The aim and composition of Plutarch's de Stoicorum repugnantiis
The purpose of this thesis is largely to consider the de Stoicorum repugnantiis in sympathetic terms as part of Plutarch's wider philosophical output. It argues that Plutarch's approach in the work could not be that of a negative Sceptic, since Plutarch held his own positive beliefs (a form of Platonism) and, although he draws heavily on the arguments of the Sceptical Academy, he saw Scepticism itself as a positive tool. Section II of the thesis traces the history of the polemical motif of self-contradiction, which turns out to be based on a specific argument used by the Academy against Stoic ethics. Plutarch adopts this argument as it stands and uses it extensively; but he also identifies the Stoic inconsistencies he uncovers as symptomatic of the Stoics' doctrinal diversion from Plato, and on this basis he sets out to show that when the Stoics diverge from Plato in any area of doctrine (logical or physical as well as ethical) they likewise fall into self-contradiction. If it is right to think that Plutarch has not chosen his arguments randomly, it becomes increasingly unlikely that he has presented them randomly. So section III considers the idea that Plutarch might have organised his arguments following
Boys-Stones, George
Stoicism
The aim and composition of Plutarch's de Stoicorum repugnantiis. The purpose of this thesis is largely to consider the de Stoicorum repugnantiis in sympathetic terms as part of Plutarch's wider philosophical output. It argues that Plutarch's approach in the work could not be that of a negative Sceptic, since Plutarch held his own positive beliefs (a form of Platonism) and, although he draws heavily on the arguments of the Sceptical Academy, he saw Scepticism itself as a positive tool. Section II of the thesis traces the history of the polemical motif of self-contradiction, which turns out to be based on a specific argument used by the Academy against Stoic ethics. Plutarch adopts this argument as it stands and uses it extensively; but he also identifies the Stoic inconsistencies he uncovers as symptomatic of the Stoics' doctrinal diversion from Plato, and on this basis he sets out to show that when the Stoics diverge from Plato in any area of doctrine (logical or physical as well as ethical) they likewise fall into self-contradiction. If it is right to think that Plutarch has not chosen his arguments randomly, it becomes increasingly unlikely that he has presented them randomly. So section III considers the idea that Plutarch might have organised his arguments following
aim composition plutarch purpose largely consider sympathetic term part plutarch wider philosophical output argues plutarch work could negative sceptic since plutarch hold positive belief form platonism although draws heavily argument sceptical academy saw scepticism positive tool section_ii trace_history polemical motif self contradiction turn base specific argument use academy stoic ethic plutarch adopt argument stand use_extensively also_identify stoic inconsistency uncovers symptomatic stoics doctrinal plato basis set show stoics diverge plato area doctrine logical physical well ethical likewise fall self contradiction right think plutarch choose argument randomly become_increasingly unlikely present randomly section iii consider idea plutarch might organise argument follow