Annas, Julia E[1]. Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. University of California Press, c1992

8/12/2019 Annas, Julia E[1]. Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. University of California Press, c1992

1/133


2/133

Hellenistic Philosophy of MindJulia AnnasUNIVERSITY O !A"IORNIA PRESS#e$%eley & "os An'eles & O(fo$d) *++, The Re'ents of the Uni-e$sity of !alifo$nia


3/133

P$eface

P$eface

I .e'an the p$o/ect of 0$itin' this .oo% in *+123 and it has .een th$ou'h a nu4.e$ ofdiffe$ent -e$sions5 It 0as o$i'inally intended as pa$t of a la$'e$ colla.o$ati-e 0o$% onHellenistic philosophy as a 0hole6 .ut the la$'e$ 0o$% la''ed 0hile 4y chapte$ %ept on'$o0in' and 7I hope8 i4p$o-in'3 until finally it see4ed 4o$e app$op$iate to let it e(pandto a 4o$e app$op$iate len'th as an independent pu.lication5 Since *+12 I ha-e 0o$%edpe$iodically on the .oo% as 0ell as on othe$ $esea$ch3 and I ha-e .een a.le to 0o$% in4o$e depth on so4e topics $ele-ant to the .oo%3 such as Epicu$ean e4otions3 Stoicepiste4olo'y3 and Epicu$us9 difficult -ie0s on a'ency5 The .oo% has i4p$o-ed f$o4 this3

and also f$o4 the c$itical distance one can achie-e 0hen $etu$nin' to fa4ilia$ 4ate$ialafte$ an inte$-al5 My ai4 has $e4ained the sa4e6 I hope to p$o-ide a clea$ int$oduction toa fascinatin' su./ect3 one that 0ill help to 4a%e the su./ect accessi.le to $eade$s 0ithdiffe$in' .ac%'$ounds3 philosophical and classical5

The$e is no a$ea of ancient philosophy 0hich is officially called :philosophy of 4ind:6.ut as p$acticin' philosophe$s all %no03 the official de4a$cations of one9s su./ect 4atte$4ay not ans0e$ to the 0ays the su./ect de-elops3 and I hope that $eade$s 0ill a'$ee that0hen 0e loo% at the te(ts3 0hat 0e find is in fact philosophy of 4ind5 The cont$i.utionsof the Stoics and Epicu$eans ha-e lon' suffe$ed ne'lect and so4eti4es conte4pt3 pa$tlyf$o4 lac% of sy4pathy 0ith thei$ funda4ental p$inciples and pa$tly f$o4 4isconceptionsas to 0hat the; -iii ;

Stoics and Epicu$eans 0e$e t$yin' to do5 I ha-e t$ied to .e .oth sy4pathetic and c$itical3.ut 4y p$incipal ai4 is to p$esent a clea$ -ie0 of the Stoic and Epicu$ean theo$ies3 thei$4a/o$ ad-anta'es and so4e p$o.le4s they face5

I spent the acade4ic yea$ *+12u%e Uni-e$sity !onfe$ence on T$adition and Inno-ation in Epicu$eanis4 inthe sp$in' of *+1+ and the ifth Inte$national Sy4posiu4 Hellenisticu4 in Sya43 $ance3in Au'ust *+1+5 In the sp$in' of *+1+ I 'a-e a se4ina$ at the Uni-e$sity of A$iona .ased


4/133

on 4ate$ial f$o4 the .oo%5 I lea$ned 4uch f$o4 the '$aduates ta%in' the se4ina$3especially f$o4 Stephen "au$ence and f$o4 Victo$ !aston 7-isitin' that se4este$ f$o4the Uni-e$sity of Te(as at Austin85 Su.seBuently 4y collea'ue Ro. !u44ins $ead the0hole 4anusc$ipt and 4ade -alua.le co44ents3 4any of 0hich fo$ced 4e to .e 4o$ec$itical of c$ucial a$'u4ents o$ to 4a%e the p$o'$ess of the a$'u4ent clea$e$ fo$ $eade$s

0ho a$e not specialists in ancient philosophy5 In 4y final $e0$itin' I ha-e .een helped .ydetailed co44ents f$o4 Tony "on' and f$o4 a $efe$ee fo$ the Uni-e$sity of !alifo$niaP$ess5 =ith all this 'ene$ous help I a4 especially so$$y fo$ 4ista%es and confusions that$e4ain3 fo$ 0hich I alone a4 of cou$se $esponsi.le5

I ha-e .een aided in t0o .outs of 0o$% on the .oo% .y ha-in' study lea-e f$o4 thePhilosophy >epa$t4ent at the Uni-e$sity of A$iona3 and I a4 -e$y '$ateful fo$ this3 as0ell; i( ;

as fo$ the sti4ulatin' at4osphe$e and .eautiful su$$oundin's I en/oyed at Tucson5 I a4

also '$ateful to Jonathan #a$nes fo$ /oint se4ina$s on Hellenistic philosophy 0hich 0eheld in O(fo$d and fo$ continuin' to inspi$e and sti4ulate 4y inte$est in Hellenisticphilosophy .y his o0n 0o$%5 I a4 -e$y '$ateful to Michele S-atos fo$ p$epa$in' theInde( "oco$u4 and fo$ eno$4ous assistance 0ith the @ene$al Inde(5

The .oo% is dedicated to 4y hus.and3 >a-id3 0ho has .een suppo$ti-e and helpfulintellectually and in e-e$y othe$ 0ay th$ou'h the -a$ious sta'es of the .oo%9s p$o'$ess7includin' pe$iods 0hen the$e 0as no p$o'$ess83 and to ou$ dau'hte$3 "au$a3 0ho has.een a sou$ce of /oy fo$ all ei'ht yea$s of he$ life3 and se-en of the .oo%9s5

P$eface


5/133

Int$oduction

; * ;Int$oduction

Mode$n philosophy of 4ind3 li%e 4ost a$eas of philosophy3 ha$%s .ac% f$o4 ti4e to ti4eto p$edecesso$s in the ancient 0o$ld5 Usually the p$edecesso$ sin'led out is A$istotle3 the'$eat founde$ of the su./ect5 A$istotle9s >e ani4a and Pa$-a natu$alia a$e the fi$st 0o$%sto study psycholo'ical pheno4ena se$iously in a philosophical 0ay5 Rootin' :study ofthe soul: fi$4ly in .iolo'y3 A$istotle9s 0o$%s a$e the ancesto$s not only of philosophy of4ind3 as that is studied in philosophy depa$t4ents3 .ut also of syste4atic psycholo'y3 the4o$e pu$ely scientific study of psycholo'ical and 4ental pheno4ena5 And A$istotle9s

app$oach is still of inte$est to 4ode$n philosophe$s3 as is 0itnessed .y the hu'e a4ount of$esea$ch de-oted in the last t0o decades to unde$standin' A$istotle9s theo$y of the souland classifyin' it as physicalist3 dualist3 o$ functionalist5C*D

A$istotle9s successo$s3 the philosophe$s of the Hellenistic o$ postA$istotelian pe$iod3ha-e .een co4pa$ati-ely ne'lected5 This is a pity3 .ecause the theo$ies a$e sophisticatedand inte$estin'5 It is also so4e0hat su$p$isin'3 since e-en f$o4 the pe$specti-e of 4ode$ninte$est the Hellenistic theo$ies ha-e a '$eat deal 4o$e in co44on 0ith 4ode$n conce$nsthan A$istotle9s does5 u$the$4o$e3 Hellenistic accounts of pa$ticC*D; F ;

ula$ pheno4ena3 such as pe$cei-in'3 a$e often of '$eat inte$est in thei$ o0n $i'ht5 Thus3.oth on '$ounds of thei$ int$insic inte$est and f$o4 the -ie0point of 4ode$n conce$ns3 itsee4s $easona.le to e(pand ou$ pictu$e of ancient philosophy of 4ind to includeA$istotle9s '$eat successo$s5

Hellenistic philosophy of 4ind has .een 'ene$ally ne'lected in the histo$y of $ecentschola$ship .ecause Hellenistic philosophy 'ene$ally has .een unde$-alued3 an i4.alancethat is no0 .ein' co$$ected5 In the $ecent past3 ho0e-e$3 this pe$iod of philosophy of4ind 0as thou'ht especially 0o$thy of ne'lect5 It 0as dis4issed as c$ude3 as a 4e$eth$o0.ac% to ea$lie$ ideas3CFD and e-en as a type of theo$y 0hich 0as patentlyinadeBuate3 .ut 0hose faults 0e$e o-e$loo%ed in the haste to 'et to 0hat 0as $eallysupposed to 4atte$3 na4ely3 the ethical conclusions5C2D

=hy 0as Hellenistic philosophy of 4ind held to .e c$udeG The 4ain $eason is that all the4a/o$ theo$ies a$e physicalist6 they hold that the 4ind is 70ith $efine4ents 0e shalle(a4ine8 so4ethin' physical5 And until su$p$isin'ly $ecently the philosophical.ac%'$ound of schola$s inte$p$etin' Hellenistic philosophy 0as one in 0hich thedo4inant theo$y 0as dualis45 Hence 0e f$eBuently find schola$s dis4issin' Hellenistic


6/133

theo$ies as inadeBuate in p$inciple on the '$ounds that they 4e$ely study the 4ate$ialconditions fo$ 4ental acti-ity to .e possi.le3CFDC2D; 2 ;

and o4it 4ental acti-ity itself5C,D Mo$e $ecently inte$p$ete$s ha-etended to ha-e anintellectual .ac%'$ound in 0hich it is physicalis4 that is do4inant and dualis4 that is notta%en se$iously5 And this 4a%es it easie$ fo$ us to unde$stand the Hellenistic theo$ies3 fo$in that pe$iod also physicalis4 0as seen as the no$45

The te$4s :physicalis4: and :4ate$ialis4: ha-e .een used fo$ 4any diffe$ent %inds oftheo$y5 The theo$ies that 0e shall e(a4ine in detail3 those of the Stoics and Epicu$eans3a$e theo$ies of a %ind 0hich I shall call physicalist5 :Physicalis4: he$e co-e$s theo$ies0hich clai4 that e-e$ythin' that e(ists is physical5 :Physical: he$e in tu$n 4eans :fallsunde$ the la0s of physics5: So4ethin' is physical if and only if it can .e desc$i.ed ande(plained usin' only the concepts and 4ethods of physics5 So 4uch is t$ue of ancient and

4ode$n theo$ies5 Ancient -e$sions of physicalis4 0ill diffe$ f$o4 4ode$n ones to thee(tent that ancient physics diffe$s f$o4 4ode$nthat is3 conside$a.ly5 In its ancientfo$43 physicalis4 is the theo$y that e-e$ythin' that e(ists3 includin' the soul3 falls unde$phusi%e3 enBui$y into the constituents and st$uctu$e of the uni-e$se5 On this definition3A$istotle is a physicalist3 althou'h he defines the soul as the fo$4 of the .ody3 .ecauseA$istotelian physics e-e$y0he$e studies fo$4 as 0ell as 4atte$5CD The ancient notion ofphusi%e 0as .$oade$ than ou$ notion of physics3 and the$e 0as nothin' in the ancient0o$ld co$$espondin' to the 4ode$n thesis that physics is pa$adi'4atic fo$ the othe$sciences3 o$ that they can .e $educed to it in so4e unified 0ay5 !o$$espondin'ly3 ancient-e$sions of physicalis4 a$e less st$on' and 4ethodolo'ically less $est$icted than 4ode$nones5

Ancient physicalis4 is a 0ea% notion3 .ut not a contentless one5 So4e philosophe$s diddeny it5 To deny physicalis43 inC,DCD; , ;

the ancient 0o$ld3 is to deny that the soul falls unde$ scientific study3 to clai4 that thesoul is not pa$t of the natu$al 0o$ld and ope$ates in 0ays that cannot .e unde$stood .ystudyin' that 0o$ld5 This position is often called dualis43CD since it i4plies that the$e a$et0o $adically diffe$ent %inds of thin' in the uni-e$se3 the physical thin's and thepsycholo'ical o$ 4ental thin's3 0hich a$e diffe$ent in %ind and do not fall unde$ the sa4e%ind of enBui$y5

In antiBuity the$e a$e no defende$s of dualis4 e(cept Plato and the Platonic schools3 0hoa$e -e$y 4uch the e(ception5 Plato hi4self in se-e$al dialo'ues and pa$ticula$ly thePhaedo clai4s that souls a$e :sepa$ate: f$o4 .odies and in e-e$y 0ay a co4pletelydiffe$ent %ind of entity5 He not only accepts3 .ut e4phasies3 the fact that on his -ie0 the$elationship of soul and .ody is deeply p$o.le4atic5 Plato .elie-es that it is deeply4yste$ious and that 0e do not unde$stand it5 Platonic dualis4 0as 4a$'inal and


7/133

uninfluential du$in' the Hellenistic pe$iod5 It 0as $e-i-ed in the Middle Platonist schools.ut e-en then 0as fa$ f$o4 do4inant5CKD "ate$ it 0as to ha-e a spectacula$ $e-i-al in theti4e of the Neoplatonists3 and th$ou'h the Platonic schools it 0as to ha-e a sta$tlin'effect on !h$istianity3 tu$nin' it f$o4 a 4etaphysically neut$al $eli'ion into a $eli'ionappa$ently co44itted to a dualistic -ie0 of the soul3 a -ie0 0hich has had lastin'

influence fo$ 4any centu$ies5C1D #ut in the Hellenistic pe$iod dualis4 0as not 0idely-ie0ed as a philosophically se$ious position5 Physicalis4 0as ta%en fo$ '$anted as theno$43 and not ta%en to $eBui$e special a$'u4ent5

Ancient physicalis43 it is clea$3 is e(t$e4ely 0ea%5 It is Buite distinct f$o4 $educti-is43the thesis that ite4s of one %ind 7inCDCKDC1D; ;

this case3 souls8 can .e :$educed: to ite4s of anothe$ %ind 7in this case3 .odies85 Mode$nfo$4s of $educti-is4 often $ely on .$id'in' la0s to :$educe: one science to anothe$3 and

unsu$p$isin'ly this is a.sent in the ancient 0o$ld3 0he$e science did not 4a%e the 4ode$n%ind of appeal to la0s5 Still3 0e can see a $eco'nia.le i4pulse to0a$d $educti-is4 inso4e ancient philosophe$s3 nota.ly so4e of the p$eSoc$atics5 >e4oc$itus distin'uishes.et0een the Bualities that 0e can e(pe$ience3 and 0hat the$e is :in t$uth3: na4ely3 ato4sand -oid5 Ana(a'o$as clai4s that e-e$yday tal% of chan'e is 4isleadin' and does notans0e$ to anythin'6 0hat $eally 'oes on3 at a le-el fa$ .elo0 pe$ception3 is Buite diffe$ent5One of the autho$s in the Hippoc$atic 4edical co$pus 'i-es a $educti-e account of -a$iouspsycholo'ical pheno4ena in te$4s of the influences of cli4ate5C+D These autho$s a$e not4e$ely physicalists6 they add the clai4 that ou$ p$ephilosophical tal% of souls3 fo$instance3 does not ans0e$ to anythin' $eal6 souls a$e /ust ato4s and -oid3 fo$ e(a4ple5#ecause these autho$s do not specify any pa$ticula$ 4echanis4 fo$ $eduction3 thei$position $e4ains so4e0hat indete$4inate6 it is not clea$3 fo$ e(a4ple3 0hethe$ 0hat is in4ind is $educti-is4 p$ope$ 7the$e a$e Ls3 .ut they can .e $educed to Ys8 o$ eli4inati-is47the$e a$e $eally no Ls3 only Ys85

The i4pulse to0a$d $educti-is4 nascent in so4e p$eSoc$atics3 and so 4uch st$on'e$ and4o$e sophisticated in 4ode$n theo$ies3 is -i$tually a.sent f$o4 Hellenistic philosophy of4ind6 it appea$s only 4a$'inally in so4e 4e4.e$s of A$istotle9s school5 Indeed3 0eactually find Epicu$us a$'uin' a'ainst >e4oc$itean $educti-is45C*D Hellenisticphysicalis4 is non$educti-e6 it is a 'ene$ally accepted position that 0e hu4ans a$e pa$t ofthe natu$al 0o$ld3 and in-esti'ated .y the no$4al p$ocesses of enBui$y into that 0o$ld5acts a.out hu4ans3 0hethe$ thei$ .odies o$ thei$ souls3 co4e unde$ phu C+DC*D; ;

si%e3 natu$al science5 #ut natu$al science is not assu4ed to lead us to deny o$ to$einte$p$et fa4ilia$ facts a.out ou$sel-es3 o$ to t$y to $educe the4 to othe$ %inds of fact5

If physicalis4 is as 0ea% a position as this3 is the$e anythin' distincti-e a.out theHellenistic theo$ies 0hich /ustifies us if 0e see the4 as nea$e$ to 4ode$n physicalis4


8/133

than A$istotle isG So fa$ 0e ha-e 4e$ely 4a$%ed off Platonic dualists f$o4 e-e$y.odyelse and noticed a fe0 p$eSoc$atic $educti-ists5 A$e the$e any 'ene$al diffe$ences of %ind.et0een A$istotle and his successo$s in thei$ studies of the soulG Intuiti-ely it has al0ays.een felt that3 0hethe$ it has .een seen as a 'ood o$ a .ad thin'3 A$istotle9s successo$s a$ephysicalists in so4e st$on'e$ sense than A$istotle is5 #ut if they a$e not $educti-ists3 and

physicalis4 is a 'ene$al3 sha$ed assu4ption3 0he$ein does the diffe$ence lieG

=hile it 0ould .e a 4ista%e to e(a''e$ate the diffe$ences3 the$e a$e so4e 'ene$al pointsthat can .e laid out in an int$oducto$y 0ay5 i$stly3 the$e is a sense in 0hich theHellenistic theo$ies a$e 4o$e scienced$i-en than A$istotle9s is5 This should not .e4isconst$ued as clai4in' that A$istotle9s theo$y is independent of his science5 On thecont$a$y3 it is fi$4ly located in his .iolo'ical 0o$%s5 It is3 ho0e-e$3 pa$t of A$istotle9s o0nscientific 0o$% and outloo%6 it fits 0ith his .iolo'y and 4etaphysics .ecause all of the4in-ol-e applications of his o0n 4etaphysical conceptions3 such as fo$4 and actuality34atte$ and passi-ity3 and so on5 The >e ani4a fits into A$istotle9s o-e$all philosophicalp$o/ect6 it is not cut to fit the science in pa$ticula$5 #y cont$ast3 the$e is in the Hellenistic

pe$iod3 in 0hich the$e ha-e .een 'ene$al scientific and 4edical ad-ances3 a 'ene$allya-aila.le scientific pa$adi'4 fo$ the study of hu4an psycholo'y5 And althou'h Stoic andEpicu$ean accounts of the soul a$e clea$ly intended to fit 0ell 0ith othe$ pa$ts of Stoicand Epicu$ean philosophy3 they a$e also /ust as clea$ly intended to fit the 'ene$alscientific pa$adi'45 This point is 4uch 4o$e i4po$tant fo$ the Stoics than it is fo$Epicu$us3 0ho is 'ene$ally inclined to 'i-e 4o$e 0ei'ht to co44on sense than toscience6 .ut he too feels that he 4ust; K ;

ta%e account to so4e e(tent of the co44only accepted scientific assu4ptions a.outhu4ans5 The Hellenistic pe$iod 0as a 'olden a'e fo$ 4edical3 scientific3 andtechnolo'ical disco-e$ies3 and it 0as a 4o$e selfconsciously :scientific: e$a than thep$ecedin' one6 as in all such e$as3 philosophy tended to .e 4o$e concessi-e to0a$dscience than it had .een5 This is 0hy this .oo% .e'ins 0ith a study of the scientific and4edical .ac%'$ound .efo$e 4o-in' on to the 4a/o$ theo$ies the4sel-es5

Secondly3 A$istotle9s physicalis4 includes the 4etaphysical notion of fo$43 0hich isdiffe$ent in %ind f$o4 the 4atte$ 0hose fo$4 it is5 A$istotle ta%es hi4self to ha-ead-anced on the c$ude thin%in' of the p$eSoc$atics3 0ho t$ied to e(plain the functionin'of li-in' .ein's in te$4s 4e$ely of the physical constituents5 #y cont$ast3 A$istotle thin%sthat he needs to appeal to fo$4 adeBuately to e(plain the idea of function3 0hich isc$ucial fo$ li-in' .ein's5 Thus he c$iticies >e4oc$itus fo$ sayin' that -ision is the4i$$o$in' of the thin' seen .y pa$t of the eye6 if that is all it is3 he says3 0hy do 4i$$o$sand othe$ $eflecti-e su$faces not seeGC**D To e(plain seein' 0e need to appeal not only to0hat the eye is 4ade of .ut to the 0ay the eye functions6 and nothin' sho$t ofA$istotelian fo$43 diffe$ent in %ind f$o4 4atte$3 0ill do this5 The Hellenistic theo$ies all$e/ect this %ind of 4o-e6 they e(plain the functionin' of the eyes3 ea$s3 and so on in te$4sof the physical st$uctu$e of the $ele-ant pa$ts of the .ody and in te$4s of physicalp$ocesses that a$e co44on to the 0o$%in's of diffe$ently functionin' pa$ts5


9/133

It is this 4o$e than anythin' else 0hich has led to thei$ .ein' conside$ed nai-eth$o0.ac%s 0ho had lea$ned nothin' f$o4 A$istotle9s c$iticis4 of >e4oc$itus5 #ut this isp$e4atu$e6 fo$ the Hellenistic theo$ies3 0$on' and nai-e thou'h they appea$ to us3 ha-e4ade '$eat ad-ances o-e$ the p$eA$istotelian theo$ies5 The Hellenistic thin%e$s offe$e(planations not in

C**D; 1 ;

te$4s of 4i$$o$in' .ut in te$4s of hi'hly theo$etical entities3 defined .y sophisticatedtheo$ies 0hich e4.ody $ecent scientific ad-ances5 They a$e thus /ustified in thin%in' thatthei$ theo$ies and e(planations appeal to fa$ '$eate$ co4ple(ity of st$uctu$e than those ofthe p$eSoc$atics did5 And it is .ecause of this that the Hellenistic thin%e$s thin% that theydo not need to appeal to 4etaphysical notions li%e that of A$istotelian fo$45 Thus thei$theo$ies a$e 4etaphysically fa$ 4o$e econo4ical than the A$istotelian %ind6 they appealto an unde$lyin' co4ple(ity of st$uctu$e to e(plain the functionin' of li-in' thin's3 not.ecause they a$e una0a$e of the %ind of appeal to fo$4 that A$istotle 4a%es3 .ut .ecause

they thin% that scientific e(planation 0ill in fact do the /o.5 It is not clea$3 of cou$se3 thatthey a$e $i'ht he$e5 And the conte4po$a$y fo$ce and po0e$ of thei$ theo$ies is -e$y easyfo$ us to 4iss3 .ecause 0e cannot ta%e thei$ theo$etical te$4s 7pneu4atic tension3 ato4sand -oid8 se$iously f$o4 the scientific point of -ie05 Still3 the idea that the co4ple(ity ofthe unde$lyin' st$uctu$e alone 0ill e(plain the functional o$'aniation of li-in' thin's30ithout appeal to p$inciples li%e fo$43 is one that is ta%en -e$y se$iously in 4ode$nphilosophy of 4ind6 e-en if it is 0$on'3 it is ce$tainly not nai-e5 Schola$s a$e often painedand .affled .y the lac% of Hellenistic $eponse to 0hat 0e see as A$istotle9s po0e$fula$'u4ents a.out fo$4 and function5 Often the p$o.le4 is sol-ed .y the assu4ption thatA$istotle9s school t$eatises 0e$e not 'ene$ally a-aila.le until And$onicus9 edition in thefi$st centu$y #5!5 #ut it is /ust as li%ely that these ideas d$e0 no $eaction .ecause they0e$e seen as outdated3 and thus needin' no $esponse5C*FD

inally3 and 4ost st$i%in'ly3 A$istotle9s account of the psuche o$ soul is clea$ly 4a$%ed .yhis focus on findin' 0hat distinC*FD; + ;

'uishes e4psucha 3 li-in' thin's5 o$ A$istotle the soul is the p$inciple of life3 and thisd$i-es 4any of his conce$ns6 he is inte$ested not /ust in the 'ene$al p$inciples offunctional o$'aniation fo$ li-in' thin's3 .ut in aspects of li-in' such as .$eathin' andsleepin'5 His lon' account of pe$ception focuses on the causal 4echanis4s of pe$cei-in'$athe$ than on its pheno4enolo'y o$ content5 The Hellenistic theo$ies3 on the othe$ hand30hile thin%in' of the soul as the p$inciple of life3 do not p$i4a$ily focus on this6 they a$e4o$e inte$ested in 0hat 0e call the 4ind o$ 4ental pheno4ena5 Thei$ accounts ofpe$cei-in'3 thin%in'3 and so on a$e 0ea% 0he$e A$istotle9s a$e st$on'3 na4ely3 in 'i-in'accounts of the diffe$ent 4echanis4s of the senses and othe$ o$'ans and in e(a4inin'thei$ 0o$%in's in .iolo'ical detail5 They a$e3 ho0e-e$3 st$on' 0he$e A$istotle is 0ea%3na4ely3 in 'i-in' an account of the content of 4ental acti-ity and the 0ays in 0hich thisis $elated to ou$ a.ilities to thin%3 to use concepts3 and to en'a'e in lan'ua'e use5


10/133

Althou'h the Hellenistic theo$ies9 inte$est in the 4ental is in so4e 0ays diffe$ent f$o4the %ind of inte$est that 0e tend to find standa$d3 since they a$e uninte$ested in Buestionsof p$i-ile'ed access o$ the %ind of ce$tainty 0hich 4ental e-ents can p$o-ide3 0e shallsee that the 4a/o$ theo$ies focus Buite st$on'ly on the 4ind3 as 0ell as on the p$inciple oflife5 So4eti4es schola$s a$e $eluctant to call A$istotle9s theo$y a theo$y of the 4ind3 since

fo$ hi4 the psuche o$ soul is so clea$ly the p$inciple of life and not to .e identified 0ith0hat 0e thin% of as the 4ind5 =hile the point is te$4inolo'ical3 it is pe$haps 0o$thsayin' that if 0e 0ant to $est$ict the te$4 :philosophy of 4ind: to theo$ies 0hich focusst$on'ly on 0hat 0e thin% of as the 4ind and the 4ental3 then the Hellenistic theo$ies a$ethe fi$st syste4atic philosophies of 4ind5C*2DC*2D; * ;

In 4any 0ays these points .$in' the Hellenistic theo$ies close$ to 4ode$n conce$ns thanA$istotle9s %ind of theo$y is5 #ut I a4 not of cou$se clai4in' that this is the only $easonfo$ ta%in' the4 se$iously5 I hope that this .oo% 0ill con-ince the $eade$ that these

theo$ies a$e philosophically inte$estin' in thei$ o0n $i'ht3 and that they dese$-e 4o$ese$ious study than they ha-e $ecei-ed until $ecently5 I hope that this .oo% 0ill help us toachie-e pictu$es3 $athe$ than ca$icatu$es3 of theo$ies 0hich a$e 0ell 0o$th the effo$t ofdepictin'5

The Hellenistic a'e con-entionally e(tends f$o4 the death of Ale(ande$ the @$eat in 2F2#5!5 to the .attle of Actiu4 in 2 #5!5 Philosophically3 this is an a'e in 0hich theesta.lished schools3 those of Plato and A$istotle3 continue3 .ut in chan'ed o$ $educedfo$43 and 4a/o$ ne0 philosophical 4o-e4ents a$ise5 u$the$3 f$o4 the philosophicalpoint of -ie03 2 #5!5 is not the end of anythin'5 #y the fi$st centu$y #5!5 the 4a/o$ ne0schools had .een esta.lished3 and apa$t f$o4 the $ise of Middle Platonis4 and the$ene0al of sceptical schools the philosophical scene $e4ained essentially unchan'ed untilthe d$a4atic $ise of Neoplatonis45 I shall 'i-e a .$ief and selecti-e account of thephilosophical .ac%'$ound3 focused on unde$standin' ou$ 4ain conce$n3 the philosophy of4ind of the Stoics and Epicu$eans5a8 The School of Plato

Plato died in 2,K #5!5 His o0n 0o$%s continued to .e $ead in the Hellenistic pe$iod3 andhis a$'u4ents a.out the :sepa$ate: natu$e of the soul in the Phaedo 0e$e studied andc$iticied5C*,D #ut his successo$s in the Acade4y3 du$in' the pe$iod 'ene$ally called theOld Acade4y3 see4 to ha-e .een inte$ested in the soul only in the conte(t of a syste4aticand 4athe4atied 4etaphysics5 Thus Speusippus called the soul :the fo$4 of the alle(tended3: and Lenoc$ates called it a :self4o-in' nu4.e$5:C*D >ou.tless 0e 0ouldha-e a .ette$ idea of 0hat theseC*,DC*D

7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8; ** ;


11/133

fo$4ulae 4eant if 0e had fulle$ and 4o$e sy4pathetic accounts of thei$ conte(t5Ho0e-e$3 it is 0o$th notin' that A$istotle3 0ho had access to such a conte(t3 found the:self4o-in' nu4.e$: fo$4ula a.su$d6 he pou$s sco$n on it in the >e ani4a3 0hethe$fai$ly o$ not 0e cannot tell5C*D Lenoc$ates9 successo$s3 Pole4on and !$ates3 see4 toha-e concent$ated on ethics3 and the Acade4y 0as then tu$ned .y its ne(t head3

A$cesilaus3 to a $epudiation of do'4a and a sceptical stance to0a$d the doct$ines of allschools3 especially the Stoics5 The sceptical o$ Ne0 Acade4y continued until the fi$stcentu$y #5!5 6 its 0ea%enin' fo$4 of scepticis4 p$o-o%ed a .$ea%a0ay 4o-e4ent 0hichadopted a 4o$e e(t$e4e scepticis4 and $e-i-ed the le'end of Py$$ho the sceptic3 andafte$ the sac% of Athens in 1K #5!5 the Acade4y as an institution died out5C*KD In the ne(tcentu$y Pluta$ch and othe$s p$oduced 0hat is called Middle Platonis43 a syste4atic set ofdoct$ines .ased on Plato9s dialo'ues5 None of these 4o-e4ents cont$i.uted anythin'positi-e to philosophy of 4ind in this pe$iod5.8 The School of A$istotle

A$istotle9s o0n philosophy of 4ind did not found a st$on' t$adition in his o0n school5

The sto$y 0ill .e told 4o$e fully 7in chapte$ *3 section c83 since it is pa$t of the sto$y ofthe scientific .ac%'$ound to the Hellenistic theo$ies5 A$istotle9s successo$s Theoph$astusand St$ato continued scientific $esea$ch6 .ut the school the$eafte$ concent$ated 4o$e onethics and3 pe$haps .ecause of the dest$uction of its $esea$ch facil

7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8CDC*DC*KD; *F ;

ities in 0a$s3 0as in a fai$ly $undo0n condition du$in' the Hellenistic pe$iod5 The headsof the school afte$ St$ato 0e$e no.odies3 and the "yceu4 finally pete$ed out as aninstitution afte$ the sac% of Athens3 li%e the Acade4y5C*1D The fi$st centu$y #5!5 3ho0e-e$3 sa0 the fi$st schola$ly edition of A$istotle9s school t$eatises3 and the .e'innin'of 0hat has continued e-e$ since3 schola$ly te(t.ased e(e'esis of A$istotle5 Ale(ande$ ofAph$odisias3 a co44entato$ of the second centu$y A5>5 3 is the 4ost nota.le e(ponent ofthis and is often in-alua.le as a sou$ce fo$ the Hellenistic theo$ies 0hich he co4.ats f$o4an A$istotelian point of -ie05

Thus in the pe$iod afte$ A$istotle the philosophies of Plato and of A$istotle 0e$e notnea$ly as do4inant as 0e 4i'ht infe$ f$o4 ou$ o0n -ie0 of thei$ $elati-e i4po$tance5Indeed3 4any of the ne0 schools d$e0 thei$ inspi$ation f$o4 Soc$ates $athe$ than f$o4Plato5 A4on' these 0e$e the !ynics3 0ho $e/ected con-entions3 and the !y$enaics3 0hoheld that ou$ final end is pleasu$e5 The only schools 0hich cont$i.uted to philosophy of4ind3 and 0hich 0e shall loo% at in depth3 0e$e the Stoics and Epicu$eans5c8 The Stoics

Stoicis4 0as founded .y eno of !itiu4 7.5 22,83 0ho ca4e to Athens and tau'ht in theStoa Poi%ile o$ Painted Po$ch5 eno see4s to ha-e laid the foundations of 4ost of Stoictheo$y3 thou'h it is often ha$d to distin'uish his cont$i.utions f$o4 late$ ones5 =hileeno 0as initially influenced .y the uncon-entional !ynics3 he founded a definiti-ely


12/133

philosophical school3 in 0hich pupils 0e$e t$ained to a$'ue3 and he de-eloped asyste4atic theo$y 0ith distincti-ely Stoic lo'ic3 physics3 and ethics5 His pupils A$iston3He$illus3 and !leanthes de-eloped diffe$ent e4phases in Stoicis45 !leanthes 0as theofficial head of the school3 and his successo$ !h$ysippus 7c5 F1FK #5!5 8 0as in effectthe second founde$ of the Stoa5 !h$ysippus

C*1D; *2 ;

had a syste4atic and po0e$ful 4ind and 0$ote -olu4inously6 the$eafte$ :official: Stoic-ie0s 0e$e 'i-en thei$ fo$4 .y hi45 His successo$s3 nota.ly >io'enes of #a.ylon andAntipate$ of Ta$sus3 4ade cont$i.utions of thei$ o0n .ut 0ithin the lines of o$thodo(y5Ho0e-e$3 t0o late$ fi'u$es3 Panaetius 7c5 *1*+ #5!5 8 and Posidonius 7c5 *2#5!5 83 0e$e seen as diffe$in' si'nificantly in thei$ app$oach and a$e often called MiddleStoics5 o$ ou$ pu$poses this 4atte$s only 0ith $e'a$d to Posidonius9 theo$y of thee4otions3 0hich is indeed distinct f$o4 the standa$d Stoic -ie03 and in inte$estin' 0ays5d8 The Epicu$eans

Epicu$us 72,*FK #5!5 8 founded a ne0 school of philosophy in his fa4ous @a$den atAthens and 0as a p$olific 0$ite$ on 4any aspects of his syste4atic philosophy5 =e ha-eso4e of his 4o$e popula$ 0o$%s3 0hich ha-e co4e do0n in the 4anusc$ipts of the late$.io'$aphe$ >io'enes "ae$tius3 and 0e also possess la$'e nu4.e$s of f$a'4ents of schoolt$eatises and lectu$es3 f$o4 the Epicu$ean li.$a$y of papy$us $olls found at He$culaneu45Epicu$us9 school 0as fa4ous3 o$ noto$ious3 in antiBuity fo$ its fidelity to the thou'ht of itsfounde$3 and th$ou'hout the Hellenistic pe$iod 0e find no outstandin'ly o$i'inalEpicu$ean thin%e$s5 =e do ha-e3 ho0e-e$3 t0o sou$ces f$o4 the fi$st centu$y #5!5 0hohelp '$eatly to fill out ou$ %no0led'e of Epicu$ean philosophy of 4ind the Ro4an poet"uc$etius3 0ho 0$ote a si(.oo% poe4 on topics in Epicu$eanis43 and the f$a'4enta$ypapy$us $olls of Philode4us3 an Epicu$ean philosophe$3 f$o4 the He$culaneu4 li.$a$y5

As al$eady 4ade clea$3 the Hellenistic a'e 0as one 0hich 0as a0a$e of '$eat scientificad-ances5 Science .eca4e di-o$ced f$o4 philosophy and de-eloped on its o0n3 c$eatin'a situation 0he$e philosophe$s had to ta%e account of an independent scientific t$adition5 Ishall not he$e 4a%e a 'ene$al; *, ;

su$-ey of Hellenistic science and 4edicine3C*+D .ut in the ne(t chapte$ I 0ill s%etch thescientific and 4edical .ac%'$ound necessa$y fo$ us to 4a%e p$ope$ sense of the Stoic andEpicu$ean theo$ies5 If 0e si4ply .e'in3 fo$ e(a4ple3 0ith the Stoic clai4 that the soul ispneu4a and that pneu4a is :.$eath3: 0e 4ay not only .e .affled .ut conclude3inco$$ectly3 that the theo$y is so4e %ind of philosophe$s9 fantasy5 It 0ould in fact .eintelli'i.le to its fi$st audience as a theo$y 0ith a $especta.le scientific .ac%'$ound6 so itis to this that 0e 4ust fi$st tu$n5C*+D; * ;


13/133

Int$oduction


14/133

PART ONE THE #A!?@ROUN>

PART ONETHE #A!?@ROUN>; *K ;*The Medical and Scientific #ac%'$ounda8 A$istotle

A4on' the '$eatest of A$istotle9s achie-e4ents is the de-elop4ent of an e(tensi-e andi4p$essi-e .iolo'y5 #ut as 0ell as p$oducin' a distincti-e .iolo'ical co$pus of his o0n3A$istotle .e'an the de-elop4ent of 0hat 0as to .e the 4ain concept of the -e$y diffe$ent

.iolo'y and 4edical theo$y of the Hellenistic a'e5 =hat is 4ost st$i%in' a.out Hellenistic4edical theo$y3 .y cont$ast 0ith A$istotle9s 0o$%3 is the p$o4inence it 'i-es to the notionof pneu4a3 0hich o$i'inally 4eans :.$eath5: #ut the sta$t of the spectacula$ $ise ofpneu4a to theo$etical hei'hts in fact can .e found in A$istotle hi4self5

=hy 0ould .$eath .e i4po$tant to a .iolo'ist3 apa$t of cou$se f$o4 the in-esti'ation ofthe p$ocess of .$eathin' itselfG The ans0e$ see4s 4o$e o.-ious if 0e $ecall that fo$A$istotle the soul o$ psuche is p$i4a$ily the p$inciple of life and thus is 0hat 4a%es thediffe$ence .et0een a li-in' and a nonli-in' thin'5 =hat is it that 4a%es a li-in' .ody .eali-eG T$i-ially3 the p$esence of soul5 It is soul 0hich 4a%es the .ody function as a li-in'.ody5 Ho0e-e$3 can 0e say anythin' 4o$e p$ecise than thiscan 0e locate the 0o$%in'sof the soul in any one pa$ticula$ p$ocess 4o$e than any othe$G !onspicuously3 a; *1 ;

co$pse ceases to .$eathe and .eco4es cold6 and f$o4 an ea$ly date .ody heat o$ .$eath o$.oth 0e$e $e'a$ded as candidates fo$ the pa$ticula$ -ehicle of the soul9s functionin'5 It isnot su$p$isin'3 the$efo$e3 that A$istotle inclines to the -ie0 that eithe$ heat o$ .$eath is thei44ediate .odily -ehicle of the soul5 The idea is pe$haps unsophisticated3 .ut o.-iousenou'h5

o$ A$istotle the$e is not 4uch to choose .et0een heat and pneu4a as the soul9si44ediate -ehicle3 and indeed he 4a%es no syste4atic atte4pt to 'i-e pneu4a a specific$ole in psycholo'y5 Thus the$e is no de-eloped :pneu4a theo$y: in the .iolo'ical 0o$%s3and it is easily 4issed5C*D In the 4ain it is heat 0hich A$istotle $e'a$ds as 4ost di$ectlynecessa$y fo$ the p$esence of soul5CFD #ut in a fe0 passa'es3 scatte$ed in the co$pus3A$istotle says un4ista%a.ly that it is pneu4a3 not heat3 0hich is $eBui$ed fo$ the soul9sfunctions of 4o-e4ent3 $ep$oduction3 and sensation5 @i-in' this $ole to pneu4a is not inopposition to 'i-in' it to heat6 fo$ 0e find that the$e can .e :soul heat: in the pneu4a 5C2DHo0e-e$3 heat does not fi'u$e in the 0ay pneu4a p$oduces ani4al 4otion o$ sensation3C,D and the standa$d function of .$eathin' in A$istotle9s psycholo'y is a coolin' one5 So


15/133

0e can infe$ that A$istotle has not thou'ht th$ou'h the $oles of pneu4a and of heat in ala$'e o-e$all theo$y5CDC*DCFDC2DC,DCD; *+ ;

o$ A$istotle3 pneu4a is not a special su.stance6 it is /ust 0a$4 ai$5CD The pneu4ai4po$tant in li-in' thin's diffe$s f$o4 o$dina$y 0a$4 ai$ in .ein' :connate3: su4phuton3a functionin' pa$t of ani4al 4eta.olis43 and as such acBui$es no ne0 o$ su$p$isin'p$ope$ties5CKD Nonetheless3 :connate pneu4a : acBui$es a 4o$e and 4o$e e(tended $ole5In >e 4otu ani4aliu4 * it .$in's a.out 4o-e4ent 0ithout itself .ein' alte$ed6 the$e a$eno const$aints on its pushin' and pullin'3 since it is hea-y $elati-e to 0hat is natu$allyli'ht3 and -ice -e$sa6 it 'i-es ani4als thei$ st$en'th5 It see4s3 in the odd and possi.lyco$$upt passa'es at >e 'ene$atione ani4aliu4 K,,a2 and K1*aF*3 to play a $ole in allsensation5 It also has a c$ucial $ole in $ep$oduction it diffe$entiates the pa$ts in thee4.$yo at K,*.2K2+ and see4s to .e the -ehicle fo$ t$ans4ittin' the soul in the st$an'epassa'e at K2.2K2Ka*3 0he$e the pneu4a is said to contain so4e su.stance i4po$tant

fo$ all soul functionin' and a%in to the :fifth ele4ent: 4a%in' up the sta$s5

So4e ha-e .een te4pted to syste4atie A$istotle9s scatte$ed $e4a$%s into a$econst$uction 4a%in' pneu4a cent$al to his psycholo'y6 .ut this is a 4ista%e3 'i-en thescatte$ed and unsyste4atic natu$e of the e-idence5C1D It 0ould also .e 0$on' to thin%3 asso4e ha-e3 that pneu4a is 4eant to ope$ate in a 0ay 0hich i4po$ts so4ethin' :di-ine:into an othe$0ise .iolo'ical account5 These passa'es to'ethe$ su''est that pneu4a is4o$e than /ust an o$dina$y ite4 in the A$istotelian 0o$ld5 #ut 0e should .e cha$y of4a%in' A$istotelian .iolo'y fla'$antly .$ea% the la0s of A$istotelian physics5C+D It is4o$e plausi.le toCDCKDC1DC+D; F ;

hold that pneu4a is /ust an o$dina$y physical su.stance0a$4 ai$and that A$istotle9s4o$e sta$tlin' clai4s a.out it co4e f$o4 the thou'ht that it 0ill acBui$e ne0 and pe$hapssu$p$isin' p$ope$ties 0hen functionin' in a unified and self4aintainin' li-in' .ein'5C*DA$istotle has no o-e$all cohe$ent -ie0 of the .iolo'ical $ole of pneu4a6 pe$haps he 0ouldha-e de-eloped one if he had li-ed lon'e$5 Ho0e-e$3 0e find in A$istotle an e(a4ple ofthe 0ay pneu4a can lea-e its intuiti-e .ase and .eco4e a theo$etical entity3 indeed one0hich can e(pand to fill the needs of theo$y5

The passa'es a.out pneu4a in A$istotle a$e not inte'$ated into his o0n psycholo'y5 It0as left to the Stoics to de-elop the idea that all the functions of a li-in' thin' can .ee(plained .y the 0o$%in's of a sin'le su.stance ope$atin' in diffe$entiated 0ays3 and toidentify this 0ith pneu4a 5 And it 0as left to the Hellenistic docto$s to connect pneu4a0ith a cent$alied syste4 li%e the hea$t o$ the ne$-es5 #ut A$istotle had ta%en the fi$ststep in 4a%in' pneu4a a theo$etical entity that could .e thou'ht to do 0o$% in .iolo'y5.8 Hellenistic Medical Theo$y


16/133

In the Hellenistic pe$iod the$e 0e$e si'nificant ad-ances in 4edical disco-e$ies3 and4edical theo$ies en/oyed '$eat p$esti'e5C**D Much $esea$ch 0as done in the ne0scientific cente$ of Ale(and$ia3 $athe$ than in esta.lished philosophical cente$s li%eAthens5 As a $esult of these disco-e$ies 0e find e4e$'in' a ne0 scientific pa$adi'4 ofhu4an functionin'3 one 0hich

C*DC**D; F* ;

affected the philosophe$s9 unde$standin' of 0hat they needed to 'i-e an account of5 TheStoics 0e$e 4o$e influenced .y cu$$ent 4edical $esea$ch than the Epicu$eans3 .ut e-enthe latte$ sho0 un4ista%a.le si'ns of a0a$eness of conte4po$a$y 4edicine5 Epicu$us9'ene$al idea of the hu4an soul and ho0 it functions3 and of the app$op$iate 4ethods ofe(plainin' it3 is fa$ close$ to the Stoics9 than to A$istotle9s5C*FD

P$a(a'o$as of !os 7fl5 c5 2 #5!5 8C*2D i4p$o-ed %no0led'e of the -ascula$ syste46 hehad a theo$y of the pulse and distin'uished a$te$ies f$o4 -eins5 Ho0e-e$3 he 4ade the

influential 4ista%e of concludin' that only the -eins contain .lood5 The a$te$ies 70hich ina co$pse 0ould .e found e4pty8C*,D he too% to .e a syste4 of hollo0 channelso$i'inatin' in the hea$t and $a4ifyin' th$ou'h the .ody3 endin' in tiny channels calledneu$a 7a 0o$d at this ti4e co-e$in' .oth tendons and ne$-es85 In a li-in' ani4al thea$te$ial syste43 li%e the -enal syste43 0ould .e pu4pin' so4ethin' out6 uneBuipped 0iththeo$y o$ o.se$-ation 4a%in' it plausi.le that this could .e .lood3 P$a(a'o$as too% it to.e pneu4a 5 =e ha-e seen ho0 .y this ti4e pneu4a could .e thou'ht of as ha-in' ane(panded theo$etical $ole5 This assu4ption 4ade possi.le fu$the$ e(planations thepulsin' of the a$te$ies3 fo$ e(a4ple3 0as ta%en to .e due to .u..les a$isin' in the -einsand ente$in' the a$te$ies th$ou'h the hea$t5C*FDC*2DC*,D; FF ;

P$a(a'o$as9 pictu$e3 ho0e-e$ c$ude and confused3 0as si'nificant in at least t0o 0ays5i$stly3 it is li%e 0hat 0e find in A$istotle in that pneu4a in a li-in' thin' is asc$i.ed4any si'nificant p$ope$ties3 .ut in a 0ay 0hich is enti$ely consistent 0ith physicalis45Pneu4a is not a .ia$$e su.stance 0hich /ust happens to e(ist in natu$e6 it is /ust afa4ilia$ su.stance3 .ut one 0hich is ta%en to e(plain -a$ious functionin's in a li-in'.ein' and 0hich is the$efo$e ta%en to ha-e p$ope$ties 0hich 4a%e it adeBuate fo$ the /o.5C*D

Secondly3 0hat 0e 4i'ht call P$a(a'o$as9 a$te$ialneu$al syste4 7a$te$ies not .ein'clea$ly distin'uished f$o4 ne$-es8 o$i'inates in the hea$t6 0e ha-e a pictu$e3 ho0e-e$e$$oneous3 of a syste4 0hich does so4e of the /o.s of 0hat 0e call the ne$-ous syste43and 0ith a cent$al o$'an di$ectin' it5 The hea$t pu4ps out .lood th$ou'h the -eins tonou$ish the .ody3 and pneu4a th$ou'h the a$te$ies to 4a%e it sensiti-e and $eacti-e5 =eha-e 0hat is lac%in' in A$istotlea cent$alied 4echanis4 0hich e(plains 0hy the .odyis a sensiti-e and $eacti-e 0hole5 And pneu4a plays an i4po$tant $ole in this5C*D


17/133

He$ophilus of !halcedon 7fl5 c5 FK #5!5 8 and E$asist$atus of !eos 7fl5 c5 F #5!5 84ade spectacula$ disco-e$ies a.out the -ascula$ and ne$-ous syste4s5C*KD =o$%in' in thene0 $esea$ch institute at Ale(and$ia unde$ the p$otection of the Ptole4ies3 they 0e$e a.leto i'no$e the hithe$to i4p$e'na.le @$ee% ta.ooC*DC*DC*KD

; F2 ;

a'ainst dissectin' hu4an co$pses5 Ha-in' steeled the4sel-es to -iolate t$adition incuttin' open the dead3 they 0ent on to cut open the li-in'5 !elsus tells us that:He$ophilus and E$asist$atus did 0hat 0as .y fa$ the .est thin' in cuttin' open ali-ec$i4inals they $ecei-ed f$o4 the %in's out of p$isons: to o.se$-e thei$ inte$nal 0o$%in's5C*1D 7Histo$ies of 4edicine a$e 'ene$ally silent a.out the 4o$al c$i4e pe$fo$4ed to 4a%ea scientific disco-e$y58 At d$eadful p$ice3 the ne$-ous syste4 0as disco-e$ed6 E$asist$atusco$$ected P$a(a'o$as9 confused pictu$e .y sho0in' that the ne$-ous syste4 is Buitedistinct f$o4 .oth -enal and a$te$ial syste4s and is cente$ed in the .$ain5 #ut E$asist$atustoo% o-e$ f$o4 P$a(a'o$as his 4ost influential 4ista%e3 na4ely3 the -ie0 that the hea$t

dist$i.utes .lood th$ou'h the -eins to nou$ish the .ody3 and pneu4a th$ou'h the a$te$iesto ene$'ie and sensitie it5C*+D

One can see that the ea$lie$ 4odel see4ed co4pellin'3 e-en in the face of ne0disco-e$ies3 and that theo$etical econo4y 0ould su''est that the ne0ly disco-e$ed .$aincente$ed syste4 should .e e(plained as fa$ as possi.le on the 4odel of the supposedlyunde$stood -ascula$ syste45 On the othe$ hand3 the$e a$e o.-ious e4pi$ical p$o.le4s6.lood flo0s i44ediately f$o4 a cut a$te$y3 fo$ e(a4ple3 and the ad hoc e(planations'i-en fo$ this a$e e(t$e4ely unco4pellin'5CFD Still3 the theo$y had continuin' po0e$30hich could not .e counte$edC*1DC*+DCFD; F, ;

until %no0led'e of the 0hole a$ea 0as funda4entally i4p$o-ed3 fo$ e(a4ple3 .ydisco-e$y of the ci$culation of the .lood5CF*D The theo$y that the a$te$ies contain pneu4ais a classic e(a4ple of a theo$y 0hich su$-i-ed continual e(posu$e to 0hat should ha-e.een a deadly counte$e(a4ple3 until a .ette$ alte$nati-e theo$y 0as a-aila.le5

The idea that the ne$-ous syste4 0o$%s .y so4ethin' li%e hot ai$ sounds so i44ediatelyludic$ous to us that it is 0o$th 4a%in' the point that 0hat counts as an illu4inatin' 4odelfo$ physical o$ psycholo'ical p$ocesses3 $athe$ than as a 4isleadin' o$ co4ic one3 4ay0ell depend on facto$s e(te$nal to the de-elop4ent of science5 Thus in the Victo$ianpe$iod3 0hen $ecent ad-ances in technolo'y 0e$e illust$ated fo$ 4ost people .y the stea4en'ine3 stea4 p$opulsion sounded pe$fectly natu$al as a 4odel fo$ psycholo'ical acti-ity5This sounds peculia$ to us3 .ut that is .ecause to us stea4 p$opulsion is no lon'e$ anad-anced 4odel of technolo'y5 Ou$ cu$$ent 4odels fo$ the 4ind a$e .ased on co4pute$s3and these 0ill dou.tless sound as .ia$$e to ou$ successo$s as the 4odel of stea4p$opulsion does to us5 In the Hellenistic pe$iod the appeal of pneu4a to e(plain hu4anfunctionin's de$i-ed not f$o4 technolo'ical de-elop4ents as such3 .ut f$o4 the p$esti'e


18/133

of ad-ance4ents in e4pi$ical 4edicine3 such as those de$i-in' f$o4 the disco-e$y of thene$-ous syste45

Theo$etical econo4y led to the connection of the ne$-ous syste4 0ith pneu4a6 .ut it ledat once to 0hat see4ed li%e undesi$a.le duplication 0hy do 0e need t0o syste4s to

dist$i.ute pneu4aG E$asist$atus found the o.-ious solution hea$t and .$ain dist$i.utediffe$ent %inds of pneu4a 5 This 4a%es the .est o-e$all sense of the ne0 disco-e$ies0ithout $adical theo$etical depa$tu$es5 Ai$ .$eathed in 'oes to the lun's and thenceCF*D; F ;

to the hea$t3 0hence it is dist$i.uted as -ital 7oti%on 8 pneu4a6 so4e of this 'oes to the.$ain3 0he$e it is t$ansfo$4ed into psychic 7psuchi%on 8 pneu4a 5 The fo$4e$ accountsfo$ lo0e$ functions li%e 4eta.oliin'6 the latte$ fo$ hi'he$3 psycholo'ical functions5CFFDThus pneu4a tu$ns out to .e an e-en 4o$e $esou$ceful theo$etical entity than A$istotlehad en-isioned6 to e(plain diffe$ent types of hu4an functionin' 0e postulate diffe$ent

types of pneu4a 5 This theo$etical fle(i.ility is not yet a 0ea%ness3 .ut it is clea$ thatthe$e a$e fe0 e4pi$ical const$aints on e(planato$y appeal to pneu4a 5 It is a dan'e$ouslyhandy theo$etical tool5

This 0as the .$oad scientific pictu$e of the functionin' of li-in' .ein's that de-elopeddu$in' the Hellenistic a'e and .eca4e a-aila.le to educated co44on sense5 The Stoics3in pa$ticula$3 adopted the idea that pneu4a is a sin'le3 .ut hi'hly diffe$entia.le3 -ehicle0hose 0o$%in's can e(plain a 0ide -a$iety of hu4an functionin'5 They %ept3 ho0e-e$3P$a(a'o$as9 o$i'inal confused pictu$e of one pneu4a syste43 $athe$ than t0o3 located inthe hea$t3 and thus they failed to 4a%e use of the 4ost uptodate and3 0e can see3 4o$eco$$ect theo$y3 0hich 'a-e the .$ain so4ethin' li%e its p$ope$ $ole5 Thei$ $easons fo$ this3as 0e shall see3 0e$e not scientific5 Ho0e-e$3 one of the 4ost i4po$tant featu$es of theStoic theo$y 0as its adoption of the 4odel of a cent$alied syste45 The Stoics a$e in de.tto conte4po$a$y science not /ust in 4a%in' soul pneu4a .ut in 4a%in' its association0ith the .ody ta%e the fo$4 su''ested .y the disco-e$ies of the Hellenistic docto$s it is0hat 4a%es the li-in' .ody function3 .y d$i-in' a cent$alied syste4 that is lin%ed to allpa$ts of the .ody5

It is easy fo$ us to find the Stoic -ie0 of the soul as a hea$tcente$ed pneu4a syste4a.su$d3 .ut if 0e loo% at it in thisCFFD; F ;

0ay3 0e a$e in dan'e$ of 4issin' the point that it d$a0s on the 4ost sophisticatedscientific 4odel a-aila.le5 @i-en Hellenistic 4edical disco-e$ies 7i4pe$fectly unde$stoodas they 0e$e8 and the de-elop4ent of pneu4a as the 4ost adeBuate theo$etical entitya-aila.le to account fo$ diffe$ent hu4an functionin's in a unified 0ay3 the Stoics 0e$ed$a0in' on the .est a-aila.le account of the 4ind6 fo$ althou'h they had 4any 0$on'.eliefs a.out it3 they '$asped the funda4ental idea the soul is located in the 0o$%in's ofa cent$alied syste4 0hich accounts fo$ the .ody9s functionin'5 @i-en a 4o$e co$$ect and


19/133

accepta.le scientific account3 they 0ould ha-e located the soul in the 0o$%in's of thene$-ous syste45c8 A$istotle9s "e'acy

A$istotle left a school de-oted to $esea$ch in an A$istotelian spi$it3 not to the p$ese$-ation

of A$istotelian doct$ines5 Much late$3 in the second centu$y A5>5 3 0e find Ale(ande$ ofAph$odisias de-elopin' a psycholo'y e(plicitly desi'ned to .e faithful to A$istotle6 .uthis i44ediate successo$s in the Hellenistic a'e 'o thei$ o0n 0ays3 and his ideas of thesoul a$e ta%en up une-enly and 0ith no -e$y i4p$essi-e $esults5

#oth Theoph$astus and Meno3 his i44ediate pupils3 did %eep uptodate 0ith theinc$easin' i4po$tance of pneu4a in conte4po$a$y 4edical theo$y5CF2D Indeed Meno inhis histo$y of 4edicine $eads pneu4a $e4o$selessly .ac% into ea$lie$ theo$ies5CF,D =ealso find A$istotle9s o0n a4.i-alence a.out theCF2DCF,D

7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8; FK ;

$oles of heat and pneu4a $ep$oduced in >iocles of !a$ystus3 0ho 0as esta.lished .y=e$ne$ Jae'e$ as a youn'e$ conte4po$a$y of A$istotle5CFD o$ >iocles3 the .ody9s o0nheat cont$i.utes to the fo$4ation of the fou$ hu4o$s6 .ut pneu4a3 0a$4 ai$ 0e .$eathe in3functions e(tensi-ely in the .ody3 .ein' cente$ed in the hea$t and dist$i.uted f$o4 it as:psychic: pneu4a 5CFD It see4s to .e identified 0ith the :soul po0e$: 0hich is said to:ca$$y: the .ody and p$o-ide its a.ility to 4o-e5CFKD >iocles did not distin'uish a$te$iesf$o4 -eins and thou'ht of .oth .lood and pneu4a as dist$i.uted in a sin'le syste4 f$o4the cent$al hea$t5CF1DPneu4a thus ene$'ies the .ody f$o4 a cent$al sou$ce 7in a 0ay$e4iniscent of that desc$i.ed in >e 4otu ani4aliu4 *8 and has ta%en o-e$ sensation andthou'ht5

A dis4al little 0o$% %no0n as On Pneu4a has co4e do0n to us in the A$istotelianco$pus3 thou'h it 0as clea$ly 0$itten in the late$ "yceu43 since the autho$ %no0s ofE$asist$atus9 disco-e$ies5 Assu4in' that 0e ha-e :connate pneu4a3 : it $aises Buestions inan indecisi-e 0ay a.out pneu4a 9s $elation to pe$ception and 4o-e4ent and its locationin the a$te$ies o$ tendons5 On Pneu4a is a dep$essin' 0o$%3 sho0in' clea$ly that4edicine and psycholo'y in the "yceu4 0e$e a0a$e of3 .ut

7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8CDCFDCFDCFKDCF1D; F1 ;

not a.$east of3 the 0o$% in the shiny ne0 $esea$ch cente$ at Ale(and$ia5CF+D

Only St$ato of "a4psacus has a philosophically inte$estin' and de-eloped pneu4a theo$yof the soul3 $e4a$%a.ly si4ila$ to the Stoics95 Unfo$tunately3 0e %no0 of it onlypiece4eal and often th$ou'h Stoicinfluenced sou$ces5C2DPneu4a is3 fo$ St$ato3 eithe$


20/133

identical 0ith the soul o$ its i44ediate -ehicle enli-enin' the .ody5 It is annoyin' that0e do not %no0 his p$ecise position on as funda4ental a point as this6 pe$haps heidentified soul and pneu4a usin' Stoictype a$'u4ents3 o$ pe$haps he $etained anA$istotelian -ie0 of the soul as the .ody9s fo$43 0ith pneu4a as its i44ediate -ehicle5C2*D St$ato see4s to ha-e $etained A$istotle9s -ie0 that the pneu4a $ele-ant to life 0as

:connate: to the .ody5C2FD Ho0e-e$3 his pneu4a plays a la$'e$ $ole than A$istotle9s6 it issp$ead th$ou'hout the .ody .ut has a :$ulin' pa$t: o$ cent$alied o$'an in the head5C22D

St$ato9s 4ost inte$estin' -ie0 a.out the soul 0as that it is st$ictly a unity no pa$t of it is:sepa$a.le3: li%e A$istotle9s sepa$a.le thin%in'3 and thou'ht and pe$ception a$e not4utually independent6 they a$e .oth p$ocesses 7%ineseis 8 of the sa4e %ind3 and3 fu$the$3:pe$cei-in' 0ithout thin%in' is co4pletely i4possi.le3: since e-en if ou$ senses a$e in0o$%in' o$de$ 0e do not ta%e anythin' in unless thin%in' is also p$esent5C2,D St$atosuppo$ts this 0ith the alle'ed fact that if ou$ attention 0ande$s 0hile $eadin'3 0e cease tope$cei-e the lette$s5 P$esu4a.ly3 he is thin%in' of $eadin' aloud3 as 0asCF+DC2DC2*DC2FDC22DC2,D

; F+ ;

standa$d in the ancient 0o$ld3 and the pheno4enon he has in 4ind is that of findin'oneself3 th$ou'h inattention3 $eadin' out so4ethin' 0hich is not in the .oo% .efo$e one5 Itis still cont$o-e$sial ho0 one should desc$i.e this5 St$ato clea$ly $e/ects the -ie0 thatso4ethin' has .eco4e sc$a4.led in one9s thin%in' .et0een the pe$ceptual input andone9s -e$.al output5 He fa-o$s the solution that the pe$ceptual input itself 4ust ha-e .eenfaulty in so4e 0ay5

In a hi'hly inte$estin' passa'e f$o4 Pluta$ch the follo0in'3 0hich 0as to .e an i4po$tantthe4e fo$ the Stoics3 is asc$i.ed to St$ato

Not only ou$ desi$es .ut also ou$ '$iefs3 not only ou$ fea$s and en-ies andSchadenf$euden .ut also ou$ hu$ts and pleasu$es and pains and in 'ene$al all sensationco4es a.out in the soul6C2D it is not in the foot that 0e feel hu$t 0hen 0e stu. it3 no$ inthe head 0hen 0e .an' it3 no$ in the fin'e$ 0hen 0e cut it5 o$ e-e$ythin' else lac%ssensation e(cept the 'o-e$nin' pa$t 7he'e4oni%on 86C2D the .lo0 is Buic%ly $elayed tothis3 and its sensation 0e call pain5 =hen noise sounds in ou$ ea$s 0e suppose it to .eoutside us3 addin' to the sensation the distance f$o4 its o$i'in to the 'o-e$nin' pa$t7he'e4oni%on 85 Si4ila$ly3 0e suppose the hu$t f$o4 a 0ound to .e not 0he$e it hadsensation3 .ut 0he$e it had its o$i'in3 ta%in' the soul to .e d$a0n to0a$d the place 0he$esuffe$in' occu$$ed5 7Ut$u4 ani45 an co$p56 f$a'5 *** =eh$li8

The soul is affected as a 0hole and is $ational as a 0hole6C2KD and its -ehicle is thephysical su.stance pneu4a 5 It all soundsC2DC2DC2KD; 2 ;


21/133

so Stoic that it is a pity that 0e %no0 so little of St$ato on the soul5 =e possesse(tensi-ely only his c$itical $e4a$%s6 Oly4piodo$us in his co44enta$y on Plato9s Phaedop$ese$-es 4any of St$ato9s c$iticis4s of the a$'u4ents fo$ the soul9s i44o$tality5C21D

St$ato3 :the natu$al scientist3: is the only one of A$istotle9s successo$s in the "yceu4 0ho

studied the soul fo$ its o0n sa%e5 A4on' othe$ 4e4.e$s and associates of the "yceu40e find 4e$ely incidental and often f$an%ly 0ei$d -ie0s a.out the soul5 T0oconte4po$a$ies of Theoph$astus3 A$isto(enus and >icaea$chus3 .eca4e noto$ious fo$thei$ clai4 that the soul is a :ha$4ony: o$ attune4ent of the .ody5 A$isto(enus 0as a4usical theo$ist and p$o.a.ly did not 0$ite specifically on the soul3 0hile f$o4>icaea$chus 0e ha-e so4e state4ents .ut no a$'u4ents5C2+D #ut 0e can p$oduce so4eplausi.le .ac%'$ound3 since Pluta$ch tells us that >icaea$chus 0as a constant opponent ofPlato3C,D and it see4s that3 li%e St$ato3 he 0as opposin' the Phaedo 9s a$'u4ents fo$ thesoul9s i44o$tality5

In the Phaedo the theo$y is put fo$0a$d that the soul is an :attune4ent: of .odily ite4s6

Soc$ates sees that denyin' the soul e(istence as a su.stance distinct f$o4 the .odyunde$4ines any .elief in the soul9s i44o$tality3 thus the theo$y is $efuted5 The theo$y isp$opounded .y Pytha'o$eans6 and A$isto(enus and >icaea$chus3 0ho had Pytha'o$eaninte$ests3 su$ely sa0 the4sel-es as p$oducin' a ne0 i4p$o-ed -e$sion of the -ie05A$istotle still finds it necessa$y to $efute at so4e len'th the theo$y that the soul is an:attune4ent5:C,*D Ho0e-e$3 the$e a$e 4any unsol-ed pules he$e5 =e do not %no0 0hyC21DC2+DC,DC,*D; 2* ;

the Phaedo 9s a$'u4ents $etained such fascination fo$ 'ene$ations of "yceu4 schola$s3no$ 0hy that theo$y is associated 0ith Pytha'o$eanis4 0hen it see4s in st$ai'ht conflict0ith the Pytha'o$ean -ie0 that souls outli-e .odies and t$ans4i'$ate .et0een the45"astly3 and 4ost f$ust$atin'ly3 0e do not $eally %no0 0hat the attune4ent theo$y is 5 Inthe Phaedo it shifts a$ound a4on' a -a$iety of positions6 it is ne-e$ clea$ 0hethe$indi-idual souls can sha$e the sa4e attune4ent o$ not5C,FD A$istotle also a$'ues a'ainst anu4.e$ of alte$nati-es5 One 0ould e(pect >icaea$chus .y this point to sho0 so4esophistication and p$ecision in a$'u4ent5 #ut all the indications a$e that he had a 4e$elyc$ude and a''$essi-ely stated -ie0 the$e is no such thin' as the soul3 and ou$ intuiti-edistinction .et0een li-in' and lifeless thin's ans0e$s to nothin' $eal5C,2D Unless ou$sou$ces 4is$ep$esent a 4o$e nuanced -ie03 >icaea$chus 0as 4e$ely t$yin' to attac%Plato .y clai4in' that the soul 0as :nothin' .ut: an attune4ent of ele4ents3 and so noti44o$tal6 0e ha-e no t$ace of a 0ide$ inte$est in the soul5C,,D

=e find a totally diffe$ent attitude in He$acleides of Pontus 7c5 2+2* #5!5 8 and!lea$chus of Soli 7fl5 c5 F #5!5 85C,DC,FDC,2DC,,DC,D; 2F ;

He$acleides .elon'ed as 4uch to the Acade4y as to the "yceu43 and !lea$chus ad4i$edPlato and 0$ote an enco4iu4 on hi45C,D #oth of the4 0e$e inte$ested in


22/133

pa$apsycholo'y and outofthe.ody e(pe$iences5 !lea$chus told the sto$y of !leony4us30ho afte$ .ein' laid out fo$ dead $eco-e$ed afte$ th$ee days 0ith sto$ies of the #eyond3late$ $eco'niin' on ea$th so4eone he had 4et The$e5C,KD Acco$din' to P$oclus3!lea$chus con-inced A$istotle that the soul is :sepa$ate: f$o4 the .ody and can ente$ andlea-e it .y 'ettin' hi4 to .e p$esent at a sQance 0hen a .oy9s soul 0as :d$a0n out of

hi4: 0ith a 0and3 lea-in' hi4 i4pe$-ious to pain3 and then :put .ac%5:C,1D He$acleides0$ote popula$ 0o$%s in 0hich si4ila$ sto$ies fi'u$e5 It all sounds -e$y Ed0a$dian5C,+D

#ecause of these sto$ies3 and thei$ association 0ith Platonic3 as 0ell as A$istotelian3thin%in'3 .oth !lea$chus and He$acleides ha-e .een $e'a$ded as 4a-e$ic% dualists in aphysicalist a'e5 #ut 0hile 0e a$e -e$y ill info$4ed a.out !lea$chus3 He$acleides 0as nodualist6 he $e'a$ded the soul as co4posed of a physical su.stance3 li'ht5CD No$ do 0eneed to suppose that eithe$ 0as a dualist6 they sho0 no inte$est in dualist a$'u4ents3 andthei$ conce$ns do not de4and it5 E-e$y a'e 0hich3 li%e the Hellenistic and Victo$ian a'es3sees '$eat ad-ances in science and technolo'y and in 0hich science has p$esti'e 0ill tendto ha-e its ca4p follo0in' of pseudoscience5 =hen the 4ind and soul a$e discussed in

te$4s ta%en f$o4 science and 4edicine3 the $eaction ta%es the fo$4 of pa$apsycholo'y0ith 4essa'es f$o4 the #eyond3 'a44a $ays3 and so on5 In a scientific a'e ideas 0hicha$e $eally i4a'inati-e and spi$itual 4ay e4e$'e in a pseudoscientific fo$4 0hichC,DC,KDC,1DC,+DCD; 22 ;

$ende$s the4 ludic$ous $athe$ than p$ofound5 =e do .est to see !lea$chus andHe$acleides as inte$ested in the spi$itual aspect of the soul3 $athe$ than as cont$i.uto$s tophilosophy of 4ind5 It is unfo$tunate that they li-ed in an a'e in 0hich thei$ ideas had to.e e(p$essed in unsuita.le fo$4s5

$o4 late$ 'ene$ations in the "yceu4 0e 'et nothin' .ut fitful spu$ts of info$4ation5A$iston of !eos $e-i-ed 7pe$haps a'ainst the StoicsG8 a sha$p distinction .et0een the$ational and non$ational soul5C*D !$itolaus identified the soul 0ith aethe$3 the fifthele4ent5CFD #ut 0e ha-e no idea 0hat these isolated .its of doct$ine 4eant in thei$conte(ts5 The "yceu4 ne-e$ had an o$thodo( :line: on the soul3 and3 apa$t f$o4 St$ato3A$istotle9s follo0e$s did not p$oduce any o$i'inal o$ st$i%in' ideas a.out it5 Thei$ inte$estslay else0he$e3 and the initiati-e 'i-en to philosophy of 4ind .y A$istotle9s >e ani4apassed f$o4 his o0n school to the ne0 schools of the Hellenistic pe$iod5C*DCFD; 2 ;

PART ONE THE #A!?@ROUN>


23/133

PART T=O THE STOI!S

PART T=OTHE STOI!S; 2K ;FThe Soul and the Minda8 Physicalis4

The Stoics a$e un4ista%a.ly physicalists6 they clai4 that soul is .ody3 a physical thin'3and .y a physical thin' they unco4p$o4isin'ly 4ean a th$eedi4ensional solid o./ect5C*DSoul is pneu4a3 0hich3 as 0e ha-e seen3 .y this date is not 4e$ely co44onsensical

.$eath3 .ut a theo$etically 4o$e po0e$ful entity5 The Stoics 4ade e(tensi-e use ofpneu4a in thei$ 'ene$al physics6CFD in identifyin' soul 0ith pneu4a they 0e$econfo$4in'3 as 0e ha-e seen3 to the 'ene$al shift in scientificC*DCFD; 21 ;

pa$adi'4 on this topic since A$istotle5 =e shall $etu$n to the Buestion of 0hatidentification 0ith pneu4a co4es to6 fo$ the 4o4ent 0e shall concent$ate on Stoic'$ounds fo$ identifyin' soul 0ith a physical ite4 in the fi$st place5

One 4i'ht thin% that in p$inciple the Stoics do not need to a$'ue fo$ physicalis4 a.outthe soul3 fo$ they thin% that e-e$ythin' that e(ists is physical any0ay5 Ho0e-e$3 this doesnot in fact settle the 4atte$6 fo$ 0hile they do hold that e-e$ythin' that e(ists is physical3they hold that the$e a$e thin's 0hich do not e(ist5 Thei$ hi'hest 'enus is the ti o$:so4ethin'3: 0hich co-e$s not only thin's that e(ist3 the physical thin's3 .ut also thin'sthat :su.sist3: 0hich a$e not physical5 These a$e ti4e3 place3 the -oid3 and le%ta3 ite4s to0hich 0e shall $etu$n .ecause they play an i4po$tant $ole in the Stoic account of 4entalacti-ity5 The 'ene$al physicalis4 of the Stoics the$efo$e does not settle the 4atte$5 In anycase3 0e 0ould e(pect the Stoics to offe$ so4e a$'u4ents di$ected to the physicality ofthe soul in pa$ticula$3 since they clai4 that thei$ theo$ies a$e suppo$ted .y ou$ :co44onconceptions3: o$ the consensus of ou$ intuitions5 So3 0hen they 4a%e a clai4 0hich on itso0n is counte$intuiti-e3 as they f$eBuently do3 0e e(pect to find so4e effo$t on thei$ pa$tto sho0 that the clai4 in Buestion cohe$es 0ith o$ is suppo$ted .y a $easona.le nu4.e$ ofou$ othe$ intuitions5C2D And3 /ud'in' f$o4 the nu4.e$ of a$'u4ents that 0e find fo$ thephysicality of the soul3 the clai4 that soul is .ody 0as thou'ht to need suppo$t3 'i-en the0ay that it $uns up a'ainst so4e at least of ou$ intuitions5

=e ha-e a nu4.e$ of ancient Stoic a$'u4ents on this point6C,D 4ost of the4 tu$n out to.e p$o.le4atic3 .ut one at least 'i-esC2DC,D


24/133

; 2+ ;

us so4e insi'ht into the Stoics9 4oti-ation3 and the othe$s can .e unde$stood in the li'htof it5 >io'enes "ae$tius $epo$ts that acco$din' to the Stoics :the soul is a Cnatu$eD 0hichcan pe$cei-e5 This is the pneu4a connate to us6 the$efo$e it is a .ody5:CD This3 of cou$se3

only sho0s the soul to .e .ody if pneu4a is .ody6 and this 0ould .e con-incin' to aStoic3 0ho al$eady accepted this3 .ut 0ould not see4 to ha-e 4uch i4pact onunco44itted co44on sense5 An o.-ious $eto$t 0ould .e that if the soul $eally ispneu4a3 then pneu4a cannot .e a physical entity5

Te$tullian $epo$ts an a$'u4ent of eno9s

*5 =hat lea-es the ani4al 0hen it dies is .ody5F5 The ani4al dies 0hen connate pneu4a lea-es it5 The$efo$e3 f$o4 7*8 and 7F8325 !onnate pneu4a is .ody5,5 Soul is connate pneu4a 5 The$efo$e3 f$o4 728 and 7,83

5 Soul is .ody5CD

:!onnate: he$e 4eans only that the pneu4a is so4ethin' 0e a$e .o$n 0ith3 pa$t of ou$physical natu$e as hu4an .ein's5 This a$'u4ent see4s not only to sha$e the fault of thep$e-ious one .ut to au'4ent it6 no one inclined to $e/ect the conclusion 0ould accept thefi$st p$e4ise3 and the a$'u4ent see4s doo4ed to con-ince only the con-e$ted5 P$o.a.ly0e should ta%e se$iously the su''estion that 4any of eno9s :a$'u4ents: 0e$e ne-e$4eant to .e 0ays of con-incin' nonStoics3 .ut played the diffe$ent $ole of encapsulatin'Stoic .eliefs in 4e4o$a.le and st$i%in' fo$45 On this -ie03 they played a peda'o'ical$ole6 they cla$ified the Stoic position and 4ade it easie$ to lea$n3 .ut a$e not to .econside$ed as :a$'u4ents fo$ physicalis4: in any o$dina$y sense5CKDCDCDCKD

7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8; , ;

!leanthes offe$s an inte$estin' .ut .afflin' a$'u4ent

*5 !hild$en a$e li%e thei$ pa$ents not only in .ody .ut also in soul 7i5e53 they $ese4.lethe4 in cha$acte$3 not /ust in loo%s85F5 "i%eness and unli%eness a$e p$ope$ties of .ody3 not of non.odily thin's5 The$efo$e25 The soul is .ody5C1D

Once a'ain 0e ha-e a p$o.le4 o-e$ the accepta.ility of one of the p$e4ises3 in this case37F85 =hy 0ould anyone not al$eady con-inced of the t$uth of physicalis4 accept thisG If!leanthes had any a$'u4ents fo$ 7F83 0e do not %no0 of the45C+D

The sa4e p$o.le4 afflicts an a$'u4ent of !h$ysippus9

*5 >eath is the sepa$ation of soul f$o4 .ody5


25/133

F5 Nothin' non.odily is sepa$ated f$o4 .ody3 fo$ nothin' non.odily touches .ody525 The soul .oth touches and is sepa$ated f$o4 .ody5 The$efo$e,5 The soul is .ody5C*D

He$e the fi$st p$e4ise is /ust p$etheo$etical co44on sense6 .ut the second i4po$ts a

definition of sepa$ation as the opposite of :touchin'5:C**D E-en if 0e allo0 !h$ysippusthat only .odies can touch3C*FD 0e do not ha-e to '$ant that only thin's

7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8CDC1DC+DC*DC**DC*FD

7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8; ,* ;

0hich touch can .e sepa$ated5 Ale(ande$ si4ply denies the a$'u4ent6 the$e a$e pe$fectly'ood uses of :sepa$ate3: he clai4s3 in 0hich thin's a$e sepa$ated 0hich a$e not .odies3

and do not touch one anothe$5C*2D

Althou'h this a$'u4ent is sca$cely satisfacto$y3 it does point to so4ethin' i4po$tant theStoics a$e p$essin' the point that it is ha$d to 4a%e sense of the inte$action of physicalthin's 0ith nonphysical thin's5 Touch is a %ind of inte$action6 the Stoics9 4ost successfula$'u4ent3 to 0hich 0e no0 tu$n3 can .e seen as a 4o$e 'ene$al -e$sion of this point5

Anothe$ of !leanthes9 a$'u4ents is3 .y cont$ast 0ith all the othe$s3 co'ent and inte$estin'7unfo$tunately3 0e do not %no0 .y co4pa$ison 0ith the othe$s ho0 p$o4inent it 0as fo$the Stoics8

*5 Nothin' non.odily suffe$s to'ethe$ 0ith 7su4paschei3 is affected to'ethe$ 0ith8 .ody3no$ .ody 0ith the non.odily6 only .ody 0ith .ody5F5 #ut the soul suffe$s 0ith the .ody 7e5'53 0hen it is ill o$ cut8 and also the .ody 0ith thesoul 70hen 0e a$e asha4ed the .ody 'oes $ed3 pale 0hen af$aid3 and so on85The$efo$e25 The soul is .ody5C*,D

This can .e $eadily si4plified to the follo0in'

*5 Only .odies inte$act5F5 Soul and .ody inte$act5The$efo$e25 Soul is .ody5

If any co44onsense .elief is 0ell ent$enched3 it is that soul and .ody inte$act5E4.a$$ass4ent leads to .lushin'3 a cut

7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8CDC*2DC*,D


26/133

; ,F ;

leads to pain5 On its o0n this is not decisi-e suppo$t fo$ any theo$y of the soul6 fo$ it is asco4pati.le 0ith dualis4 as 0ith any fo$4 of physicalis4 soul and .ody 4i'ht .ediffe$ent %inds of thin' and inte$act in a sui 'ene$is 0ay5 The Stoics3 ho0e-e$3 hold

anothe$ .elief 0hich unde$pins this a$'u4ent5 They thin% that the inte$action of soul and.ody 4ust .e st$ai'htfo$0a$d causal inte$action5 And 0hate-e$ analysis of causation 0e'i-e3 it 4ust su$ely .e unifo$4 fo$ souls and .odies5 It 0ould .e unaccepta.ly ad hoc toha-e one %ind of causation fo$ .odies and anothe$ fo$ souls6 it 0ould a4ount in effect toacceptin' that soul.ody inte$action 0as /ust a 4yste$y5 @i-en this .ac%'$ound .eliefa.out causation3 the a$'u4ent is st$ai'htfo$0a$d5 =hate-e$ the appea$ances3 souls3 0hichinte$act 0ith .odies3 4ust the4sel-es .e .odies3 fo$ only .odies can causally act and .eacted upon5C*D

A$istotle points to inte$action of soul and .ody .ut concludes not that soul is .ody3 .utthat it is the .ody9s non.odily fo$45C*D The Stoics do not ente$tain this possi.ility

se$iously6 and they do so not .ecause they a$e do'4atically co44itted to physicalis43.ut .ecause they ta%e soul.ody inte$action se$iously and a$e also thin%in' of inte$actionas causal inte$action5 =he$eas A$istotle associates cause 7aitia 8 0ith e(planation and3 asis 0ell %no0n3 clai4s that the$e a$e fou$ i$$educi.ly diffe$ent %inds of e(planation3 onlyone of 0hich 0e thin% of as causal e(planation3 the Stoics 7and indeed postA$istotelianphilosophe$s 4o$e 'ene$ally8 thin% that the co$e notion of a cause is 0hat 4o-esso4ethin' o$ 'ets so4ethin' donea conception o.-iously 4uch close$ to the 4ode$none5C*KD Thus the Stoics a$e a.le to 4o-e di$ectly and econo4C*DC*DC*KD; ,2 ;

ically f$o4 co44on sense3 and thei$ -ie0s on causation3 to thei$ conclusion a.out thephysical natu$e of the soul5

All of these a$'u4ents ha-e t0o i4po$tant featu$es5 One is that they a$e a p$io$i3 li%e4ost 4ode$n a$'u4ents fo$ physicalis45C*1D They do not $ely on the esta.lished successof any science6 they e4e$'e f$o4 $eflection on the -ie0 of the soul a-aila.le to co44onsense3 to'ethe$ 0ith conside$ations a.out causality5 Thou'h si4ple3 they a$e po0e$fuland ha$d to $efute5 Secondly3 they a$e not $educti-e5 Soul is a %ind of .ody3 .ut nothin'follo0s /ust f$o4 this as to ou$ 'i-in' up o$ 4odifyin' any of ou$ othe$ .eliefs a.out thesoul5 Ou$ co44onsense -ie0 of ou$ inne$ life has not yet .een affected in any 0ay5.8 Soul in the =o$ld

Stoic physics is st$i%in'ly un4ode$n in that thei$ natu$al 0o$ld is ali-e6 fo$ the Stoicscos4olo'y is cos4o.iolo'y5 :!h$ysippus in the fi$st .oo% of his P$o-idence3Apollodo$us in his Physics3 and Posidonius say that the 0o$ld is a li-in' .ein'3 $ational3ani4ate3 and intelli'ent5:C*+D Thus ou$ souls a$e not the only thin's in the uni-e$se thatcan .e called soul3 fo$ :soul penet$ates th$ou'h the 0hole uni-e$se3 and 0e .y sha$in' init as a pa$t a$e ensouled5:CFD The $easonin' .ehind this is si4ply an e4ploy4ent of 0hat


27/133

0as late$ to .e called the p$inciple that the cause is '$eate$ than the effect 0e cannotunde$stand ho0C*1DC*+DCFD; ,, ;

$ational li-in' thin's can .e p$oduced in a uni-e$se the 4ate$ials of 0hich lac% thesep$ope$ties to any de'$ee5CF*D

This 4i'ht see4 to cast a diffe$ent li'ht on the conclusions of the last section5 Soul is aphysical .ody3 and so it is pa$t of the natu$al 0o$ld5 #ut the natu$al 0o$ld tu$ns out itselfto .e so4ethin' 0hich is ali-e5 So nothin' see4s to ha-e .een achie-ed .y the p$e-iousa$'u4ents6 0e see4 indeed to ha-e 'one $ound in a dep$essin'ly s4all ci$cle5

In fact no $eal 4ethodolo'ical diffe$ence is 4ade to Stoic philosophy of 4ind .y thethesis that the natu$al 0o$ld is itself a %ind of li-in' thin'5 It is t$ue that that thesis$e4o-es 4ost of the 4oti-ation fo$ $educti-is45 The Stoics a$e not in the position of

4ode$n theo$ists 0ho clai4 that all 4ental e-ents a$e physical e-ents and the$e.y $educethe natu$e of the 4ental to that of the physical3 $e4o-in' the notion of the 4ental f$o4ou$ e-e$yday pictu$e of the 0o$ld5 Rathe$3 they place the hu4an soul in a scientific and4etaphysical pictu$e of the uni-e$se in 0hich the$e is continuity .et0een hu4ans and the$est of natu$e5 =e a$e not ensouled .ein's in an othe$0ise soulless uni-e$se6 the natu$e ofthe soul and 4ind3 that is3 is not /ust in itself p$o.le4atic fo$ the Stoic 0o$ld-ie05 Apa$tf$o4 this3 ho0e-e$3 the la$'e$ pictu$e of the cos4os as a li-in' thin' has st$i%in'ly littleeffect on the 0ay that the Stoics e(plain the natu$e of the hu4an soul5 The hu4an soul isnot diffe$ent in %ind f$o4 the 0o$ld soul in that .oth a$e pneu4a6 .ut 0e shall see3 in ou$account of the functionin' of the hu4an soul3 that the hu4an soul is -e$y specific in anu4.e$ of 0ays 0hich do not ca$$y o-e$ to the 0o$ld soul5CFFD

u$the$3 0hile the Stoics p$ided the4sel-es on the 'ene$al and holistic cha$acte$ of thei$philosophical theo$y3 it is also t$ue that -a$ious pa$ts of it a$e de-eloped in co4pa$ati-einCF*DCFFD; , ;

dependence f$o4 one anothe$5 The detail of Stoic lo'ic o$ ethics3 fo$ e(a4ple3 cannot .ede$i-ed f$o4 'ene$al Stoic 4etaphysical p$inciples5 Si4ila$ly 0ith philosophy of 4ind6althou'h it is e4.edded in a 'ene$al account of the uni-e$se3 none of its cent$al definin'theses a$e de$i-a.le f$o4 7o$ e-en uniBuely app$op$iate to8 the 'ene$al p$inciples5

The 0o$ld soul is3 ho0e-e$3 $ele-ant to one Buestion a.out the hu4an soul5 Soul is .ody3.ut 0hat %ind of .odyG $o4 !h$ysippus on0a$d the e-idence is o-e$0hel4in' that thesoul is pneu4a3 and the$e is so4e e-idence that this 0as also the -ie0 of eno and theea$ly Stoics5CF2D #ut the$e is a 4ino$ st$ea4 of e-idence that fo$ the ea$ly Stoics the soul0as fi$e3 na4ely3 hot 4atte$5CF,D Of cou$se these -ie0s can .e $econciled6 pneu4a iso$i'inally /ust 0a$4 ai$3 and sayin' that soul is fi$e o$ heat 4ay 4e$ely .e a c$ude 0ay ofsayin' that pneu4a functions .y 0ay of the heat in it5CFD #ut the split in the e-idence


28/133


29/133

In Stoic physics3 the$e a$e th$ee 0ays in 0hich stuffs can .e $elated5C2*D One is/u(taposition3 of 0hich an e(a4ple is a 4i(tu$e of .eans and '$ains of 0heat5 Ho0e-e$p$actically i4possi.le it 4i'ht .e to so$t out the diffe$ent %inds 7co4pa$e the he$oine9stas% in fai$y tales83 they do not .lend6 the stuffs $etain thei$ o0n p$ope$ties .ecause theydo not fo$4 a ne0 stuff5 Anothe$ is fusion3 as in coo%in'5 The e''s3 flou$3 and othe$

in'$edients fo$4 a ne0 stuff 0ith ne0 p$ope$ties6 they do not $etain thei$ o0n p$ope$tiesand a$e not $eco-e$a.le f$o4 the ne0 stuff5 The thi$d is total .lendin'5 T0o stuffs a$e.lended th$ou'h and th$ou'h so that the$e is no pa$t of the .lended 4i(tu$e 0hich doesnot consist of .oth6 yet each ofCF1DCF+DC2DC2*D; ,1 ;

the o$i'inal stuffs $etains its o0n p$ope$ties and is in p$inciple $eco-e$a.le f$o4 the.lendin'5C2FD E(a4ples apa$t f$o4 the soul.ody $elation a$e heat and i$on :.lendin': top$oduce hot i$on3 and 0ate$ and 0ine .lendin' to fo$4 0ate$y 0ine5

The theo$y is o.-iously desi'ned to co$$ect A$istotle3 0ho denies that t0o stuffs can fo$4a ne0 stuff 0ithout losin' thei$ o$i'inal p$ope$ties3 clai4in' that one cannot .lend a d$opof 0ine 0ith a la$'e a4ount of 0ate$3 fo$ the 0ine 0ill lose its o0n p$ope$ties5C22D!h$ysippus clai4s in o.-ious opposition that a d$op of 0ine can .lend 0ith the 0holeocean5C2,D This noto$ious e(a4ple .$in's to the fo$e the point that the Stoic theo$y oftotal .lendin' appea$s pa$ado(ical 0hen applied to -e$y uneBual Buantities5 If a d$op of0ine totally .lends 0ith the ocean3 then the$e is no pa$t of the 0ineandocean that is notconstituted of 0ine and of ocean3 each $etainin' its o0n p$ope$ties and in p$inciple$eco-e$a.le5 #ut this 4eans that the d$op of 0ine 0ill ha-e to pe$-ade the enti$e ocean5Then3 ho0e-e$3 the 0ine and the ocean 0ill ha-e to occupy the sa4e space as each othe$and as the 0ineandocean .lend6 and ho0 can this .e 0hen they ha-e -e$y uneBualBuantitiesG

The Stoics add to thei$ p$o.le4s he$e .y 4a%in' the e(t$ao$dina$y clai4 that this theo$ycan .e esta.lished f$o4 ou$ intuitions a.out 4i(tu$es5C2D Ancient opponents3 0ho attac%the theo$y on 4any f$onts3 ce$tainly sho0 that this is 0$on' and e-en pe$haps that thetheo$y is un intuiti-e5 #ut it is not in fact pa$ado(ical5 #ecause the Stoics ha-e acontinuu4 theo$y of 4atte$3 they do not ha-e a p$o.le4 0ith di-idin' s4all Buantities6the$e is a su.di-ision of the d$op of 0ine fo$ e-e$y su.C2FDC22DC2,DC2D; ,+ ;

di-ision of the ocean5 u$the$3 pa$ado( is $e4o-ed if 0e distin'uish3 as a $ecent schola$does3C2D .et0een Buantity as -olu4e3 the a4ount of space occupied3 and Buantity as4ass3 0hich $e4ains in-a$iant th$ou'h chan'es in -olu4e5 Thus a s4all 4ass of 0ine30hen .lended 0ith the ocean3 0ill ta%e up a 4uch la$'e$ -olu4e3 na4ely3 the -olu4eoccupied .y 0ineandocean5 #ut since 4ass is distinct f$o4 -olu4e3 the$e is no p$o.le40ith the s4all Buantity 74ass8 of the 0ine and the la$'e Buantity 7-olu4e8 of the 0ineandocean5


30/133

Total .lendin' is found in 4any types of case5 Is the soul.ody $elation $easona.ly to .ethou'ht of as a case of itG Is it3 fu$the$3 an intuiti-ely fo$ceful :0itness:a st$i%in'ly'ood caseof this $elationshipG If 0e $e4e4.e$ that intuiti-ely the soul is 0hat 4a%es ali-in' thin' .e ali-e in the 0ay app$op$iate to that %ind of thin'3 then ce$tainly thisp$esupposes that the ite4 in Buestion has no pa$t 0hich is /ust soul o$ /ust .ody5 So it

see4s that .ody and soul cannot .e si4ply /u(taposed5C2KD #ut could not soul and .ody.e fusedG =hy should 0e p$efe$ total .lendin' as an e(planationG The point of insistin'on total .lendin' $athe$ than fusion in othe$ cases is to acco44odate the clai4 that thet0o ite4s $etain thei$ actual p$ope$ties5 #ut 0e ha-e no idea of 0hat the distinctp$ope$ties of soul a$e6 0e encounte$ ensouled .odies and soulless .odies 7afte$ death8 .utne-e$ souls othe$ than in an e4.odied state5 So 0e ha-e no e4pi$ical $eason to de4andan analo'ue3C2DC2KD; ;

in the case of soul and .ody3 fo$ cases li%e 0ine and 0ate$3 0he$e the actual distinct

p$ope$ties a$e clea$5C21D Total .lendin' acco44odates the point that .ody and soul ha-ethe sa4e $elation th$ou'hout the e(tent of the ensouled .ody3 0hile .ein' unli%e inBuantity 7it .ein' assu4ed that soul is a fine$ %ind of .ody than .ody85 #ut fusion 0ouldcope 0ith this point /ust as 0ell5 At 4ost3 the$efo$e3 the Stoics can say that thei$ accountis co4pati.le 0ith co44on sense and :fol% psycholo'y:6 it is ha$dly esta.lished .y it5

In any case the intuiti-e le-el of tal%in' a.out soul and .ody is not .asic5 o$ soul ispneu4a6 and pneu4a functions e-e$y0he$e in the 0o$ld3 .ut not in the sa4e 0ay6 $athe$it 0o$%s at diffe$ent le-els of :tension5: To unde$stand ho0 the soul 0o$%s 0e 4ust loo%fu$the$ at these le-els57d8 The Scale of #ein's

In the 0o$ld a$ound us 0e see ite4s that a$e nothin' 4o$e than collections of othe$sepa$a.le thin's3 such as a$4ies3 floc%s3 cho$uses6 they a$e not unified sin'le ite4s5Ships3 houses3 and the li%e3 0hose pa$ts ha-e .een put to'ethe$ in a 0ay to stop the4sepa$atin'3 a$e .ette$ e(a4ples of unified ite4s3 .ut they a$e still clea$ly co4posite6 0eha-e one ite4 only .ecause diffe$ent ite4s ha-e .een put to'ethe$ in a 4o$eo$lesste4po$a$y 0ay5 #ut the$e is an o.-ious diffe$ence .et0een all of these and thin's that a$e:unified: 7heno4ena 8 o$ :'$o0n to'ethe$: 7su4phue 83 .ecause they ha-e an inte$nalp$inciple of unity 4a%in' the4 into sin'le ite4s5C2+D This is $ou'hly the distinction0hich A$istotle 4a$%s as holdin' .et0een thin's 0hich do not3 and thin's 0hich do3 ha-ea natu$e5 In Stoic philosophy these a$e thin's 0hich a$e held to'ethe$C21DC2+D; * ;

.y pneu4a 5 They fo$4 a hie$a$chy as the pneu4a has diffe$ent de'$ees of tension3 0hich$esult in e-e$ 4o$e unified functionin'5 The$e is a scala natu$ae o$ scale of thin's f$o4the less to the 4o$eunified in functionin'3 f$o4 floc%s of sheep at the .otto4 to li-in'thin's at the top5C,D


31/133

The lo0est fo$4 of unified functionin' is he(is 7state83 found in thin's li%e stones 0hichdo no 4o$e than cohe$e6 in the43 unity of functionin' co4es to no 4o$e than holdin'to'ethe$5 Plants3 0hich '$o0 and $ep$oduce3 a$e held to'ethe$ and 4ade cohesi-e in thei$functionin' .y phusis o$ natu$e5 Ani4als3 0hich pe$cei-e and act3 cohe$e as they do.ecause of psuche 3 soul3 and $ational ani4als 7hu4ans and 'ods8 .ecause of nous 3

intelli'ence5 It is o.-ious that 0hat inc$eases in de'$ee of unification is not the thin'itself .ut its functionin'5 Thus inc$ease in tension of the pneu4a is associated not 0ith'$eate$ physical cohesi-eness and sta.ility3 .ut 0ith inc$ease in the di-e$sity andfle(i.ility of .eha-io$ and $esponse3 fo$ inc$ease in these $espects de4ands a '$eate$de'$ee of unification as a functionin' .ein'5 Ani4als3 fo$ e(a4ple3 '$o0 and $ep$oduce3li%e plants3 .ut they do these thin's in 4o$e co4ple( and fle(i.le 0ays3 pe$cei-in' and$eactin' to the 0o$ld in 0ays not a-aila.le to plants5C,*D Rational ani4als do all thesethin's3 .ut in 0ays that they a$e a0a$e of and can a$ticulate in lan'ua'e6 and .ecausethey can a$ticulate to the4sel-es 0hat they a$e doin'3 they a$e a0a$e of alte$nati-es in0ays that ani4als a$e not3 and can choose .et0een those alte$nati-es5 This st$i%in'inc$ease in co4ple(ity and fle(i.ility is possi.le .ecause $ational .ein's a$e in tu$n 4o$e

unified as functionin' .ein'sC,DC,*D; F ;

than ani4als a$e5 It is 0ith $ational .ein's that 0e find the notion of a unified self3so4ethin' p$o4inent and c$ucial in Stoic philosophy of 4ind5

The Stoic hie$a$chy $ecalls A$istotle9s hie$a$chy of %inds of soul6 as in A$istotle3 hi'he$le-els affect and can t$ansfo$4 the 0o$%in's of the lo0e$5C,FD The fetus in the 0o4.3 inHie$ocles9 e(tensi-e account3 has only phusis 3 natu$eC,2D it is 0hat 0e 0ould call ahu4an -e'eta.le5 Only at .i$th does it acBui$e soul3 and .eco4e not only ali-e .ut ali-ein the 0ay app$op$iate to a hu4an .ein'5 Its no0 .ein' a.le to pe$cei-e and $eactt$ansfo$4s its life into the life of so4ethin' 0hich is 4o$e than a plant5

The hie$a$chy is f$eBuently cha$acte$ied in te$4s of the diffe$ent %inds of 4o-e4entapp$op$iate to each le-el3 in a 0ay 0hich focuses ou$ attention on 0hat I ha-e calledco4ple(ity and fle(i.ility5 This co4es out 4ost e(plicitly in a passa'e of O$i'en

Of 4o-in' thin's3 so4e ha-e in the4sel-es the cause of 4o-e4ent3 0hile othe$s a$e4o-ed only f$o4 0ithout5 Thus thin's that a$e ca$$ied a$e 4o-ed only f$o4 0ithout3 li%elo's and stones and e-e$ythin' 0hich is 4atte$ held to'ethe$ only .y state 7he(is 85 5 5 5"i-in' thin's and plants and3 in a 0o$d3 0hat is held to'ethe$ .y natu$e 7phusis 8 and soul7psuche 8 ha-e in the4sel-es the cause of 4o-in'5 5 5 5 Of thin's 0ith the cause of 4o-in'in the4sel-es3 so4e a$e said to 4o-e f$o4 7e% 8 the4sel-es3 so4e .y 7apo 8 the4sel-es6f$o4 the4sel-es in the case of thin's 0ithout soul3 .y the4sel-es in the case of thin's0ith soul5 Thin's 0ith soul 4o-e .y the4sel-es 0hen an apC,FDC,2D; 2 ;


32/133

pea$ance 7phantasia 8 occu$s and calls fo$th an i4pulse 7ho$4e 85 No0 in so4e ani4als0hen appea$ances occu$ and call fo$th i4pulse it is thei$ natu$e 0hich deals 0ithappea$ances 7phusis phantasti%e 8 in an o$de$ly 0ay and 4o-es the i4pulse3 as 0hen inthe spide$ the$e is an appea$ance of 0e. spinnin' and i4pulse follo0s to spin a 0e.6 it isits natu$e 0hich deals 0ith appea$ances that calls it fo$th to this in an o$de$ly 0ay3 and

nothin' else in the ani4al othe$ than this natu$e dealin' 0ith appea$ances has .eencon-inced5 5 5 5 #ut a $ational ani4al 7lo'i%on oion 8 has $eason as 0ell as the natu$edealin' 0ith appea$ances3 $eason 0hich /ud'es the appea$ances and nullifies so4e 0hileacceptin' othe$s3 so as to lead the ani4al in acco$dance 0ith the45 7>e p$inc5 25 *5F2 CSV F5 +11D8C,,D

This passa'e 4a%es clea$ that the hi'he$ fo$4s of pneu4a tension a$e e(plainin' e-e$4o$e co4ple( and fle(i.le fo$4s of .eha-io$5 A plant 0hich '$o0s3 .loo4s3 andp$oduces seed is :4o-in': and chan'in' acco$din' to its natu$e6 it is not /ust .ein'4o-ed .y so4ethin' else3 li%e a stone5 A spide$ spinnin' its 0e. is actin' in 0ays -astly4o$e co4ple( than the plant6 it is $ecepti-e to info$4ation co4in' in f$o4 its

en-i$on4ent3 and $esponds to it5 It is sensiti-e to :appea$ances: and can cope 0ith and$espond to the45 Still3 the$e is so4ethin' 4echanical and instincti-e a.out its .eha-io$0hen co4pa$ed to that of $ational .ein's 0ho can a$ticulate options to the4sel-es andchoose .et0een the43 and 0hose actions a$e thus not laid do0n .y patte$ns of instinct3.ecause they can 4a%e use of :$eason5:

Soul3 then3 is not /ust pneu4a 3 .ut a specific le-el of pneu4a 3 0ith the de'$ee of tension$eBui$ed fo$ it to function as pneu4a psuchi%on 3 the pneu4a of a soul3 unifyin' a .odyand ena.lin' it to pe$cei-e and act in ce$tain 0ays5 The .ody 0ith 0hich the soulinte$acts is not ine$t 4atte$6 it is a .odyC,,D; , ;

al$eady held to'ethe$ and ena.led to function in -e'etati-e 0ays .y pneu4a in the fo$4of phusis o$ natu$e5 So the soul inte$acts 0ith an al$eady li-in' .ody3 a .ody functionin'in the 0ay app$op$iate to plants3 0hich a$e ali-e5 And the li-in' .ody in tu$n is unified .ynatu$epneu4a holdin' to'ethe$3 and ena.lin' to function app$op$iately3 an ite4 that isal$eady cohesi-e3 held to'ethe$ .y state o$ he(ispneu4a 5 =e do not 'et to anythin' notunified .y pneu4a till 0e 'et to the decayin' co$pse 7and e-en then3 as the Stoics$e4a$%ed3 the .ones a$e p$etty solid85

This sche4a has so4e 4ildly su$p$isin' $esults5 Acco$din' to the Stoics3 '$o0th and0hat 0e 0ould call the 4eta.olic functionin's a$e not due to soul3 .ut to natu$e5 In%eepin' 0ith this they say that plants ha-e natu$e3 .ut no soul3 and that e4.$yos .efo$e.i$th3 0hen they acBui$e soul3 a$e ali-e in a 4e$ely plantli%e 0ay5 One st$i%in' $esult ofthis is that 4eta.olic functionin' in a li-in' pe$son is asc$i.ed to the .ody3 not to thesoul5 Thus not all the cha$acte$istic 0ays a li-in' pe$son functions a$e due to he$ soul5Soul is not3 as it is in A$istotle3 0hat 4a$%s the li-in' f$o4 the nonli-in'5 The$e a$e so4eli-in' thin's 7plants8 that do not ha-e soul6 and not all the functions of li-in' thin's0hich a$e ensouled a$e due to thei$ soul5


33/133

Soul is3 $athe$3 0hat ani4als and hu4ans sha$e6 it is 0hat 4a%es the4 4o$e than-e'eta.les5 It is thei$ pe$cepti-e and $eacti-e functions 0hich a$e due to soul3 and3 in thecase of $ational .ein's3 thei$ $ational 4ode of pe$cei-in' and $eactin'5 Ho0e-e$3 theStoics often use :soul: anothe$ 0ay6 Se(tus says that so4e Stoics clai4ed that :soul: had

t0o distinct uses5 One of these applies to soul as 0hat ani4ates the 0hole co4pound5The othe$ applies to soul as he'e4oni%on o$ :'o-e$nin' pa$t5: =e shall see3 in the ne(tsection3 that it is not too 4isleadin' to thin% of this as the 4ind3 and in this use the Stoics0e$e thin%in' of the distincti-ely 4ental side of hu4an functionin'5 Se(tus adds that thisuse3 fo$ the 4ind3 is 0hat 0e thin% of 0hen 0e use ce$tain ph$ases 0hich cont$ast souland .ody5C,D !e$tainly in the late$ Ro4an Stoics li%e SeC,D

7footnote continued on the ne(t pa'e8; ;

neca and Ma$cus Au$elius 0e find -e$y f$ee use of te$4inolo'y 0hich d$a0s a sha$p3al4ost Platonic cont$ast .et0een the 4e$e .ody and the alli4po$tant 4ind o$ $ationalsoul5C,D =hen .ody and soul a$e sha$ply cont$asted in this 0ay3 it 4ay see4 that these0$ite$s a$e lapsin' into dualis43 o$ at least dualist 0ays of tal%in'5 This does not follo03fo$ the cont$ast of .ody and soul in these passa'es is ethically 4oti-ated3 not the outco4eof dissatisfaction 0ith physicalis45 Nonetheless3 it .$in's out a st$i%in' featu$e of theStoics9 use of :soul5:

The Stoics a$e ce$tainly $e-isin' co44on sense 0hen they na$$o0 the use of :soul: to the4ind instead of applyin' it3 as A$istotle does3 si4ply to the 0hole $an'e of life functions5They a$e also c$eatin' a p$o.le4 fo$ thei$ o0n theo$y5 The soul that is totally .lended0ith .ody is soul in the sense of 0hat unifies the li-in' .ody as a .ody of a pe$cepti-eand $eacti-e %ind5 #ut soul in the na$$o0e$ sense of the he'e4oni%on is not this5 Rathe$3as 0e shall see3 the he'e4oni%on is located in pa$t of the .ody5 And it p$o-ides a4echanis4 0hich e(plains 0hy the 0hole .ody functions as it does3 as a 0hole .ody5o$ .oth these $easons3 it cannot .e identified 0ith soul 0he$e that $efe$s to 0hat istotally .lended in e-e$y pa$t of the .ody6 it 4ust .e soul in a diffe$ent sense5

=e can app$eciate that this p$o.le4 is Buite acute if 0e $ecall !leanthes9 a$'u4ent fo$ thephysicality of the soul5 That $elied on the causal inte$action of soul and .ody5 =e canno0 see that in that a$'u4ent :.ody: 4ust $efe$ to the total .lend of soul and .ody3 0hile:soul: $efe$s to the he'e4oni%on 5 o$

7footnote continued f$o4 the p$e-ious pa'e8CDC,D; ;

soul in the sense of 0hat is totally .lended 0ith the .ody cannot possi.ly .e 0hatcausally inte$acts 0ith .ody6 the notion of total .lendin' $ules that out5 So it is not si4plythat the Stoics ha-e thei$ o0n technical notion of soul 70hat is totally .lended 0ith the


34/133

.ody8 and also fall into an intuiti-e 0ay of spea%in' f$o4 ti4e to ti4e3 0hich cont$astssoul 0ith .ody5 o$ the pu$poses of thei$ o0n a$'u4ents they need a notion of soul 0hichcont$asts 0ith that of .ody3 and thus a$e fo$ced into usin' :soul: in t0o 0ays3 one fo$ the4ind and one fo$ 0hat is totally .lended 0ith the li-in' .ody to p$oduce 0hat 0eintuiti-ely call :.ody5:

It 4i'ht .e o./ected that the$e is no $eal p$o.le4 he$e3 since no i4po$tant Stoica$'u4ents $est on usin' the notion of :soul: a4.i-alently5 Ho0e-e$3 the p$o.le4unde$lines the 4a'nitude of the step the Stoics too% 0hen they 4o-ed f$o4 usin' :soul:not /ust fo$ 0hat distin'uishes the functionin' of pe$cepti-e and $eacti-e .ein's3 .ut alsofo$ 0hat distin'uishes the thin's 0ith 4inds f$o4 the $est of natu$e5 It is a .i''e$ stepthan they 0e$e pe$haps fully a0a$e of5e8 Soul and Self

=e ha-e seen that the unity of functionin' is i4po$tant fo$ the Stoics in the case of .oththe ani4al and the hu4an soul5 Indeed thei$s is the fi$st philosophy of 4ind 0hich

st$esses 0hat 0e 0ould call the unity of the self5C,KD As 0ell as its $ole in thei$ accountsof pe$cei-in' and othe$ psycholo'ical pheno4ena3 Stoic conce$n 0ith the self e4e$'es inan e(plicit discussion of a topic $ele-ant to the Stoics9 4o$al philosophy6 fo$ they holdthat 4o$al de-elop4ent ta%es off f$o4 a natu$al .asis in all of us3 0hich they hold to .e aconce$n 0ith the self .ased on %no0led'e of the self5 Acco$din' to !h$ysippus the fi$sto./ect of affinity o$ fa4ilia$iation that a hu4an hasC,KD; K ;

that is3 the fi$st thin' 0hich it has di$ect 4oti-ation to pu$sueis its o0n constitution andthe self%no0led'e it has of it5C,1D !ice$o $epeats the point as soon as 0e a$e .o$n 0esee% 0hat is fa4ilia$ to us3 and this p$esupposes that 0e ca$e fo$ ou$ o0n constitution30hich in tu$n p$esupposes that 0e ha-e a sense o$ pe$ception of ou$sel-es5C,+D

$o4 .i$th on3 then3 0e ha-e selfpe$ception5 =hat e(actly is it3 ho0e-e$3 that 0econfidently asc$i.e to ne0.o$nsG =e ha-e a fai$ly e(tensi-e account of selfpe$ceptionf$o4 Hie$ocles9 Ele4ents of Ethics3 containin' se-e$al a$'u4ents to sho0 that 0e ha-e itcontinuously f$o4 .i$th5 =e can hope3 then3 that .y loo%in' at the a$'u4ents3 and the $estof Hie$ocles9 account3 0e can 'lean 4o$e accu$ate info$4ation a.out 0hat selfpe$ceptionis5CD

The fi$st a$'u4ent appeals to ani4als9 and hu4ans9 .eha-io$5C*D =e /ust %no0 that ou$eyes a$e fo$ seein' and ou$ le's fo$ 0al%in'6 0e do not ha-e to e(pe$i4ent and find outfacts li%e these .y t$ial and e$$o$5 Indeed3 the idea that I 4i'ht ha-e to find out3 .y t$yin'and failin' to see 0ith 4y ea$s3 that I see 0ith 4y eyes is ludic$ous5 And this sho0s thatthe$e a$e so4e thin's that 0e %no0 a.out ou$sel-es /ust .y .ein' ou$sel-es6 an ani4alpe$cei-es itself as .ein' the %ind of ani4al it is3 functionin' the 0ay it does5 So4eani4als9 .eha-io$ patte$ns a$e .ia$$e3 and Hie$ocles 'i-es us 4any e(a4ples3 appealin'to :0ell%no0n facts: such as the :facts: that so4eC,1DC,+DCDC*D


35/133

; 1 ;

sna%es spit thei$ -eno4 0ithout ha-in' to .ite thei$ -icti4 and that .ea-e$s3 0hen .ein'pu$sued .y hunte$s 0ho 0ant to %ill the4 fo$ the oil in thei$ testicles3 0ill cast$atethe4sel-es in o$de$ to su$-i-e5 The point of appealin' to un

Documents

Annas, Julia E[1]. Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. University of California Press, c1992