Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 9, 2020

Les stoïciens et Platon – monistes ou dualistes ?

Vladimír Mikeš


The Stoics’ way of presenting principles – the active and the passive – is ambiguous because they say that principles are two while also suggesting that they are inseparable and thus interdependent. This ambiguity cannot be resolved in favour of one or the other side of the dilemma, as is shown by analysis of two possible models of the relations among principles – a causal and a categories-based model. This ambiguity is rather a necessary consequence of the Stoic view of principles and should be compared to the ambiguity of Plato’s concept of “principles” in the Timaeus. Plato’s Receptacle is in a similar relation to other constitutive elements of his cosmogonical account as are the two Stoic principles, each to the other. In particular, the relation between the Receptacle and qualities in it is to be seen as a systematic parallel to the relation of the Stoic principles (and probably also its historical model). The concluding claim is that Plato and the Stoics advance a similar kind of dualism which should be called such, despite its ambiguity. The ambiguity in both systems is due to the need to see the principles in such a relation as would reveal their dependence, and thus secure the basic unity of the cosmos.

Ademollo, F. 2012. « The Platonic Origins of Stoic Theology ». Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 43, 217–243.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199666164.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Algra, K. 2017. « The Academic Origins of Stoic Cosmo-Theology and the Physics of Antiochus – Some Notes on the Evidence ». Dans : For a Skeptical Peripatetic: Festschrift in Honour of John Gluckner. Eds. Y. Liebersohn/I. Ludlam A. Edelheit. Sankt Augustin, 158–176.Search in Google Scholar

Babut, D. 2002. Plutarque, Sur les notions communes, contre les Stoïciens. Paris.Search in Google Scholar

Bäumker, C. 1890. Das Problem der Materie in der griechischen Philosophie. Münster.Search in Google Scholar

Betegh, G. 2003. « Cosmological Ethics in the Timaeus and Early Stoicism ». Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 24, 273–302.Search in Google Scholar

Brisson, L. 1974. Le Même et l’Autre dans la structure ontologique de Timée de Platon. Paris.Search in Google Scholar

–. 2003, « À quelles conditions peut-on parler de « Matière » dans le Timée de Platon ? ». Revue de métaphysique et de morale 37, 5–21.10.3917/rmm.031.0005Search in Google Scholar

Brunschwig, J./Pellegrin, P. 2001. Les philosophes hellénistiques I–III. Trad. de Long-Sedley. Paris.Search in Google Scholar

Bakhouche, B./Brisson, L. 2011. Calcidius, Commentaire au Timée du Platon I–II. Paris.Search in Google Scholar

CHORA 2015. Hors-série, Dualismes, doctrine religieuses et traditions philosophiques. Vol. coordonné par F. Jourdan/A. Vasiliu.Search in Google Scholar

Collette-Ducic, B./Delcomminette, S. 2006. La théorie stoïcienne du mélange et sa postérité I. Revue de philosophie ancienne 24 (2), 1–92.Search in Google Scholar

Cooper, J. 2009. « Chrysippus on Physical Elements ». Dans : God and Cosmos in Stoicism. Ed. R. Salles. Oxford, 93–117.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556144.003.0005Search in Google Scholar

Dillon, J. 2003. The Heirs of Plato – A Study of the Old Academy (347–274 BC). Oxford.10.1093/0198237669.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Diogenes Laertius. 2013. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Ed. T. Dorandi. Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar

Forschner, M. F. 1981. Die stoische Ethik. Stuttgart.Search in Google Scholar

Gill, C. 2006. The Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman Thought. Oxford.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198152682.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Gourinat, J.-B. 2009. « The Stoics on Matter and Prime Matter ». Dans : God and Cosmos in Stoicism. Ed. R. Salles. Oxford, 46–70.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556144.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

–. 2015. « Les Stoïciens et le dualisme ». Chora, Hors-série, 165–184.10.5840/chora2015139Search in Google Scholar

Hahm, D. 1977. The Origins of Stoic Cosmology. Columbus.Search in Google Scholar

–. 1991. « Aristotle and the Stoics: a Methodological Crux ». Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 73 (3), 297–311.Search in Google Scholar

Hyde, T. 1700. Historia Religionis veterum Persarum eorumque Magorum. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar

Inwood, B. 2012. « Antiochus on Physics ». Dans : The Philosophy of Antiochus. Ed. D. Sedley. Cambridge, 188–219.10.1017/CBO9781139022774.010Search in Google Scholar

Karfík, F. 2007. «Que fait et qui est le démiurge dans le Timée ? ». Études Platoniciennes IV : Les Puissances de l’âme selon Platon. Paris, 129–150.10.4000/etudesplatoniciennes.907Search in Google Scholar

Menn, S. 1999. « The Stoic Theory of Categories ». Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 17 (3), 215–47.Search in Google Scholar

Mikeš, V. 2008. Plato’s Necessity Revisited. Rhizai 5 (1), 7–19.Search in Google Scholar

Lapidge, M. 1973. « Archai and stoicheia: A Problem in Stoic Cosmology ». Phronesis 18 (3), 240–278.10.1163/156852873X00177Search in Google Scholar

Lapidge, M. 1978. « Stoic Cosmology ». Dans : The Stoics. Ed. J. Rist. Berkley/Los Angeles/London, 161–185.10.1525/9780520339255-009Search in Google Scholar

Long, A./Sedley, D. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers I–II. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139165907Search in Google Scholar

Reydams-Schils, G. 1999. Demiurge and Providence, Stoic and Platonist Readings of Plato’s Timaeus. Turnhout.10.1484/M.MON-EB.5.112278Search in Google Scholar

–. 2012, « The Academy, the Stoics and Cicero on Plato’s Timaeus ». Dans : Plato and the Stoics. Ed. A. G. Long. Cambridge, 29–58.10.1017/CBO9781139629157.003Search in Google Scholar

Roux, S. 2004. La recherche du principe chez Platon, Aristote et Plotin. Paris.Search in Google Scholar

Sandbach, F. H. 1985. Aristotle and the Stoics. Cambridge.10.2307/j.ctv1r07fztSearch in Google Scholar

Sedley, D. 1982. « The Stoic Criterion of Identity ». Phronesis 27 (3), 255–75.10.1163/156852882X00177Search in Google Scholar

–. 2002. « The Origins of Stoic God ». Dans : Traditions of Theology. Ed. D. Frede/A. Laks. Leiden, 41–83.Search in Google Scholar

–. 2012. « Antiochus as Historian of Philosophy ». Dans : The Philosophy of Antiochus. Ed. D. Sedley. Cambridge, 80–103.10.1017/CBO9781139022774.005Search in Google Scholar

Sakezles, P. K. 2008. « The Aristotelian Origins of Stoic Determinism ». Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 24, 163–196.Search in Google Scholar

Sorabji, R. 1988. Matter, Space and Motion. London.Search in Google Scholar

Todd, R. 1978. « Monism and Immanence ». Dans : The Stoics. Ed. J. Rist. Berkley/Los Angeles/London, 137–160.Search in Google Scholar

Van Winden, J. C. M. 1965. Calcidius on Matter, His doctrine and Sources. Leiden.10.1163/9789004320215Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-06-09
Published in Print: 2020-05-26

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston