Asentimiento y “lo que depende de nosotros”: dos argumentos compatibilistas en el estoicismo antiguo
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2008
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Abstract
Description
El objetivo de este artículo es analizar dos argumentos estoicos (uno de ellos transmitido por Cicerón y Aulo Gelio, el otro por Nemesio y Alejandro) que han sido frecuentemente interpretados como una defensa del compatibilismo. Presentaremos una interpretación alternativa de ambos argumentos, concentrándonos en el horizonte naturalista ofrecido por la metafísica y la ética del estoicismo antiguo. El análisis se articulará sobre el concepto de “asentimiento” y sobre la distinción entre aquello que “depende de nosotros” y aquello que no.
The aim of the present paper is to analyse two stoic arguments (one of them pre-served by Cicero and Aulus Gellius, the other by Nemesius and Alexander) frequently interpreted as a defense of compatibilism. We shall present an alternative interpretation of both arguments, focusing on the naturalistic context provided by early Stoic metaphysics and ethics. The two notions we will mainly deal with will be the concept of “assent” and the distinction between that which “depends on us” and that which doesn’t.
The aim of the present paper is to analyse two stoic arguments (one of them pre-served by Cicero and Aulus Gellius, the other by Nemesius and Alexander) frequently interpreted as a defense of compatibilism. We shall present an alternative interpretation of both arguments, focusing on the naturalistic context provided by early Stoic metaphysics and ethics. The two notions we will mainly deal with will be the concept of “assent” and the distinction between that which “depends on us” and that which doesn’t.
Keywords
Estoicismo, Determinismo, Asentimiento, Compatibilismo, Naturalismo, Stoicism, Determinism