Talk:Chrysippus

Chrysippus has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 8, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Philosophy: Philosophers / Logic / Ancient Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Logic
	Ancient philosophy

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

When Donkeys Eat Fig

I don't get it: What's so funny about a "donkey eating figs"? 58.147.24.83 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but my guess would be that it was their "when pigs fly" sort of remark.But I'm not sure what would be funny about that.Stoa 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a donkey eat figs. Maybe it's the execution of the act that was funny rather than the act itself. Maybe when a donkey does eat figs they look really stupid or do it with a comedic flair:)--T. Anthony 07:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I can say about the subject (Scroll down to the "play"):

http://www.ubersite.com/m/83798

Stoa 00:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation needed

The mention of the cone question under "mathematics" is cryptic. Can someone add the missing bits, please? Soler97 (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inference rules

The sentence "Of the four inference rules only two survived" is inaccurate. It is true that the two most commonly used (or taught) inference rules are modus ponens and modus tollens. But the other three rules are valid with suitable qualifications. The most important qualification is the distinction between inclusive and exclusive OR. The Stoic logicians discussed that distinction and correctly stated rules of inference that are valid for one or the other. In particular, the rule "Either A or B. But A. Therefore not B" is valid only for exclusive OR. The table in the article should make that point. I don't have time to rewrite the article, but I suggest that somebody should do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.50.60 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write it but the line you flagged up references Susanne Bobzien's Ancient Logic article: [1]. She is writing about the "four inference rules, called themata", and says that "of the four themata, only the first and third are extant", and she also discusses how the two lost themata can be reconstructed. Clearly the five argument forms have all survived, but I don't quite see why the statement "of the four inference rules only two survived" is inaccurate. Do you know of another reliable source which says otherwise? Pasicles (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if 173.68.50.60 confuses Stoic indemonstrables (which include correlates to modus ponens and modus tollens) with Stoic themata (which include correlates to cut and antilogism). As far as I know, there is no dispute in the literature on Stoic logic on the point that only two of the four themata or inference rules survived, and that the Stoics did not consider the indemonstrables themselves as inference rules. --Flosfa (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ekpyrosis and palingenesis

Re this edit: The relevant paragraph ("No individual soul can, however, survive beyond the [[ekpyrosis|periodic conflagration]], when the universe is [[palingenesis|renewed]].<ref name="sharples67"/>") has to be rewritten to reflect what other primary and secondary sources say about ekpyrosis (<ref>Plutarch, ''De Stoicorum repugnantiis'' [http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/Plutarque/stoiciensgr.htm 1053b] — see [[Michael Lapidge]], 'Stoic Cosmology,' in: John M. Rist (ed.), ''The Stoics,'' Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 183.</ref>) and palingenesis (<ref>The concept is attributed to Chrysippus by [[Lactantius]] — see Harry Austryn Wolfson (1961), "Immortality and Resurrection in the Philosophy of the Church Fathers", in: Everett Ferguson (ed.), ''Doctrines of Human Nature, Sin, and Salvation in the Early Church'', Taylor & Francis, 1993, p. 329.</ref>) and their attribution to Chrysippus. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenician ?

The cited source doesnt say Chrysippus was of phoenician descent, it says he, along with Zeno of citium, was an icon of phoenician philosophy. Which 1) doesn't necessarily mean he was phoenician by extraction and 2) is such a bold thing to say, it is known that he was culturally Greek, and part of hellenisitic civilization. The author doesn't even cite the original source from which he conculded that he was an icon of phoenician philosophy. The phoenician left very little literature or poetry behind them. I find it very strange to call Chrysippus part of a phoenician philosophy. For example Zeno of citium, although he might have been of of phoenician descent, is know to have been part of hellenistic civilization. His native language was Greek and was educated in Greek schools, just like Chrysippus.

Thetefore, adding that he was phoenician in this case is an original research

Moreover, is there any other source that mentions this ? Cuz it seems to be tbe only one. If there is a dispute between scholars about his ethnicity, then it should be explained in the article. But i find simply adding "of phoenician descent is quite unprofessional" Whatsupkarren (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]