L’idée d’appropriation (oikeiōsis) constitue un concept fondamental de l’éthique stoïcienne. On en souligne l’efficacité polémique dans la controverse opposant les Stoïciens aux Épicuriens sur la fin (telos) naturelle ainsi que la portée théorique dans l’explication du développement moral et social de l’homme. Outre les difficultés rencontrées pour cerner les contours et la consistance théoriques de l’appropriation, son statut est également fortement débattu : s’agit-il d’une invention stoïcienne ou bien en trouve-t-on l’équivalent ou les linéaments dans la philosophie péripatéticienne (...) ? Tout en rappelant les incertitudes entourant la généalogie de cette idée, on entreprendra de se tourner vers le traitement philosophique du propre (oikeion) dans certains textes d’Aristote et de Platon, pour voir s’il contient des déterminations pertinentes pour comprendre l’appropriation. Cet examen sera l’occasion de s’interroger sur ce qui a pu passer du propre à l’appropriation et sur les difficultés auxquelles s’expose la confrontation de deux notions au statut conceptuel inégal. (shrink)

This paper explores the relation of Foucault’s notion of counter-conduct to the Stoic notion of oikeiosis. Initially, oikeisosis is set against Platonic homoiosis, specifically as discussed in the Alcibiades, which provides what Foucault calls the “Platonic model” of conduct. The paper examines what Foucault means by “care of the self” and points to its difference from the Delphic maxim “know yourself” that centered on a principle of homoiosis, or ethical transcendence. Noting how the problematic of care of the self (...) leads to what Foucault calls “the government of conduct,” the paper considers the possibility of “counter-conduct.” Given that Foucault has argued that the autonomy of conduct has been rendered invisible through its “juridification,” this paper proceeds with a genealogy of the codification of morals in natural law theory. This culminates with the sixteenth century return to Stoicism in the person of Grotius. Showing that a certain conception of counter-conduct present in Gerson is transformed in natural law theory into a juridical grounding of the government of conduct, this paper draws out the immanent relation of conduct and counter-conduct in the notion of appropriation. Arguing that Grotius has fundamentally misunderstood the concept of oikeiosis, which he takes from Cicero and which subtends his theory of appropriation, this paper suggests that a return to the early Stoic formulation of oikeiosis allows for a rethinking of the problem of the government of conduct. A certain moralization of action, irreducible to codification that is present in early Stoic thought provides a model of “counter-conduct.” Ultimately, “care of the self,” as it is given in Stoic philosophy, relates the subject of action to the principle of ethical immanence that grounds Foucault’s critique of the subject. (shrink)

Plotinus’s debt to the Stoic thought is well documented. Not only was this debt a function of the general intellectual atmosphere in which Plotinus worked, but the philosopher frequently adopted and modified Stoic positions consciously and carefully. The concept of oikeiôsis / οἰκείωσις plays an important role in Stoic thought. Indeed, some scholars assert that it provides the very foundations for Stoic ethics and political philosophy. In the present study, we will exam Plotinus’ use of this important concept. It shall (...) become clear that, on account of the great differences between Neoplatonic and Stoic metaphysics, Plotinus employs the notion of oikeiôsis in manners that are very distinct from the ways in which it was deployed by various Stoic thinkers. Nevertheless, it shall also become evident that Plotinus’ appropriation of the concept of oikeiôsis accorded him a conceptual tool by which to better think problems concerning the nature of the self. (shrink)

‘Universal benevolence’ may be defined as the goal of promoting the welfare of every individual, however remote, to the best of one’s ability. Currently, the commonest model of universal benevolence is that of ‘impartiality,’ the notion promoted by Peter Singer, Roderick Firth, and others, that every individual (including oneself) is of equal intrinsic worth. This paper contends that the impartialist model is seriously flawed. Specifically, it is demonstrated that impartialist accounts of benevolence (1) attempt to draw positive moral conclusions from (...) negative premises, (2) draw actual conclusions from merely counterfactual premises, (3) fail to live up to stated claims of naturalism, and (4) give no compelling account of moral motivation. By contrast, I propose an alternate model of universal benevolence, grounded in the Stoic, cosmopolitan theory of oikeiôsis, i.e. ‘appropriation.’ Such a model, in contradistinction to impartiality, would see benevolence as the positive identification between moral agent and moral patient, rather than a charitable sacrifice of oneself for a distinct but equal other. An ethics of oikeiôsis has the further benefit of avoiding each of the four abovementioned conceptual pitfalls common to impartialist theories. (shrink)

Partindo da tese de Pembroke, segundo a qual a doutrina da oikeiosis é umapeça essencial da filosofia estóica, procuramos demonstrar que é justamenteessa doutrina, que assegura a perfeita coesão entre Física e Ética na Escolaestóica. Para os estóicos, virtude é viver segundo a Natureza, ela será odesenvolvimento de um dom natural, a oikeiosis, a capacidade de todo servivo de reconhecer a si mesmo e aquilo que lhe é apropriado. Conciliando asinterpretações de Pohlenz e de White,entendemos com Chrysippo que (...) as duas naturezas se completam e que aordem racional é interior e exterior ao homem. Não há portanto contradiçãoentre naturalismo e racionalismo no Estoicismo.Partant de la thèse de Pembroke, selon laquelle la doctrine de l’oikeiosis estune pièce maîtresse de la philosophie stoïcienne, nous essayons de montrerque c’est justement cette doctrine qui assure la parfaite cohésion entrePhysique et Ethique dans l’Ecole stoïcienne. Pour les stoïciens, la vertu c’estvivre selon la Nature, elle sera le devéloppement d’un don naturel, l’oikeiosis,la capacité qu’a tout être vivant de se reconnaître et de reconnaître ce que luiest approprié. Conciliant les interprétations de Pohlenz et de White,, nous comprennons avec Chrysippe que lesdeux natures se complètent et que l’ordre rationnel est intérieur et extérieurà l’homme. Il n’y a donc pas de contradiction entre naturalisme etrationnalisme dans le Stoïcisme. (shrink)

Hierocles, a Stoic of the second century CE, famously deployed an image of the ‘concentric circles’ that surround each of us. The image should not be read as advocating absolute impartiality (in the style of classical utilitarianism) or as illustrating the Stoic theory of oikeiōsis. Instead, it is designed to illustrate how it is ‘appropriate to act’ in certain cases. Like other Stoics, Hierocles bases his investigation of appropriate acts on what is ‘in accordance with nature’. According to his view, (...) each of us has a duty of mutual aid towards every other human being—but a weightier duty towards those who are socially closer than those who are more distant. The fundamental principle is that each of us has the duty of being an ‘ally’ of every other human being in serving the natural purposes of all the circles to which we and that other human being both belong. (shrink)

Power is classically understood as the playing out of relations between the ruler and the ruled. Political impasse is often viewed as a moment in which no clear-cut delineation of power exists, resulting in an overwhelming sense of frustration or feeling stuck in a no-win situation. The new globalised world has produced a real shift in how power works: not only has power been concentrated in the hands of very few while many millions become more oppressed by radical shortages and (...) growing costs, but we also have a new category of political subjectivity in which many find themselves neither rulers nor radically oppressed. Those who live the neither/nor of contemporary power live the new global impasse. For those of us who are stuck and compelled to wait for dominant power to break, this book uncovers possibilities in thought, imagination, and self-appropriation through oikeiosis, that is, making oneself at home in oneself, and constancy. (shrink)

After a quick overview on the specification of the causal role of the powers or faculties (δυνάμεις) in nutrition, from the Hippocratic physicians to Galen, via Aristotle, the article defines the set of questions about this process that the Hippocratic physicians leave open. It then examines how Aristotle provides some sort of indirect physical and ethical answers, while Galen openly takes the side of reappropriating the central Stoic concept of oikeiôsis in a Platonist way.