<!DOCTYPE html><HTML lang="en"> <head><meta charset="utf-8"> <title>Bowin (John) - Chrysippus' Puzzle About Identity (Theo Todman's Book Collection - Paper Abstracts) </title> <link href="../../TheosStyle.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../../TT_ICO.png" /></head> <BODY> <CENTER> <div id="header"><HR><h1>Theo Todman's Web Page - Paper Abstracts</h1><HR></div><A name="Top"></A> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_21/PaperSummary_21929.htm">Chrysippus' Puzzle About Identity</A></th></tr> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../Authors/B/Author_Bowin (John).htm">Bowin (John)</a></th></tr> <tr><th>Source: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 24: 239-251 (2003)</th></tr> <tr><th>Paper - Abstract</th></tr> </TABLE> </CENTER> <P><CENTER><TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=600><tr><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_21/PaperSummary_21929.htm">Paper Summary</A></td><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_21/PapersToNotes_21929.htm">Notes Citing this Paper</A></td><td><A HREF="#ColourConventions">Text Colour-Conventions</a></td></tr></TABLE></CENTER></P> <hr><P><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><u>Author s Introduction</u><FONT COLOR = "800080"><ul type="disc"><li>Philo of Alexandria, in <em>De aeternitate mundi</em> 48 (SVF ii. 397), gives the following brief and notoriously cryptic account of a puzzle about personal identity created by the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus: <ol type="1"><li>Chrysippus, the most distinguished member of their school, in his work <em>On the Growing [Argument]</em>, creates a freak of the following kind. </li><li>Having first established that it is impossible for two peculiarly qualified individuals to occupy the same substance jointly, </li><li>he says:  For the sake of argument, let one individual be thought of as whole-limbed, the other as minus one foot. Let the whole-limbed one be called <a name="1"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>1</SUP>, the defective one Theon. Then let one of <a name="2"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion s</A><SUP>2</SUP> feet be amputated. </li><li>The question arises which one of them has perished, and his claim is that Theon is the stronger candidate. </li><li>These are the words of a paradox-monger rather than of a speaker of truth. For how can it be that Theon, who has had no part chopped off, has been snatched away, while <a name="3"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>3</SUP>, whose foot has been amputated, has not perished? </li><li> Necessarily , says Chrysippus.  For <a name="4"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>4</SUP>, the one whose foot has been cut off, has collapsed into the defective substance of Theon. And two peculiarly qualified individuals cannot occupy the same substrate. Therefore it is necessary that <a name="5"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>5</SUP> remains while Theon has perished. </li></ol></li><li>Perhaps the most widely accepted interpretation of this passage is that offered by <a name="15"></a>"<A HREF = "../../Abstracts/Abstract_21/Abstract_21965.htm">Sedley (David) - The Stoic criterion of identity</A>" in 1982. In this paper, I will offer an interpretation that leaves the most important features of Sedley s account intact, chief among which is his view on the basic purpose of the puzzle. Like Sedley, I take the fact that the puzzle appears in a work called <em>On the Growing Argument</em> to indicate that it is a rejoinder to, and indeed a <em>reductio ad absurdum</em> of, the Growing Argument. Where I diverge from Sedley s approach, I do so to shore it up against certain objections to which I think it is vulnerable. My chief concerns are to achieve a better fit with the text, and to ensure that since we view the puzzle as a <em>reductio ad absurdum</em>, we do not take Chrysippus to be deducing a contradiction by means of premisses extrinsic to the Growing Argument. Otherwise, Chrysippus <em>reductio ad absurdum</em> would fail in its purpose of showing that the Growing Argument is <em>internally</em> inconsistent.</li><li>I also follow Sedley on two other significant interpretative points. <ol type="1"><li>First, I agree that since, from at least Chrysippus point of view, the puzzle runs up against the principle that  two peculiarly qualified individuals cannot occupy the same substrate , we <em>must</em> suppose that we are dealing with one body at the outset and that Theon is a part of <a name="6"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>6</SUP>. </li><li>Second, the justification for <a name="7"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion s</A><SUP>7</SUP> survival that Sedley supplies on behalf of Chrysippus seems right. The amputee who is grieving over his severed foot must be <a name="8"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>8</SUP> since  Theon cannot have lost a foot that was never part of him in the first place . </li></ol></li><li>Here is a very preliminary paraphrase of how Chrysippus argument appears to run that incorporates these points. <ol type="i"><li>At the outset we have one living, anatomically complete human being named <a name="9"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>9</SUP>, a region of whose body has been named Theon  the whole body except one of its feet. </li><li>The foot just mentioned is then amputated, with the result that either <a name="10"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>10</SUP> or Theon must perish because, as Chrysippus tells us (and as Philo apparently agrees),  two peculiarly qualified individuals cannot occupy the same substrate . </li><li>A dispute arises about who should perish. </li><li>Chrysippus claims that <a name="11"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>11</SUP> should survive and Theon should perish, since it cannot be Theon who is grieving over his severed foot. </li><li>But Philo claims, on behalf of the Academics, that Theon must survive and <a name="12"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>12</SUP> perish,  for how can it be that Theon, who has had no part chopped off, has been snatched away, while <a name="13"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>13</SUP>, whose foot has been amputated, has not perished? </li></ol></li><li>I will argue in the sequel that the result favoured by Philo is congenial to what the Growing Argument would predict  that Theon should survive and <a name="14"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_8/Notes_871.htm">Dion</A><SUP>14</SUP> should perish  while the result favoured by Chrysippus is not. This, I believe, supports Sedley s claim that Chrysippus puzzle is a <em>reductio ad absurdum</em> of the Growing Argument. </li></ul></FONT><hr><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><B>Comment: </B><BR><BR>See <a name="W3701W"></a><A HREF = "http://metaphysicist.com/articles/Burke_Bowin.pdf" TARGET = "_top">Link</A>.<BR><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><HR></P><a name="ColourConventions"></a><p><b>Text Colour Conventions (see <A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1025.htm">disclaimer</a>)</b></p><OL TYPE="1"><LI><FONT COLOR = "0000FF">Blue</FONT>: Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018</li><LI><FONT COLOR = "800080">Mauve</FONT>: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); &copy; the author(s)</li></OL> <BR><HR><BR><CENTER> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <TR><TD WIDTH="30%">&copy; Theo Todman, June 2007 - August 2018.</TD> <TD WIDTH="40%">Please address any comments on this page to <A HREF="mailto:theo@theotodman.com">theo@theotodman.com</A>.</TD> <TD WIDTH="30%">File output: <time datetime="2018-08-02T09:44" pubdate>02/08/2018 09:44:23</time> <br><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1010.htm">Website Maintenance Dashboard</A></TD></TR> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="#Top">Return to Top of this Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="40%"><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1140.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="../../index.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Home Page</A></TD> </TR></TABLE></CENTER><HR> </BODY> </HTML>