Em função da pandemia de Covid-19, o ano de 2020 marcou a vida de todos. Em escala global, exigiu-se da população restringir as interações físicas o que fosse possível. Ainda assim, as interações sociais permaneceram, tanto as remotas, proporcionadas pela tecnologia da internet e das comunicações, quanto as presenciais, incluindo nestas as indispensáveis ou não. Portanto, mesmo que se entenda que a pandemia tenha ocasionado restrições sociais, em muitas ocasiões talvez seja melhor dizer que ela ocasionou restrições físicas à sociabilidade. (...) Neste sentido, vale tentarmos atualizar o termo kathēkonta da ética estoica em função dessa interação social que se afigurou nesse momento. Enquanto seres de comunidade, “pois nossa raça toda é disposta para a comunidade 3”, como afirma Hiércoles, quais atos adequados que mantém e fomentam a interação ética tanto individual quanto social? Kathēkonta enquanto atos adequados será visto na perspectiva de Hiérocles situada em seu tratado Sobre Atos Adequados, onde ele sustenta tais atos enquanto interações sociais éticas. E uma vez definido esse termo da ética estoica na perspectiva de Hiérocles, como perceber esses atos nesta situação pandêmica em que as interações sociais físicas enfraqueceram? Nessa nova configuração social, teriam os atos adequados algum papel relevante no desenvolvimento ético do indivíduo e da sociedade? Esses atos não teriam espaços de efetivação em tal circunstância? (shrink)

In this article, I vindicate the longstanding intuition that the Stoics are transitional figures in the history of ethics. I argue that the Stoics are committed to thinking that the ideal of human happiness as a life of virtue is impossible for some people, whom I dub ‘hopeless fools.’ In conjunction with the Stoic view that everyone is subject to the same rational requirements to perform ‘appropriate actions’ or ‘duties’ (kathēkonta/officia), and the plausible eudaimonist assumption that happiness is a source (...) of normative reasons only if it is in principle attainable, the existence of hopeless fools demonstrates that the Stoics were pluralists about the ultimate justificatory basis of rational action. Hopeless fools are required to behave just like their non-hopeless counterparts, not because doing so is conducive to their happiness, but because doing so conforms with the dictates of Right Reason. (shrink)

Seneca asserts in Letter 121 that we mature by exercising self-care as we pass through successive psychosomatic “constitutions.” These are babyhood (infantia), childhood (pueritia), adolescence (adulescentia), and young adulthood (iuventus). The self-care described by Seneca is 'self-affiliation' (oikeiōsis, conciliatio) the linchpin of the Stoic ethical system, which defines living well as living in harmony with nature, posits that altruism develops from self-interest, and allows that pleasure and pain are indicators of well-being while denying that happiness consists in pleasure and that (...) pain is misery. Augustine divides the narrative of his own development into the stages of babyhood (infantia), childhood (pueritia), adolescence (adulescentia), and young adulthood (iuventus) in the Confessions, a text wherein he claims familiarity with more than a few works of Seneca (Conf. 5.6.11). Furthermore, he had access to Stoic accounts of affiliation not only in Seneca’s Letter 121, but also in Cicero’s On Goals, and in non-extant sources of Stoic ethical theory. After pointing out that Augustine endorsed the notion of self-affiliation outside of the Confessions, I raise the question of whether he also makes the notion of affiliation thematic in his philosophical autobiography. I argue that he does indeed present himself and some of his primary relationships – with his mother and his long-term girlfriend – in terms of personal and social oikeiōsis. In addition, his self-critiques in the early books of the Confessions can be more fully understood if compared to Stoic developmental theory. He depicts himself as failing to progress intellectually, socially, and morally: although he passed through the successive constitutions, becoming physically larger and cognitively capable, he did not mature correctly by the standards of his Stoic sources. (shrink)

This provocative study presents philological, philosophical, and historical arguments that with the Greek term καθῆκον and its Latin equivalent officium the ancient Stoics invented a new concept that anticipated the modern notion of moral duty, for example, Pflicht in Kant. Scholars began to shift from translating kathēkon as "duty" to translating it as "appropriate or fitting action" in the late 1800s, according to Visnjic. The usage of the verb kathēkein in Greek literature prior to the Stoics suggests to him that (...) it described something prescribed by law, tradition, or decree. Visnjic argues that the Stoics did not conceive of kathekonta as rules of conduct but as prescriptions specific to situations. They held that there are some universal duties, like believing in the gods, believing that the gods are benevolent guardians of humanity, and being a good person, but that such duties offer no concrete, practical guidance for determining how to act. The most innovative contribution of this work is the collection and collation of pieces of practical advice scattered throughout extant sources to devise a four-stage process of deliberation. The two chapters on Kant seem comparatively cursory. On the whole, this book, at times daringly inventive, is occasionally unapologetically speculative. (shrink)