Diogenes Laertius and the Stoic Theory of Mixture

Lewis, Eric

doi:10.1111/j.2041-5370.1988.tb00202.x

Cited by 29 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gould (1970, 109), Long (1974, 158), Sandbach (1975, 76), Nolan (2006, 174-5) and Betegh (2016, 402) all think blending involves colocation. Lewis (1988) disagrees; Sorabji adopts a mixed view (1988,.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierocles and the Stoic Theory of Blending

Helle

2018

PHRO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Stoic physics, blending (κρᾶσις) is the relation between active pneuma and passive matter; natural bodies from rocks and logs to plants, animals and the cosmos itself are blends of pneuma and matter. Blending structures the Stoic cosmos. I develop a new interpretation of the Stoic theory of blending, based on passages from Hierocles. The theory of blending, I argue, has been misunderstood. Hierocles allows us to see in detail how the theory is supposed to work and how it fits into Stoic physics.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierocles and the Stoic Theory of Blending

Helle

2018

PHRO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DL 7.151 is also famously vexed, on which see vonArnim (1905),Dorandi (2013),Hicks (1925),Lewis (1988), LS, II, andRashed (2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Resistance to Stoic Blending

Harven

2018

Rhizomata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper rehabilitates the Stoic conception of blending from the ground up, by freeing the Stoic conception of body from three interpretive presuppositions. First, the twin hylomorphic presuppositions that where there is body there is matter, and that where there is reason or quality there is an incorporeal. Then, the atomistic presupposition that body is absolutely full and rigid, and the attendant notion that resistance (antitupia) must be ricochet. I argue that once we clear away these presuppositions about body, the foundations of Stoic corporealism fall into place. Body is fundamental (not hylomorphic). The two fundamental principles (archai) are bodies: divine active reason (logos) and passive matter (hulē); and these two bodies are two, not matter and form all over again, nor actual and potential, but agent and patient. The independence of the two archai is no threat to the unity of the cosmos, however, because the Stoic theory of body allows for the complete coextension of the archai. The hylomorphic thinker rightly asks, what relation could be tighter than that of the wax and its shape? The Stoic replies: a causal relation, the interaction of agent and patient completely coextended in a through and through blend.

show abstract

“…Very few Greek commentaries on De Gen. have survived: Philoponus's, and through it, fragments of Alexander's, and Alexander's De mixtione, mostly concerned with refuting the Stoic position. See Todd (1976), Hahm (1985), Lewis (1988) and De Haas (1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

John Duns Scotus and the Ontology of Mixture

Petrescu¹

2014

Res Phil.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents Duns Scotus's theory of mixture in the context of medieval discussions over Aristotle's theory of mixed bodies. It revisits the accounts of mixture given by Avicenna, Averroes, and Thomas Aquinas, before presenting Scotus's account as a reaction to Averroes. It argues that Duns Scotus rejected the Aristotelian theory of mixture altogether and that his account went contrary to the entire Latin tradition. Scotus denies that mixts arise out of the four classical elements and he maintains that both the elemental forms and the elemental qualities are lost in the mixture. Consequently, he denies the distinction between the process of mixture and that of substantial change through generation and corruption. The reassessment of Scotus's account modifies the current historical representation of this discussion, inherited from Anneliese Maier.Late medieval philosophers expended a great amount of effort on Aristotle's theory of mixture and developed various accounts of how mixts arise out of the four Greek classical elements.1 John Duns Scotus held a radical set of theses on the theory of mixture: that the elements are not kept in the mixts neither with respect to their form, nor with respect to their qualities; 2 that a single element can give rise to a mixt; 3 that mixts are not generated through the mutual action of the elements; and that they cannot be generated out of the four elements at all. 4 Consequently, he rejected Aristotle's theory of mixture as a process distinct from generation, 1 Following a common practice in the literature, I use the old English word "mixt" for the result of the mixture, mixtum, and "mixture" for the process, mixtio. The current English sense of mixture, which is closer to Aristotle's synthesis, a juxtaposition of elements (or its result), will not be used. 2 "Ideo est alia opinio, quam teneo, quod formae elementares non manent in mixto secundum suas essentias, nec eorum qualitates" (Lect. II, d. 15, q. un., 26). 3 "Similiter ex uno elemento generatur mixtum" (Lect. II, d. 15, q. un., 29). 4 "Credo autem quod nunquam mixtum generatur ex quattuor elementis mutuo agentibus" (Lect. II, d. 15, q. un., 30). "Ideo dico quod nunquam est necesse quod genereretur mixtum ex quatuor elementis concurrentibus, etiamsi concurrant per virtutem divinam, vel qualitercumque, nunquam ex eis generatur mixtum" (Rep. 2A, d. 15, q. un., 6).

show abstract

Diogenes Laertius and the Stoic Theory of Mixture

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Hierocles and the Stoic Theory of Blending

Hierocles and the Stoic Theory of Blending

The Resistance to Stoic Blending

John Duns Scotus and the Ontology of Mixture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About