Talk:Chrysippus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
October 8, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

When Donkeys Eat Fig[edit]

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

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)

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)


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)

Explanation needed[edit]

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)

Inference rules[edit]

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)

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)
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)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chrysippus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FormerIP (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Criteria[edit]

A good article is— </noinclude>

  1. Well written:
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    • Bibliographic details appear to be missing for classical writers including Diogenes Laertius, Cicero, Plutarch, Clement of Alexandria, Sextus Empiricus and Eusebius. Even though the texts are likely to be easy to find, full bibliographic details are needed for WP:V.
    (b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Ekpyrosis and palingenesis[edit]

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)