Perhaps I should point out that Stoicism was the dominant Greek philosophy from shortly after Aristotle's death until the time of Plotinus. Aristotle's Categories were almost totally ignored until Plotinus wrote about them. It was Porphyry, however, (a follower of Plotinus) who breathed new life into them.

Thus the historical importance of the Stoic Categories.

The peculiar nature of the Stoic Categories comes from the fact that they conceived of everything as a body. Thus they rejected Aristotle's idea of the primacy of substance... he said that only substance exists primarily. Everything else exists as modifications of substance. These modifications are non-corporeal beings.

To consider the problem of explaining the category of place as a modification of substance... if Socrates is in Athens, then 'in Athens' is, according to Aristotle, ***in*** Socrates as a modification of his substance. But if 'in Athens' is in Socrates --- who is in turn in Athens --- one might think that there would be a non-corporeal Socrates in the 'in Athens' in Socrates. Thus it might seem that Aristotle's scheme leads to a vicious circle.

To avoid this and other problems they rejected such non-corporeal being.

To the Stoics therefore, even the gods of Greek mythology were bodies.

It is easy to understand substance as a body. How did they understand qualities as bodies?

They ancients believed that there were four elements: earth, water, fire and air. Substances were mixtures of the four elements. Qualities were understood to result from the proportions and harmonies of the four elements. Many of these qualities were thought to be specific airs within substance.

It is one thing to explain color or temperature in terms of the mixture of the four elements. It is quite another to explain posture, or shape, or location in such terms. Thus, the Stoic philosophers developed the remaining categories.

According to Stephen Menn the first two categories, substance and quality, were recognized by Zeno. The third category, 'somehow disposed' is first seen in Chrysippus. The fourth category, 'somehow disposed in relation to something' seems to have been developed by the time of Aristo.

'Somehow disposed' describes the way bodies are formed in themselves. 'Somehow disposed in relation to something' describes how bodies are related to each other.

dear bill, you are saying that the ancients believed that there were four elements. was that espoused by everybody? i thought that was just one of the views that were around at the time, not necessarily the dominant one (if there was such a view as 'the dominant view'). can you tell us a bit more on what you base this assertion?

ven, are you learning german? there's a lot of german intersperced among the english in your post, first time i've noticed that

HS: "dear bill, you are saying that the ancients believed that there were four elements. was that espoused by everybody? i thought that was just one of the views that were around at the time, not necessarily the dominant one (if there was such a view as 'the dominant view'). can you tell us a bit more on what you base this assertion?"

'Everybody' is a bit of a stretch. There were multiple theories among the Greeks. But the opinion of Timaeus (as stated in Plato's dialogue by that name) was that there were five elements --- four earthly elements and a fifth, heavenly element. The belief may go back to Sanskrit as Ven Shrikanth indicated.

Aristotle accepted that belief, though he justified it differently. Aristotle made a very strict division between the earthly elements, qualified by touch --- and the heavenly element, which is untouchable. The former were distinguished one from another by a double bifurcation --- warm or cold --- wet or dry.

Earth --- cold and dry

Water --- cold and wet

Fire --- hot and dry

Air --- hot and wet

Already in the four earthly elements one can see how the tangible qualities of substances might be derived from the proportions of the four. The Stoics seem to have placed more emphasis on Pneuma (air) as the origin of the more subtle qualities, such as color and taste... Chrysippus said that Pneuma, is the element that guides growth and creates motion.

But one should not forget the Chinese view... they had five elements, but they were quite different: Fire, Earth, Water, Metal and Wood.

VS: :hi haris

yes i have moved to germany know for a while so trying really hard to blend in , as you know i am a auslander know !!!

ok about the topic bill the fifth element is not 'heavnly' it is "space" yes the empty space"

I hope you enjoy your travels.

The Indian interpretation of the fifth element is space. I was using a more Western interpretation in line with Aristotle.

It is tempting to say that the Western ideas were simply derived from the Indian ones. But I don't know of any historical evidence to that effect.

The Western idea of the four elements seems to date back to Empedocles. The fifth element or Quintessence seems to have been added by the time of Plato who recorded it in the Timaeus Dialogue. In the Timaeus and in Aristotle's writings the fifth element is that from which the heavens are composed.

The dividing point between the two is the moon. Below the moon are the four Sublunary elements. All above is composed of the fifth element.

Maybe I'm a cynic but didn't the stoics believe in what one does is what one is, so they needed a 'what one does' model hence the need for a fifth element, that which gave an 'overthisworld' presence in the now ie over the moon. I think the science of the 4 elements remained the same. It's link with contemporary religiosity is uncertain.

MW: "Maybe I'm a cynic but didn't the stoics believe in what one does is what one is, so they needed a 'what one does' model hence the need for a fifth element, that which gave an 'overthisworld' presence in the now ie over the moon. I think the science of the 4 elements remained the same. It's link with contemporary religiosity is uncertain."

So far as I know the Stoic religion was essentially just the prevailing mythology, Greek, Roman or whatever. Their interest was more ethical than religious.

The Stoic Categories, on the other hand, are a metaphysical construct. As such, it is unclear that there was any link to religion --- other than their rejection of non-corporeal being... thus their gods were seen as being mere bodies --- immortal bodies to be sure, but still just bodies. One might suppose those bodies to be composed of the Quintessence, but I know of no particular statement to that effect.

There are definite links between the classical elements and some Hindu sects... the five lower 'chakras' are sometimes associated with their elements in order: Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Space. The Taoists, on the other hand, use the Chinese elements in their writings: Fire, Earth, Water, Metal and Wood.

There are no links between Orthodox Christianity and the classical elements. One might, however, find many links between gnostic 'christianity' and the classical elements. I doubt that there are any links between Orthodox Judaism and the elements; but Kabbalah may be a different matter. I think there may be links between Islam and the classical elements --- at least as Islam is practiced... for Ayurveda is widely accepted by Muslims.

My personal interest in the Stoic Categories and the classical elements is purely limited to its historic significance in philosophy. Originally I was just curious about a possible linkage to Peirce's categories... quality might correspond to Firstness; somehow disposed in relation to something, to Secondness; somehow disposed, to Thirdness. Having looked more deeply, however, I see no real similarity. The Stoic Categories derive from their rejection of non-corporeal being, plain and simple. I see nothing similar in Peirce --- nor can I see any reason to equate somehow disposed to Thirdness.

But who am I to say?

#H1-214. Ref Thread Stoic Categories. Bill, this is a question not of SC, but any way on the variety/diversity of categories. I saw in SEP on the "Contemporary Category Systems". One thing that attracted my interest was "state of affairs" as a category by Ingvar Johansson(1989), and he includes,among others, "spontaenity" too.

Esp regarding "state of affairs"; was that e'state in German? I used say "others" in English; it was one of the six "like categories" I was classifying during my college days [what i knew. they comprised "same oR" = time,space,matter,energy,e'state in German (all others like all happenings), resonance (the combinations, i forgot more on this).

There is such a variety of categories. Your six. My prejudices. I am interested in the multigenetic thought paths. After my retirement from bank job in a decade!

Of course, if now i take paper and pen, it will take one hour to sketch the paths of the various thoughts; but no unpreoccupied mind; the computer is diversionary from the every day worries, but a note book is too familiar to allow me escapism.