Zenon of Citium

Modern accounts of Stoic politics have attributed to Zeno the ideal of an isolated community of sages and to later Stoics such as Seneca a cosmopolitan utopia transcending all traditional States. By returning to the Cynic background to both Zeno's Republic and the Cosmopolitan tradition, this paper argues that the distance between the two is not as great as is often supposed. This account, it is argued, is more plausible than trying to offer a developmental explanation of the supposed transformation in Stoic political thought from isolated community to cosmopolitan utopia.

Stoa felsefesi yaklaşık iki bin üç yüz senedir düşünce tarihinin gündeminde olan bir ekoldür. Stoacı filozoflar evrenin doğasını ve ondaki düzeni tanrısal akla dayandırarak evrende olup biten her şeyi, kaderci bir tutumla ve belli bir doğal nedenler silsilesi içinde birbiriyle ilişkilendirir. Bu anlayışa göre insana düşen, evrendeki tanrısal aklı keşfederek geçici bedensel yaşamı küçümsemek, başta ölüm korkusu olmak üzere zihnini baskılayan tüm kaygılardan sıyrılarak, Seneca’nın deyişiyle, insanlığının da üzerine çıkmaktır.

Stoa felsefesinin kuruluş dönemindeki filozofların eserleri günümüze ulaşmamıştır, onların yaşamlarına ve düşüncelerine dair bilgilerimiz sonraki yüzyıllarda yaşamış olan yazarların eserlerine dayanmaktadır. Stoa Felsefesinin Kuruluş Fragmanları başlıklı bu çalışma kurucu Zenon ve onun öğrencisi olan Kleanthes’le ilgili eski Yunanca ve Latince kaynaklardaki aktarımların özgün bir derlemesidir. Böylece okurlar çoğu dilde benzeri bulunmayan bu derleme sayesinde, Stoa felsefesinin kuruluş dönemini bizzat antik kaynaklardan süzülüp gelen bilgilerle öğrenme fırsatını bulmaktadır.

Durante siglos, Platón y Aristóteles dominaron nuestra imagen de la filosofía griega. Los otros sucesores de Sócrates (cínicos y estoicos, por ejemplo) fueron relegados a personajes secundarios por la historia del pensamiento. Esta novela gráfica quiere hacerle justicia al estoicismo, una corriente muy influyente en el pensamiento de la antigüedad. Es la historia de un olvido, el del mensaje de la filosofía estoica como la forma de vida de sus fundadores. Sin sus escritos más antiguos a nuestra disposición y sometida a la crítica implacable de aristotélicos y platónicos de todas las épocas, es increíble que la filosofía estoica todavía tenga algo que decirnos y que lo diga a través del casi mítico relato de las hazañas de los hombres que la vieron nacer.     
El libro, primera obra de Editorial Dendros Ltda., rescata del olvido la historia de Zenón, el fundador de la filosofía estoica. Sigue las peripecias del viajero que enfrenta sorpresas en su camino (nuevas ciudades, nuevos amigos, naufragios y extravíos) y del intelectual que escudriña en la ciencia y la filosofía (en rollos de libros, en conversaciones con filósofos importantes y en sus propios pensamientos) para terminar fundando una corriente filosófica que aún hoy, después de 2000 años, sigue presente en algunos aspectos de nuestras vidas.

According to the ancient Greek Stoics, the cosmos regularly transitions between periods of conflagration, during which only fire exists, and periods of cosmic order, during which the four elements exist. This paper examines the cosmogonic process by which conflagrations are extinguished and cosmic orders are restored, and it defends three main conclusions. First, I argue that not all the conflagration’s fire is extinguished during the cosmogony, against recent arguments by Ricardo Salles. Second, at least with respect to the cosmogony, it is not necessary to posit the existence of proto-elements. Third, while scholars such as Salles and David Hahm have argued that Cleanthes held a distinct theory of cosmogony from Zeno and Chrysippus, I argue that each of these Stoics endorse the same cosmogonic theory.

With Zeno's study in Athens as a focal point, my work aims at: 1. To outline life in Athens late in 4 th Century BC in connection to the prevailing political situation and the philosophical schools and 2. To trace the influences Zeno received during his attendance at these schools and the tutors of the time so that the origins of stoic philosophy can be seen.

"Relativity in Ancient Philosophy"
Durham. 20-22th April 2016
Dept. of Classic
I’ll try here to clarify the status of the stoic relative disposition, linking the ontological and the moral aspects, trying to enlighten the ethics developed by the Roman Stoics with the fourth category conceived by the Hellenistic Stoics: the πρός τι πῶς ἔχον. If the importance of the relation with others in the Stoic’s imperial ethics is no longer in doubt, we still have to find out wether this relation could ground itself on the ontology developed by the Stoics of the Hellenistic period. More simply, I will ask myself if the Stoics were able to think the status of relation on an ontological level as the foundation of morality, giving it a ground on the analysis of the body as a “being”. If there is nothing there to prove this hypothesis directly, it will have at least the merit to reassess the interpretation made by the scholars and commentators (from Simplicius onwards) in the fourth category, questioning its presence and function.

The ancient Stoics proposed one of the most sophisticated and influential ethical frameworks in the history of philosophy. Its impact on theory and practice lasted for centuries during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Today, their arguments and theories still inform many contemporary ethical debates. Moreover, some of the framework’s main tenets have been used as a theoretical foundation for cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT), a widely used psychosocial intervention for improving mental health. Much of its lasting impact is the result of the special attention Stoic ethics pays to moral psychology, action theory and education. Stoics consider one of the main components of the development of virtue to be a careful and systematic training of our desires and aversions.

This chapter will offer a clear, succinct and up-to-date discussion of four main topics: (1) the Stoic theory of desire; (2) the complex taxonomies of desire offered by the ancient Stoics; (3) the arguments, educational strategies, and practices the Stoics recommend to discipline our soul and extirpate our irrational desires and finally (4) a brief discussion of the possibility of adapting the Stoic philosophy for the education of desires in the present day.

I will examine the status of the possibility of wisdom in Stoicism. In Stoic sources the possibility of wisdom seems to be presented in three ways. Of all these perspectives, the most interesting one seems to be the third. It seems to have been influenced by Stoic cosmology, rationalist and optimistic. Within this third perspective it is perhaps possible to trace the following development: a starting point repre-sented by the distinction, attributed to Zeno, between two types of insipiens. This distinction was then formalized (probably by Chrysippus) through the distinction between the claim ‘Nemo est sapiens’ and the claim ‘Nemo potest esse sapiens’. A further step forward was taken with Diogenes of Babylon, ac-cording to whom it was not enough to state that some can really become wise: the possibility of wis-dom, to be truly such, must have already been realized at least once (for the Principle of Plenitude).
https://filosofianeoscolastica.vitaepensiero.it/scheda-articolo_digital/michele-alessandrelli/il-sapiente-stoico-puo-esistere-001050_000321-371747.html

Zeno’s community is one whose members are known to one another and live in close proximity. He regards Eros as a god of friendship and freedom, and also as the provider of concord, arguing in his Republic that ‘Eros is a god who contributes to the city’s security’ (Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai xiii.561c (SVF I.263)). In addition, according to Zeno, the aim of sexual desire is friendship and not intercourse; thus, erôs, by generating friendship, plays an important role in the formation of the virtuous city (D.L.VII.130). This is a strange position to maintain since erôs and sexual desire are not usually associated with concord (homonoia) and the unity of the city. While both Plato and Aristotle have stressed the importance of friendship (philia) for the unity of the polis, Zeno apparently made love (erôs) to be the guarantor of concord.
My aim in this chapter is to examine Zeno’s argument in the Republic in relation to erôs, philia, and homonoia, and to elucidate Zeno’s political position on the role of erôs in the unanimity of the polis, drawing on the previous positions of both Plato and Aristotle, and setting Zeno’s account in a tradition of thinking which goes back at least as far as them. In particular, Aristotle’s notion of civic friendship and its relation to concord is crucial for the understanding of the Zenonian political argument. In addition, I will argue that the little that we know of Aristotle’s views on erôs – and especially his definition of erôs “as aiming at affection rather than at intercourse” (Arist. PA II.22, 68a39-68b7) – could further help us understand the Zenonian position.

Controversy has been rife over the extent to which Stoic hermeneutical efforts can be categorized as “allegorical.” This paper shows that much of the disagreement arises from incommensurate definitions of allegoresis and that modern categories frequently fail to do justice to the idiosyncrasies of the Stoic perspective. Thus, this article demonstrates the usefulness of distinguishing between allegory, allegoresis, exegesis, and rationalization when classifying Stoic interpretations. Subsequently, it is argued that Stoic etymologies and exegetical comments should not be adduced as evidence against Stoic allegoresis, which further should not be anachronistically viewed in terms of the modern opposition between allegory and symbol.

The book provides a synoptic picture of the moral traditions – especially those of Platonism and Stoicism – which shaped the intellectual and cultural environment of Greco-Roman antiquity. It describes each philosophical school’s respective teachings on diverse moral topoi such as emotional control, ethical action and habit, character formation, training, mentorship, and deity. It then organizes each school’s tenets into systemic models of moral transformation. For Platonism, I analyze the works of Plato, Plutarch, Alcinous and Galen; and for Stoicism, Zeno, Chrysippus, Musonius Rufus, Seneca, and Epictetus, among others. I also construct a taxonomy of six interaction types to gauge how rival religio-philosophical sects, including Diaspora Judaism and Pauline Christianity, appropriated moral traditions from their Greco-Roman environment to articulate their own system of ethics. For further details, see these blog posts: http://paulredux.blogspot.com/2020/03/it-is-finished-moral-transformation-in.html

Zenon'un bilge tanımının oluşumunda Kinik felsefenin etkisi görülür.1 Buna göre Zenon Kinik felsefenin mevcut Yunan kent-devletlerindeki toplumsal ve politik yapıyı tümüyle reddeden, ütopyacı niteliğini edinmiştir. Başka deyişle Zenon ve takipçilerinde mevcut kent-devlet düzeninde yaşayan toplumların tanrıları, adaleti, yasaları ve elbette gerçek bilgeliği yanlış anladığı (ya da buna zorlandığı) varsayımı egemendir.2 Zenon'a göre gerçek bilgeliğin yolu başka insanlarla ilişki içinde olmaktan, başka deyişle sosyalleşmekten geçer.

Free Download, Read and Cite important articles on:
1) Demystifying publishing to Europeana: A practical workflow for content providers
2) Storing grains during Ninevite 5 period in the Khabour basin: ways and methods used
3) New marble sarcophagus from Syrian coast
4) Martyrdom as a form of embodiment in the Byzantine Culture
5) Alabastron as a symbol of divine protection

The Stoic school was closely related to Socrates, of whom it collected the inheritance and mantained the exemplary chiaracter. Socrates, however, represents a greatly complex questions for historiography, because he did not write any work and also because his disciples developed his teaching in very different ways. So, early Stoics, although in possess of much more material than moderns, had to face critical problems somehow similar to those met by modern scholars. They tried to reconstruct their image of Socrates picking up historical and theorical elements from a multifaceted and non coherent literature. This monograph aims at focussing on Socratic sources available to Zeno, the founder of Stoic school, and detecting the relations established by the Stoics of III and II centuries BC between their own doctrines and Socratic schools.

Εθνικισμός ή Πατριωτισμός; Η Πολιτεία του Ζήνωνος Της δρος Έλσας Νικολαΐδου «Και αλήθεια, η πολυθαύμαστη Πολιτεία του ιδρυτή της Στωικής Σχολής Ζήνωνος μπορεί να συνοψιστεί σ' αυτό το κύριο σημείο: να μην κατοικούμε χωρισμένοι σε πόλεις ούτε σε δήμους με ιδιαίτερους ο καθένας νόμους, αλλά να θεωρούμε όλους τους ανθρώπους συνδημότες και συμπολίτες και ο βίος να είναι κοινός όπως ακριβώς μια αγέλη που βόσκει μαζί και τρέφεται μαζί από έναν κοινό νόμο. Αυτό το έγραψε ο Ζήνων σαν όνειρο ή είδωλο μιας ευνομούμενης πολιτείας του φιλοσόφου. Αλλά ήταν ο Αλέξανδρος εκείνος ο οποίος πραγματοποίησε αυτή τη θεωρία.» (Πλούταρχος, Περί Αλεξάνδρου τύχης ή αρετής 329 a-b) Ο Ζήνων ο Κιτιεύς ίδρυσε τον Στωικισμό σε μια εποχή ανάλογη με τη δική μας. Πολιτικές ανακατατάξεις, κατάρρευση αξιών, μετακινήσεις πληθυσμών, φόβος για το μέλλον ήταν ο κανόνας που επικρατούσε μετά τον θάνατο του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου. Ο αναχρονισμός του Πλούταρχου (ο Αλέξανδρος είχε πεθάνει το 323 π.Χ. και ο Ζήνωνας ξεκίνησε να διδάσκει στη Στοά κοντά στο 300 π.Χ.) χωρίς να αναιρεί την αξιοπιστία του χωρίου, ενδεχομένως θέλει να υποδηλώσει τη συνάφεια της σύλληψης της Ζηνώνειας Πολιτείας, του Στωικού Κοσμοπολιτισμού, με την οικουμενικότητα της αυτοκρατορίας του Μ. Αλεξάνδρου, καθώς η Πολιτεία του Ζήνωνος, προάγγελος των ανθρώπινων δικαιωμάτων, καταργεί όλα όσα διακρίνουν τους ανθρώπους μεταξύ τους. Πρώτος ο Διογένης ο Κυνικός, ερωτηθείς τον τόπο καταγωγής του, απαντά: «Είμαι Κοσμοπολίτης» («Ἐρωτηθεὶς πόθεν εἴη, Κοσμοπολίτης, ἔφη», Διογένης Λαέρτιος VI, 63). Αλλά ο Διογένης ήταν «Ἄπολις, ἄοικος, πατρίδος ἐστερημένος» (Διογένης Λαέρτιος VI, 38), ενώ ο Ζήνων, ως γνωστόν, όχι μόνο δεν αρνήθηκε ποτέ ότι ήταν Κιτιεύς («οὐκ ἀρνεῖσθαι αὐτὸν εἶναι Κιτιέα.» Διογένης Λαέρτιος VIΙ, 12), αλλά απαίτησε να προστεθεί το προσωνύμιο Κιτιεύς στο όνομά του σε μια τιμητική πλάκα, συνδυάζοντας τον κοσμοπολιτισμό με τον πατριωτισμό του. Ο κοσμοπολιτισμός του Ζήνωνα, σπέρματα του οποίου ανιχνεύονται ήδη στους Προσωκρατικούς, ήταν το όραμα της Πολιτείας του, ένα ιδεώδες που καταργούσε τις πολιτισμικές διακρίσεις, (το χρώμα του δέρματος, τη γλώσσα, τη θρησκεία) θέτοντας θεμέλιο το κοινό στοιχείο που υπερβαίνει τα προηγούμενα, τον φυσικό νόμο, το καθήκον. Ο φυσικός αυτός νόμος, σύμφωνα με τον Κικέρωνα, «προστάζει αυτά που πρέπει να πράττουμε, και απαγορεύει τα αντίθετά τους» (De legibus I 6). «Δεν υπάρχει διαφορετικός νόμος στη Ρώμη και διαφορετικός στην Αθήνα, διαφορετικός τώρα και άλλος στο μέλλον, αλλά είναι ένας αιώνιος και αμετάβλητος νόμος. Ισχύει για όλα τα έθνη και όλους τους καιρούς» (De republica II 33). Η δικαιοσύνη και ο αλληλοσεβασμός (που ξεπερνούν τα εξωτερικά εμπόδια μεταξύ των ανθρώπων) οδηγούν στην ιδανική Πολιτεία του Ζήνωνα, όπου οι ναοί και τα αγάλματα απαγορεύονται (δεν έχουν τίποτε ιερό) τα δικαστήρια καταργούνται (οι πολίτες υπακούν στον φυσικό νόμο, δεν υπάρχει ανάγκη για συμβάσεις), δεν χρειάζονται νομίσματα «ούτε χάριν ανταλλαγής ούτε για ταξίδι στο εξωτερικό», και οι διακρίσεις με βάση το φύλο δεν υπάρχουν (Διογένης Λαέρτιος VII 32-34). Στη Ζηνώνεια Πολιτεία δεν υπάρχει σεξισμός, ρατσισμός, ξενοφοβία, εθνικισμός. Το μόνο που χρειάζεται είναι ο σεβασμός απέναντι στην πολιτισμική διαφορετικότητα. Την εποχή της (οικονομικής) παγκοσμιοποίησης, ας φανταστούμε το κέντρο να είναι ο ηθικός άνθρωπος, ανεξαρτήτως θρησκείας, φυλής και φύλου, έθνους και γλώσσας. Αυτό ήταν το όραμα του Ζήνωνα. Του Κιτιέα που αγάπησε την πατρίδα του, αλλά δεν μίσησε τις πατρίδες των άλλων.

Ces cinq pages, qui font une suite à la notice sur 'L'Arbitraire du signe', exposent d'abord la position d'un penseur antique, Sextus Empiricus, pour montrer par un court extrait « comment il s'y prend » pour traiter la question du signe ; puis nous parlerons de Zénon, le fondateur du stoïcisme ; ensuite de l'éloge qu'Umberto Eco fit de la position de Charles Sanders Pierce. Nous terminerons en examinant sous cet angle la question des « mots nouveaux ».

Le texte de la présentation figure dans le fichier 2, l'exemplier dans le fichier 1.
Le texte se subdivise en trois parties: (sans numéro) Les préalables ; 1. Ebauche de plan  ;  2. Zénon et Héraclite : le problème de l'air. [ À propos  de Zénon SVF I, 102 et d'Héraclite F 31ab avec son contexte chez Clément Strom. V. 105, 3 (T 642).]

The philosophy of the Imperial Stoics is often described as apolitical or politically conservative, but Imperial Stoicism was neither of these. The Imperial Stoics were highly engaged with developing a philosophy that was one of the most politically ambitious philosophies in all of ancient philosophy. By insisting that philosophy was a way of life, the Stoics tried to provide a philosophy that could change humanity for the better, and as a consequence also transform human societies. For the Stoics, everyone should undergo a rigorous philosophical training regime in order to become a divine sage, and this they thought could potentially lead to a radically new society that would be entirely rational, deeply egalitarian, and completely property-less. This dissertation attempts to outline how the Imperial Stoics’ philosophy as a way of life comprised a political spirituality that was firmly grounded in a metaphysical claim of the existence of a divine Cosmic City in which all of humanity lived. This dissertation provides readings of the ancient sources through the lens of such thinkers as Michel Foucault, Henry Lefebvre, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Peter Sloterdijk in a novel re-interpretation of ancient Stoic political philosophy, and argues that the Stoics were some of history’s first radical political thinkers.

Analyse du passage d'Eusèbe - Arius Didymus - Cléanthe où est cité le fr. F 12 d'Héraclite, un des «fragments du fleuve». Ce texte est étudié en tant que source affichant un témoignage doxographique et une citation d'importance capitale pour la compréhension de la psychologie héraclitéenne, le texte T 261 de la Traditio (vol. II.A.2 des Heraclitea et n'a d'autre but que d'en établir le sens exact). Cf. encore 177 Doctrinalia Heraclitea.

Анализируются понятие«влечение» и его роль в этике стоиков. Доказывается, что«влечение» имеет не меньшее значение в раннестоической этике и теории действия, чем«согласие». Автор проанализировал положение, согласно которому все влечения направлены на предикаты. Предполагается, что это положение стоики использовали для терапии души и искоренения из нее страстей. Также было рассмотрено учение стоиков о страстях и благострастии. Анализ этих учений показал, что благим действием, с точки зрения стоиков, является разумный выбор в рамках безразличного.

This article analyses the notion of «impulse» and its role in stoic ethics. It is proved that «impulse» is as important in the ethics of early Stoics and theory of action as «assent». The author analyses the thesis according to which all impulses aim at predicates. It is proposed that stoics used the thesis for the therapy of the soul and eradication of passions. The paper also considers the stoic doctrine of passions and good passions. The analysis of the doctrine showed that the good action, as understood by the Stoics, is a reasonable choice within the boundaries of the indifferent.

This essay outlines the Stoic doctrine of conflagration. Its dependence on Heraclitus and his belief in conflagration and cosmogony is affirmed. The Stoics found in Heraclitus a representation of the conflagration but not a theory of it. Their contribution consisted precisely in formulating such a theory. However, since in doing this they drew upon the Ionian tradition, a tension emerged between the original core of the Heraclitean doctrine, deeply mystical and religious in nature, and the reductionist materialism implied by the aforementioned tradition. Another relevant contrast concerns the conceptual scheme by which the Stoics conceived of the conflagration. We find, on the one hand, a permanentist scheme of the Aristotelian sort and, on the other, an emanationist scheme of Heraclitean derivation. In the end, I wish to advance the hypothesis that the conflagration is a sort of crucible of Zeus’ thoughts and that time accompanies the unfolding of this supreme theoretical activity.

Настоящая статья посвящена вопросу терминологической преемственности между философией Аристотеля и
этикой стоиков. Почему стоики использовали аристотелевский термин «diathesis» для определения добродетели, в то время как сам Аристотель пользовался иным термином? В ходе исследования автор статьи приходит к выводу, что стоики заимствовали вышеозначенный термин для того, чтобы утвердить автономный характер добродетели. Последнее связано с теоретической доминантой стоической добродетели.
This article devote to the issue of terminological continuity between Aristotle’s philosophy and ethics of the Stoics. Why Stoics used the Aristotelian term «diathesis» to define virtue, while Aristotle himself used a different term? Author of research concludes, that the Stoics borrowed aforesaid term in order to give the self-sufficiency of virtue. The latter conditional on dominant theoretical of Stoic virtue.