Le concezione stoica dei predicati come effetti incorporei di cause -- La nozione stoica di lekton -- Lo sviluppo della nozione di lekton -- La nozione stoica di ptōsis.

Our thought and talk are situated. They do not take place in a vacuum but always in a context, and they always concern an external situation relative to which they are to be evaluated. Since that is so, François Recanati argues, our linguistic and mental representations alike must be assigned two layers of content: the explicit content, or lekton, is relative and perspectival, while the complete content, which is absolute, involves contextual factors in addition to what is explicitly represented. (...) Far from reducing to the context-independent meaning of the sentence-type or, in the psychological realm, to the 'narrow' content of mental representations, the lekton is a level intermediate between context-invariant meaning and full propositional content. Recognition of that intermediate level is the key to a proper understanding of context-dependence in language and thought. Going beyond the usual discussions of indexicality and unarticulated constituents in the philosophy of language, Recanati turns to the philosophy of mind for decisive arguments in favour of his approach. He shows, first, that the lekton is the notion of content we need if we are to properly understand the relations between perception, memory, and the imagination, and second, that the psychological 'mode' is what determines the situation the lekton is relative to. In this framework he provides a detailed account of de se thought and the first person point of view. In the last part of the book, Recanati discusses the special freedom we have, in discourse and thought, to shift the situation of evaluation. He traces that freedom to a special mode - the anaphoric mode - which enables us to go beyond the egocentric stage of pre-human thought. (shrink)

At Varro LL VI.56 and SE M 8.275-276, we find reports of the Stoic view that children and articulate non-rational animals such as parrots cannot genuinely speak. Absent from these testimonia is the peculiar case of the superficiality of the actor’s speech, which appears in one edition of the unstable text of PHerc 307.9 containing fragments of Chrysippus’ Logical Investigations. Commentators who include this edition of the text in their discussions of the Stoic theory of speech do not offer a (...) univocal account of the superficiality of the parrot’s, the child’s, and the actor’s speech. In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of the Stoic account of genuine and superficial speech and show that not only is there an account of superficial speech that univocally explains the superficiality of the speech of parrots, children, and actors, but that this account challenges traditional assumptions about the entities at the heart of the Stoic theory of language—lekta. It will turn out that genuine speech is the expression of a lekton by way of performing a speech act, and that this account of superficial speech can be used to explain other linguistic phenomena that are of interest to the Stoics, such as sentences in insoluble sophisms and sentences containing demonstratives that do not refer to anything in the subject term. Importantly, my reconstruction shows, against the near consensus view of lekta, that lekta do not primarily explain what makes an utterance meaningful. Rather, they primarily explain what makes an utterance an instance of genuine speech. (shrink)

It has been noted before in the history of logic that some of Frege's logical and semantic views were anticipated in Stoicism. In particular, there seems to be a parallel between Frege's Gedanke (thought) and Stoic lekton; and the distinction between complete and incomplete lekta has an equivalent in Frege's logic. However, nobody has so far claimed that Frege was actually influenced by Stoic logic; and there has until now been no indication of such a causal connection. In this (...) essay, we attempt, for the first time, to provide detailed evidence for the existence of this connection. In the course of our argumentation, further analogies between the positions of Frege and the Stoics will be revealed. The classical philologist Rudolf Hirzel will be brought into play as the one who links Frege with Stoicism. The renowned expert on Stoic philosophy was Frege's tenant and lived in the same house as the logician for many years. In der Geschichte der Logik ist häufig bemerkt worden, dass einige der logischen und semantischen Auffassungen Freges in der Stoa antizipiert worden sind. Genannt wurden insbesondere die Parallelen zwischen dem Fregeschen Gedanken und dem stoischen Lekton sowie die Unterscheidung zwischen vollständigen und unvollständigen Lekta, die bei Frege ihre Entsprechung hat. Ein Wirkungszusammenhang ist allerdings nicht behauptet worden. Dazu gab es bislang auch keinen Anlass. Der vorliegende Beitrag versucht erstmalig, einen detaillierten Indizienbeweis für das Bestehen eines solchen Zusammenhangs vorzulegen. Dabei werden weitere charakteristische Übereinstimmungen zwischen Frege und der Stoa aufgewiesen. Als Mittelsmann wird der Altphilologe Rudolf Hirzel vorgestellt. Er wohnte lange Jahre als Mieter zusammen mit Frege im selben Haus und war ein anerkannter Experte der stoischen Philosophie. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This article develops a theory of rhetorical impression through a critical genealogy of the term phantasia. The genealogy demonstrates cause for understanding phantasia as impression, not image. I trace phantasia as impression through the work of Plato and Aristotle but ultimately argue that the stoics offer the most productive leads for thinking through impressions, materiality, and sensations together. Specifically, I demonstrate how the stoics' concept of lekton can productively mediate the relationship between rhetoric, materiality, imagination, and idealism. In (...) the closing section, I suggest how a theory of rhetorical impression can address lacunae in existing new materialist approaches. (shrink)

El decir es anterior y va más allá del hablar, se vale del hablar y constituye la determinación del hablar. No hay un hablar sin un decir y sí puede haber un decir sin un hablar. El acto lingüístico es la manifestación del lenguaje, la lengua, el pensamiento y el conocimiento. Es fruto de un hablar, está determinado por un decir, presupone un conocer y revela la actitud del hablante, un sujeto libre e histórico, que es, a la vez, sujeto (...) hablante, dicente y cognoscente, ante la realidad y el mundo. De la misma manera que no se da un hablar sin un decir, tampoco se da un decir sin un conocer. En su génesis más profunda el conocer determina al decir y éste al hablar. Así, pues, el «ser hablante» (Coseriu) es, a la vez, el sujeto «dicente» (Ortega y Gasset) y el sujeto cognoscente (Coseriu, Ortega y Gasset, Heidegger, Aristóteles), porque se realiza a sí mismo en el acto del hablar y éste está determinado por el acto del decir y en última instancia por el acto del conocer. El decir define al hablante ante la realidad y el mundo y da soporte a lo que es la realidad y el mundo, que no es más que aquello a lo que el sujeto hablante, dicente y cognoscente le atribuye el ser o realidad. El ser humano, «coexistencia actuante de mí o yo con la circunstancia o mundo» (Ortega y Gasset), se libera de la necesidad vital en la que está inmerso, de la circunstancia a la que está inexorablemente ligado, mediante el conocer. Por el conocer el ser humano atribuye a eso que le rodea y afecta «el ser», haciendo de ello «cosas» y «mundo» constituido por «cosas». Todo esto se manifiesta en el acto lingüístico, que es un acto creador en un triple sentido: crea las cosas y el mundo (contenidos de conciencia, significados), crea la realidad de las cosas y el mundo, y crea la expresión de lo que es las cosas y el mundo (el lenguaje y la lengua) mediante lo dicho (lektón) determinado esto por el pensamiento (lógos). El acto lingüístico es creación (poiesis) y es manifestación (apóphansis), acto de crear un mundo y acto de desvelar el mundo interior del sujeto hablante, dicente y cognoscente, acto de desvelar lo que está oculto y que ahora es no-oculto o verdadero (a-lethés). El hablar, el decir y el conocer son acciones vitales del ser humano. El hablar es una acción vital del sujeto creador que le viene de fuera, de la comunidad; el decir es la acción vital que le viene de dentro y que proyecta él mismo hacia fuera, hacia la comunidad; y el conocer es el acto mismo de creación de un sujeto, que es, opuestamente, libre e histórico, absoluto y limitado, creador de formas y participante de formas comunes creadas en la comunidad. El hablar en sí mismo, al igual que la lengua, es a-circunstancial y tiene que ver con la creación en términos absolutos e históricos. El decir como manifestación del interior del sujeto hablante, dicente y cognoscente tiene que ver con la verdad o aquello que se manifiesta desvelándose (a-létheia). De esta manera, podemos ver dos clases de pensamiento o logos: el logos a-circunstancial o intersubjetivo o histórico, lógos semantikós, y el logos que manifiesta una realidad interior y crea una realidad exterior desde el interior del sujeto creador o lógos apophantikós. La lingüística del decir que ahora se presenta recoge una propuesta en el mismo sentido hecha por Ortega y Gasset y es la continuación de la lingüística del hablar de Coseriu. Hace un replanteamiento de la realidad radical, el ser hablante de Coseriu, que es concebido ahora como el sujeto hablante, dicente y cognoscente. Estudia el acto lingüístico, acto del hablar, decir y conocer, como la manifestación primera de la intención significativa de cada sujeto. Se basa en los principios de la lingüística del hablar de Coseriu, especialmente en los que describen el plano universal e individual del hablar, es decir, los principios de la confianza en el hablar del otro y de la congruencia y coherencia en el hablar. Mira, por consiguiente, al acto lingüístico como «producción», como aquello que se crea en el acto único del hablar, decir y conocer. La finalidad de la lingüística del decir es llegar la génesis misma del lenguaje, que no es más que la génesis del acto lingüístico. Analiza el acto lingüístico como la manifestación del acto del conocer, el cual partiendo de la aísthesis o intuición sensible (Ortega y Gasset, Heidegger, Aristóteles) o intuición inédita del hablante (Coseriu), se descompone en una serie de operaciones intelectivas, cada una de las cuales contribuye a configurar de una manera dada la «aprehensión del ser» inicial e inédita. Estas operaciones intelectivas son: la selección, el establecimiento de una designación, la creación de una clase o esencia, la relación, la nominación y la determinación. Tras la presentación y justificación de lo que es cada uno de los conceptos indicados arriba (los cuatro primeros capítulos), el libro dedica un capítulo a cada una de estas operaciones intelectivas, analizada e ilustrada con ejemplos. Como ilustración de lo que puede ser el análisis aquí propugnado, se dedica un capítulo al análisis del adjetivo 'brisk’, adjetivo de conducta de la lengua inglesa. (shrink)

B a c k g r o u n d. The purpose of this article is to reveal the concept of philosophical cosmology as a new metaphysics based on ideas proposed by Gilles Deleuze in his work "The Logic of Sense". For this, it is necessary to get rid of the interpretation of philosophical cosmology as an exclusively philosophical-scientific discipline and begin to perceive it as a basic theory of order that can replace ontology. To implement this strategy, Deleuze turns (...) to the ideas of the philosophy of Stoicism. This choice is primarily due to the first concept of sense (lekton theory), as well as the doctrine of space (khora) and the living, renewable cosmos (palingenesia). The relevance of Stoicism is reinforced by the historical and civilizational perspective, where the emergence and renewal of interest in the Stoics' thoughts corresponds to periods of violent crisis. M e t h o d s. The hermeneutic analysis of the works of Gilles Deleuze, the Stoics and researchers of Stoicism makes it possible to include the concept of philosophical cosmology in the foundations of spatial phenomenology which is implemented in the topographic method of researching its main subject, which is the world, and culture in particular. R e s u l t s. In this way, the philosophical cosmology of Gilles Deleuze provides grounds for a better understanding of the cultural and intellectual situation of today, which includes information overload and the essential uncertainty of the prospects of civilizational development, in which culture appears more as a spontaneous performative formation than a logical projected system of valid norms and rules. C o n c l u s i o n s. That is why philosophical cosmology has applied value, as it responds to the spatial and performative turn in modern culture. (shrink)

Aristotle says at the start of the De interpretatione that words symbolise thoughts, which are in turn likenesses of things. The present paper argues that he is speaking here primarily of the signification of whole sentences, and at most secondarily of the semantics of individual words. This proposal is defended by drawing attention to a shift in the meaning of ‘sign’ and cognate terms that occurs in the course of the first chapter, one which enables us to separate the way (...) in which words ‘signify’ thoughts (declarative, interrogative, etc.), by expres­sing them, from the more narrowly semantic way in which, subsequently, they are said to signify things. Aristotle’s famous opening state­ment finds its main application, not in the rudimentary grammar of nouns and verbs that follows in chapters 2-3, but later in the treatise, and above all in chapter 14, where it is invoked to establish for dialectical purposes that the relation between a sentence and its negation is the strongest of all contrarieties. Aristotle’s insis­tence, in this same treatise, on the conventional character of language is also explained: for in chapters 8 and 11 it is because of the conventionality of language, and its consequent failure to map systemati­cally onto the divisions between things, that what is in surface grammar a single sentence may turn out to be in reality two or more sentences, in other words, to signify (i.e. express) two or more different thoughts. Aristotle’s primary focus on the meanings of entire sentences is thus explained by the role of the De interpretatione as a work ancillary to dia­lectic, a discipline for which the relation between contradictory pairs of assertions is fundamen­tal. In addition, such a focus is argued (with a comparison to the Stoic lekton) to reflect Aris­totle’s teleological frame of thought. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Thucydides: The Peloponnesian WarSimon HornblowerSteven Lattimore, trans. Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War. With introduction and notes. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett, 1998. xxii + 513 pp. 4 maps. Cloth, $39.95; paper, $12.95.This translation is generally faithful and readable, with many excellent notes. It is clearly the product of much labor and valuable thought. In accuracy (with the exceptions noted below) it is superior to Warner, though less faithful than Hobbes. (...) However, it is marred by omissions and garbling of names, which should be put right urgently in a reprinting, and the emphasis of the notes is uneven in important respects.1. Omissions: whole chunks of Greek are sometimes omitted.a. The worst, because longest, instance is 5.111.4: an entire eight–line paragraph of Greek has disappeared from the translation of the Melian Dialogue, containing among other things the Athenians' "moderate proposal" that the Melians should agree to accept tributary status.b. At 3.105.2 has disappeared from the translation, which is in fact ungrammatical English at this point ("set up camp at in Amphilochia").c. At 4.121.1 the interesting words have not been translated (did the people of Skione "go up to greet" Brasidas or did they "offer him first–fruits"?). [End Page 646]d. At 6.9.2, Nikias' first speech at Athens before the Sicilian expedition,, is not translated.e. At 7.71.5 (great sea battle in Syracuse harbor) is not translated.2. Proper names garbled: names of persons and places are regularly garbled or got wrong. This is specially regrettable in a book which rightly sees names as important, without however considering how the evidence of epigraphy might bear on the question. See for instance the ingenious note on "Philokrates son of Demeas" on p. 301 (Th. 5.116), or that on the patronymics on p. 414 (note on 8.5), or that on Euphemos ("Good speaker" as Lattimore renders it, though "auspicious" might be closer) on p. 346 (Th. 6.81–87). Here, however, "almost certainly" is much too strong for the various identifications suggested, in view of the commonness of the name Euphemos at Athens; see the entry in vol. II (1994) of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (1987–), a work never cited by Lattimore. In the following list I give Lattimore's page numbers with Thucydidean references in parentheses:27 (1.52) for "Leagoras" read "Leogoras"; 52 (1.107) for "Kitinion" read "Kytinion"; 67 (1.139) for "Milesippos" read "Melesippos" (correct at 2.12); 80 (2.12) for "Diaokritos" read "Diakritos"; 84 (2.19) for "Rhetoi" read "Rheitoi"; 108 (2.66) for "Anaristos" read "Aneristos"; 125 (2.96) for "Triballio" read "Triballoi"; 142 (3.26) for "Kleombrotos" read "Kleomenes"; 144 (3.31) for "Tein" read "Teian"; 175 (3.93) for "Kenion" read "Kenaion"; 214, 261, and 274 (4.56, 5.14, and 5.41) for "Kynosouria" read "Kynouria"; 224 (4.78) for "Striophokos" read the good epigraphically attested Thessalian name "Strophakos"; 225 (4.78) for "Phagion" read "Phakion"; 238 (4.107) for "Gelepsis" read "Galepsos"; 242 (4.118) for "Tomeos" read "Tomeus"; 254 (5.1 and in footnote) for "Pharnakos" read "Pharnakes"; 263 (5.18) for "Spartalos" read "Spartolos," and for "Ptoleon" read "Pteleon"; 308 (6.4) for "Krataimones" read "Krataimenes," and for "Anaxilos" read "Anaxilas"; 310 (6.8) for "Laches" read "Lamachos"; 335 (6.59) for "Hippokles" read "Hippoklos"; 339 (6.65) for "Symaistos" read "Symaithos"; 339 (6.66) for "Anopos" read "Anapos," as also at pp. 355 (6.96) and 381 (7.42), but note that at p. 402 (7.78) the name has come out as "Anopis"; 359 (6.105) for "Laispodios" read "Laispodias"; 386 (7.50) for "Kyrnaians" read "Kyrenaians"; 416 (8.10 n.) for "Speraion" read "Speiraion"; 431 (8.44) for "Kamieros" read "Kameiros"; 465 (8.101) for "Lektos" read "Lekton." Most of these names are, oddly enough, given correctly in the index. "Anapos" is correct on map 3.3. Omission of variant readings of proper names: since Lattimore does sometimes discuss textual variants and emendations, I give some other places where it would have been helpful to flag a variant.a. P. 224 (4.76): Ptoiodoros is... (shrink)

In this wide-ranging study, Ada Bronowski reconstructs the Stoic account of lekta. Usually translated into English as "sayables," lekta—Bronowski transliterates all key Greek terms—number among the Stoics' most contentious proposals in antiquity and remain the subject of interpretative disagreement today. One clear Stoic commitment is that lekta are what is signified by human speech: my utterance "Dion walks" in normal circumstances signifies the lekton 'Dion walks.' Are lekta to be understood, then, simply as meanings? And is the existence of (...) lekta dependent on token utterances? No, claims Bronowski. 'Dion walks' is part of reality whether or not one utters "Dion walks." Lekta are "there to be said, but need not... (shrink)

Here I propose an interpretation of the ancient Stoic psychological theory on which (i) the concepts that an adult human possesses affect the content of the perceptual impressions (φαντασίαι αἰσθητικαί) she forms, and (ii) the content of such impressions is exhausted by an ‘assertible’ (ἀξίωμα) of suitable complexity. What leads the Stoics to accept (i) and (ii), I argue, is their theory of assent and belief formation, which requires that the perceptual impression communicate information suitable to serve as the content (...) of belief. In arguing for (i), I reject a rival interpretation on which conceptualization occurs subsequently to the formation of a perceptual impression. In arguing for (ii), I deny that perceptual impressions have two kinds of content: one formulated in an assertible, the other sensory, featuring independently of this assertible. I explore the implications of (i) and (ii) for the Stoic theory of emotions, expertise, and rationality, and argue that they shed new light on the workings of impression, assent, and belief. (shrink)

These are three welcome works on medieval logic. The Summa Logica of William of Ockham has long been a classic, and scholars have been waiting for this critical edition, begun almost a quarter of a century ago by Philotheus Boehner and finally brought to completion by the combined efforts of Stephen Brown and especially Gedeon Gal, now the general editor of the Opera Philosophica et Theologica being prepared at the Franciscan Institute at St. Bonaventure University. The editors date this work (...) after the Commentary on the Sentences, two volumes of which have already appeared in the above mentioned series. It also postdates Ockham’s commentaries on Porphyry, the Praedicamenta, Perihermenias, and Sophisticis Elenchis, as well as the first four books of Aristotle’s Physics. As a terminus ante quem the editors take the fifth book of this same Physics and see it as certainly prior to the Tractatus de praedestinatione, and to the De corpore Christi and De Sacramento Altaris. Parts of the Quodlibetal questions, however, precede it, and others follow. Loux’s translation, unfortunately, antedated this splendid edition of the Summa Logicae, being based on only the partial, earlier edition of Boehner. Nevertheless, it is a useful instrument providing a good and relatively complete introduction to the basic themes of Ockham’s philosophy of language as well as his ontology. A spot check reveals some misprints, e.g., on pp. 56, 192 and on page 38, lines 68-83 of the Latin edition he used have not been translated. The work is introduced by two essays: "The Ontology of William Ockham" and "Ockham on Generality"—the latter dealing with his theory of supposition. Nuchelmans’ interesting work, though it deals mostly with the medieval history of propositions as bearers of truth and falsity, contains some six chapters which trace the history of the term as early as Plato’s treatment in the Sophist, through Aristotle and the important Stoic lekton and axioma. He also concludes with a useful chapter on the significance of a true propositio, both as a mode of being of a thing and as the mental conception.—A.B.W. (shrink)

Je reviens dans cet article sur certaines configurations conceptuelles propres à la logique stoïcienne et concernant le traitement stoïcien de la signification qui, comme on le sait, se découple en signifiant et signifié. La question que je pose est la suivante : à quelles certitudes est-on susceptible de parvenir avec les textes dont nous disposons sur la question des rapports entre signification, donc signifiant, σημαῖνον et signifié, σημαινόμενον, et λεκτόν? À l’occasion de cette interrogation, j’en viens à réouvrir l’enquête sur (...) la part éventuelle de modalité associée au λεκτόν et je propose d’analyser la signification stoïcienne tout en prenant en compte des concepts associés ou solidaires, comme les concepts de πρᾶγμα et de πτῶσις. (shrink)

Je reviens dans cet article sur certaines configurations conceptuelles propres à la logique stoïcienne et concernant le traitement stoïcien de la signification qui, comme on le sait, se découple en signifiant et signifié. La question que je pose est la suivante : à quelles certitudes est-on susceptible de parvenir avec les textes dont nous disposons sur la question des rapports entre signification, donc signifiant, σημαῖνον et signifié, σημαινόμενον, et λεκτόν? À l’occasion de cette interrogation, j’en viens à réouvrir l’enquête sur (...) la part éventuelle de modalité associée au λεκτόν et je propose d’analyser la signification stoïcienne tout en prenant en compte des concepts associés ou solidaires, comme les concepts de πρᾶγμα et de πτῶσις. (shrink)