Socrates had both friends and enemies in both the pro-Spartan and anti-Spartan
factions in Athens. These are often referred to as the "oligarchic" and
"democratic" "parties", respectively.

One thing that should be remembered is that the so-called democratic faction in
Athens was more than simply the "anti-Spartan" faction. They were also the
pro-war faction who wished to use Athens' military power to build an ever
expanding empire. The larger the empire, the more tribute was paid to Athens.
The more tribute was paid to Athens, the happier "the people" of Athens were.

When the pro-Spartan party came to power in the immediate aftermath of Athens
final defeat in the Peloponnesian War, they seriously considered passing a law
forbidding Socrates from speaking with anyone under the age of 30!

While much is made, and rightly so, of the "reign of terror" under the
pro-spartan Thirty Tyrants, the "democratic party" had earlier had it's own
reign of terror in the aftermath of the Sicilian disaster. Many of Socrates'
friends and associates were targeted by the "democrats" during this witch-hunt.
Some of these were later among the Thirty Tyrants.

I.F. Stone's crudely anachronistic historical revisionism tries to portray
Socrates as a dangerous proto-fascist. A far more rational and well informed
assessment is to be found in Arlene Saxonhouse's "Free Speech and Democracy in
Ancient Athens":
http://books.google.com/books?id=9dP9i5t1NAsC

An overview of the trial of Socrates and the events leading up to it can be
found here:
http://egregores.blogspot.com/2009/05/varieties-of-sceptical-thought-part_06.htm\
l

Curt

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Stoic Stoic <londonstoic@...> wrote:
>
> There's an interesting show on Sparta on this week's In Our Time on the BBC -
the link is below.
>
> They discuss the rigorous and austere Spartan training, and it made me wonder
if Spartan training and askesis had any influence on Stoicism or Cynicism? I
know it had an impact on Rousseau, but did ancient Stoics or Cynics ever think
of their training as at all related to Spartan training?
>
> www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/.../In_Our_Time_The_History_of_Sparta/
>

I think what you are actually proving is that people who strictly stay within
the parameters of fully worked out classical Stoicism cannot comprehend an
analysis based on second-generation cognitive science. But then they cannot
understand how they came to understand the technical Stoic concepts in the first
place.

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
>
> Jan writes:
> ______________ 
>  
> I didn't say that the impressions that should not be accepted are literally
bad (on the Stoic perspective). I said that they are metaphorically bad (how
else do they create their category of rejected indifferents?), as shown by the
fact that Stoics favor rejecting them or setting them aside.  That's the sort of
thing people normally do with what they regard as bad. Stoics add another layer
of interpretation and redefinition.
>  _____________
>  
> Again I disagree.  It is crucial in Stoicism to have a very strong
differentiation between what is truly vicious or virtuous and what is trivial. 
The former bears on our well being and the later does not.  You are using the
term 'bad' for both so you can move to your criticism.  I say this is not a
legit move.  There is all the difference in the world between what is bad and
what is dispreferred.  For your criticism to work you need to minimize this
essential difference.  Even Grant fell for this:
> _____________ 
>  
> False impressions are at least metaphorically then enemy of right reason and
virtue, yes.
> _____________
>  
> No they are not.  Assenting to false impressions is the enemy of right
reason.  Impressions, whether true or false, all by themselves are just like any
other natural phenomena.  Consider the theory of natural evil.  Do you honestly
believe that fires and earthquakes and hurricanes are intrinsically evil?  That
is the move you want to make as I see it.  A fire is not bad because it has the
potential to burn me horribly.  It is not bad metaphorically or otherwise even
if I am in fact burned horribly.  To think so is to give it power over my well
being that the Stoics say it does not have.  This line of thought starts to
place good and bad things beyond one's control.  If you wish to make a metaphor
out of dispreferred fine but using bad this way is not consistent with
Stoicism.  Otherwise your critique cannot be about the Stoic system.  If you
want to say that people trying to use Stoicism metaphorically identify false
impressions with bad I
>  would agree with that.  But that is not the system you are critiquing then,
only students who have much progress to make.
>  
> Live well,Steve
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "jan.garrett@..." <jan.garrett@...>
> To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 3:13:16 PM
> Subject: [stoics] Response to Steve's critique of my response to Steve's
critique
>
> --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@> wrote:
> >
> > Jan writes:
> > ________________
> >
> > But impressions that should not be accepted are, METAPHORICALLY  SPEAKING,
bad, like rotten food that should not be consumed.
> > ________________
> >
> > No, I don't think this is right.  The impressions ae not bad. It is the
agreeing with the false ones that is bad.  It is in the action that is in our
power, to agree or not agree, not the impressions themselves, that the goddness
or badness lies.
> RESPONSE.
> I didn't say that the impressions that should not be accepted are literally
bad (on the Stoic perspective). I said that they are metaphorically bad (how
else do they create their category of rejected indifferents?), as shown by the
fact that Stoics
> favor rejecting them or setting them aside.  That's the sort of thing people
normally do with what they regard as bad. Stoics add another layer of
interpretation and redefinition. This in itself does not prove they are wrong. 
> >
> > Jan:
> > _______________
> >
> > But the Stoics' metaphors, like everybody else's, are ultimately  parasitic
upon ordinary pre-philosophical thinking, ultimately on 
> > embodied experience at the non-metaphorical level.
> > _______________
> >
>
>
>
>
> > But this is your opinion, based on acceptance of a certain view of reason. 
It is far from an established fact.  The premise of metaphorical rasoning may
not be accepted without question (surprise) and you cannot then proceed without
supporting it (if you care to convince those who do not accept this premsie).
> >
> RESPONSE:
> That our metaphors are ultimately grounded on embodied experience is
well-established in cognitive linguistics. It's perhaps not as well established
as the fact of natural selection in biology, but it is well established. Natural
selection (a 150-year-old theory) is very well established because of evidence
converging in its favor from comparative anatomy, biochemistry (DNA among other
things), global distribution of species, paleontology, etc. The theory/fact of
conceptual metaphor (a 30-year-old theory) is well established by convergent
evidence from discourse coherence studies, historical semantic change studies,
language acquisition studies, sign language studies, psychological experiments,
and spontaneous gesture studies.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

There is some evidence (I don't recall where I read it) that Zeno's notorious
"Politeia" ("Republic") was inspired by Xenophon's Constitution of the
Lacedaimonians (i.e., Spartans). The latter is relatively short and has been
preserved. I think there is a version
available online, perhaps at the MIT Classics site.

Best wishes,

Jan

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Vicki Russell <vrussell001@...> wrote:
>
> The Spartans made an impression on Socrates who was lifted up as a hero worthy
of emulation by Epictetus. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that he
wore his hair Spartan style, even when Athens was at war with Sparta. The author
I. F. Stone goes a bit further in his explorations on the subject in The Trial
of Socrates
>
> It probably would have been viewed as very unpatriotic in Athens to emulate
the Spartans so I am unaware of it going any further than this.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stoic Stoic <londonstoic@...>
> To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 6:23:50 AM
> Subject: [stoics] Stoicism and Sparta
>
>
>
>
> There's an interesting show on Sparta on this week's In Our Time on the BBC -
the link is below.
>
> They discuss the rigorous and austere Spartan training, and it made me wonder
if Spartan training and askesis had any influence on Stoicism or Cynicism? I
know it had an impact on Rousseau, but did ancient Stoics or Cynics ever think
of their training as at all related to Spartan training?
>
> www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/.../In_Our_Time_The_History_of_Sparta/
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
>
> Jan writes:
> ________________
>
> But impressions that should not be accepted are, METAPHORICALLY  SPEAKING,
bad, like rotten food that should not be consumed.
> ________________
>
> No, I don't think this is right.  The impressions ae not bad. It is the
agreeing with the false ones that is bad.  It is in the action that is in our
power, to agree or not agree, not the impressions themselves, that the goddness
or badness lies.
RESPONSE.
I didn't say that the impressions that should not be accepted are literally bad
(on the Stoic perspective). I said that they are metaphorically bad (how else do
they create their category of rejected indifferents?), as shown by the fact that
Stoics
favor rejecting them or setting them aside.  That's the sort of thing people
normally do with what they regard as bad. Stoics add another layer of
interpretation and redefinition. This in itself does not prove they are wrong.
>
> Jan:
> _______________
>
> But the Stoics' metaphors, like everybody else's, are ultimately  parasitic
upon ordinary pre-philosophical thinking, ultimately on 
> embodied experience at the non-metaphorical level.
> _______________
>




> But this is your opinion, based on acceptance of a certain view of reason.  It
is far from an established fact.  The premise of metaphorical rasoning may not
be accepted without question (surprise) and you cannot then proceed without
supporting it (if you care to convince those who do not accept this premsie).
>
RESPONSE:
That our metaphors are ultimately grounded on embodied experience is
well-established in cognitive linguistics. It's perhaps not as well established
as the fact of natural selection in biology, but it is well established. Natural
selection (a 150-year-old theory) is very well established because of evidence
converging in its favor from comparative anatomy, biochemistry (DNA among other
things), global distribution of species, paleontology, etc. The theory/fact of
conceptual metaphor (a 30-year-old theory) is well established by convergent
evidence from discourse coherence studies, historical semantic change studies,
language acquisition studies, sign language studies, psychological experiments,
and spontaneous gesture studies.

Some of the writings of Thoreau are basically Stoic in nature.
  " However mean your life is, meet it and live it;do not shun it and call it
names."
    "Laying up treasures that moth and rust will corrupt and thieves break
through and steal. it is a fool's life."
   With respect to luxuries and comforts,the wisest has ever lived a more simple
and meager life than the poor."
   These seem dead on with Stoicism, yet he is not considered a Stoic, but a
Trancendentalist.

Curt Steinmetz wrote:

> This was the whole reason that Paul advocated abandoning the Mosaic Law.


*****
	 The whole reason?  Really?  Did he confide this to
you personally, or have you found his secret diaries?  It's
certainly not the only reason he gives.
	 Further, he did not advocate abandoning Mosaic
Law.  He held that salvation did not come through the
law, and that one could become a follower of Christ without
following _some specific provisions_ of the Law.
*****


It got in the way of recruiting. People don't like to be told what they

can and cannot eat and the whole circumcision thang was a rather big
hurdle, too.
>
> "Interpretation" must be based on facts. Otherwise it is just seeing what

you want to see. Of course Christians don't want to admit that their
religion

did not exist until well after Jesus died. I understand that.
Nevertheless Jesus


*****
	 It's obvious that Christianity didn't exist until after
Jesus died, and I have never claimed otherwise.  That has
nothing to do with this thread.  This thread is about whether
it was possible in the first century AD for Paul to be both
a Christian and a Jew.
*****


never advocated abandoning the Mosaic Law, and that is because he never
had any

intention of abandoning the only religion he ever knew: Judaism. And
this is


*****
	 Let us separate those two parts.  I'll ask you once again--
did not Jesus violate the Mosaic Law of the Sabbath as it was
understood by those around him?  Did not Jesus, in the Sermon on
the Mount, lay the foundation for the very doctrine Paul was
later to defend, namely that salvation through adherence to the
Law was impossible?  I see no reason to believe that the break
between Jesus and Paul was such a radical thing at all.
	 As for the second issue--I totally agree that Jesus had
no intention of abandoning the only religion he ever knew--Judaism.
And the same is true of Paul--he, too, had no intention of ever
abandoning Judaism, which is why he makes repeated reference to
himself as a descendant of Abraham, etc.  Both Jesus and Paul
regard themselves as elucidating the _true_ nature of Judaism,
which those around them (though they think of themselves as
Jews) have misunderstood.
	 The fact that someone within a religious movement
claims that the predominant interpretation of the religion
is mistaken doesn't _automatically_ mean that this person
is beyond the pale of that movement.  More argument is needed
to show that what the person teaches is so radically opposed
to the central doctrines of the religion that it cannot be
counted as a variation of it.
	 I see no substantial and radical difference between
Jesus and Paul--either they're both Jews, or neither one
is.  I think the former is more reasonable, but YMMV.
*****


assuming that Jesus existed and that the Gospels are more or less
accurate. Those

who ignore Jesus' Jewishness and Paul's apostasy are the ones who are at
variance

with the facts.


> Curt
>

Curt, from another post:
> What was new, with Paul, was the idea of a new religion separate
>
> from Judaism which rejected the Mosaic Law, but still attempted to
>
> present itself, falsely, as part of an ancient tradition.


*****
	 Sometimes I wish that I saw the world in such stark
contrasts as you do, and sometimes I'm glad that I do not.
Whatever one wishes to say about Paul, it is abundantly clear
that his views _are_ "part of an ancient tradition".
*****


	 Pax Vobiscum,
		 Grant

Of course there were Gentile converts to Judaism, I don't think anyone is
denying that. And of course New Testament Christianity is not Old Testament
Judaism. However, that does not mean there was no continuity between the New
Covenant of Christ, a simple reading of the New Testament Gospels makes very
clear that Jesus, in his own words, was "putting new wine into new wine skins".
He was setting up a new version of Judaism built upon himself--the chief
cornerstone as he called himself. There is continuity from the OT to Jesus to
the Apostles, including Paul--if one simply looks at the text. Put aside the
actual words of the text and you can draw all sorts of pictures, but show me
from the text where there were these vast schisms and I will show you the
continuity from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews regarding Jesus, the
Apostles, Paul, and the early church.
Karlton

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Curt Steinmetz" <enkiduq@...> wrote:
>
> --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "stoic_thorn_bearer" <youngeagle@> wrote:
> >
> >   After the death and resurrection of Christ his disciples went forward to
fulfill his command to preach the good news everywhere in every nation. We find
instances where the first Jewish believers struggled to accept the growing
movement of Christianity to the Gentiles, such as the vision Peter has in the
Book of Acts where he is directed to go into the home of a Gentile--something
not done by a traditional Jew--and the acceptance of Gentiles fully as believers
alongside Jewish believers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> This glosses over the fact that Jews were already involved in proselytizing to
the Gentiles all over the Roman Empire (and even outside the Roman Empire
proper). So there was absolutely nothing new in the idea of preaching about
Yahweh "everywhere in every nation". This was already being done by Jews
throughout much of Africa, Europe and Asia.
>
> What was new, with Paul, was the idea of a new religion separate from Judaism
which rejected the Mosaic Law, but still attempted to present itself, falsely,
as part of an ancient tradition.
>
> Curt
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Keith Seddon

To: stoics@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:33 AM

Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: Does the use of Logic and Reason still support the belief in gods?

 

Hello John,

All that science can do is show that things happen a certain way. That's it. Even doing this rests on the absolutely huge assumption that the universe is strictly regular, and that things that happen will happen the same way again. You cannot prove with science this one massive assumption that science rests on. As an example of faith, it must be the biggest ever entertained in the history of human culture. And don't forget that science can never prove anything. It can only ever disprove -- and that's if the Big Assumption is true.

The jump from showing that to showing how or why is a very big one that is almost always ignored. Perhaps, by some, the distinction isn't even understood. So someone believes in atoms and electrons, and negative charge, and such? But what has really happened? They have set up some stuff, wired in some batteries, seen some lights come on, or a dial move. Not an atom or an electron anywhere. The fabric of the universe is deduced from lights and dials. Maybe the deduction is good, but you can never prove you've made the right deduction, let alone that yours is correct and all rivals wrong.

>>>Would you say it is logical to choose to believe in god(s) even if god's existence is forever beyond the scientific method to prove or disprove?<<<

For myself, I think it is logical to believe in God because I think (as many here will be all too familiar) that the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is sound. (Look in the Files section of the forum for the file I posted ages ago.)

Might I ask you whether you think that other people beside yourself have self-conscious experiences (for example)? I contend that this truth (if it is) cannot be established by any scientific experiments that you might undertake. Yet I'm sure you believe it.

When you make judgements of value, how do you know your judgements have any merit if they cannot be verified by science? Similarly, science cannot help you to decide or prove questions of morality. Would it be wrong of me to steal all your stuff? Science cannot show that it is...

This is, of course, the Age of Science. The tragedy is that too few people appreciate how limited science is for dealing with questions that really matter, and too many people have a ridiculously over-inflated confidence that science can do all sorts of things that in fact it cannot.

>>>One of the basic rules of logic is - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.<<<

What makes a claim extraordinary? What makes appropriate evidence? For instance, far more people claim to have seen a ghost than claim to have been the planet Neptune. Yet I would imagine that you doubt the existence of ghosts and accept to the point of certainly the existence of Neptune? Why is some eye-witness evidence bad, but other eye-witness evidence good?

Logic concerns valid deduction and the detection of sound arguments. Logic in itself has nothing to say about which claims are more extraordinary than other claims. Logic can assess an argument about what makes evidence good evidence, but cannot by itself decide the question. As far as I can see, anyway.

I am very pleased to hear that you have found my book helpful.

Regards,

Keith





johnk47@rocketmail.com wrote:

Hi Keith,

It's an honor to have you weigh in on this topic.  I thoroughly enjoyed your Stoic Serenity book and continue to review it every few weeks to reinforce my practice of Stoic philosophy.

I respect your knowledge of Stoic philosophy and would value your opinion on this topic, even if we disagree in the end.

You stated: "As for God, science does not pretend to be able to say anything about God. The existence of God is beyond scientific method to prove or disprove. There are no observations to be made, no hypotheses to test, no experiments to undertake whose outcomes can make any difference either way to the question of God's existence." 

For arguments sake, let's say I completely agree with you on this statement.  Would you say it is logical to choose to believe in god(s) even if god's existence is forever beyond the scientific method to prove or disprove?  How would this fit with the stoic sense of reason?  Is this any different now than in ancient times?

One of the basic rules of logic is - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.  With this in mind I would say it is illogical to believe in things without evidence, especially things that are as extraordinary as gods (or pixies).  For example, I could make up an endless list of claims that nobody could disprove but I don't think it would be reasonable to believe me just because you couldn't disprove my claims.

I don't think anyone on the forum really wants to have an endless debate about the existence of gods, but I do think it is worthwhile to debate whether or not it is logical and reasonable to hold beliefs without proof.

Looking forward to your response,

-John

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Keith Seddon <K.H.S@...> wrote:
>
> Hello John,
>
> At the risk of talking beside the point, because I have not been
> attending to the thread as closely as I might, I have some observations:
>
> >>>It seems that people who choose to believe in supernatural beings do
> so on faith and do not follow the modern science of logic to reach their
> conclusion.<<<
>
> Do you mean by supernatural beings God? Or other entities, such as
> pixies, ghosts, fairies, and suchlike? Or God PLUS the others?
>
> Science really has nothing to say on this topic, either way. It might be
> odd, or even astonishing, that there is no evidence for pixies if in
> fact pixies exist. But lack of evidence for pixies is not proof of lack
> of pixies.
>
> As for God, science does not pretend to be able to say anything about
> God. The existence of God is beyond scientific method to prove or
> disprove. There are no observations to me made, no hypotheses to test,
> no experiments to undertake whose outcomes can make any difference
> either way to the question of God's existence.
>
> On the other hand, the discovery of a fairy skeleton complete with DNA
> would be pretty cool...
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "stoic_thorn_bearer" <youngeagle@...> wrote:
>
>   After the death and resurrection of Christ his disciples went forward to
fulfill his command to preach the good news everywhere in every nation. We find
instances where the first Jewish believers struggled to accept the growing
movement of Christianity to the Gentiles, such as the vision Peter has in the
Book of Acts where he is directed to go into the home of a Gentile--something
not done by a traditional Jew--and the acceptance of Gentiles fully as believers
alongside Jewish believers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This glosses over the fact that Jews were already involved in proselytizing to
the Gentiles all over the Roman Empire (and even outside the Roman Empire
proper). So there was absolutely nothing new in the idea of preaching about
Yahweh "everywhere in every nation". This was already being done by Jews
throughout much of Africa, Europe and Asia.

What was new, with Paul, was the idea of a new religion separate from Judaism
which rejected the Mosaic Law, but still attempted to present itself, falsely,
as part of an ancient tradition.

Curt

This is the key point in my response to Steve's critique:

There is a difference between the Stoic's understanding of what he is
doing and what I'll call the cognitive science understanding of what
the Stoic is doing.

As I pointed out in the essay, the official Stoic view--assuming an
attempt to be consistent--would be that impressions are indifferent;
misleading impressions are similar in this respect to deceptive
persons who are trying to lead us astray.  The Stoics would official
classify such persons as rejected indifferents.

But impressions that should not be accepted are, METAPHORICALLY
SPEAKING, bad, like rotten food that should not be consumed. Stoics
would classify rotten food as rejected indifferents.

These metaphors are close enough to consciousness that few Stoics
would totally confuse misleading impressions with things they as
Stoics regard as literal evils.

But the Stoics' metaphors, like everybody else's, are ultimately
parasitic upon ordinary pre-philosophical thinking, ultimately on
embodied experience at the non-metaphorical level. The philosophical
use of metaphors creates new meanings that arise from interaction with
(or adaptation to) other meanings at the philosophical level.

Hi Keith,

It's an honor to have you weigh in on this topic.  I thoroughly enjoyed your Stoic Serenity book and continue to review it every few weeks to reinforce my practice of Stoic philosophy.

I respect your knowledge of Stoic philosophy and would value your opinion on this topic, even if we disagree in the end.

You stated: "As for God, science does not pretend to be able to say anything about God. The existence of God is beyond scientific method to prove or disprove. There are no observations to be made, no hypotheses to test, no experiments to undertake whose outcomes can make any difference either way to the question of God's existence." 

For arguments sake, let's say I completely agree with you on this statement.  Would you say it is logical to choose to believe in god(s) even if god's existence is forever beyond the scientific method to prove or disprove?  How would this fit with the stoic sense of reason?  Is this any different now than in ancient times?

One of the basic rules of logic is - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.  With this in mind I would say it is illogical to believe in things without evidence, especially things that are as extraordinary as gods (or pixies).  For example, I could make up an endless list of claims that nobody could disprove but I don't think it would be reasonable to believe me just because you couldn't disprove my claims.

I don't think anyone on the forum really wants to have an endless debate about the existence of gods, but I do think it is worthwhile to debate whether or not it is logical and reasonable to hold beliefs without proof.

Looking forward to your response,

-John

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Keith Seddon <K.H.S@...> wrote:
>
> Hello John,
>
> At the risk of talking beside the point, because I have not been
> attending to the thread as closely as I might, I have some observations:
>
> >>>It seems that people who choose to believe in supernatural beings do
> so on faith and do not follow the modern science of logic to reach their
> conclusion.<<<
>
> Do you mean by supernatural beings God? Or other entities, such as
> pixies, ghosts, fairies, and suchlike? Or God PLUS the others?
>
> Science really has nothing to say on this topic, either way. It might be
> odd, or even astonishing, that there is no evidence for pixies if in
> fact pixies exist. But lack of evidence for pixies is not proof of lack
> of pixies.
>
> As for God, science does not pretend to be able to say anything about
> God. The existence of God is beyond scientific method to prove or
> disprove. There are no observations to me made, no hypotheses to test,
> no experiments to undertake whose outcomes can make any difference
> either way to the question of God's existence.
>
> On the other hand, the discovery of a fairy skeleton complete with DNA
> would be pretty cool...
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>

I hope this comes through clearly, as I copied most of it from a Word file. It is meant as a summary of an article by A.A. Long, which nicely contrasts Plato, Aristotle, Epicureans, and Stoics.  Most of what it tells us about the Stoic view of the human soul relates to the hegemonikon.  Point 1, under clarification, which I believe I took from Long's study (though I won't stake my life on it), suggests that fantasia, which I take to mean the power of being conscious of fantasiai in the sense of impressions, is in the hegemonikon. Now, is that something additional to (but presupposed by) the prohairesis, as Epictetus uses that term? Maybe. If so, then the prohairesis is included in the hegemonikon but the hegemonikon involves something else.

SOUL AND BODY IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(A. A. Long, Stoic Studies 1996, chapter 10)

Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Epicureans all agree that

1) it is legitimate to make a distinction between body and soul such that soul is the cause of intelligent life occurring within the part of

space bounded by a normal human body (Long, 226)

2) the principal activity of the soul can be located in a particular region of the body

They differ on other matters, for instance:

Whether soul can exist without the body.

P: Soul of a person can exist without the body

A: Apart from the active intellect, soul cannot exist without the body

S: Soul of a person can exist without the flesh-and-bones body

E: Soul cannot exist apart from the body

On the nature of the soul.

P: Soul is an incorporeal substance

A: Soul is the form or first actuality of a natural body that has life potentially

S: The rational soul or human hegemonikon is a rarefied or fiery kind of pneuma, a(n active) body capable of penetrating and sometimes controlling the flesh and bones body.

E: The soul, like the flesh and bones body, is a composite of indivisible bodies (atoms)

Whether the soul is immortal.

P: The person’s soul is immortal

A: The active intellect, considered part of the soul, is immortal and eternal, but other psychological faculties are perishable.

S: The rational soul or human hegemonikon is capable of surviving the death of the flesh and bones body (but not the cosmic conflagration between cosmic cycles).

E: The person’s soul is necessarily mortal.

Where the rational part of the soul is located.

P:  Rational part is in the head, spirited part in the chest, appetitive part in the belly

A: The principal part (reason, nous) is in the heart, as is the common sense and the imagination.

S: Thinking and judging activities of the rational hegemonikon take place in the heart

E:  The mind (rational part of the soul) is located in the middle region of the chest (Lucretius)

On the distinction between rational and irrational human activities.

P: Rational and irrational activities may be distinguished and assigned to different parts of soul

A: Rational and irrational activities may be distinguished and assigned to different parts of soul

S: All human actions and feelings are functions of the rational hegemonikon and its power of interpretation and assent/non-assent. Whether a person feels  and acts rightly depends upon his RH.

E: Rational and irrational activities of the soul may be distinguished

Clarifications related to the Stoic view:

1) All animals have a kind of ruling principle, hegemonikon, including faculties of representation (fantasia) and impulse (horme).

2) These faculties are rational only in humans and fully correct only in the sage.

3) Elemental bodies are fire and air (active), earth and water (passive); they are capable of mutual penetration; the active bodies together constitute pneuma, which has four possible forms: logos (common to humans and gods), psuche (characteristic of animals), phusis (characteristic of plants) and hexis (the unifying factor in, say, stones).

J. Garrett 7/24/04

I hope Steve will send me a more readable version of his comments on
my essay than the one that appeared in the daily digest I just received.

Meanwhile, just one point

Steve writes: "Of course for me it is not a given that all concepts
are metaphors.  This is one modern view of reason that you have
adopted."

My response: no, I have not adopted the view that all concepts are
metaphors. The whole point of the metaphorical analysis of many
concepts is that metaphorical concepts have their ultimate roots in
concepts grounded in sensorimotor (or embodied experience).

To say that Right Reason (for the Stoics) or Pure Practical Reason
(for Kant) is the Strict Father requires that we have a previous
conception of a Strict Father. This conception is framed by a
narrative whose key elements are metaphors in turn, but at some point
those they must get their meaning from directly embodied concepts.

Moral Strength and Moral Authority are metaphors themselves, but, to
take just one of them, Moral Strength, it's source domain is Physical
Strength, the sort of thing we experience as embodied beings.  Another
key metaphor that helps to frame the Strict Father model/narrative is
Moral Boundaries.  That is a metaphorical concept based on the
experience of staying on a both, trying not to color outside the
lines, and that sort of thing.  It is rooted in the experience of
bounded regions in space.  Our spatial-relations concepts are not
metaphors but concepts directly acquired from embodied experience.

As for the view I am defending being a modern view, it is actually at
odds with most philosophers since Descartes, including the formalist
philosophers associated with 20th century analytic philosophy. It is
however modern in the sense that it is supported by recent empirical
research in cognitive linguistics (part of cognitive science).

I've heard this sort of argument before. Jesus' first mission, as he stated, was
to take his message to the Jews, and he claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish
prophecy. His teaching went to the heart of, the spirit of the law, and even
beyond the laws in certain instances, such as regarding divorce. But he severely
condemned Jewish traditions, leaders, scribes, lawyers, and pharisees who went
beyond the law by setting their traditions above the actual laws. This conflict
is part of what led to his crucifixion.
   After the death and resurrection of Christ his disciples went forward to
fulfill his command to preach the good news everywhere in every nation. We find
instances where the first Jewish believers struggled to accept the growing
movement of Christianity to the Gentiles, such as the vision Peter has in the
Book of Acts where he is directed to go into the home of a Gentile--something
not done by a traditional Jew--and the acceptance of Gentiles fully as believers
alongside Jewish believers. James, the brother of Jesus, struggled with this as
well. Finally they held a council that accepted Gentile believers with just a
few Jewish impositions, such as abstaining from blood. Paul was the most
accepting of Gentile believers and his ministry largely became the growing
Gentile congregations. This does not mean he broke with Jesus, the Jewish
disciples, or that there was any schism, only that he was carrying out the
forward momentum that Jesus began, and the Apostles accepted. There were
disputes found in the book of Acts and in Paul's letters, such as Gentile widows
getting ignored, which brought on the role of deacons in the early church, and
on one occasion Peter appears to have avoided contact with Gentile believers in
order to please his Jewish companions, and he was rebuked for it by Paul.
Nevertheless, there were not two Christian groups, they were part of the same
bunch at this early stage despite conflicts with traditional Judaism and some
prejudice among Jewish Christians.
   By the way, there are some Jewish Christian groups today.
Karlton

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Curt Steinmetz" <enkiduq@...> wrote:
>
> Judaism in Paul's time was equated, by Jews and non-Jews alike, with adherence
to the Mosaic Law. Certainly there is no question that Jesus accepted and lived
according to this view of the Law as part of the essence of Judiasm.
>
> Therefore, Pauline antinomianism represents both a break with Judaism itself
and with the teachings of Jesus, who never advocated the abrogation of the Law.
>
> If one wishes to posit the existence of "Jewish" currents at the time that
advocated some kind of Judaism without the Law, then this makes Paul's position
even more precarious, since Jesus has never been connected with such a position.
The implication is that Paul embraced a position that Jesus either rejected or
at least ignored.
>
> Paul is recognized within Christianity as an innovator who had a dramatic
impact on early Christianity. However, Paul's innovativeness is inevitably
misrepresented by calling him "The Apostle to the Gentiles". There was nothing
unusual about Paul's preaching to the Gentiles. Judaism had been a proselytizing
religion for centuries already, and fairly successful at it. In fact Paul's own
sect, the Pharisees, had been quite active in proselytizing both among gentiles
and among non-Pharisee Jews.
>
> Historically these matters are of genuine importance to anyone interested in
ancient Stoicism. Each individual and group of that time has to be understood in
the broader context of what else was going on philosophically and spiritually.
And, in particular, the interactions between Judaism and Hellenism are complex
and fascinating!
>
> Curt
>
> --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Grant Sterling <gcsterling@> wrote:
> >
> > Curt Steinmetz wrote:
> > > The dating appears to leave no real room for doubt concerning Paul and
Epictetus.
> > >
> > > But of course Paul certainly knew of Stoicism, and I know of no reason for
assuming
> >
> > that there was anything at all atypical about Epictetus' Stoicism.
> > >
> > > Also it is unlikely that Paul was a "Christian Jew" -- rather he was an
apostate who
> >
> > abandoned Judaism and converted to, and essentially founded, the new
> > religion of Christianity.
> >
> >
> > *****
> >  Define "abandoned Judaism".  He certainly didn't
> > regard himself as having abandoned Judaism--he thought that
> > the Jewish scriptures explicitly taught that a Messiah
> > would come, and that Jesus fulfilled those scriptures, and
> > so all good Jews should be followers of Jesus.  He repeatedly
> > refers to himself as a Jew, and attempts to convince other
> > Jews to join with the Christian movement.
> > *****
> >
> >
> >
> > > Paul's antinomianism, that is, his advocacy for the abandonment/abrogation
of the Mosaic
> >
> > Law, calls into question, at the very least, his "Jewishness".
> >
> >
> > *****
> >  Certainly Paul didn't agree with mainstream Jews on
> > a number of issues.  I agree that there may come a point at
> > which someone's doctrinal differences with the majority of
> > believers in a certain belief system becomes so pronounced
> > that you should rationally say "he's not a _________" at
> > all, but it is by no means clear that this is the case
> > with Paul.
> >  (Perhaps one might argue that _today_ being a
> > Christian Jew is impossible, since Judaism has generally
> > united behind the doctrine "Jesus was not the Christ",
> > but that was certainly not true in Paul's time.)
> > *****
> >
> >
> > > Curt
> >
> >
> >  Regards,
> > 	 Grant
> >
>

I'm working from memory here, but I believe in the Book of Acts, Paul is
mentioned as speaking before a group of Philosophers (including Stoics) in
Athens at the Areopagus. He even quotes two of their philosophers to them to
make his points referring to "The Unknown God".
   I think he certainly understood some principles of Stoicism whether or not he
knew many/any actual Stoics.
Karlton

Adherence to Mosaic Law was an essential part of Judaism at the time of Jesus
and then Paul. We know this because of the proselytizing activities of the Jews
at the time. Only those who agreed to follow the Mosaic Law could become Jews.
Period.

This was the whole reason that Paul advocated abandoning the Mosaic Law. It got
in the way of recruiting. People don't like to be told what they can and cannot
eat and the whole circumcision thang was a rather big hurdle, too.

"Interpretation" must be based on facts. Otherwise it is just seeing what you
want to see. Of course Christians don't want to admit that their religion did
not exist until well after Jesus died. I understand that. Nevertheless Jesus
never advocated abandoning the Mosaic Law, and that is because he never had any
intention of abandoning the only religion he ever knew: Judaism. And this is
assuming that Jesus existed and that the Gospels are more or less accurate.
Those who ignore Jesus' Jewishness and Paul's apostasy are the ones who are at
variance with the facts.

Curt

--- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Grant Sterling <gcsterling@...> wrote:
>
> Curt Steinmetz wrote:
> > Judaism in Paul's time was equated, by Jews and non-Jews alike, with
>
>
> *****
>  If Judaism was literally equated with adherence to
> the Law, how is it then that Paul considered himself to
> be a Jew and Paul taught at Jewish synagogues and meetings
> of Jewish worshippers?
> *****
>
>
> adherence to the Mosaic Law. Certainly there is no question that Jesus
>
> accepted and lived according to this view of the Law as part of the
>
> essence of Judiasm.
>
>
> *****
>  Really?  "No question"?  Certainly there are revisionist
> interpretations of the life of Jesus that make Jesus into a
> mainstream Jew, but on the ordinary Christian interpretation
> this is by no means obvious.
>  If the Bible is generally accurate about Jesus' activities
> and teachings (and if it isn't then of course you can make Jesus
> into anything you want, as many have), Jesus was criticized on
> numerous occasions for things like violating the Sabbath, and
> the Sermon on the Mount displays a kind of "hypernomianism"
> that amounts to antinomianism--the Law must be kept, but keeping it
> becomes impossible.  Some interpreters of Paul hold him to be
> saying exactly this.
>  In connection with this, that Paul is even an antinomian
> is disputed.
> *****
>
>
> > Therefore, Pauline antinomianism represents both a break with Judaism
>
> itself and with the teachings of Jesus, who never advocated the abrogation
>
> of the Law.
>
> *****
>  Again, there are people who interpret Paul and Jesus in
> this way, but it is by no means the only or the obvious or the
> dominant interpretation.  For my own part, I think it is false.
> *****
>
>
> > Curt
>
>  Regards,
> 	 Grant
>