L’idée d’appropriation (oikeiōsis) constitue un concept fondamental de l’éthique stoïcienne. On en souligne l’efficacité polémique dans la controverse opposant les Stoïciens aux Épicuriens sur la fin (telos) naturelle ainsi que la portée théorique dans l’explication du développement moral et social de l’homme. Outre les difficultés rencontrées pour cerner les contours et la consistance théoriques de l’appropriation, son statut est également fortement débattu : s’agit-il d’une invention stoïcienne ou bien en trouve-t-on l’équivalent ou les linéaments dans la philosophie péripatéticienne ? Tout (...) en rappelant les incertitudes entourant la généalogie de cette idée, on entreprendra de se tourner vers le traitement philosophique du propre (oikeion) dans certains textes d’Aristote et de Platon, pour voir s’il contient des déterminations pertinentes pour comprendre l’appropriation. Cet examen sera l’occasion de s’interroger sur ce qui a pu passer du propre à l’appropriation et sur les difficultés auxquelles s’expose la confrontation de deux notions au statut conceptuel inégal. (shrink)

Within the third book of Porphyry's On Abstinence from Animal Food, an ethic of community is developed in order to provide the basis of an account of our ethical obligations to animals. I argue that in spite of Porphyry's rejection of this account, it constitutes a coherent and comprehensive nonanthropocentric ethical theory. It conforms with ethical intuitions insofar as it grants that animals are moral subjects, but does not demand impartiality. By appealing to Theophrastus's notion of to oikeion and (...) to the Stoic notion of oikeic6is it provides the theoretical resources for showing why it is often appropriate to favor human beings over other animals. (shrink)

Plato’s Lysis has generated a range of scholarly responses, both with respect to its philosophical content and whether its aporetic conclusion— that what is philon is “neither those who are loved nor those who love, nor those who are like nor those who are unlike, nor those who are good, nor those who are akin (oi oikeioi), nor any of the others we have gone through” (222e3-5)—is genuine or masks a doctrinal resolution available within the text. In a series of (...) papers on the Lysis, Francisco Gonzalez has presented an historically and philologically sophisticated interpretation which claims that in the Lysis, Socrates replaces traditional notions of “kinship” (or what is oikeion) with a philosophical kinship grounded in wisdom, one which ultimately undermines the filial bond between parents and children. I argue that Gonzalez’s interpretation cannot account for the numerous instances of non-philosophical friendships in the dialogue and thus succumbs to the danger of ascribing closure to a dialogue whose aporia is ultimately genuine. In my conclusion, I probe whether this critique poses problems for “Third Way” interpretations of Plato’s dialogues. (shrink)