Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

SATS

Northern European Journal of Philosophy

Editor-in-Chief: Addis, Mark / Hämäläinen, Nora / Pedersen, Esther Oluffa / Westphal, Kenneth R.

Managing Editor: Pedersen, Esther Oluffa

Together with Niknam, Arman Teymouri


CiteScore 2018: 0.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.101
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.059

Online
ISSN
1869-7577
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 19, Issue 2

Issues

Chrysippus’ counterargument against the Master Argument: a reappraisal

Mauro Nasti De Vincentis
Published Online: 2018-07-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2018-2001

Abstract

It is widely held that as a nego suppositum, Chrysippus’ response to Diodorus Cronus’ Master Argument is that the impossible “this man has died” follows from the possible “Dio has died”. A principal claim of this article is that Chrysippus was not actually committed, against Diodorus, to the tenet that there are deductions and conditionals whereby from the possible the impossible follows. I argue that this is most likely part of a Chrysippean exemplum fictum of a real dialectical discussion and it merely reflects a Chrysippean dialectical strategy, a merely instrumental agreement (συγχώρησις) with Diodorus on the admissibility of some single-premised arguments. As historical evidence for my conjecture I highlight two key passages by Sextus Empiricus which help to understand that Chrysippus’ real tenet was an ancient implicational counterpart of a deictic version of the Identity-Elimination Rule, whereas most likely, according to Diodorus the identitarian major premiss of this rule is redundant, so that it must be eliminated.

Keywords: Master Argument; Deixis; Identity-Elimination; Eschatological Axiom

References

  • Alessandrelli, M. 2013. Il problema del lekton nello Stoicismo antico. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar

  • Ammonius,. 1897. Aristotelis de Interpretatione commentarius. A. Busse (ed). Berlin: (CAG IV.5).Google Scholar

  • Arnim, H. V. 1964. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. 4. [including a fourth one of indexes by M. Adler]. Stuttgart: Teubner. cited as ‘SVF’ by volume:fragment: numbers.Google Scholar

  • Atherton, C. 1993. Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, J. 1980. Proof Destroyed. In M. Schofield, M. Burnyeat & J. Barnes (eds.), Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, 161–181. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, J. 1997. Logic and the Imperial Stoa. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, J. 2007. Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bobzien, S. 1993. Chrysippus’ Modal Logic and its Relation to Philo and Diodorus. In K. Döring & Th Ebert (eds.), Dialektiker und Stoiker, 63–84. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar

  • Bobzien, S. 1997. The Stoic on Hypotheses and Hypothetical Arguments. Phronesis 42(3). 299–312.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bobzien, S. 1998. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bohnemeyer, J. 2015. Deixis. In J. Wright (ed), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences vol. 6 2nd, 52–57. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Castagnoli, L. 2010. Ancient Self-Refutation: The Logic and History of the Self-Refutation Argument from Democritus to Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Diels, H., et al. 1836–1870. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. eds. 26. Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae: Berlin, Reimer. rpt. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1990; re-issue of volumes published in Venice ca. 1550 (several volumes are multiple); cited as ‘CAG’.Google Scholar

  • Ebert, TH. 2008. In Defence of the Dialectical School. In F. Alesse (ed.), Anthropine Sophia, 275–293. Napoli: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar

  • Empiricus, Sextus. 1912. 1954. Opera, 3. H. Mutschmann & J. Mau (eds). indexed by K. Janáček. Leipzig: Teubner. Outlines of Pyrrnonism designated as ‘PH’; Adversus Mathematicos, designated as ‘M’.Google Scholar

  • Gellius, A. 1968. Noctes Atticae. 2. P.K. Marshall (ed). Oxford: The Clarendon Press. cited as ‘Noct. Att.’ by vol. chapt. paragr. numbers.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, P.A. 1983–89. Carmina Epigraphica Graeca. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter. designated ‘CEG’, all references are to vol. 1, published 1983.Google Scholar

  • Hülser, K. 1987–88. Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker. 4. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog. (Paginated continuously across the four volumes; line number(s) indicated by ‘l.’ or ‘ll.’.).Google Scholar

  • Ingenkamp, H.G. 1967. Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

  • Laertius, Diogenes. 1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 2. Greek and English. R.D. Hicks (ed). tr. London, Heinemann; New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. cited as ‘DL’ by book: chapternumbers.Google Scholar

  • Papazian, M.B. 2001. Chrysippus and the Destruction of Propositions: A Defence of the Standard Interpretation. History and Philosophy of Logic 22. 1–12.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Papiae, 1998. Ars Grammatica. R. Cervani (ed). Bologna: Patron.Google Scholar

  • Rosenberg, S. & C. Manekin. 1988. Themistius on Modal Logic. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2. 83–103.Google Scholar

  • Sedley, D. 1982. The Stoic Criterion of Identity. Phronesis 27(3). 255–275.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Seel, G. 2018. The puzzles of the Master Argument and their solutions. Philosophical Inquiry, International Quarterly 41(2-3). 81–93.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-07-17

Published in Print: 2018-11-27


Citation Information: SATS, Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 139–159, ISSN (Online) 1869-7577, ISSN (Print) 1600-1974, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2018-2001.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in