Passions and Perceptions: Studies in Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind (review)

BOOK REVIEWS ~65 Jacques Brunschwig and Martha C. Nussbaum, editors. Passions and Perceptions: Studies m Hellenistic Philosophy ofMind. Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium Hellenisticum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pp. xii + 364 . Cloth, $69.95. This volume is the fifth in a series containing papers delivered at periodic international conferences on Hellenistic philosophy. The other four are: Doubt and Dogmatism (198o), Science and Scepticism (198~), The Norms ofNature (1986), and Matter and Metaphys- /cs 0988). The present volume largely continues the tradition of concentrating on Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Scepticism, to the exclusion of other philosophical traditions in the post-Aristotelian period. The eleven contributors and papers in this work are: Gisela Striker, "Epicurean Hedonism"; Andr~ Laks, "Annic(~ris eties plaisirs psychiques: quelques pr(~alables doxographiques"; Julia Annas, "Epicurus on Agency"; David Furley, "Democritus and Epicurus on Sensible Qualities"; Martha C. Nussbaum, "Poetry and the Passions: Two Stoic Views"; Brad Inwood, "Seneca and Psychological Dualism"; James Hankinson, "Actions and Passions: Affection, Emotion, and Moral Self-Management in Galen's Philosophical Psychology"; Jean-Louis Labarri~re, "De la 'nature phantastique' des animaux chez les Stoiciens"; Carlos L~vy, "Le concept de doxa des Sto'fciens ~ Philon d'Alexandrie: essai d'~tude diachronique"; Phillip Mitsis, "Seneca on Reason, Rules, and Moral Development"; David Sedley, "Chrysippus on Psychophysical Causality." All of the papers are revised versions of those that were actually given at the conference, taking into account comments and objections raised at the time. The benefit of this approach is obvious, but one does thereby forego the quite distinct benefit of reading the record of lively interchanges among scholars. Anyone who is familiar with the questions and answers included in the volumes of conference proceedings from Fondation Hardt will appreciate this. The papers are rather loosely connected in theme. They deal with the Platonic and Peripatetic legacy in the philosophy of mind, especially problems in understanding action, emotions, and rationality. One might summarize the problem for Hellenistic philosophy in this way: how to give a coherent account of mental and moral phenomena within the broadly materialistic framework that Stoics and Epicureans share. Furley's paper seems curiously out of place in this regard. I found the papers on Stoic topics generally mor~ philosophically stimulating than those on Epicurus. The roster of contributors includes many of the leading scholars in this field. Accordingly, it is no surprise that these papers are generally of a high order of sophistication and originality. For that reason many of the papers may not be fully appreciated by readers not very familiar with the texts discussed and the relevant background. In Hellenistic philosophy that is far from an insignificant requirement. The papers by Laks and Hankinson stand out for their illuminating treatment of figures who are at the periphery of Hellenistic philosophical scholarship. Anniceris was a member of the Cyrenaic school whose hedonism both anticipated that of Epicurus and differed from it in certain important respects, particularly on the question of whether pleasure is the absence of pain. Laks's careful study of the evidence regarding developments within the Cyrenaic school, developments which reflect a critical under- 166 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 33:1 JANUARY 199 5 standing of Aristotle as well as Epicurus, is enormously helpful. Hankinson's masterful study of Galen's anti-Stoic moral psychology shows that the great doctor's syncretism is not to be confused with lack of originality or insight. One cannot read such a paper on Galen without lamenting anew the loss of his philosophical writings. The paper by Sedley is highly original and provocative. It is well known that the Old Stoa both revered Socrates and rejected, among other doctrines, the Platonic account of the soul. Sedley argues that when the Stoics materialized the rational Platonic soul they then proceeded to integrate it into an account of causality that draws heavily on arguments in the Phaedoand Timaeus.The evidence for the postulated historical connection is slim. Nevertheless, it is highly instructive thus to separate issues in the theory of causality from the quite different issue of materialism versus immaterialism. The importance of Socrates to the Old Stoa is evident in their monistic psychology. The dissatisfaction of the Middle Stoa...