ASSIGNMENT No.

What ethical import does Stoic physicswhich maintains that the cosmos of unified,
cohesive, and ruled by an all encompassing divine reasonhave? How does Stoicism
proffer a guarantee of the summum bonum of virtue and happiness by recommending a
life lived in accordance with nature?
Stoicism was one of the most important and enduring philosophies to emerge from the
Greek and Roman world. The Stoics are well known for their contributions to moral
philosophy, and more recently they have been recognised for their work in logic, grammar,
philosophy of language, and epistemology. The Stoics divided philosophy into three general
parts: Physics, Logic, and Ethics. In physics the Stoics analyzed the substance of the soul, its
relationship to God and the cosmos, and its role in the functioning of the human body. In
logic the Stoics developed a theory of meaning and truth, both of which are dependent upon a
theory of perception, thinking, and other psychological concepts. Here the Stoics developed a
sophisticated theory of mental content and intentionality. Finally, in ethics the Stoics
developed a complex theory of emotion and a psychology of action that ultimately had a
great impact on their moral philosophy. In short, psychology was central to Stoicism as a
whole.
Stoic physics is the natural philosophy adopted by the Stoic philosophers of ancient
Greece and Rome. It was used to explain the natural processes at work in the universe. For
Stoics the most important and meaningful fact about the universe was that the universe is
harmonious and ordered. It was this order that the Greeks called divine (theion) and the
purpose of the sciences, philosophical inquiry was to contemplate (theorein) the divine. The
Stoics viewed the universe as a single living entity, regulated by the logos (divine reason
from which we drive the words logic and logical) of which we are all part. In other words, the
Stoics taught the doctrine of pantheism; that the universe in its totality was divine. Rocks,
planets, humans, sun all have their purpose as part of the divine ordered structure of the
cosmos like heart, lungs and liver all have their purpose in a human. This is not an external
personal God who takes an interest in our welfare; rather this was a cosmic scale ecosystem
logically ordered with laws that humans could discover through the sciences and philosophy.
So logic and physics formed an important core in Stoics teaching as a means of relating our
existence to what surrounds us and therefore uncover the meaning of our lives.
The Psycho-Physical Foundations of Ethics

In Stoicism every character and property of a particular thing is determined solely by

the tension in it with a current of divine essence pneuma. Though it is present in all things,
but varies in quantity and intensity. According to Chrysippus, the human soul consists of a
breath-like substance called pneuma. As an animal, a human being has a body and a soul. The
soul is just as corporeal as is the body, and indeed it penetrates or thoroughly intermixes with
the body. The parts of the soul are to be found in different parts of the body. The leading
part (hegemonikon) of the soul, which is the rational part, is found in the heart, and the other
parts radiate out from it like the tentacles of an octopus. For example, the visual part of the
soul connects the heart with the eyes; the reproductive part connects it with the reproductive
organs; etc. It is the leading part which is relevant to ethics. It is the seat of presentations and
impulses, and from it rational discourses are emitted.
In a sense, presentations and impulses are primordial, all animals have them.
However, the most important difference is that humans have the power of assent both to
presentations and to impulses each leading to astray. This is so because they are located in the
leading part of the human soul, which is under the control of human reason. On the other,
non-human animals act according to impulse i.e. what is suitable to their constitution. That
animal pursues what is suitable, what is congenial to their own nature. Therefore, the human
action is to a great extent rational. Stoic ethics concern the right use of reason. The ultimate
rational agent, the wise man or sage, is fully rational in everything he does, assenting
only to those presentations that are true and acting only in ways that reasonable.
Although we may entertain and experience all sorts of presentations, we do not
necessarily accept or respond to them all. Hence, the Stoics held that some presentations
(phantasiai) receive assent and some do not. Assent occurs when the mind accepts
a phantasiai as true. Assent is also a specifically human activity, that is, it assumes the power
of reason. According to the Stoics, opinion (doxa) is a weak or false belief. The sage avoid
opinions by withholding assent when conditions do not permit a clear and certain grasp of
truth of a matter. Some presentations experienced in perceptually ideal circumstances,
however, are so clear and distinct that they could only come from a real object; these were
said to be kataleptik (fit to grasp). The kataleptic presentation compels assent by its very
clarity and, according to some Stoics, represents the criterion for truth. The mental act of
apprehending the truth in this way was called katalepsis which means having a firm epistemic
grasp.
Life in Accordance with Nature
Since the universe is ordered and because we are all part of the natural order, the
Stoics thought that the correct course of action was acting in accordance with nature. In
other words, nature was the standard used to determine the good. Each of us has a place
within the harmonious order and our duty was to find that place and adjust ourselves to living
harmonious within the natural order as revealed by reason. According to Chrysippus as
described by Diogenes:
For our natures are parts of the nature of the universe. Therefore, the ultimate goal
becomes to live consistently with nature, i.e., according to one's own nature and that
of the universe, doing nothing which is forbidden by the common law, which is right
reason, penetrating all things, being the same as Zeus (God) who is the leader of the
administration of things.

What is suitable to our own nature is suitable to that of the universe, because the
universe has the same constitution as do we have. When the God in us harmonizes with the
will of the universe, the goal has been attained. For example, if a person is a bad writer, then
he is morally obliged to be a bad writer because that is his role. Right and wrong is
determined upon his role in nature, not upon objective morality.

Virtue
Stoics framed their ethical arguments around duties and virtual ethics. For example,
humans are a social animal so we have duties towards each other. To live according to virtue
just is to live in agreement with the nature. That virtue is the single goal of life had been
taught by the Cynic Antisthenes, whose view according to Diogenes was that Life according
to Virtue is the End to be sought, to which he adds, exactly like the Stoics. For indeed there
is a certain close relationship between the two schools. Zeno himself was a disciple of the
Cynic Crates. The identification of virtue with the goal is reasonable in that the ancient
Greeks conceived of virtue as excellence, and living according to nature is the highest form
of rational activity, given that it follows the divine law of the cosmos, and nothing can be
better than that.
Like the Cynics, the Stoics held that virtue as well as vice exist. Our failure to live a
virtuous life consists in our living contrary to divine law, due to corruption: sometimes
because of the persuasiveness of external activities and sometimes because of the influence of
companions. There is a close connection between virtue and knowledge, as was taught by
Socrates. The Stoics believed that virtue can be taught because people do become more
virtuous. The key connection is that living according to nature requires knowledge of nature,
which can only come through education. It is no accident that the perfectly virtuous person is
the wise man.
Aside from virtue conceived abstractly, the Stoics discussed the individual virtues,
producing a bewildering series of classifications of virtues. The four primary virtues are
described by John Stobeaus as follows:

Prudence: (concerns appropriate acts) knowledge of what one is to do and not to do

and what is neither
Temperance: (concerning human impulses) knowledge of what is to be chosen and
avoided and what is neither
Justice: (concerning distributions) knowledge of the distribution of proper value to
each person
Courage: (concerning standing firm) knowledge of what is terrible and what is not
terrible and what is neither.

There does not seem to be much systematic unity to this list, which the same as that
offered by Aristotle. What is important, however, is that each one is a form of knowledge.
Any virtues which are not intellectual crafts, such as health of the soul, are capabilities
which exist as the result of practice, and thus are dependent upon or supervene on the
intellectual virtues. The soul becomes healthy as a result of a sufficient tension in judging
and acting and in not doing so, just as bodily health is promoted by sufficient tension in the
muscles.
An extreme doctrine held by the Stoics is that there is nothing between the base and
the virtuous. The argument for this is that virtue itself is a kind of completion, so that by
nature it cannot be incomplete. Thus anyone falling short of a fully virtuous life is base, and
only the wise man is virtuous, since he does everything in accordance with all the virtues;
for his every action is perfect and so bereft of none of the virtues.

Happiness
The major goal of Stoicism is to lead man to arrive at happiness by achieving the true
thing in life i.e. virtue (arte). The idea of arte is that, by following the ideal and achieving
it, a man becomes truly self-sufficient, that is, immune to suffering and bad fortune. Arte is a
personal characteristic, not one bestowed by class or position. Thus, even a slave who has
achieved arte is free, because no man, not even a king, can affect him.
The Epicureans put forward that the happy life is the one which is most pleasant.
According to Zeno answer was a good flow of life or living in agreement, and Cleanthes
clarified that with the formulation that the end was living in agreement with nature.
Chrysippus amplified this to (among other formulations) living in accordance with
experience of what happens by nature. Later Stoics inadvisably, in response to Academic
attacks, substituted such formulations as the rational selection of the primary things
according to nature.
When we take the rationality of the world order into consideration, we can understand
the Stoic formulations of the goal or end. Living in agreement with nature is meant to work
at a variety of levels. Since ones nature is such that health and wealth are appropriate to him
(according to ones nature), other things being equal, he ought to choose them. Hence, the
formulations of the end by later Stoics stress the idea that happiness consists in the rational
selection of the things according to nature. But, we must bear in mind an important caveat
here. Health and wealth are not the only things which are appropriate to one. So are other
rational beings and it would be irrational to choose one thing which is appropriate to one
without due consideration of the effect of that choice on other things which are also
appropriate to one. This is why the later formulations stress that happiness consists in the
rational selection of the things according to nature. But if faced with a choice between
increasing the wealth (something which is prima facie appropriate to ones nature) and
preserving someone else's health (which is something appropriate to something which is
appropriate to another rational being), which course of action is the rational one? The Stoic
response is that it is the one which is ultimately both natural and rational: that is, the one that,
what happens in the course of nature is most in agreement with the unfolding of nature's
rational and providential plan. Living in agreement with nature in this sense can even demand
that selecting things which are not typically appropriate to my nature at allwhen that nature
is considered in isolation from these particular circumstances.
Greek philosophers maintained that there is a close connection between virtue and
happiness. According to Stoics, the connection is necessary: the virtuous person is happy just
by being virtuous. This is not surprising, because the Greeks understood happiness as a kind
of optimal or flourishing state of the human being. As virtue is living a perfectly rational
life, the virtuous person achieves the best condition possible for a rational animal. Chrysippus
is said to have held that living consistently with nature is the virtue of the happy man and a
smooth flow of life. Hecaton gave a more specific argument in terms of one of the virtues:
magnanimity is sufficient for making one superior to everything and if it is a part of virtue,
virtue too is sufficient for happiness, holding in contempt even those things which seem to be
bothersome.

Criticism
In Stoicism we see that logic, physics, psychology and ethics all are unified and
integrated into a whole. Of course Stoicism had its critics. Philosophers from the skeptic
school attacked the stoic concept of the Logos while Epicureanism offered rival advice from
a more materialistic and atheistic framework. Critics argue that Stoics assume happiness as
the fulfilment of rational human nature; that is, why they identify happiness with rational
agency and virtue. However, since the fulfilment of rational nature requires more than
virtue. The Stoics should admit that if happiness includes virtue, it includes more than
virtue. In particular, community with others seems to be necessary for the full development
of practical reason; and if the Stoics believe that practical reason is at least part of
happiness, they should agree that its full development is necessary for happiness. The Stoics
have made it clearer why virtue matters more than external goods; they argue that it
completes the practical reason that is essential to the agent for whom external goods are
good. However, this point about virtue does not justify the conclusion that virtue is the
whole of happiness. If one is at all sympathetic to Aristotle's function argument, apparently
one must take happiness to include more than virtue.