Gould, Josiah B. - Being, The World, and Appearance in Early Stoicism and Some Other Greek Philosophies - RMeta, 28, 2 - 1974 - 261-288

Being, the World, and Appearance in Early Stoicism and Some Other Greek Philosophies
Author(s): Josiah B. Gould

Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Dec., 1974), pp. 261-288
Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20126624 .
Accessed: 23/02/2015 12:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BEING, THE WORLD, AND APPEARANCE

IN EARLY STOICISM AND SOME
OTHER GREEK PHILOSOPHIES
JOSIAH B. GOULD
only
Someone
slightly
familiar
with
ancient
con
and
Greek
temporary philosophy can hardly fail to be impressed by a major

difference in their interests.
One does not find contemporary phi
losophers trying to say what the world is like, but one does dis
cover
most
ancient
Democritus
13B2a).1
of
them
of
in our world
verse
consists
earth
is a
is only
small
solar
rounded by a vacuum,
543).
curate
to get
All
these
description
an accurate
the philosophers.
the
astronomer,
sets
several
of
sphere
xii.8; De C?elo
one
that
there
is no
sun
are
larger
and moon
(DK 68A40).
of
relatively
(Metaphysica
there
them
sun
the
moon
system
Aristotle
concentric
at
the
ii.13-14).
and
that,
are
take
than
chemist,
that
and
the
sun
and
that the uni
claimed
and
spheres
center
of
the
the
that
universe
The early Stoa held that

while
that
system
to be giving
universe.
themselves
of
go to the scientist?to
is sur
it (SVF II 530,
the physical
feature
of the world
description
today
and
innumerable
and moon,
there is no vacuum within
philosophers
of some
We
the world.
about
talking
said that the sun is flat like a leaf (DK
maintained
in some
that
worlds,
in some
philosophers
for example,
Anaximenes,
there
Greek
we
an
do not
the physicist,
ac
But
to
go
the
the biologist.
There is another element in ancient Greek philosophy which

goes in tandem with this effort to give an account of the physical
universe
and
its parts.
It
is the
reaching
out
for
or
the attempt
to grasp being, reality, or what is. The thought behind this en

deavor seems to have been that there exist certain basic entities
which it is incumbent upon philosophers
to grasp and in terms of
1
this essay I will use DK
to refer to Diels, Hermann.
Throughout
Die Fragmente
der Vorsokratiker.
5th edit. Herausgegeben
von Walther
Kranz
(Berlin: Weidmannsehe
Buchhandlung,
1934) and SVF to refer to
von.
Hans
Stoicorum
Veterum
4 vols.
Arnim,
Fragmenta.
(Leipzig:
B. G. Teubner,
1903-1914).

JOSIAH B. GOULD
262
are
in the physical
universe
the goings-on
between
this connection
philosophy
or less overt
of the
in a number
is more
of and
the generation
which
to be
While
explained.
for being
the quest
and
one of its most
Greek philosophers,
made
in one
who
by Plato,
explicit
refer
Socrates
has
dialogue
is
acknowledgements
several
search for reality (Phaedo 65c9, 66c2)

times to the philosopher's
and to philosophy itself as a discipline which liberates the soul so
that it may contemplate being or reality (82d9-83c3).
one
Finally,
ancient
the
finds
also
Greek
men
philosophers
tioning a third kind of entity which is, for most of them, different
from both the physical universe and its objects and basic realities
of the kind
ness or mind.
in all
a person
of
deal
He
curiosity.
does
he, of course,
curiosity
as much
but learns
astronomy,
The
possible.
to
ancient
Greek
one's
to gratify
as
suggested,
found
together
quently
Because
appearances.
Greek
plexity might
were
ing questions
the
to know,
not
ancient
study
physics,
Greek
philosophy,
and
however,
ex
in part
of
the presence
is a somewhat
be brought
in it of
complex
out by noticing
trying
to give
diverse
ele
affair.
This
com
that the Greek
answers
to all
of
the
philos
follow
uni
(3) How does the person, one of the units

universe, come to know what it is like?
(4) How
alities
the
these
(1) What basic things or realities are there?

(2) How do these basic realities give rise to a physical
verse
as
biology
certainly
as being
of wisdom
this
To satisfy
chemistry,
philosophers,
other
among
about what
the universe
is like.
curiosity
the physical
talk about
universe
is fre
or reality
and
with
statements
about being
philosophy
ostensibly
:
is that he is a person having
is curious
the ideal of the pursuit
emplify
ophers
avenues
the only reality
in which he lives is like.
the universe
things, what
ments
there
viewed
the unique
identical with
My own view of the philosopher
And,
them
can know.
a great
effort
that one
contexts
finds
as
to knowledge,
obstacles
and as being themselves
knowledge,
one
; and
to appearances
lights?as
in a conscious
appearances
it is in epistemological
Typically
references
finds
are
These
described.
just
does
the
person
come
to know
in the physical
what
are?

the
basic
re
263

occur
(5) Appearances
if
What,
is
any,
in
This essay will discuss

the
being,
and
these
in which
persons.
to
appearances
(b) to the basic
universe?
the way
world,
of
relation
the
of
consciousnesses
in the physical
(a) things
realities?
about
the
talk
the early Stoa's

coherent.
is
appearances
But
that Stoicism is in a certain class of Greek

philosophies by showing how with respect to ontology and physics
to be found
Stoicism
exhibits certain general characteristics
wish first to indicate
some
among
of
its
it from schools of philosophy

This
traits.
ophers
neous
procedure
evince
generally
interests
shall
We
Democritus,
are
fidence
take
an
interest
as
plain
in the three
the contrary
Greek
philos
rather
heteroge
and
the world
entities,
with
both
of
predecessors
The general
significant
and Aristotle.
to
the
of basic
status
and dogmatism
acteristics
Stoa
early
which
are
can
and being
universe
physical
names
the somewhat
of
ambiguous
I hope,
become
used will,
evident
is being
on Plato,
to whom we now turn.
of Plato's
take their
Many
dialogues
and
entities
of con
in the high degree
the
in which
the
traits
of these thinkers and that of the early
respect
universe
that
sense
distinguishing
how
make
to above?basic
in the systems
realism
the physical
The
also
by
bearing
appearances.
Plato,
exhibited
Stoa
in antiquity
will
referred
and
its contents,
and
predecessors,
important
be
known.
char
these
re
in my
marks
some question
None
of them
such as What
takes
off
Plato
however,
tities.
The
Platonic
tioned
of entities
class
present
spicuously
Plato
search
stresses
for
from
straightforwardly
In
exist?
things
affirms
the existence
or What
is there?
or Ideas
Forms
in this
In
the
certain
are
the most
of
Tim,aeus
Plato
is knowledge?
the
en
fundamental
and mention
connection
from
impetus
the question,
What
scattered
passages,
several
of
regard,
one
in the Phaedo,
the intrinsic
being.2
dramatic
or What
is piety?
dialogues
of philosophy
claims
men
frequently
of them
is con
in which
with
existence
the
for
2Phaedo
102bl and 61c6-103e7
See W. D. Ross, Plato's
passim.
Theory of Ideas (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1951), Chaps. 1-8, passim,
for a list of passages
in the dialogues where references
to the Forms appear.
I do not go into the question whether
or not Plato
to a
always adhered

264
JOSIAH B. GOULD
certain
mathematical
elementary
two kinds
of triangular
objects,
which
in combination
surfaces
provide
as
of
each
the latter
then being
solids,
shaped
spatial magnitudes
for four
of the regular
signed to a primary
octahedron
fire,
element
physical
to air,
and
to
(cube to earth, pyramid
icosahedron
to water).3
in
And
the
Theaetetus
there is advanced the view that the whole universe is
nothing else but motion, of which there are said to exist two kinds
(156a). These are not the only things said by Plato in the di
to exist,4
as specimen
but they have
been
selected
alogues
a basic
for to each set is assigned
and irreducible
nature.
are said to be the causes
of the characteristics
of material
as has
100c).
And,
are constitutive
(Phaedo
magnitudes
bodies,
kinds
the varieties
of
ble
of the
of
sets
the other
one
being
which
These
entities
this
pair
of which
triangular-shaped
the four primary
to the main
rise
give
(Timaeus
58c-61c).
is said to generate
being
(Theaetetus
objects
something
Finally,
innumera
and
perceived
156a-b).
entities
in these
will
is independence
of minds.
essay
emphasize
are independent
of minds
in the sense
that they are
are not merely
of some mind.
in
elements
They
of persons
consciousnesses
but they are assumed
to
occupants
the
subjective
an inter-subjective
in fashioning
in each
of
about each of the fundamental
not
have
of motion
a perception
The feature
sets
compounds
in the universe
two kinds
twins,
of
the
indicated,
the surfaces
and
substances
the union
been
items,
Forms
the
cosmos
In
existence.
looks
to
the
the Timaeus
already-existing
the demiurge
as
Forms
models
(30c-d). In the Parmenides Socrates suggests, but is then

compelled to deny, that Forms reside in minds (132b-c).
Shapes
are
apparently
assigned
the
elementary
physical
bodies
by
the
(Timaeus 55d-56c), but these bodies are nonetheless

demiurge
extra-mental entities. Nothing
is said in the Theaetetus
to lead
for an answer is not germane

to the features
of Plato's
theory of Forms,
I am emphasizing
which
I have, however,
here.
philosophy
expressed my
view on this matter
in a review of Gilbert Byle's Plato's
(Man
Progress
and His World, Vol. 3 (May, 1970), pp. 122-34).
3
Timaeus
53c-56e and Francis M. Cornford, Plato's
(New
Cosmology
The Liberal
York:
Arts
Friedrich
Press,
1957, pp. 212-24)
Solmsen,
Aristotle's
System
of the Physical World
(Ithaca, New York: Cornell Uni
versity 4 Press, 1969) pp. 46-49.
For others see my "Palabras
de Platon"
y Cosas en la Filosof?a
107.
(Enero-Marzo
(Di?logos, Vol. VII
pp.
p.
105-24),
1970),

265

one to suppose
presumably
damental
in ontology
entities
and
extra-mental,
other
The
its dogmatism.
a grasp
get
on
or
reality
things there are and how they are disposed.

that dogmatism
ommendations
set of basic
Not
is here
about
entities,
is said
enough
used.
Plato's
and
knowing,
the Forms,
in regard
come
in one
of
to either
or
of
the
It is in this sense
two kinds
views
rec
two
main
his
mind.
by the human
the two species
on Plato's
The first approach
what
to know
contain
writings
that
each
supposes
can be known
angular-shaped
spatial magnitudes
make
any evidenced-statements
objects of cognition.
is
consider
(Vitae i.16), to refer to the view
of philosophers
can
is realism.
thought
we
shall
philosophy
used
"dogmatism"
Laertius
Diogenes
the mind
of his
of Plato's
feature
are taken by him to be
and physics
feature
this
his classifications
that
which
in perception,
fun
then, the most
results
their union
although
In Plato's
is mental.
dialogues,
mind-dependent,
are
there introduced
that the two kinds of motion
of
tri
to
of motion5
about
as
these
is that the mind becomes
and forgets
in a pre-natal
with
existence
the Forms
acquainted
and
them at birth, but well-placed
experience
questions,
diagrams,
a
of
recollection
with material
it
is
can,
averred,
engender
objects
the Forms
(Meno 81c-86c; Phaedo
mendation
or
is that
73b-76d).
accounts
The second recom
are to
of phenomena
the existence
of Forms.6
explanations
or hypothesizing
be given
by supposing
are regarded
the hypotheses
In the Phaedo
and the Parmenides
as being
In the Republic
to revision.
it is main
always
subject
tained
progresses
is unhypothesized
A negative
check
which
vision.
for Plato
thought
one
that
the
to be
same
thing
and
assumptions
through
so presumably
not
on one's
grasp
as
grasp
one's
in one's
inconsistency
to
something
to re
subject
of
the Forms,
which
or being,
of reality
was
was
beliefs.
as appear
in one dialogue
analyzed
view was
that they are private,
in the
themselves
views
of some one object which
In regard
to perceptions,
ances
in the mind,
Plato's
sense
that
they
are not
5
in so far as these fall under the general restrictions
which
Except
Plato places on doing physics ; see p. 7 of the text.
6Harold
of the Theory
"The Philosophical
of
Economy
Cherniss,
Journal
Vol.
57 (1936),
pp. 445-56),
Ideas," American
of Philology,
p. 445.

JOSIAH B. GOULD
266
has
an
existence
inter-subjective
sense
in the
;7 incorrigible,
that
if something appears white to someone, it is white for him (Theae

And it is this third
tetus 171el-3) ; and less real than Forms.
or are
they are,
than Forms?which
of
way
appearances?that
regarding
of reality
have a lesser degree
which
for Plato's
the mind
from
a trustworthy
bridge
to reality.
did not think that there could be an exact physics,
Plato
cause
that the senses provide
doubts
of, things
accounts
be
is always
universe,
physical
can
one
tell "a
in
only
(Timaeus
27c-29d),
physics
changing
in his cosmological
of the sort Plato
sets forth
story"?one
likely
state
and likely
in
contrast
to
the
rather
tentative
But,
dialogue.
the
of
subject
the
physics,
and
one
ments
can make
physical
universe,
and
truth
about
these by means
of the
and nature
of the origin
speaking
certitude
with
in Plato's
view
speak
one can apprehend
for
basic
real
entities,
when
one
the
can
of reflection.
in physics?or
one might
perhaps
a fallibilist
then, Plato was
While,
say
a dogma
was
fabulist?he
tist in ontology.
now
a figure with whom

to Democritus,
Plato
is often
one finds
a philosopher
same
in whom
these
traits,
are
the inter
clearly
exhibited,
though
dogmatism,
Turning
contrasted,8
realism
and
relations
the
of basic
same
as
Democritus
regarded
(DK
they
there
are hardly
and appearances
the world,
entities,
are in the philosophy
In the case of
of Plato.
are to be
about which
is no controversy
entities
are of course
They
it is in terms
of the shapes,
as fundamental.
67A6),
and
atoms
and
the void
and
arrangements,
it the origin
positions of the atoms in the void that all else?be
of a solar system (DK 67Al) or the formation of a compound
to be explained.
And, while
body in that system (DK 67A14)?is
it is true
to constitute
they
are
that
some
of
the
minds,9
occupants
the
of
are of the
atoms
spherical-shaped
are not mental
in the sense
atoms
some
mind
7
166c3-6.
Here
Theaetetus
this much of the theory which he
and
so depend
on
a mind
sort
that
for
I take Plato
to be in agreement
with
on behalf of
is having Socrates
present
Protagoras.
bridge:
8W. K. C. Guthrie, A History

The University
Press, 1965),
9
De Anima
403b31ff.
Aristotle,
Vol.
of Greek Philosophy,
p. 395, note 2, and p. 462.

II
(Cam
267

their
existence.
tities,
and
In
sense
to
addition
the
about
from atoms
pound bodies
to what
references
philosopher
making
and
the void,
to what
and
and their contents.
systems
Democritus
also
(DK 68A135; Aetius
in the
fragments
there
is much
and
edge
One can, however,
ritus'
view mind
occasion
are.
what
And
could
say with
can know
the
this
shapes,
knowledge
controversy
considerable
have
been
rectly
atoms
as
by-pass
for Plato
of
another
ritus
directly
bitter,
ances
there
of
that a mental
accounted
the
atoms
for
the void
exist
on
and
like inference
process
form
atomistic
have been thought

when
certain
of mate
to become di
from
films
the
and
the soul atoms.13

Just
upon
impinge
reason
of Forms
and
grasped
by
so for Democ
grasped
by the senses,
realities
are
one
two worlds,
the mind
and one of
by
hot and
and
color"
to the
For
both
the mind
interpretation.11
that in Democ
is one world
there
lesser
an
by
themselves
senses
of knowl
theory
their
and
perception
are contra
and positions
of atoms
arrangements,
the senses.12
is not
through
acquired
rialism and that the mind must

aware
both
confidence
atoms
that
is correct in holding
not
over
images
outside"
"from
There
Democritus'
reporting
solar
or
appearances
IV, 8, 10).
atoms
eternal,
ephemeral,
and
bodies
proceeding
and as constituting
dictions
about
com
too, we find a
and
and
so entering
the mind
for
the necessary
conditions
from
and thought
a doctrine
had
systems
of
formation
is basic
is derivative
beings,
are
solar
So here,
(DK 68A37).
or
entities
fundamental
in which
of the way
speaks
and of the
vortices
of atoms10
from
Guthrie
mind-independent
is a realist.
too,
Democritus,
talk
en
are
void
also
Democritus
formed
and
Atoms
in this
cold,
senses.
of
the
atoms
secondary
(DK
68B9),
philosophers
somewhat as the world of Homer
and
void
grasped
"sweet
and
qualities,
which
reality
are
appear
is exposed
is exposed
to
to the minds
10DK
67A1.
As Kirk notes, while
this fragment
is formally
at
to Leucippus,
it represents
tributed
the general views of Democritus
as
well.
G. S. Kirk and J. E. Raven,
The Pre-socratic
(Cam
Philosophers
bridge: The University
Press, 1957), p. 411.
11W. K. C. Guthrie,
op. cit., pp. 454-65.
12
Sextus Empiricus,
Adversus Mathematicos
vii. 135, 139.
13
W. K. C. Guthrie,
op. cit., p. 464.

268
JOSIAH B. GOULD
of hearers
and
is the world
readers
are
in which
goings-on
For,
not
would
basic
be
entities
a receptacle
could draw
and
in, one
and that
there
Olympus
for
in the
goings-on
a
is
supra-sensi
the
there
of which
relationships
make
to the senses.14 Although

if
warranted,
were
elementary
or space for them
some
in Homer
on one level, the
and Democritus
and
as
just
to account
the nature
entities,
interpretation
Plato's
only
one
the
that
supposed
triangular-shaped
to move
about
and
between
his
parallels
interesting
even
one
as most
if
But
holds,
of Democritus.15
do, that the basic kind of being for Plato was always
interpreters
are
there
Forms,
epics.
on Mount
the world which appears
intelligible
atomism
the
seen
so for Plato
Trojan
plain,
ble world
of
magnitudes
combine
of
of the gods
two
still
remarkable
likenesses
between
own
his
Both held that there exist

philosophy and that of Democritus.
entities and both held that the mind can know
transempirical
In
them.
and
both
both
short,
philosophers
were
philosophers
mistrusted
the
and
realists
dogmatists;
of sensible
value
cognitive
appearances.
one
in Aristotle
Again
and
Stoa
of
doctrines
and
intellectual
few,
the
if any,
senses
bate,
matist
but
in
in Aristotle,
The
mary
tures
development
that
deny
attached
to
there
he
those
has
fundamental
substances,
and belonging
and this sparrow.
were
which
appearances
or
entities
noticed
realities
to natural
kinds,
e.g.,
are
of
above.
the
whose
much
and
expressions
or particulars
individuals
been
is a realist
too, one finds the threefold distinction

and
the world,
Plato.
would
predecessor
stature
about
important
of
philosopher
a Greek
course
an
finds
de
a dog
And
between being,
in Democritus
and
for Aristotle
pri
na
having
this man,
They do not inhere in anything
essential
that
lizard,
and they are
141 borrow the comparison

from Karl Popper's
"The
with Homer
of Philosophical
in Science"
and Their Roots
Nature
Problems
reprinted
in Conjectures
and Refutations,
and
(third edit. rev. London:
Routledge
Guthrie
Kegan Paul, 1969, p. 89, note 48).
(op. cit., p. 456) writes, "For
the phenomenal
Democritus
there is no noumenal world to set over against
or a supra-sensible
But I think we can speak of a trans-empirical
world."
even though the atoms are impercep
world
in the thought of Democritus,
tible because of the accident of smallness.
15
F.
M.
Cornford,
op.
cit.,
p.
210.

269

not
of anything.16
predicable
are
They
exist either.
and
the matter
succinctly,
crisply
totle, putting
no primary
were
be impossible
it would
substances,
other things to exist" (Categoriae 2b6).

In Aristotle
the linkage between the primary
is more
world
that
between
of
compelled
and changes
and void
the
cosmos.
to give
and
is not
elaborate
on
going
cosmos.
a kind of disparity
between Forms
the
and
stars,
animals,
there
is a marked
totle's
or
take,
units
ordinarily
the primary
Individual
men,
world
stances.
of
in an
difference
the
taken
spheres
the basic
realities.17
There
are
say,
particular
separately
hierarchical
levels
the
an
of
with
tions,
"like
machea
which
are
categories,
and
dependent
an off-shoot
1096a21-22).
are principles
and
of
atoms
causes,
the
and
in Aris
the
sub
primary
movers
and the
substances
an
philosophy
the kinds
In regard
in
of being
and rela
qualities,
as Aristotle
secondary.
They
accidental
of being"
feature
In regard
to the world,
there
and
is
in Democritus
to be,
in Aristotle's
are,
feel
in the world?
earthworm
while
primary,
such as quantities,
the gen
there
earthworms,
just are the primary
are
substances
De
contents,
swering both to being and to the things in the world.

to being,
the
non-substance
than
a philosopher
similarly
or cluster
coalesce
the
of
for Aristotle
and the units

atom
there
realities and the
structure,
in Plato
Whereas
artifacts?and
one would
what
any
world
as
does,
however,
account
of
in the
"If
for
an account
to give
required
He
an
The
the world.
says,
sense
Aris
or palpable
that between
conspicuous
or
the world
and
Forms
so he
and
is eternal
eration
immediate
Platonic
atoms
mocritean
and more
in the
entities
basic
else would
that if they did not exist, nothing
unmoved
says,
(Ethica Nico
are substances
movers
of
the
16
3a8-9.
As for what Aristotle
means when he says that
Categoriae
one thing inheres in another, see Categoriae
la24-25.
For opposing
inter
see J. L. Ackrill, Aristotle's
and De Interpretatione
pretations
Categories
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 74-76 and G. E. L. Owen, "In
Vol. X (1965), pp. 97-105.
herence," Phronesis,
171 am aware that Aristotle
at times, and especially
at the time when
he wrote Metaphysica
to
vii., was inclined to take eternal essential natures
be basic entities
rather than the primary
substances which
exhibit these
natures for a brief span of time, but in the main I believe that he adhered
to the view that primary
substances are the basic units of being.

270
JOSIAH B. GOULD
which
spheres,
celestial
take
of place.
primacy
and planets,
stars
animals
and planets
bodies?the
non-human
persons,
Next
in
then
the
on and
come
rank
the
and
the
earth,
near
its surface.
Whether Aristotle
be analyzing being into its kinds or the
world into its elements, he adheres to the view that the world and
reality are external to mind. And in this he, like Democritus and
is a realist.
Plato,
In addition
to modes
knowledges
in conjunction
the existence
imagination,
memory,
with
getting
and give
those
for
disposed.
Unlike
is a reliable
of
of animals,
sory apparatus
ences
leads
to the grasping
an
accurate
(An. Post,
partmental
sciences,
connections
denying
tween
the statements
are
the world
ii.19).
between
produced
(Analytica
in man
of
are
to be given
the world,
of statements
consist
instrument
on
reproduced
In fact, Aristotle
by any
held that
important
are and how
repetitions
which
universals.
persist
Posteriora
Aristotle
decisively
there
things
of universals,
w^ould
impressions
and
and
of
description
the
in knowledge
stages
sense
experience
of what
occur
They
such as perception,
operations
The
desire.
made
impressions
and Democritus,
Plato
knowledge
The
features
in the world
in the mind.
are the initial

and
ac
and the world Aristotle
in which
animals
perception
gaining
and
thought,
to memory
rise
99b35-100a6).
sense
mental
various
the senses
by objects upon
in
of being
of appearances
are
they
the
such
sen
experi
in the
things
maintains
by
that
several
de
affirming
and
relationship
science
is, in his
be
The
given
view,
ultimately deductive,18 and it is only in the form of the possibility

of an infinite regress in a deductive
system that the threat of
scepticism
ever
occurs
in Aristotle's
(An.
philosophy
Post.
i.3).
He met this threat by maintaining

that while a great deal of man's
some of it is basic and
is deductive and discursive,
knowledge
intuitive (An. Post, ii.19). He was a philosopher
confident that
human
minds
can
grasp
the
essential
features
of
reality
and
the
18
Posteriora
the whole of the Analytica
tries to make a case
Really
that Aristotle
for this.
For evidence
thought the demonstrative
syllogism
was to be used by the scientist not for purposes
of investigation
and dis
'
see Jonathan Barnes
covery but for teaching a finished body of knowledge,
of
"Aristotle's
Vol.
XIV
Phronesis,
Theory
Demonstration,"
(1969), pp.
123-52.

BEING, THE WORLD, AND APPEARANCE 271

; and
world
a knowledge
for gaining
that
of
the world
appearances
in the mind by things in the world are of crucial impor
produced
is in
too, therefore,
Aristotle,
and Plato.
of Democritus
philosophers
tance.
the
of
tradition
dogmatic
Before turning to the Stoa let us look at two contrasting posi

tions in Greek philosophy, those of idealism and skepticism, which
with
contrast
ism" will mean

some
minds,
cannot
mind
and
realism
that what
The
dogmatism.
and
the
expression
know
how
things
in a mind
there is exists
reality
"ideal
expression
to mean
"skepticism"
or in
that
the
are.
In regard to idealism, it undoubtedly goes too far to say that

it was represented by a tradition in ancient Greek philosophy.
But
there
are
which
cluded,
though
are
worth
noting.
grounds,
good
calls what
Guthrie
has
clude,"
briefly
introduced
writes
this
independent
Guthrie
been
that
and
to idealism
approximations
con
K.
W.
C.
Guthrie
recently
Protagoras
calls
essay
according
Protagoras,
tence of reality
mind.
Most
on
jectivism."19
of
representatives
an
was
idealist,
"extreme
idealism
to Guthrie,
of appearances
denied
the
and beliefs
with
compares
Protagoras
as a realist
in ontology.
al
sub
exis
in the
Democritus,
"We
may
who
con
Guthrie,
to which
that Protagoras
according
adopted an extreme subjectivism
no dif
of appearances,
there was no reality behind and independent
and being, and we are each the judge of
ference between appearing
. . . Democritus
our own impressions
too said that all sensations are
and
in
and
hot
that
sweet
bitter, have no existence
cold,
subjective,
as due to the
nature, but this was because they were to be explained
interaction between the atomic structure of our bodies and that of the
There was a permanent
object.
physis or reality, namely
perceived
atoms
Protagoras,
ism, because
ances,
and
and
the
void.
For
Protagoras
there
is none.
. .20
to have been a representative

then, appears
there
in his view what
is resides
reality
are
mental.
appearances
of
ideal
in appear
to say that the latter-day Skep

It would be an exaggeration
and then the Empirical Skeptics,
tics in antiquity, Aenesidemus
denied
the
reality
of
extra-mental
19
W. K. C. Guthrie, A History
bridge: 20The University
Press, 1969),
Ibid., p. 186.
entities,
but
of Greek Philosophy,
p. 186.
they
came
close.
Ill
(Cam
Vol.

272
JOSIAH B. GOULD
on the senses
as
in antiquity
and reason
skeptical
onslaught
avenues
reliable
to knowledge
of the external
world
is well-docu
mented.21
the
Aenesidemus
systematized
skeptical
arguments,
The
of which were designed
most
of
the
which
appearances
moment,
mental
one may
one
licenses
nothing
to show that while one can be certain
to bridge
world,
in consciousness
pearances
the gap
in consciousness
have
to make
inferences
at
about
the
non
the
between
and
the
the present-moment
extra-mental
entities
ap
thought
no
words,
to be producing
those appearances.
There
is, in other
or reality
to know what
the world
is like, for one cannot
way
step
to look and see.
out of one's
consciousness
the
Among
Empirical
were
a
there
that
doubts
of
serious
science
Skeptics,
although
and causes,
of substance
reality,
was
that
be a
there
could
great
of appearances?a
science
which
juxtapositions
further
predict
of appearances.22
Empirical
in
one
and
successions
And,
Skeptics
of
stretch
although
had
on
most
This
recent
remarks
judgment
studies
on Aenesidemus
is supported
of Greek
with
a basis for a purely

provides
the external
object, deprived
the
basis
of
observation
successfully
later
stretch
in a
that
on
lavished
included
reality
of
any
that there is nothing

they
and
successions
could
juxtapositions
it is not attested
the appearances,
the close attention
ena makes
it look as if in their view
mental.
legitimacy,
on the
based
appearances
ever said flatly
confidence
any
science
the
back of
the phenom
non
nothing
by the author of one of the
Skepticism,
the statement
for
phenomenalistic
of any function,
she
that
her
concludes
his method
epistemology
has become
in which
un
quite
necessary.23
Sextus
idealism
Empiricus
and
skepticism
is a noteworthy
in
figure
reviewed
above.
cursorily
relation
to
the
For
in ontol
ogy he sides with the realism of Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle,

and he rejects the idealism of Protagoras
and the near idealism
or phenomenalism
of Aenesidemus
and the Empirical
Skeptics,
21
Sextus Empiricus,
Adversus
Mathematicos.
Pyrrh.
Hypotyposes.
Cicero. Acad?mica.
Victor
Les Sceptiques
Grecs
(Paris: Li
Brochard,
J. Frin, 1959 (f.p., 1887).
brairie Philosophique
Charlotte
Stough, Greek
of California
California:
Skepticism
University
1969).
(Berkeley,
Press,
22
V. Brochard,
op. cit., pp. 331-80.
23
C. Stough,
op. cit., p. 105.

273
he sides with the Pyrrhonic Skeptics.

For,
that a substance can be identified with its
but in epistemology
rejecting the view
mental
substance
since
and,
with
for
truth
"the
Sextus
he
neither
real
nor
accept
superfluous"
is knowable.24
and hidden
with
is associated
could
unknowable
object
to regard
continues
as both existing
appearances,
which
he
in consciousness,
manifestations
the
extra
from knowledge;
rather
reality
a phenomenalism
accept
. . . have become
would
claims
which
dogmatism,
that
than
in
the
quite
real
object
now
Turning
to early
one
discussed,
already
entities
affirmed?basic
philosophies
of
classes
shall
set
forth
four
inter
is that in the Stoa, as in the Greek
The first
connected points.
we
Stoicism,
finds
realities,
the
of
existence
a world,
and
three
appear
ances.
My second point will be that the early Stoics were realists

and dogmatists and are therefore in the tradition of Democritus,
It is important to emphasize this, for the
Plato, and Aristotle.
Stoics
are
ophers
where
often
placed
they are
in the category
of post-Aristotelian
not merely
to come after
assumed
philos
Aristotle
but are thought to have ceased doing philosophy

in the dispas
sionate way in which Aristotle had done it and to have adopted
interests
some
parallels
basic
entities,
and
Stoicism
the
other
is essentially
re
which
have
been
philosophies
on what
shall remark
happened
briefly
as one
of
the
conception
philosopher
Greek
And
in Stoicism
who
we
ethical.
shall draw
exclusively
Thirdly,
and contrasts
in which
between
ways
appearances,
are related
in
in the world
and middle-sized
objects
finally we
to the Platonic
to.
ferred
were
which
engaged
in a search
for
being.
In regard to the first point that the Stoa affirms the existence
of basic
entities,
a world,
get at what the Stoics

a report by Alexander
the
doctrine
that
ically we might
24
Sextus
op.
cit.,
p.
appearances,
one
can
perhaps
best
thought to be basic entities by considering

of Aphrodisias
that the Stoics laid down
said
is
"being
note here
Empiricus,
and
of
bodies
that the Stoics
Adversus
Mathematicos
Parenthet
only."25
placed
vii.
corporeal
and
294 and C. Stough,
145.
25
Alexander
In Aristotelis
Aphrodisiens.
Maximilian
Commentaria
Wallies.
(Edited
by
1891), 301, 42-43.
Libros
Octo
Topicorum
Berlin:
George Reimer,

274
JOSIAH B. GOULD
If
would
there
are,
them
expect
hold
that
Stoics
a more
under
''
incorporeal
things
''
called
something.
in Stoic
then,
philosophy
to be bodies.26
And,
are
there
two
and logos or god
matter
bodies.
That
ber of fragments
(SVF
evident from the facts
to them is "that which
upon" for matter (SVF
complementary
one
: substance
or
these are
And
are
they
the
indeed
in a num
called
II 300, 301, 310), are not incorporeal is

that another pair of descriptions
applied
acts" for logos and "that which is acted
II 300) and that the incorporeal is in the
class
of
that
which
neither
nor
acts
(SVF II 363). And in one fragment (SVF II 310)

said that both matter and God, according to the
is acted upon
it is virtually
Stoics,
As
as
they
entities,
of fact,
any basic
a matter
entities
II 300).
(SVF
in the
class,
as
fundamental
two "principles,"
these
which
category
generic
are
bodies.27
for
one
of their
two basic
entities,
the Stoics
matter,
main
tain that it is "substance without quality" and "that which is

acted upon" (SVF II 300). As will be pointed out shortly, when
it undergoes changes from the logos acting upon it or from within
It is worth notic
it, the substance becomes imbued with qualities.
ing
that
the
to name
(ousia)
had
let
this
and
ontology
now
both
range
expression
their essential
natures.
its attributes
sort
in
attractive,28
the
vii. 3).
for
all
entities.
the
basic
once
in fact,
Aristotle
units
in his
considered,
that the substance of a thing was
the hypothesis
(Metaphysica
He,
"substance"
expression
this first of their two basic
substratum?substratum
sis of this
the
using
over
but then rejected,

the
are
Stoics
one
sense
of matter?underlying
The Stoics
of the
found an hypothe
two basic
entities
in their
26
see Eduard
On Stoic materialism
der
Zeller, Die Philosophie
in Ihrer Geschichtlichen
5th edit. Dritter
Griechen
Teil.
Entwicklung.
Erste Abteilung
Wissenschaftliche
(Darmstadt:
Buchgesellschaft,
1963,
pp. 119-32.
27
for the reason given
Zeller, op. cit., p. 134.
Johnny
Christenson,
in the text, seems to me fundamentally
in holding
that the Stoa's
wrong
on the Unity of Stoic Philosophy
in An Essay
basic archai are incorporeal
Scandinavian
Books,
(Copenhagen:
University
1962), p. 11. The term,
cites in support
as?mata, in the fragment
(SVF II 299) which Christenson
of his view, appears
in none of the manuscripts,
and somata, as Pohlenz
2 Auflage.
Die Stoa.
II
Vol.
says, ought to be retained
(Max Pohlenz,
Vandenhoeck
&
Ruprecht,
(Gottingen:
1959), p. 38).
28
Christenson,
op.
cit.,
pp.
17-20.

275
ontology is matter without quality which is liable to change when

The
acted upon (SVF II 309), and this they call "substance."
term,
then,
is no
of
the
countenanced.
or
"substance"
expressions
One could
or of particular
matter
nor diminishes
increases
it was
as ont?logically
to use of any entity regarded

use
as
to them,
available
longer
speak
or substance.
substance
twofold
was,
or
however,
substance
substance
neither
matter
Universal
;particular
basic.
"matter"
of universal
to Aristotle,
increase
undergoes
and diminution
(SVF II 316).
As for the other basic entity in Stoic ontology, god or logos,
this is described variously as "an active cause" (SVF II 302),
"the
reason
of the universe"
(ibid.),
"a
self-moving
toree"'
(SVF
II 311), and "a body" (SVF II 310). This power or god is said
to "go back and forth" in the matter without quality (SVF II
311),
to be "mixed"
it (SVF II 318).
apart
from
one
with
The
and
the matter,29
though
advance"
through
or substance never exist
logos and matter
another,
"to
they may
be
ana
distinguished
The most significant characterization

of the logos is
lytically.
"that which acts" (SVF II 300). For as "the active cause in the
matter"
(SVF II 305) the logos is a kind of power or force30
which provides the matter with unity (SVF II 318), causes the
substance
to be moved,
shaped,
and
animated,
otherwise
qualified
(SVF II 302), and generates the cosmos and each of the things
in it. And this last result leads one naturally from the Stoics'
of basic
conception
ing at the world.
The world
combination
The world
formation
to a consideration
entities
for the Stoics
of
the
two
of
formed matter
the
is a periodic phase
basic
is that unity
cosmos
from within
of their way
entities,
the
of
look
in the life of the
substance-logos
unity.
in one of its states or conditions.

takes
place
when
logos
works
to convert it into the physical
The
on
un
elements
29
SVF II 310 and 473.
One of the main aims of the Stoic doctrine
was to explain how two bodies could penetrate
of mixture
one another.
See my The Philosophy
SUNY Press,
of Chrysippus
(Albany, New York:
1970), pp. 109-12.
30
SVF II 311. For accounts of the dynamism
in Stoic ontology and
see Zeller, op. cit., pp. 132-41.
Max Pohlenz,
physics
op. cit., Vol. I, pp.
67-68.
S. Sambursky,
and
Physics
(London:
of the Stoics
Routledge
Kegan Paul, 1959), pp. 21-48.

276
JOSIAH B. GOULD
water,
?air,
arise the plants,

celestial bodies
And
fire.
from
then
the mixture
of
these
animals, and other kinds of things, including the

the cosmos is
(SVF II 580, 581). Periodically
or matter
in which
and
the substance
by a conflagration
a
a
more
enter
state
ethereal
upon
(of
united,
fiery
destroyed
still
logos,
and
earth,
nature than the fire in the humdrum element), which is thought

to be a kind of seed (SVF II 618) from which another cosmos is
(SVF II 624, 625). One of our fragments
(SVF II
generated
647) reads, "The Stoics held that the earth is one and finite."
one notices
ments
sun,
and
on a cursory
even
And
the moon,
the
that as philosophers
not
about
only
which
physics,
seasons,
but
entities,
universe which
we
today
meteorological
and
animals,
the
frag
about the
phenomena
nature
of
also
about
the
and
origin
nature
they inhabited, the kinds of beliefs
should
regard
and
chemistry,
biology,
of
thus talked about the world and apparently held

it was their business to hold defensible views
basic
of the physical
's collection
similarly held beliefs
non-human
plants,
The Stoics
the
stars,
Arnim
through
that the Stoics
earthquakes,
man.
glance
as
under
falling
the
of
purview
geology.
In regard to the physics of the Stoics it ought to be noticed

that any body in the world is, on their view, susceptible to two
The first is that which views the body, now7
kinds of analysis.
regarded
of bodies
body
as a particular
the
composing
also
may
be a
body,
ments?fire,
air,
This one might

Secondly,
nents,
matter
physical
a frog,
or an
analyzable
and
earth,
into
oak
tree.
And
some
analysis
of
undergoing
inanimate
condition
one might
31SVF
upon
is a kind of cohesiveness
bodies
this
; in animals
cohesiveness
it is soul
call the ontological
; and
its
effects
and
holding
takes
the
in persons
analysis.
II 368, 716.
Sextus Empiricus,
1-11.
op.
pp.
Sambursky,
cit.,
the
four
or
proportion
which
acted
class
ele
other.
of the body in question.
into
is being
some
the
example,
if it is such a
a combination
water?in
call the physical
of
For
universe.
can be analyzed
every
body
a
force which
into
is producing
logos-force
234.
star,
it is further
as a member
substance,
compo
ontological
or
and a substance
The
changes.
bodies
form
in
together;
of
state
or
it is reason.31
This
Sextus Empiricus,
writ
Adversus
Mathematicos

vii.
277

ing about
Stoic
in one
says
cosmogony,
passage
The Stoics suppose the genesis of the universe

from one unqualified
to change
body ; for the unqualified matter which is entirely amenable
to them a principle
of existing
is according
this
things, and when
and air, earth and water?are
gen
changes the four elements?fire
erated.32
But
fire, air, earth,

and plants,
animals
and
are
water
the whole
the
cosmos
"from
elements
and
the
which
all
in
contained
things
it are composed"
If, then, the elementary bodies
(SVF II 413).
are just a changed state of one of the basic ontological entities re
from
sulting
bodies
the
other
acting
in one
can be analyzed
One might
also approach
on
of
the Stoic
of
the evolution
cated, by considering
one fiery
state or conflagration
tion the God-substance
unit
which
substance
a cosmos,
the
tiated until
is minimally
substance
view
of
to another.
suggested.
the world,
During
state
differentiated.
as
unit
conflagra
in a state
in
it changes
increasingly
ontological
that together
a concern
to evincing
for an intelligible
and the world,
entities
the Stoics
attended
than those
of their predecessors
mentioned
entities
in
they
then
In addition
basic
assiduously
in consciousness.
appearances
tant
role
appearances
played
One
in
into
differen
is itself a fully articulated
of the two basic

universe.
One
physical
in
duces
the
in such a way
other
changes
a physical
cosmos.
become
about
indi
from
the
or
As
becomes
unity
non-elementary
the God-substance
is in its purest
in the unit
the God-substance
all
it, obviously
the two ways
reason
Stoic
is found
doctrine
even more
above
to
in the
impor
Another
epistemology.
related reason is found in the peculiar form of the Skeptical at

tack on the Stoic criterion of truth. The Stoics believed that ob
jects
produced
on
apparatus
of themselves
appearances
the regent
of the soul.33
part
through
Memory
the
sensory
is a store
32
x. 312.
Sextus Empiricus,
Adversus Mathematicos
33
There was disagreement
between Cleanthes
and Chrysippus
about
the model to be used in thinking about the mode in which these appearances
are produced
in consciousness,
Cleanthes
taking the view that the regent
are made as by a
part of the soul is like a wax block on which
impressions
that had of course been made
familiar
signet ring, a model
by Plato
as
of these appearances
; and Chrysippus
(Theaetetus
191d3-el)
thinking
being alterations which the regent part of the soul undergoes
(SVF II 56).

278
JOSIAH B. GOULD
of
house
such
phenomena
suffered
Orestes
early Stoics
inasmuch
are
they
son's
fall
as
that
confident
mind.
the
The
Stoics
a class
into
their
basic
reality
are
realists
are
void
images
of
consciousness
snake-haired
which
example
with
entities
not
does
and God
an
have
to be bodies
said
Chrysip
for
elude
a per
of
the grasp
in ontology
nor
logos
and
and
is
dogmatists
to be
thought
to be merely
mental.
extra-mental
existence,
they
and
to have
Forms
Democritus,
and
Plato,
Democritus,
are extra-mental
the
of incorporeal
traits thought to be distinctive

and
an
from,
in epistemology.
substance
Neither
or
some
the
content
mind
of
merely
only do matter
as was noted,
in
often made use of (SVF II 54).
pus apparently
Aristotle
occur
also
as
such
hallucinatory
which
maidens
The
There
appearances.
for
of
contraries
are,
those
atoms
things. What
for
substances
Plato,
Not
God and matter are for the Stoics?namely,

entities
Aristotle,
referred to in their answer to the question, What things are there?
And for all of them these entities are perfectly objective or inde
pendent
between
of mind.
Some
the ways
in which
basic
their
and
horses,
and pointedly
in Stoic
entities
chairs.
comparisons
interesting
view
these philosophers
to middle-sized
But
drawn
epistemology.
bodies
can
the
drawn
be
relation
of
as
such
trees,
everyday
can be more
comparison
precisely
our minds
have before
the main
points
that
if we
And
in going
over
this
familiar
relatively
terrain the path I take is that of considering two different kinds

of truths which Stoic epistemology
claims can be had by the
human
mind.
the Stoics, like all of their mentioned

While
predecessors,
were confident that the mind could grasp the nature of existing
they hold that the sensory
things, unlike Plato and Democritus,
it was
was
in knowing,
above
apparatus
suspicion
to know what
for coming
crucial
instrument
a
to
adhered
theory
representational
They
and
that
real
things
key term in their theory is "presentation."
A presentation
of
are
perception.
the
like.
The
in the soul which

shows in itself just that
is a condition
occurring
which has produced
it. For example, when through vision we view
an object which
is white,
there exists a condition
which
has been
of
in
is
because
this con
the
it
the
soul
And
seeing.
by
engendered
is
dition that we are able to say that there subsists a white which
The process occurs similarly
in the case of touch and
affecting us.
smell (SVF II 54).

279

presentations
along with
to nor
neither
correspond
The
(ibid.).
the impressive
that
images
extra-mental
illusory
are
by anything
produced
made
the Stoics,
particularly
was
of Academic
Skeptics,
for
problem
occur
also
there
But
arguments
acute
by
of pro
that
viding a criterion, by which one might say with certitude that this
or that thing was before one (SVF II 53). And this they sought
or the "pre
to do in setting forth the "kataleptic presentation"
a trustworthy
of
criterion
a grasp"
as
Laertius
is,
Diogenes
a grasp"
The "presentation
with
it, the presentation
as
with
sentation
the
truth.
reports
which proceeds
from a real object, agrees with that object itself,
has been imprinted
and stamped upon the mind.34
seal-fashion
and
This essay is not interested so much in the unfriendly reception

which this criterion got among Academic Skeptics as it is in the
kind of information about the world its employment was thought
by the Stoics to secure. And to this inquiry we now turn.
of the
One would gather from the two main characteristics
criterion
Stoic
one
that whenever
a presentation
has
which
satis
fied it, one can believe with truth two kinds of facts?(i)
that
a
or
certain kind exists and (ii) that it has this
that
something of
For
attribute.
of a brown horse knows

his
sensory
other
(ii)
criterion
in consciousness
any
one
The
use
of which
which
could
that
horse
this
is brown.
a person,
enables
satisfy
presentation
in the range of
is present
it,
an
appear
having
a class
to know
of facts,
statement.35
be
Put
expressed
by
singular
as the subject
of a uniquely
of the
expression
referring
an
a
statement
of
the
existence
of
certain
object
signifies
singular
kind and the predicate

of
object
ment
"this
statements
nents,
a kataleptic
having
(i) that a horse

and
apparatus
the Stoic
way,
ances
a Stoic
example,
'this
expression
attribute.
signifies
specified
horse
is brown"
is a
which
criterion
horse'
the
and
Stoic
the possession
For
'is brown'
example,
member
typical
sanctions,
signify
the
by that
state
singular
of the class
of
and
respectively
its
that
compo
there
34
Vitae vii. 46.
The translation
is that of R. D.
Diogenes
Laertius,
Hicks found in the Loeb Classical Library
edition of Diogenes
Laertius.
35
See SVF II 52 for a report that "presentation
leads the way, then
comes thought capable of expression
which brings forth in a proposition
that which the subject experiences
by dint of the presentation."

JOSIAH B. GOULD
280
is a horse
something which
exists
and that it has
the attribute
brownness.
there other objects of knowledge according to the Stoic

theory of cognition besides particular or individual facts? The
:
Stoics explicitly acknowledge three kinds of atomic propositions
the definite, the indefinite, and the intermediate, of which examples
Are
are
and
man
"this
respectively
"Socrates
is walking."36
affirmative
of universal
recognition
are mortal"
or
"all
clude from this that the Stoics

any
fact
knowledge
like the
appears
propositions
are
horses
of general
ones
surveyed
"someone
is walking,"
There
is walking,"
no
been
to have
''
all men
such as
we
Are
viviparous."37
to
con
did not think that there could be

and
truths
that
are
above
singular
the
only
of
statements
of
objects
knowl
edge?
To go at all far into this question would take us away from
the main feature of the Stoa which I am here trying to emphasize.
Briefly what I think would have been the Stoa's reply to this ques
tion is the following.
First, the Stoa did not accept the existence
mind
no acquaintance
with
universals.
between
has
relations
to arrive
persons
verse
by mounting
between
particulars.
conditional
Generality
use
making
or
'anyone'
jective
anyone
(i.e.,
that person
at general
The
truths
generalizations
were
These
Stoa
view
the
or with
for
it possible
in
the
uni
happenings
of connections
experience
believed
about
on
then
expressed
in
the
form
of
such as "if it is day, then it is light."38

propositions
in the exposition of such truths could be achieved by
of
the
'anything'
or a pronoun
assessment
so in their
universals,
Forms
connections
between
or Aristotelian
Forms
of Platonic
conditional
in the antecedent,
in the consequent.
at all you
and
The
a demonstrative
For
example,
from
is suffering
may
choose)
one you've
chosen)
(i.e., the
of the facts."
indefinite
the
connective,
example
cannot
make
of a conditional
"if
pronoun
ad
anyone
then
envy,
a rational
proposi
36
Mathematicos
viii. 96, 100. Benson
Adversus
Sextus Empiricus,
of California
California:
Stoic
Press,
University
Logic
(Berkeley,
Mates,
1961), p. 30.
37
Ibid., p. 32.
38
II 207.
8VF
op. cit., pp. 65-71.
Gould, The Philos
Samtrarsky,
pp. 76-82.
ophy of Chrysippus,

281
tion which appears several times in the fragments is, "if it is day,
then it is light," which could also be read, "if there is any tem
called
span
poral
it is light
then
day,
''
that
during
span.
temporal
And Cicero reports a Stoic conditional which has almost exactly

this form; it is "if anyone is born at the rising of the dogstar, he
will not die at sea."39 The Stoa believed that cognitive progress
beyond the data of immediate experience has to be made by the
reach
for
and
of general
grasp
as
such
truths
those
in
embodied
There is nothing in the fragments

these conditional statements.
that indicates that the Stoics had any glimmerings of the problem
of
induction.
this we can now see that Stoic philosophers
From
can
a store of singular
and general
acquire
on reality.
can get a grasp
that the mind
the mind
the world;
feature of their philosophy
a rather
finds
tion
of these
set of contrasts
interesting
contrasts
is the
third
of our
here
other
But
between
in mind
this
Given
if one
asks
their
basic
the
how
en
one
appearances,
A
considera
emerging.
and
set out
tasks
above.
hold of a
in the world,
such
to the appearance
middle-sized
any
object
or a rabbit, would
in
relation
do)
of a chair, on the one hand,
and atoms
(and
as an oak tree
about
truths
If we take atomism first and consider what would

chair
that
into a class with
they fall squarely
and Aristotle.
Democritus,
Plato,
dogmatists
these philosophers
the relationships
view
in the world,
tities, middle-sized
objects
held
other, we find that there is an obliteration
and
on
the void
of the distinction
the
be
a group
some
of interlocked
atoms
including
in some region
interstices
of void
of the void.40
The
appearance
as an ag
in the mind
of the chair
is not like the chair
regarded
tween
the
chair
and
of atoms.
glomerate
colors while
the atoms
seem
it would
a place
for the existence
Fato
DK
houses,
39
"Ai
11.
40
For
68A37,
guis
and
that
hedges
oriente
the appearance
constituting
sidered
horses,
a start,
For
it do not.
Democritean
of gross
natus
the chair
All
things
atomism
bodies
if one means
Can?cula
of
does
not
est, in mari
those
con
allow
such as
in the world
that
has
things
are
non morietur."
the formation
of compound
bodies on the atomic
67A14.
De Rerum Natura
ii. 582-729.
Lucretius,

theory
as
De
see
282
JOSIAH B. GOULD
to be.
they appear
them between
and
no place
for
system
atoms
the basic
entities,
is in Democritus'
There
or outside
and
appearances
the void.
now to Plato
Turning
conclude
that middle-sized
to a degree
they
mere
they
Forms
just
tacle
of
about
the
the
features
of reflections
cosmological
myth.41
between
objects,
ordinary
in
jects in the world,
if one stresses
are
the Forms
imperfect
copies
clude
that
the difference
middle-sized
if one
hand,
suppose
between
constituents
space-recep
would
say
qualitative
to de
matter
as
regard
longer
of ma
deductions
to Forms
regard
that
then
which
particulars
one would
basic
Plato's
to
those
set
ob
and
imply that
or
are more
con
naturally
and
the
entities
On the
which
passages
state
one
appearances,
objects
in
the
to
consistent
it only
from
finds
different
ob
ordinary
the dis
philosophy
and
world,
basic
is preserved.
In Aristotle
ships
no
On either view, in Plato's
jects in the world.

entities
or
of self-predication,
subjects
are entirely
that the Forms
tinction
of by
spoken
is only one of degree.
mainly
are
are incorporeal and immutable and imply that they
that the Forms

not
attends
sense
the
difficult
those passages
in the world
objects
in the
the theory of perception
In
between
have
Plato
and
appearances
is a very
particulars
of the Forms,
perfect
less
are
what
birds
neither
in the
one can
to Plato,
or mathematical
the metaphysical
in the Timaeus.
bodies
other
for
As
this
given
terial
are
They
the Theaetetus
either
Plato's
and
guise
of Forms
if one attributes
cide, largely because

forth
world
both in terms of their physical
of bundles
relationship
of
in Plato's
in a certain
in consciousness.
appearances
in the Timaeus
in terms
and
not
question,
and
chairs
as
such
one must
same
the
putting
objects
existence
an autonomous
are
that
Plato
and
between
's system one finds a still different

basic
entities,
ordinary
objects,
and
set of relation
appearances.
individual earthworm and each individual pumpkin just is a

The ordinary objects in the
primary substance for Aristotle.
Each
world?animals,
plants,
and
artifacts?are
identical
with
primary
41For an account of the

and the mathemat
deduction
metaphysical
see Solmsen,
in Plato's
bodies
of the primary
ical deduction
cosmogony
op.
cit.,
pp.
48-50.

283

but
substances,
holds
that
as
tatively
ness
between
an ordinary
it appears
basic
object
to be.
and
entities
no
radical
objects
is for Democritus.
and
their
there
to be Aristotle's
entities,
ordinary
ordinary
differences
then
entities,
in regard
like that of Plato
his
to be made
between
tities.
to put
Or,
three
these
to be analyzed.
ence about
the
appearances
With
basic
in Greek philosophy,
there is no distinction
Pro
at all
and
objects,
the distinction
views
is, as was
and
spatial
sequence
between
pointed
and
objects,
can
one
of
see what
the relationships
about
a sci
out,
juxtaposition
objects.
a background,
providing
to say
have
the early Stoics would

their basic entities,
ordinary
en
basic
as is true for
just in part,
chair
in con
just is its appearances
more
in terms
basic
of which
it is
those
constituting
these
up more
shapes
not
and
is nothing
science
of objects
temporal
qualities
between
ordinary
another
way,
the matter
takes
system
appearances,
there
and
sciousness
Skeptics,
collapses
altogether
and Aristotle.
A
Democritus
the
as
consciousness,
natures
essential
in
appearances.
at the idealist
Glancing briefly
tagoras and the Empirical
objects,
between
is quali
reality
is no disparate
as there
is for
to the relationships
and
objects,
there
appearances
if one
course,
Of
basic
Aristotelianism
atomism,
as a basic
regarded
For Aristotle
are
and
Plato;
of ordinary
there
Democritean
unlike
between
the
While
appearances.
Stoa cannot hold that its basic entities are flatly identical with the
that each object
ordinary things in the world, it would maintain
a fish or a stone?is
some region
it a plant,
a
of basic
in
certain
realities
condition
unity
in the world?be
substance-logos
certain
time.
The
the more
comes
one
is not
sumably
more
of
to know
is in the primitive
for
appearances,
to be likenesses
if these
the
basic
it assumes
shown,
some
realities,
in
realities
objects
then
those
are
some
themselves
just
appearances
conditions.
Since
at a
to know,
person
unity
pre
when
basic
it
But
periodically.
the Stoic
from the world

been
realities.
are
realities
and the things in it.

of
are
them
of the ordinary objects which produce
ordinary
basic
as has
comes
substance-logos
universe
of course not at all different

As
basic
the
fiery state which

physical
one
conditions
the
with
acquainted
as a well-articulated
these
of the
certain
are
thought
them. And
conditions
likenesses
in Stoicism

of
basic
of
the
re
284
JOSIAH B. GOULD
in one
of their
evolutions
between
innumerable
fiery
phase
with
and
states
since
converge
objects
ordinary
ordinary
objects
are like some appearances
in the minds
of persons,
the patterns
alities
of relationships between these elements is most like that exhibited

in the philosophy
of Aristotle.
And for this reason those who
as a key influence on Stoic philosophy42 have
look to Aristotle
some justification for adhering to this thesis as a guide to their
research.
from
are
There
these
some
to
conclusions
significant
bear upon
of which
Stoicism's
some
contrasts,
tion of philosophical
activity.
be brought
out
context
sideration
of what happens
in a quest
engaged
the
for
the Phaedo
being
with
the
to ; it also
on
theater-fan
while
reality.
where
the
the
latter
concep
con
point?a
of
conception
the philosopher
to be one
This
of the
conception
in the passages
straightforwardly
(475b4-480al3),
of being
enamoured
final
and
to Plato's
takes
or
referred
already
in the Republic
fourth
in Stoicism
is set forth most
philosopher
trasted
of
drawn
these latter can best
But perhaps
as a quest
for being.
shown
Plato
earlier,
philosophy
As was
of
in the
be
appears
unambiguously
the lover of wisdom

that
ground
a
is
devotee
the
of
is con
former
is
becoming.43
The implication of this conception of philosophy, an implication

which is explicitly drawn in the Phaedo and Republic, is that the
is
philosopher
real :44 the basic
is one
philosopher
real.
or
for
to
trying
Forms.
or Platonic
concerned
peculiarly
but of course it takes a different
Aristotle,
because
searching
entities
of Aristotle's
seem
There
losopher,
One
is in
different
to be
in Aristotle's
the
interest
two
view,
shown
conception
very
general
a
exhibits
in a
grasp
what
The
notion
with
being
is most
that
the
survives
in
form in his philosophy

of what
ways
is basically
in which
the phi
interest
strong
of being
science
qua
42For
in being.
being,
The Uni
example, J. M. Rist, Stoic Philosophy
(Cambridge:
Press, 1969).
43
in Republic
in which passionate
See also the passage
(490a8-b7)
is described
in erotic terms.
love of being by the philosopher
44For
see Gregory
of reality
in the philosophy
of Plato
degrees
"A Metaphysical
and Addresses
Vlastos,
Paradox,"
Proceedings
of the
American
1965-1966.
Association.
Ohio :
Philosophical
(Yellow Springs,
The Antioch Press),
pp. 5-19.
versity

285

science which
is concerned both with
of being and the
the modes
which
The other
have
is in the in
qua being.45
properties
things
in gaining
terest
shown
of primary
of the attributes
knowledge
a
to
task
the
but the
substances,
departmental
sciences,
belonging
are
sciences
departmental
considered
to be
by Aristotle
"second
and, in his view, they contrast not with philosophy

philosophy"
in its entirety, but only with one branch of philosophy, which is
as being
of that
the science
regarded
are "principles
which
and causes."46
In dealing with
one
as
so
being
Stoicism.47
Equally
one
when
extraordinary
in my
astonishing
from
turns
as the materialism
ished, indeed almost non-existent,

contrast
substances
the Stoa, Zeller remarks that nothing
to the Stoics
Aristotle
of primary
class
is
and
one meets
which
view
strikes
Plato
the
now
in
dimin
talk about being in the Stoa
in
to the
and Aris
attention
it in Plato
conspicuous
given
as
case
is
the
when
these
course,
always
discrepancies
are noticed,
one can say that this derives
from
the state
of our
sources
of information
about Stoicism
rather
than from a radical
totle.
Of
shift in thought about the philosopher and being in the Stoa. But
that is a last recourse, and before being driven to it, I make the
following conjecture which finds some support in the Stoic frag
ments.
The Stoics held that the most

is the class
"something"
major
of somethings.
The
was used to designate
sub-classes
within
this
class
class of things
comprehensive
Greek
indefinite
this class
are
pronoun
meaning
(SVF II 329).
bodies
and
The
incorporeal
things (SVF II 331). What happens to being in this classifica

tion? In one fragment (SVF II 334) it is reported that "some
thing" is the most generic of existing or being things; but in an
other already mentioned
(SVF II 329), Alexander of Aphrodisias
says that the Stoics predicated being of bodies alone. The Stoics
have, I believe, adopted a criterion of being very like the one set
forth by the Stranger in Plato's Sophist
(247d8-e4) : a thing has
45
iv. 1 and Categoriae.
Metaphysica
194bl5
and Metaphysica
?6Physica
toteles (Heidelberg:
Carl Winter,
1966),
47
Zeller, op. cit., p. 119.
vi. 1.
p. 264.
Ingemar

During,
Aris
JOSIAH B. GOULD
286
it can
if
being
or
act
be
acted
upon.
the
Secondly,
Stoics
con
cluded that only bodies satisfy that criterion. And, finally, since
they do not wish to exclude incorporeal things, which are for them
expressibles, the void, place, and time (SVF II 331), from reality
altogether, they say that each of these is in the generic class of
somethings but is without being. More could be said about the
status of these incorporeal somethings,48 but the point I wish to
here
stress
is that
the
now
Stoa
connects
being
exclusively
with
This had two significant consequences.

One is that the
study of being is now identified with physics, the science of bodies.
And in the Stoa physics becomes regarded formally as one of the
three main branches of philosophy
(SVF II 37). The second con
bodies.
is that
sequence
logic,
too, now
becomes
formally
one
department
of philosophy
(ibid.). If the Stoa had continued the Platonic
motif of philosophy as essentially a quest for being, it would have
had
in consistency
clusively with
comprehensive
for
losopher
the physical
sibles, which
reason
this
search
and
not
that
entities.
corporeal
is concerned
philosophy
But
ex
that is not a sufficiently
of philosophy
for the Stoa.
The
conception
phi
them is, as has been
in
nature
of
the
interested
seen,
he is concerned
with
but in addition
expres
universe;
For
and arguments.
propositions,
meanings,
formulates
the philosopher's
the Stoa,
unlike
Plato,
as a quest
as
for being,
the
cultivation
of wisdom49
but
include
wisdom
conceives
human"
(SVF
Socrates
is made
tance
to maintain
of a science
II 36).
as
"the
of
knowledge
In one place
to urge upon
the other
or
of valid
arguments
divine
things
in the Phaedo
while
And,
logic.
(90b-91b)
the
interlocutors
and
impor
Plato
makes plain there his conviction that without logic one might "be
deprived of the truth and knowledge of being" (Phaedo 90d6-7),
he
never
makes
clear
that
logic,
which
has
as
its
subject
48
Emile
argu
"La Theorie
des Incorporels"
Etudes
de Philos
Br?hier,
de France,
(Paris: Presses Universitaires
ophie Antique
1955), pp. 105-16.
in Stoic philosophy,
see A. A. Long,
For a recent account of the expressible
in
and
in
edited by
Problems
"Language
Thought
Stoicism,
Stoicism,"
A. A. Long
(London: The Athlone
Press, 1971), pp. 75-113.
49SVF
et
II 131
Emile
(line 28, p. 41).
Br?hier,
Chrysippe
Stoicisme.
?dition revue
Nouvelle
L'Ancien
1951),
(Paris: Felix Alean,
p. 29, note 1.

287

could be a part
ments,
The
being.50
to the
ophy
study
who
One
reads
are
of being,
they
in consistency
able
Greek
soon
philosophy
thinkers,
pre-Socratics,51
beginning
and
tween
the
appearances
world,
being,
in
of
and
variety
positions
epistemology
cordance with how one views

of
entities.
limit philos
to incorporate
not
do
itself both logic and physics.

with
classes
has as its subject
which
because
however,
Stoics,
within philosophy
of philosophy,
This
discovers
that
a distinction
make
in
consciousness.
emerge
ontology
the interrelationships
essay
has
be
A
in ac
of these three
some
reviewed
Greek
of
those
posi
tions in Greek philosophy and has in particular tried to show how

the early Stoics in their philosophy dealt with being, the world,
and
nature
of
found
account
has
emphasized
had a great deal of curiosity
philosophers
have
The
appearances.
the
world,
physical
alien any attempt
and
as
to draw
about
(i)
that
Greek
the origin and
consequence
they would
a sharp distinction
between
physics and philosophy;

(ii) that there are a number of significant
contrasts and affinities between Stoicism and earlier Greek philos
ophies in regard to the ways in which they view the relationships
between
basic
entities,
objects
in
the world,
and
in
appearances
(iii) and, for those who still may be incredulous on

consciousness;
this point, that early Stoicism was a full-fledged philosophy and
not merely
a species
of practical
counsel
for Everyman
50
which
his
It might be thought that since Plato always emphasized

the impor
of dialectic
and since for him in the final analysis
dialectic
just is
The
logic, then Plato does after all make a place for logic in philosophy.
in this line of reasoning
is that for Plato dialectic
is
suspect assumption
"Dialectic"
is for Plato an honorific
to what
logic.
term, being attached
ever philosophical
to be recommending,
method
he happens
whether
that
be Socratic
the Republic
method
of ascent to an unhypothesized
elenchus,
or the method
first principle,
of division
in the Phaedrus
expounded
briefly
and lavishly
in the Sophist.
The expression
illustrated
'dialectic'
was,
and crit
however, never applied by Plato to the study of the justification
icism of inference,
i.e., to logic.
51
For a treatment
of this motif
in early Greek philosophy
see Alex
ander P. D. Mourelatos,
"The Real and Human
Error
in Early
Greek
The Review
19 (1965), pp. 346-65.
Moure
of Metaphysics,
Philosophy,"
on the distinction
latos concentrates
between Being
and the world, and he
a very plausible
advances
thesis as to why the early Greek thinkers
felt
compelled to penetrate
beyond ordinary mundane
objects to a transcendent
realm of being in their thinking about reality.
tance

JOSIAH B. GOULD
288
a defunct
replaced
this essay
has not
torically
A point
curred
to many
parallels
of great
philosophies
of
losophers
entities
the data
who
interest
surveyed
science
like atoms
of human
have
here
about
and
I have
this
and
the
the
and neutrons,
consciousness.52
in mind
that
will
have
oc
are
some
is that
there
far,
to be drawn
between
the various
Greek
read
of
views
contemporary
phi
between
theoretical
relationships
familiar
objects
State University
52
Here
and Kuhn.
Aristotelianism.
tougher-minded
but one
broached,
the views
in the world,
and
of New York at Albany.
of Carnap,
Quine,
Sellars,

Popper,

Gould, Josiah B. - Being, The World, and Appearance in Early Stoicism and Some Other Greek Philosophies - RMeta, 28, 2 - 1974 - 261-288

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gould, Josiah B. - Being, The World, and Appearance in Early Stoicism and Some Other Greek Philosophies - RMeta, 28, 2 - 1974 - 261-288

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Being, the World, and Appearance in Early Stoicism and Some Other Greek Philosophies

Author(s): Josiah B. Gould

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:53 PM

BEING, THE WORLD, AND APPEARANCE

temporary philosophy can hardly fail to be impressed by a major

that the uni

The early Stoa held that

there is no vacuum within

said that the sun is flat like a leaf (DK

There is another element in ancient Greek philosophy which

to grasp being, reality, or what is. The thought behind this en

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:53 PM

one of its most

search for reality (Phaedo 65c9, 66c2)

that the Greek

(3) How does the person, one of the units

(1) What basic things or realities are there?

is that he is a person having

the ideal of the pursuit

the only reality

in which he lives is like.

My own view of the philosopher

and as being themselves

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:53 PM

BEING, THE WORLD, AND APPEARANCE

This essay will discuss

(b) to the basic

the early Stoa's

that Stoicism is in a certain class of Greek

wish first to indicate

it from schools of philosophy

in the high degree

of these thinkers and that of the early

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:53 PM

(cube to earth, pyramid

about each of the fundamental

(30c-d). In the Parmenides Socrates suggests, but is then

(Timaeus 55d-56c), but these bodies are nonetheless

for an answer is not germane

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:53 PM

BEING, THE WORLD, AND APPEARANCE

things there are and how they are disposed.

The first approach

(Vitae i.16), to refer to the view

are taken by him to be

that the two kinds of motion

is that the mind becomes

(Meno 81c-86c; Phaedo

The second recom

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:53 PM

if something appears white to someone, it is white for him (Theae

did not think that there could be an exact physics,

that the senses provide

then, Plato was

a figure with whom

8W. K. C. Guthrie, A History

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:17:53 PM

BEING, THE WORLD, AND APPEARANCE

(DK 68A135; Aetius

have been thought

the soul atoms.13

rialism and that the mind must

somewhat as the world of Homer