Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/de-gruyter/on-antiochus-moral-psychology-jS6FcEwr2k
References (9)
-
M. Cicero, Margaret Graver (2002)
Cicero on the Emotions: Tusculan Disputations 3 and 4 -
(2012)
The Philosophy of Antiochus -
(2012)
Antiochus and Platonism -
(2014)
Ethics aft er Aristotle -
B. Inwood (1988)
Ethics and human action in early Stoicism -
(1999)
On the Stoic Conception of the Good -
(2010)
Peripatetic Philosophy from 200 BC to 200 AD -
J. Annas, Raphael Woolf (2001)
Cicero: On Moral Ends -
(2014)
Was Aristotle a Humean?”. In: Ronald Polansky (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics
- Publisher
- de Gruyter
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2014 by the
- ISSN
- 2196-5102
- eISSN
- 2196-5110
- DOI
- 10.1515/rhiz-2014-0008
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Abstract The paper seeks to show that there is more to Antiochus’ moral psychology than has been appreciated in previous studies. Section I) deals with the apparent evidence on Antiochus’ psychological dualism in Cicero’s Academic Books (I.38–9), arguing that this report of Old Academic doctrine actually sits poorly with Antiochus’ reconstruction as expounded in De finibus V. Section II) in turn focuses on Fin. V itself, arguing that the theory emerging here represents an ingenious combination of both Stoic and Aristotelian elements, one that does not sit comfortably with the psychological dualism/monism contrast, as this is mostly construed in recent discussions.
Journal
Rhizomata – de Gruyter
Published: Dec 1, 2014