we get from his bust; while under notions derived from analogy come those which we get (1) by way of enlargement, like that of Tityos or the Cyclops, or (2) by way of diminution, like that of the Pygmy.
And thus, too, the centre of the earth was originally conceived on the analogy of smaller spheres. Of notions obtained by transposition creatures with eyes on the chest would be an instance, while the centaur exemplifies those reached by composition, and death those due to contrariety. Furthermore, there are notions which imply a sort of transition to the realm of the imperceptible: such are those of space and of the meaning of terms. The notions of justice and goodness come by nature. Again, privation originates notions; for instance, that of the man without hands. Such are their tenets concerning presentation, sensation, and thought.
The standard of truth they declare to be the apprehending presentation, i.e. that which comes from a real object--according to Chrysippus in the twelfth book of his Physics and to Antipater and Apollodorus. Boëthus, on the other hand, admits a plurality of standards, namely intelligence, senseperception, appetency, and knowledge; while Chrysippus in the first book of his Exposition of Doctrine contradicts himself and declares that sensation and preconception are the only standards, preconception being a general notion which comes by the gift of nature (an innate conception of universals or general concepts). Again, certain others of the older Stoics make Right Reason the standard; so also does Posidonius in his treatise On the Standard.
In their theory of dialectic most of them see fit to take as their starting-point the topic of voice. Now voice is a percussion of the air or the proper object of the sense of hearing, as Diogenes the Babylonian says in his handbook On Voice. While the voice or cry of an animal is just a percussion of air brought about by natural impulse, man's voice is articulate and, as Diogenes puts it, an utterance of reason, having the quality of coming to maturity at the age of fourteen. Furthermore, voice according to the Stoics is something corporeal: I may cite for this Archedemus in his treatise On Voice, Diogenes, Antipater and Chrysippus in the second book of his Physics.
For whatever produces an effect is body; and voice, as it proceeds from those who utter it to those who hear it, does produce an effect. Reduced to writing, what was voice becomes a verbal expression, as "day"; so says Diogenes. A statement or proposition is speech that issues from the mind and signifies something, e.g. "It is day." Dialect ( dia/- lektos ) means a variety of speech which is stamped on one part of the Greek world as distinct from another, or on the Greeks as distinct from other races; or, again, it means a form peculiar to some particular region, that is to say, it has a certain linguistic quality; e.g. in Attic the word for "sea" is not qa/lass a but qa/latt a, and in Ionic "day" is not h(me/ra but h(me/rh.
Elements of language are the four-and-twenty letters. "Letter," however, has three meanings: (1) the particular sound or element of speech; (2) its written symbol or character; (3) its name, as Alpha is the name of the sound A.
Seven of the letters are difference between voice and speech; because, while voice may include mere noise, speech is always articulate. Speech again differs from a sentence or statement, because the latter always signifies something, whereas a spoken word, as for example bli/tur i, may be unintelligible-- which a sentence never is. And to frame a sentence is more than mere utterance, for while vocal sounds are uttered, things are meant, that is, are matters of discourse.
There are, as stated by Diogenes i.e. the Babylonian.
in his treatise on Language and by Chrysippus, five parts of speech: proper name, common noun, verb, conjunction, article. To these Antipater in his work On Words and their Meaning adds another part, the "mean." Probably "adverb."
A common noun or appellative is defined by Diogenes as part of a sentence signifying a common quality, e.g. man, horse; whereas a name is a part of speech expressing a quality peculiar to an individual, e.g. Diogenes, Socrates. A verb is, according to Diogenes, a part of speech signifying an isolated predicate, or, as others Sc. Apollodorus and his school; cf. inf. § 64. define it, an un-declined part of a sentence, signifying something that can be attached to one or more subjects, e.g. "I write," "I speak." A conjunction is an indeclinable part of speech, binding the various parts of a statement together; and an article is a declinable part of speech, distinguishing the genders and numbers of nouns, e.g. o(, h(, to/, oi(, ai(, ta/. = "the," masc., fem. and neut., singular and plural.
There are five excellences of speech--pure Greek, lucidity, conciseness, appropriateness, distinction. By good Greek is meant language faultless in point of grammar and free from careless vulgarity.
Lucidity is a style which presents the thought in a way easily understood; conciseness a style that employs no more words than are necessary for setting forth the subject in hand; appropriateness lies in a style akin to the subject; distinction in the avoidance of colloquialism. Among vices of style barbarism is violation of the usage of Greeks of good standing; while there is solecism when the sentence has an incongruous construction.
Posidonius in his treatise On Style defines a poetical phrase as one that is metrical or rhythmical, thus mechanically avoiding the character of prose; an example of such rhythmical phrase is: O mightiest earth, O sky, God's canopy. Nauck, T.G.F. 2, Eur. 839.
And if such poetical phraseology is significant and includes a portrayal or representation of things human and divine, it is poetry.
A term is, as stated by Antipater in his first book On Terms, a word which, when a sentence is analysed, is uttered with complete meaning; or, according to Chrysippus in his book On Definitions, is a rendering back one's own. The author seems to have confused "term," which Antipater defines, with "definition," which, as Chrysippus says, is simply "giving back" the meaning in other words. Zeller's correction Dionysius Thrax. Delineation is a statement which brings one to a knowledge of the subject in outline, or it may be called a definition which embodies the force of the definition proper in a simpler form. Genus (in logic) is the comprehension in one of a number of inseparable objects of thought: e.g.
Animal; for this includes all particular animals.
A notion or object of thought is a presentation to the intellect, which though not really substance nor attribute is W. Thus an image of a horse may rise before the mind, although there is no horse present.
Species is that which is comprehended under genus: thus Man is included under Animal. The highest or most universal genus is that which, being itself a genus, has no genus above: namely, reality or the real; and the lowest and most particular species is that which, being itself a species, has no species below it, e.g. Socrates.
Division of a genus means dissection of it into its proximate species, thus: Animals are either rational or irrational (dichotomy). Contrary division dissects the genus into species by contrary qualities: for example, by means of negation, as when all things that are are divided into good and not good. Subdivision is division applied to a previous division: for instance, after saying, "Of things that are some are good, some are not good," we proceed, "and of the not good some are bad, some are neither good nor bad (morally indifferent)."
Partition in logic is (according to Crinis) classification or distribution of a genus under heads: for instance, Of goods some are mental, others bodily.
Verbal ambiguity arises when a word properly, rightfully, and in accordance with fixed usage denotes two or more different things, so that at one and the same time we may take it in several distinct senses: e.g. in Greek, where by the same verbal expression may be meant in the one case that "A house has three times" fallen, in the other that "a dancing-girl" has fallen.
Posidonius defines Dialectic as the science dealing with truth, falsehood, and that which is neither true nor false; whereas Chrysippus takes its subject to be signs and things signified. Such then is the gist of what the Stoics say in their theory of language.
To the department dealing with things as such and things signified is assigned the doctrine of expressions, including those which are complete in themselves, as well as judgements and syllogisms and that of defective expressions comprising predicates both direct and reversed. "Direct Predicate" answers to our Active Verb, "Predicate reversed" to our Passive; cf.
supra, 43.
By verbal expression they mean that of which the content corresponds to some rational presentation. Of such expressions the Stoics say that some are complete in themselves and others defective. Those are defective the enunciation of which is unfinished, as e.g. "writes," for we inquire "Who?" Whereas in those that are complete in themselves the enunciation is finished, as "Socrates writes." And so under the head of defective expressions are ranged all predicates, while under those complete in themselves fall judgements, syllogisms, questions, and inquiries.
A predicate is, according to the followers of Apollodorus, what is said of something; in other words, a thing associated with one or more subjects; or, again, it may be defined as a defective expression which has to be joined on to a nominative case in order to yield a judgement. Of predicates some are adjectival [and so have personal subjects], as e.g. "to sail through rocks." We should expect ta\ de\ parasum ba/mata to follow ( cf. Luc. Vit.
Auct. 21). By parasu/m bama is meant an impersonal verb with subject in oblique case, as me/lei moi. For other conjectures see Zeller, Phil. der Gr. iii. 1 3, 89 note 2, 90. Again, some predicates are direct, some reversed, some neither. Now direct predicates are those that are constructed with one of the oblique cases, as "hears," "sees," "converses"; while reversed are those constructed with the passive voice, as "I am heard," "I am seen." Neutral are such as correspond to neither of these, as "thinks," "walks." Reflexive predicates are those among the passive, which, although in form passive, are yet active operations, An attempt to distinguish what we call the Middle Voice from the Passive--as e.g. sune/qe nto, "they made compacts with each other," is more active ( o)rqa/ ) than passive ( u)/ptia ). as "he gets his hair from a fleece being shorn--"is both active and passive, as he suits his motions to the shaving.": for here the agent includes himself in the sphere of his action. The oblique cases are genitive, dative, and accusative.
A judgement is that which is either true or false, or a thing complete in itself, capable of being denied in and by itself, as Chrysippus says in his Dialectical Definitions: "A judgement is that which in and by itself can be denied or affirmed, e.g. `It is day,' `Dion is walking.'" The Greek word for judgement ( a)ci/wma ) is derived from the verb a)ciou=n, as signifying acceptance or rejection; for when you say "It is day," you seem to accept the fact that it is day. Now, if it really is day, the judgement before us is true, but if not, it is false.
There is a difference between judgement, interrogation, and inquiry, as also between imperative, adjurative, optative, hypothetical, vocative, whether that to which these terms are applied be a thing or a judgement. For a judgement is that which, when we set it forth in speech, becomes an assertion, and is either false or true: an interrogation is a thing complete in itself like a judgement but demanding an answer, e.g. "Is it day?" and this is so far neither true nor false. Thus "It is day" is a judgement; "Is it day?" an interrogation. An inquiry is something to which we cannot reply by signs, as you can nod Yes to an interrogation; but you must express the answer in words, "He lives in this or that place."
An imperative is something which conveys a command: e.g.
Go thou to the waters of Inachus. Nauck, T.G.F. 2, Adesp. 177; cf. Galen, xiii. p. 363 K.
An adjurative utterance is something...A vocative utterance is something the use of which implies that you are addressing some one ; for instance: Most glorious son of Atreus, Agamemnon, lord of men. Iliad ix. 96.
A quasi-proposition is that which, having the enunciation of a judgement, yet in consequence of the intensified tone or emotion of one of its parts falls outside the class of judgements proper, e.g.
Yea, fair indeed the Parthenon!
How like to Priam's sons the cowherd is! Nauck, T.G.F. 2, Adesp. 286.
There is also, differing from a proposition or judgement, what may be called a timid suggestion, the expression of which leaves one at a loss, e.g.
Can it be that pain and life are in some sort akin?
Interrogations, inquiries and the like are neither true nor false, whereas judgements (or propositions) are always either true or false.
The followers of Chrysippus, Archedemus, Athenodorus, Antipater and Crinis divide propositions into simple and not simple. Simple are those that consist of one or more propositions which are not ambiguous, as "It is day." Not simple are those that consist of one or more ambiguous propositions.
They may, that is, consist either of a single ambiguous proposition, e.g. "If it is day, it is day," or of more than one proposition, e.g.
"If it is day, it is light."
With simple propositions are classed those of negation, denial, privation, affirmation, the definitive and the indefinitive; with those that are not simple the hypothetical, the inferential, the coupled or complex, the disjunctive, the causal, and that which indicates more or less. An example of a negative proposition is "It is not day." Of the negative proposition one species is the double negative. By double negative is meant the negation of a negation, e.g. "It is not not-day." Now this presupposes that it is day.
A denial contains a negative part or particle and a predication: such as this, "No one is walking." A privative proposition is one that contains a privative particle reversing the effect of a judgement, as, for example, "This man is unkind." An affirmative or assertory proposition is one that consists of a noun in the nominative case and a predicate, as "Dion is walking." A definitive proposition is one that consists of a demonstrative in the nominative case and a predicate, as "This man is walking." An indefinitive proposition is one that consists of an indefinite word or words and a predicate, e.g. "Some one is walking," or "There's some one walking"; "He is in motion."
Of propositions that are not simple the hypothetical, according to Chrysippus in his Dialectics and Diogenes in his Art of Dialectic, is one that is formed by means of the conditional conjunction "If." Now this conjunction promises that the second of two things follows consequentially upon the first, as, for instance, "If it is day, it is light." An inferential proposition according to Crinis in his Art of Dialectic is one which is introduced by the conjunction "Since" and consists of an initial proposition and a conclusion; for example, "Since it is day-time, it is light." This conjunction guarantees both that the second thing follows from the first and that the first is really a fact.
A coupled proposition is one which is put together by certain coupling conjunctions, e.g. "It is day-time and it is light." A disjunctive proposition is one which is constituted such by the disjunctive conjunction "Either," as e.g.
"Either it is day or it is night." This conjunction guarantees that one or other of the alternatives is false. A causal proposition is constructed by means of the conjunction "Because," e.g. "Because it is day, it is light." For the first clause is, as it were, the cause of the second. A proposition which indicates more or less is one that is formed by the word signifying "rather" and the word "than" in between the clauses, as, for example, "It is rather day-time than night."
Opposite in character to the foregoing is a proposition which declares what is less the fact, as e.g. "It is less or not so much night as day." Further, among propositions there are some which in respect of truth and falsehood stand opposed to one another, of which the one is the negative of the other, as e.g. the propositions "It is day" and "It is not day." A hypothetical proposition is therefore true, if the contradictory of its conclusion is incompatible with its premiss, e.g. "If it is day, it is light." This is true.
For the statement "It is not light," contradicting the conclusion, is incompatible with the premiss "It is day." On the other hand, a hypothetical proposition is false, if the contradictory of its conclusion does not conflict with the premiss, e.g. "If it is day, Dion is walking." For the statement "Dion is not walking" does not conflict with the premiss "It is day."
An inferential proposition is true if starting from a true premiss it also has a consequent conclusion, as e.g. "Since it is day, the sun is above the horizon." But it is false if it starts from a false premiss or has an inconsequent conclusion, as e.g. "Since it is night, Dion is walking," if this be said in day-time. A causal proposition is true if its conclusion really follows from a premiss itself true, though the premiss does not follow conversely from the conclusion, as e.g. "Because it is day, it is light," where from the "it is day" the "it is light" duly follows, though from the statement "it is light" it would not follow that "it is day." But a causal proposition is false if it either starts from a false premiss or has an inconsequent conclusion or has a premiss that does not correspond with the conclusion, as e.g. "Because it is night, Dion is walking."
A probable judgement is one which induces to assent, e.g. "Whoever gave birth to anything, is that thing's mother." This, however, is not necessarily true; for the hen is not mother of an egg.
Again, some things are possible, others impossible; and some things are necessary, others are not necessary. A proposition is possible which admits of being true, there being nothing in external circumstances to prevent it being true, e.g. "Diocles is alive." Impossible is one which does not admit of being true, as e.g.
"The earth flies." That is necessary which besides being true does not admit of being false or, while it may admit of being false, is prevented from being false by circumstances external to itself, as "Virtue is beneficial." Not necessary is that which, while true, yet is capable of being false if there are no external conditions to prevent, e.g. "Dion is walking."
A reasonable proposition is one which has to start with more chances of being true than not, e.g. "I shall be alive to-morrow."
And there are other shades of difference in propositions and grades of transition from true to false-- and conversions of their terms--which we now go on to describe broadly.
An argument, according to the followers of Crinis, consists of a major premiss, a minor premiss, and a conclusion, such as for example this: "If it is day, it is light; but it is day, therefore it is light." Here the sentence "If it is day, it is light" is the major premiss, the clause "it is day" is the minor premiss, and "therefore it is light" is the conclusion. A mood is a sort of outline of an argument, like the following: "If the first, then the second; but the first is, therefore the second is."
Symbolical argument is a combination of full argument and mood; e.g. "If Plato is alive, he breathes ; but the first is true, therefore the second is true." This mode of argument was introduced in order that when dealing with long complex arguments we should not have to repeat the minor premiss, if it be long, and then state the conclusion, but may arrive at the conclusion as concisely as possible: if A, then B.
Of arguments some are conclusive, others inconclusive. Inconclusive are such that the contradictory of the conclusion is not incompatible with combination of the premisses, as in the following: "If it is day, it is light; but it is day, therefore Dion walks." Cf.
Sext. Emp. Adv. math. viii. 429.
Of conclusive some are denoted by the common name of the whole class, "conclusive proper," others are called syllogistic. The syllogistic are such as either do not admit of, or are reducible to such as do not admit of, immediate proof in respect of one or more of the premisses; e.g. "If Dion walks, then Dion is in motion; but Dion is walking, therefore Dion is in motion." Conclusive specifically are those which draw conclusions, but not by syllogism; e.g. the statement "It is both day and night" is false: "now it is day; therefore it is not night." Arguments not syllogistic are those which plausibly resemble syllogistic arguments, but are not cogent proof; e.g. "If Dion is a horse, he is an animal; but Dion is not a horse, therefore he is not an animal."
Further, arguments may be divided into true and false. The former draw their conclusions by means of true premisses; e.g.
"If virtue does good, vice does harm; but virtue does good, therefore vice does harm." The example is badly chosen, confusing contrary with contradictory. Those are false which have error in the premisses or are inconclusive; e.g. "If it is day, it is light; but it is day, therefore Dion is alive." Arguments may also be divided into possible and impossible, necessary and not necessary. Further, there are statements which are indemonstrable because they do not need demonstration; they are employed in the construction of every argument. As to the number of these, authorities differ; Chrysippus makes them five. These are assumed alike in reasoning specifically conclusive and in syllogisms both categorical and hypothetical.
The first kind of indemonstrable statement is that in which the whole argument is constructed of a hypothetical proposition and the clause with which the hypothetical proposition begins, while the final clause is the conclusion; as e.g. "If the first, then the second; but the first is, therefore the second is." Cf. Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. ii.
157 sq. The second is that which employs a hypothetical proposition and the contradictory of the consequent, while the conclusion is the contradictory of the antecedent; e.g. "If it is day, it is light; but it is night, therefore it is not day." Here the minor premiss is the contradictory of the consequent; the conclusion the contradictory of the antecedent. The third kind of indemonstrable employs a conjunction of negative propositions for major premiss and one of the conjoined propositions for minor premiss, concluding thence the contradictory of the remaining proposition; e.g. "It is not the case that Plato is both dead and alive; but he is dead, therefore Plato is not alive."
The fourth kind employs a disjunctive proposition and one of the two alternatives in the disjunction as premisses, and its conclusion is the contradictory of the other alternative; e.g. "Either A or B; but A is, therefore B is not." The fifth kind is that in which the argument as a whole is constructed of a disjunctive proposition and the contradictory of one of the alternatives in the disjunction, its conclusion being the other alternative; e.g. "Either it is day or it is night; but it is not night, therefore it is day."
From a truth a truth follows, according to the Stoics, as e.g. "It is light" from "It is day"; and from a falsehood a falsehood, as "It is dark" from "It is night," if this latter be untrue. Also a truth may follow from a falsehood; e.g. from "The earth flies" will follow "The earth exists"; whereas from a truth no falsehood will follow, for from the existence of the earth it does not follow that the earth flies aloft.
There are also certain insoluble arguments Cf. supra, § 44.: the Veiled Men, the Concealed, Sorites, Horned Folk, the Nobodies. The Veiled is as follows Here Laertius, as the text stands, gives examples of the Sorites and the Nobody, but none of the other three fallacies, the Veiled, Concealed, Horned.:..."It cannot be that if two is few, three is not so likewise, nor that if two or three are few, four is not so; and so on up to ten. But two is few, therefore so also is ten."...The Nobody argument is an argument whose major premiss consists of an indefinite and a definite clause, followed by a minor premiss and conclusion; for example, "If anyone is here, he is not in Rhodes; but there is some one here, therefore there is not anyone in Rhodes."...Such, then, is the logic of the Stoics, by which they seek to establish their point that the wise man is the true dialectician.
For all things, they say, are discerned by means of logical study, including whatever falls within the province of Physics, and again whatever belongs to that of Ethics. For else, say they, as regards statement and reasoning Physics and Ethics could not tell how to express themselves, or again concerning the proper use of terms, how the laws have defined various actions.
The vulgate, in which I have made no change, has been regarded with suspicion. Von Arnim conjectures: "For if the logician ought to have something to say about the correct use of terms, how could he fail to lay down the proper names for actions?"
Moreover, of the two kinds of common-sense inquiry included under Virtue one considers the nature of each particular thing, the other asks what it is called. Thus much for their logic.
The ethical branch of philosophy they divide as follows: (1) the topic of impulse; (2) the topic of things good and evil; (3) that of the passions; (4) that of virtue; (5) that of the end; (6) that of primary value and of actions; (7) that of duties or the befitting; and (8) of inducements to act or refrain from acting.
The foregoing is the subdivision adopted by Chrysippus, Archedemus, Zeno of Tarsus, Apollodorus, Diogenes, Antipater, and Posidonius, and their disciples. Zeno of Citium and Cleanthes treated the subject somewhat less elaborately, as might be expected in an older generation. They, however, did subdivide Logic and Physics as well as Ethics.
An animal's first impulse, say the Stoics, is to selfpreservation, because nature from the outset endears it to itself, as Chrysippus affirms in the first book of his work On Ends: his words are, "The dearest thing to every animal is its own constitution and its consciousness thereof" ; for it was not likely that nature should estrange the living thing from itself or that she should leave the creature she has made without either estrangement from or affection for its own constitution. We are forced then to conclude that nature in constituting the animal made it near and dear to itself; for so it comes to repel all that is injurious and give free access to all that is serviceable or akin to it.
As for the assertion made by some people that pleasure is the object to which the first impulse of animals is directed, it is shown by the Stoics to be false. For pleasure, if it is really felt, they declare to be a by-product, which never comes until nature by itself has sought and found the means suitable to the animal's existence or constitution; it is an aftermath comparable to the condition of animals thriving and plants in full bloom. And nature, they say, made no difference originally between plants and animals, for she regulates the life of plants too, in their case without impulse and sensation, just as also certain processes go on of a vegetative kind in us. But when in the case of animals impulse has been superadded, whereby they are enabled to go in quest of their proper aliment, for them, say the Stoics, Nature's rule is to follow the direction of impulse. But when reason by way of a more perfect leadership has been bestowed on the beings we call rational, for them life according to reason rightly becomes the natural life. For reason supervenes to shape impulse scientifically.
This is why Zeno was the first (in his treatise On the Nature of Man ) to designate as the end "life in agreement with nature" (or living agreeably to nature), which is the same as a virtuous life, virtue being the goal towards which nature guides us.
So too Cleanthes in his treatise On Pleasure, as also Posidonius, and Hecato in his work On Ends. Again, living virtuously is equivalent to living in accordance with experience of the actual course of nature, as Chrysippus says in the first book of his De finibus; for our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe.
And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature, or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common to all things, that is to say, the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus, lord and ruler of all that is. And this very thing constitutes the virtue of the happy man and the smooth current of life, when all actions promote the harmony of the spirit dwelling in the individual man with the will of him who orders the universe. Diogenes then expressly declares the end to be to act with good reason in the selection of what is natural. Archedemus says the end is to live in the performance of all befitting actions.
By the nature with which our life ought to be in accord, Chrysippus understands both universal nature and more particularly the nature of man, whereas Cleanthes takes the nature of the universe alone as that which should be followed, without adding the nature of the individual.
And virtue, he holds, is a harmonious disposition, choice-worthy for its own sake and not from hope or fear or any external motive.
Moreover, it is in virtue that happiness consists; for virtue is the state of mind which tends to make the whole of life harmonious. When a rational being is perverted, this is due to the deceptiveness of external pursuits or sometimes to the influence of associates. For the starting-points of nature are never perverse.
Virtue, in the first place, is in one sense the perfection of anything in general, say of a statue; again, it may be non-intellectual, like health, or intellectual, like prudence.
For Hecato says in his first book On the Virtues that some are scientific and based upon theory, namely, those which have a structure of theoretical principles, such as prudence and justice; others are non-intellectual, those that are regarded as co-extensive and parallel with the former, like health and strength. For health is found to attend upon and be co-extensive with the intellectual virtue of temperance, just as strength is a result of the building of an arch.
These are called non-intellectual, because they do not require the mind's assent; they supervene and they occur even in bad men: for instance, health, courage. The proof, says Posidonius in the first book of his treatise on Ethics, that virtue really exists is the fact that Socrates, Diogenes, and Antisthenes and their followers made moral progress. And for the existence of vice as a fundamental fact the proof is that it is the opposite of virtue. That it, virtue, can be taught is laid down by Chrysippus in the first book of his work On the End, by Cleanthes, by Posidonius in his Protreptica, and by Hecato; that it can be taught is clear from the case of bad men becoming good.
Panaetius, however, divides virtue into two kinds, theoretical and practical; others make a threefold division of it into logical, physical, and ethical; while by the school of Posidonius four types are recognized, and more than four by Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Antipater, and their followers. Apollophanes One of the older Stoics; cf. Frag. Vet. Stoic. i. 90.
for his part counts but one, namely, practical wisdom.
Amongst the virtues some are primary, some are subordinate to these. The following are the primary: wisdom, courage, justice, temperance. Particular virtues are magnanimity, continence, endurance, presence of mind, good counsel. And wisdom they define as the knowledge of things good and evil and of what is neither good nor evil; courage It is obviously not courage which is here defined, but apparently wisdom over again.
Hence I have marked a lacuna. as knowledge of what we ought to choose, what we ought to beware of, and what is indifferent; justice...; magnanimity as the knowledge or habit of mind which makes one superior to anything that happens, whether good or evil equally; continence as a disposition never overcome in that which concerns right reason, or a habit which no pleasures can get the better of; endurance as a knowledge or habit which suggests what we are to hold fast to, what not, and what is indifferent; presence of mind as a habit prompt to find out what is meet to be done at any moment; good counsel as knowledge by which we see what to do and how to do it if we would consult our own interests.
Similarly, of vices some are primary, others subordinate: e.g. folly, cowardice, injustice, profligacy are accounted primary; but incontinence, stupidity, ill-advisedness subordinate. Further, they hold that the vices are forms of ignorance of those things whereof the corresponding virtues are the knowledge.
Good in general is that from which some advantage comes, and more particularly what is either identical with or not distinct from benefit. Whence it follows that virtue itself and whatever partakes of virtue is called good in these three senses--viz. as being (1) the source from which benefit results; or (2) that in respect of which benefit results, e.g. the virtuous act; or (3) that by the agency of which benefit results, e.g. the good man who partakes in virtue.
Another particular definition of good which they give is "the natural perfection of a rational being qua rational." To this answers virtue and, as being partakers in virtue, virtuous acts and good men; as also its supervening accessories, joy and gladness and the like.
So with evils: either they are vices, folly, cowardice, injustice, and the like; or things which partake of vice, including vicious acts and wicked persons as well as their accompaniments, despair, moroseness, and the like.
Again, some goods are goods of the mind and others external, while some are neither mental nor external. The former include the virtues and virtuous acts; external goods are such as having a good country or a good friend, and the prosperity of such. Whereas to be good and happy oneself is