Stoic psychology

doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521250283.018

17 - Stoic psychology

from PART IV - PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2008

Edited by

Jaap Mansfeld and

A. A. Long: Affiliation:
University of California at Berkeley
Keimpe Algra: Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jonathan Barnes: Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Jaap Mansfeld: Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Malcolm Schofield: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

As the previous chapter has shown, Epicurean psychology is physicalist in ways that have some affinity to contemporary use of that explanatory model. The Stoic theory is harder to characterize though no less intriguing so far as scientific and philosophical issues are concerned. Modern western thinkers are likely to find the Stoics to be considerably more sophisticated than the Epicureans in analysing the faculties and subjective content of the mind but less plausible than their rivals in accounting for the mind's ontological foundations. By way of introduction, we may note some striking similarities and differences between the two theories.

Like the Epicureans, the Stoics identify the principle of sentient life with a corporeal psuchē. In both theories the psuchē is distributed throughout the limbs and organs of the animal, whether human or non-human. Like the Epicureans again, they draw a sharp distinction between the human mind (which they call ‘thought’ or the ‘governing part’ of the psuchē), located in the heart, and the rest of the psuchē (the ‘spirit’ in Lucretius’ Epicurean terminology), situated in all the other parts of the body. Ignoring differences of detail concerning the relation between the mind and the rest of the psuchē, we have something broadly analogous in both theories to the modern allocation of functions to the brain and the central nervous system respectively.

The physical constituency of the Stoic psuchē, together with its functional division into governing and instrumental parts, differentiates it sharply from the psychology of Aristotle as well as Plato. However, the Stoics’ similarity in these respects to Epicurus should not be overemphasized.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy , pp. 560 - 584

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521250283.018 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Annas, J. E. (1992a) Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind, Hellenistic culture and society 8 (Berkeley).Google Scholar

Ax, W. (1986) Laut, Stimme und Sprache: Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie, Hypomnemata 84 (Göttingen).CrossRef Google Scholar

Bastianini, G. & Long, A. A., edd. (1992a) Hierocles, in Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini, vol. I, 1 (Florence).Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (1982) Actions and Events (Oxford).Google Scholar

De Lacy, Ph., ed. (1984) Galen: On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato, first part: books I–V, Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V 4, 1, 2, ed. 3 (Berlin, first edn 1978).Google Scholar

Hoven, R. (1971) Stoïcisme et stoïciens face au problème de l'au-delà, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l' Université de Liège, fasc. 197 (Paris).Google Scholar

Inwood, B. (1985) Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism (Oxford).Google Scholar

Kahn, Ch. (1988) ‘Discovering the will: from Aristotle to Augustine’, in Dillon & Long (1988).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1975–6) ‘Heraclitus and Stoicism’, Philosophia 5/6 ; repr. in Long, (1996).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1976) ‘The early Stoic concept of moral choice’, in Images of Man in Ancient and Medieval Thought. Studies Presented to G. Verbeke (Leuven).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1982b) ‘Soul and body in Stoicism’, Phronesis 27 (1982) ; repr. in Long, (1996).CrossRef Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1991a) ‘Representation and the self in Stoicism’, in Everson (1991a) ; repr. in Long, (1996).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1991b) ‘The harmonics of Stoic virtue’, OSAP, suppl. vol. 1991 ; repr. in Long, (1996).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1993b) ‘Hierocles on oikeiosis and self-perception’, in Boudouris, K., ed., Hellenistic Philosophy (Athens) ; repr. in Long, (1996).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. & Sedley, D. N., edd. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols.: i. Translations of the principal sources with philosophical commentary; ii. Greek and Latin texts with notes and bibliography (Cambridge, various reprints).Google Scholar

Mansfeld, J. (1989c) ‘Chrysippus and the Placita’, Phronesis 34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mansfeld, J. (1990a) ‘Doxography and dialectic: The Sitz im Leben of the “Placita”’, in Haase, W., ed., ANRW 11 36.4 (Berlin/New York).Google Scholar

Mansfeld, J. (1992d) ‘The idea of the will in Chrysippus, Posidonius, and Galen’, in Cleary, & Wians, (1992).Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1992) The Rediscovery of the Mind (Boston).Google Scholar

Sedley, D. N. (1992b) ‘Commentary on Mansfeld’, in Cleary, & Wians, (1992).Google Scholar

Tieleman, T. L. (1996) Galen and Chrysippus on the Soul, Argument and Refutation in the De Placitis Books II–III, PhA 68 (Leiden).Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.