斯多葛学派及其历时同一性批判

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY

Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science Pub Date : 2018-08-02 DOI:10.1515/rhiz-2018-0002

D. Sedley

{"title":"斯多葛学派及其历时同一性批判","authors":"D. Sedley","doi":"10.1515/rhiz-2018-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article is a return to a theme I first tackled in “The Stoic criterion of identity” (1982): the Academics’ ‘Growing Argument’ (auxanomenos logos) and the Stoic response to its attack on diachronic identity. This time my aim is to separate out approximately five different stages of the debate between the two schools. This will be done by shifting more of the focus onto developments that seem likely to belong to the late second and/or early first century BC.","PeriodicalId":40571,"journal":{"name":"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science","volume":"117 1","pages":"24 - 39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stoics and Their Critics on Diachronic Identity\",\"authors\":\"D. Sedley\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/rhiz-2018-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article is a return to a theme I first tackled in “The Stoic criterion of identity” (1982): the Academics’ ‘Growing Argument’ (auxanomenos logos) and the Stoic response to its attack on diachronic identity. This time my aim is to separate out approximately five different stages of the debate between the two schools. This will be done by shifting more of the focus onto developments that seem likely to belong to the late second and/or early first century BC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science\",\"volume\":\"117 1\",\"pages\":\"24 - 39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2018-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2018-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

摘要

本文回归到我在1982年的《斯多葛学派的身份标准》(The Stoic criterion of identity)中首次讨论的主题:学术界的“日益增长的争论”(auxanomenos logos)以及斯多葛学派对其对历时性身份的攻击的回应。这一次，我的目标是将这两个学派之间辩论的大约五个不同阶段区分出来。这将通过将更多的注意力转移到似乎属于公元前二世纪末和/或公元前一世纪初的发展上来实现。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Stoics and Their Critics on Diachronic Identity

Abstract This article is a return to a theme I first tackled in “The Stoic criterion of identity” (1982): the Academics’ ‘Growing Argument’ (auxanomenos logos) and the Stoic response to its attack on diachronic identity. This time my aim is to separate out approximately five different stages of the debate between the two schools. This will be done by shifting more of the focus onto developments that seem likely to belong to the late second and/or early first century BC.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

0.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量