A bust ofZeno of Citium, considered the founder of Stoicism
Stoicism is anancient Greek and thenRoman philosophy of theHellenistic andRoman Imperial periods.[1] The Stoics believed that the universe operated according to reason, orlogos,[2] providing a unified account of the world, constructed from ideals of rational discourse,monistic physics, andnaturalistic ethics.[3] These three ideals constitute virtue, which is necessary for the Stoic goal of 'living a well-reasoned life'.[4]
Stoic logic focuses on highly intentional reasoning throughpropositions,arguments, and the differentiation between truth and falsehood. Philosophical discourse is paramount in Stoicism, including the view that the mind is in rational dialogue with itself.[4] Stoic ethics centers on virtue as the highest good, cultivating emotionalself-control, a calm problem-solving state of mind, and rational judgment to attain lifelong flourishing (eudaimonia), while viewing passions, anxieties, and insecurities as misguided reactions that ought to be controlled through self-discipline. Of all the schools of ancient Western philosophy, Stoicism made the greatest claim to being utterly systematic.[5]
Along with Aristotelianterm logic, the system ofpropositional logic developed by the Stoics was one of the two great systems of logic in the classical world. It was largely built and shaped byChrysippus, the third head of the Stoic school in the 3rd century BCE. Chrysippus's logic differed fromterm logic because it was based on the analysis ofpropositions rather than terms. Stoicism experienced a decline afterChristianity became the state religion in the 4th century CE, althoughGnosticism lingered and incorporated pure elements of Stoicism andPlatonism.
Since then, it has seen revivals, notably in theRenaissance (Neostoicism) and in the contemporary era.[6] Its influence extended to Roman thinkers likeSeneca andEpictetus and later influenced Christianity and the Renaissance Neostoicism movement. Stoicism shaped subsequent developments in logic and inspired moderncognitive therapies.
The nameStoicism derives from theStoa Poikile (Ancient Greek: ἡ ποικίλη στοά), or "painted porch", acolonnade decorated with mythic and historical battle scenes on the north side of theAgora inAthens whereZeno of Citium and his followers gathered to discuss their ideas, near the end of the fourth century BCE.[7] Unlike theEpicureans, Zeno chose to teach his philosophy in a public space. Stoicism was originally known as Zenonism. However, this name was soon dropped, probably because the Stoics did not consider their founders to be perfectly wise and to avoid the risk of the philosophy becoming acult of personality.[8]
Zeno's ideas developed from those of theCynics (brought to him byCrates of Thebes), whose founding father,Antisthenes, had been a disciple ofSocrates. Zeno's most influential successor wasChrysippus, who followedCleanthes as leader of the school, and was responsible for molding what is now called Stoicism.[9] Stoicism became the foremost popular philosophy among the educated elite in the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire[10] to the point where, in the words ofGilbert Murray, "nearly all thesuccessors of Alexander [...] professed themselves Stoics".[11] Later Roman Stoics focused on promoting a life in harmony within the universe, within which we are active participants.
Scholars[12] usually divide the history of Stoicism into three phases: the Early Stoa, from Zeno's founding toAntipater; the Middle Stoa, includingPanaetius andPosidonius; and the Late Stoa, includingMusonius Rufus,Seneca,Epictetus, andMarcus Aurelius. No complete works survived from the first two phases of Stoicism. Only Roman texts from the Late Stoa survived.[13]
Chrysippus, the third leader of the Stoic school, wrote more than 300 books on logic. His works were lost, but an outline of his logical system may be reconstructed from fragments and testimony.
For the Stoics, logic (logike) was the part of philosophy which examined reason (logos).[14] To achieve a happy life—a life worth living—requires logical thought.[2] The Stoics held that an understanding of ethics was impossible without logic.[15] In the words of Inwood, the Stoics believed that:[16]
Logic helps a person see what is the case, reason effectively about practical affairs, stand his or her ground amid confusion, differentiate the certain from the probable, and so forth.
To the Stoics, logic was a wide field of knowledge which included the study oflanguage,grammar,rhetoric andepistemology.[14] However, all of these fields were interrelated, and the Stoics developed their logic (or "dialectic") within the context of their theory of language and epistemology.[17]
The Stoic tradition of logic originated in the 4th-century BCE in a different school of philosophy known as theMegarian school.[18] It was two dialecticians of this school,Diodorus Cronus and his pupilPhilo, who developed their own theories ofmodalities and ofconditional propositions.[18] The founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, studied under the Megarians, and he was said to have been a fellow pupil with Philo.[19]
However, the outstanding figure in the development of Stoic logic wasChrysippus of Soli (c. 279 – c. 206 BCE), the third head of the Stoic school.[18] Chrysippus shaped much of Stoic logic as we know it, creating a system of propositional logic.[20] The logical writings by Chrysippus are, however, almost entirely lost,[18] instead his system has to be reconstructed from the partial and incomplete accounts preserved in the works of later authors.[19]
The smallest unit in Stoic logic is anassertible (axiomata), a proposition which is either true or false and which either affirms or denies.[21] Examples of assertibles include "it is night", "it is raining this afternoon", and "no one is walking."[22][23] Assertibles have a truth-value such that they are only true or false depending on when it was expressed (e.g. the assertible "it is night" will only be true if it is true that it is night).[24] The Stoics catalogued these simple assertibles according to whether they are affirmative or negative, and whether they are definite or indefinite (or both).[25]
Compound assertibles can be built up from simple ones through the use oflogical connectives, which examine choice and consequence such as "if ... then", "either ... or", and "not both".[15][26] Chrysippus seems to have been responsible for introducing the three main types of connectives: theconditional (if),conjunctive (and), anddisjunctive (or).[27] A typical conditional takes the form of "if p then q";[28] whereas a conjunction takes the form of "both p and q";[28] and a disjunction takes the form of "either p or q".[29] Theor they used isexclusive, unlike theinclusive or generally used in modern formal logic.[30] These connectives are combined with the use ofnot for negation.[31] Thus the conditional can take the following four forms:[32] 1) "If p, then q" 2) "If not p, then q" 3) "If p, then not q" 4) "If not p, then not q." Later Stoics added more connectives: the pseudo-conditional took the form of "since p then q"; and the causal assertible took the form of "because p then q".[a] There was also a comparative (or dissertive): "more/less (likely) p than q".[33]
Assertibles can also be distinguished by theirmodal properties[b]—whether they are possible, impossible, necessary, or non-necessary.[34] In this, the Stoics were building on an earlier Megarian debate initiated by Diodorus Cronus.[34] Diodorus had definedpossibility in a way which seemed to adopt a form offatalism.[35] Diodorus definedpossible as "that which either is or will be true".[36] Thus, there are no forever unrealised possibilities, whatever is possible is or one day will be true.[35] His pupil Philo, rejecting this, definedpossible as "that which is capable of being true by the proposition's own nature",[36] thus a statement like "this piece of wood can burn" ispossible, even if it spent its entire existence on the bottom of the ocean.[37] Chrysippus, on the other hand, was a causal determinist: he thought that true causes inevitably give rise to their effects and that all things arise in this way.[38] But he was not a logical determinist or fatalist: he wanted to distinguish between possible and necessary truths.[38] Thus, he took a middle position between Diodorus and Philo, combining elements of both their modal systems.[39] Chrysippus's set of Stoic modal definitions was as follows:[40]
Modal definitions
Name
Definition
possible
An assertible which can become trueand is not hindered by external things from becoming true
impossible
An assertible which cannot become trueor which can become true but is hindered by external things from becoming true
necessary
An assertible which (when true) cannot become falseor which can become false but is hindered by external things from becoming false
non-necessary
An assertible which can become falseand is not hindered by external things from becoming false
In Stoic logic, an argument is defined as a compound or system of premises and a conclusion.[41] A typical Stoicsyllogism is: "If it is day, it is light; It is day; Therefore it is light".[41] It has a non-simple assertible for the first premise ("If it is day, it is light") and a simple assertible for the second premise ("It is day").[41] Stoic logic also uses variables that stand for propositions to generalize arguments of the same form.[42] In more general terms this argument would be:[21] "If p, then q; p; Therefore q."
It is either day or night. It is day. Therefore, it is not night.
There can be many variations of these five indemonstrable arguments.[45] For example the assertibles in the premises can be more complex, and the following syllogism is a valid example of the second indemonstrable (modus tollens):[32] "if both p and q, then r; not r; therefore not: both p and q" Similarly one can incorporate negation into these arguments.[32] A valid example of the fourth indemonstrable (strongmodus tollendo ponens or exclusive disjunctive syllogism) is:[46] "either [not p] or q; not [not p]; therefore q" which, incorporating the principle ofdouble negation, is equivalent to:[46] "either [not p] or q; p; therefore q."
However, many other arguments are not expressed in the form of the five indemonstrables, and the task is to show how they can be reduced to one of the five types.[31] A simple example of Stoic reduction is reported bySextus Empiricus:[47] "if both p and q, then r; not r; but also p; Therefore not q" This can be reduced to two separate indemonstrable arguments of the second and third type:[48] "if both p and q, then r; not r; therefore not: both p and q; not: both p and q; p; therefore not q"
The Stoics stated that complex syllogisms could be reduced to the indemonstrables through the use of four ground rules orthemata.[49] Of these fourthemata, only two have survived.[50][36] One, the so-called firstthema, was a rule ofantilogism: "When from two [assertibles] a third follows, then from either of them together with the contradictory of the conclusion the contradictory of the other follows."[51][36] The other, the thirdthema, was acut rule by which chain syllogisms could be reduced to simple syllogisms.[e] The importance of these rules is not altogether clear.[52] In the 2nd-century BCE,Antipater of Tarsus is said to have introduced a simpler method involving the use of fewerthemata, although few details survive concerning this.[52]
Why should not the philosopher develop his own reason? You turn to vessels of crystal, I to the syllogism calledThe Liar; you to myrrhine glassware, I to the syllogism calledThe Denyer.
In addition to describing which inferences are valid ones, part of a Stoic's logical training was the enumeration and refutation of false arguments, including the identification of paradoxes,[53] which represented a challenge to the basic logical notions of the Stoics, such as truth or falsehood.[54] One paradox studied by Chrysippus, known as theLiar paradox, asked "A man says he is lying; is what he says true or false?"—if the man says something true then it seems he is lying, but if he is lying then he is not saying something true, and so on. Another, known as theSorites paradox or "Heap", asked "How many grains of wheat do you need before you get a heap?"[55] It was said to challenge the idea of true or false by offering up the possibility of vagueness.[55] In mastering these paradoxes, the Stoics hoped to cultivate their rational powers,[56] to more easily enable ethical reflection, permit secure and confident arguing, and lead themselves to truth.[57]
The Stoics held that allbeings (ὄντα)—although not all things (τινά)—arematerial.[58] Besides the existing beings, they admitted four incorporeals (asomata): time, place, void, and sayable.[59] They were held to be just 'subsisting' while such a status was denied to universals.[60] Thus, they acceptedAnaxagoras's idea (as did Aristotle) that if an object is hot, it is because some part of a universal heat body had entered the object. But, unlike Aristotle, they extended the idea to cover allchance incidents. Thus, if an object is red, it would be because some part of a universal red body had entered the object.
Substance (ὑποκείμενον): The primary matter, formless substance, (ousia) that things are made of
Quality (ποιόν): The way matter is organized to form an individual object; in Stoic physics, a physical ingredient (pneuma: air or breath), which informs the matter
Somehow disposed (πως ἔχον): Particular characteristics, not present within the object, such as size, shape, action, and posture
Somehow disposed in relation to something (πρός τί πως ἔχον): Characteristics related to other phenomena, such as the position of an object within time and space relative to other objects
A simple example of the Stoic categories in use is provided by Jacques Brunschwig:
I am a certain lump of matter, and thereby a substance, an existent something (and thus far that is all); I am a man, and this individual man that I am, and thereby qualified by a common quality and a peculiar one; I am sitting or standing, disposed in a certain way; I am the father of my children, the fellow citizen of my fellow citizens, disposed in a certain way in relation to something else.[61]
According to the Stoics, knowledge can be attained through the application of reason to the impressions (phantasiai) received by the mind through the senses. The mind can judge (συγκατάθεσις,synkatathesis)—approve or reject—an impression, enabling it to distinguish a true representation of reality from one that is false. Some impressions can be assented to immediately, but others can achieve only varying degrees of hesitant approval, which can be labeledbelief or opinion (doxa). It is only through reason that we gain clear comprehension and conviction (katalepsis).Certainty and true knowledge (episteme), achievable by the Stoic sage, can be attained only by verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the collective judgment of humankind.
According to the Stoics, theUniverse is amaterialreasoning substance (logos), which was divided into two classes: the active and the passive.[62] The passive substance is matter itself, while the active substance is an intelligentaether or primordialfire, which acts on the passive matter, thelogos oranima mundi pervading and animating the entire Universe. It was conceived as material and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to theseminal reason ("logos spermatikos"), or the law of generation in the Universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimatematter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divinelogos, which is the primordial Fire and reason that controls and sustains the Universe.[63] Everything is subject to the laws of Fate, for the Universe acts according to its own nature, and the nature of the passive matter it governs.
Stoicism does not posit a beginning or end to the Universe.[64] The current Universe is a phase in the present cycle, preceded by an infinite number of Universes, doomed to be destroyed ("Ekpyrosis",conflagration) andre-created again,[65] and to be followed by another infinite number of Universes.
A bust ofSeneca, a Stoic philosopher from the Roman Empire who served as an adviser toNero
AlongsideAristotle's ethics, the Stoic tradition forms one of the major founding approaches tovirtue ethics.[66] The Stoics believed that the practice ofvirtue is enough to achieveeudaimonia: a well-lived life. The Stoics identified the path to achieving it with a life spent practicing the fourcardinal virtues in everyday life —prudence,fortitude,temperance, andjustice — as well as living in accordance with nature.
The Stoics are especially known for teaching that "virtue is the only good" for human beings, and that external things, such as health, wealth, and pleasure, are not good or bad in themselves (adiaphora) but have value as "material for virtue to act upon". Many Stoics —such as Seneca and Epictetus — emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient forhappiness", asage would be emotionally resilient to misfortune. The Stoics also believed that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and people should aim to maintain a will (calledprohairesis) that is "in accordance withnature". Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how the person behaved.[67]
The Stoics outlined that our own actions, thoughts, and reactions are within our control. These suggest a space that is up to us or within our power. Stoic ethics involves improving the individual's ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in awill that is in agreement with Nature."[68] The foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself, in wisdom and self-control. For the Stoics, reason meant using logic and understanding the processes of nature—the logos or universal reason, inherent in all things, as a means of overcoming destructiveemotions.[69] This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy",[70] and even to accept slaves as equals of others because all are products of nature.[71] The Stoic ethic espouses adeterministic perspective; in regard to those who lack Stoic virtue,Cleanthes once opined that the wicked person is "like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes".[68] A Stoic of virtue, by contrast, would amend one's will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy",[70] thus positing a "completely autonomous" individual will, and at the same time a universe that is "a rigidly deterministic single whole".
For the StoicChrysippus, the passions are evaluative judgements.[72] A passion is a disturbing and misleading force in the mind which occurs because of a failure to reason correctly.[73] The Stoics used the word to discuss many common emotions such as anger, fear and excessive joy.[73] Incorrect judgment as to a present good gives rise to delight, while lust is a wrong estimate about the future.[73] Unreal imaginings of evil cause distress about the present, or fear for the future.[74] The ideal Stoic would instead measure things at their real value,[74] and see that the passions are not natural.[74] To be free of the passions is to have a happiness which is self-contained.[74] There would be nothing to fear—for unreason is the only evil; no cause for anger—for others cannot harm you.[74]
The Stoics arranged the passions under four headings: distress, pleasure, fear, and lust.[75] One report of the Stoic definitions of these passions appears in the treatiseOn Passions by Chrysippus (trans. Long & Sedley, pg. 411, modified):
Distress (lupē):Distress is anirrational contraction, or a freshopinion that something bad is present, at which people think it right to bedepressed.
Fear (phobos):Fear is an irrationalaversion, or avoidance of an expecteddanger.
Lust (epithumia):Lust is an irrational desire, or pursuit of an expectedgood but in reality bad.
Delight (hēdonē): Delight is an irrational swelling, or a fresh opinion that something good is present, at which people think it right to beelated.
Present
Future
Good
Delight
Lust
Evil
Distress
Fear
Two of these passions (distress and delight) refer to emotions currently present, and two of these (fear and lust) refer to emotions directed at the future.[75] Thus there are just two states directed at the prospect of good and evil, but subdivided as to whether they are present or future:[76] Numerous subdivisions of the same class were brought under the head of the separate passions:[77]
Thewise person (sophos) is someone who is free from the passions (apatheia). Instead, the sage experiences good feelings (eupatheia) which are clear-headed.[78] These emotional impulses are not excessive, but nor are they diminished emotions.[79][80] Instead they are the correct rational emotions.[80] The Stoics listed the good-feelings under the headings of joy (chara), wish (boulesis), and caution (eulabeia).[81] Thus if something is present which is a genuine good, then the wise person experiences an uplift in the soul—joy (chara).[82] The Stoics also subdivided the good-feelings:[83]
Joy: Enjoyment, Cheerfulness, Good spirits
Wish: Good intent, Goodwill, Welcoming, Cherishing, Love
The Stoics considered suicide permissible for the wise person in circumstances that might prevent them from living a virtuous life,[84] such as if they fell victim to severe pain or disease,[84] but otherwise, suicide would usually be seen as a rejection of one's social duty.[85] For example,Plutarch reports that accepting life under tyranny would have compromisedCato's self-consistency (constantia) as a Stoic and impaired his freedom to make the honorable moral choices.[86]
For around five hundred years, Stoic logic was one of the two great systems of logic.[87] The logic of Chrysippus was discussed alongside that of Aristotle, and it may well have been more prominent since Stoicism was the dominant philosophical school.[88] From a modern perspective, Aristotle's term logic and the Stoic logic of propositions appear complementary, but they were sometimes regarded as rival systems.[31]
In late antiquity, the Stoic school fell into decline, and the last pagan philosophical school, theNeoplatonists, adopted Aristotle's logic for their own.[89]Plotinus had criticized both Aristotle's Categories and those of the Stoics; his studentPorphyry, however, defended Aristotle's scheme. He justified this by arguing that they should be interpreted strictly as expressions, rather than as metaphysical realities. The approach can be justified, at least in part, by Aristotle's own words inThe Categories.Boethius' acceptance of Porphyry's interpretation led to their being accepted byScholastic philosophy.[citation needed] As a result the Stoic writings on logic did not survive, and only elements of Stoic logic made their way into the logical writings Boethius and other later commentators, transmitting confused parts of Stoic logic to the Middle Ages.[88] Propositional logic was redeveloped byPeter Abelard in the 12th century, but by the mid-15th century the only logic which was being studied was a simplified version of Aristotle's.[90] Knowledge about Stoic logic as a system was lost until the 20th century, when logicians familiar with the modernpropositional calculus reappraised the ancient accounts of it.
TheFathers of the Church regarded Stoicism as a "pagan philosophy";[91][92] nonetheless, early Christian writers used some of the central philosophical concepts of Stoicism. Examples include the terms "logos", "virtue", "Spirit", and "conscience".[64] Like Stoicism, Christianity asserts an inner freedom in the face of the external world, a belief in human kinship with Nature or God, a sense of the innate depravity—or "persistent evil"—of humankind,[64] and the futility and temporary nature of worldly possessions and attachments. Both encourage equanimity with respect to the passions and inferior emotions, such as lust and envy, so that the higher possibilities of one's humanity can be awakened and developed. Stoic influence can also be seen in the works ofAmbrose of Milan,Marcus Minucius Felix, andTertullian.[93]
Neostoicism was aphilosophical movement that arose in the late16th century from the works of theRenaissance humanistJustus Lipsius, who sought to combine the beliefs of Stoicism and Christianity.[94] The project of neostoicism has been described as an attempt by Lipsius to construct "a secular ethics based on Roman Stoic philosophy." He did not endorsereligious toleration in an unqualified way: hence the importance of a morality not tied to religion.[95] The work ofGuillaume du Vair,Traité de la Constance (1594), was another important influence in the neo-stoic movement. Where Lipsius had mainly based his work on the writings of Seneca, du Vair emphasized Epictetus.[94]Pierre Charron came to a neo-stoic position through the impact of theFrench Wars of Religion. He made a complete separation of morality and religion.[96]
In the 18th century,Immanuel Kant declared that "since Aristotle ... logic has not been able to advance a single step, and is thus to all appearance a closed and complete body of doctrine."[97] To 19th-century historians, who believed that Hellenistic philosophy represented a decline from that of Plato and Aristotle, Stoic logic was seen with contempt.[98]Carl Prantl thought that Stoic logic was "dullness, triviality, and scholastic quibbling" and he welcomed the fact that the works of Chrysippus were no longer extant.[99]
Although developments in modern logic that parallel Stoic logic began in the middle of the 19th century with the work ofGeorge Boole andAugustus De Morgan,[90] Stoic logic itself was only reappraised in the 20th-century,[99] beginning with the work of Polish logicianJan Łukasiewicz[99] andBenson Mates.[99] According toSusanne Bobzien, "The many close similarities between Chrysippus' philosophical logic and that ofGottlob Frege are especially striking".[100]
What we see as a result is a close similarity between [these] methods of reasoning and the behaviour of digital computers. ... The code happens to come from the nineteenth-century logician and mathematician George Boole, whose aim was to codify the relations studied much earlier by Chrysippus (albeit with greater abstraction and sophistication). Later generations built on Boole's insights ... but the logic that made it all possible was the interconnected logic of an interconnected universe, discovered by the ancient Chrysippus, who labored long ago under an old Athenian stoa.[101]
Contemporary usage defines a stoic as a "person who represses feelings or endures patiently".[102] TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Stoicism notes: "the sense of the English adjective 'stoical' is not utterly misleading with regard to its philosophical origins".[103]
Contemporary Stoicism draws from the late 20th- and early 21st-century spike in publications of scholarly works on ancient Stoicism. The revival of Stoicism in the 20th century can be traced to the publication ofProblems in Stoicism byA. A. Long in 1971.[104]
According to philosopherPierre Hadot, philosophy for a Stoic is not just a set of beliefs or ethical claims; it is a way of life involving constant practice and training (or "askēsis"), an active process of constant practice and self-reminder. Epictetus, in hisDiscourses, distinguished between three types of act: judgment, desire, and inclination,[105] which Hadot identifies these three acts with logic, physics, and ethics, respectively.[106] Hadot writes that in theMeditations, "Each maxim develops either one of these very characteristictopoi [i.e., acts], or two of them or three of them."[107]
Stoic philosophy was the original philosophical inspiration for moderncognitive psychotherapy, particularly as mediated byAlbert Ellis'rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT),[108] the major precursor ofcognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). The original cognitive therapy treatment manual for depression byAaron T. Beck et al. states, "The philosophical origins of cognitive therapy can be traced back to the Stoic philosophers".[109] A well-known quotation fromEnchiridion of Epictetus was taught to most clients during the initial session of traditional REBT by Ellis and his followers: "It's not the events that upset us, but our judgments about the events."[110]
a.^ The minimum requirement for a conditional is that the consequent follows from the antecedent.[28] The pseudo-conditional adds that the antecedent must also be true. The causal assertible adds an asymmetry rule such that if p is the cause/reason for q, then q cannot be the cause/reason for p.Bobzien 1999, p. 109 b.^ "Stoic modal logic is not a logic of modal propositions (e.g., propositions of the type 'It is possible that it is day' ...) ... instead, their modal theory was about non-modalized propositions like 'It is day', insofar as they are possible, necessary, and so forth."Bobzien 1999, p. 117 c.^ Most of these argument forms had already been discussed by Theophrastus, but: "It is plain that even if Theophrastus discussed (1)–(5), he did not anticipate Chrysippus' achievement. ... his Aristotelian approach to the study and organization of argument-forms would have given his discussion of mixed hypothetical syllogisms an utterly unStoical aspect."Barnes 1999, p. 83 d.^ TheseLatin names date from the Middle Ages.Shenefelt & White 2013, p. 288 e.^ For a brief summary of thesethemata see Susanne Bobzien'sAncient Logic article for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For a detailed (and technical) analysis of thethemata, including a tentative reconstruction of the two lost ones, seeBobzien 1999, pp. 137–148,Long & Sedley 1987, §36 HIJ.
^Marcelo D. Boeri,The Stoics on Bodies and Incorporeals, The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Jun., 2001), pp. 723–752
^Jacques Brunschwig "Stoic Metaphysics", p. 228 in Brad Inwood (ed.),The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 206–232.
^Harper, Douglas (November 2001)."Stoic".etymonline.com, Online Etymology Dictionary.Archived from the original on 19 November 2016. Retrieved2 September 2006.
Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF) is a collection byHans von Arnim of fragments and testimonia of the earlier Stoics, published in 1903–1905 as part of theBibliotheca Teubneriana. It includes the fragments and testimonia ofZeno of Citium,Chrysippus and their immediate followers. At first, the work consisted of three volumes, to whichMaximilian Adler in 1924 added a fourth, containing general indices. Teubner reprinted the whole work in 1964.
Adamson, Peter (2015),Philosophy in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-19-872802-3
Annas, Julia (1994).Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. University of California Press.ISBN978-0520076594.
Barnes, Johnathan (1997),Logic and the Imperial Stoa, Brill,ISBN90-04-10828-9
Barnes, Johnathan (1999), "Logic: The Peripatetics", in Algra, Keimpe (ed.),The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge University Press,ISBN0-521-25028-5
Bobzien, Susanne (1996b), "Stoic Syllogistic",Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 14, Oxford University Press,ISBN978-0-1982-3670-2
Bobzien, Susanne (1999), "Logic: The Stoics", in Algra, Keimpe (ed.),The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge University Press,ISBN0-521-25028-5
Brooke, Christopher.Philosophic Pride: Stoicism and Political Thought from Lipsius to Rousseau (Princeton UP, 2012)excerptsArchived 29 April 2014 at theWayback Machine
Capes, William Wolfe (1880).Stoicism. Pott, Young, & Co.OCLC1240350.
Graver, Margaret (2007).Stoicism and Emotion. University of Chicago Press.ISBN978-0226305578.
Hurley, Patrick J. (2011),A Concise Introduction to Logic, Wadsworth,ISBN978-0-8400-3417-5
Ierodiakonou, Katerina (2006), "Stoicism", in Wilson, Nigel (ed.),Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece, Psychology Press,ISBN978-0-4158-7396-3
Ierodiakonou, Katerina (2009), "Stoic Logic", in Gill, Mary Louise; Pellegrin, Pierre (eds.),A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, Wiley-Blackwell,ISBN978-1-4051-8834-0
Inwood, Brad (1999), "Stoic Ethics", in Algra, Keimpe; Barnes, Johnathan; Mansfield, Jaap; Schofield, Malcolm (eds.),The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge University Press,ISBN978-0521250283
Inwood, Brad (2003), "Stoicism", in Furley, David (ed.),Routledge History of Philosophy Volume II: Aristotle to Augustine, Routledge,ISBN978-0-4153-0874-8
Kneale, William; Kneale, Martha (1962),The Development of Logic, Clarendon Press
Nussbaum, Martha C. (2009),The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics, Princeton University Press,ISBN978-0-691-14131-2
O'Toole, Robert R.; Jennings, Raymond E. (2004), "The Megarians and the Stoics", in Gabbay, Dov M.; Woods, John (eds.),Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 1, Elsevier,ISBN0-444-51596-8
Shenefelt, Michael; White, Heidi (2013),If A, Then B: How Logic Shaped the World, Columbia University Press,ISBN978-0-231-53519-9
Sharples, Robert W. (2003), "The Peripatetic School", in Furley, David (ed.),Routledge History of Philosophy Volume II: Aristotle to Augustine, Routledge,ISBN978-0-4153-0874-8
White, Michael J. (2003), "Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology)", in Inwood, Brad (ed.),The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, Cambridge University Press,ISBN0521779855
Osler, Margaret J., ed. (1991).Atoms, pneuma, and tranquillity: Epicurean and Stoic themes in European thought. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-40048-0.
Salles, Ricardo, ed. (2005).Metaphysics, soul, and ethics in ancient thought: themes from the work of Richard Sorabji. Oxford: Clarendon Press.ISBN9780199261307.
Salles, Ricardo, ed. (2009).God and Cosmos in Stoicism. Oxford University Press.ISBN9780199556144.
Schofield, Malcolm (1999).The Stoic idea of the city (Repr ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.ISBN9780226740065.
Schofield, Malcolm; Striker, Gisela, eds. (1986).The norms of nature: studies in Hellenistic ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. [u.a.]ISBN9782735101474.
Sorabji, Richard, ed. (1997).Aristotle and After. Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London.ISBN978-0-900587-79-5. Retrieved21 May 2025.
_-_BEIC_6353768.jpg)
_of_an_original_(c._200_BCE)._Altes_Museum%2c_Berlin%2c_Germany.jpg)
