Soul and Body in Stoicism

Long, A. A.

doi:10.1163/156852882x00032

Cited by 116 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A distinction may be made between physical composition, flesh, muscles and blood, and the ability to feel, speak and think. Basically, it is the traditional distinction between body/soul or substance/spirit (pneuma), with the essential difference being that the spirit penetrates and saturates the substance (Long, 1982). This means that knowledge arises from the unified action of thought, which cannot perceive anything on its own, and sensation, which again cannot think on its own (Gourinat, 2012).…”

Section: Sensory Perception Thought and Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and <i>Logos</i> as Per the Stoic Psychology

Kostara¹

2021

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is the approach of the fundamental principles and concepts of the Stoics' theory on humans and the soul, as well as the designation of the scientific solidity and impact this theory exerts on the psychological research, establishing the full harmonisation between the behaviour and acts of mankind and the natural development of facts as the purpose of human existence. In particular, the role of cognition, of sensation and experience, the role of impulse and familiarity, the power of reason, what passion is and its impact on mental life are some of the key issues of the Stoics' psychological theory which this paper endeavours to address, primarily employing the Hermeneutics methodology, that of text interpretation. It considers of primary importance to provide an in-depth interpretation of the Stoics' "Fragments" and reveal their essence and real meaning, without, of course, underestimating the importance of secondary literature.

show abstract

Section: Sensory Perception Thought and Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and <i>Logos</i> as Per the Stoic Psychology

Kostara¹

2021

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In what follows I shall employ the terms "strong" and "weak" to capture the differences between these different strands of Stoic cosmopolitanism. As a source text I shall take Cicero's treatise On Duties (Cicero, 1968(Cicero, [1913 ;Gill, 1988;Long, 1982).…”

Section: Nussbaum Strong Stoic Cosmopolitanism and Personal Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nussbaum, cosmopolitanism and contemporary political problems

Burns

2013

Int J of Social Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The paper aims to be a critical engagement with the ideas of Martha Nussbaum, as expressed in her recent book Creating Capabilities. Design/methodology/approach -The author's discussion focuses on the relationship which exists between Nussbaum's capabilities approach and cosmopolitan political thought. It follows Nussbaum in making a distinction between "strong" and "weak" cosmopolitanism. Findings -The paper maintains that, despite Nussbaum's claim that she is not a cosmopolitan thinker, it is arguable that she can be associated with a weak form of cosmopolitanism. Originality/value -This is an original piece of work which sheds new light on the relationship which exists between the ideas of Martha Nussbaum and the cosmopolitan tradition.

show abstract

“…points out. 27 The currency of at least more than one Stoic use of 'soul' differing from 'the hêgemonikon' is attested by ancient authors such as Sextus Empiricus. Diogenes (and perhaps Philo also) says that the Stoics defined soul broadly as a nature endowed with impression and impulse, and even more broadly as the hexis that holds together bodily form in general or its parts such as bones and sinews.…”

Section: The Theory Of An Eight-part Soulmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chrysippus on Nature and Soul in Animals

Ju¹

2007

The Class. Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stoic biology made a distinction between nature and soul, classifying natural bodies into soulless plants and ensouled animals. The clearest influence of this classification, starting from the third century B.C., was in its embryological claim that the foetus, being directed by nature, is not an animal, a Stoic innovation upon Platonic and Aristotelian biology. The mid-second-century A.D. Stoic Hierocles reaffirmed this in his brief account of embryology, but, apart from textual difficulties raised by the surviving papyrus of his book, the question arises: does nature cease or remain in the animal after birth? More specifically, should the animal's faculties of nutrition and growth be classified as parts of soul after this has been formed? It appears that the Stoics' debate about the issue to some degree turned on concepts of competing divisions of the soul's parts or faculties. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains to illuminate their debate; and how the debate was conducted by Stoics from Panaetius on is uncertain, despite some secondhand reports that may help us to reconstruct it. Our one relevant late Stoic source is the opening of Hierocles' book, but he is entirely silent on it in his ensuing treatment of embryology. 1 Even some degree of doxographical disagreement exists on the issue. Calcidius, at In Platonis Timaeum 220, reports a Stoic doctrine, attributed to Chrysippus, that the animal's nutrition and growth are taken over by the parts of soul after birth. 2 Galen, at Adversus Iulianum 5, and ps.-Galen, at Introductio 13 (that the latter refers to the Stoics is hardly in doubt), cite another Stoic doctrine, that the animal is governed both by nature and by soul (see below). Under the circumstances, it is hard to determine whether this disagreement was actually one between the historical Stoics, or merely reflects a doxographical divergence in transmission, and whether Chrysippus differed from the other Stoics on the issue. Moreover, the question whether (and if so how) those two Stoic doctrines are fully compatible needs closer scrutiny. Below I shall argue that the Stoics held to a belief in the continuation of nature in the animal, and that any impression of a disagreement, on this view, is likely to derive from Calcidius' misreporting. Even if Calcidius were right to attribute to Chrysippus the opinion that the soul's parts include provision for nutrition and growth in the animal, it would be probable that this opinion belonged at best to Chrysippus and some Chrysippeans. But 97

show abstract

Soul and Body in Stoicism

Cited by 116 publications

References 1 publication

The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and <i>Logos</i> as Per the Stoic Psychology

The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and <i>Logos</i> as Per the Stoic Psychology

Nussbaum, cosmopolitanism and contemporary political problems

Chrysippus on Nature and Soul in Animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Soul and Body in Stoicism

Cited by 116 publications

References 1 publication

The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and &lt;i&gt;Logos&lt;/i&gt; as Per the Stoic Psychology

The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and &lt;i&gt;Logos&lt;/i&gt; as Per the Stoic Psychology

Nussbaum, cosmopolitanism and contemporary political problems

Chrysippus on Nature and Soul in Animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and <i>Logos</i> as Per the Stoic Psychology

The Potential of the Human Soul towards a Life in Harmony with Nature and <i>Logos</i> as Per the Stoic Psychology