Skip to main content

Stoic Philosophy and Its Parts in Two Analogies

By Robin Weiss

This essay addresses the disputed nature of the relationship among philosophy’s parts in Stoicism. It argues against the common view that the relationship among philosophy’s parts is best understood in terms of logical relationships (Ierodiakondou 1993, Mansfield 2003, Annas 2007), and instead argues that this relationship more usefully understood on analogy with that of the functionally distinct parts of a living organism. The essay presents a sustained analysis of two of the analogies the Stoics use to explain the relationship among philosophy’s parts (a garden and an egg).

Zeno Peripateticus? Cicero’s Rhetorical Philosophy in De Officiis

By Michael Vazquez

Thanks to a resurgence of scholarly work on Cicero in recent years, it is no longer viable to interpret his philosophical texts as mere transcripts of Hellenistic debates. As an adherent to the skeptical brand of Academic philosophy, and as an accomplished orator, Cicero’s authorship in his philosophical works presents numerous interpretive challenges. In this paper I would like to offer a novel interpretation of Cicero’s De Officiis that is sensitive to his philosophical and rhetorical ambitions.

Eris in the Guise of Stasis in Aristotle’s Politics

By John Mulhern

In this paper I establish the influence of Hesiod on Aristotle’s advice in the middle books of the Politics for resolving the continuing internal conflict in the Greek cities. One might expect Aristotle to address eris in the Politics, since the Greek cities suffered from almost continuous internal conflict and were signally unsuccessful in ameliorating it. But Aristotle does not use the word eris in the Politics. In fact, it occurs only five times in the entire corpus, including twice in fragments, and always in an archaic context, usually poetic.

Philodemus and the Peripatetics on the Role of Anger in the Virtuous Life

By David Kaufman

Among the most popular topics of interschool debate in Hellenistic and Imperial philosophy was the question of what role, if any, ordinary emotions such as love, anger, and the like play in a virtuous and fulfilling life. The two most famous interlocutors in this debate were the Stoics and Peripatetics, who held opposing views on the value of emotions.