The scholars who succeeded Chrysippus – during the 2nd century until Panetius, from 204 to 129 – already show us a certain change in Stoic thought and a relaxation of dogmatism. Sextus says, without specifying further, that the new Stoics no longer accept as a criterion the comprehensive representation alone, but the comprehensive representation which has no obstacles; and they borrow from the academicians examples of comprehensive representations, which nevertheless do not carry belief, such as that which Admetus had of Alceste when she was brought back from hell. It was admitting that what creates certainty is less the representation itself than its relationship to the whole of which it is part. They are undoubtedly fighting against Carneades, and we know the ad hominem argument addressed to him by Antipater of Tarsus: Carneades had to admit that he perceived at least one thing, namely that nothing can be perceived (1).
Yet we see essential features of the conception of the world falling away, notably the thesis of universal conflagration: Zeno of Tarsus and Diogenes of Babylon (who had initially accepted it) do not dare deny it, but they suspend their judgment. Boethus of Sidon, on the other hand, uses a whole series of arguments against it which have been preserved for us by Philo of Alexandria (2). The bottom line of these arguments is that the divine and perfect character of the world is not compatible with its corruptibility. In beautiful verses, Lucretius (V, 1215) shows man contemplating the stars and wondering if, “capable thanks to the gods of preserving themselves eternally, they will be able, in their endless course through the ages, to despise the powerful attacks of unlimited duration. The feeling that the world is created and must disappear, far from being for the Hellene a proof of the power of God, is on the contrary a sign of her impotence. This is indeed Boethus’ idea: the corruption of the world would have no cause, since it cannot come from the outside, that is to say from nothing, nor from the interior of the world. which contains no principle of illness (this is the teaching of Timothy); moreover, the world is neither destroyed by division, since it does not result from an assembly of atoms, nor by alteration of quality, since the Stoics admit, as we have seen, that its individuality or quality own remains, after the conflagration, the same as before, nor by confusion; it is therefore impossible. Finally, and this is the supreme argument, the god, for the entire duration following the conflagration, remains inactive; but an inactive god is a dead god. Boethus returns, as we see, to a theological tradition older than Stoicism and which will increasingly impose itself on the supporters of Hellenism.
Morality is also changing. The formula for the end given by Diogenes of Babylon, “Use reason in the choice of things conforming to nature and the rejection of contrary things”, or that of Antipater, “live by choosing what is conformable to nature and rejecting what is contrary”, insist with great force on the necessity and, the reasons for a choice, obviously against the indifferentism of Ariston. In the curious discussion between Diogenes and Antipater on a case of conscience (3) (a merchant brings a cargo of wheat to Rhodes during a famine; supposing he knows that other ships are going to arrive, must he hide it in order to sell his wheat more dear?), Diogenes maintains that he has nothing to say since he will thus not violate any established law; Antipater maintains that his duty is to say it, our social instinct inducing us to do everything that is useful to men: opposition between a sort of self-righteousness arising quite naturally from the notion of functions in ancient Stoicism, and a broader conception , freer, more human, of the duties which will be that of the middle and the new Stoicism. It is above all a question of regulating common life, and we see Antipater becoming the defender of marriage, this religious duty, a superior form of friendship and mutual aid, the weakening of which is a fatal symptom for society (4).
We have seen Boethus introduce Platonism into physics; we see Antipater expressly linking Stoic morality to Plato by seeking from him the origin of the idea that the honest is alone a good (5); and it is perhaps by a return to the ideas of Plato that a disciple of Antipater, Heraclides of Tarsus, abandons the paradox that “all faults are equal”.
But all these traits are evident in Panetius of Rhodes, one of the most curious characters of the late 2nd century. The friendship which linked Panetius (as well as the historian Polybius) to eminent Romans of his time, to Scipio Aemilianus and to Laelius, at the time when the Roman order was beginning to impose itself on all and, realizing the dream of an universal society, seemed to consume history, is one of the most curious symptoms of the spirit of the times.
Reference
1. Sextus, Against the Mathematicians, VII, 253; Ciceron, First Academics, II, 1092.
2. From V.’Incorruptibility of the world, chap. XV.
3. Cicero, Duties, III, 50*55.
4. Stobée, Florilège, 70.13; 73, 25.
5. Clement of Alexandria, Stromales, V, 14.
Source: Émile Bréhier(1951). Histoire de la philosophie, Presses Universitaires de France. Translation and adaptation by © 2024 Nicolae Sfetcu
Leave a Reply