Abstract
This paper rehabilitates the Stoic conception of blending from the ground up, by freeing the Stoic conception of body from three interpretive presuppositions. First, the twin hylomorphic presuppositions that where there is body there is matter, and that where there is reason or quality there is an incorporeal. Then, the atomistic presupposition that body is absolutely full and rigid, and the attendant notion that resistance (antitupia) must be ricochet. I argue that once we clear away these presuppositions about body, the foundations of Stoic corporealism fall into place. Body is fundamental (not hylomorphic). The two fundamental principles (archai) are bodies: divine active reason (logos) and passive matter (hulē); and these two bodies are two, not matter and form all over again, nor actual and potential, but agent and patient. The independence of the two archai is no threat to the unity of the cosmos, however, because the Stoic theory of body allows for the complete coextension of the archai. The hylomorphic thinker rightly asks, what relation could be tighter than that of the wax and its shape? The Stoic replies: a causal relation, the interaction of agent and patient completely coextended in a through and through blend.
References
von Arnim, Hans F. A. (1905): Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, Leipzig: Teubner.Search in Google Scholar
Betegh, Gábor (2016): “Colocation”. In: Thomas Buchheim, David Meissner, and Nora Wachsmann (eds.), ΣΩΜΑ. Körperkonzepte und körperliche Existenz in der antiken Philosophie und Literatur. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, pp. 393–422.Search in Google Scholar
Boeri, Marcelo (2001): “The Stoics on Bodies and Incorporeals”, The Review of Metaphysics 54, pp. 723–752.Search in Google Scholar
Bronowski, Ada (2015): “The Stoics on the Notion of Passivity”. Presented at New Perspectives on Stoicism, Cornell University, September 25–27, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, John (2009): “Chrysippus on Physical Elements”. In: Ricardo Salles (ed.), God and Cosmos in Stoicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–117.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556144.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Dorandi, Tiziano (2013): Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511843440Search in Google Scholar
Drozdek, Adam (2002): “Infinity in Chrysippus”. Hermes 130, pp. 404–415.Search in Google Scholar
Frede, M. (2005): “La Théologie Stoïcienne”. In: Gilbert Romeyer-Dherbey and Jean-Baptiste Gourinat (eds.), Les Stoiciens. Paris: Vrin, pp. 213–32.Search in Google Scholar
Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste (2009): “The Stoics on Matter and Prime Matter: ‘Corporealism’ and the Imprint of Plato’s Timaeus”. In: Ricardo Salles (ed.), God and Cosmos in Stoicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 46–70.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556144.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
de Harven, Vanessa (2015): “How Nothing Can Be Something: The Stoic Theory of Void”, Ancient Philosophy 35, pp. 405–29.10.5840/ancientphil201535229Search in Google Scholar
de Harven Vanessa (2018): “Rational Impressions and the Stoic Philosophy of Mind”. In: John Sisko, Rebecca Copenhaver and Christopher Shields (eds.), The History of Philosophy of Mind: Pre-Socratics to Augustine (vol. 1 of six-volume series The History of the Philosophy of Mind). New York: Routledge, pp. 215–235.10.4324/9780429508219-12Search in Google Scholar
Hicks, Robert D. (1966): Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Koslicki, Kathrin (2007): “Towards a Neo-Aristotelian Mereology”, Dialectica 61, Special Issue, Kevin Mulligan (ed.), “The Philosophy of Kit Fine”, pp. 127–159.10.1111/j.1746-8361.2006.01075.xSearch in Google Scholar
Koslicki, Kathrin (2008): The Structure of Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539895.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lapidge, Michael (1989): “Stoic Cosmology and Roman Literature, First to Third Centuries A. D.”. In: Wolfgang Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Teil II: Prinzipat, vol. 36.3: Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. Philosophie (Stoizismus). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1379–1429.10.1515/9783110851526-004Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, Eric (1988): “Diogenes Laertius and the Stoic theory of mixture”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 35, pp. 84–90.10.1111/j.2041-5370.1988.tb00202.xSearch in Google Scholar
Long, A. A., Sedley, David N. (1987): The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165907Search in Google Scholar
Mann, Wolfgang-Rainer (2011): “Elements, Causes, and Principles: A Context for Metaphysics Z.17”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 40, Essays in Memory of Michael Frede, pp. 29–61.Search in Google Scholar
Mansfeld, Jaap (1978): “Zeno of Citium”, Mnemosyne 31, pp.134–178.10.1163/156852578X00337Search in Google Scholar
Marmodoro, Anna (2017): “Stoic Gunk”. In: Anna Marmodoro, Everything in Everything. Anaxagoras’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 156–185.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190611972.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Mikeš, Vladimir (2015): “Stoic principles: Bodies? What kind of bodies?” Presented at Incorporeals in Stoicism, The Czech Academy of Sciences, Dec. 17, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
Nolan, Daniel (2006): “Stoic Gunk”, Phronesis 51, pp. 162–83.10.1163/156852806777006796Search in Google Scholar
Rashed, Marwan (2009): “Chrysippe et la Division à l’Infini (DL VII 150 – 151)”, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49, pp. 345–351.10.1556/AAnt.49.2009.3.10Search in Google Scholar
Rheins, Jason (2016): “A Critical Problem with the Corporeality of the Stoic Principles”. Presented at 2016 Pacific APA, March 30, 2016.Search in Google Scholar
Rist, John M. (1977): Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Salles, Ricardo, ed. (2009): God and Cosmos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556144.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Salles Ricardo (2015): “Two early Stoic theories of cosmogony”. In: Anna Marmodoro and Brian Prince (eds.), Creation and Causation in Classical and Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.10.1017/CBO9781107447974.003Search in Google Scholar
Sedley, David (2002): “The Origins of Stoic God”. In: Dorothea Frede and André Laks (eds.), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, Its Background and Aftermath. Leiden: Brill, pp. 41–83.10.1163/9789047401063_003Search in Google Scholar
Scade, Paul (2013): “Plato and the Stoics on limits, parts and wholes”. In: Alex G. Long (ed.), Plato and the Stoics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–105.10.1017/CBO9781139629157.005Search in Google Scholar
Sorabji, Richard (1988): Matter, Space, and Motion. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Todd, Robert B. (1976): Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics: A Study of the De Mixtione. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Todd, Robert B. (1978): “Stoic Monism and Immanence: The Foundations of Stoic Physics”. In: John M. Rist (ed.), The Stoics. Berkeley: UC Press, pp. 137–160.10.1525/9780520339255-008Search in Google Scholar
Weil, Eric (1964): “Remarques sur le ‘matérialisme’ des stoïciens”. In: Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, ii. L’aventure de l’esprit. Paris: Hermann, pp. 556–72.Search in Google Scholar
White, Michael J. (2003): “Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology)”. In: Brad Inwood (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–52.10.1017/CCOL052177005X.006Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
