Stoic Hypocrisy and the Corporeality of Lekta In the Stoic account of physics, all things identified, debated, discussed and pondered fall strictly into certain categories in the Stoic ontological structure. Of the three branches of the very broad category of ‘somethings,’ the two most relevant to this paper are bodies and incorporeals. The rigid conception of Physics as articulated by the Stoics seems to use the incorporeal somethings as a means to categorize, locate, and evaluate those things which are bodily. In their incorporeals, the Stoics include lekta (which I will discuss later, as it is an integral part of their causality), void, place and time. Stoic causality, a largely deterministic discussion of events in a fated world, discusses the alteration of bodies without defining any bodies as effects. In characterizing the effects of causation as only lekta, I believe the Stoics have left themselves with an incomplete discussion of causality. By showing that an effect of a particular cause may incorporate both incorporeal and bodily aspects, I hope to provide a more acceptable account of causation while demonstrating various holes in the Stoic account. Before diving directly into the Stoic causal system, we should get our feet wet with the definition of some terms which I will employ frequently throughout the paper. Most importantly, I believe, is the concept of lekta. Despite the existence of complex lekta in the form of propositions, a lekton is simply a piece of language that articulates a state of affairs, carries a truth value, and “subsists in accordance with a rational impression” (LS 196). While there are many intriguing aspects of lekta, for the purposes of this paper it is most important to understand lekt... ... middle of paper ... ...tal explanation for cause and effect. In accepting what they propose about causality, we must reject numerous integral aspects of their philosophy, as well as common sense. Legitimate causation must, at the very least, produce an effect which is corporeal. Bodies act upon each other in many ways, and we cannot exclude causation as one of those modes in which bodies are affected. The Stoics made interesting assertions about causality, but were too blindsided by their own determinism to realize the contradiction it proved to be for their own philosophy. Alas, so it was fated. Works Cited Long, A.A. & Sedley D.N. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Trans. Long & Sedley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Frede, Dorothea. 'Stoic Determinism.' The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Ed. Brad Inwood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 2003. 179-205.
Leading up to Civil War many events transpired that created a disconnect between Americans within the United States. The South believed that slave labor boosted the profitability and sustainability of their economy by allowing for cheap labor that lasted for a long time, while the slaves could also reproduce, creating more cheap labor to come. The North, however, disagreed with the South; they did not want slaves to take American jobs and they also promoted American labor. The North and South each tried to sway the other’s position on the topic of slave labor, but neither would budge. As time passed, certain events lead to the decline of slavery. The south recognized this and threatened to secede from the Union, adding to the disconnect between the two. Secession is defined as: to break away from; but for the South it was leverage to either help them attain what they desired or they could leave the union. Admitting free states, disallowing slavery to expand, and President Lincoln’s election were significant factors that lead to the secession of the southern states in 1860 and 1861.
The United States was divided into two divergent sides fighting for control even before 1860. These conflicts never ended up reaching the battlefield, but the free states and slave states were in a battle for representation in Congress. Both sides wanted to control the balance of states in order to gain more authority in Congress. The Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850 were attempts to prevent the growing conflict but only delayed the inevitable. When Abraham Lincoln was elected president, South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union and other southern states soon followed. By the time that Lincoln was inaugurated in 1860, seven states parted from the Union and were eventually joined by four more. The South seceded because they assumed that they had the constitutional right to do so. South Carolina seceded because they believed the North would gain enough power in the central government to abolish slavery entirely in the United States. Secession was their last choice in order to maintain their power and lifestyle. The Civil War led to the Emancipation Proclamation and abolishment of slavery, but this ...
In support of this claims, he issues in a physical cause and effect concept that ideally relates to the human agents. Therefore, it can be deduced that necessity based causation arises from the uniformity observable operations of an individual, where one’s minds is jointly determined by a moral obligation. Further, the philosopher offers two dispositions to help explain the notion of Compatibilism. The first part supposes that there is a constant combination of two similar events, whereas the second one presumes that human’s consequence can be inferred from one to the other. On the contrary, he argues that still his concept is universally accepted as an abstract knowledge among beings though people may not see a necessity combination between a cause and effect
A controversial issue during 1860 to 1877 was state’s rights and federal power. The North and South were divided over this issue. The North composed of free states and an industrial economy while the South was made up of slave states and an agricultural economy. The South did not like federal authority over the issue of slavery; therefore, they supported the radical state rights’ ideology. South Carolina seceded from the Union because it believed that since states made up the Union, it could leave when it chooses to. The government argued against the South saying that they had no right to leave the Union because the Union was not made up of just states but people. However, the South counteracted this argument with the case that the 10th amendment “declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by its states, were reserved to the states.” (Doc A) However, the government still believed that secession from the Union was unjust and decided that a new change surrounding state’s rights was necessary. As a result, when the Union won in the Civil War, a resolution was made, where the state’s lost their power and the federal government gained power. U...
Compatibilism is the belief that determinism and free will are companionable philosophies. The question that is posed is; is it possible to believe in both ideas without being rationally erratic? Is there such thing as controlling every aspect of our life and choosing what we do and how we do it? Or is it previous events that have happened in our lives that cause everything that happens? It has been argued back and fourth for centuries, if free will and determinism are compatible and it will continue for many more. Throughout this essay, it will be argued that compatibilism cannot be defended, with use of sufficient evidence and support from research conducted on this topic. Free will is supported and determinism is not supported, which will
The Stoic response to the Idle Argument is the conception of all events being co-fated, that is to say, certain conditions must be met in order for the fated outcome to occur. It is the idea that everything is fated within a given context. In order to recover from the illness it is necessary that the agent call the doctor for consultation, once this condition has been met, the fate of recovery will ensue. Conversely, if the agent refrains from going to the doctor it becomes equally fated that they will not recover, since they’ve failed to satisfy the required conditions to overcome the illness (203; Frede). The external cause (impression) in this case would be the illness; we assent to the impression by choosing whether or not we decide to go to the doctor to remedy the illness. This choice is dependent on our character, which would be the internal cause. If we go, we are fated to recover, if we don’t we are equally fated not to recover and consequently die sooner. In both cases a certain set of conditions are required for one of the two outcomes to occur.
.... Recent developments in quantum physics, biology and information science have put us in a position where we question the uniqueness of the causal-mechanical model of science. But these developments, even though sciences based on non-causal concepts might dominate in the culture, would not eradicate the causal way people have viewed the world and themselves, but only relegate the concept of cause to the realm of metaphor, a rhetorical way of putting things. The concept of cause then would no longer be a scientific concept, but would still be alive in the culture. What brings a change in the general worldview then? This would be the question I still have to ask.
The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions are on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by Necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event are because of some prior cause. This causation may be by an external driving force, such as a divine power, or simply a chain of events leading up to a specific moment. The problem is then further divided into those believing the two may both exist, compatibilism, or one cannot exist with the other, incompatibilism. In his work, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume presents an argument for the former, believing it is possible for both Free Will and Necessity to exist simultaneously. This presentation in favor of compatibilism, which he refers to as the reconciling problem, is founded on a fundamental understanding of knowledge and causation, which are supported by other empiricists such as John Locke. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing and supporting Hume’s argument for compatibilism. I will also be defending his work from select arguments against his theory. Because causation and both conditions for human freedom exist, Hume is able to argue everything is determined and Free Will is possible.
As some believe that we humans have free will, they believe that we have the freedom of choice and the freedom of action. But, if all of our actions have a reason behind them, or if there is a causal explanation behind each of our choices, it is difficult to say that we actually have the freedom of will. For this reason, determinism challenges free will, as the determinist believes that all of our decisions are governed by some form of natural law, and that all of our behaviors are explainable by this law.
The current inquiry considers some of the chief notions of the Stoics, but more specifically it focuses upon one important question: what does it mean to follow nature for the Stoics? To answer this question, the testimonies of several of the Stoics are pooled and examined together in the end. Not only does this inquisition illustrate chief attributes of Stoicism, but those attributes are eventually evaluated in light of their coherence as well.
To some the causes and effects of things are mutually exclusive, and coexistence with one another. When observing specific equipment or even life, the question stands that there must be an account that took place before such items ceased to exist. Particularly, Aristotle argues that each thing, whatever it may be, will have causes, or types of explanatory factors by which that thing can be explained. The significant knowledge of causes allows for specific accounts to be known. It’s like questioning what occurred first the chicken or the egg. Anything in life offers a question of cause; something must have been in order to bring about the nature of today. These causes are apparent in answering everyday questions, which in turn explains that the causes of life clarify the being of which stood before it and such causes amount to same entity.
While a student at Yale, Stephen Greenblatt came across Lucretius’ De rerum natura, simply looking for something to read over the summer. What he didn’t realize is this poem would have a lasting impact on the way he viewed life, death in particular. To him, De rerum natura was an “astonishingly convincing account of the way things actually are” (Greenblatt 5). However, notice he uses the word “convincing”; Greenblatt himself doesn’t necessarily believe Lucretius’ views, but he understands how Lucretius could’ve drawn these conclusions based on what the people of the first century B.C. knew about the world. The Swerve also intertwines a short biography of Epicurus, who was Lucretius’ “philosophical messiah” and inspiration for the poem, and his view of the world, religion, and way of life (72). Epicurus becomes frustrated when at the age of twelve, “his teacher could not explain to him the meaning of chaos” (74). It is at this time he
Causal determinism is a proposition which states that every event is the necessary result of a particular cause. Evidence of causal determinism can be found in most natural world sciences and essentially conceptualizes the way in which we think about our world during our daily lives (Hoefer).With causal determinism, however, comes the problem of free will. This arises from the consequence derived from causal determinism being universally true that essentially appears to deny that free will is something that we possess. However, with causal determinism, there comes different positions one can take which all have consequences attached to them. These positions are hard determinism, in indeterminism, and compatibilism, each with accompanying consequences
The first form of Aristotelian causation is formal cause; this cause focuses on the present. This form involves the essence, form, and nature of things. It plays upon the pure form of objects, then gets more specific with the genus, and then even more specific with the species of said object. There are tons of examples of formal causation- Dwayne Wade plays basketball for the Heat, his number is 3, this counts as a formal cause. Another is the common reference to the television, a television isn’t merely a big glass box but the pairing of glass, metal, and nuts and bolts that allows it to function. The house reference is very common also; in order for a house to exist, it must have brick, concrete, or wood as its foundation so it is safe to live in.
Within and beyond philosophy, lies the tension between the universal concept of free will and determinism. From a general standpoint, individuals are convinced that they rule and govern their own lives. Free will embodies that individuals have the freedom to dictate their own future. It asserts that our minds and essence have the capacity to choose our own actions and direction, whilst also choose alternative paths. Determinism on the other hand, suggests that life is a product of necessity and causation, built upon the foundations of the past and laws of nature. It threatens the thesis of free will by positing that the world and everything in it is knowable through strict cause and effect relationships - eliminating the possibility of freedom