Selon les Stoïciens, à l'issue d'une longue période de temps l'univers entier s'embrase. Tout disparaît alors, sauf le feu divin lui-même. L'univers renaît ensuite à l'identique. Ce processus se répète à l'infini, d'où, l'expression « retour éternel ». Mais comment certains événements peuvent-ils en précéder d'autres, s'ils doivent se répéter après eux? Et comment le même individu peut-il renaître, si sa substance est détruite? La première difficulté était probablement résolue par l'interruption du temps entre deux périodes de l'univers, et la (...) discussion de la seconde inséparable d'un critère de l'identité qui ne tienne ni à la substance corporelle ni à des détails physiques inessentiels. According to the Stoics, at the end of a long period of time, the whole universe turns into fire. It completely disappears, with the exception of divine fire itself. Then, the universe is reborn under its previous form. This process repeats itself indefinitely. This doctrine of « everlasting recurrence » encountered two difficulties : how could some events be prior to other ones, if they reproduce themselves after those posterior events? And how could the same individual reappear, if his very substance had been destroyed? The answer to the first question was presumably an interruption of time between two periods. The answer to the second was inseparable from a criterion of identity distinct from continuity of material substance and from unessential bodily characteristics. (shrink)

On prior's reconstruction, The master argument of diodorus contains an equivocation and so is invalid for one class of diodorean "propositions." but diodorus knew of such "propositions" and an argument in his treatment of motion can be used to bring them under the master argument's sway. Also, Despite the consensus of antiquity, The master argument does not commit diodorus to determinism, Although it commits him to non-Deterministic theses which can be easily misinterpreted as deterministic.

The ἐκπύρωσις, or world's conflagration, followed by the restoration of an identical world seems to go against the rationality of the Stoic god. The aim of this paper is to show that Cleanthes, the second head of the School, can avoid this paradox. According to Cleanthes, the conflagration is an inevitable side-effect of the necessary means used by god to sustain the world. Given that this side-effect is contrary to god's sustaining activity, but unavoidable, god's rationality requires the restoration of (...) an identical world once the conflagration subsides. The paper also deals with the relation between Cleanthes and other early Stoics on the topic of conflagration. In particular, Cleanthes' position seems to differ from Chrysippus'. For in contrast with the Cleanthean god, who causes the conflagration as a side-effect only, the Chrysippean god, according to an influential interpretation put forward by Jaap Mansfeld, causes the conflagration as his ultimate cosmological goal. (shrink)

One of the most intriguing claims of Stoic logic is Chrysippus's denial of the modal principle that the impossible does not follow from the possible. Chrysippus's argument against this principle involves the idea that some propositions are ?destroyed? or ?perish?. According to the standard interpretation of Chrysippus's argument, propositions cease to exist when they are destroyed. Ide has presented an alternative interpretation according to which destroyed propositions persist after destruction and are false. I argue that Ide's alternative interpretation as well (...) as some versions of the standard interpretation conflict with Stoic doctrines about the nature of propositions. I propose another version of the standard interpretation based on Frede's account of the Stoic theory of the proposition. I hold that this version of the standard interpretation both escapes Ide's objections and is consistent with Stoic logic and philosophy of language. (shrink)

Chrysippus claims that some propositions perish. including some true conditionals whose consequent is impossible and antecedent is possible, to which he appeals against Diodorus?s Master Argument. On the standard interpretation. perished propositions lack truth values. and these conditionals are true at the same time as their antecedents arc possible and consequents impossible. But perished propositions are false, and Chrysippus?s conditionals are true when their antecedent and consequent arc possible, and false when their antecedent is possible and consequent impossible. The claim (...) of the Master Argument that Chrysippus rejects, then, is stronger ihan usually supposed. (shrink)

ResumeUn énoncé p est nécessaire, selon Chrysippe, si et seulement si p est vrai et si, étant susceptible ?on;être faux, les circonstances extérieures s'opposent à ce qu'il soit faux. On s'appuie sur cet éclaircissement pour construire le carré ou plutôt les deux carres des modalités. Ce qu'il y a de spécifique dans la logique de Chrysippe, c'est que du nécessaire àľimpossible que non la conséquence est valide, mais qu'il n'en va pas de même pour la conséquence converse.SummaryA sentence p is (...) necessary, according to Chrysippe iff p is true and, p being susceptible of being false, the external circumstances prevent it from being false. This explanation is used in order to construct the modal square or rather the two modal squares. Something is specific in the Chrysippean logic: from the necessity of p we may validly conclude that it is impossible that not p, while the converse conclusion is not valid.ZusammenfassungNach Chrysipp ist ein Satz p dann und nur dann notwendig, wenn p wahr ist und falls p falsch sein könnte, die äusseren Umstände verhindern, dass p falsch ist. Auf diese Bestimmung aufbauend wird das Quadrat – oder werden vielmehr die beiden Quadrate – der Modalitäten konstruiert. Das Besondere an Chrysipps Logik lässt sich daran erkennen, dass von der Notwen‐digkeit von p auf die Unmöglichkeit von nicht‐p geschlossen werden darf, nicht aber umgekehrt. (shrink)