The ´, or world's con flagration, 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 con flagration 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 con flagration subsides. The paper also deals with the relation between Cleanthes and other early Stoics on the topic of con flagration. In particular, Cleanthes' position seems to diff er from Chrysippus'. For in contrast with the Cleanthean god, who causes the con flagration as a side-effect only, the Chrysippean god, according to an in fluential interpretation put forward by Jaap Mansfeld, causes the con flagration as his ultimate cosmological goal. (shrink)

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)

In this first paper dealing with Heraclitus ' doctrine as such, the author examines and discusses two recent controversial articles with the content of which he sympathizes - one by Gábor Betegh on the cosmological status of Heraclitus ' psychê, and the other by Aryeh Finkelberg on Heraclitus ' cosmogony and the reality of a Heraclitean world conflagration. This examination is aimed, first, at fostering "marginal" opinions which the author believes to be fundamentally correct - and the rejection of which (...) since times immemorial he considers to have greatly harmed and hampered our understanding of the Ephesian philosopher ; second, at introducing some personal corrections and additions to these opinions ; and third, at illustrating the advantages of a deliberately un prejudiced approach towards our sources, an approach based on the presumption of innocence, knowledgeability and intelligence for all our informers and on the rejection of any rejection [this is not a dittography!] of any source on ground of mere suspicion.Among the proposed novelties the following particularly deserve to be underscored: the defense of the authenticity of "fr. B 76" DK qua three different fragments and the reconstruction of Heraclitus ' system of four physical exhalations - both of which are connected with the notion of a world soul; and the interpretation of Plat. Soph. 242 C - 243 A [T 132] as confirming Arist. De cael. 279b12 [T 170] and the cosmogonical interpretation of F 31 - both of which presuppose the reality of a Heraclitean ecpyrosis.Yet, since the author's dogmatism does not extend beyond the requirement of having re course to logically sound procedures, he is ready to give up any conclusion of which it can be proven that it is irreconcilably contradicted by a sounder one and supported by none. (shrink)

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)

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. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore the Presocratic antecedents of the Stoic theory of conflagration and argue that, even though three central theses of this theory have solid antecedents in Presocratic physics, the logical connection between them is a Stoic innovation. I label the Presocratics who hold these theses ‘Anaximandreans’ and include in this group Anaximander himself, Heraclitus and Diogenes of Apollonia, and reveal that Anaximenes, Democritus and Antiphon share with them central meteorological and cosmological assumptions.

In a recent discussion note1 C. D. C. Reeve investigates the reasons for Heraclitus assigning a primary position to fire, as contrasted with the other substances like earth and water which go to make up the physical universe. Reeve considers and rejects other reasons for the primacy of fire that have been put forward, such as the symbolic associations of fire, the role of fire in governing the universe, or the claim that everything becomes fire at some time or other. (...) Rather, Reeve argues, the primacy of fire in Heraclitus' physical theory can be explained purely in terms of that physical theory. (shrink)