8 Feb 2017

Luhtala (5.5.2) On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, “The Components of Expression (Σημαίνοντα) and Meaning (Σημαινόμενα)”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Stoicism, entry directory]

[Anneli Luhtala, entry directory]

[Luhtala, Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. It redoes this entry. All boldface and bracketed commentary are my own. Paragraph enumerations are also my own, but they follow the paragraph breaks in the text. Please forgive my distracting typos, as proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Anneli Luhtala

 

On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic

 

Ch.5 The Stoics

 

5.5 Stoic Logic

 

5.5.2

The Components of Expression (Σημαίνοντα) and Meaning (Σημαινόμενα)

 

 

Brief summary:

Stoic dialectic has two parts. Generally speaking, there is a part that lies on the level of language itself and a part that deals more with the conceptual meanings the language expresses. Specifically, the two parts are: {1} “expression,” equivalent to σημαίνοντα (that which signifies), to φωναι (vocal sounds), and to λέξις (word), and {2} “meaning” or “sayables,” equivalent to σημαινόμενα (that which is signified, meaning), and to λεκτά (sayables). The study of expression examines a heterogeneous set of related issues, including written utterances, parts of speech, poetry, definitions, and other various topics. The study of meaning, however, examines a more homogeneous set of logical sorts of issues, like propositions, sense (sayables), predicates, genera and species, arguments, and states of affairs. With regard to expression, ὄνομα means ‘noun’ and ῥῆμα means ‘verb’. With regard to meaning, these terms correspond with πτῶσις (case) and κατηγόρημα (predicate), respectively. Simple parts of speech, like nouns or verbs alone, are not able to take on truth values. This is only possible for sayables, which can be articulated in a propositional formulation, and thus truth and falsity are also matters of syntax, which is the meaningful combination of parts of speech. So “Dion” does not express a sayable, and it cannot be either true or false; however, “Dion walks” does and can, because its syntax allows it to represent a state of affairs in the world. Regarding the articulation of meaning, we arrange the relevant concepts in an order going from the most to the least conforming to the rational organization of the world. The world itself operates rationally, on account of its rational principle, λόγος. States of affairs (πράγματα) in the world thus have a rational sense to them, which is their sayable (λεκτόν). The verbal articulation that can adequately express the λόγος of the λεκτόν and thus of the πράγματα is also called a λόγος, but this time meaning an intelligible, articulate sentence. A step down from that is a λέξις, which is an articulate sound that might not even be intelligible, as with the famous example of “blituri”. Next down is  a φωνή, which is a sound that may not even be articulate (that is, might not even resemble a word with composite letters or phonetics).  There are two related sorts of speech acts: προφέρεσθαι (uttering), which is associated with the linguistic item φωναί (vocal sounds), and {2} λέγειν (speaking), which is assocated with πράγματα (states of affairs) and thus also with λεκτά (sayables). As we noted, while λέξις can represent a word for a real thing, it lacks the syntactical powers to represent a state of affairs. This is because real situations in the world have certain ontological properties that require more sophisticated syntactical mechanisms to be expressed. For example, the relation between a thing and its properties cannot be represented simply in a word but rather requires a syntax with a subject-predicate structure. Now, the sense of a state of affairs as the sayable (λεκτόν) is something incorporeal. However, as soon as it is vocally articulated into a propositional sentence, it has thereby taken on a corporeal form, because speech is corporeal, as it produces effects in the world. There is still another terminological distinction that divides meaning and expression into three units: 1} a corporeal sound (φωνήν), which is a signifier (σημαῖνον) {2} the corporeal sound’s ‘signification’ (σημαινόμενον), which lies in the intellect and is a matter of the sayable (λεκτόν) and is thus incorporeal, and {3} the referent (τυγχάνον), which is the physical object in the world corresponding to the signification and is thus corporeal.

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

5.5.2.1

[There are two parts of Stoic dialectic: {1} “expression,” which is equivalent to σημαίνοντα (that which signifies) / φωναι (vocal sounds) / λέξις (word), and {2} “meaning” or “sayables,” which is equivalent to σημαινόμενα (that which is signified, meaning) / λεκτά (sayables)]

 

There are two parts of Stoic dialectic:

{1} σημαίνοντα / that which signifies (Diog. Laert. VII,62), also understood as φωναι / vocal sounds (Diog. Laert. VII,43); and

{2} σημαινόμενα / that which is signified (Diog. Laert. VII,62), also understood with the same Greek term, σημαινόμενα, but with the sense, ‘meaning’, when related to φωναι / vocal sounds (Diog. Laert. VII,43) (70).

Note that σημαινόμενον (that which is signified) is equivalent to λεκτόν (sayable) (70). We also note that sometimes the term λέξις (word) is used as a synonym for φωνή (vocal sound). [Later we see a more precise way to differentiate them.] With this in mind, Luhtala makes the following terminological distinction:

{a} “expression” = σημαίνοντα (that which signifies) / φωναι (vocal sounds) / λέξις (word)

{b} “meaning” or “sayables” = σημαινόμενα (that which is signified, meaning) / λεκτά (sayables) (70).

 

 

5.5.2.2

[The study of expression examines a heterogeneous set of related issues, including written utterances, parts of speach, poetry, definitions, and others. The study of meaning examines more logical sorts of matters, like propostions, sense (sayables), predicates, genera and species, arguments, states of affairs, and others.]

 

For Diogenes Laertius, expression is a matter of written utterances, parts of speech, and other elements of language, including poetry, euphony, definitions, and other matters (see p.70). [Meaning, however, is a matter of logical structures that can be expressed linguistically.]

According to Diogenes Laertius, the study of expression covered

written utterance and what the parts of language are, dealing also with solecisms and barbarisms, poetry, ambiguity, euphony, music, and, according to some Stoics, definitions, divisions and expressions.112

The component of meaning comprised

impressions and derivatively subsistent sayables – propositions, complete sayables, predicates and similar actives and passives, genera and species, along with also arguments, argument modes and syllogisms, and sophisms which depend on utterance and on states of affairs. (Diog. Laert. VII,43-44 , tr. Long/Sedley 1987: 183)113

112. Εἶναι δὲ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς ἴδιον τόπον καὶ τὸν προειρημένον περὶ αὐτῆς τῆς φωνῆς, ἐν ᾧ δείκνυται ἡ ἐγγράμματος φωνὴ καὶ τίνα τὰ τοῦ λόγου μέρη, καὶ περὶ σολοικισμοῦ καὶ βαρβαρισμοῦ καὶ ποιημάτων καὶ ἀμφιβολιῶν καὶ περὶ ἐμμελοῦς φωνῆς καὶ περὶ μουσικῆς καὶ περὶ ὅρων κατά τινας καὶ διαιρέσεων καὶ λέξεων. [See Perseus 44]

113. καὶ τὸν μὲν τῶν σημαινομένων εἴς τε τὸν περὶ τῶν φαντασιῶν τόπον καὶ τῶν ἐκ τούτων ὑφισταμένων λεκτῶν ἀξιωμάτων καὶ αὐτοτελῶν καὶ κατηγορημάτων καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων ὀρθῶν καὶ ὑπτίων καὶ γενῶν καὶ εἰδῶν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ λόγων καὶ τρόπων καὶ συλλογισμῶν καὶ τῶν παρὰ τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὰ πράγματα σοφισμάτων. [See Perseus 43]

(70)

[Recall from above that the study of expression covers “written utterance and what the parts of language are, dealing also with solecisms and barbarisms, poetry, ambiguity, euphony, music, and, according to some Stoics, definitions, divisions and expressions”. Luhtala’s next point might be that this is a very odd heterogeneous combination of things to group under one study.]

The classification of topics under these two components of dialectic by the Stoics differs considerably from the modern understanding of the divisions of disciplines and it requires a special effort to appreciate the genuinely Stoic interpretation of these topics. It is particularly difficult to get to grips with the strikingly heterogeneous contents of the component of expression. It is probably best understood in terms of its composite nature, as has been suggested by Frede.

(71)

 

 

 

5.5.2.3

[The components of meaning are more homogeneous and are related to logical structures, like subject and predicate, but for the Stoics, the syntactical analysis is more sophisticated than with Aristotle.]

 

The expression can be analyzed structurally into its component parts of speech, which were likely studied for the sake of propositional analysis. [We noted before that the study of expression involves a heterogeneous set of topics.] “The component of meaning (σημαινόμενα) is much more homogeneous, including only philosophically relevant items, such as propositions and predicates” (71). [Luhtala in the previous chapters examined syntactical studies by Plato and Aristotle. The study of parts of speech in expression will derive from naming, while the components of meaning will come from the parts of statement making. Aristotle’s study of propositions was limited to simply subjects and verbs, but the Stoics had a much more sophistical analysis.]

The component of meaning (σημαινόμενα) is much more homogeneous, including only philosophically relevant items, such as propositions and predicates. I will view this division of topics as a development of the linguistic analysis initiated by Plato and Aristotle, so that the treatment of the parts of speech in the component of expression roughly derives from the non-syntactical level of naming (ὀνομάζειν) and the component of meaning from the syntactical level of statement-making (λέγειν). In such a comparison we must keep in mind the provisional nature of the Peri hermeneias as opposed to the elaborate system of the Stoics, to whom linguistic questions were of much more importance. Aristotle merely sketched the two constituents of the proposition, ὄνομα (‘noun’ / ‘subject’) and ῥῆμα (‘verb’ / ‘predicate’), and their combination into a statement without a careful analysis of the different levels involved in statement-making. The Stoics developed an elaborate system with a highly specialized vocabulary for each level of description.

(71)

 

 

5.5.2.4

[In their analysis of expression, ὄνομα means ‘noun’ and ῥῆμα means ‘verb’. In their analysis of meaning, these terms correspond with case (πτῶσις) and predicate (κατηγόρημα), respectively.]

 

[The next point might be the following, but please check the quotation. In their analysis of expression, the Stoics considered ὄνομα to mean ‘noun’ and ῥῆμα to mean ‘verb’. In their analysis of meaning, ὄνομα corresponds to case (πτῶσις) and ῥῆμα corresponds with predicate (κατηγόρημα). This distinction is seen already in Aristotle, but the Stoics introduce additional terminology.]

While items of both levels were named ὄνομα and ῥῆμα by Aristotle, the Stoics posited a systematic terminological distinction to label the items of the two distinct levels. The Stoics maintained the well-established vocabulary of ὄνομα and ῥῆμα to refer to the noun and the verb as items of the component of expression (σημαίνοντα). I will view them as non-syntactical linguistic units in accordance with the level of naming (ὀνομάζειν) in the Peri hermeneias. Within the component of meaning (σημαινόμενα), the same items are known as case (πτῶσις) and predicate (κατηγόρημα). Both of these terms can be derived from Peripatetic usage. But the Stoics introduced many other terms into their component of meaning (σημαινόμενα), such as σύμβαμα (‘congruity’) and λεκτόν (‘sayable’), which attest to the versatility of the Stoic approach.

(72)

 

 

5.5.2.5

[Truth and falsity are not matters of grammatical parts of speech but rather of sayables and thus of syntax, which is the meaningful combination of parts of speech.]

 

The truth and falsity of statements lies in the component of meaning (σημαινόμενα). But the parts of statements, namely, cases and predicates, are not sufficient on their own to carry truth or falsity. [I am not sure about the next point. It might be the following. To combine a noun and a verb is not enough to make a statement. Perhaps it is enough to make a sentence. But what is needed are units of meaning, namely, case and predicate. She says that parts of speech do not have “syntactic force”, but I do not know what that means. Yet, given that it is needed for statements and thus for truth and falsity, syntax pertains to sayables or meaning. I do not understand how syntax is distinguishable from a study of parts of speech. Perhaps the difference is that an analysis of parts of speech is a matter of finding different grammatically categorizable parts, but syntax is more a matter of determining rules or patterns for how these parts can be arranged and interrelated so to form meaningful sentences. From page 26:

Syntactical analysis, when included in ancient grammars, amounts to the combination of the parts of speech, as based on their morphological characteristics, which were known as ‘accidents’. Ancient grammar adheres to a hierarchical principle according to which elements (στοιχεῖα) of each level are combined in order to form units of a higher level: combinations of letters form syllables, those of syllables words, words are combined to form sentences (e.g. Holtz 1981: 60-61 and Baratin 1989: 9, and note 16).

This hierarchical viewpoint is present in the earliest linguistic speculation when pursued within dialectic. ‘Syntax’ represents the highest level in this hierarchy, that is the level of speaking (λέγειν) defined by Plato and Aristotle as that in which it is possible to assert something. Two items were recognized by them on the previous level, that of naming (ὀνομάζειν), namely noun/subject (ὄνομα) and verb/predicate (ῥῆμα)

(26)

]

The component of meaning (σημαινόμενα) is where true and false statements are made. The constituents of statements, cases and predicates, are deficient sayables. As far as I can see, in the Stoic system one cannot combine the noun and the verb, i.e. items of the component of expression (φωvαί), to effect statement-making because the parts of speech as such do not have syntactic force. Units of meaning (σημαινόμενα) are combined, that is cases and predicates. That truth and falsehood do not pertain to individual words (φωναί) but to their combination is a conclusion which the Stoics would seem to share with Plato and Aristotle. I am thus inclined to think that syntax, just like the question of truth and falsehood, pertained solely to the component of sayables (λεχτά) or meaning for the Stoics.

(72)

 

 

5.5.2.6

[A λόγος (speech, sentence) is an intelligible, articulate utterance. A λέξις is an articulate sound that may not be intelligible. And a φωνή is a sound that may not even be articulate. There are two related sorts of speech acts: {1} προφέρεσθαι (uttering), which is associated with the linguistic item φωναί (vocal sounds), and {2} λέγειν (speaking), which is assocated with πράγματα (states of affairs) and thus also with λεκτά (sayables).]

 

Luhtala next examines the relation between the notions of λεκτόν (sayable) and λόγος (speech or sentence) (72). [The concepts here seem to be organized in the following way. We begin with the least rational or logically structured thing and move toward the most. The first is φωνή (voice). It can be simply noise or it can be a sound with linguistic significance. Next is λέξις (articulate sound), which, like φωνή (voice) is composed of sounds, but it is unlike φωνή in that λέξις is articulate (which I think means it forms sounds which are language-like or which at least are candidates for carriers of significance.) The next is λόγος (speech, sentence), which is like λέξις in that both are articulate sounds, but the difference is that a λόγος has a certain meaning, while  a λέξις might be unintelligible, as in the example of blituri. (See this entry on Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VII,57). We now stop with this hierarchy, and we consider two sorts of speech acts, which are involved in the prior classifications: {1} προφέρεσθαι (uttering), which is associated with the linguistic item φωναί (vocal sounds), and {2} λέγειν (speaking), which is assocated with πράγματα (states of affairs) and thus also with λεκτά (sayables).]

The concept of λόγος (‘speech’, ‘sentence’) occurs in the following hierarchy of linguistic expressions reported by Diogenes Laertius (VII,56-57):

Φωνή (voice’) differs from λέξις (articulated sound’). Because, while the former may include mere noise, the latter is always articulate. Λέξις (‘articulate sound’) again differs from λόγος (‘speech’, ‘sentence’) because the latter always signifies something, whereas a λέξις (articulated sound’), as for example blituri, may be unintelligible, which a λόγος never is. And speaking/saying (λέγειν) is different from uttering (προφέρεσθαι); for while | vocal sounds (φωναί) are uttered, states of affairs (πράγματα) are said, and sayables pertain to states of affairs.116

A distinction is drawn here between two kinds of speech acts, that of uttering (προφέρεσθαι) and that of speaking (λέγειν), which are associated with two kinds of linguistic items, vocal sounds (φωναί) and states of affairs (πράγματα), respectively. Furthermore, sayables (λεκτά) are said to pertain to states of affairs (πράγματα). This idea of two kinds of speech acts would seem to correspond closely to the distinction between the two components of dialectic. We know that vocal/articulate sounds belong to the component of expression and states of affairs/sayables to the component of meaning.

116. διαφέρει δὲ φωνὴ καὶ λέξις, ὅτι φωνὴ μὲν καὶ ὁ ἦχός ἐστι, λέξις δὲ τὸ ἔναρθρον μόνον. λέξις δὲ λόγου διαφέρει, ὅτι λόγος ἀεὶ σημαντικός ἐστι, λέξις δὲ καὶ ἄσημος, ὡς ἡ βλίτυρι, λόγος δὲ οὐδαμῶς. διαφέρει δὲ καὶ τὸ λέγειν τοῦ προφέρεσθαι: προφέρονται μὲν γὰρ αἱ φωναί, λέγεται δὲ τὰ πράγματα, ἃ δὴ καὶ λεκτὰ τυγχάνει.. [See Perseus 57] See Long/Sedley:  Most editors accept Casaubon’s supplement, οἶον ἡμέρα ἐστί, after ἐκπεμπομένη. This may be right, but there is no reason to think that a λόγος has to be a complete sayable  (1987 II:197 n. 2). I am inclined to accept Casaubon’s supplement.

(72-73)

 

 

 

5.5.2.7

[λόγος can take the form of speech. Since meaningful speech comes from the throat, which is near the heart, Diogenes of Babylon thought that the mind is in the heart and not the head.]

 

[The “syntactical nature of the notion of λόγος (‘speech’, ‘sentence’)” seems to be the fact that conceptualizable things about the world have a rational structure that is paralleled by the relation between parts of propositions, as for example the way that a thing and its properties is represented in the subject-predicate structure.] In the next paragraph we will see a quote by Diogenes of Babylon. His point will correspond with our understanding of the “syntactical nature of the notion of λόγος (‘speech’, ‘sentence’)” (73). For, while λέξις is a vocal sound that can be written as a word, λόγος  instead is a “meaningful vocal sound that issues from the mind” and which takes the form of a proposition, like, “It is day” (73, citing Diog. Laert. VII,55-56). [The next point seems to be the following. We have made a linguistic point by distinguishing mere vocalized signification, which will take the form of simple terms, and conceptualized signification, which can also be vocalized in the form of propositions. The realm of mere vocalization lacks the rational component of logical syntax. But the Stoics make this distinction between vocal speech (φωνή) and meaningful speech (λόγος) for another purpose, “namely to show that the source of thinking and speaking is the same” (74). The idea in this latter half of this paragraph and in the next might be the following, but please see pages 73-74 to be sure. We begin by assuming that we do not know where in our anatomy our mind is located. For example, it could be in the head or it could be in the heart. The next assumption we make is that wherever is the source from which rational articulations arise is the place where the mind is. We then observe that both mere speech and meaningful articulate speech are sent out from the throat region. Next we note that this region is physiologically near to the heart, and more distant from the head. Thus, the mind is located in the heart.]

 

 

5.5.2.8

[This notion of the rational thought being expressible through vocalization reflects the dichotomy between {a} λόγος  as rational thought or meaningful speech and {b} λέξις or φωναί as mere speech that does not necessarily express a propositionally structurable thought.]

 

Luhtala then quotes Diogenes of Babylon, making this point we noted above, that since meaningful speech comes from the throat, which is near the heart, the mind is in the heart and not the head. Following this is a quote from Chrysippus that makes the same point (74, quoting: [Chrysippus maybe or perhaps Galen] De Plac. II 5, 18-20, tr. De Lacy 1978: 131). Luhtala then relates Chrysippus’ notion with Plato’s “twofold description of speech, thought and spoken, in the Sophist.” [Here the idea seems to be that speech in thought, which is silent, has another side to it when it is articulated into vocalized speech. See p.75.]

 

 

5.5.2.9

[The Stoic notion of sayables is like Plato’s notion of internal speech, however, for the Stoics, when the sayable is given vocal utterance, it becomes corporeal speech (λόγῳ).]

 

Luhtala then compares the Stoic notion of sayables with Plato’s notion of internal speech, “which precedes the actual enunciation of spoken words;” for, “Sayables would thus literally be something that could be uttered but actually need not be uttered” (75). [However, one difference is that for the Stoics, as soon as the sayable is uttered, it becomes corporeal speech (λόγῳ).

This is in accordance with what we know of the relationship between speech and thought in the Stoic theory: the rational impression (φαντασία) comes first, then thought which is able to speak (διάνοια εχλαλητιχή) expresses its experience by means of speech (λόγῳ) (Diog. Laert. VII,49).

(75)

 

 

 

5.5.2.10

[The λόγος  of meaningful articulate speech is incorporeal, but the speech as mere vocal sounds φωναί is corporeal, because it has an effect.]

 

For the Stoics, meaningful articulate speech as λόγος  [or as sayable] occupies the incorporeal ontological sphere. However, the parts of speech as vocal sounds (φωναί) lie in the corporeal ontological sphere, because they have an effect:

For whatever produces an effect is body; and voice, as it proceeds from those who utter it to those who hear it, does produce an effect for whatever produces an effect is corporeal. Voice, as it proceeds from those | who utter it to those who hear it, does produce an effect. (Diog. Laert. VII,55 = SVF 2.140, tr. R.H. Hicks; cf. Aet. Plac. IV,20,2 = SVF 2.387 and Suda s.v. σῶμα.)120

120. πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ποιοῦν σῶμά ἐστι: ποιεῖ δὲ ἡ φωνὴ προσιοῦσα τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν φωνούντων. [Following Perseus]

(75-76)

[Note, in my version of the Hick’s translation, the quote does not have this redundancy in its formulation. It reads simply as one sentence: “For whatever produces an effect is body; and voice, as it proceeds from those who utter it to those who hear it, does produce an effect.” See 56 at Perseus.]

 

 

 

5.5.2.11

[The Stoic theory of meaning and expression distinguishes three units: {1} a corporeal sound (φωνήν), which is a signifier (σημαῖνον) {2} the corporeal sound’s ‘signification’ (σημαινόμενον), which lies in the intellect and is a matter of the sayable (λεκτόν) and is thus incorporeal, and {3} the referent (τυγχάνον), which is the physical object in the world corresponding to the signification, and is thus corporeal.]

 

The Stoic theory [of meaning] has three units: {1} a corporeal sound (φωνήν), which is a signifier (σημαῖνον) {2} the corporeal sound’s ‘signification’ (σημαινόμενον), which lies in the intellect and is a matter of the sayable (λεκτόν) [when it is formulated propositionally such that it could be either true or false], [also, it might be a matter of the motion of thought (κινήσει τῆς διανοίας)] and {3} the referent (τυγχάνον), which is the physical object in the world corresponding to the signification (76). The corporeal sound and its signfication lie in the realm of dialectic. The referent, however, is a matter of physics. Luhtala notes that Sextus may have misrepresented the theory by portraying the signification as a term, which cannot be true or false. Instead of it being the notion of “Dion”, it should rather be a proposition like “Dion walks” [See these entries on that topic.]

It is customary to view the Stoic theory as involving three units, a corporeal sound, its ‘signification’ and the referent. Two of them belong to the domain of dialectic whereas the third component, the object in the external world, which activates the impression, belongs to the physical theory. The Stoic theory is generally illustrated with a passage from Sextus Empiricus, who records the Stoic position in the course of his exposition of a controversy concerning the sphere of truth in the doctrines of the various philosophical schools (see e.g. Müller 1978: 7; Graeser 1978: 78):

The Stoics defended the first opinion (according to which true and false is a question of the signification), saying that three things are linked together, ‘the signification’, ‘the signifier’, and ‘the name-bearer’. The signifier is an utterance, for instance ‘Dion’; the signified is the actual state of affairs revealed by an utterance, which we apprehend as it subsists in accordance with our thought whereas it is not understood by those whose language is different although they hear the utterance; the name-bearer is the external object, for instance, Dion himself. Of these, two are bodies – the utterance and the name-bearer; but one is incorporeal – the state of affairs signified and sayable, which is true or false. (Adv. math. VIII, 11-13, tr. Long/Sedley 1987: 195)121

121. Ἀλλ᾽ ἡ μὲν πρώτη περὶ τἀληθοῦς διαφωνία τοιαύτη τις ὑπῆρχεν. ἦν  δὲ καί ἄλλη τις παpὰ τούτοις διάστασις, καθ᾽ ἣν οἱ μὲν πεpὶ τῷ σημαινομὲνῳ τὸ ἀληθές τε καὶ ψεῦδος ὑπεστήσαντο, οἱ δὲ περὶ τῇ φωνῇ, οἱ δὲ περὶ τῇ κινήσει τῆς διανοίας. καὶ δὴ τῆς μὲν πρώτης δόξης προεστήκασιν οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς,  τρία φάμενοι συζυγεῖν ἀλλήλοις, τό τε σημαινόμενον καὶ τὸ σημαῖνον καὶ τὸ τυγχάνον, ὧν σημαῖνον μὲν εἶναι τὴν φωνήν, οἷον τὴν Δίων, σημαινόμενον δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα τὸ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς δηλούμενον καὶ οὗ ἡμεῖς μὲν ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ παρυφισταμένου διανοίᾳ, οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι οὐκ ἐπαΐουσι καίπερ τῆς φωνῆς ἀκούοντες, τυγχάνον δὲ τὸ ἐκτὸς ὑποκείμενον, ὥσπερ αὐτὸς ὁ Δίων. τούτων δὲ δύο μὲν εἶναι σώματα, καθάπερ τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὸ τυγχάνον, ἓν δὲ ἀσώματον, ὥσπερ τὸ σημαινόμενον πρᾶγμα, καὶ λεκτόν ὅπερ ἀληθές τε γίνεται ἢ ψεῦδος. καὶ τοῦτο οὐ κοινῶς πᾶν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἐλλιπές τὸ δὲ αὐτοτελές. The ‘name-bearer’ appears to be an infelicitous translation for τυγχάνον because this text has to do with statement-making rather than name-giving. Ι have replaced it by ‘case-bearer’ which Long and Sedley use elsewhere (1987: 201).

(76)

[For an online transcription: 8.11; 8.12. Below is an image of a text for reference.

Sextus Empiricus. Adv Math Bk8 ln10-13.2.

Here is another translation:

11. ... And there was yet another quarrel among the dogmatists; for some located the true and false in the thing signified, some located it in the utterance, and some in the motion of the intellect. And the Stoics championed the first view, saying that three things are linked with one another: the thing signified, the signifier, and the object. 12. Of these, the signifier is the utterance, for example, ‘Dion’. The thing signified is the thing indicated by the utterance and which we grasp when it subsists in our intellect and which foreigners do not understand although they hear the utterance. The object is the external existent, for example, Dion himself. Two of these are bodies, the utterance and the object, and one incorporeal, the signified thing, i.e., the thing said [lekton] which is true or false. This last point is not of unrestricted application, but some lekta are incomplete and some complete. One kind of complete lekton is the so-called proposition, which they describe thus: a proposition is that which is true or false.

(Stoic Reader 89)

]

 

 

5.5.2.12

[We are concerned with the propositions resulting from rational impressions, which correspond to sayables. We are not concerned with other sorts of sentences.]

 

[In addition to issues of syntax,] Luhtala will also be examining “the propositions resulting from rational impressions which are the essential subject matter of the theory of sayables (λεχτά)” (77), and she will exclude any non-propositional sorts of formulations (77-78). Matters of expression will only interest us insofar as they are “relevant to the syntax of deficient and complete sayables” (77).

 

 

5.5.2.13

[Our concern is not with name-giving or etymology.]

 

Luhtala is also not concerned with “name-giving and the etymological procedures” (78).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From:

 

Luhtala, Anneli. 2000. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic. Münster: Nodus.

 

 

Other texts, cited by Luhtala:

 

[Note, for “Aet. Plac.” I did not see something for it in the Bibliography, but perhaps it is Aetius’s Placita Philosophorum.]

 

[Note, for Chrysippus or Galen De Plac. II 5, 18-20, tr. De Lacy 1978, I could not find either in the Bibliography. Perhaps it is Galen, De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis. And perhaps for the translation: Galenus / Phillip Howard De Lacy. Galeni de placitis Hippocratis et Platonis = Galen on the doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato.      Berlin [-Ost] : Akademie-Verlag, 1978-1984. Worldcat link.]

 

Diogenes Laertius: Lives of eminent philosophers. Translated by Robert D. Hicks. 2 vols. London: William Heinemann / Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1950.

The Perseus Greek page for the Diogenes’ passages:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0257%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D1

The Perseus English page for the Diogenes’ passages:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D1

 

Graeser, Andrea. 1978. “The Stoic Theory of Meaning”. Rist (1978: 77-100).

 

Müller, Ian. 1978 “An Introduction to Stoic Logic”. Rist (1978: 1-26).

 

Sextus Empiricus: Adversus Mathematicos I-XI. Ed. with an English translation by Robert G. Bury. 4 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press 1949.

 

Suda ( = Suida). Suidae Lexicon. Ed. by Ada Adler. Leipzig: Teubner 1931.

 

SVF: Stoicorum veterum fragmenta I-III. Ed. Iohannes von Arnim. Leipzig: Teubner 1905-24.

 

 

Texts I cite:

 

Sextus Empiricus. 1914. Sexti Empirici Opera. Vol. 2, Adversus Dogmaticos, libros quinque (Adv. Mathem. VII-XI) continens, edited by Hermannus Mutschmann. Lipsiae [Leipzig]: Teubneri [Teubner]. Available online:

https://archive.org/details/sextiempiriciope12sext

Online text transcription at:

http://socratics.daphnet.org

[specifically here]

 

2008. The Stoic Reader. Selected Writings and Testimonia. Translated by Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson. Indianapolis / Cambridge: Hackett.

 

 

This entry redoes the one here, made a while ago:

http://piratesandrevolutionaries.blogspot.com/2009/04/stoic-logic-and-semantics-components-of.html

 

 

.

6 Feb 2017

Luhtala (5.5.1) On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, “Rational Impressions”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Stoicism, entry directory]

[Anneli Luhtala, entry directory]

[Luhtala, Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. It redoes this entry. All boldface and bracketed commentary are my own. Paragraph enumerations are also my own, but they follow the paragraph breaks in the text. Please forgive my distracting typos, as proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Anneli Luhtala

 

On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic

 

Ch.5 The Stoics

 

5.5 Stoic Logic

 

5.5.1 Rational Impressions

 

 

Brief summary:

We obtain rational impressions (λογικὴ φαντασία) from real situations in the world [which operates according to reason (λόγος)] leaving impressions (φαντασίαι) on the leading part of our soul (ἡγεμονικόν). The situation in the world has some rational sense to it, which is its “sayable” (λεκτόν). The same sayable corresponds to our rational impression, and that sayable can be rendered into a linguistic utterance, taking the form of a proposition, whose syntactical structure is isomorphic to the conceptual structure of the sayable.

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

5.5.1.1

[Dialectic is conducted on the basis of rational impressions in our mind that were made by existing things leaving impressions on the leading part of our soul.]

 

Stoic dialectic is based on the knowledge we gain of the world. In their epistemology, existing things activate impressions (φαντασίαι) in our mind (that is, in the “leading part of the human soul, the ἡγεμονικόν”) by means of sense-perceptions.

Stoic dialectic was based on epistemology, so that ‘impressions’ (φαντασίαι) held the first place in their treatment of dialectic. ‘Impressions’ are what occur in the human mind on the basis of sense-perceptions, which are caused by external objects in the leading part of the human soul, the ἡγεμονικόν.104 An impression is activated by ‘existing things’ and is stamped and impressed exactly in accordance with ‘what is’ (Diog Laert. | VII,46; Adv. math. VIII,85-86).105 In Stoic physics only corporeal entities are said really to exist and have causal efficacy. The ‘existing things’ can thus be interpreted as perceptible objects affecting the leading part of the soul, ἡγεμονικόν.106 An impression (φαντασίαι) is understood either as an imprint (τύπωσις) or alteration (ἑτεροίωσις) in the soul (SVF 2.53-9), which produces a movement in the soul (Adv. math.VII,242 = SVF 2.65). By a rational impression (λογικὴ φαντασία) is understood a presentation which is typical of a living being possessed of reason and speech. If it originates from something which is clear, it is called a cognitive impression (καταληπτικὴ φαντασία) (Long & Sedley 1987: 250). According to Sextus Empiricus, a rational impression (λογικὴ φαντασία) is a presentation in which it is possible to set the thing presented before the mind by means of speech (λόγῳ) (Adv. math. VIII,70); it is also called ‘thought-process’ (νόησις) (Diog. Laert. VII,51).107

104. The soul, which is regarded a physical by the Stoics, consists of eight parts. The | commanding-part is called the ἡγεμονικόν. When a man is born, the Stoics say, he has the commanding-part of his soul like a sheet of paper ready for writing upon. On this he inscribes each one of his conceptions. Reason is said to be completed during our first seven years (Aet. Plac. IV,11,1-4 = SVF 2.83).

105. ... καταληπτικὴν μέν, ἣν κριτήριον εἶναι τῶν πραγμάτων φασί, τὴν γινομένην ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ ὑπάρχον ἐναπεσφραγισμένην καὶ ἐναπομεμαγμένην (Diog. Laert. VII,46; cf. also Aet. Plac. IV,12,1-5 = SVF 2.54).

106 But, according to the Stoics, knowledge can also be gained through processes other than immediate sense observations. An impression (φαντασίαι) can originate also in reasoning. The procedure involved is that of μετάβασις, a form of inference starting from sense-data. The Stoics claimed that the soul cannot be immediately affected by incorporeals but it can be impressed ‘in relation to sayables’ (Adv. math. VIII,409 = SVF 2.85). See Atherton (1993: 255 ff.) and Schubert (1994: 131-141).

107. αἱ μὲν οὖν λογικαὶ (sc. φαντασίαι) νοήσεις εἰσίν (those which are rational are processes of thought”); cf. Galen (Def. med. 126,19,381). I disagree with Kerferd, who proposes the following translation for this pasage: “A rational presentation is one in which the object of the phantasia is to be (i.e. can be) presented rationally (i.e. in and for the reason)” (1978 : 253-254).

(67-68)

 

 

5.5.1.2

[Our rational impressions, which are based on impressions from real states of affairs in the world, correspond to the sense or sayable of the event, which can be articulated into a linguistic utterance whose syntax is isomorphic to the structural features of the sayable it expresses.]

 

[So far we have  been discussing the role of thought processes with regard to rational impressions. But] the rational impression can enter into the form of a linguistic utterance, which is isomorphic with the  “sayable / λεκτόν”. Since the rational impression was caused by a real situation in the world, the expression will take a form of a proposition. [At this point it is not clear to what the sayable is and how it would differ from the linguistic expression. It could be something like the sense of a proposition. As such, it would lie between the state of affairs and the vocalized or conceptualized utterance in the sense that it holds for both and is like a bridge between them. I will quote this paragraph in full, and I may return to this part later to revise it, as I learn more.] The sayable / λεκτόν has composing units that correspond with the proposition’s parts of speech. [The next point might be that the sayables are on the side of that which is being signified and the proposition is on the side of that which is doing the signifying. But I am not certain yet.]

When the impression is associated with thought-processes and speech, the link with the linguistic theory becomes obvious, namely with the theory of the so-called ‘sayables’ (λεκτά). Indeed, the notion of ‘sayable’ (λεκτόν) is defined as that which subsists in accordance with a rational impression (Diog. Laert. VII,63).108 Diogenes Laertius epitomizes as follows the process by which articulate speech develops on the basis of ‘impressions’: |

Impression leads the way; then thought, which is able to speak, expresses in discourse what it experiences as a result of the impression. (Diog. Laert. VII,49)109

That which results from rational impressions would thus seem to take the form of propositions.110 The following statement, which is attributed to Chrysippus, displays the association between ‘right reason’ and the syntax of the parts of speech.

Philosophy, whether it is the care for, or the knowledge of, right reason, is the discipline concerned with reason (λόγος). For if we are completely familiar with the parts of speech (τῶν τοῦ λόγου μορίων) and their syntax (τῆς συντάξεως αὐτῶν), we will make use of it (i.e. the λόγος) in an expert way. By λόγος I mean the one that by nature belongs to all rational beings. (SVF 2.131, tr. Frede 1978: 60-62)

The intimate relationship between the theory of λεκτά (‘sayables’) and items of language, the parts of speech, is well-known. As Long and Sedley put it,

sayables are not merely, as has often been observed, ‘isomorphic’ with language. They are parasitic on it, to the extent of being analysable largely into the words used to express them. (Long/Sedley 1987: 200-201)111

The correspondence between the parts of speech, and the corresponding units of λεκτά (‘sayables’) is reflected in the Stoic division of dialectic into its two components, the one dealing with what signifies (σημαίνοντα) and the other dealing with what is said or signified (λεκτόν, σημαινόμενα) (Diog. Laert. VII,43). In my opinion, this correspondence should be understood in such a way that the parts of speech in the former component | were described with a view to their roles in statement-making in the latter. The parts of speech are thus supposed to be described in terms of such features as are relevant for propositional analysis. A similar tendency was noted in the Peri hermeneias in which the noun (ὄνομα) and the verb (ῥῆμα) seemed to be tailor-made for the subject and predicate functions in statement-making.

108. Φασῖ δὲ (τὸ) λεκτὸν εἶναι τὸ κατὰ φαντασίαν λογικὴν ὑφιστάμενον. [See Perseus]

109. προηγεῖται γὰρ ἡ φαντασία, εἶθ᾽ ἡ διάνοια ἐκλαλητικὴ ὑπάρχουσα, ὃ πάσχει ὑπὸ τῆς φαντασίας, τοῦτο ἐκφέρει λόγῳ (tr. Long 1974: 125). [See Perseus]

110. I agree with Long and Sedley when they claim that “all impressions of mature human beings are envisaged to have a propositional content” (1987: 240): “To say that ‘sayables subsist in accordance with a rational impression’ seems to be a way of making the point that the rationality of a thought consists in its relationship to a sayable, which will normally be a proposition” (1987: 200). Cf. also Annas (1980: 88-89): “So a presentation, while in itself an imprint or alteration, not the kind of thing which can be true or false, is to be thought of a something with a content which can be expressed in a proposition, and this is true or false”.

111. See also Kneale/Kneale (1962: 143): “Although lekta are to be distinguished from any spoken sounds, words, or sentences, it is clear that a lekton can be identified only by use of a word or sentence which expresses it, and it is not surprising that the divisions of lekta should correspond fairly closely with the divisions of speech.” Cf. Egli (1978: 138); Graeser (1978: 80).

(68-70)

 

 

 

 

From:

 

Luhtala, Anneli. 2000. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic. Münster: Nodus.

 

 

Other texts, cited by Luhtala:

 

[Note, for “Aet. Plac.” I did not see something for it in the Bibliography, but perhaps it is Aetius’s Placita Philosophorum.]

 

Annas, Julia. 1980. “Truth and Knowledge”. Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. Ed. by M. Schofield, J. Burnyeat, J. Barnes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 84-104.

 

Atherton, Catherine. 1993. The Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Diogenes Laertius: Lives of eminent philosophers. Translated by Robert D. Hicks. 2 vols. London: William Heinemann / Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1950.

 

Egli, Urs. 1978. “Stoic syntax and Semantics”. Brunschwig (1978: 135-154). [A revised version in Historiographia Linguistica. 13 (1986): 281-306.].

 

Frede, Michael. 1978. “Principles of Stoic Grammar”. Rist (1978: 7-75).

 

Graeser, Andrea. 1978. “The Stoic Theory of Meaning”. Rist (1978: 77-100).

 

Kerferd, George B. 1978. “The Problem of synkatathesis and katalepsis in Stoic doctrine”. Brunschwig (1978: 251-272).

 

Kneale, William C. / Kneale, Martha. 1962. The Development of Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

 

Long, Anthony A. 1974. Hellenistic Philosophy. London, New York: Charles Scribner’s sons.

 

Long, Anthony A. / Sedley, David N. 1987. The Hellenistic philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

 

Sextus Empiricus: Adversus Mathematicos I-XI. Ed. with an English translation by Robert G. Bury. 4 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press 1949.

 

Schubert, Andreas. 1994. Untersuchungen zur stoischen Bedeutungslehr. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Hypomnemata. 103.).

 

SVF: Stoicorum veterum fragmenta I-III. Ed. Iohannes von Arnim. Leipzig: Teubner 1905-24.

 

 

This entry redoes the one here, made a while ago:

http://piratesandrevolutionaries.blogspot.com/2009/04/5.html

 

.

4 Feb 2017

Luhtala (5.5.0) On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, “Stoic Logic [introductory material]”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Stoicism, entry directory]

[Anneli Luhtala, entry directory]

[Luhtala, Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. It redoes this entry. All boldface and bracketed commentary are my own. Paragraph enumerations are also my own, but they follow the paragraph breaks in the text. Please forgive my distracting typos, as proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Anneli Luhtala

 

On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic

 

Ch.5 The Stoics

 

5.5 Stoic Logic

 

5.5.0 [introductory material]

 

 

Brief summary:

The Stoics regarded logic as being comprised of rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric deals with continuous speech, while dialectic deals with argument by means of question and answer. Logic and all its many subtopics are matters of logos / λόγος (reason, speech), which is the rational principle of causality in the cosmos and of right human action. Logos is also speech, and since humans have “internal speech”, they can think rationally about the logical sequence of things. Truth is a matter of correspondence between a statement, made on the basis of our “rational impressions,” and some specific event happening in the world. The Stoics in fact did not consider universals to be real things, and thus their logic was concerned primarily with particulars and almost never with universals, as in Aristotle’s logic.

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

5.5.0.1

[The Stoics regarded logic as being comprised of rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric deals with continuous speech, dialectic with argument by question and answer.]

 

For the Stoics, logic was a matter of rhetoric and dialectic.

The term ‘logic’ was used by the Stoics to refer to the branch of their philosophy which covered the subdisciplines of rhetoric and dialectic.93

93. According to Bocheński, “the Stoics elaborated a refined semiotic theory ...” (1951: 80). According to Graeser, “it is a theory of meaning that has invited comparison with modern theories and obviously stood it well. In fact, it is generally agreed that the Stoic account of semantics is superior to and more sophisticated than the more influential one offered by Aristotle in the De Interpretatione (16a3-18)” (1978: 77).

(64)

But this combination of rhetoric and dialectic was not seen for example in Aristotle, who had no special term to include both (65). This dual signfiicance probably comes the Stoics’ adoption of the usage from Xenokrates. What characterizes rhetoric for the Stoics is that it “deals with continuous speech (Plut. De Stoic. rep. 1047A-B, SVF 2.297-298);’ however, what characterizes dialectic is that it is “argument by question and answer (Diog. Laert. VII,42)” (65). She continues:

Moreover, in a simile attributed to Zeno, dialectic is compared to a clenched fist, while rhetoric is compared to the hand spread out and extended, illustrating the compactness and brevity of dialectical discourse as opposed to rhetorical. This simile enjoyed some popularity in characterizing the two kinds of speech (λόγος, oratio) studied by the two arts of discourse in Antiquity, dialectic and rhetoric, respectively (Varro apud Cass. Inst. II,3,2; Isid. Etym. II,xxiii; Cic. De fin. II,6,17; Or. 32,113; Quint. Inst. or. II,20,7; Sen. Ep. 89, 17; Sext. Emp. Adv. math. II,7 = SVF 1.75).

(65)

[In his De finibus bonorum et malorum, which Luhtala cites, Cicero writes:

“That is the view of Zeno the Stoic,” I rejoined; “he used to say that the faculty of speech in general falls into two departments, as Aristotle had already laid down; and that Rhetoric was like the palm of the hand, Dialectic like the closed fist; because rhetoricians employ an expansive style, and dialecticians one that is more compressed.

(Cicero 1914: 99. II,6,17)

I also note an image form of this metaphor. John Bulwer’s Chirologia has a similar sort of picture on its title page. Samuel Howell writes regarding it:

Still another interesting thing about it is its illustrations, one of which precedes the title page and pictures “Eloquentia” as an open hand, “Logica” as a fist.

(Howell 341)

Below are images of this picture from Bulwer’s book [the detail is taken from the bottom right].

Bulwer eloquentia just

Bulwer Chirologia eloqentia logica title page

The title page of Howell’s book has its own adaptation of this image:

jpg touchup 2 Samuel Howell logica

]

 

5.5.0.2

[Logic and all its many subtopics are matters of logos / λόγος (reason, speech), which is the rational principle of causality in the cosmos and of right human action. Logos is also speech, and since humans have ‘internal speech’, they can think rationally about the logical sequence of things.]

 

There is a wide range of subjects that fall under logic for the Stoics, including “formal logic, theory of knowledge, semantic and phonetic aspects of language, as well as stylistics, all of which had λόγος (‘reason’, ‘speech’) as their subject matter” (65). For the Stoics, reason and speech are united in the notion of λόγος. Reason is something found in “rational order of the universe” and in the “parallelism between cosmic events and human action in that both are manifestations of a causal relation of cause and effect” (65, see section 5.1.2). Furthermore, “One of the characteristics of the human being as a rational creature is the ability to use language, which is based on ‘internal speech’, and an understanding of the logical sequence of things.” (65).

 

 

5.5.0.3

[The Stoics did not see universals as being real, and thus Stoic logic is concerned with particulars rather than universals.]

 

A wise person has ‘right reason’ (ὀρθὸς λόγος), which means that the person can make true statements about actual states of affairs happening in the world. [The next idea seems to be that in Aristotelian logic, truth (or maybe proper inference) is a matter of the relations between terms, especially between universal terms, where for the Stoics it is a matter of correspondence between statements and events in the world. Let me quote, as I am guessing:]

A mature person, if he is a wise man, has ‘right reason’ (ὀρθὸς λόγος). This means that he is able to make statements which are demonstrably true about some actual events that are taking place. The fact that Stoic logic is primarily concerned with states of affairs involving particulars marks an important distinction from Aristotelian logic which deals with relations between terms and mainly with universal terms.

(66a, emphasis mine)

The Stoics, then, were interested in particulars and diminished the importance of universals,

claiming that they are merely figments of our imagination.98

98. Diogenes Laertius attributes to Zeno the doctrine that concepts (ἐννόημμ) are neither somethings nor qualifeid but figments of the soul which are quasi-somethings and quasi-qualified (Diog. Laert. VII,60-61). Stobaeus adds that these concepts are what the old philosophers called Idea (Ecl. 1,136,21-137,6 = SVF 1.65). Like the Megarian Stilpo, Zeno wanted to remove the incorporeal Idea from the centre of philosophy (Rist 1978: 395).

(66)

In fact, universals do not even fit within the Stoics’ ontological scheme and instead are considered “not-somethings.99” [Footnote 99: According to Simplicius, Chrysippus too raised the question of whether the Idea can be called a this something’ (In Ar. cat. 105,8-16 = SVF 2.278). Syrianus attributes to the Stoic school in general the view that only particulars exist (In Ar. met. 104,17-21 = SVF 2.361). For the ontological scheme of the Stoics, see Long & Sedley (1987: 163) as well as table 1 on page 85.] (66) Thus “In Chrysippean logic propositions are usually made concerning individuals and the prototypical subject is represented by a definite pronoun” (66).

 

 

5.5.0.4

[For Stoics, logic deals with rational discourse, and rhetoric more specifically is about speaking well and dialectic about discovering truth by means of correct statements regarding real world events that are based on our rational impressions.]

 

Stoic logic for the most part deals with rational discourse in general. Both rhetoric and dialectic are matters of speaking well (66), but dialectic was “associated with the discovery of truth” (67). Truth for the Stoics is both a logical and an epistemological issue. It is logical in that “truth is discovered by means of correct statements about real world events”, and it is epistemological, because these correct statements “are based on what are known as ‘rational impressions’ (λογιὴ φαντασία)” (67). But Chrysippus also defined dialectic in accordance with a two-fold theory of meaning “as the doctrine of σημαίνοντα (“that which signifies”) and σημαινόμενα (“that which is signified”) (Diog. Laert. VII,62)” (67).

 

 

 

From:

 

Luhtala, Anneli. 2000. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic. Münster: Nodus.

 

 

Other texts, cited by Luhtala:

 

[Note, for “Cic. De fin.” I did not see something for it in the Bibliography, but perhaps it is Cicero’s De finibus.]

 

Diogenes Laertius: Lives of eminent philosophers. Translated by Robert D. Hicks. 2 vols. London: William Heinemann / Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1950.

 

Graeser, Andrea. 1978. “The Stoic Theory of Meaning”. Rist (1978: 77-100).

 

Bocheński, Innocentius M. 1951. Ancient Formal Logic. Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North- Holland Publishing Co.

 

[Note, for “Isid. Etym.” I did not see something for it in the Bibliography, but perhaps it is Isidorus’ Etymologiae.]

 

Long, Anthony A. / Sedley, David N. 1987. The Hellenistic philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Plutach: De Stoicis repugnantiis and De communibus notitiis contra Stoicos in Plutarchi Moralia V.1 .2. Ed. by Ma Pohlenz. Leipzig: Teubner 1972.

 

Quintilian: M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis Ortorae libri duodecim. Ed. by Michael Winterbottom. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1970.

 

Rist, John M. 1978. (ed.) The Stoics. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Rist, John M. “Zeno and the Origins of Stoic Logic”. Brunschwig (1978: 387-400).

 

Seneca: Ad Lucilium epistulae morales. Ed. by Leighton D. Reynolds. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1965.

 

Sextus Empiricus: Adversus Mathematicos I-XI. Ed. with an English translation by Robert G. Bury. 4 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press 1949.

 

Simplicius: In Arstotelis Categoras Commentarium. CAG VIII. Ed. by Carl Kalbfleisch. Berlin: Reimer 1907.

 

[Note, for “Stobaeus ... Ecl.” I did not see something for it in the Bibliography, but perhaps it is Stobaeus’ Ἐκλογαί / Eclogae physicae et ethicae.]

 

SVF: Stoicorum veterum fragmenta I-III. Ed. Iohannes von Arnim. Leipzig: Teubner 1905-24.

 

Syrianus: In Metaphysica commentaria. CAG VI.1. Ed. Wilhelm Kroll. Berlin: Reimer 1902 .

 

[Note, I do not know what “Varro apud Cass. Inst.” refers to. Perhaps it is simply Cassiodorus’ Institutiones. I could not find what it might be in the Bibliography.]

 

 

Texts I refer to:

 

Bulwer, John. 1644. Chirologia / Chironomia. London: Harper. PDF available at: https://archive.org/details/gu_chirologianat00gent

Bulwer image from: Folger Shakespeare Library.

http://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~651682~144325:Chirologia--or-The-naturall-languag#

 

Cicero. 1914. De finibus bonorum et malorum. With English translation by H. Rackham. London: Heinemann. / New York: Macmillan. PDF available at: https://archive.org/details/definibusbonoru02cicegoog

 

Howell, Samuel. 1961. Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700. New York: Russell & Russell. Available at: https://archive.org/details/logicandrhetoric0 11815mbp.

.

 

 

This entry redoes the one here, made a while ago:

http://piratesandrevolutionaries.blogspot.com/2009/04/stoic-logic-and-semantics-in-ch-55.html

3 Feb 2017

Luhtala (5.4) On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, “Evaluation”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Stoicism, entry directory]

[Anneli Luhtala, entry directory]

[Luhtala, Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. All boldface and bracketed commentary are my own. Paragraph enumerations are also my own, but they follow the paragraph breaks in the text. Please forgive my distracting typos, as proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Anneli Luhtala

 

On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic

 

Ch.5 The Stoics

 

5.4 Evaluation

 

 

 

Brief summary:

Stoic logic did not catch on, partly due to its focus on linguistics. It was overshadowed by Peripatetic logic until the 20th century. Only recently has it gained the respect and attention it deserves.

 

 

 

Summary

 

5.4.1

[Stoic logic’s focus on linguistic issues led to it not being widely adopted.]

 

Stoic logic never really caught on in ancient Greece. In fact, it was heavily criticized by other ancient thinkers. Galen for example “accused the Stoics for paying more attention to linguistic expressions than to what they meant (Inst. log. 11,5ff.)” (64).

 

 

5.4.2

[Even though the majority of Chrysippus’ works are on logic, most preserved quotations from his texts are in his other topics.]

 

“Chrysippus devoted more than a third of his books to logic (262 books as opposed to 443 on others) (Gould 1970: 47).” Nonetheless, only 76 of his quotations regarding logic have been preserved, while 400 others on his ethics and physics were preserved (65).

 

 

5.4.3

[Stoic logic has for long been overshadowed by Peripatetic logic and only recently has gained the attention and respect it deserves.]

 

This neglect of Stoic logic has continued up to the 20th century, as Peripatetic logic received the bulk of attention. Only recently has it gained the respect and attention it deserves (64).

 

 

 

From:

 

Luhtala, Anneli. 2000. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic. Münster: Nodus.

 

 

Other texts, cited by Luhtala:

 

[Note, I did not see Galen’s Institutio Logica in the Bibliography list. Perhaps it is a part of the text that is listed:

Galen. Gelaeni de placitis Hippocratis et Platonis. Edition, translation and Commentary by Phillip de Lacy. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum. V.4.1.2. Berlin: Academie-Verlag 1978-80.

]

 

Gould, Josiah B . 1970. The Philosophy of Chrysippus. Leiden: E. J. Brill / Albany: State University of New York Press.

 

.

Luhtala (5.3) On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, “Sources”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Stoicism, entry directory]

[Anneli Luhtala, entry directory]

[Luhtala, Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. All boldface and bracketed commentary are my own. Paragraph enumerations are also my own, but they follow the paragraph breaks in the text. Please forgive my distracting typos, as proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Anneli Luhtala

 

On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic

 

Ch.5 The Stoics

 

5.3 Sources

 

 

 

Brief summary:

There are no original sources of Stoic logic, and the second-hand sources are often unreliable.

 

 

 

Summary

 

5.3.1

[There are no original sources for Stoic logic. Diogenes Laertius is the best second-hand source, followed by Sextus Empiricus, Galen, and sparse references in logical and grammatical texts.]

 

All our primary sources for Stoic logic have been lost. We instead have late and fragmentary sources. The most important of these comes from Diogenes Laertius, and his is the only source that provides a systematic overview of Stoic logic (62). The next best sources are from Sextus Empiricus and Galen, although this material is less substantial. And besides these sources, there are only sparse fragments “in various grammatical and logical manuals” (62). But for the purposes of this book, Luhtala will examine “the entire framework of Stoic philosophy” (62).

 

 

5.3.2

[Our earliest texts regarding Stoicism as a whole body of thought come later in the 1st century AD.]

 

“The evidence for Stoicism as a whole is late, the best documented authors being Seneca (1st cent. A.D.), Epictetus (1st/2nd cent. A.D .)and Marcus Aurelius (2nd cent. A.D.)” (62). [Perhaps Luhtala is saying that our earliest sources that speak of Stoicism as a whole system of thinking are those mentioned.] These authors however were not interested in Stoic logic or physics but more so in Stoic ethics. Our knowledge of early and middle period Stoicism comes mainly from Plutarch.

 

 

5.3.3

[We should not be too trusting of our sources, as many were hostile toward Stoicism.]

 

We cannot entirely trust these sources, as many, like Sextus Empiricus and Plutarch, were hostile toward Stoicism, and also, “many of those who report on logical doctrine are not genuinely interested in logic” (62). There are other problems, like the incorrect use of terminology attributed to Stoicism but instead meant with Peripatetic or Platonic meanings (63).

 

 

5.3.4

[Given this situation, common practice is to regard all Stoic logic as Chrysippean logic.]

 

Given the lack of sources for other Stoics’ logical thinking, “The generally accepted practice is to assume that all Stoic accounts reproduce essentially Chrysippean views or views which he would have approved (Long 1974: 114; Frede 1974b: 9-10)” (63).

 

 

 

From:

 

Luhtala, Anneli. 2000. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic. Münster: Nodus.

 

 

Other texts, cited by Luhtala:

 

Frede, Michael. 1974b. Die stoische Logik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschafen in Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, 88).

 

Long, Anthony A. 1974. Hellenistic Philosophy. London, New York: Charles Scribner’s sons.

 

Luhtala (5.2) On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, “Chrysippus, the Founder of Stoic Logic”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Stoicism, entry directory]

[Anneli Luhtala, entry directory]

[Luhtala, Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. All boldface and bracketed commentary are my own. Paragraph enumerations are also my own, but they follow the paragraph breaks in the text. Please forgive my distracting typos, as proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Anneli Luhtala

 

On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic

 

Ch.5 The Stoics

 

5.2 Chrysippus, the Founder of Stoic Logic

 

 

 

Brief summary:

Chrysippus’ great contribution to Stoic logic is of notable historical importance. He thought logic was the means by which all other studies can be conducted.

 

 

 

Summary

 

5.2.1

[Chrysippus altered the course of Stoic philosophy.]

 

Chrysippus altered the course of Stoic philosophy, but we are not exactly sure how (59).

 

 

5.2.2

[Chrysippus’ major contribution was in logic, which he thought to be the means by which all other things are studied.]

 

Chrysippus’ contribution to Stoic philosophy is especially notable in the field of logic. In fact, “he has correctly been called the founder of Stoic logic” (59). He was the first to give a systematic account of logic and to deal with it in great detail (59). His work in logic became standard for the Stoics (59). Chrysippus favored logic so highly because it was the means to do all the other sorts of studies (60).

It is said that Chrysippus ascribed such enormous importance to the study of logic for the same reason as one examines the measure before measuring the grain; logic is that with which one distinguishes and examines things other than logic (Epict. Diss. 1,17,10 = SVF 2.54). Through the study of logic one comes to understand thoroughly the standard of other things (Epict. Diss. I, 17,8).

(60)

 

 

5.2.3

[Chrysippus’ logic was influenced by the Peripatetic school.]

 

Chrysippus’ logic was not influenced by the Megarians, as his predecessors were, but rather it seems by the Peripatetic school (60).

 

 

5.2.4

[Chrysippus’ contemporaries and successors were much less dedicated to logic.]

 

“Chrysippus's contemporaries and successors did not abandon the study of logic, though their interest in logical issues was far less lively” (60).

 

 

5.2.5

[The study of logic was most prominent during the early period when Chrysippus lived, and much less so in the Middle and Late Stoa periods.]

 

“The study of logic did not fnd favour with the representatives of the Middle and Late Stoa” (61). Stoicism later become prominant in Rome, but there the concerns were more with ethics (61).

 

 

 

5.2.6

[Chrysippus’ importance was widely well known in the ancient world.]

 

Many other philosophers, including Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Clement of Alexandria, Cicero, and Martianus Capella, all revered Chrysippus. And “The crucial role of Chrysippus is reflected in that the writers who attacked the school – Plutarch, Galen and Alexander Aphrodisias – aimed their polemic first and foremost at Chrysippus (Gould 1970: 13; cf. von Arnim, RE III: 2506 )” (61).

 

 

 

 

From:

 

Luhtala, Anneli. 2000. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic. Münster: Nodus.

 

 

Other texts, cited by Luhtala:

 

[Note, I did not see Epictetus’ Discourses in the bibliography.]

 

Gould, Josiah B . 1970. The Philosophy of Chrysippus. Leiden: E. J. Brill / Albany: State University of New York Press.

 

SVF: Stoicorum veterum fragmenta I-III. Ed. Iohannes von Arnim. Leipzig: Teubner 1905-24.

.ss

Luhtala (5.1) On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, “The Unity of Stoic Philosophy”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Stoicism, entry directory]

[Anneli Luhtala, entry directory]

[Luhtala, Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. All boldface and bracketed commentary are my own. Paragraph enumerations are also my own, but they follow the paragraph breaks in the text. Please forgive my distracting typos, as proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Anneli Luhtala

 

On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic

 

Ch.5 The Stoics

 

5.1 The Unity of Stoic Philosophy

 

 

 

Brief summary:

Stoic philosophy is composed of a unified system where its three main branches – ethics, logic, and physics – are of equal priority in the system itself. They are all concerned with logos or reason, and more specifically with consequence, understood physically, logically, or ethically. Nonetheless, the Stoics thought that logic should be learned first.

 

 

 

Summary

 

5.1.1

[The Stoics had a unified system where none of the main branches, namely, ethics, logic, and physics, had a greater priority. However, they thought that logic should be learned first.]

 

Luhtala notes that “The Stoics divided the study of philosophy into logic, ethics and physics maintaining a vital interconnection between these three parts of their study (Diog. Laert. VII,39-40, Adv. math. VII, 19)” (57, note, the second cited text is Sextus Empiricus). The Stoics had a unified philosophical system (57) in the sense that “the study of its various parts were inextricably linked to each other” (58). The ultimate goal of Stoic education was ethics. But the study of ethics “was firmly integrated with the study of physics and logic” (58). In fact, there is no real hierarchy among the subdivisions of philosophy for the Stoics, and so, they were mixed together when teaching them (58). Nonetheless, there was overall a general order still that the subdivisions were taught in. One order was: logic, physics, then ethics. Another: logic, ethics, then physics. There could have been that different teachers taught one or the other order, or perhaps there was just one order, and our sources are confused (58). But above all, linguistic study was the most important:

The importance of linguistic study in philosophical education is even separately stressed by Diogenes: “For all things are intuited by means of investigation in language, both the subject matter of natural science and that of ethics”.82

82. πάντα γὰρ τὰ πράγματα διὰ τῆς ἐν λόγοις θεωρίας ὁρᾶσθαι, ὅσα τε τοῦ φυσικοῦ τόπου τυγχάνει καὶ αὖ πάλιν ὅσα τοῦ ἠθικοῦ (εἰς μὲν γὰρ τὸ λογικὸν τί δεῖ λέγειν) (Diog. Laert . VII,83).

(58)

 

 

5.1.2

[Logic, physics, and ethics are all concerned with the same issue, reason (logos). Logic is concerned with consequence relations between propositions, physics with causal relations between events, and ethics with making actions harmonious, perhaps on the basis of their consequences.]

 

Logic, physics, and ethics all share the same subject-matter, namely, the rational universe (58).

The subject-matter of logic, physics and ethics is one thing, the rational universe, considered from three different but mutually consistent points of view; this is because nature as a whole is informed by reason, |  λόγος (Long 1974: 19).

(58-59)

[The next idea seems to be the following. Human action is guided by reason or logos. It is the same logos that guides the universe. To understand what is right conduct in the world, we need to understand the logos underlying the causal events in the world, so that we can work reasonably with the real way things are, and we need to understand our relation to the universe, because we are inserting our activity into it and affecting its causal chains. Let me quote, as I may have misunderstood the reasoning.]

Human actions are related to cosmic events in being manifestations of one and the same λόγος (‘reason’) and the question of right conduct could not be settled without understanding the relation of man to the universe and its causal processes (Sandbach 1975: 14).

(59)

Luhtala then quotes Bréhier, who notes that the logos is found in logical consequence, physical causality, and harmonious human activity. [I am not sure I understand the parallel in ethics, but perhaps the notion of consequences for certain actions is involved.]

They [the various parts of Stoic philosophy] are indissolubly linked together since it is one and the same reason which in dialectic binds consequential propositions to antecedents, which in nature establishes a causal nexus and which in conduct provides the basis for perfect harmony between actions ... it is impossible to realize rationality independently in these three spheres. (Brehier 1931 1: 299, tr. by Long 1974: 120)

(59, quoting Bréhier, bracketed insertion mine)

But it is the unity of Stoic philosophy and the primacy of its linguistic concerns that will concern us mostly here (59).

 

 

 

 

From:

 

Luhtala, Anneli. 2000. On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic. Münster: Nodus.

 

 

Other texts, cited by Luhtala:

 

Brehier, Emile. 1931. Histoire de la philosophie. Vol. I. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Fance.

 

Diogenes Laertius: Lives of eminent philosophers. Translated by Robert D. Hicks. 2 vols. London: William Heinemann / Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1950.

 

Long, Anthony A. 1974. Hellenistic Philosophy. London, New York: Charles Scribner’s sons.

 

Sandbach, Fancis H. 1975. The Stoics. Ancient Culture and Society. London: Chatto & Windus.

 

Sextus Empiricus: Adversus Mathematicos I-XI. Ed. with an English translation by Robert G. Bury. 4 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press 1949.

 

.ss