Introduction

Jonathan Barnes

doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521250283.005

4 - Introduction

from PART II - LOGIC AND LANGUAGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2008

Edited by

Jaap Mansfeld and

Jonathan Barnes: Affiliation:
University of Geneva
Keimpe Algra: Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jonathan Barnes: Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Jaap Mansfeld: Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Malcolm Schofield: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A map of logic

The Stoics were the innovative logicians of the Hellenistic period; and the leading logician of the school was its third scholarch, Chrysippus. Most of this section of the History will therefore describe Stoic ideas and Stoic theories. Its hero will be Chrysippus.

Logic is the study of inference, and hence of the items upon which inference depends – of propositional structure (or ‘grammar’), of meaning and reference. That part of their subject which the Hellenistic philosophers called γoλiκη (logikē) was a larger discipline; for logikē was the science which studies γóλoς in all its manifestations, and logic is included in logikē as a part. Indeed as a part of a part. For the Stoics divided logikē into two subparts, rhetoric and dialectic; and logic is a part of dialectic.

The founder famously distinguished rhetoric from dialectic by a gesture:

When Zeno of Citium was asked how rhetoric differed from dialectic, he closed his hand and then opened it again, saying ‘Thus’. With the closing he aligned the rounded and brief character of dialectic, and by opening and extending his fingers he hinted at the breadth of rhetorical power.

M II.6–7)

The gesture is picturesque, and it caught the imagination; but the thought behind it was neither original nor enlightening.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy , pp. 63 - 76

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521250283.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 1999

Access options

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

References

Angeli, A., ed. (1988a) Filodemo: Agli amici di scuola (PHerc. 1005), La scuola di Epicuro 7 (Naples).Google Scholar

Atherton, C. (1993) The Stoics on Ambiguity (Cambridge).Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1983b) ‘Terms and sentences’, PBA 69.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1985) ‘Theophrastus and hypothetical syllogistic’, in Wiesner, (1985–87) I, also in Fortenbaugh, et al. (1985).

Barnes, J. (1986a) ‘Peripatetic negations’, OSAP 4.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1986b) ‘The Logical Investigations of Chrysippus’, Wissenschaftskolleg Jahrbuch 1984/5 (Berlin).Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1991) ‘Enseigner la Vertu?’, RPh 116.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1993a) ‘“A third kind of syllogism”: Galen and the logic of relations’, in Sharples, (1993).Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1993d) ‘Galen and the utility of logic’, in Kollesch, & Nickel, (1993).Google Scholar

Bochenski, I. (1947) La logique de Théophraste, Collectanea Friburgensia, N.S. 32 (Fribourg).Google Scholar

Dorandi, T., ed. (1990a) ‘Filodemo: gli orientamenti della ricerca attuale’, in Haase, W., ed., ANRW II 36.4 (Berlin/New York).Google Scholar

Dörrie, H. & Baltes, M. (1996) Der Platonismus in der Antike IV (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt).Google Scholar

Ebert, T. (1987) ‘The origin of the Stoic theory of signs in Sextus Empiricus’, OSAP 5.Google Scholar

Ebert, T. (1991) Dialektiker und frühe Stoiker bei Sextus Empiricus, Hypomnemata 95 (Göttingen).CrossRef Google Scholar

Egli, U. (1981) Das Dioklesfragment bei Diogenes Laertios, Sonderforschungsbereich 99 Linguistik 55 (Konstanz).Google Scholar

Frede, M. (1974a) Die stoische Logik, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. Philol.-hist. Kl. Folge 3, Nr. 88 (Göttingen).Google Scholar

Goulet, R. (1989) ‘Aulu Gelle’, in Goulet, (1989–94) 1.

Graeser, A., ed. (1973) Die Logischen Fragmente des Theophrast (Berlin).Google Scholar

Graeser, A. (1975) Zenon von Kition, Positionen und Probleme (Berlin).CrossRef Google Scholar

Hadot, P. (1979) ‘Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans l'antiquité’, Museum Helveticum 36.Google Scholar

Hagius, H. (1979) ‘The Stoic theory of the parts of speech’ (dissertation Columbia).Google Scholar

Hülser, K.-H. (1987–8) Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker. 4 vols. (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt).Google Scholar

Ierodiakonou, K. (1993b) ‘The Stoic division of philosophy’, Phronesis 38.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ioppolo, A. M. (1980a) Aristone di Chio e lo stoicismo antico, Elenchos 1 (Naples).Google Scholar

Kidd, I. G. (1978b) ‘Posidonius and logic’, in Brunschwig (1978a).Google Scholar

Kidd, I. G. (1988) Posidonius, II: The Commentary, 2 vols., Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 14 A & B (Cambridge) (vol. I see Edelstein & Kidd 1972).Google Scholar

Lee, Tae-Soo (1984) Die Griechische Tradition der Aristotelischen Syllogistik in der Spätantike: eine Untersuchung über die Kommentare zu den Analytica Prioravon Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Ammonius und Philoponus, Hypomnemata 79 (Göttingen).CrossRef Google Scholar

Lloyd, A. C. (1978b) ‘Definite propositions and the concept of reference’, in Brunschwig (1978a).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1971d) ‘Aisthesis, prolepsis and linguistic theory in Epicurus’, BICS 18.Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1978c) ‘Dialectic and the Stoic sage’, in Rist (1978b) ; repr. in Long, (1996).Google Scholar

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

Marrone, L. (1982) ‘Nuove letture nel PHerc. 307 (Questioni Logiche di Crisippo)’, CErc 12.Google Scholar

Marrone, L. (1984) ‘Proposizione e predicato in Crisippo’, CErc 14.Google Scholar

Marrone, L. (1992) ‘L'ambiguità verbale nel PHerc. 307 (Questioni logiche di Crisippo)’, in Proceed. XIX Intern. Congr. Papyrology (Cairo) 1.Google Scholar

Marrone, L. (1993) ‘Gnoseologia stoica nel PHerc. 307’, in Franchi dell’Orto, L., ed., Ercolano 1738–1988. 250 anni di ricerca archeologica (Rome).Google Scholar

Pearson, A. C., ed. (1891) The Fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes (Cambridge).Google Scholar

Repici, L. (1977) La Logica di Teofrasto: studio critico e raccolta dei frammenti e delle testimonianze (Bologna).Google Scholar

Rist, J. M. (1978a) ‘Zeno and the origins of Stoic logic’, in Brunschwig, (1978a).Google Scholar

Schofield, M. (1983) ‘The syllogisms of Zeno of Citium’, Phronesis 28.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sedley, D. N. (1977) ‘Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic philosophy’, PCPhS 23.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. N. (1984) ‘The negated conjunction in Stoicism’, Elenchos 5.Google Scholar

Solmsen, F. (1929) ‘Ancora il frammento logico fiorentino’, RFIC 7 ; repr. in Solmsen, (1968–82) II.Google Scholar

Spinelli, E. (1986) ‘Metrodoro contro i dialettici?’, CErc 16.Google Scholar

Tepedino Guerra, A. (1992) ‘Metrodoro “Contro i dialettici”?’, CErc 22.Google Scholar

Wehrli, F., ed. (1969b) Eudemos von Rhodos, Die Schule des Aristoteles, H. 8, Zweite Auflage (Basle/Stuttgart).Google Scholar

Wehrli, F., ed. (1969c) Phainias von Eresos, Chamaileon, Praxiphanes, Die Schule des Aristoteles, H. 9, Zweite Auflage (Basle/Stuttgart).Google Scholar

Book contents

4 - Introduction

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive