ody3 and da4a'e
the$e is 4o$e dest$ucti-e to life than da4a'e to othe$ pa$ts5CK,D
T0o Buestions su''est the4sel-es5 Is the $ational soul itself a unityG =e ha-e al$eady
seen that the conclusion su''ested .y Epicu$ean -ie0s of hu4ans and ani4als is that it is
4o$e li%e a cluste$ of capacities5CKID Rationality is sho0n in a -a$iety of 0ays and co4es
in diffe$ent %inds5CKJD It cannot .e said3 ho0e-e$3 that the Epicu$eans $eco'niAe this point
e(plicitly3 as one 4i'ht e(pect the4 to do5
Secondly3 ho0 does the di-ision of the soul affect the thesis that it is the fou$th3 na4eless
%ind of ele4ent that 4a%es it function as a unityG This thesis has to .e $ende$ed
consistent 0ith the pa$tially independent 0o$%in's of the ani4us and ani4a 3 and the
o.-ious solution is that the effects of ha-in' the fou$th ele4ent 4ust .e diffe$entiated5
Since it is associated 0ith the soul9s e(ceptionally fine st$uctu$e3 it is te4ptin' to ta%e it
as located p$i4a$ily in the ani4us 6 its 4ost p$o4inent acti-ity is thin%in'3 the acti-ity
4ost li%ely to $eBui$e fine3 $apid p$ocesses5
If the fou$th ele4ent 0e$e located only in the ani4us 3 ho0e-e$3 it 0ould .e the 0o$%in'
of the ani4us that accounted fo$ the unity of the 0hole soul5 This Stoic %ind of pictu$e is
a$'ua.ly 0hat Epicu$us needs3 and 0hat he i4plicitly assu4es 4uch of the ti4e5 #ut it
so$ts ill 0ith the $elati-e independence of the ani4a 3 and the state of ou$ sou$ces 4a%es
the safest conclusion the disappointin' one that Epicu$us had not thou'ht the point
th$ou'h5 In fact Epicu$us faces a difficulty o-e$ the unity of the soul5 The 0hole soul is a
functional unity6 .ut the only pa$t co4petent to unify it is not in-ol-ed in all the soul9s
acti-ities5
CK2DCK,DCKIDCKJD
; *,K ;
>oes this 4atte$G Epicu$us is conce$ned to do /ustice to co44on sense6 does that ta%e fo$
'$anted that ou$ 0hole soul3 $ational and i$$ational3 is st$on'ly unifiedG One 4i'ht thin%
that co44on sense is actually inclined to deny the unity of the soul6 the Stoic theo$y of
the e4otions3 fo$ e(a4ple3 is co44only ta%en to .e hi'hly counte$intuiti-e3 and 4o$e
'ene$ally the Stoics 4i'ht .e ta%en to flout co44on sense in holdin' that info$4ation
$eachin' the eyes and da4a'e $eachin' the foot a$e $e'iste$ed in the he'e4oni%on $athe$
than in the eyes o$ in the foot5 So pe$haps in 4a%in' ani4us and ani4a pa$tially
independent of each othe$ Epicu$us is deli.e$ately ans0e$in' to fol% psycholo'y5CKKD
This 4ay 0ell .e t$ue6 ce$tainly the Epicu$ean soul is 4uch 4o$e 0ea%ly unified than the
Stoic soul3 and this 4ay .e due to a conscious desi$e to confo$4 0ith co44on sense5
Ho0e-e$3 0e also find Epicu$ean clai4s that the soul is a unity3 $athe$ than t0o lin%ed
syste4sP "uc$etius clai4s3 fo$ e(a4ple3 that $ational and i$$ational soul to'ethe$ fo$4 :a
sin'le natu$e3: and cannot .e sepa$ated 0ithout 4utual dest$uction5CK1D The -e$y fact that
"uc$etius is content to use ani4a to co-e$ the 0hole soul su''ests that he is not ta%in'
$eally se$iously the pa$tial independence of the i$$ational soul5 And in his account of the
soulE.ody $elation3 and in his a$'u4ents a.out death and its i4po$tance3 Epicu$us see4s
to .e p$esupposin' a unified soul and failin' to ta%e due account of the diffe$ences
.et0een its pa$ts and the 0ays they function5
e8 The SoulE#ody Relation
The$e is a tension in Epicu$eanis4 o-e$ the soulE.ody $elation5 On the one hand the .ody
is e4phatically said to .e the containe$ o$ -essel of the soul5 Epicu$us uses such lan'ua'e
$epeatedly6 "uc$etius e-en .ases his fi$st a$'u4ent fo$ the soul9s
CKKDCK1D
; *,1 ;
4o$tality on the co4pa$ison of the .ody 0ith a -essel5CK+D It is the .ody that holds
to'ethe$ the soul and thus ena.les unified ani4ate functionin'Ha $e-e$sal of the
A$istotelian and Stoic -ie0 that 0hat 4a%es the a'ent ali-e and functionin' is the soul9s
holdin' the .ody to'ethe$5
Such lan'ua'e is3 ho0e-e$3 su$p$isin'ly inapp$op$iate fo$ the soulE.ody $elation as
Epicu$eanis4 actually de-elops that idea5 "uc$etius adds that the soul is the .ody9s
:'ua$dian and cause of p$ese$-ation6 fo$ they clin' to'ethe$ li%e co44on $oots and it is
seen that they cannot .e sunde$ed 0ithout dest$uction5: The soul is :in: the .ody li%e
scent in pe$fu4e6 it cannot .e $e4o-ed 0ithout dest$oyin' the su.stance5 :So inte$0o-en
a$e thei$ ele4ents .et0een the4 f$o4 thei$ fi$st .e'innin'6 they a$e endo0ed 0ith a
4utual life5:C1MD >io'enes of Oenoanda insists that the soul3 0hich is :.ound: .y the
.ody3 :.inds: it in tu$n5C1*D Soul and .ody a$e t0o .odies 0hich3 in a li-in' thin'3 a$e
4utually dependent5
Epicu$us p$esses the point fo$ sentienceP st$ictly spea%in'3 it does not .elon' to the soul
alone .ut is a /oint p$oduct of soul and .ody5 "uc$etius puts this point 4o$e ele'antly3C1FD
.ut he$e Epicu$us9 fa4ously $u''ed @$ee% $e-eals an inte$estin' conceptual st$u''leP
=e should %eep in 4ind that soul has the '$eatest sha$e in causin' 7aitia 8 sensation
7aisthesis 85 Ho0e-e$3 it 0ould not ha-e had this if it had not .een enclosed in a 0ay .y
the $est of the asse4.la'e5 The $est of the asse4.la'e3 0hich p$o-ides it 0ith this
causality3 itself has3 de$i-ed f$o4 the soul3 a sha$e in /ust such a p$ope$tyHthou'h
CK+DC1MDC1*DC1FD
; *,+ ;
not in e-e$ythin' the soul possesses5 Hence 0hen the soul depa$ts it lac%s sensation5 o$
it did not itself possess this po0e$ in itself6 so4ethin' else connate 0ith it p$o-ided it3
and this3 th$ou'h the po0e$ .$ou'ht a.out in connection 0ith it dependin' on 4o-e4ent3
at once achie-ed fo$ itself a p$ope$ty of sentience and supplied it to the othe$ also3
dependin' on /u(taposition and 4utual sensiti-ity3 as I said5 The$efo$e 0hile the soul is
ind0ellin' it ne-e$ lac%s sensation th$ou'h the $e4o-al of any othe$ pa$tH0hate-e$ of it
pe$ishes alon' 0ith the .$ea%in' up of the enclosu$e3 in 0hole o$ in pa$t3 if it $e4ains3 it
0ill ha-e sensation5 The $est of the asse4.la'e3 0hethe$ it su$-i-es in 0hole o$ in pa$t3
0ill not ha-e sensation 0hen it is 'oneHthat is3 0hate-e$ Buantity of ato4s is needed to
hold to'ethe$ to constitute the soul9s natu$e5 u$the$3 0hen the 0hole asse4.la'e is
.$o%en up the soul is scatte$ed and no lon'e$ has the sa4e po0e$s3 o$ 4o-es6 so it does
not possess sensation eithe$3 fo$ 0e cannot thin% of it as sentient unless in this co4posite
and usin' these 4o-e4ents3 0hen the enclosin' and su$$oundin' pa$ts a$e not such as
these in 0hich Cthe soulD no0 is and has these 4o-e4ents5 7Ep5 He$od5 J,OJJ8
The point 0hich Epicu$us has such t$ou.le 'ettin' ac$oss is not that the soul $eBui$es the
.ody fo$ sensation3 no$ that sensation is the p$oduct of soul and .ody inte$actin'3 no$
e-en that this is necessa$ily so5 All these clai4s a$e Buite co4pati.le 0ith dualis45
Rathe$3 Epicu$ean soul and .ody need each othe$ to e(ist and to function as soul and as
.ody 5 =ithout the .ody3 the soul no lon'e$ e(ists o$ functions as soul3 .ut is /ust
scatte$ed ato4s6 0ithout the soul3 the .ody no lon'e$ e(ists o$ functions as a .ody3 .ut is
a 4e$e co$pse5 Sentience .$in's this outP it is the p$oduct of the 4utually dependent soul
and .ody3 fo$ the soul needs the .ody to e(ist as the soul of a sentient a'ent3 and the .ody
needs the soul to e(ist as the .ody of a sentient a'ent5
=hy does Epicu$us ha-e such a st$u''le to e(p$ess thisG The p$o.le4s a$e due la$'ely to
his clin'in' to the inapp$oE
; *IM ;
p$iate conception of .ody and soul as -essel and contents5C12D Epicu$us often states a
thesis in unnecessa$ily and so4eti4es 4isleadin'ly pole4ical and c$ude fo$46 0hen 0e
e(a4ine the thesis 0e find the c$ude fo$4ulations fail to do it /ustice5 =e can only put
this do0n to an i4pe$fect fit .et0een Epicu$us9 philosophical acti-ity and his
peda'o'ical app$oach5 The latte$ so4eti4es $eBui$es shoc% tactics to sha%e people out of
thei$ set -ie0s and p$e/udices5 If and 0hen they 'et in-ol-ed in studyin' Epicu$ean
philosophy3 they 4ay find that the initially cont$o-e$sial appea$ance 0as 4isleadin'6 .ut
.y that ti4e it 0ill p$o.a.ly no lon'e$ 4atte$3 at least to the con-inced Epicu$ean5
So4eti4es3 ho0e-e$3 Epicu$us9 c$ude$ state4ents tu$n out to 4a%e t$ou.le fo$ his 4o$e
sophisticated thou'hts5C1,D
=hat .$in's out the closeness of the soulE.ody $elation is sentience3 0hich cha$acte$iAes
the i$$ational soul5 =e find else0he$e3 ho0e-e$3 that the Epicu$eans tend to cont$ast soul
and .ody3 and that 0hen they do they ha-e a diffe$ent cont$ast in 4ind3 na4ely3 that
.et0een the .ody plus the i$$ational soul on the one hand and the $ational soul on the
othe$5 :The pains of the soul3: fo$ e(a4ple3 :a$e 0o$se than those of the .ody6 fo$ the
flesh suffe$s only fo$ the p$esent 4o4ent3 .ut the soul fo$ past3 p$esent3 and futu$e5
Si4ila$ly3 the pleasu$es of the soul a$e '$eate$5:C1ID He$e :the .ody: clea$ly $efe$s to the
sentient .ody3 closely lin%ed to the i$$ational soul3 and :the soul: clea$ly $efe$s to the
$ational soul5
u$the$3 4any the4es in Epicu$ean ethics st$ess not only this distinction3 .ut the
supe$io$ity of the soul3 0hich .y d$a0in' on past3 p$esent3 and futu$e e(pe$iences can
4o$e than counte$.alance 0hat happens to the .ody5 The sta$ e(a4ple he$e is Epicu$us9
dyin' lette$ to his f$iends3 0he$e he says that his p$esent a'oniAin' pains a$e 4o$e than
counte$.alanced
C12DC1,DC1ID
; *I* ;
.y the /oy in his soul f$o4 4e4o$ies of philosophical acti-ity5C1JD Epicu$eans f$o4
Polyst$atus to "uc$etius ti$elessly u$'e on us that only the $ational acti-ity of philosophy
0ill 4a%e us happy3 fo$ 0e need the e(e$cise of the $ational soul in o$de$ to o$'aniAe ou$
li-es and 4a%e sense of the p$oducts of the i$$ational soul5
The$e is potentially a tension he$e5 o$ Epicu$us it is c$ucial that I thin% of 4y soul as
so4ethin' dependent fo$ its e(istence and functionin' on the e(istence and functionin' of
4y .ody5 He has sho0n this fo$ the i$$ational soul3 the sou$ce of sentience5 #ut3 'i-en the
st$ess on the i4po$tance of ou$ identifyin' 0ith the $ational soul3 and the cont$ast
.et0een the $ational soul on the one hand and the .ody 0ith the i$$ational soul on the
othe$3 the Buestion is .ound to a$ise 0hethe$ Epicu$us has adeBuately sho0n that the soul
as a 0hole is indissolu.ly lin%ed 0ith the .ody5 It could .e o./ected3 of cou$se3 that all he
needs to sho0 is that the sentient3 i$$ational soul is indissolu.ly lin%ed to the .ody3 and
the $ational soul in tu$n indissolu.ly lin%ed to the i$$ational soul6 if the soul9s unity is
0ea% any0ay3 0e 0ould not e(pect an a$'u4ent to sho0 di$ectly that the $ational soul
0as lin%ed indissolu.ly to the 0o$%in's of the .ody5 #ut3 0hile that is a$'ua.ly 0hat
Epicu$us needs3 0e do not find e(plicitly eithe$ any ac%no0led'4ent that this is 0hat is
to .e sho0n o$ any a$'u4ents to sho0 it5
f8 Su$-i-al
A fa4ous and funda4ental Epicu$ean teachin' is that :death is nothin' to us6 fo$ 0hat is
.$o%en up has no sensation3 and 0hat has no sensation is nothin' to us5:C1KD At '$eate$
len'thP
@et used to the idea that death is nothin' to us3 since e-e$y 'ood and e-il lies in
sensation3 and death is the dep$i-ation of sensation5 5 5 5 So death3 the 4ost fea$ful of all
e-ils3 is nothin' to us3 since 0hen 0e a$e3 death is
C1JDC1KD
; *IF ;
not p$esent3 and 0hen death is p$esent3 then 0e a$e not5 It is the$efo$e nothin' to the
li-in'3 no$ to the dead6 fo$ the fo$4e$ it is not3 and the latte$ a$e no lon'e$5 7Epicu$us Ep5
Men5 *F,OFI8
"uc$etius puts this point fo$cefullyP 0hat happens afte$ I a4 dead 0ill .e of no conce$n to
4e3 since the$e 0ill .e no 4e3 /ust as the Punic =a$s 0e$e of no conce$n to 4e 0hen they
happened3 since the$e 0as then no 4e to .e conce$ned5 :And e-en if the natu$e of the
$ational soul and the po0e$ of the i$$ational soul 'o on ha-in' sensation afte$ .ein' to$n
f$o4 ou$ .ody3 still it is nothin' to us3 0ho a$e 4ade into one united co4pound .y the
4atin' and 4a$$ia'e of .ody and soul5:C11D It is possi.le3 he adds3 that in the past 4y
soul and .ody ato4s ca4e to'ethe$ in /ust the 0ay they do no06 .ut any such past union
0as not 4e 5 I could not .e a$ound .efo$e the conception 0hich .$ou'ht 4e into .ein' as
an ensouled .ody3 and in the sa4e 0ay I cannot .e a$ound afte$ the death that .$ea%s up
the 4utually dependent functionin' of soul and .ody5 So 0hat happens afte$ 4y death is
li%e 0hat happened .efo$e 4y .i$thHnothin' to 4e5
The a$'u4ent has $aised cont$o-e$sy3 ancient and 4ode$n5 The i4po$tant point he$e is
the need fo$ the p$e4ise that all 'ood and e-il lie in sensation5 o$ sensation is3 of cou$se3
cha$acte$istic of the i$$ational soul6 and 0e ha-e seen that in sentience the .ody and
i$$ational soul a$e indeed 4utually dependent5 #ut the clai4 that fo$ us all 'ood and e-il
lie in sentience see4s to ne'lect the $ole of the $ational soul5 This co4es out in at least
t0o 0ays5 It is .ecause of the acti-ity of the $ational soul that 0e a$e a.le to identify ou$
'ood 0ith p$o/ects 0hose content 'oes .eyond ou$ o0n pe$sonal pleasu$es3 and 0hich
4ay .e fulfilled only afte$ ou$ death5 Epicu$us hi4self st$esses the -alue of f$iendship3
and conce$n fo$ f$iends and thei$ acti-ities fo$ thei$ o0n sa%e5 #ut this 0ill in-ol-e an
a'ent in pe$fectly $ational conce$n fo$ p$o/ects and acti-ities 0hose f$uition does not
depend on he$ .ein' ali-e5
C11D
; *I2 ;
It is ha$d to see ho0 death is nothin' to such a pe$son /ust .ecause she %no0s she 0ill not
.e a0a$e of these p$o/ectsP he$ conce$n fo$ the p$o/ects did not depend on he$ .ein' a0a$e
of the45
Secondly3 .ecause the $ational soul can3 as Epicu$us puts it3 co4pa$e past3 p$esent3 and
futu$e3 it is 0hat 'i-es an a'ent a sense of hi4self as an a'ent continuin' th$ou'h ti4e3 a
.ein' 0ith a 0hole life5 And this 4eans that thou'h death is nothin' to 4e 0hen it
a$$i-es3 since it $e4o-es the a'ent in Buestion3 it is not necessa$ily i$$ational to 0o$$y
a.out its happenin' in the futu$e5 #oth Epicu$us and "uc$etius deny thisP since death 0ill
not conce$n 4e 0hen it co4es3 it is i$$ational fo$ 4e to 0o$$y a.out it no05C1+D #ut 0hy
a$e they entitled to thisG That death is not an e-il 0hen it co4es does not i4ply that it is
not an e-il in so4eone9s life as a 0hole 7.y co4in' soone$ $athe$ than late$3 fo$ e(a4ple85
It 4i'ht .e u$'ed that these o./ections co4e f$o4 unfai$ly p$essin' Epicu$us9 lan'ua'e of
'ood and e-il lyin' in sensation 5 Su$ely he did not 4ean to li4it sensation in this
connection to the acti-ity of the i$$ational soul5 Is he not 4o$e fai$ly unde$stood as
clai4in' that nothin' is a 'ood o$ e-il fo$ an a'ent unless that a'ent can e(pe$ience itH
0he$e :e(pe$ience: is ta%en to $efe$ to the acti-ity of the 0hole soul3 $ational and
i$$ationalG It 4ay .e that so4ethin' li%e this is 0hat Epicu$us did 4ean5 #ut ho0e-e$
'ene$ously 0e inte$p$et :sensation: he$e3 0e shall not 'et out of the p$o.le45 >eath is
not an e-il at the ti4e it occu$s3 .ut this does not sho0 that it is not an e-il in one9s life as
a 0hole5 #ut the $ational soul is 0hat 'i-es the Epicu$ean a notion of he$ life as a 0hole5
No$ does it sho0 that death is not an e-il in f$ust$atin' conce$ns that 'o .eyond one9s life
and do not depend on one9s e(pe$iencin' the $esults5 #ut the $ational soul is 0hat 'i-es
the Epicu$ean he$ conce$n fo$ p$o/ects and acti-ities that 'o .eyond he$ life and 4atte$
0hethe$ she e(pe$iences the $esults o$ notHfo$ e(a4ple3 the conce$ns and acti-ities of
f$iends5
C1+D
; *I, ;
Epicu$us has an ans0e$ to these o./ections5 They all in-ol-e in so4e 0ay the clai4 that
death3 0hile it 4ay not .e an e-il 0hen it occu$s3 is nonetheless an e-il .y dep$i-in' us of
'oods 0hich 0e 0ould othe$0ise ha-e6 fo$3 than%s to ou$ $ational soul3 0e ha-e a
conception of ou$ li-es as 0holes3 and of p$o/ects that 'o .eyond the $each of ou$ o0n
sentience6 yet it is /ust this 0hich ena.les us to co44it ou$sel-es to the$e .ein' 'oods
0hich3 so it see4s3 death can dep$i-e us of5 Epicu$us can say that only a nonEEpicu$ean
0ill .e conce$ned .y this3 .ecause she has a faulty conception of 0hat these 'oods a$e5
An Epicu$ean 0ill $ealiAe that ou$ hi'hest 'ood is pleasu$e and that all the 'oods that 0e
can $easona.ly $eco'niAe in ou$ li-es a$e 4eans to3 o$ 0ays of3 achie-in' this pleasu$e5
=e e-en see% f$iendship3 and 'oals that e(tend .eyond ou$ o0n li-es3 fo$ the sa%e of
pleasu$e5 Epicu$us9 o0n theo$y of 0hat this pleasu$e3 $i'htly concei-ed3 actually is3 is
co4plicated3 and the e-idence difficult3 .ut so4e thin's a$e clea$5 It is not to .e identified
0ith 'ood feelin'P it is a condition of :unt$ou.ledness: o$ ata$a(ia3 0hich one achie-es
.y follo0in' only natu$al desi$es and a-oidin' cou$ses of action 0hich 0ill p$edicta.ly
lead to 0o$$y and t$ou.le5
An i4po$tant aspect of this is that the Epicu$ean 0ill ha-e achie-ed eBuani4ity a.out
'oods that can .e lost6 fo$ 0hat she is afte$3 in see%in' ata$a(ia3 is not the e(te$nal $esults
of action3 .ut the inne$ $esult3 the pleasu$e that lies in ha-in' the $i'ht attitude to0a$d
thin's that 4a%e othe$ people upset5 The pleasu$e that is ou$ 'oal of life is $adically
inte$naliAed5 One $e4a$%a.le $esult of this is the thesis that pleasu$e is not inc$eased .y
du$ationP once you ha-e achie-ed Epicu$ean happiness3 you ha-e all that you need fo$
happiness3 and fu$the$ ti4e spent doin' actions can 4e$ely -a$y 0hat you ha-e3 not add
to it5C+MD Hence death does not dep$i-e the 'ood Epicu$ean of 'oods afte$ all5C+*D
C+MD
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; *II ;
The li4itation of this $esponse is clea$P it 0o$%s only fo$ the co44itted Epicu$ean3 0ho
al$eady accepts Epicu$ean ethics in full5 It 0ill not con-ince the nonEEpicu$ean3 0ho has
a diffe$ent idea of 0hat it is $ational to conside$ 'ood5 And it see4s a 0ea%ness that a
thesis a.out the soul should depend so di$ectly on a -e$y cont$o-e$sial ethical theses5
Unless one is an Epicu$ean on othe$ '$ounds3 the$efo$e3 the death a$'u4ents contain a
'ap3 one that 4a%es 4o$e o.-ious Epicu$us9 lac% of an e(plicit discussion of the natu$e of
the soul9s unity3 and the $elations of the $ational and i$$ational pa$ts of the soul5
Epicu$us9 a$'u4ent does not depend on the p$e4ise that 4y soul is 4o$tal6 as "uc$etius
4a%es clea$3 it 0ould hold e-en if 4y soul did su$-i-e the .$ea%up of its union 0ith the
.odyHand e-en if it 0e$e i44o$tal3 since death is nothin' to 4e e-en if the$e 0ill .e a
Bualitati-ely identical >oppel'Un'e$ constituted of the -e$y sa4e ato4s that constitute
4e5 In p$inciple3 the Epicu$ean soul could .e i44o$tal 0ithout endan'e$in' the su$-i-al
a$'u4ents5
It is the$efo$e su$p$isin' that "uc$etius p$efaces his '$eat decla$ation that death is nothin'
to us 0ith nea$ly thi$ty a$'u4ents to p$o-e that the soul is 4o$tal5C+FD "uc$etius 4ay .e
confused5C+2D #ut possi.ly these a$'u4ents a$e 4eant to play an i4po$tant su.sidia$y
$ole6 fo$ the .elief that 4y soul is i44o$tal3 0hile not as c$ucial as the .elief that death is
a .ad thin' fo$ 4e3 does play an i4po$tant $ole in the -a$ious .eliefs that 4a%e up fea$ of
death and a ne'ati-e attitude to0a$d
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDC+*DC+FDC+2D
; *IJ ;
dyin'5 "uc$etius9 flood of a$'u4ents is .est unde$stood as a sustained atte4pt to $e4o-e
4ista%es and to ena.le us to ha-e a co$$ect p$olepsis o$ conception of the soul5 Thei$
unsophisticated natu$e is deli.e$ateH"uc$etius ha44e$s ho4e si4ple and undenia.le
facts3 such as that disease affects us psycholo'ically as 0ell as physiolo'ically3 and
.$in's the4 into di$ect conflict 0ith the notion of the soul as i44o$tal5 In Epicu$eanis4
it is i4po$tant that 0e sta$t f$o4 a $i'ht conception of 0hat 0e a$e in-esti'atin'6C+,D in
the case of the soul this in-ol-es the $e4o-al of confusions3 and an effecti-e 0ay to do
this is to appeal $epeatedly to ou$ .asic intuitions5 o$ Epicu$us ou$ a0a$eness of
so4ethin' clea$ and conc$ete in ou$ li-es is not li%ely to .e co$$upted .y .ad theo$y5
>io'enes of Oenoanda $idicules .elief in su$-i-al afte$ death in the sa4e do0nEtoEea$th
and unsophisticated 0ay5C+ID
o$ Epicu$us .oth the .elief that 4y soul is i44o$tal and the .elief that death is a .ad
thin' fo$ 4e a$e not /ust false .ut unhealthy3 patholo'ical5 As lon' as 0e hold the43 0e
0ill not .e happy3 fo$ they deeply co$$upt ou$ conception of 0hat 0e a$e and ho0 0e
should li-e5 =e 0ill .e te4pted3 fo$ e(a4ple3 to locate the si'nificance of ou$ li-es in
so4ethin' supposedly 0aitin' fo$ us afte$ death5C+JD "uc$etius de-otes passionate
$heto$ic to sho0in' us that this is pe$-e$se6 the desi$e to su$-i-e death is .ased on failu$e
to face $eality5 Those 0ho $e'$et dyin' a$e 4e$ely $e.u%ed fo$ clin'in' to i44atu$e
fantasies5C+KD
C+,DC+IDC+JDC+KD
; *IK ;
K
Pe$ception and Thou'ht
Pe$ception fi'u$es e(tensi-ely in .oth ancient and 4ode$n accounts of Epicu$us9 theo$y
of the soul5 =hat has att$acted 4ost attention has .een the st$an'e account of pe$ceptual
4echanis4s3 and the cont$o-e$sial episte4olo'ical doct$ines5 "ess attention has .een
paid to the 0ay in 0hich pe$ception in-ol-es conceptualiAation and thou'ht3 a featu$e not
st$essed in ou$ 4ain sou$ces3 Epicu$us9 lette$s and "uc$etius5C*D
The physiolo'ical account of pe$ception is an e(tension of ato4ist physics5 o$ Epicu$us3
physical solid o./ects a$e collections of ato4s te4po$a$ily unified5 Thei$ cohesion is
i4p$essi-e at the 4ac$oscopic le-el3 .ut e-en a sta.le o./ect is constantly 'i-in' off a
st$ea4 o$ effluence of i4a'es 7eidola 83 contact 0ith 0hich is necessa$y fo$ us to pe$cei-e
o$ to thin%5CFD Epicu$us de-oted '$eat attention to the i4a'e theo$y3 0$itin' a .oo% On
I4a'es and de-otin' .oo% F of his On Natu$e to the45 The theo$y do4inates "uc$etius9
account of pe$ception6 >io'enes of Oenoanda discusses i4a'es at '$eat and detailed
C*DCFD
; *I1 ;
len'th5 =hate-e$ its faults3 the theo$y does t$y to 4eet the challen'e of accountin' fo$
ou$ sensiti-ity to the 0o$ld in te$4s of nothin' .ut ato4s and -oid5 o$ the .asic point3
that o./ects a$e al0ays sheddin' ato4s3 neithe$ Epicu$us no$ his successo$s do any .ette$
than to clai4 that it is consistent 0ith the pheno4ena and the $est of Epicu$ean theo$y5C2D
The theo$y is p$esu4a.ly to 'et any st$on'e$ suppo$t than this 4e$ely f$o4 the adeBuacy
0ith 0hich it accounts fo$ the pheno4ena5
E-en solid .odies contain -oid3 and the$e is a :-i.$ation of the ato4s deep in the solid
.ody: 0hich $esults in a constant detach4ent and sheddin' of fil4s of ato4s at the
su$face5C,D These i4a'es3 $etainin' the .ody9s appea$ance .ecause the fil4 $etains its
cohe$ence3 4o-e at t$e4endous speed5CID The flo0 of i4a'es f$o4 an o./ect is constant
and uninte$$upted3 and they t$a-el st$ai'ht ahead f$o4 thei$ sou$ce5CJD #oth "uc$etius and
>io'enes appeal to e4pi$ical analo'ues3 li%e the pheno4enon of 4i$$o$in'3 to aid ou$
acceptance of the theo$etical clai4s5
C2DC,DCIDCJD
; *I+ ;
The i4a'es a$e not the4sel-es solid6 Epicu$us calls the4 :hollo0 and thin thin's: and
e4phasiAes that they a$e :full of -oid: 7polu%enon 85CKD "uc$etius and >io'enes of
Oenoanda st$ess that they a$e fine and thin .ut ne-e$theless ha-e the no$4al po0e$s of
.ody5C1D :The flo0 f$o4 the .odies 5 5 5 p$ese$-es fo$ a lon' ti4e the position and o$de$
of the ato4s in the solid .ody5:C+D The i4a'es ha-e the sa4e colo$ as thei$ pa$ent .odies3
and the sa4e shape5C*MD
=e 4ay find this ha$d to 4a%e sense of5 =hat is :the: colo$ o$ shape of the pa$ent .odyG
P$esu4a.ly 0hat is 4eant is the colo$ and shape as seen .y the pe$cei-e$ at the ti4e of
pe$ception5 u$the$3 the siAe of the i4a'es is an e4.a$$assin' p$o.le45 The -isual i4a'e
of the Ta/ Mahal that $eaches 4y eyes can ha$dly .e the sa4e siAe as the Ta/ Mahal6 yet it
sta$ted life that siAe5C**D
The Epicu$eans 4eet these difficulties .y clai4in' that in t$ansit .et0een o./ect and
pe$cipient the i4a'es a$e da4a'ed and alte$ed5 #ein' -e$y fine3 they a$e lia.le to
collision and thus to all %inds of fusion and $efo$4ation5 E-en an i4a'e of an o./ect that
'ets to us 0hole has .een '$eatly 4odified in passa'e5 o$ one thin'3 it has collapsed in
siAe6 the i4a'e of the Ta/ Mahal3 0hen it $eaches 4e3 has sh$un% do0n to the $i'ht siAe to
ente$ 4y eyes3 thou'h it has $etained all the o$i'E
CKDC1DC+DC*MDC**D
; *JM ;
inal p$opo$tions and colo$5C*FD u$the$3 lon' and difficult passa'e th$ou'h the ai$ can
4odify the i4a'e9s colo$ and shape3 as the ato4s9 confi'u$ation is chan'ed5 The classic
case of this is the sBua$e to0e$ 0hich f$o4 a distance appea$s $ound6 the i4a'e $eachin'
the -ie0e$ is in fact $ounded3 since the co$ne$s ha-e .een %noc%ed off the sha$p ato4s .y
the f$iction of the ai$5C*2D These e(pedients ha-e al0ays see4ed .iAa$$e6 that Epicu$us
accepts the4 unde$lines the fact that he 0ants the i4a'es the4sel-es to ha-e shape3
colo$3 and siAe of a %ind adeBuate to $ep$esent the shape3 colo$3 and siAe of the pa$ent
.odies in a st$ai'htfo$0a$d sense5
I4a'es 0hich encounte$ sentient .ein's ente$ the .ody th$ou'h :po$es: -ia the o$'ans of
the fi-e senses5 >io'enes of Oenoanda says st$i%in'ly that :ou$ natu$e has its po$es
opened 7po$opo$eitai 8: in pe$ception5C*,D The diffe$ent sense 4odalities a$e
distin'uished .y the aptness of the ato4ic st$uctu$e of the sense o$'ans to $ecei-e
diffe$ent %inds of ato45C*ID Epicu$us is scanty on diffe$ential detail a.out the senses5 He
says so4e thin's a.out si'ht3 hea$in'3 and s4ell in the "ette$ to He$odotus IMOI2 7and
0$ote .oo%s on the fi$st t0o83 and "uc$etius deals
C*FDC*2DC*,DC*ID
; *J* ;
0ith these and taste6 .ut 0e find the4 .oth 4e$ely fittin' ato4ic theo$y 4echanically to
$eBui$e4ent5 =hen the i4a'es encounte$ the soul ato4s3 0e ha-e sensation5 "uc$etius
tells us that the :senseE.ea$in' 4otions: a$e fi$st pic%ed up .y the 4ost sensiti-e :fou$th
natu$e: and then passed on to the .ody th$ou'h the othe$ types of ato4 in an o$de$
co$$espondin' to the $elati-e fineness of the ato4 type5C*JD P$esu4a.ly3 0hat is 4eant is
not a $elay $ace3 0ith so4ethin' .ein' passed on f$o4 one type of ato4 to anothe$5 It
4a%es 4o$e sense to thin% of the 0hole soul .ein' 4o$e and 4o$e fully in-ol-ed at each
sta'e3 as 4o$e of the types of ato4s 4a%in' it up a$e in-ol-ed5
In ato4ic theo$y the$e can .e no pu$ely Bualitati-e chan'e6 "uc$etius is $i'ht to insist that
touch is funda4ental fo$ sensation5 The effect of the i4a'e ato4s on the soul ato4s can
only .e to $ea$$an'e the43 o$ 4o$e li%ely thei$ patte$ns of 4otion3C*KD fo$ the i4a'e I
ha-e of the Ta/ Mahal sta$ted life lite$ally as pa$t of the Ta/ Mahal6 the$e is no need to
suppose that 4y soul can a.so$. such a detached pa$t of the 0o$ld3 ho0e-e$ fine it is5
P$esu4a.ly ha-in' 4ade its i4pact3 the i4a'e passes out of the .ody in so4e .$o%enE
do0n fo$45 Epicu$us calls this i4pact of the i4a'es i4p$intin'P e(te$nal o./ects :sta4p
the4sel-es: on us5C*1D The i4a'es a$e in constant flo06 the i4p$ession 4ade on us is
:acco$din' to the continual solidification 7pu%no4a 8 o$ $e4nant 7en%atalei44a 8 of the
i4a'e5: A continual .a$$a'e of i4a'es 4a%es an i4p$int in the soul .y .uildin' up a ne0
patte$n of ato4ic 4o-e4ent in the soul5 Pe$ception is3 on the physical le-el3 a chan'e in
the pe$cei-e$ that consists in ha-in' so4e of he$ ato4ic 4o-e4ents chan'ed5 A sin'le
pe$ception 0ill do this fleetin'ly6 it ta%es continued pe$ception to .uild up so4ethin'
4o$e pe$4anent in the pe$cei-e$9s soul5 The 'ene$al idea is clea$ enou'h3 thou'h 0e do
not %no0 ho0 Epicu$us 0ould deal
C*JDC*KDC*1D
; *JF ;
0ith the case 0he$e the pe$cei-e$ $etains a 4e4o$y of a sin'le3 fleetin'3 .ut -i-id3 i4a'e5
C*+D The physical account of pe$ception is a totally $ecepti-e one6 no $oo4 see4s to .e
4ade fo$ aspects li%e a0a$eness5CFMD
The pe$son 0hose sentient soul is i4p$essed .y i4a'es $ecei-es an :appea$ance3:
phantasia 5CF*D Epicu$ean appea$ances a$e3 as 0e ha-e seen3 concei-ed in -e$y -isual
te$4s5 They a$e unli%e Stoic appea$ances in that they do not ca$$y a$ticula.le content5
Epicu$us indeed tends to assi'n pe$ception to the i$$ational soul3 as 0e ha-e seen5CFFD
Nonetheless3 his account of %no0led'e p$o4inently de4ands that all pe$ceptions a$e t$ue5
C*+DCFMDCF*DCFFD
; *J2 ;
=e shall e(a4ine his $easons fo$ this .elo03 .ut it is in any case clea$ that a non$educti-e
physicalist li%e Epicu$us has no desi$e to $educe pe$ception to .lan% i4p$intin'5 He ta%es
it fo$ '$anted that in pe$ception 0e $ecei-e and p$ocess info$4ation3 indeed that this
constitutes %no0led'e5 If so3 ho0e-e$3 he see4s at fi$st si'ht to ha-e p$oduced a
classically .ad accountP t$yin' to e(plain ho0 the pe$cei-e$ sees a $ed sBua$e .y 'ettin'
so4ethin' 7s4alle$ and8 $ed and sBua$e into the pe$cei-e$5 Such a 4echanis4 .y itself of
cou$se achie-es nothin'P to 4a%e this into an account of pe$cei-in' 0e ha-e to
supple4ent it 0ith a little ho4unculus inside the pe$cei-e$ 0ho can inte$p$et the little $ed
sBua$e appea$ance inside the pe$cei-e$ and acBui$e the pe$ceptual .elief that he is seein'
so4ethin' $ed and sBua$e5 If Epicu$us has nothin' .ette$ than this to offe$3 his account is
disappointin'5
Ho0e-e$3 0e do find 4ate$ial fo$ supple4entin' the i4a'e theo$y in the Epicu$ean
account of thin%in' and concept fo$4ation3 thou'h this is not .$ou'ht into connection
0ith it in the ancient sou$ces3 and 0e ha-e to 4a%e the lin%s ou$sel-es5 Althou'h castin'
the 4ate$ial into this fo$4 ta%es us into speculation3 it is 0o$th doin'3 $athe$ than $estin'
content 0ith the idea that Epicu$us is p$oducin' an account of pe$ception 0hich $educes
it to passi-e i4p$intin'5 In this3 as in othe$ a$eas of his philosophy3 Epicu$us is p$oducin'
an ela.o$ate ato4ic sto$y not fo$ its o0n sa%e3 .ut to p$o-ide an e(planato$y account of
an e-e$yday pheno4enon 0hich is to .e e(plained and suppo$ted3 not $educed to
so4ethin' else5 The ato4ic sto$y itself ha$dly acco$ds 0ith co44on sense6 la$'e pa$ts of
it a$e e(t$e4ely counte$intuiti-e5 #ut this does not i4ply that Epicu$us 0as p$epa$ed to
'i-e a counte$intuiti-e account of pe$ception itself3 and he has 'ood $eason not to 0ant to
do this3 especially 'i-en his episte4olo'y3 0hich ai4s to .e co44onsensical5 Thus it is
0o$th seein' 0hat Epicu$us9 $esou$ces a$e fo$ p$oducin' an account of pe$ception 0hich
ans0e$s to the .asic point that in pe$ception 0e acBui$e info$4ation5
Thou'ht3 acco$din' to Epicu$us3 is p$oduced .y i4a'es st$ea4in' off o./ects in a 0ay
analo'ous to 0hat happens in
; *J, ;
pe$ception6 as "uc$etius says3 this e(plains ho0 0e can pe$cei-e and thin% of the -e$y
sa4e thin's5CF2D The thou'ht i4a'es3 ho0e-e$3 a$e thinne$ and fine$6 hence they can
affect the $ational soul -ia the sense o$'ans and i$$ational soul 0ithout ha-in' to affect
these latte$ at the sa4e ti4e5 As >io'enes of Oenoanda e(plains3 :afte$ the i4pin'in's
7enptoseis 8 of the fi$st i4a'es ou$ natu$e has its po$es opened 7po$opo$eitai 8 in such a
0ay that e-en 0hen the o./ects 0hich it at fi$st sa0 a$e no lon'e$ p$esent3 thin's si4ila$
to the fi$st ones a$e $ecei-ed .y the 4ind5:CF,D
"uc$etius 4a%es the point that since the i$$ational soul is not sensiti-e to the i4a'es
0hich p$oduce thin%in' in the $ational soul3 the latte$9s acti-ity is in 4any 0ays
independent of the fo$4e$5 In sleep3 fo$ e(a4ple3 0hen 0e d$ea43 a %ind of thin%in' is
'oin' on 0hile 0e a$e not pe$cei-in'5 As >io'enes puts it3 the soul is a0a%e .ut una0a$e
that the senses a$e asleep3 and so does not $efe$ to the4 to test the i4a'es it pic%s up f$o4
the uninte$$upted flo0 f$o4 o./ects5CFID
"uc$etius tells us that the 4ind is so tenuous that a sin'le thin thou'ht i4a'e can affect it6
also that the thou'ht i4a'es a$e p$one to entan'le4ent and confusion5CFJD Thus ato4ic
theo$y atte4pts to e(plain ho0 0e can thin% 0ith 4uch less e(te$nal sti4ulation than
pe$ception $eBui$es3 and ho0 ou$ thou'hts a$e not li4ited .y ou$ $an'e of pe$ception5
Me4o$y see4s to .e e(plained dispositionallyP so4e i4a'es affect us in such a 0ay that
0e a$e p$one to $epeat the thou'ht of thei$ o./ect5CFKD
So fa$3 thin%in' loo%s enti$ely pa$allel to pe$cei-in'6 it $eBui$es an i4a'e /ust as the latte$
does3 and it is only .ecause thou'ht i4a'es3 .ein' fine$3 a$e 4o$e p$one to fission and
CF2DCF,DCFIDCFJDCFKD
; *JI ;
$efo$4ation than sense i4a'es that thou'ht can $an'e fa$the$ than pe$ception does5 "i%e
A$istotle3 Epicu$us see4s dete$4ined to 4a%e pe$cei-in' and thin%in' pa$allel6 .oth a$e
e(plained in te$4s of i4pin'in's f$o4 0hat is outside the pe$son5 Epicu$ean physics3
ho0e-e$3 $ende$s the $esult fo$ the case of thin%in' -e$y .iAa$$eP thin%in' is not 0hat the
4ind does3 .ut the 0ay it is affected .y thou'ht o./ects st$ea4in' in f$o4 the outside5
Ho0e-e$3 the 4ind also has in thin%in' so4e acti-e po0e$ of concent$atin'3 as 0e find
f$o4 an i4po$tant passa'e in "uc$etius5CF1D It can focus on any of the a-aila.le i4a'es5
=hat 4y 4ind focuses on 0ill of cou$se .e dete$4ined .y 4y inte$ests3 .eliefs3 and
desi$es5 Thin%in' in-ol-es a selecti-e focusin' of inte$est and see4s to .e $athe$ li%e
focusin' one9s eyes on so4ethin'5 Ho0e-e$3 it appea$s f$o4 this passa'e that unli%e
focusin' one9s eyes3 focusin' one9s 4ind is the no$4 $athe$ than the e(ception3 since the$e
is an eno$4ous a4ount of thou'ht i4a'es al0ays a-aila.leHso '$eat an a4ount that if
the 4ind 0e$e not co'niti-ely acti-e3 it 0ould .e o-e$0hel4ed5 =e ha-e to .e acti-e
thin%e$s to 4a%e sense of thin's5 "uc$etius9 account has no di$ect pa$allel in othe$
sou$ces3 .ut this focusin' a.ility3 4a%in' us acti-e3 selecti-e thin%e$s3 4ay .e 0hat lies
.ehind the cu$ious point that in Epicu$eanis4 the$e is so4ethin' called epi.ole tes
dianoias o$ :'$asp .y the 4ind:6 this is a facto$ of unce$tain $ole and -e$y disputed
si'nificance3 .ut it see4s to ha-e so4ethin' to do 0ith the acti-e aspect of thin%in'5CF+D
CF1DCF+D
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; *JJ ;
=e %no0 that Epicu$us distin'uished and 'a-e technical na4es to -a$ious %inds of
e4pi$ical and none4pi$ical thin%in' and 0as conce$ned 0ith the diffe$ent 0ays these
could lead to e$$o$ in ou$ concepts5C2MD He no0he$e in the e(tant $e4ains faces the
Buestion of ho0 the 4ind9s a.ility to focus acti-ely on i4a'es can 'i-e $ise to
p$opositional3 e4pi$ical3 and ulti4ately infe$ential thin%in'5 "i%e 4any e4pi$icists he
assu4es hopefully that all the 4ind9s po0e$s of $easonin'3 ho0e-e$ a.st$act3 can
so4eho0 .e de-eloped f$o4 the a.ility to select a4on' and $efo$4ulate e4pi$ical data5
It is .ecause 0e a$e acti-e thin%e$s that 0e can fo$4 concepts5 It 0as Epicu$us 0ho
in-ented the notion of a p$econception o$ p$olepsis3 a notion to .eco4e influential in
Stoic and late$ philosophy5C2*D As >io'enes "ae$tius $elates3
p$econceptions they CEpicu$eansD spea% of as .ein' li%e app$ehension o$ co$$ect .elief o$
concept 7ennoia 8 o$ uni-e$sal thou'ht sto$ed up3 that is3 a 4e4o$y of 0hat has often
appea$ed e(te$nally3 such as :Such and such is a 4an:6 fo$ as soon as :4an: is spo%en3 at
once3 dependent on the p$econception3 its i4a'e 7tupos 8 is thou'ht of3 0ith the senses
leadin' the 0ay5 The$efo$e 0hat is p$i4a$ily .$ou'ht unde$ each 0o$d is clea$5 =e 0ould
ne-e$ ha-e in-esti'ated the o./ect of ou$ in-esti'ation3 unless 0e had p$e-iously
$eco'niAed it6 fo$ e(a4ple3 :That thin' standin' fa$ off is a ho$se o$ an o(:6 fo$ one has to
$eco'niAe at so4e point the shape of ho$se and o(3 dependent on the p$econception5
Othe$0ise 0e 0ould not ha-e na4ed anythin'3 not ha-in' lea$ned its i4a'e 7tu E
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDC2MDC2*D
; *JK ;
pos 83 dependent on the p$econception5 The$efo$e p$econceptions a$e clea$ 7ena$'eis 85
7*M5228
P$econceptions a$e astonishin'ly li%e #$itish e4pi$icist :ideas3: and fulfill t0o of thei$
$oles5 =e can co4e to 'ene$aliAe f$o4 the i4p$essions 4ade on us .y e(pe$ience and to
e(p$ess the $esults of this in lan'ua'e5 =e thus acBui$e 'ene$al concepts d$a0n f$o4
e(pe$ience3 0hich a$e also the 4eanin's of ou$ 0o$ds5 The$e is a sense in 0hich Epicu$us
does not ha-e a theo$y of 4eanin'3 since he denies that the$e a$e such thin's as 4eanin's
const$ued as entities inte$4ediate .et0een spo%en o$ 0$itten 0o$ds and the thin's the
0o$ds a$e of5C2FD #ut a'ain Epicu$us has no desi$e to flout co44on sense6 of cou$se ou$
0o$ds and utte$ances ha-e 4eanin'3C22D and his theo$y of concept acBuisition sho0s ho0
this is so5 "i%e 4any e4pi$icists he accounts fo$ ou$ a.ility to conceptualiAe and use
lan'ua'e in te$4s only of the 4ind9s a.ility to $efo$4ulate e4pi$ical data5 So4eti4es he
clea$ly thin%s of the concepts as .ein' the4sel-es a %ind of i4a'e3 a.st$acted and
co4posite3 li%e the i4a'es they a$e p$oduced f$o4 .y 'ene$aliAation5 #ut this is
fo$tunately not a settled -ie06 p$olepseis can .e de$i-ed f$o4 e(pe$ience in all so$ts of
0ays5 =e a$e told that a p$olepsis is a '$asp 7epi.ole 8 of so4ethin' clea$3 and of the
clea$ conception 7epinoia 8 of a thin'3 and that all epinoiai a$e de$i-ed f$o4 the senses .y
not only di$ect e(pe$ience 7pe$iptosis 8 .ut also analo'y3 li%eness3 and co4.ination5 Thus
Buite a lot of intellectual 0o$% can 'o into the
C2FDC22D
; *J1 ;
de-elop4ent of a concept5 =e ha-e a p$olepsis of /ustice3 fo$ e(a4ple6 and Epicu$us
4a%es so4e points a.out it 0hich a$e $ele-ant 4o$e 'ene$ally5C2,D The concept of /ustice
has a clea$ cent$al co$eP a la0 not leadin' to 4utual ad-anta'e3 clai4s Epicu$us3 is not
/ust5 #ut the concept can tole$ate Buite a lot of -a$iationHfo$ e(a4ple3 in the .alance of
ad-anta'e5 And it can e-en tole$ate fai$ly $adical chan'e of content if chan'ed
ci$cu4stances 4a%e diffe$ent 4eans necessa$y fo$ the 4utual 'ainin' of ad-anta'e5
The o./ections to such an e4pi$icist theo$y of concepts and 4eanin' a$e fa4ilia$6 he$e
0hat 4atte$s is that p$olepseis a$e 0hat a$e needed to fill out the Epicu$ean account of
pe$ception5 =e can easily see ho0 a pe$ception 0ould in-ol-e not only a phantasia o$
appea$ance3 .ut also an application of so4e p$olepsis to the appea$ance5 The pe$cei-e$
0ould the$e.y identify and classify 0hat is pe$cei-ed3 and also3 since p$olepseis function
to 'i-e 0o$ds 4eanin'3 0ould .e a.le to a$ticulate in lan'ua'e the content of 0hat is
pe$cei-ed5 Such an account 0ould 4a%e pe$ception a function of the 0hole pe$son3
in-ol-in' .oth i$$ational and sentient and $ational and co'niti-ely inte$p$etin' soul5
Ho0e-e$3 althou'h an account li%e this is 0hat Epicu$us needs fo$ his theo$ies o-e$all3 it
is not e(plicit in the sou$ces 70hich indeed tend to assi'n pe$ception to the i$$ational
soul83 and 0e can only loo% fo$ a dia'nosis of its a.sence5 Epicu$us9 theo$y suffe$s f$o4 a
lac% of clea$ $elationship .et0een the $ational and i$$ational soul and clea$ de4a$cation of
thei$ functions5 It also suffe$s f$o4 the fact that3 unli%e the Stoics3 Epicu$us has no -e$y
con-incin' location fo$ pe$ceptual content5 Stoic $ational appea$ances a$e ite4s 0hich
con-ey content3 and 0hat the 4ind does is to a$ticulate and inte$p$et this3 assentin' to a
le%ton as a $esult5 Epicu$us3 ho0e-e$3 thin%s that le%ta a$e 4etaphysically o./ectiona.le
entities3 and that the$e a$e no such thin's6 so he has to 'i-e an account of ho0 0e $ecei-e
info$4ation in pe$ception 0hich lac%s a 4echanis4
C2,D
; *J+ ;
fo$ $ecei-in' content f$o4 the appea$ances5 On Epicu$us9 -ie0 the 4ind so4eho0
conceptualiAes and a$ticulates the info$4ational content of pe$ception as a $esult of
senso$y .a$$a'e .y i4a'es and is a.le to do this .ecause $epeated e(pe$iences ha-e .uilt
up patte$ns in the 4ind ato4s 0hich a4ount to the possession of concepts5 It is
undou.tedly the less satisfacto$y -ie05
Epicu$us 0as noto$ious in antiBuity fo$ .elie-in' that :all pe$ceptions a$e t$ue5: As an
episte4olo'ical thesis3 this see4s to ha-e .een adopted fo$ antisceptical $easonsP since
pe$ceptual e(pe$ience is the foundation fo$ all ou$ %no0led'e3 so4e pe$ceptions 4ust .e
t$ue3 and 0e 4ust accept that all a$e if 0e a$e not to 'et entan'led in sceptical a$'u4ents
0hich disc$edit so4e pe$ceptions on the .asis of othe$s5C2ID The o.-ious sceptical
o./ections to the thesis a$e 4et .y the o.-ious e(pedientP all pe$ceptions a$e t$ue3 and
falsehood is al0ays due to added .elief5C2JD Pe$ception ne-e$ 'oes 0$on' insofa$ as it is
the $eception of info$4ation f$o4 outside6 .elief in-ol-es a $eaction on ou$ pa$t 0hich
can 'o $i'ht3 .ut can also 'o 0$on'5 This a$4s the Epicu$eans a'ainst sceptics3 and
indeed 0e often find sceptics and Epicu$eans d$a0in' diffe$ent conclusions f$o4 the
sa4e 4ate$ial5C2KD Ho0e-e$3 this $ole fo$ .elief is p$o.le4atic5 That 0e ha-e a facto$ in
ou$sel-es accountin' fo$ e$$o$ allo0s the p$ocess of pe$ception itself to .e a totally
passi-e $eception of data6 .ut since thin%in' 0as supposed to .e li%e pe$ception in .ein'
/ust such a passi-e $eception3 it is ha$d to see ho0 0e 'et the e$$o$Epe$4ittin' p$ocess out
of
C2IDC2JDC2KD
; *KM ;
thin%in'6 indeed a pa$allel facto$ 0ould see4 $eBui$ed to account fo$ e$$o$ in thin%in'5
Ho0 to account con-incin'ly fo$ e$$o$ is a p$o.le4 facin' all e4pi$icist accounts 0hich
4a%e ou$ info$4ationE$ecei-in' 4echanis4s conspicuously passi-e5
P$o.le4s a$ise 0hen 0e p$ess the Buestion3 =hat is the pe$ception 0hich is al0ays t$ueG
The thesis is e(p$essed in a '$eat -a$iety of 0ays5 =hat is said to .e al0ays t$ue is
pe$ception o$ appea$ance 7phantasia 8 o$ pe$ception and appea$ance o$ the appea$ances
occu$$in' th$ou'h pe$ception o$ :the senses: in 'ene$al5C21D These diffe$ences 4atte$3 fo$
if Epicu$us is 0a-e$in' .et0een a 0ide$ and a na$$o0e$ notion of 0hat the ite4 is 0hich
is al0ays t$ue3 he is .y the sa4e to%en also 0a-e$in' .et0een a 0ide$ and a na$$o0e$
notion of 0hat the added .elief ele4ent is 0hich can p$oduce falsity5
It is easy to see 0hat 'ets Epicu$us into t$ou.le he$e5 He 0ants a co44onsense
episte4olo'yP 0e can $ely on ou$ pe$ceptions5 #ut the thesis that all pe$ceptions a$e t$ue
is $apidly seen to .e false at the co44onsense le-el3 fo$ the :conflicts in pe$ception: of
0hich the sceptics 4ade so 4uch a$ise -e$y o.-iously5 I see the to0e$ as sBua$e close up3
$ound at a distance5 The 0ine heats 4e and chills you5 Epicu$us did not ha-e a
satisfacto$y sin'le ans0e$ to this5 Pluta$ch p$ese$-es a passa'e 0hich su''ests a
$elati-istic solutionP 0e do not $eally ha-e conflictin' appea$ances a.out the sa4e thin'3
the 0ine5 Rathe$3 .ecause of its ato4ic constitution3 the 0ine is heatin' to 4e3 coolin' to
you5C2+D Se(tus su''ests anothe$ 0ay of a-oidin' the conflictP each of us t$uly $epo$ts
ho0 the thin' in Buestion appea$s to us3 so 0e a$e not disa'$eein' a.out the o./ect3 .ut
4e$ely $epo$tin' its diffe$ent appea$ances5C,MD #oth these ans0e$s a$e $et$eats f$o4
co44on sense5 Ine-ita.ly3 'i-en his
C21DC2+DC,MD
; *K* ;
co44it4ent to the thesis that all pe$ceptions a$e t$ue3 Epicu$us 0ill .e d$i-en .ac% to the
position that 0hat is al0ays t$ue 0ill .e the a'ent9s clai4s as to ho0 the 0o$ld appea$s to
hi4 to .e5 This $esult is so4e0hat e4.a$$assin' fo$ th$ee $easons5
i$stly3 state4ents a.out o$dina$y physical o./ects .eco4e theo$etical3 a p$o/ection f$o4
the pe$ceptual e(pe$ience 0e $ely on3 and this is counte$intuiti-e5 This 0ould not 4atte$
fo$ so4e theo$ies3 .ut Epicu$us 4a%es la$'e effo$ts to p$esent his theo$ies as intuiti-e
7and othe$ people9s theo$ies as $idiculously counte$intuiti-e85 The$e a$e o.-ious 0ays of
sa-in' the theo$y3 thou'h it is not clea$ that Epicu$us follo0ed any of the4 up5 It 4i'ht
.e3 fo$ e(a4ple3 that pe$ceptual /ud'4ents should .e analyAed in a 0ay 0hich 4a%es
the4 4o$e nonco44ittal than 0e no$4ally assu4e6 pe$haps a pe$ceptual /ud'4ent
st$ictly clai4s 4e$ely that the$e is so4ethin' the$e to .e pe$cei-ed3 .ut does not $e-eal its
natu$e5 On this -ie03 pe$ception 0ill tell us that the$e is so4ethin' 0hich appea$s sBua$e
close up and $ound f$o4 a distance6 .ut it is fo$ theo$y to tell us that it is a to0e$5 This
-ie0 of cou$se holds that e-e$yday pe$ceptual e(pe$ience $e-eals fa$ less than 0e
no$4ally ta%e it to do3 and does not $eally $eesta.lish the theo$y as an intuiti-e one5
Secondly3 the pe$ceptions 0hich a$e t$ue 0ill .e ou$ appea$ances6 .ut 0e ha-e seen 0hy
Epicu$us has so4e difficulty in sayin' that the appea$ances the4sel-es a$e t$ue3 fo$ they
do not the4sel-es ha-e content in the 0ay that Stoic pe$ceptual appea$ances do5 Hence3
pe$haps3 the$e is a standin' co4plication in the e-idenceP pe$ceptions a$e said to .e t$ue
.ut a$e also so4eti4es cha$acte$iAed in 0ays that conflict 0ith this6 they a$e i$$ational3
C,*D and so si4ply $eco$d3 and do not add o$ su.t$act anythin'5 And Se(tus says that
e-e$ythin' pe$cei-ed is :t$ue and e(istent3: .ut that he$e :t$ue: does not diffe$ f$o4
:su.sistin'5:C,FD Passa'es li%e this ha-e led so4e to
C,*DC,FD
; *KF ;
the -ie0 that Epicu$ean pe$ceptions a$e t$ue in a special sense not in-ol-in' p$opositional
content5 It is o.scu$e3 ho0e-e$3 0hat this could .e6 if it 4eans si4ply that they $eally
occu$3 then fa$ too 4any thin's 'et let in as .ein' t$ueHpains3 fo$ e(a4ple5 In any case3
the e-idence does not de4and a special sense of :t$ue3: fo$ Epicu$us could3 and al4ost
ce$tainly did3 4ean that they 0e$e t$ue in a de$i-ed sense3 na4ely3 that on the .asis of
the4 t$ue state4ents can .e 4ade5 Pictu$es and i4a'es of 4any %inds can .e said to .e
t$ue in this sense3 and Epicu$us could Buite 0ell ha-e thou'ht that 0hen I pe$cei-e a $ed
sBua$e3 fo$ e(a4ple3 I $ecei-e an i4a'e 0hich is $ed and sBua$e3 and is not itself t$ue3 .ut
that 4y pe$ception can .e said to .e t$ue .ecause on the .asis of it I can assent to :The$e
is a $ed sBua$e he$e3: 0hich is t$ue5 The p$o.le4 fo$ Epicu$us is si4ply that he has no
4echanis4 fo$ e(plainin' ho0 this is the case3 as the Stoics do5 o$ Epicu$us it loo%s li%e
shee$ une(plained 'ood luc% that info$4ation in i4a'istic fo$4 'ets t$ansfo$4ed into
so4ethin' that can .e said to .e t$ue o$ false5
Thi$dly3 the diffe$ence .et0een a -e$idical and a non-e$idical appea$anceHa
st$ai'htfo$0a$d pe$ception and a d$ea4 i4a'e o$ illusionHtu$ns out to depend on
0hethe$ the a'ent has t$ue o$ false .eliefs a.out othe$ thin's6 and this a'ain is
counte$intuiti-e5 >espite the official co44onsense episte4olo'y3 Epicu$eans feel that the
pheno4ena of d$ea4s3 hallucinations3 and so on a$e a se$ious p$o.le4 fo$ the46 fo$ the
appea$ances p$esented to the sleepe$ and to the 0a%eful a$e eBually :t$ue5: "uc$etius3
Epicu$us3 and >io'enes of Oenoanda discuss at so4e len'th the p$o.le4 that 0e ha-e
-isions and d$ea4 i4a'es and e4otional $eactions to the45C,2D The official account
'i-en .y >io'enes is that the 4ind is affected independently of the senses and fails to
$efe$ its i4a'es to the senses3 0hich 0ould decla$e the4 not to .e i4a'es of $eal thin's5
C,,D #ut the test 0hich the senses p$o-ide is p$o.le4atic5
C,2DC,,D
; *K2 ;
The Epicu$eans 0ant to account fo$ t0o factsP that so4e non-e$idical e(pe$iences see4
as con-incin' as -e$idical ones3 and that they a$e nonetheless not e(pe$iences of the $eal
0o$ld5 #ut the Epicu$ean theo$y of pe$ception does not 'i-e a $o.ust enou'h account of
the second fact3 0hile the account it 'i-es of the fi$st is all too plausi.le5
; *KI ;
1
Action and $eedo4 of Action
o$ the Epicu$ean account of the 4echanis4 of action 0e a$e dependent on a .$ief and
$athe$ isolated passa'e in "uc$etius5C*D He sta$ts .y sayin' that he 0ill e(plain :ho0 it
co4es a.out that 0e can ca$$y ou$ steps on0a$d3 and ho0 it is 'i-en to us to 4o-e ou$
li4.s in -a$ious 0ays5: =hat he pe$cei-es as the 4ain p$o.le4 he$e is ho0 the soul3 fine
and s4all3 can 4o-e so .ul%y a thin' as the .ody3 and he ta%es up 4ost of his e(position
e(plainin' ho0 this is no p$o.le4P fo$ce of 4o-e4ent is not in di$ect $elation to .ul%5 He
does not find anythin' pa$ticula$ly p$o.le4atic in the initial sta'e3 of ho0 0e ha-e an
i4pulse to 4o-e in the fi$st placeP
I say that fi$st of all i4a'es of 0al%in' 7si4ulac$a 4eandi 8 st$i%e upon ou$ $ational soul
7ani4o nost$o 5 5 5 accide$e 8 and hit upon the $ational soul3 as 0e said .efo$e5 Thence
i4pulse co4es a.out 7inde -oluntas fit 86 fo$ no one e-e$ .e'ins to do anythin' until the
4ind fo$esees 0hat it
C*D
; *KJ ;
0ishes 7p$o-idit Buid -elit 86 0hat it fo$esees3 the pictu$e 7i4a'o 8 of that thin' co4es
a.out5 The$efo$e 0hen the $ational soul so sti$s itself that it 0ishes to 'o and to 4o-e
fo$0a$d3 it fo$th0ith st$i%es all the fo$ce of the i$$ational soul 0hich is dist$i.uted in the
enti$e .ody th$ou'hout the li4.s and 4e4.e$s5 And this is easy to do3 since it is held
to'ethe$ in co4.ination 0ith it5 Thence it in tu$n st$i%es the .ody3 and thus '$adually the
0hole 4ass is pushed fo$0a$d and 4o-es5 7,511*O+*8
"i%e the Stoics3 Epicu$us 4a%es clea$ that in action the $ational3 as 0ell as the i$$ational3
soul is in-ol-ed6 action in hu4an .ein's is 4o$e than a 4e$e senso$y $efle( o$ $eaction5
He diffe$s f$o4 the Stoics in .ein' 7if 0e infe$ $i'htly f$o4 this passa'e8 co4pa$ati-ely
uninte$ested in i4pulse as a pheno4enon in its o0n $i'ht5 =e ha-e so4e tantaliAin' .its
of e-idence he$e6 it appea$s that he 0ishes to do0nplay the A$istotelian 0o$d fo$ desi$e3
o$e(is 3 o$ e-en disc$edit it3 thou'h it is unclea$ p$ecisely 0hat his '$ounds fo$ this 0e$e5
CFD Ho0e-e$3 Epicu$us de-elops no ne0 technical notion that 0e %no0 of6 the$e is
nothin' to co4pa$e 0ith the ca$eful Stoic t$eat4ent of ho$4e 5 Epicu$us 4ay ha-e used
ho$4e as a te$4 fo$ :i4pulse: in the analysis of action6 0e cannot tell3 .ut it see4s li%ely
that that is the 0o$d 0hich "uc$etius t$anslates as -oluntas 5 #y "uc$etius9 ti4e3 ho0e-e$3
the Stoic
CFD
; *KK ;
te$4 4ay ha-e co4e into 4o$e 'ene$al use e-en a4on' Epicu$eans5C2D Epicu$us9 account
of action also cont$asts 0ith the Stoics9 in not standin' in pa$ticula$ly close o$ helpful
$elation to his ethics5
:I4a'es of 0al%in': st$i%e the $ational soul and 'et it 4o-in'6 this is Epicu$us9 analo'ue
to the Stoic :i4pulso$y appea$ance5: So4e appea$ances3 the pe$ceptual ones3 pe$4it us to
ta%e in info$4ation5 Othe$s p$oduce $eaction in us3 eithe$ of att$action o$ of $epulsion5 As
0ith the pe$ceptual appea$ances3 the ones 0hich p$oduce action a$e spo%en of as i4a'es5
Epicu$us is a'ain silent as to any 4echanis4 0he$e.y 0e could 'et f$o4 i4a'es st$i%in'
the soul to content that can .e inte$p$eted and acted on5 All 0e find is that an :i4a'e of
0al%in': st$i%es the soul3 0hich the $ational soul in so4e 0ay
C2D
; *K1 ;
inte$p$ets and 4a%es sense of6 as a $esult an i4pulse is p$oduced5 The$e a$e t0o points
0he$e 0e 4i'ht /ustifia.ly de4and 4o$e of an e(plicit account if 0e a$e not to $e'a$d the
p$ocess as hi'hly 4yste$ious5 One is the i4a'e that st$i%es the soulP it is an :i4a'e of
0al%in' : 74eandi 85 =hat can an i4a'e of 0al%in' .eG =e can easily fo$4 an i4a'e of
a pe$son 0al%in'3 o$ each pe$son can pictu$e hi4self o$ he$self 0al%in'5C,D #ut a definite
i4a'e li%e this '$eatly unde$dete$4ines the thou'hts one could ha-e a.out it5 =hy should
a pictu$e of 4yself 0al%in' p$oduce an i4pulse in 4e to 0al%3 $athe$ than not to 0al%G
O$ an i4pulse to 0al%3 $athe$ than to ta%e the ca$G =hat is needed is $athe$ an i4a'e
0hich 0ill plausi.ly p$oduce the $eaction that the a'ent 0al%s5 Most li%ely this is 0hy
"uc$etius uses the odd e(p$ession :i4a'es of 0al%in'5: #ut this /ust lands us .ac% 0ith
the p$o.le4 of 'i-in' a sense to the notion of an i4a'e of so4ethin' as 'ene$al as
0al%in'5 The p$o.le4 can .e su44ed up in 'ene$alP a pa$ticula$ i4a'e cannot e(plain
0hy one action is p$oduced on the .asis of it $athe$ than anothe$5 =hat is needed is the
p$esentation of so4ethin' 0ith 'ene$ality5 #ut an i4a'e cannot e(p$ess 'ene$ality5 An
i4a'e theo$y cannot cope 0ith any fo$4 of a.st$action3 and hence cannot account fo$
thou'hts 0hich $eBui$e it5CID May.e 0e should not concent$ate so 4uch on the i4a'e .ut
thin% $athe$ of 0hat the $ational soul inte$p$ets f$o4 the i4a'e5 This $eBui$es
conside$a.le inte$p$etati-e cha$ity3 since Epicu$us 'i-es us a.solutely nothin' on this
point5
The second p$o.le4 a$ises 0ith the i4pulse that is fo$4ed3 fo$ it also is p$esented in
i4a'istic te$4s3 and si4ila$ difficulties a$ise fo$ it5 The i4pulse itself is a :pictu$e: of
0hat the $ational soul fo$esees as 0hat it 0ants to do6 thus if I fo$4 an i4pulse to 0al%3 I
0ill p$esu4a.ly fo$4 a pictu$e of 4yself
C,DCID
; *K+ ;
0al%in'5 Ho0e-e$3 all the p$o.le4s that a$ose fo$ the fi$st i4a'e a$ise a'ain he$e5 Ho0
can pictu$in' 4yself 0al%in' lead to actionG =e need at least t0o ideas 0hich the pictu$e
itself cannot e(p$ess3 na4ely3 that the 0al%in' is in the futu$e and that it is in so4e 0ay
desi$a.le5 A'ain3 ho0e-e$3 no i4a'e is co4petent to e(p$ess these ideas3 and anythin'
that is cannot si4ply .e an i4a'e5
A'ain3 0e 4i'ht thin% that 0e a$e .ein' uncha$ita.le5 Else0he$e Epicu$us says that the
pe$son 0ho 0al%s has a :p$actical .elief3: p$a'4ati%e do(a 5CJD Pe$haps "uc$etius is
si4ply tellin' us pa$t of the sto$y he$e5 If so3 then 0hen a pe$son $esol-es to do
so4ethin'3 she fo$4s a p$actical .elief3 and the i4a'e that "uc$etius tal%s a.out is /ust
the content of the p$actical .elief as p$esented to the a'ent5 =e need not3 then3 ta%e
Epicu$us to .e t$yin' -ainly to e(t$act a .elief f$o4 a pictu$e3 $athe$3 he is sayin' that
0hen I $esol-e to 0al%3 I fo$4 a .elief3 and pa$t of 0hat this in-ol-es is pictu$in' 4yself
0al%in'5 On this -ie03 the i4a'e has a 4o$e plausi.le $ole5 Ho0e-e$3 e-en this 4o$e
cha$ita.le inte$p$etation has its d$a0.ac%s5 i$stly3 0e cannot tell a pa$allel sto$y fo$ the
fi$st i4a'e3 0hich st$i%es the soul and leads to the fo$4ation of the i4pulse6 so the t0o
i4a'es in the sto$y 0ill function -e$y diffe$ently5 Secondly3 e-en in its o0n te$4s this
sto$y 0ill only .e plausi.le fo$ a selection of i4pulses3 na4ely3 si4ple cases of
i44ediate action5 It does not e(tend at all plausi.ly to la$'eEscale $esol-es5 Suppose I
$esol-e to .eco4e a 4illionai$e6 this does not see4 to .$in' 0ith it the need to -isualiAe
4yself doin' anythin' conc$ete5 Indeed3 this see4s inapp$op$iate6 I 4i'ht -isualiAe
4yself 'loatin' o-e$ 4oney.a's o$ o$de$in' people a$ound in a fancy office3 .ut clea$ly
no such pictu$e is eithe$ necessa$y o$ sufficient fo$ 4e to ha-e the $esol-e5 He$e the
p$o.le4 is that a la$'eEscale $esol-e is co4pati.le 0ith 4any diffe$ent3 and so4eti4es
4utually e(clusi-e3 0ays of ca$$yin' it out6 so -isualiAation of
CJD
; *1M ;
these $esol-es can fo$4 no pa$t of ha-in' the $esol-e5 E-en the 4o$e cha$ita.le
inte$p$etation3 the$efo$e3 lea-es Epicu$us 0ith a -e$y unsatisfacto$y theo$y he$e5
"uc$etius sees no difficulty as to ho0 i4pulse p$oduces actionP once the i4pulse has .een
fo$4ed3 0e si4ply 'et the causal sto$y of ho0 the $ational soul affects the i$$ational3 and
that affects the .ody5 No attention is paid3 in this conte(t3 to the possi.ility of .loc%in'
facto$s 0hich 4i'ht p$oduce3 fo$ e(a4ple3 a%$asia6 it is ha$d to see 0he$e Epicu$us could
find $oo4 fo$ the43 and his ans0e$ to this p$o.le4 is p$o.a.ly li%e the that of the StoicsP
a%$asia is not an e(t$a .loc%in' facto$3 .ut a case of shiftin' o$ unclea$ $esol-e5
Epicu$us9 account of action has often .een co4pa$ed to that of A$istotle in >e 4otu
ani4aliu4 3CKD .ut the diffe$ences a$e 4o$e st$i%in' than the si4ila$ities3 and Epicu$eans
and Stoics ha-e 4o$e in co44on 0ith each othe$ than eithe$ school has 0ith A$istotle5
#oth analyAe action in te$4s of i4pulse3 includin' so4e %ind of co'niti-e facto$5 o$ the
Stoics this is clea$ly p$opositional5 o$ Epicu$us it is p$opositional3 .ut not -e$y clea$ly
so6 4o$e 0ei'ht is laid on the ha-in' of an i4a'e o$ pictu$e of so4e %ind5 #ut neithe$
school has anythin' $e4otely li%e A$istotle9s account of deli.e$ation as a %ind of enBui$y
o$ sea$ch leadin' to action5 o$ the Hellenistic schools i4pulse is pa$tne$ed .y only one
:p$actical .elief5: Indeed3 Epicu$us says of the a'ent 0ho has a p$actical3 not 4e$ely a
theo$etical3 .elief3 that if it is a uni-e$sal 7%atholou 8 .elief3 then :he e4.a$%s Clit5 90al%s39
.adiAei D i44ediately upon an action such as if he had also accepted e4pi$ically that in a
pa$ticula$ instance so4ethin' 0as o$ 0as not of a ce$tain %ind5:C1D o$ Epicu$us3
deli.e$ation o$ selection at the 4o4ent of action is not st$essed5 Rathe$3 action is the
p$oduct of the 0o$ld9s i4pin'in' on an a'ent 0ho al$eady has a cha$acte$ and $eacti-e
capacities of a ce$tain %ind5 As 0ith the Stoics3 the ans0e$ to :=hy did you do thatG: 0ill
.e 'i-en .y $efE
CKDC1D
; *1* ;
e$ence to t0o facto$s5 One is the 0ay the 0o$ld appea$ed to 4e at the ti4e6 the othe$ is
4y o-e$all state at that ti4e3 a state $esultin' f$o4 past choices and p$esent endo$se4ent
of past de-elop4ent5
=e ha-e seen that Epicu$us ne-e$ dou.ts that 0e a$e f$ee a'ents3 and a$'ues that
$educti-e dete$4inis4 is untena.le5C+D =e also %no0 that the thesis that so4e thin's a$e
in ou$ po0e$ and that not e-e$ythin' is :.y necessity: 0as at so4e point defended .y
$efe$ence to the theo$y of the :s0e$-e: 7pa$en%lisis3 clina4en 8 of the ato4s5 =e ha-e
nothin' e(tant f$o4 Epicu$us hi4self on the s0e$-e3 .ut that it is his theo$y is clea$ f$o4
late$ $efe$ences5C*MD The idea is si4pleP ato4s fall pe$pendicula$ly th$ou'h the -oid at
unifo$4 speed3 .ut no0 and then one 4ay s0e$-e3 :at no fi(ed ti4e o$ place3: .ut only
4ini4ally5C**D Thus the 4otions of the ato4s a$e not totally e(plica.le3 e-en in
p$inciple3 .y dete$4inistic la0s5 This indete$4inacy at the ato4ic le-el accounts fo$ t0o
thin'sP the fact that in a :$ain: of ato4s 4o-in' at e-en speed in pa$allel pe$pendicula$
lines3 0e e-en 'et collisions leadin' to the fo$4in' of co4pounds3 and of enti$e 0o$lds in
pa$ticula$6 and3 4o$e i4po$tantly he$e3 that so4e thin's at least a$e :up to us5:
=e do not %no0 if the s0e$-e al0ays had these t0o functions3 o$ if eithe$ of the4 0as
4o$e p$o4inent fo$ Epicu$us3 .ut the ancient e-idence 74uch of it hostile8 4a%es it clea$
that the s0e$-e 0as in so4e 0ay 4eant to e(plain ho0 0e a$e
C+DC*MDC**D
; *1F ;
f$ee a'ents5 !ice$o e(plains 0hy the s0e$-e 0as int$oducedP since othe$0ise :0e 0ould
ha-e no f$eedo4: and :nothin' 0ould .e in ou$ po0e$5:C*FD Philode4us says cautiously
that the s0e$-e 4ust .e sho0n to .e consistent 0ith e(pe$ienceH0e 4ust not /ust accept
it :.ecause of chance and of thin's dependin' on us5:C*2D And >io'enes of Oenoanda
hails the s0e$-e as '$ounds fo$ confidence that 0e a$e f$ee a'ents and a$e /ustified in ou$
p$actices of p$aise3 .la4e3 and so onP
If so4eone 4a%es use of the theo$y of >e4oc$itus3 sayin' that the$e is no f$ee 4o-e4ent
fo$ the ato4s .ecause of thei$ collisions 0ith one anothe$3 f$o4 0hich it is clea$ that all
thin's a$e 4o-ed .y necessity3 0e shall say to hi43 :>o you not %no03 0hoe-e$ you 4ay
.e3 that the$e is a %ind of f$ee 4o-e4ent in the ato4s3 0hich >e4oc$itus did not disco-e$
.ut 0hich Epicu$us .$ou'ht to li'ht3 an inhe$ent s0e$-e3 as he sho0s f$o4 the
pheno4enaG The 4ost i4po$tant point is thisP if destiny is .elie-ed in3 all ad4onition and
$e.u%e is done a0ay 0ith5 7$a'5 2F8C*,D
Undenia.le as it is that the s0e$-e is in so4e 0ay to e(plain f$ee action3 it is e(t$e4ely
puAAlin' ho0 it could do so5 i$stly3 0e ha-e al$eady seen that Epicu$us can adeBuately
defend ou$ .elief that 0e a$e f$ee a'ents3 and $esponsi.le fo$ 0hat 0e do3 .y a$'uin' that
a theo$y that denies this is untena.le5C*ID The$e see4s no need fo$ anythin' li%e the
s0e$-e5 u$the$3 it is not clea$ ho0 a co44onsense .elief can .e suppo$ted in the 0ay
that Epicu$us needs .y a cont$o-e$sial philosophical thesis5 The 0hole th$ust of
a$'u4ents li%e Epicu$us9 $efutation of dete$4inis4 is that 0e a$e entitled to ou$ fol%
psycholo'y .eliefs as they a$e6 they cannot .e unde$4ined .y philosophical theo$ies such
as dete$4inis45 The s0e$-e theo$y see4s
C*FDC*2DC*,DC*ID
; *12 ;
to .ac%t$ac% on thisP the thou'ht that ou$ .elief in ou$ o0n f$ee a'ency needs the s0e$-e
theo$y to suppo$t it su''ests that 0e a$e $eally not3 afte$ all3 entitled to ou$ o$dina$y
.eliefs as they a$e5
Epicu$us 4ay3 of cou$se3 ha-e chan'ed his 4ind a.out the %ind of suppo$t that ou$ .elief
in ou$ o0n f$ee a'ency de4ands5 O$ he 4ay ha-e thou'ht that the $efutation of
dete$4inis4 and the s0e$-e theo$y se$-e t0o distinct ends5 The fi$st 4e$ely sho0s that
0e ha-e no $eal alte$nati-e to thin%in' of ou$sel-es as f$ee a'ents6 the second sho0s us
not that3 .ut ho03 this is possi.leP ato4ic theo$y can acco44odate it5 =e 4ay still feel
disco4fo$t5 =hy does ato4ic theo$y ha-e to .e sho0n to acco44odate f$ee a'ency3
unless f$ee a'ency is al$eady thou'ht to pose a philosophical p$o.le4G #ut the $efutation
a$'u4ent p$oceeded on the assu4ption that it is the philosophical a$'u4ents a'ainst f$ee
a'ency that pose a p$o.le43 not f$ee a'ency itself5 #y sho0in' that ato4ic theo$y can .e
4odified to acco44odate f$ee a'ency3 the s0e$-e theo$y can only encou$a'e the thou'ht
that the $efutation a$'u4ent $e/ects3 that ato4ic theo$y th$eatens f$ee a'ency5
Apa$t f$o4 this3 the s0e$-e theo$y has inte$nal p$o.le4s5 Ho0 can indete$4inacy at the
4ic$oEle-el e(plain f$ee a'ency at the 4ac$oEle-elG Ho0 can $ando4 s0e$-es a4on' the
ato4s e(plain the .eha-io$ of ato4ic co4poundsG The p$o.le4 is 0o$sened he$e .y the
point that 0hat is to .e e(plained is 4e$ely the .eha-io$ of so4e ato4ic co4pounds3
na4ely3 hu4an a'ents5 T$ees and stones a$e not ta%en to e(hi.it $esults of s0e$-es5 #ut
e-e$ythin'3 inani4ate as 0ell as ani4ate3 is co4posed of ato4s3 and so the indete$4inacy
p$oduced .y s0e$-es a4on' the ato4s should ha-e any effects it has at the 4ac$oEle-el
ac$oss the .oa$d5 =e need so4e inte$4ediate sta'e to sho0 ho0 s0e$-es at the ato4ic
le-el p$oduce effects at the 4ac$oEle-el3 and fu$the$3 effects 0hich a$e li4ited to f$ee
a'ency in hu4ans5
=e 'et no satisfacto$y account of such a sta'e o$ p$ocess5 One of ou$ 4ost i4po$tant
sou$ces su''ests one3 .ut in a puAAlin' 0ay5 =hen "uc$etius int$oduces the s0e$-e in its
cos4o'onical $ole he then a.$uptly asc$i.es to the s0e$-e
; *1, ;
:that f$ee i4pulse to$n f$o4 fate3 .y 0hich 0e p$o'$ess 0he$e-e$ pleasu$e leads each
pe$son3 and s0e$-in' ou$ 4otions not at a fi(ed ti4e o$ in a fi(ed $e'ion of space3 .ut
0he$e the 4ind itself has ta%en us5:C*JD Ou$ f$eedo4 to do one thin' $athe$ than anothe$
is co4pa$ed3 so4e0hat '$otesBuely3 to the s0e$-in' of the ato4s5 "uc$etius 'oes on to
'i-e e(a4ples of f$ee action3 0hich int$oduce -a$ious conside$ations and a$e fa$ f$o4
pe$spicuous5 The fi$st is an e(a4ple of ani4al action3 ho$ses at the sta$tin' .a$$ie$ of a
$ace5 The second is of a pe$son .ein' pushed and $esistin' the p$essu$e3 0ho is co4pa$ed
to so4eone 4o-in' 0ithout opposition5C*KD "uc$etius concludes that the$e is a special
%ind of cause in the ato4sP :That the 4ind itself should not ha-e necessity 0ithin it in all
action3 and should not .e as it 0e$e conBue$ed and co4pelled to endu$e and suffe$6 this is
.$ou'ht a.out .y the ele4ents9 tiny s0e$-e3 in no fi(ed $e'ion of space and at no fi(ed
ti4e5:C*1D
"uc$etius9 passa'e su''ests that s0e$-es a$e $esponsi.le fo$ f$ee actions $athe$ di$ectly5
>oes he3 ho0e-e$3 4ean that an action is f$ee .ecause a s0e$-e is pa$t of the i44ediately
p$ecedin' causal chainG This inte$p$etation3 until $ecently indeed the o$thodo(
inte$p$etation3 faces t$e4endous p$o.le4s5C*+D In his late$ account of action 7see pp5
*KIOKJ a.o-e8 "uc$etius ne-e$ 4entions s0e$-es3 and the$e is no o.-ious place to inse$t
the4 in his account of ho0 an action co4es a.out5 u$the$3 since s0e$-es a$e $ando43 it
is ha$d to see ho0 they help to e(plain f$ee action5 =e can sca$cely e(pect
C*JDC*KDC*1DC*+D
; *1I ;
the$e to .e a $ando4 s0e$-e .efo$e e-e$y f$ee action5 $ee actions a$e f$eBuent3 and
7fai$ly8 $elia.le5 Rando4 s0e$-es cannot account fo$ eithe$ of these featu$es5 This
p$o.le4 0ould .e lessened if 0e could assu4e that s0e$-es a$e -e$y f$eBuent3 so that
the$e is al0ays li%ely to .e one a$ound .efo$e an action5 Ho0e-e$3 if s0e$-es a$e
f$eBuent3 0e face the p$o.le4 that stones and t$ees ou'ht to .e ena.led to act f$eely5 And
e-en in the case of hu4ans $ando4 s0e$-es 0ould see4 to p$oduce3 if anythin'3 $ando4
actions6 0e still lac% any clue as to ho0 they could p$oduce actions 0hich a$e f$ee5
An influential 4ode$n line of thou'ht a-oids these p$o.le4s .y a$'uin' that ou$ e-idence
does not de4and that the$e .e a s0e$-e fo$ each f$ee action5CFMD Rathe$3 s0e$-es e(plain
the fact that people ha-e cha$acte$s capa.le of chan'e and $eaction that 'oes .eyond
4echanical $esponse to sti4uli5 =e act f$eely .ecause 0e ha-e cha$acte$s that a$e
fle(i.le and spontaneous3 and this is .ecause 0e a$e co4posed of ato4s 0hich s0e$-e
occasionally5 On this account3 s0e$-es do not ha-e to .e f$eBuent3 since they a$e not pa$t
of any 4echanis4 of action6 one s0e$-e in you$ soul is enou'h fo$ the %ind of cha$acte$
fle(i.ility that is $eBui$ed5 Such an account a-oids the p$o.le4s attachin' to any account
that .$in's s0e$-es into f$ee action3 .ut at the cost of not ans0e$in' -e$y closely to the
e-idence6 the "uc$etius passa'e ce$tainly su''ests that s0e$-es a$e in so4e 0ay $ele-ant
at the point of action5
Anothe$ %ind of su''estion is that s0e$-es a$e not the causes of f$ee actions at all5 Rathe$3
they co4e into the p$ocess 0he$e.y f$ee actions a$e .$ou'ht a.out5 S0e$-es a$e supposed
to e(plain so4ethin' a.out the natu$e of f$ee a'ency and ho0 it 0o$%s3 .ut they do not
cause f$ee actions 7.y cuttin' ac$oss causal chains3 fo$ e(a4ple85 This su''estion can .e
de-eloped in se-e$al 0ays5 The .oldest -e$sion holds that s0e$-es do not e(plain the
e(istence of f$ee -olitions at all6CF*D $athe$ Epicu$us holds any0ay that -olitions a$e
nonphysical3 :e4e$'ent: enE
CFMDCF*D
; *1J ;
tities5 The $ole of s0e$-es is to p$o-ide alte$nati-e possi.ilities fo$ -olitions to choose
.et0een3 fo$ the$e 0ould .e no point in ha-in' f$ee 0ill if the$e 0e$e no 'enuinely open
possi.ilities .et0een 0hich to select5 This su''estion depends on the st$on' thesis that
Epicu$us $e'a$ds the 4ind as so4ethin' nonphysical3 0hich 0e ha-e seen to .e hi'hly
contentious6CFFD and also it li%e0ise does not $eally ans0e$ to the e-idence3 in 0hich it is
not 4e$ely the possi.ility of s0e$-es3 .ut actual s0e$-es3 0hich play a $ole at the le-el of
action5 A second %ind of account 'i-es the s0e$-e a $ole in ena.lin' the 4ind to focus on
one thin' $athe$ than anothe$ .y 0ay of the 4ind9s selecti-e :'$asp: o$ epi.ole tes
dianoias 5CF2D A thi$d sees it as pa$allel to A$istotle9s use of the connate pneu4a6CF,D that
is3 it c$eates a ne0 %ind of physical su.stance 0hich e(plains3 0ithin a physicalist
syste43 ho0 hu4an 4inds can .e acti-e3 and in pa$ticula$ can initiate action5
It is undou.tedly 4o$e att$acti-e to find a $ole fo$ s0e$-es in the 4echanis4 of f$ee
action3 $athe$ than as 4yste$ious e-ents ena.lin' f$ee action to co4e a.out5 Ho0e-e$3 all
such accounts face the p$o.le4 of e-idenceP "uc$etius3 the only sou$ce 0ho 'i-es us
4uch detail a.out the s0e$-e in hu4an action3 associates it 0ith the fo$4ation of i4pulse
7-oluntas 83 not 0ith any su.seBuent 4echanis4 to ca$$y it out5CFID Ho0e-e$
e4.a$$assin' 0e 4ay find the thesis that the s0e$-e e(plains the fo$4ation of f$ee
i4pulses3 and in so4e 0ay e(plains ho0 they a$e f$ee3 that $e4ains the -ie0 .est
suppo$ted .y the ancient e-idence5
As 0e ha-e seen3 ho0e-e$3 occasional $ando4 s0e$-es cannot p$oduce $elia.le f$ee
actions5 The only 0ay that the theo$y has a hope of 0o$%in' is on the assu4ption that
s0e$-es a$e e(t$e4ely f$eBuent3 so as to p$oduce a standin' physical conE
CFFDCF2DCF,DCFID
; *1K ;
dition5 Ho03 thou'h3 do 0e a-oid the o.-ious o./ection that t$ees and stones 0ould also
contain f$eBuent s0e$-es3 'i-en that it is an i4po$tant aspect of Epicu$eanis4 that hu4an
.ein's a$e pa$ts of natu$e3 ato4ic co4pounds li%e the othe$sG =e can 4eet this o./ection
.y the conside$ation that s0e$-es a$e indeed e-e$y0he$e f$eBuent3 .ut that they p$oduce
effects only in hu4an souls3 pe$haps indeed only in the $ational pa$ts of hu4an souls5
This is .ecause the hu4an $ational soul is a co4pound of the finest and 4ost tenuous
ato4s3 and only this %ind of co4pound pe$4its s0e$-es to ha-e effects5 Thus 0e a$e f$ee3
and t$ees a$e not3 .ecause of a physical diffe$enceP in ou$ 4inds ato4ic s0e$-es p$oduce
effects3 0hich so4eho0 ena.le us to act f$eely5 =hile the 4echanis4 $e4ains so4e0hat
s%etchy3 0e can see the 'ene$al idea5 S0e$-es do not ope$ate one pe$ action6 $athe$3
.ecause 0e 7and so4e ani4als8 a$e the %inds of ato4ic co4pound that 0e a$e3 0e a$e
a.le to act f$eely3 in a 0ay that 'enuinely chooses .et0een alte$nati-es5
#ut no0 0e find a st$i%in' $edundancy3 fo$ Epicu$us has al$eady postulated the na4eless
ato4s in the soul to account fo$ the co4ple(ity of sentient and intelli'ent .eha-io$5 =hy
do 0e need s0e$-es as 0ell to account fo$ the sa4e factG I4p$essi-e as the fact 4ay .e3
0e ha$dly need t0o such physical diffe$ences to account fo$ it5 It 4i'ht .e o./ected that
na4eless ato4s account only fo$ a'ency3 0hile 0e need s0e$-es to account fo$ f$ee
a'ency5 #ut it is Buite unclea$ f$o4 ou$ e-idence 0hat this diffe$ence 0ould .e ta%en to
consist in5 This is especially so since "uc$etius uses ani4al .eha-io$ as an e(a4ple of
f$ee a'ency3 $ulin' out the othe$0ise p$o4isin' idea that f$eedo4 4i'ht .e a 4atte$ of
info$4ed choice .et0een alte$nati-es3 o$ so4ethin' si4ila$ 0hich is plausi.ly found only
in hu4ans5
It is -e$y ha$d not to feel p$essu$ed he$e to0a$d a de-elop4ental hypothesis3 na4ely3 that
Epicu$us had .oth these ideas3 .ut not at the sa4e ti4e5 It has .een suspected on othe$
'$ounds that the s0e$-e 0as a late idea of Epicu$us93 one deE
; *11 ;
-eloped afte$ he had 0$itten his 4a/o$ 0o$%s3 possi.ly in $esponse to o./ections5CFJD It is
also possi.le that Epicu$us hi4self had no -e$y definite theo$y of ho0 the s0e$-e
unde$pins f$ee a'ency3 and that late$ Epicu$eans filled in the sto$y3 possi.ly in di-e$'ent
0ays3 /ust as 4ode$n schola$s do5 It is ha$d to conclude3 ho0e-e$3 that the s0e$-e 0as a
'ood idea3 and the disp$opo$tionate e4phasis 0hich it has $ecei-ed in discussion of
Epicu$us9 ideas a.out the 4ind has .een unfo$tunate5CFKD
CFJDCFKD
; *1+ ;
+
E4otions and eelin's
The Stoic theo$y of the pathe is a theo$y of the e4otions3C*D .ut Epicu$us9 theo$y of the
pathe is3 in %eepin' 0ith his st$ess on .asic e(pe$ience3 a theo$y of the feelin's3 and
e4otions tu$n out to .e co4ple( %inds of feelin's5
The c$ite$ia of t$uth a$e the pe$ceptions3 the p$econceptions 7p$olepseis 83 and the feelin's5
CFD :The feelin's3 they say3 a$e t0o3 pleasu$e and pain3 0hich co4e a.out in e-e$y
ani4al3 the fo$4e$ app$op$iate to us 7oi%eion 83 the latte$ alien 7allot$ion 86 th$ou'h these
a$e /ud'ed choices and a-oidances5:C2D "uc$etius 'i-es us a physical accountP :The$e is
pain3 0he$e the .odies of 4atte$ a$e distu$.ed .y so4e fo$ce th$ou'hout the li-in' flesh
and li4.s and t$e4.le in thei$ o0n positions 0ithin6 and 0hen they settle .ac% into thei$
places3 soothin' pleasu$e co4es a.out5:C,D
The feelin's of pleasu$e and pain3 then3 a$e ou$ p$actical c$ite$ionP pleasu$e is 0hat 0e
sta$t f$o4 in e-e$y choice and a-oidance3 :and 0e $etu$n to it3 usin' the feelin' as a $ule
.y
C*DCFDC2DC,D
; *+M ;
0hich to /ud'e e-e$y 'ood5:CID Ho0e-e$3 pathos is used fo$ the .asic feelin' in
pe$ception also3 and so4eti4es Epicu$us u$'es us to test the t$uth of theo$y .y stic%in' to
ou$ pe$ceptions and feelin's3 so no sha$p distinction see4s to .e d$a0n .et0een the
theo$etical and p$actical c$ite$ia5CJD
=hen I ha-e a pleasant feelin'3 0hat does it $e-eal to 4eG Not si4ply that this is
pleasant6 !ice$o p$esents the Epicu$ean To$Buatus as sayin'3
E-e$y ani4al3 as soon as it is .o$n3 see%s pleasu$e3 and en/oys it as the chief 'ood3 0hile
it $ecoils f$o4 pain as the chief e-il and $epels it as 4uch as it can6 and this it does 0hile
it is not yet pe$-e$ted3 0hile its natu$e itself is /ud'in' in an unco$$upt and honest 0ay5
Hence Epicu$us denies that 0e need any $eason o$ discussion as to 0hy pleasu$e is to .e
sou'ht and pain a-oided5 These thin's a$e felt3 he thin%s3 /ust as that fi$e heats3 sno0 is
0hite3 honey s0eet6 none of these thin's need to .e esta.lished .y ela.o$ate a$'u4entH
it is enou'h /ust to d$a0 attention to the45 7in5 *52M8
It see4s3 then3 that 0e can .e said to feel that so4ethin' is pleasant3 and so choiceE
0o$thy3 and so 'ood5 This is a st$i%in'ly la$'e a4ount of content to pac% into an alle'edly
st$ai'htfo$0a$d feelin' 0hich has nothin' to do 0ith $easonin'5CKD
Epicu$us has a p$o.le4 analo'ous to his p$o.le4 0ith pe$ception5 He 0ants the$e to .e
an ele4ent in e(pe$ience 0hich is si4ply :'i-en3: 0hich puts us di$ectly in touch 0ith
$eality3 so that 0hat 0e clai4 a.out it is al0ays t$ue as lon' as 0e $ely on e(pe$ience and
do not conta4inate that 0ith ou$ co$$upti.le .eliefs5 #ut it is ha$d to find so4ethin'
0hich is .oth sufficiently f$ee of .elief to count as the 'i-en and also $ich enou'h to do
the e(planato$y 0o$% $eBui$ed of it5 :eelin'3:
CIDCJDCKD
; *+* ;
4o$eo-e$3 is used in a $athe$ elastic 0ay6 >io'enes of Oenoanda tal%s of pleasant and
painful feelin's 'uidin' all action3 and puts unde$ this headin' .oth e4otions felt .y a
pe$son e(pe$iencin' so4e disaste$ and those of his sy4pathetic f$iends5C1D
=hat distin'uishes those feelin's 0hich a$e co4ple( enou'h to .e e4otionsG It is so4e
%ind of in-ol-e4ent of the $ational soul3 0hich is the cente$ of e4otions li%e fea$ and /oy
as 0ell as of thin%in'5 "uc$etius indeed illust$ates the $elation of $ational to i$$ational soul
.y the effects of fea$5C+D P$esu4a.ly3 so4e %ind of .elief is in-ol-ed3 .ut 0he$e the
Stoics a$e e(plicit Epicu$us is so4e0hat haAy5 So4e f$a'4ents of On Natu$e FI a$e
$ele-ant3 thou'h thei$ e(act si'nificance is unce$tain5C*MD Epicu$us is discussin' the
$elation of the soul to its o0n pathe and its a.ility to $e4e4.e$ the43 o$ ha-e so4e
$elation to the4 analo'ous to 4e4o$y5 Me4o$y3 it see4s3 4ay in-ol-e .eliefs 7do(ai 85
=hat see4s to .e c$ucial is that the pathos .e di$ected at 0hat is defined 7to
ho$is4enon 83 as opposed to 0hat is indefinite5 This $ecalls the 4any ti4es Epicu$us
associates false .eliefs and defecti-e :e4pty: desi$es3 0ith :the indefinite5:C**D #ut the
passa'es a$e too f$a'4enta$y fo$ us to see /ust ho0 e4otions $esult f$o4 the definite
focusin' of feelin' .y so4e %ind of .elief o$ .eliefli%e p$ocess5
E4otions3 then3 can .e cont$asted 0ith the .asic feelin's of pleasu$e and pain .y the fact
that they in-ol-e the $ational soul5 Indeed3 in a f$a'4ent of >io'enes of Oenoanda 0e
find that 0hen3 as happens in ethical conte(ts3 the .ody is .ein' cont$asted 0ith the soul3
e4otions stand on the soul side5C*FD >io'enes cont$asts :.odily: 0ith :soul: pathe 5 The
latte$3 he
C1DC+DC*MDC**DC*FD
; *+F ;
says3 a$e 4o$e i4po$tant3 .ut it is ha$d to con-ince the 4any of this3 since 0hen in .odily
pain 0e thin% these feelin's 0o$se than any t$ou.les of ou$ soul3 and it seldo4 happens
that 0e e(pe$ience e(t$e4e feelin's of soul and .ody at the sa4e ti4e3 so 0e cannot
di$ectly co4pa$e the45
Philode4us9 0o$% On An'e$ 4a%es it clea$ that an e4otion in-ol-es a .elief5 o$
e(a4ple3 an'e$ in-ol-es the .elief that I ha-e .een 0$on'ed3 since it in-ol-es the desi$e
to $etaliate fo$ the 0$on'5 #ut the$e is no Epicu$ean theo$y of the st$uctu$e of the
e4otions5 It is ne-e$ clea$ 0hethe$ the .elief is to .e $e'a$ded as pa$t of the e4otion o$
si4ply as its cause6 4ost of the discussion p$esupposes nothin' st$on'e$ than the latte$5
The end of On An'e$3 ho0e-e$3 su''ests that the .elief is a necessa$y3 .ut not sufficient3
condition fo$ ha-in' the e4otion5C*2D You cannot .eco4e 0ise 0ithout lea$nin' to $ead3
.ut lea$nin' to $ead alone 0ill not 4a%e you 0ise6 si4ila$ly3 you 0ill not .e an'$y
0ithout .elie-in' that you ha-e .een ha$4ed3 .ut Philode4us c$iticiAes those 0ho thin%
that an'e$ 0ill al0ays follo0 this .elief3 :unless he can sho0 that the supposition of ha$4
is also an effecti-e cause 7d$asti%on aition 8 of an'e$5: @i-en that Epicu$us does not ha-e
4uch of a theo$y of causation3 it is inte$estin' to find a conce$n fo$ the effecti-e o$ actin'
cause3 and possi.ly this is ta%en o-e$ f$o4 Stoicis45
Philode4us9 o0n ans0e$ see4s clea$ly f$o4 his ea$lie$ discussion to .e that the effecti-e
cause of an an'$y $eaction is the pe$son9s 0hole diathesis o$ disposition5 O$dina$y an'$y
.eha-io$3 0hich he conside$s defecti-e3 co4es :f$o4 a -e$y .ad disposition:6C*,D the
ideal Epicu$ean 0ill still $eact an'$ily on occasion .ut 0ill do so f$o4 a -e$y diffe$ent
cha$acte$ and set of .eliefs5 If Philode4us is typical he$e3 then the Epicu$ean 0ay of
$e'a$din' e4otions 0ill .e .$oadly li%e the Stoics95 =hethe$ o$ not3 and ho03 I $eact
e4otionally 0ill depend on t0o facto$s5 One is 4y disposition and cha$acte$ as a 0hole3
and the othe$ is a .elief I fo$4 as a $esult of p$esent e(pe$iE
C*2DC*,D
; *+2 ;
ence5 Thus it is not a te4po$a$y state3 .ut 4y 0hole disposition3 0hich is the effecti-e
cause of 4y an'e$5
E4otions thus $eBui$e .eliefs 70hethe$ as causes o$ pa$ts of the e4otion83 and it is an
i4po$tant pa$t of the ethical theo$y that 4any of ou$ desi$es and e4otions a$e thus
dependent on .eliefs 0hich a$e false and3 in the case of p$actical .eliefs3 :e4pty3: that is3
not /ust false3 .ut3 .ecause of thei$ falsity3 ha$4ful and dysfunctional to the pe$son5
Epicu$us st$esses that desi$es a$e eithe$ natu$al o$ e4pty3 and that the e4pty ones a$e
those that depend on an e4pty .elief5C*ID Natu$al desi$es a$e eithe$ necessa$y o$
nonnecessa$y5 Necessa$y ones3 0hich 0e ha-e to fulfill one 0ay o$ othe$3 a$e 4ost
plausi.ly const$ued as 'ene$ic desi$esP desi$es fo$ food3 fo$ shelte$3 and so on5 If 0e fulfill
the4 in 0ays 0hich do not in-ol-e any e4pty .eliefs3 they a$e /ust nonnecessa$y desi$es3
0hich a$e -a$ied 0ays of fulfillin' the 'ene$ic desi$es that 0e necessa$ily ha-e5 #ut if 0e
fulfill ou$ desi$es in 0ays 0hich $est on e4pty .eliefs3 then the desi$es the4sel-es
.eco4e e4pty3 and thus ha$4ful to us5 o$ Epicu$us3 the .est st$ate'y fo$ achie-in'
pleasu$e3 ou$ final end3 is to li-e one9s life in such a 0ay that one satisfies only natu$al3
ne-e$ e4pty3 desi$es5
=e find in Philode4us an inte$estin' analo'ue in the case of the e4otion of an'e$5 The$e
is3 Philode4us holds3 such a thin' as natu$al an'e$3 0hich is una-oida.le5 That is3 it is
una-oida.le that 0e 0ill 'et an'$y and feel desi$e to $etaliate in so4e 0ay o$ othe$5 #ut it
is up to us to do so in 0ays 0hich do not $est on e4pty .eliefs3 fo$ if 0e do3 ou$ an'e$
0ill .e e4pty an'e$3 so4ethin' 0hich is hi'hly dysfunctional and dis$upti-e in the
a'ent9s life5 Ou$ e4otions a$e thus dependent on ou$ .eliefs in a -e$y di$ect 0ay6
chan'in' ou$ .eliefs 0ill chan'e ou$ e4otions f$o4 .ein' tu$.ulent and a sou$ce of
unhappiness 7as 0ith e4pty an'e$3 0hich Philode4us deE
C*ID
; *+, ;
sc$i.es at len'th in a deli.e$ately shoc%in' 0ay8 to .ein' a pa$t of the pleasant and
unt$ou.led life5 In pa$ticula$3 Philode4us sin'les out the .elief that $etaliation is in itself
pleasant as an e4pty .elief that 4a%es the a'ent9s an'e$ e4pty6 the Epicu$ean 0ho 'ets
$id of this .elief 7pe$haps as a $esult of $eadin' Philode4us on the su./ect8 0ill .e happy3
.ein' f$ee of the t$ou.les 0hich e4pty an'e$ .$in's5 In this Philode4us is follo0in'
Epicu$us3 0ho st$esses the $ole of $easonin'3 especially philosophical $easonin'3 in
chan'in' o$ 'ettin' $id of e4otions5C*JD
Since ou$ feelin's of pleasu$e and pain a$e ou$ p$actical 'uides3 the$e is nothin' 0$on'
0ith e4otions as lon' as they a$e $i'htly $elated to the .asic feelin's .y t$ue .eliefs5 This
does not 4ean that ou$ attitude to0a$d the e4otions should .e 'uided .y the desi$e to
eli4inate pain co4pletely5 o$ so4e e4otions3 of 0hich an'e$ is one3 a$e in the4sel-es
painful6 e-en natu$al an'e$3 0hich the -i$tuous Epicu$ean 0ill feel3 in-ol-es so4e pain5
#ut an'e$ of so4e %ind is una-oida.le6 it is pa$t of ou$ natu$e5C*KD Hence the .est 0e can
do is to a-oid the fu$the$ pain caused .y .asin' ou$ an'e$ on e4pty .eliefs6 it is this
0hich 4a%es the diffe$ence .et0een a t$ou.led and an unt$ou.led life5
Epicu$us holds in fact that 4ost of ou$ e4otions a$e .ased on false .eliefsP as >io'enes
of Oenoanda tells us3
0e a$e no0 enBui$in' ho0 life 4ay .e 4ade pleasant fo$ us in .oth states 7%ataste4ata 8
and actions5 "et us spea% fi$st a.out states3 notin' indeed that 0hen the e4otions that
distu$. the soul a$e $e4o-ed thin's that 'i-e it pleasu$e co4e in to ta%e thei$ place5 No0
0hat a$e those distu$.in' e4otionsG They a$e fea$s3 of the 'ods3 of death and of pain6
and3 in addition3 desi$e 0hich fa$ e(ceeds its natu$al .ounds5 These a$e indeed the $oot of
all e-il3 and if 0e cut the4 off no e-il 0ill '$o0 up in thei$ stead to t$ou.le us5 7$a'5 F+5
J5FOK5*F8C*1D
C*JDC*KDC*1D
; *+I ;
=ith this st$ess on the t$ou.lin' e4otions 'oes a tendency to use a the$apeutic 4odel of
philosophy as cu$in' us of .ad e4otions .y $e4o-in' false .eliefs5 :E4pty is that
philosophe$9s a$'u4ent .y 0hich no hu4an .ein'9s e4otion is cu$ed6 fo$ /ust as 0e ha-e
no need of 4edicine that does not e(pel the .ody9s diseases3 so 0e ha-e none of
philosophy 0hich does not e(pel the soul9s e4otion5:C*+D In late$ 0$ite$s li%e "uc$etius
and Philode4us this idea .eco4es Buite e(plicit5CFMD Philode4us de-otes 4uch attention
to f$an%ness 7pa$$hesia 8 in philosophical discussion3 and of all the ancient philosophical
schools the Epicu$eans 0e$e 4ost f$an%ly and unasha4edly pe$sonal and confessional in
style5 Opponents tended to .e dis'usted .y this so4eti4es e4otional 0ay of doin'
philosophy3CF*D .ut 0e can see 0hy it is i4po$tant fo$ the Epicu$eansP thei$ 4ain point in
life is to achie-e the pleasu$es of :t$anBuillity3: ata$a(ia3 an unt$ou.led state 0hich is
th$eatened .y e4otional upset5 It is i4po$tant to face and unde$stand the sou$ces of
e4otion6 0e can see 0hen 0e $ead Philode4us9 lu$id and theat$ical account of an'e$ and
"uc$etius9 of lo-e3 as 0ell as >io'enes of Oenoanda9s inte$estin'3 thou'h inco4plete3
$efe$ence to 0hat loo%s li%e an(iety3 ho0 i4po$tant it is fo$ Epicu$eans to .$in' out the
deep3 and so4eti4es hidden and da$%3 aspects of the e4otions5CFFD
Unli%e the Stoic theo$y3 the Epicu$ean account of the e4otions does not ha-e the
conseBuence that all e4otions a$e faulty3 .ut it is hi'hly $e-isiona$y of ou$ o$dina$y
.eliefs a.out ou$ e4otions5 The Epicu$ean 0ise pe$son3 afte$ all3 can .e happy on the
$ac%3CF2D and that alone sho0s ho0 4uch affecti-e t$ansfo$4ation Epicu$eanis4
$eBui$es5 So4e e4otions depend co4pletely on .eliefs 0hich Epicu$us clai4s a$e false3
and 0ill the$efo$e disappea$ 0ith those .eliefs5 "uc$etius
C*+DCFMDCF*DCFFDCF2D
; *+J ;
st$esses that $eli'io3 supe$stitious fea$ of the 'ods3 is li%e this5 He$e the 4ost spectacula$
e(a4ple is that of lo-e 7e$os 85 Epicu$us defined it as :an intense desi$e 7o$e(is 8 fo$ se(3
0ith f$enAy and dist$ess3: a desc$iption 0hich al$eady 4a%es it clea$ that e$os should .e
eli4inated $athe$ than 4odified5CF,D "uc$etius9 fa4ous pictu$e of the e-ils of lo-e .$in's
ho4e -i-idly the false and e4pty .eliefs on 0hich lo-e depends3 .eliefs 0hich lead
people into delusion3 selfEdest$ucti-e .eha-io$3 and pe$4anent f$ust$ation5CFID The 4o$al
is clea$P the Epicu$ean 0ill ha-e no passionate attach4ents to pa$ticula$ people5 He o$ she
0ill ha-e unt$ou.lin' affectionate $elationships3 dist$i.utin' his o$ he$ affections a4on' a
ci$cle of f$iends 0ithout st$on' dependence on o$ attach4ent to any in pa$ticula$5 This is
a t$ansfo$4ation of e4otional life nea$ly as d$astic as Plato9s in the Repu.lic 5
So4e e4otions a$e3 li%e an'e$3 accepted $athe$ than eli4inated3 .ut e-en so the$e a$e
conside$a.le chan'es5 Philode4us in On An'e$ is conce$ned to sho0 that his -ie0 is a
4iddle 0ay3 0ith a 4o$e co4ple( -ie0 of an'e$ than that of eithe$ the Stoics3 0ho thin%
it should .e $e4o-ed3 o$ the Pe$ipatetics3 0ho thin% that the$e is 4uch to .e said fo$ it5
CFJD #ut in fact he does not t$y to inco$po$ate opponents9 positi-e points6 he si4ply $elies
on Epicu$ean theo$y and as%s 0hat the Epicu$ean 0ise pe$son 0ould .e li%e in this
$e'a$d5 He $eco'niAes that this is $e-isiona$y3 at one point $e-ealin'ly 0onde$in' 0hethe$
in -ie0 of the diffe$ence 0e should e-en use the sa4e 0o$d5CFKD
CF,DCFIDCFJDCFKD
7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8
; *+K ;
The t$eatise .e'ins 0ith a lu$id pa$ade of the unatt$acti-e and da4a'in' featu$es of an'e$
as 0e co44only concei-e it3 na4ely3 a fie$ce desi$e fo$ $e-en'e5 People an'$y in this
0ay 'et disto$ted featu$es6 an'e$ is li%e a disease6 an'$y people 4a%e no p$o'$ess in
philosophy o$ in any co44on pu$suit6 no.ody can stand the46 they lash out a'ainst
othe$s3 .lind thei$ sla-es3 often %ill the4sel-es6 and so on fo$ thi$ty colu4ns5 #y cont$ast3
the ideal Epicu$ean is :unEan'$y: 7ao$'etos 85 This does not 4ean3 ho0e-e$3 that he does
not 'et an'$y o$ that he does so seldo4 o$ that he is especially ha$d to p$o-o%e5 Rathe$3
0hat diffe$entiates this pe$son9s :natu$al: an'e$ f$o4 4ost people9s :e4pty: an'e$ is3 as
0e ha-e seen3 that it is .ased on diffe$ent .eliefs5 The 0ise pe$son does not .elie-e that
$etaliation is en/oya.le3 o$ 0o$th0hile fo$ its o0n sa%e6 he $etaliates .ecause he has to3
not .ecause he 'ets anythin' out of it5CF1D #ecause of this3 his an'e$ 0ill .e .$ief and 0ill
not 'o -e$y deep5 The 0ise pe$son lac%s the .eliefs 0hich lead o$dina$y people to an'e$3
.ecause to hi4 nothin' :e(te$nal: 4atte$s -e$y 4uch5 It is inte$estin' that the thin's
0hich the Epicu$ean does not ca$e a.out a$e $ep$esented as .ein' e(te$nal to hi45 =e do
not find this inte$naliAation of the :$eal self: in Epicu$us hi4self3 and it 4ay .e a late$
de-elop4ent5CF+D In any case3 it clea$ly 4a%es a -ast diffe$ence to the 0ise pe$son9s
attitudes5 Not thin%in' an'e$ a 'ood thin'3 .ecause he does not ta%e $etaliation to .e in
itself a 'ood thin'3 he does not en/oy it5 Hence he 0ill only .e as an'$y as he needs to .e6
and this3 Philode4us clai4s3 0ill .e .$ief and 0ill not 'o deep5
7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8
CDCF1DCF+D
; *+1 ;
=e 4ay find it att$acti-e to .e $id of the dest$ucti-e side of an'e$5 #ut the chan'e in
.eliefs that .$in's this a.out has othe$ conseBuences3 0hich can .e less att$acti-e5
Philode4us says openly that /ust .ecause to the 0ise pe$son nothin' e(te$nal 4atte$s
4uch3 he 0ill not .e -e$y '$ateful fo$ .enefits3 as 0ell as not -e$y an'$y at 0$on's5 He
0ill $epay .enefits and 4a%e '$ateful 'estu$es .ut 0ill thin% of these thin's 4e$ely as
0hat has to .e done6 he 0ill not feel '$ateful in the 0ay that 0e do5 o$ ou$ feelin's of
'$atitude3 /ust as 4uch as ou$ feelin's of an'e$3 a$e .ased on e4pty .eliefsP 0e thin% that
thin's li%e $etaliation and '$atitude 4atte$3 and to a 'ood Epicu$ean they do not5C2MD The
Epicu$ean $e4edies that ta%e the da4a'in' heat out of an'e$ tu$n out to lea-e us cold in
a$eas 0he$e this is not so clea$ly a 'ood thin'5
And an'e$ is $elocated as 0ell as cal4ed do0n5 Re-ealin'ly3 the a$ea 0he$e Philode4us
is 4ost conce$ned a.out an'e$ is that of f$an% philosophical inte$chan'e5C2*D In the
Epicu$ean @a$den an'e$ is the app$op$iate $eaction to pupils 0ho a$e slo0 on the upta%e
o$ to opponents 0ho 'et one9s ideas 0$on'5 To need the an'e$ that sustains fi'htin' o$ the
4a$tial -i$tues is al$eady to ha-e put you$self in a position 0he$e you need to co4.at
people to 'et 0hat you 0ant3 and that cannot .e conduci-e to Epicu$ean happiness5
The Epicu$ean 0ise pe$son3 0e a$e told3 :0ill .e 4o$e suscepti.le to e4otions Cthan the
$est of usD6 this 0ould not hinde$ hi4 in attainin' 0isdo45:C2FD His e4otions3 ho0e-e$3
0ill not .e ou$s3 /ust .ecause his .eliefs3 and the 0ay they ha-e de-eloped to'ethe$ to
p$oduce his disposition3 a$e so diffe$ent f$o4 ou$s5 The 0ise pe$son3 says Philode4us
ci$cu4spectly3 0ill .e suscepti.le to ce$tain fo$4s of an'e$5C22D The affecti-ely
t$ansfo$4ed Epicu$ean 0ill3 li%e the ideal Stoic3 .e f$ee f$o4
C2MDC2*DC2FDC22D
; *++ ;
the distu$.ances of e4otion in ou$ e-e$yday sense3 and 4oti-ated .y e4otions 0hich
ha-e .een t$ansfo$4ed .y a total $est$uctu$in' of the .eliefs that sustain the45 Thei$
.eha-io$ 0ill not .e Buite the sa4eHthe Stoics ha-e no $oo4 fo$ app$o-ed fo$4s of the
hostile o$ ne'ati-e e4otions li%e an'e$3 and the Epicu$eans doH.ut they 0ill .e eBually
fa$ f$o4 ou$ e-e$yday state5
It is so4e0hat i$onical that this is the end $esult of a theo$y alle'edly .ased on
unco4plicated feelin's 0hich all sha$e5 =e sta$t f$o4 co44on sense3 .ut 0e end -e$y
fa$ f$o4 it5
; FM* ;
!onclusion
This .oo% has concent$ated on 'i-in' full pictu$es of the philosophy of 4ind of the Stoics
and Epicu$eans3 as 0ell as the .ac%'$ound to the45 I ha-e p$oceeded in this 0ay .ecause
these theo$ies see4 to 4e to .e the 4a/o$ achie-e4ents in philosophy of 4ind in this
pe$iod and 0o$thy of se$ious study in thei$ o0n $i'ht6 I shall .e 'lad if this 0o$% helps to
encou$a'e fu$the$ detailed study of .oth theo$ies5
I ha-e not done eithe$ of t0o thin's 0hich 4i'ht see4 to so4e $eade$s to .e a 'ood idea5
i$stly3 I ha-e not set eithe$ theo$y in the la$'e$ pictu$e of Stoicis4 as a 0hole o$
Epicu$eanis4 as a 0hole5 I ha-e .$ou'ht othe$ aspects of these philosophical theo$ies in
0he$e this see4ed necessa$y to 4a%e sense of the philosophy of 4ind6 fo$ e(a4ple3 I
ha-e .$iefly discussed le%ta in o$de$ to 4a%e sense of Stoic -ie0s on pe$ception and
action5 #ut I ha-e not atte4pted to define the place of Stoic philosophy of 4ind in the
0hole of Stoic philosophy3 no$ ha-e I located the Epicu$ean philosophy of 4ind in
Epicu$eanis45 This is not .ecause I do not thin% such a study 0o$th0hile6 on the
cont$a$y3 it 0ould .e -alua.le in 4any $espects5 #ut it see4s to 4e that p$io$ to doin'
this it is i4po$tant to study these theo$ies of 4ind in thei$ o0n $i'ht3 as p$o-idin'
ans0e$s to specific Buestions 0hich a$ise fo$ this field3 0ithout $efe$ence to fu$the$
conce$ns5 Pa$tly this is .ecause p$ope$ly to unde$stand the $elations of any t0o thin's one
4ust fi$st study the t0o thin's the4sel-es5 Pa$tly3 also3 it is .ecause in the a$ea of
philosophy of 4ind a $eadin' of the
; FMF ;
te(ts $e-eals that .oth Stoics and Epicu$eans 0o$%ed on these p$o.le4s in a 0ay that
$eflects independent inte$est and is not an application of p$inciples f$o4 else0he$e in the
theo$y6 the lin%s .et0een the theo$y of 4ind and the 0ide$ theo$y a$e co4ple(5 The
i4po$tance of independent study of this a$ea is so4eti4es 4issed3 .ecause the$e is no
specific niche in the :official: ancient di-isions of philosophy that co$$esponds e(actly to
0hat 0e call philosophy of 4ind5C*D #ut this does not 4ean that the ancients did not do
any6 the$e is no ancient di-ision of philosophy co$$espondin' to ou$ :aesthetics3: .ut 0e
can le'iti4ately find ancient cont$i.utions to aesthetics5 Thus I ha-e left to othe$s the tas%
of p$esentin' Hellenistic theo$ies of 4ind as inte'$ated pa$ts of the la$'e$ theo$ies5
The othe$ thin' I ha-e not done is to 4a%e a syste4atic the4atic co4pa$ison of the t0o
theo$ies5 Althou'h 4y p$esentation should 4a%e it easy enou'h to co4pa$e Epicu$eans
0ith Stoics on pe$ception3 action3 and so on3 I ha-e t$eated each theo$y as a 0hole3
instead of discussin' topics such as pe$ception and action and dealin' 0ith the
cont$i.utions of .oth theo$ies to'ethe$5 My account thus has a co4ple4enta$y $est$iction6
I ha-e e(t$acted the theo$ies of 4ind f$o4 the 0hole theo$ies3 .ut I ha-e not e(t$acted
the4es o$ topics f$o4 the theo$ies of 4ind the4sel-es5 A'ain3 this is not .ecause I $e/ect
the idea6 $athe$ I thin% that the$e is a p$eli4ina$y tas% to .e acco4plished3 that of
ca$efully t$yin' to unde$stand 0hat Stoic and Epicu$ean ideas a.out pe$ception and so on
a$e3 and that to acco4plish this it is useful fi$st to .$in' to .ea$ othe$ pa$ts of the sa4e
theo$y5
Plainly3 the$e is plenty of $oo4 fo$ detailed co4pa$isons of the Stoic 0ith the Epicu$ean
t$eat4ent of pe$ception3 action3
C*D
; FM2 ;
and so on5 I 0ill conclude .y .$in'in' to'ethe$ so4e co4pa$isons 0hich I thin% can
le'iti4ately .e 4ade .et0een the theo$ies on a fai$ly hi'h le-el of 'ene$ality3
co4pa$isons 0hich illu4inate 0hat 4a%es Hellenistic philosophy of 4ind so4ethin'
distincti-e and ne05
Stoics and Epicu$eans ha-e diffe$in' attitudes to0a$d the scientific pa$adi'4 cu$$ent in
thei$ society5 Epicu$us is at 4any points co44itted to p$esentin' hi4self as a
co44onsense philosophe$3 and so tends to see his tas% as that of defendin' co44on
sense a'ainst -a$ious %inds of selfEstyled e(pe$ts5 u$the$3 he is co44itted to ato4is4 as
the .est a-aila.le 'ene$al theo$y to e(plain the natu$al 0o$ld3 and tends to 0o$% out
ans0e$s to p$o.le4s in -a$ious a$eas in te$4s of ato4is49s 'ene$al p$inciples3 $athe$ than
tu$nin' to the app$op$iate .$anch of conte4po$a$y science5 inally3 he holds that 0hile
0e can .e su$e of the -e$y 'ene$al p$inciples of ato4is43 the ans0e$s to 4o$e lo0Ele-el
and pa$ticula$ Buestions 4ay elude us6 e-idence unde$dete$4ines theo$y3 so that in so4e
cases 0e 4ust $e4ain satisfied 0ith 4ultiple e(planations of a pheno4enon3 all of 0hich
a$e consistent 0ith the e-idence5 o$ all these $easons Epicu$us is .a$$ed f$o4 lettin' his
philosophy of 4ind depend on any specific theo$y cu$$ent in the 4edicine and science of
his day5 And3 as 0e ha-e seen3 he i'no$es the de-elop4ent of the concept of pneu4a in
the 4edical schools3 usin' pneu4a in his o0n theo$y in its o$i'inal sense of 0ind o$
.$eath5 His accounts of a'ency and of the natu$e of the soul a$e 4a$%ed .y the clea$
desi$e to do /ustice to co44onsense psycholo'y and 0hat is no0 so4eti4es called fol%
psycholo'y6 ato4ic theo$y is 4odified to p$oduce $esults that a$e accepta.le to co44on
sense3 not the othe$ 0ay a$ound5
The Stoics3 on the othe$ hand3 a$e clea$ly influenced3 pa$ticula$ly f$o4 !h$ysippus
on0a$d3 .y the cu$$ent 4edical and scientific pa$adi'4 of hu4an functionin'P they
accept that 0hat 4a%es hu4ans function in a cha$acte$istically hu4an 0ay is a
cent$aliAed syste4 usin' the 4echanis4 of pneu4a3 0hich is unde$stood as the docto$s
unde$stand itP 0a$4 .$eath 0hich3 in a hu4an .ein'3 can account3 in diffe$ent -a$ieties3
; FM, ;
fo$ a 0ide -a$iety of life functions5 =hile the Stoics $e/ected the 4ost upEtoEdate pictu$e
of the 0o$%in's of the ne$-ous syste43 $e-e$tin' to the si4ple$ pictu$e3 0hich cent$aliAed
the pneu4a syste4 in the hea$t $athe$ than the .$ain3 they 0e$e a0a$e of the need to a$'ue
fo$ this5 #ehind thei$ pictu$e of hu4an functionin' lies a -a'ue3 illEunde$stood conception
of the ne$-ous syste45 Indeed3 it is not su$p$isin' that the Stoic -ie0 should see4 odd to
us3 0hen 0e $eflect on the de'$ee of confusion to .e found e-en in the disco-e$e$s of the
ne$-ous syste4 the4sel-es as to its 4ode of ope$atin'5 The Stoics a$e also3 of cou$se3
influenced .y the fact that pneu4a is thei$ p$inciple of e(planation fo$ the 0o$ld as a
0hole3 and not /ust fo$ hu4ans5 Ho0e-e$3 they thin% of the 0o$ld itself as .ein' an
o$'anis45 So3 althou'h they officially hold that 0e 4ust unde$stand the natu$e of the
0o$ld as a 0hole in o$de$ to unde$stand the natu$e of hu4ans3 it is clea$ that thei$
conception of the natu$e of hu4ans and of hu4an functionin' has played a la$'e $ole in
thei$ theo$y of the 0o$ld as a 0hole5
#ut3 despite thei$ diffe$in' attitudes to0a$d conte4po$a$y science and 4edicine3 Stoics
and Epicu$eans sha$e so4e i4po$tant funda4ental assu4ptions 0hich unite the4 and
distin'uish the4 f$o4 thei$ '$eat p$edecesso$3 A$istotle5 All th$ee theo$ies a$e physicalist
in te$4s of the initial int$oduction of that te$43 na4ely3 that they ta%e the soul to fall
unde$ phusi%e3 natu$al science5 And none a$e $educti-e6 neithe$ ato4ic theo$y no$
pneu4a theo$y e(plains a0ay 0hat 0e .elie-e a.out ou$sel-es5 #ut the$e is a clea$ sense
in 0hich Stoics and Epicu$eans a$e st$icte$ physicalists than A$istotle is5 A$istotle9s
account of the hu4an soul and hu4an functionin' is 4a$%ed th$ou'hout .y e(tensi-e use
of his 4etaphysical concept of fo$4 to e(plain function5 Thus the soul itself is defined as
the fo$4 of the .ody3 and A$istotle9s accounts of nut$ition and pe$ception a$e hea-ily
4a$%ed .y thei$ atte4pt to e(plain the nut$iti-e and pe$cepti-e functionin' of a hu4an
.ein' in te$4s of the $eception of fo$4 and the actualiAation of fo$45 The Hellenistic
theo$ies consistently $ef$ain f$o4 .$in'in' in any 4etaphysical p$inciple li%e A$istotelian
fo$4 to fulfill these
; FMI ;
tas%s5 Instead3 they appeal to st$ai'htfo$0a$dly physical facto$s5 The Stoics appeal to the
-e$satile 0o$%in's of pneu4a6 Epicu$us to the na4eless ato4s3 and possi.ly ato4ic
s0e$-es3 in the soul5
It has al$eady .een indicated at -a$ious points 0hy these 4o-es a$e not3 as they ha-e
.een held to .e in the past3 fee.le e-asions of the issue5 Unli%e the p$eESoc$atics 0ho4
A$istotle c$iticiAes3 the Hellenistic schools a$e not una0a$e of the challen'e posed .y
A$istotle3 that function 4ust .e e(plained .y fo$4 as 0ell as 4atte$3 .y a p$inciple of
o$'aniAation 0hich is diffe$ent in %ind f$o4 the physical ite4s .ein' o$'aniAed5 #ut the
Hellenistic schools $e/ect A$istotle9s 4o-e5 =e do not possess thei$ a$'u4ents fo$ doin'
so3 unfo$tunately5 They cannot ha-e $elied on a $e/ection of teleolo'ical e(planation3
since the Stoics fully accept teleolo'y3 and althou'h Epicu$us $e/ects it3 the only
Epicu$ean a$'u4ents 0e possess a'ainst it a$'ue 4e$ely a'ainst appealin' to pu$poses
and do not touch the A$istotelian teleolo'y in-ol-ed in the 0o$%in's of fo$45CFD Rathe$3
the Hellenistic schools see4 to ha-e had t0o %inds of '$ound5 They found that p$inciples
li%e A$istotelian fo$4 offended a'ainst an accepta.le -ie0 of causality6 they thou'ht of a
cause as essentially 0hat did3 o$ .$ou'ht a.out3 so4ethin'3 and3 'i-en this -ie03 it
.eco4es 4yste$ious ho0 physical ite4s can inte$act causally 0ith nonEphysical ite4s5
Hence3 it is si4ple$3 and a-oids appeal to 4yste$ious ite4s and p$ocesses3 to e(plain
hu4an functionin' enti$ely in te$4s of physical ite4s and thei$ causal inte$actions5
Secondly3 the Hellenistic schools see4 to ha-e felt satisfied that in appealin' to the %inds
of physical ite4 that they cited they 0e$e p$o-idin' a sufficiently co4ple( e(planation
fo$ it not to .e open to the %inds of o./ection that A$istotle 4a%es a'ainst people li%e
>e4oc$itus5 To ou$ 4inds3 of cou$se3 thei$ o0n e(planations appea$ si4ple enou'h5 #ut
they a$e appealin' to theo$etical entitiesHthe 0o$%in's of pneu4a3 ato4s3 and -oidHnot
to si4ple analo'ies li%e 4i$$o$in'3 as >e4oc$itus see4s to ha-e done5 Thei$ p$oE
CFD
; FMJ ;
cedu$es a$e3 f$o4 the theo$etical -ie0point at least3 4o$e co4ple( and sophisticated than
his5 =e ha-e seen that at -a$ious points the Stoics9 and Epicu$eans9 appeal to the
co4ple(ity of physical 4atte$ and its st$uctu$e is clea$ly a 4o-e to e(plain function .y
physical diffe$entiation of 4ate$ial6 and 0hile the$e is still disa'$ee4ent as to the
adeBuacy of this 4o-e3 it is philosophically $especta.le and in no 0ay an ad4ission of
defeat5
One the4e 0hich has e4e$'ed clea$ly unites the Stoics and Epicu$eans in opposition to
A$istotle5 #oth the Stoics and the Epicu$eans a$e inte$ested in 0hat has .een called the
content aspect of pheno4ena li%e pe$cei-in' and actin'5 A$istotle concent$ates on the
.iolo'ical $ole of the senses and thin%s of seein' the son of >ia$es as :incidental
pe$ception:6C2D that is3 one does not essentially pe$cei-e the son of >ia$es3 .ut only
incidentally3 .ecause 0hat one essentially pe$cei-es is the 0hite o./ect 5 One is affected
pe$ceptually :as such: .y a colo$3 .ut not .y the son of >ia$es5 =hat 4atte$s he$e to
A$istotle is clea$ly the point that the$e is no .iolo'ical 4echanis4 lin%in' si'ht
essentially 0ith any.ody9s son3 0he$eas si'ht is essentially lin%ed 0ith colo$s5 A$istotle
in fact lea-es us 0ith a -a'ue and unsatisfacto$y account of /ust 0hat it is that e(plains
ho0 0e can see the son of >ia$es6 .ut it is ce$tainly clea$ that 0hate-e$ it is that e(plains
4y .ein' a.le to say3 to anothe$ o$ to 4yself3 that I a4 seein' the son of >ia$es is not due
to pe$ception5
#y cont$ast3 the Stoics and Epicu$eans .oth hold that pe$ception itself is a 4echanis4
0hich con-eys info$4ation6 to account fo$ pe$ception is to account not /ust fo$ the 0ays
in 0hich 0e a$e sensiti-e to colo$s3 sounds3 te(tu$es3 and so fo$th3 .ut to account also fo$
the 0ays in 0hich 0e cate'o$iAe these ite4s5 Pe$ception in-ol-es the $eception and
inte$p$etation of info$4ation5 As 0e ha-e seen3 the Stoics ha-e .y fa$ the neate$ and 4o$e
satisfacto$y account of this5 Thei$ theo$y of the soul
C2D
; FMK ;
as a 0hole e(plains ho0 all e-ents in the soul in-ol-e thin%in' and $easonin'6 the$e is no
sta'e of pu$e sensual $ecepti-ity3 to .e cont$asted 0ith su.seBuent $atiocination5 And
thei$ theo$y of le%ta e(plains ho0 pe$ception can in-ol-e content6 $ational appea$ances
contain content 0hich is asse$ted in a co$$espondin' le%ton 5 The theo$y9s 4ain p$ice is an
a0%0a$dness o-e$ the status of le%ta 5 Epicu$us3 .y cont$ast3 has a 4uch less clea$ and
consistent -ie0 of the place of $eason and thin%in' in the soul5 The Epicu$ean $ational
soul is pa$tially independent of the i$$ational soul3 leadin' to a nu4.e$ of points 0he$e
p$ocesses 0hich in-ol-e .oth a$e $ende$ed unclea$5 u$the$3 Epicu$us consistently
p$esents pe$ception in te$4s of i4a'es3 $athe$ than in te$4s of lan'ua'e and of
co44unication of info$4ation and content5 Still3 the di-e$'ence he$e is one of cla$ity of
4echanis4 $athe$ than of p$inciple5 Epicu$us does not dou.t that pe$ception $esults in the
acBuisition of info$4ation6 the pe$son a.out to act has a .elief leadin' to action3 and
pe$ceptions and appea$ances a$e insistently said to .e t$ue5 !ontent fo$ Epicu$us as 0ell
as fo$ the Stoics is not incidental to pe$ception5
This point can $eadily .e seen as pa$t of a la$'e$ shift3 one 0hich is a'ain clea$e$ and
4o$e 4a$%ed in the Stoics3 .ut p$esent also in Epicu$us5 The Hellenistic theo$ies a$e
theo$ies of 4ind3 0he$eas A$istotle9s theo$y of the soul is not5 The Hellenistic theo$ies
achie-e this 0ithout a 0o$d o$ concept ans0e$in' e(actly to :4ind:6 they use the sa4e
0o$d as A$istotle3 the soul 7psuche 83 fo$ 0hat 4a%es hu4ans li-e and function5 #ut3 as
0e ha-e seen in so4e detail3 it 0ould .e un$easona.le to deny that the Stoic
he'e4oni%on is the 4ind5 It is 0hat $e'iste$s pe$ceptions and feelin's6 pain in the foot is
felt in the he'e4oni%on 3 and it is the he'e4oni%on 0hich assents to the content of
pe$ception3 and to the i4pulses 0hich fo$4 actions 0hen .odily 4o-e4ents $esult f$o4
the45 =e ha-e a 4odel of the 4ind 0hich 4a%es lan'ua'e and co44unication
p$o4inent3 fo$ it ope$ates in 0hat can only .e called a lan'ua'e of thou'ht5 u$the$3 the
he'e4oni%on unifies
; FM1 ;
4ental pheno4ena6 it is .ecause it cent$aliAes and unites 0hat is p$esented to it in the
-a$ious appea$ances that 0e can see the Stoics as ha-in' a concept of the self5 =hile
Epicu$us9 $ational soul does not pe$fo$4 e(actly the functions of the Stoic he'e4oni%on3
it has so4e of the sa4e $oles5 It has the :finest: st$uctu$e of the pa$ts of the soul6 indeed it
see4s to .e the fineness of its ato4ic st$uctu$e 0hich pe$4its ato4ic s0e$-es to ta%e
effect3 $esultin' in f$ee action3 0hich in tu$n constitutes ou$ de-elop4ent as f$ee hu4an
a'ents5 Althou'h the i$$ational soul see4s to function in a pa$tly independent 0ay in
pe$ception3 it is the $ational soul 0hich o$'aniAes and coo$dinates pe$ceptual input3 and in
so4e 0ay ena.les us to conceptualiAe it5 And it is f$o4 the $ational soul that the i4pulse
to action o$i'inates5 And it is the $ational soul 0hich ena.les the Epicu$ean to .e a self3
althou'h3 as 0e ha-e seen3 the unity of the Epicu$ean soul is loose$ than that of the Stoic
soul5
So4e 4ay .e inclined to accept all that has .een said in this .oo% a.out the Stoic and
Epicu$ean theo$ies and yet still .e $eluctant to allo0 that the Stoics and Epicu$eans a$e
tal%in' a.out the 4ind3 o$ 4ental e-ents6 fo$ 0e associate these notions 0ith a $an'e of
issues 0hich 0e do not find in the Hellenistic theo$ies5 =e often find the 4ental<physical
distinction associated 0ith the distinctions .et0een p$i-ate and pu.lic3 inte$nal and
e(te$nal5 Ou$ .odies a$e pa$t of the o./ecti-e3 pu.lic 0o$ld3 e(plaina.le .y science5 Ou$
4inds do not see4 to .e6 they see4 to .e the sou$ce of su./ecti-e i4p$essions3 p$i-ate to
each5 Hence a $an'e of cont$o-e$sies as to 0hethe$3 fo$ e(a4ple3 I 4i'ht inte$nally ha-e
e(pe$ience of a colo$ $an'e diffe$ent f$o4 you$s3 thou'h ou$ e(te$nal .eha-io$ $e4ained
the sa4e3 o$ 0hethe$ the$e could .e a 0holly p$i-ate lan'ua'e3 'i-en sense solely .y
p$i-ate e(pe$ience5 Many disputes cente$ on Buestions such asP Is the 4ental essentially
.ound to ou$ notions of the p$i-ate and inte$nal3 so that3 0hate-e$ science disco-e$s3 the$e
0ill al0ays .e a $esidue 0hich escapes the e(te$nal3 pu.lic pe$specti-eG O$ is it /ust an
acE
; FM+ ;
cident of each pe$son9s life that she has an inte$nal pe$specti-e on the 4ental3 althou'h
the 4ental is in p$inciple su./ect to e(te$nal3 pu.lic sc$utiny .y science as 4uch as 0hat
0e al$eady call the physical isG
In the ancient 0o$ld the 4ental<physical distinction is not associated 0ith these othe$
cont$asts5 Ancient philosophe$s 0e$e3 I ha-e a$'ued3 afte$ the Hellenistic pe$iod3 a0a$e of
0hat 0e 0ould call the cont$ast .et0een the 4ental and the physical5 And they 0e$e3
afte$ a ce$tain point in the de-elop4ent of ancient scepticis43 a0a$e of the possi.ility of
a cont$ast .et0een 4y o0n -ie0point3 the 0ay thin's appea$ to 4e3 and the o./ecti-e3
e(te$nal -ie0point3 the 0ay thin's a$e5 #ut these cont$asts 0e$e ne-e$ fused6 it 0as ne-e$
ta%en to .e a se$ious possi.ility that I 4i'ht ha-e a -ie0point consistin' solely of the
contents of 4y 4ind3 a -ie0point f$o4 0hich 4y .ody 0as /ust pa$t of the o./ecti-e 0ay
that thin's a$e5C,D Thus the ancient conceptions of the 4ind a$e ne-e$ associated 0ith the
a'ent9s p$i-ile'ed access o$ the ineli4ina.ility of the su./ecti-e -ie0point o$ in 'ene$al
0ith the p$i-ate and inte$nal3 as opposed to the pu.lic and e(te$nal5 #ecause of this3 the$e
is a 0ay in 0hich ancient physicalists li%e the Stoics and Epicu$eans 4ay st$i%e us as
so4e0hat .landP they ne-e$ concei-e the$e to .e a p$o.le43 still less a deep p$o.le43
0ith $e'a$d to the physical natu$e of the 4ind5 As 0e ha-e seen3 Epicu$us 'oes to so4e
len'ths to sho0 that his conception of the soul is adeBuately co4ple(3 in physical te$4s3
to p$o-ide a plausi.le account of hu4an functionin'5 #ut this is concei-ed of as an
o$dina$y case of co4ple( e(planandu4 and o-e$si4pleEsee4in' e(planans6 it is not a
difficulty of p$inciple such as is often found in 4ode$n discussions of the physical and
the 4ental5
=e a$e3 then3 faced 0ith an inte$p$etati-e p$o.le45 If 0e thin% that ou$ notion of the
4ental is essentially connected 0ith p$i-ile'ed access and the inte$nal3 p$i-ate -ie0point3
then
C,D
; F*M ;
the Hellenistic theo$ies 0ill .e theo$ies of 4ind3 .ut of a diffe$ent conception of the 4ind
f$o4 ou$s5 Ho0e-e$3 this is not the only possi.le $esponse6 the$e is anothe$3 indeed 4o$e
$easona.le3 one5 It 4ay .e that ou$ conce$n 0ith the p$i-ate and inte$nal is not essential to
ou$ conception of the 4ind3 and in that case the Hellenistic theo$ies 0ill .e theo$ies of
4ind in ou$ sense of 4ind .ut 0ill .e theo$ies 0hich discuss the 4ental in a diffe$ent
conte(t5
This see4s the 4o$e $easona.le $esponse fo$ t0o $easons5 One is that often in
inte$p$etin' ancient te(ts 0e a$e initially te4pted to say that the ancients a$e discussin'
so4ethin' diffe$ent f$o4 ou$ conce$nsHthat they a$e not conce$ned 0ith %no0led'e o$
4o$ality3 fo$ e(a4ple3 .ecause 0hat they find to .e cent$al to the topic is not 0hat 0e
conside$ cent$al5 #ut usually on close$ e(a4ination this tu$ns out to .e an infe$io$
st$ate'y3 alienatin' us p$e4atu$ely f$o4 the ancient discussions and 4issin' 0hat the$e is
of continuity .et0een the ancient conce$ns and ou$s5 The second $eason is that a '$eat
deal of 4ode$n philosophy of 4ind has $ecently p$oceeded on the assu4ption that
physicalis4 is t$ue and that o./ections .ased on the ineli4ina.ility of the p$i-ate3 inte$nal
-ie0point can .e discounted6 they a$e .ased on 4isconceptions3 o$ conce$n episte4olo'y
$athe$ than the natu$e of the 4ind itself3 and so on5 If this is a lastin' t$end3 then it 4ay .e
that the 4ode$n conte(t fo$ discussin' the 4ind tu$ns out not to .e so -e$y dissi4ila$
f$o4 the ancient one5 At any $ate3 it see4s 4o$e f$uitful to assu4e that the 4ind need not
.e essentially lin%ed 0ith the p$i-ate3 inte$nal3 su./ecti-e -ie03 thou'h histo$ically it
often has .een in the 4ode$n pe$iod5 If so3 then the Hellenistic theo$ies9 fo$4 of
physicalis4 0ill not .e 4issin' a point essential to the 4ind in i'no$in' these conce$ns5
Of cou$se3 0hethe$ o$ not this su''estion is on the $i'ht lines depends a '$eat deal on the
%ind of detailed discussion that can .e de-eloped a.out Hellenistic and 4ode$n
philosophy of 4ind5 This .oo% has not de-eloped such discussions3 .ut I hope that it has
pa-ed pa$t of the 0ay fo$ the45 Only
; F** ;
0hen Hellenistic philosophy of 4ind has .een the su./ect of the sa4e %ind of detailed
and intense discussion3 and co4pa$ison 0ith 4ode$n pe$specti-es3 that has .een acco$ded
to A$istotle9s philosophy of 4ind 0ill 0e feel confident that 0e unde$stand /ust 0hat %ind
of theo$ies of 4ind 0e find in these sti4ulatin' and difficult philosophe$s5
; F*2 ;
PART THREE THE EPI!UREANS
#i.lio'$aphy
This .i.lio'$aphy is selecti-e and 4entions only 0o$%s $ele-ant to the topic of this .oo%5
o$ helpful 'ene$al .i.lio'$aphies on Stoics3 Epicu$eans3 and ancient scepticis4 see "on'
and Sedley 7*+1K3 -ol5 *3 #i.lio'$aphy85 On Epicu$eanis4 see fu$the$ the .i.lio'$aphies
in SUNETESISP Studi sull9epicu$eis4o '$eco e latino offe$ti a Ma$cello @i'ante3 -ol5 F
7Naples3 *+1285 On Stoicis4 see the .i.lio'$aphy in R5 Epp3 ed53 Reco-e$in' the Stoics3
P$oceedin's of the Spindel !onfe$ence *+1,3 The Southe$n Jou$nal of Philosophy3 -ol5
F23 Supple4ent5
Ancient Sou$ces
A$istotle and A$istotle9s School
#al4e3 >5 M5 *+KF5 T$anslation and co44enta$y on A$istotle9s >e pa$ti.us ani4aliu4 I
and >e 'ene$atione ani4aliu4 I5 O(fo$d5
#e%%e$3 I5 *12*5 A$istotelis ope$a 5 #e$lin5
o$ten.au'h3 =5 =5 o$thco4in'5 The f$a'4ents of Theoph$astus 5
@ottschal%3 H5 *+JI5 St$ato of "a4psacusP So4e te(ts 5 P$oceedin's of the "eeds
Philosophical and "ite$a$y Society3 "ite$a$y and Histo$ical Section3 -ol5 **3 pt5 JP +IO
*1F5
Hic%s3 R5 *+MK5 A$istotle9s >e ani4a5 !a4.$id'e5
; F*, ;
Pec%3 A5 "5 *+,F5 A$istotle9s @ene$ation of Ani4als5 "oe. !lassical "i.$a$y5 !a4.$id'e3
Mass5
St$atton3 @5 *+*K5 Theoph$astus and the @$ee% physiolo'ical psycholo'y .efo$e
A$istotle 5 #e$%eley5
=eh$li3 5 *+,,OI+5 >ie Schule des A$istoteles 5 #asel5
H5 *+,,5 >i%aia$chos 5
H5 *+,I5 A$isto(enos 5
H5 *+,15 ?lea$chos 5
H5 *+,+5 >e4et$ius -on Phale$on 5
H5 *+IM5 St$aton -on "a4psa%os 5
H5 *+IF5 "y%on und A$iston -on ?eos 5
H5 *+I25 He$a%leides Ponti%os 5
H5 *+II5 Eude4os -on Rhodos 5
H5 *+I15 Phainias -on E$esos3 !ha4aileon3 P$a(iphanes 5
H5 *+I+5 Hie$ony4os3 ?$itolaos3 RVc%.lic% 5
=i44e$3 5 *1I,OJF5 Theoph$astus 5 "eipAi'5
The Acade4y
Isna$di Pa$ente3 M5 *+1M5 SpeusippoP $a44enti 5 Naples5
H5 *+1*5 Senoc$ate3 E$4odo$oP $a44enti 5 Naples5
Ta$Wn3 "5 *+1*5 Speusippus of Athens 5 "eiden5
Hellenistic Medicine
>iels3 H5 ed5 *1+25 Anony4ous "ondiniensis 5 Supple4entu4 A$istotelicu4 25 *5 #e$lin5
Jones3 =5 H5 S5 *+,K5 The 4edical 0$itin's of Anony4ous "ondiniensis 5 !a4.$id'e5
?Vhn3 !5 @5 *1F*O225 !laudii @aleni ope$a o4nia 5 "eipAi'5
Ma$(3 5 *+*I5 !elsus3 !o$pus 4edico$u4 "atino$u4 5 "eipAi' and #e$lin5
Stec%e$l3 5 *+I15 The f$a'4ents of P$a(a'o$as of !os and his school 5 "eiden5
Von Staden3 H5 *+1+5 He$ophilusP The a$t of 4edicine in ea$ly Ale(and$ia 5 !a4.$id'e5
=ell4an3 M5 *+M*5 >ie $a'4ente de$ si%elischen X$Ate A%$on3 Philistion und >io%les
-on ?a$ystos 5 #e$lin5
; F*I ;
Stoicis4
A$ni43 H5 -on5 *+M2OI3 -ols5 *O25 *+F,3 -ol5 ,3 inde(5 Stoico$u4 -ete$u4 f$a'4enta 5
"eipAi'5 7R SV 8
H5 *+MJ5 Hie$oclesP Ethische Ele4enta$leh$e 5 #e$line$ ?lassi%e$te(te3 -ol5 ,5 #e$lin5
!he$niss3 H5 *+KJ5 Pluta$ch3 Mo$alia *23 pt5 F5 "oe. !lassical "i.$a$y5 !a4.$id'e3 Mass5
>alfen3 J5 *+1K5 Ma$ci Au$elii Antonini ad se ipsu4 li.$i (ii 5 Fd ed5 "eipAi'5
>e "acy3 P5 *+K1O1I5 @alen3 On the doct$ines of Hippoc$ates and Plato 5 2 -ols5 7!o$pus
4edico$u4 @$aeco$u4 I5,5*5F85 #e$lin5 7R PHP 8
Edelstein3 "53 and I5 @5 ?idd5 *+115 Posidonius 5 Vol5 *3 The f$a'4ents 5 Fd ed5
!a4.$id'e5 Vols5 F and 23 !o44enta$y .y I5 @5 ?idd5
Reynolds3 "5 >5 *+JI5 Seneca3 Epistulae 4o$ales 5 F -ols5 O(fo$d5
H5 *+KK5 Seneca3 >ialo'i 5 O(fo$d5
Theile$3 =5 *+1F5 Poseidonios3 >ie $a'4ente 5 F -ols5 #e$lin5
Todd3 R5 *+KJ5 Ale(ande$ of Aph$odisias on Stoic physics 5 "eiden5
Van St$aaten3 M5 *+JF5 Panaetii Rhodii f$a'4enta 5 2d ed5 "eiden5
Epicu$eanis4P Epicu$us
A$$i'hetti3 @5 *+K25 Epicu$oP Ope$e 5 Fd ed5 Tu$in5
#ailey3 !5 *+FJ5 Epicu$usP The e(tant $e4ains 5 O(fo$d5
>iano3 !5 *+,J5 Epicu$i ethica 5 lo$ence5
Eina$son3 #53 and P5 de "acy5 *+JK5 Pluta$ch3 Mo$alia *,5 "oe. !lassical "i.$a$y5
!a4.$id'e3 Mass5
Sedley3 >5 *+K25 Epicu$us On Natu$e .oo% F15 !$onache E$colanesi 2P IO125
Usene$3 H5 *11K5 Epicu$ea 5 "eipAi'5
Usene$3 H53 M5 @i'ante3 and =5 Sch4id5 *+KK5 @lossa$iu4 Epicu$eu4 5 Ro4e5
; F*J ;
Epicu$eanis4P Othe$ Epicu$eans
#ailey3 !5 *+,K5 Titi "uc$eti !a$i >e $e$u4 natu$a li.$i se( 5 2 -ols5 O(fo$d5
!hilton3 !5 =5 *+JK5 >io'enes Oenoandensis 5 "eipAi'5 7:$a'4ents: a$e cited f$o4
!hilton58
H5 *+K*5 >io'enes of OenoandaP The f$a'4ents 5 "ondon3 Ne0 Yo$%3 and To$onto5
!$oene$t3 =5 *+MJ5 ?olotes und Menede4os 5 "eipAi'5
>e alco3 V5 *+F25 "9Epicu$eo >e4et$io "acone 5 Naples5
>e "acy3 P53 and E5 de "acy5 *+K15 Philode4us on 4ethods of infe$ence 5 Naples5
e$'uson S4ith3 M5 *+KM5 $a'4ents of >io'enes of Oenoanda disco-e$ed and
$edisco-e$ed5 A4e$ican Jou$nal of A$chaeolo'y K,P I*OJF5 7:Ne0 f$a'4ents: *O, a$e
cited f$o4 this pu.lication58
H5 *+K*5 Ne0 f$a'4ents of >io'enes of Oenoanda5 A4e$ican Jou$nal of A$chaeolo'y
KIP 2IKO1+5 7:Ne0 f$a'4ents: IO*J a$e cited f$o4 this pu.lication58
H5 *+KF5 Ne0 $eadin's in the te(t of >io'enes of Oenoanda5 !lassical Yua$te$ly3 n5s5 FFP
*I+OJF5 7This includes :ne0 f$a'4ents: *3 F3 and K58
H5 *+K,5 Thi$teen ne0 f$a'4ents of >io'enes of Oenoanda5 >en%sch$ift A%ad5 =ien
**K5 7This includes :ne0 f$a'4ents: *+O2*58
H5 *+K15 iftyEfi-e ne0 f$a'4ents of >io'enes of Oenoanda5 Anatolian Studies F1P 2+O
+F5 7This includes :ne0 f$a'4ents: IFO*MJ58
NoteP o$ a co4plete .i.lio'$aphy of pu.lications on all of >io'enes of Oenoanda9s ne0
f$a'4ents3 see "on' and Sedley 7*+1K3 *P ,1,O1I85
Indelli3 @5 *+K15 Polist$ato sul disp$eAAo i$$aAionale delle opinioni popola$i 5 Naples5
H5 *+115 ilode4oP "9i$a 5 Naples5
"on'o Au$icchio3 5 *+115 E$4a$coP $a44enti 5 Naples5
Sudhaus3 S5 *1+FO+J5 Philode4i -olu4ina $heto$ica 5 "eipAi'5
; F*K ;
Tepedino @ue$$a3 A5 *+KK5 ilode4o sulla '$atitudine5 !$onache E$colanesi KP +JO**25
@ene$al Ancient Sou$ces
#$uns3 I5 *11K5 Ale(ande$ Aph$odisiensis3 >e ani4a li.e$ cu4 4antissa 5 Supple4entu4
A$istotelicu4 F5 *5 #e$lin5
#u$net3 J5 *+MMO*+MK5 Platonis ope$a 5 I -ols5 O(fo$d5
!$ouAel3 H53 and M5 Si4onetti5 *+K1O1M5 O$i'Zne3 T$aitQ des p$incipes 5 , -ols5 Pa$is5
>iels3 H53 and =5 ?$anA5 *+I*5 >ie $a'4ente de$ Vo$so%$ati%e$ 5 Jth ed5 #e$lin5
>ou'an3 T5 =53 and R5 M5 Hen$y5 *+2,5 !ice$o3 Tusculan >isputations 5 !a4.$id'e5
"on'3 H5 *+J,5 >io'enis "ae$tii ope$a 5 O(fo$d5
Mad-i'3 J5 N5 *1KJ5 !ice$o3 >e fini.us 5 2d ed5 !openha'en5
Mutsch4ann3 H53 and J5 Mau5 *+*FOI,5 Se(ti E4pi$ici ope$a 5 "eipAi'5
Pease3 A5 S5 *+IIOI15 !ice$o3 >e natu$a deo$u4 5 F -ols5 !a4.$id'e3 Mass5
Reid3 J5 S5 *11I5 M5 Tulli !ice$onis Acade4ica 5 "ondon5
=achs4uth3 !5 *11,5 Ioannes Sto.aeus3 Eclo'ae physicae et ethicae 5 #e$lin5
Mode$n =o$%s
Annas3 J5 *+K1OK+5 Ho0 .asic a$e .asic actionsG P$oceedin's of the A$istotelian Society
K+P *+IOF*25
H5 >oin' 0ithout o./ecti-e -aluesP Ancient and 4ode$n st$ate'ies5 In The no$4s of
natu$e3 ed5 M5 Schofield and @5 St$i%e$3 2OF+5 !a4.$id'e and Pa$is5
H5 *+1+5 Epicu$ean e4otions5 @$ee%3 Ro4an3 and #yAantine Studies 2MP *,IOJ,5
H5 *++M5 Stoic episte4olo'y5 In Ancient episte4olo'y3 ed5 S5 E-e$son3 *1,OFM25
!a4.$id'e5
H5 *++*5 Epicu$ean philosophy of 4ind5 In Ancient philosophy of 4ind3 ed5 S5 E-e$son5
!a4.$id'e5
; F*1 ;
H5 o$thco4in'5 Epicu$us on a'ency5 In Passions and pe$ceptions3 ed5 J5 #$unsch0i' and
M5 Nuss.au45 !a4.$id'e and Pa$is5
Annas3 J53 and J5 #a$nes5 *+1I5 The 4odes of scepticis4P Ancient te(ts and 4ode$n
inte$p$etations 5 !a4.$id'e5
A$thu$3 E5 P5 *+125 The Stoic analysis of the 4ind9s $eactions to p$esentations5 He$4es
***P J+OK15
As4is3 E5 *+1*5 "uc$etius9 e(planation of 4o-in' d$ea4 fi'u$es at IV5 KJ1OKJ5 A4e$ican
Jou$nal of Philolo'y *MFP *21O,I5
H5 Epicu$us9 scientific 4ethod 5 Ithaca3 N5Y5
H5 *++M5 $ee action and the s0e$-e5 O(fo$d Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1P FKIO+*5
A-otins3 I5 *+K+5 The Buestion of 4ens in "uc$etius II3 F1+5 !lassical Yua$te$ly F+P +IO
*MM5
H5 *+1Ma5 Notes on "uc$etius II3 FI*OF+25 Ha$-a$d Studies in !lassical Philolo'y 1,P
KIOK+5
H5 *+1M.5 Ale(ande$ of Aph$odisias on -ision in the ato4ists5 !lassical Yua$te$ly K,P
,F+OI,5
#ailey3 !5 *+F15 The @$ee% ato4ists and Epicu$us 5 O(fo$d5
#a$i'aAAi3 A5 *+I15 !inetica de'li eidola nel pe$i phuseos di Epicu$o5 "a Pa$ola del
Passato *2P F,+OKJ5
#a$nes3 J53 J5 #$unsch0i'3 M5 #u$nyeat3 and M5 Schofield3 eds5 *+1F5 Science and
speculation 5 !a4.$id'e and Pa$is5
#i'none3 E5 *+2J5 "9A$istotele pe$duto 5 lo$ence5
#onhoeffe$3 A5 *1+M5 Epi%tet und die Stoa 5 Stutt'a$t5
#$Qhie$3 E5 *+IM5 !h$ysippe et l9ancien stoicis4e 5 Fd ed5 Pa$is5
#$unsch0i'3 J5 *+KK5 Epicu$e et le p$o.lZ4e du :lan'a'e p$i-Q5: Re-ue des Sciences
Hu4aines ,2P *IKOKK5
#u$nyeat3 M5 *+KJ5 P$ota'o$as and selfE$efutation in late$ @$ee% philosophy5
Philosophical Re-ie0 KIP ,,OJ+5
H5 *+1M5 !an the sceptic li-e his scepticis4G In >ou.t and do'4atis43 ed5 M5 Schofield
et al53 FMOI25 O(fo$d5
H5 *+1F5 Idealis4 and @$ee% philosophyP =hat >esca$tes sa0 and #e$%eley 4issed5
Philosophical Re-ie0 +*P 2O,M5
!anc$ini3 A5 *+KM5 SuneidesisP Il te4a se4antica della 9conscientia9 nella @$ecia antiBua 5
Ro4e5
; F*+ ;
!lay3 >5 *+1M5 An Epicu$ean inte$p$etation of d$ea4s5 A4e$ican Jou$nal of Philolo'y
*M*P 2,FOJI5
H5 *+125 "uc$etius and Epicu$us 5 Ithaca3 N5Y5
!oope$3 J5 o$thco4in'5 Stoic theo$ies of the e4otions5
>a-idson3 >5 *+1M5 Essays on actions and e-ents 5 O(fo$d5
>euse3 =5 *+125 Unte$suchun'en Au$ 4ittelplatonischen und neuplatonischen
Seelenleh$e 5 A%ade4ie de$ =issenschafte$n und de$ "ite$atu$e3 A.handlun'en de$
@eistesE und SoAial0issenschaften ?lasse3 EinAel-e$[ffentlichun' 25 MainA5
>iano3 !5 *+K,5 Sc$itti epicu$ei 5 lo$ence5
H5 *+K,a5 "a psicolo'ia d9Epicu$o e la teo$ia delle passioni5 In *+K,3 *F+OF1M5
H5 *+K,.5 "e p$o.lZ4e du li.$e a$.it$e dans le pe$i phuseos 5 In *+K,3 22KO,*5
>iels3 H5 *1+25 \.e$ die E(ce$pta -on Menons Iat$i%a in de4 "ondone$ Papy$us *2K5
He$4es F1P ,MKO2,5
>ie$aue$3 U5 *+KK5 Tie$ und Mensch i4 >en%en de$ Anti%e 5 A4ste$da45
>illon3 J5 *+125 Met$iopatheia and ApatheiaP So4e $eflections on cont$o-e$sy in late$
@$ee% ethics5 In Essays in ancient @$ee% philosophy3 -ol5 F3 ed5 J5 P5 Anton and A5 P$eus3
IM1O*K5 Al.any5
Edelstein3 "5 *+JK5 Ancient 4edicine 5 #alti4o$e5
En'le$t3 =5 *+115 Epicu$us on the s0e$-e and f$ee action 5 A4e$ican !lassical Studies
*J5 Atlanta5
E-e$son3 S5 *++M5 Epicu$us on the t$uth of the senses5 In Episte4olo'y3 ed5 S5 E-e$son3
*J*O125 !o4panions to Ancient Thou'ht *5 !a4.$id'e5
illionE"ahille3 J5 *+1,5 "e >e i$a de SenZBue et la philosophie stoicienne des passions 5
Pa$is5
o0le$3 >5 *+125 "uc$etius on the clina4en and f$ee 0ill5 SUNETESIS3 2F+OIF5 Naples5
H5 *+1,5 Sceptics and Epicu$eans5 Re-ie0 of Scetticis4o e epicu$eis4o3 .y M5 @i'ante5
O(fo$d Studies in Ancient Philosophy FP F2KOJK5
$ede3 M5 *+K,5 >ie stoische "o'i% 5 @[ttin'en5
; FFM ;
H5 *+1M5 The o$i'inal notion of cause5 In Essays in ancient philosophy3 *FIOIM5
Minneapolis3 *+1K5
H5 *+1,5 Stoics and s%eptics on clea$ and distinct ideas5 In Essays in ancient philosophy3
*I*OKJ5 Minneapolis3 *+1K5
H5 *+1J5 The Stoic theo$y of the affections of the soul5 In The no$4s of natu$e3 ed5 M5
Schofield and @5 St$i%e$3 +2O**M5 !a4.$id'e and Pa$is5
u$ley3 >5 *+JK5 T0o studies in the @$ee% ato4ists 5 P$inceton5
H5 *+1J5 Nothin' to usG In The no$4s of natu$e3 ed5 M5 Schofield and @5 St$i%e$3 KIO+F5
!a4.$id'e and Pa$is5
@iannantoni3 @53 and M5 Ve'etti3 eds5 *+1,5 "a scienAa ellenistica 5 Elenchos +5 Naples5
@i'ante3 M5 *+J+5 Rice$che ilode4ee 5 Naples5
H5 *+J+a5 "a chiusa del :de 4o$te: di ilode4o5 In *+J+3 J2O*FF5
H5 *+KI5 :Philosophia Medicans: in ilode4o5 !$onache E$colanesi IP I2OJ*5
H5 *+1*5 Scetticis4o e epicu$eis4o 5 Naples5
@ill3 !5 *+125 >id !h$ysippus unde$stand MedeaG Ph$onesis F1P *2JO,+5
@iussani3 !5 *1+J5 Studi luc$eAiani 5 Tu$in5
@li.e$tEThi$$y3 A5 *+KK5 "a thQo$ie stoicienne de la passion cheA !h$ysippe et son
Q-olution cheA Posidonius5 Re-ue PhilosophiBue de "ou-ain KIP 2+2O,2I5
@lidden3 >5 *+K,5 P$ota'o$ean $elati-is4 and the !y$enaics5 In Studies in episte4olo'y3
ed5 N5 Resche$3 **FO,M5 O(fo$d5
H5 *+K+5 Epicu$us on selfEpe$ception5 A4e$ican Philosophical Yua$te$ly *JP F+KO2MJ5
H5 *+1M5 Sensus and senseEpe$ception in the >e $e$u4 natu$a5 !alifo$nia Studies in
!lassical AntiBuity *FP *IIO1F5
H5 *+125 Epicu$ean se4antics5 SUNETESIS3 *1IOFFJ5 Naples5
H5 *+1I5 Epicu$ean p$olepseis5 O(fo$d Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2P *KIOF*K5
@luc%e$3 J5 *+K15 Antiochus and the "ate Acade4y 5 @[ttin'en 7R Hypo4ne4ata IJ85
; FF* ;
@oslin'3 J5 *+1K5 The Stoics and a%$asia5 Apei$on FMP *K+OFMF5
@oslin'3 J53 and !5 !5 =5 Taylo$5 *+1F5 The @$ee%s on pleasu$e 5 O(fo$d5
@ottschal%3 H5 *+K*5 Soul as ha$4onia5 Ph$onesis *JP *K+O+15
H5 *+1M5 He$acleides of Pontus 5 O(fo$d5
Hac%fo$th3 R5 *+II5 Plato9s Phaedo5 !a4.$id'e5 7See especially the appendi(3 0hich
featu$es a t$anslation of so4e of St$ato9s c$iticis4s of Plato58
Hah43 >5 *+KK5 The o$i'ins of Stoic cos4olo'y 5 !olu4.us5
H5 *+K15 Ea$ly Hellenistic theo$ies of -ision and the pe$ception of colo$5 In Studies in
pe$ception3 ed5 P5 Macha4e$ and R5 Tu$n.ull3 JMO+I5 !olu4.us5
Ha$$is3 !5 R5 S5 *+K25 The hea$t and the -ascula$ syste4 in ancient @$ee% 4edicine 5
O(fo$d5
Ho-en3 H5 *+K*5 Stoicis4e et stoiciens face au p$o.lZ4e de l9auEdel] 5 Pa$is5
Hu.y3 P5 *+J+5 The Epicu$eans3 ani4als3 and f$ee 0ill5 Apei$on 2P *KO*+5
Hunt3 H5 A5 ?5 *+KJ5 A physical inte$p$etation of the uni-e$seP The doct$ines of Neno the
Stoic 5 Mel.ou$ne5
In'en%a4p3 H5 @5 *+K*5 Nu$ stoischen "eh$e -o4 Sehen5 Rheinisches Museu4 **,P
F,MO,J5
In0ood3 #5 *+1,5 Hie$oclesP Theo$y and a$'u4ents in the second centu$y A5>5O(fo$d
Studies in Ancient Philosophy FP *I*O125
H5 *+1I5 Ethics and hu4an action in ea$ly Stoicis4 5 O(fo$d5
Ioppolo3 A5EM5 *+KF5 "a dott$ina della passione in !$isippo5 Ri-ista !$itica di Sto$ia della
ilosofia 2P FI*OJ15
H5 *+1M5 A$istone di !hio 5 Naples5
Isna$di Pa$ente3 M5 *+1M5 Stoici3 Epicu$ei e il :4otus sine causa5: Ri-ista !$itica di Sto$ia
della ilosofia 21P *+MOFMM5
Jae'e$3 =5 *+*25 >as pneu4a i4 "y%eion5 He$4es ,1P F+OK,5
H5 *+21a5 >io%les -on ?a$ystos 5 #e$lin5
H5 *+21.5 Ve$'essene $a'4ente des pe$ipateti%e$s >io%les -on ?a$ystos 5
A.handlun'en de$ p$eussischen A%ade4ie de$ =issenschaften3 Phil5Ehist5 ?lasse 25
#e$lin5
; FFF ;
H5 *+,M5 >iocles of !a$ystusP A ne0 pupil of A$istotle5 Philosophical Re-ie0 *+P 2+2O
,*,5
?e$fe$d3 @5 *+K*5 Epicu$us9 doct$ine of the soul5 Ph$onesis **JP 1MO+J5
?idd3 I5 *+K*5 Poseidonius on e4otions5 In P$o.le4s in Stoicis43 ed5 A5 A5 "on'3 FMMO
F*I5 "ondon5
?le-e3 ?5 *+J25 @nosis Theon 5 Sy4.olae Osloenses3 Supple4ent *+5 Oslo5
H5 *+1M5 Id facit e(i'uu4 clina4en5 Sy4.olae Osloenses *IP FKO2*5
?neale3 =53 and M5 ?neale5 *+JF5 The de-elop4ent of lo'ic 5 O(fo$d5
?onstan3 >5 *+K25 So4e aspects of Epicu$ean psycholo'y 5 "eiden5
"a%s3 A5 *+1*5 Une lQ'e$QtQ de >e4oc$ite 7Epicu$us >e natu$a li.e$ ince$tus R 2,52M3 KO
*I85 !$onache E$colanesi **P *+OF25
"apid'e3 M5 *+K25 A$chai and stoicheiaP A p$o.le4 in Stoic cos4olo'y5 Ph$onesis *1P
F,MOK15
H3 M5 *+K15 Stoic cos4olo'y5 In The Stoics3 ed5 J5 Rist3 *J*O1I5 #e$%eley3 "os An'eles3
and "ondon5
"au$sen3 S5 *+1K5 Epicu$us On Natu$e #oo% LLV5 !$onache E$colanesi *KP KKOK15
H5 *+115 Epicu$us On Natu$e #oo% LLVP "on'ESedley FM #3 !3 and /5 !$onache
E$colanesi *1P KO*15
"ee3 E5 N5 *+K15 The sense of an o./ectP Epicu$us on seein' and hea$in'5 In Studies in
pe$ception3 ed5 P5 Macha4e$ and R5 Tu$n.ull3 FKOI+5 !olu4.us5
"loyd3 A5 !5 *+K15 E4otion and decision in Stoic psycholo'y5 In The Stoics3 ed5 J5 Rist3
F22O,J5 #e$%eley3 "os An'eles3 and "ondon5
"loyd3 @5 E5 R5 *+K25 @$ee% science afte$ A$istotle 5 "ondon5
"on'3 A5 A5 *+K*5 Aisthesis3 p$olepsis3 and lin'uistic theo$y in Epicu$us5 #ulletin of the
Institute of !lassical Studies *1P **,O225
H5 *+KK5 !hance and natu$al la0 in Epicu$eanis45 Ph$onesis FFP J2O115
H5 *+1F5 Soul and .ody in Stoicis45 Ph$onesis FKP 2,OIK5
; FF2 ;
H5 *++*5 Rep$esentation and the self in Stoicis45 In Ancient philosophy of 4ind3 ed5 S5
E-e$son5 !a4.$id'e5
"on'3 A5 A53 and >5 Sedley5 *+1K5 The Hellenistic philosophe$s 5 F -ols5 !a4.$id'e5
"onie3 I5 M5 *+J,5 E$asist$atus3 the E$asist$ateans3 and A$istotle5 #ulletin of the Histo$y
of Medicine 21P ,FJO,25
"ynch3 J5 *+KF5 A$istotle9s school 5 #e$%eley3 "os An'eles3 and "ondon5
Mc?i$ahan3 V5 Tsouna5 o$thco4in'5 The !y$enaic theo$y of %no0led'e5 O(fo$d Studies
in Ancient Philosophy 5
McPhe$$an3 M5 *+1+5 Ata$a(ia and Eudai4oniaP Is the sceptic $eally happyG P$oceedin's
of the #oston A$ea !olloBuiu4 in Ancient Philosophy3 -ol5 I3 ed5 J5 J5 !lea$y and >5
Sha$tin3 *2IOK*5
Manu0ald3 A5 *+KF5 >ie P$olepsisleh$e Epi%u$s 5 #onn5
Mitsis3 P5 *+11a5 Epicu$us9 ethical theo$y 5 Ithaca3 N5Y5
H5 *+11.5 Epicu$us on death and the du$ation of life5 P$oceedin's of the #oston A$ea
!olloBuiu4 in Ancient Philosophy3 -ol5 ,3 ed5 J5 J5 !lea$y3 F+IO2*,5
Mod$Ae3 A5 *+2F5 Nu$ Ethi% und Psycholo'ie des Poseidonius5 Philolo'us I*P 2MMO22*5
Mo-ia3 @5 *+J15 Ani4a e intellettoP Rice$che sulla psicolo'ia pe$ipatetica da Teof$asto a
!$atippo 5 Padua5
Na'el3 T5 *+K+5 Mo$tal Buestions 5 !a4.$id'e5
H5 *+K+a5 >eath5 In *+K+3 *O*M5
H5 *+K+.5 Panpsychis45 In *+K+3 *1*O+I5
Nuss.au43 M5 *+K15 A$istotle9s >e 4otu ani4aliu4 5 P$inceton5
H5 *+1I5 The$apeutic a$'u4ents5 In The no$4s of natu$e3 ed5 M5 Schofield and @5
St$i%e$3 2*OK,5 !a4.$id'e5
H5 *+1K5 The Stoics on the e(ti$pation of the passions5 Apei$on FMP *F+OKI5
H5 *+1+5 #eyond o.session and dis'ustP "uc$etius on the 'enealo'y of lo-e5 Apei$on FFP
*OI+5
Nuss.au43 M53 and A5 Ro$ty3 eds5 *++*5 Essays on A$istotle9s >e ani4a 5 O(fo$d5
Pec%3 A5 "5 *+I25 The connate pneu4aP An essential facto$ in A$istotle9s solutions to the
p$o.le4s of $ep$oduction and sensation5 In Science3 4edicine3 and histo$yP Essays on the
; FF, ;
e-olution of scientific thou'ht and 4edical p$actice3 0$itten in honou$ of !ha$les Sin'e$3
ed5 E5 A5 Unde$0ood3 *P ***OF*5 O(fo$d5
Philippson3 R5 *+2K5 Nu$ Psycholo'ie de$ Stoa5 Rheinisches Museu4 1JP *,MOK+5
Phillips3 E5 >5 *+K25 @$ee% 4edicine 5 "ondon5
PohlenA3 M5 *+JI5 ?leine Sch$iften 5 Hildeshei45
H5 *+JIa5 Nenon und !h$ysipp5 In *+JI3 *O215
H5 *+KM5 >ie Stoa 5 ,th ed5 @[ttin'en5
Reeso$3 M5 E5 *+1+5 The natu$e of 4an in ea$ly Stoic philosophy 5 "ondon5
Rist3 J5 *+KF5 Epicu$us 5 !a4.$id'e5
H3 ed5 *+K15 The Stoics 5 #e$%eley3 "os An'eles3 and "ondon5
Rosen.au43 S5 *+1J5 Ho0 to .e dead and not ca$eP A defense of Epicu$us5 A4e$ican
Philosophical Yua$te$ly F2P F*KOFI5
H5 *+1+5 Epicu$us and annihilation5 The Philosophical Yua$te$ly 2+P 1*O+M5
H5 *++M5 Epicu$us on pleasu$e and the co4plete life5 The Monist K23 no5 * 7Janua$y85
Hellenistic ethics3 ed5 J5 !oope$3 F*O,*5
Sand.ach3 5 *+K*aa5 Ennoia and p$olepsis in the Stoic theo$y of %no0led'e5 In P$o.le4s
in Stoicis43 ed5 A5 A5 "on'3 FFO2K5 "ondon5
H5 *+K*.5 Phantasia %atalepti%e 5 In P$o.le4s in Stoicis43 ed5 A5 A5 "on'3 +OF*5
"ondon5
H5 *+KI5 The Stoics 5 "ondon5
H5 *+1I5 A$istotle and the Stoics 5 !a4.$id'e Philolo'ical Society3 Supple4ent *M5
!a4.$id'e5
Saunde$s3 T5 J5 *+1,5 $ee 0ill and the ato4ic s0e$-e in "uc$etius5 Sy4.olae Osloenses
I+P 2KOI+5
Schofield3 M5 *+125 The syllo'is4s of Neno of !itiu45 Ph$onesis F1P 2*OI15
Sedley3 >5 *+K,5 The st$uctu$e of Epicu$us9 On Natu$e5 !$onache E$colanesi ,P 1+O+F5
H5 *+125 Epicu$us9 $efutation of dete$4inis45 SUNETESIS3 **OI*5 Naples5
; FFI ;
H5 *+1+5 Epicu$ean antiE$eductionis45 In Matte$ and 4etaphysics3 ed5 J5 #a$nes and M5
Mi'nucci3 F+IO2FK5 Naples5
Sha$ples3 R5 *+1M5 "uc$etius9 account of the co4position of the soul 7III 2F*ff585
"i-e$pool !lassical Monthly IP **KOFM5
Sha$-y3 R5 *+125 A$istotle on 4i(tu$es5 The Jou$nal of Philosophy 1MP ,,*O,15
Sol4sen3 5 *+J15 ?leine Sch$iften 5 Hildeshei45
H5 !leanthes o$ PosidoniusGHThe .asis of Stoic physics5 In *+J13 ,2JOJM5
H5 Tissues and the soulP Philosophical cont$i.utions to physiolo'y5 In *+J13 IMFO2I5
H5 *+J1c5 @$ee% philosophy and the disco-e$y of the ne$-es5 In *+J13 I2JO1F5
H5 *+J1d5 The -ital heat3 the in.o$n pneu4a3 and the aethe$5 In *+J13 JMIO**5
H5 *+J1e5 Aisthesis in A$istotelian and Epicu$ean thou'ht5 In *+J13 J*FO225
So$a./i3 R5 *+115 Matte$3 space3 and 4otionP Theo$ies in antiBuity and thei$ seBuel 5
"ondon5
St$i%e$3 @5 *+KK5 Epicu$us on the t$uth of senseEi4p$essions5 A$chi- fV$ @eschichte de$
Philosophie I+P *FIO,F5
H5 *+115 !o44enta$y on Mitsis5 P$oceedin's of the #oston A$ea !olloBuiu4 in Ancient
Philosophy3 -ol5 ,3 ed5 J5 J5 !lea$y3 2*IOFM5
Taylo$3 !5 !5 =5 *+1M5 :All pe$ceptions a$e t$ue5: In >ou.t and do'4atis43 ed5 M5
Schofield et al53 *MIOF,5 O(fo$d5
Todd3 R5 *+K25 The Stoic co44on notions5 Sy4.olae Osloenses ,1P ,KOKI5
H5 *+K15 Monis4 and i44anenceP The foundations of Stoic physics5 In The Stoics3 ed5 J5
Rist3 *2KOJM5 #e$%eley3 "os An'eles3 and "ondon5
Vallance3 J5 T5 *++M5 The lost theo$y of Asclepiades of #ithynia 5 O(fo$d5
Ve$.e%e3 @5 *+,I5 "9Q-olution de la doct$ine du pneu4a du stoicis4e ] S5 Au'ustin 5
Pa$is and "ou-ain5
Viano3 !5 A5 *+1,5 Pe$che non c9e$a san'ue nelle a$te$ieP "a cecita episte4olo'ica de'li
anato4isti antichi5 In "a scienAa
; FFJ ;
ellenistica3 ed5 @5 @iannantoni and M5 Ve'etti3 F+KO2IF5 Naples5
Voel%e3 A5EJ5 *+JI5 "9unitQ de l9^4e dans l9ancien stoicis4e5 Studia Philosophica FIP
*I,O1*5
H5 *+K25 "9idQe de -olontQ dans le stoicis4e 5 Pa$is5
=hite3 M5 J5 *+1J5 !an uneBual Buantities of stuffs .e totally .lendedG Histo$y of
Philosophy Yua$te$ly 2P 2K+O1+5
Nuc%e$3 5 *+F15 SuneidesisE!onscientia 5 Jena5
; FFK ;