Marcus Aurelius Antoninus to Himself - College of Stoic Philosophers

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus to Himself - College of Stoic Philosophers Marcus Aurelius Antoninus to Himself - College of Stoic Philosophers

stoicscollege.com
from stoicscollege.com More from this publisher
05.04.2013 Views

xxii INTRODUCTION SECT. by thinkers of the Eleatic School. Xenophanes, Par- menides, and Zeno, of Elea, with growing insistence upon dialectic, attacked the problem from the side of thought and logical predication, and sought to determine the nature of the physical universe from the 'It is ' implications contained in the simple predicates and * It is not.' The idea of empty space a some- thing which is nothing appeared to involve a contradiction in terms, an attempt to think what is unthink- able, an assertion that ' What is, is not ' ; and the denial of void led logically on to the denial of motion and of any possible plurality of being. It is needless here to criticise the method of procedure ; for Stoicism does not stake its case on pure dialectic, in adopting the Eleatic inference, and affirming the universe, physical as well as conceptual, to be a single Being, without beginning and without end, self-existent and self-limited, homogeneous and unchangeable in quality A rounded sphere, poised in rotating rest. 1 In terms of physics the resultant universe must be a One, a plenum, finite, continuous, indivisible, equally extended and evenly poised in all directions a perfect sphere. For its logic of Being Stoicism reverted to the Eleatics, as for its physics to Heraclitus ; but the two demanded reconciliation. On the showing of Heraclitus true Being realised itself in the world of Becoming, in the ordered succession of phenomena ; but though the doctrine of Becoming might interpret 1 viii. 41 ; xii. 3. Cf. xi. 12. the transience of

i ORIGINS OF STOICISM xxiii phenomena, it could not satisfy Being, which thought required that ultimate idea of as the antecedent and necessary presupposition of phenomenal appearances ; true Being, on the showing of the Eleatics, must be one, eternal, homogeneous. How was it possible to combine the idea of this unchangeable and self-existent One with the plurality, the transience, and the qualitative variety of phenomenal existences? If both views ex- pressed a truth, there must be some unchangeable substratum manifesting itself in and through the diversities of individual things. The Atomists attempted to supply an answer, approach- ing the question from the purely material side. First, Empedocles broached the doctrine of the four elements earth, water, air, and fire, somewhat arbitrarily singling out these four substances, subject to modifications of density and intermixture for which mere motion might sufficiently account, as the indestructible homogeneous elements of all phenomenal things. This doctrine of four elements, in so far as it expresses four states of matter, solid, liquid, gaseous, and igneous, merited the acceptance which it found from all the schools, and is freely adopted for purposes of classification by the Stoics. 1 But the system of Empedocles, though containing popular and plausible elements, lacked philosophical consistency. The selection of four elements was arbitrary and superficial, and as an enumeration of primary forms was as provisional as the seventy odd elements of modern Chemistry ; it gave no account of the ultimate constitution and significance of matter, and 1 E.g. iv. 4 ; ix. 9 ; x. 7.

i ORIGINS OF STOICISM xxiii<br />

phenomena, it could not satisfy<br />

Being, which thought required<br />

that ultimate idea <strong>of</strong><br />

as the antecedent and<br />

necessary presupposition <strong>of</strong> phenomenal appearances ;<br />

true Being, on the showing <strong>of</strong> the Eleatics, must be one,<br />

eternal, homogeneous. How was it possible <strong>to</strong> combine<br />

the idea <strong>of</strong> this unchangeable and self-existent One<br />

with the plurality, the transience, and the qualitative<br />

variety <strong>of</strong> phenomenal<br />

existences? If both views ex-<br />

pressed a truth, there must be some unchangeable substratum<br />

manifesting itself in and through the diversities<br />

<strong>of</strong> individual things.<br />

The A<strong>to</strong>mists attempted <strong>to</strong> supply an answer, approach-<br />

ing the question from the purely material side. First,<br />

Empedocles broached the doctrine <strong>of</strong> the four elements<br />

earth, water, air, and fire, somewhat arbitrarily singling<br />

out these four substances, subject <strong>to</strong> modifications <strong>of</strong><br />

density and intermixture for which mere motion might<br />

sufficiently account, as the indestructible homogeneous<br />

elements <strong>of</strong> all phenomenal things. This doctrine <strong>of</strong><br />

four elements, in so far as it expresses four states <strong>of</strong><br />

matter, solid, liquid, gaseous, and igneous, merited<br />

the acceptance which it found from all the schools,<br />

and is freely adopted for purposes <strong>of</strong> classification by<br />

the S<strong>to</strong>ics. 1 But the system <strong>of</strong> Empedocles, though<br />

containing popular and plausible elements, lacked philosophical<br />

consistency. The selection <strong>of</strong> four elements<br />

was arbitrary and superficial, and as an enumeration <strong>of</strong><br />

primary forms was as provisional as the seventy odd<br />

elements <strong>of</strong> modern Chemistry ;<br />

it gave no account <strong>of</strong><br />

the ultimate constitution and significance <strong>of</strong> matter, and<br />

1<br />

E.g. iv. 4 ; ix. 9 ; x. 7.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!