En el contexto de su crítica a la fenomenomenología husserliana Michel Henry apela a la caracterización de los errores de la perspectiva hetero-afectiva remitiéndose a sus orígenes en la tradición sintetizados en los parámetros de la “gnosis griega” y su compromiso con la racionalidad entendida como comprensión de “objetos puestos a distancia”. La revisión de los alcances de esta categoría revela, sin embargo, que existen tratamientos en el pensamiento griego que apelan a la auto-afección y la inmanencia para dar cuenta (...) de elementos que exceden la dimensión ek-stática. En este trabajo se revisa el planteo henryano para mostrar sus puntos de contacto con el estoicismo, especialmente a partir de la teoría de Hierocles a propósito de la oikeîosis. Este recorrido permitirá sugerir que entre ambos planteos existe una compatibilidad estructural que hace posible apelar a claves de interpretación similares para dar cuenta de la convivencia de mecanismos de explicación que apelan a lo auto-afectivo y lo hétero-afectivo en un conjunto coherente. (shrink)

This paper aims to assess the epistemological value of the notion of sympathy in Galen’s thought. It first shows that Galen makes use of two different concepts of sympathy: the ambient concept, according to which the human body manifests a harmonious part-whole relationship, and the technical concept, with which one connects two pathologies on the basis of the fact that the cause of the ailment is elsewhere than where it surfaces. Neither of these sympathies constitutes in itself a causal explanation (...) of reality. The first merely acknowledges an obvious interrelationship, the second acts as an epistemic tool to shift the focus of diagnosis away from the place where the condition manifests itself. However, the two concepts are not absolutely unrelated; and they come together when the sympathetic paradigm is used to understand the unifying action of the psychic and natural faculties. Very significantly, Galen then provisionally defines the cause as a power or faculty (δύναμις) not out of theoretical necessity but for practical reasons. (shrink)

Epictetus' thought is defined by an antithesis of mine and not-mine, which is an antithesis of externals and self. From this arise a number of questions for Epictetus‘ theology, which are addressed in this paper: How is the self delimited from God, given that God is all-pervading? Is God inside or outside the self? In which way is God the cause, creator and shaper of the self? And how does human agency and self-shaping through prohairesis spell out within this determinst (...) framework? If, as will become apparent in the discussion of the previous questions, the shape and activities of human selves originate from God and should be perfectly aligned with God, in which sense is there still a separate, individual human self? (shrink)