Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:26:41.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

David Sedley
David Sedley
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

During the last four decades historians of ancient logic have become increasingly aware of the importance of Diodorus Cronus and his pupil Philo as pioneers of the propositional logic which came to flourish in the Stoa. Their direct influence has so far been recognised in two main areas of Hellenistic controversy – the validity-criteria for conditional propositions, and the definition of the modal terms ‘possible’ and ‘necessary’. But some broader questions have not been satisfactorily answered. What were Diodorus' own philosophical allegiances and antecedents? What is his place in the history of Greek philosophy? How far-reaching was his influence on the post-Aristotelian philosophers?

There was little chance of tackling these questions confidently until 1972, when Klaus Döring published for the first time the collected fragments of Diodorus, in his important volume Die Megariker. Meagre though they are, these fragments confirm my suspicion that Diodorus' philosophical background has not been fully explored, and also that his influence on the three emerging Hellenistic schools – the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics – was far wider than has hitherto been recognised. There has been much discussion as to which earlier philosophers played the most decisive part in shaping Hellenistic philosophy, and the respective claims of the Platonists and of Aristotle have never lacked expert advocacy. In all this, the claims of so obscure a figure as Diodorus have been underrated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 23 , 1977 , pp. 74 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1977

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

von Arnim, H., ‘Epikurs Lehre vom Minimum’, Alm.d.kais.Akad.d.Wiss. (Wien, 1907). Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (1905-24). Abbr. SVF.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G., Epicuro, opere ed.2 (1973).Google Scholar
Becker, O., ‘Zwei Untersuchungen zur antiken Logik’, Klass.-philol.Studien 17 (1957).Google Scholar
Couissin, P., ‘Les sorites de Carnéade contre le polythéisme’, REG 54 (1941) 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diano, C., Epicuri ethica (1946).Google Scholar
Diels, H., Kranz, W., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker ed.6 (1952).Google Scholar
Döring, K., Die Megariker (1972).Google Scholar
Dummett, M., ‘Bringing about the past’, Philosophical Review 73 (1964) 338–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairweather, J., ‘Fiction in the biographies of ancient writers’, Ancient Society 5 (1974) 231–75.Google Scholar
Fränkel, H., ‘Zeno of Elea's attacks on plurality’, AJPh 63 (1942) 1-25, 193–306.Google Scholar
Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972).Google Scholar
Frede, M., Die stoische Logik (1974).Google Scholar
von Fritz, K., ‘Megariker’, RE Suppl.V (1931) 707–24.Google Scholar
‘Zenon (2)’, RE Suppl.10A (1972) 83–121.Google Scholar
Furley, D.J., Two studies in the Creek atomists (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatzemeier, M., Die Naturphilosophie des Straton von Lampsakos (1970).Google Scholar
Gigante, M., Diogene Laerzio, vite dei filosofi ed.2 1976Google Scholar
Review of Döring, , Die Megariker, PP 157 (1974) 291–5.Google Scholar
Gillings, R.J., ‘The so-called Euler-Diderot incident’, American Mathematical Monthly 61, 2 (Feb. 1954) 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P., ‘Meaning’, Philosophical Review 66 (1957) 377–88;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Utterer's meaning and intentions’, Philosophical Review 78 (1969), 147–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grilli, A., ‘Zenone e Antigono II’, RFIC n.s. 41 (1963) 287–301.Google Scholar
Herter, H., ‘Kallimachos’, RE Suppl.XIII (1973) 184–266.Google Scholar
Hicks, R.D., Stoic and Epicurean (1910).Google Scholar
Hogben, L., Mathematics for the million (1951).Google Scholar
Hurst, M., ‘Implication in the fourth century B.C.’, Mind n.s. 44 (1935) 484–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, W., ‘Vergessene Fragmente des Peripatetikers Diokles von Karystos’, Abh.d.preuss.Akad.d.Wiss. 1938, phil.-hist.Klasse 3.Google Scholar
Kneale, W. and Kneale, M., The development of Logic (1962).Google Scholar
Körte, A., ‘Metrodori Epicurei fragmenta’, Jahrb.für klass.Philol., Suppl.XVII (Leipzig 1890) 531–97.Google Scholar
Krämer, H.-J., Platonismus und hellenistische Philosophie (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukasiewicz, J., ‘Zur Geschichte der Aussagenlogik’, Erkenntnis 5 (1935) 111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mates, B., ‘Diodorean implication’, Philosophical Review 58 (1949) 234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mates, B.Stoic logic ed. 2 (1961).Google Scholar
Mau, J., ‘Uber die Zuweisung zweier Epikur-Fragmente’, Philologus 99 (1955) 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natorp, P., ‘Diodoros(42)’ RE V 1 (1903) 705–7.Google Scholar
Owen, G.E.L., ‘Tithenai ta phainomena’, in Mansion, S. (ed.) Aristote et les problémes de méthode (1961) 83–103.Google Scholar
Pease, A.S. (ed.), Cicero, De divinatione II, Univ. of Illinois studies in long, and lit. VIII 2 (1923).Google Scholar
Pfciffer, R., Callimachus (1949–1953).Google Scholar
Prior, A.N., ‘Diodoran modalities’, Philosophical Quarterly 5 (1955) 205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purtill, R.L., ‘The Master Argument’, Apeiron 7 (1973) 31–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V., ‘Reference and modality’, in From a logical point of view (1953).Google Scholar
Russell, B., The principles of mathematics (1903). Our knowledge of the external world (1914).Google Scholar
Ryle, G., The concept of mind (Penguin, ed., 1963).Google Scholar
Schiffer, S.R., Meaning (1972).Google Scholar
Schmidt, E.G., ‘Ein Frühform der Lehre vom Umschlag Quantität-Qualität bei Seneca’, Forschung und Fortschritte 34 (1960) 112–5.Google Scholar
Schuhl, P.-M., Le dominateur et les possibles (1960).Google Scholar
Sedley, D.N., ‘Epicurus, On nature, Book XXVIII’, CronErc 3 (1973) 5–83.Google Scholar
Sedley, D.N. ‘The structure of Epicurus’ On nature’, CronErc 4 (1974) 89–92.Google Scholar
Sedley, D.N. ‘Epicurus and the mathematicians of Cyzicus’, CronErc 6 (1976) 23–54.Google Scholar
Sedley, D.N. ‘Epicurus and his professional rivals’, Cahiers de philologie I (1976) 119–59.Google Scholar
Thiébault, D., Mes souvenirs de vingt ans de séjour à Berlin (1804).Google Scholar
Todd, R.B., ‘Chrysippus on infinite divisibility’, Apeiron 7 (1973) 21–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usener, H., Epicurea (1887).Google Scholar
Vlastos, G., ‘A note on Zeno's arrow’, Phronesis 11 (1966) 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehrli, F., ‘Straton von Lampsakos’, Die Schule des Aristoteles V ed.1 (1950), ed.2 (1969).Google Scholar
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., ‘Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Bukoliker’, PhU 18 (1906).Google Scholar
van Winden, J.M.C., ‘Calcidius on matter, his doctrines and sources’, Philosophia antiqua 9 (1959).Google Scholar
Wright, C., ‘Language mastery and the sorites paradox’, in Evans, G. and MacDowell, J. (eds.), Truth and meaning (1976).Google Scholar
Yon, A. (ed.), Ciceron, Traité du destin (1944).Google Scholar
Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen ed.4 (1899).Google Scholar