Talk:Chrysippus

message: I don't get it: What's so funny about a "donkey eating figs"? 58.147.24.83 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When Donkeys Eat Fig 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: I didn't write it but the line you flagged up references Susanne Bobzien's Ancient Logic article: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Inference rules

message: Re this edit: The relevant paragraph ("No individual soul can, however, survive beyond the periodic conflagration, when the universe is renewed.") has to be rewritten to reflect what other primary and secondary sources say about ekpyrosis (Plutarch, De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1053b — see Michael Lapidge, 'Stoic Cosmology,' in: John M. Rist (ed.), The Stoics, Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 183.) and palingenesis (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.) and their attribution to Chrysippus. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ekpyrosis and palingenesis