, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 3–33 | Cite as

Stoic pantheism

  • Dirk BaltzlyEmail author


This essay argues the Stoics are rightly regarded as pantheists. Their view differs from many forms of pantheism by accepting the notion of a personal god who exercises divine providence. Moreover, Stoic pantheism is utterly inimical to a deep ecology ethic. I argue that these features are nonetheless consistent with the claim that they are pantheists. The essay also considers the arguments offered by the Stoics. They thought that their pantheistic conclusion was an extension of the best science of their day. Some of their most interesting arguments are thusa posteriori


Argument Strategy Hellenistic Period Divine Providence Ontological Thesis Entire Cosmos 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Works Cited

  1. Algra, K. (1999).The Cambridge history of Hellenistic philosophy. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Annas, J. (1992).Hellenistic philosophy of mind. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Castelo, C. V. (1996). “Reflections on Stoic logocentrism”.Environmental Ethics 18: 291–6.Google Scholar
  4. Cheney, J. (1989). “The Neo-Stoicism of Radical Environmentalism”.Environmental Ethics 11: 113–25.Google Scholar
  5. Dragona Monachou, M. (1972).The Stoic arguments for the existence and providence of the gods. Athens, National and Capodistrain University of Athens.Google Scholar
  6. Forrest, P. (1996).God without the Supernatural: A Defence of Scientific Theism. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Forrest, P. (1997). “Pantheism and Science.”Monist 80(2): 307–319.Google Scholar
  8. Freudenthal, G. (1995).Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance: heat and pneuma, form and soul. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hadot, P. (1998).The Inner Citadel: the mediatations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge Mass. and London, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hahm, D. (1977).The Origins of Stoic Cosmology. Columbus, Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Holland, A. (1997). Fortitude and Tragedy: the prospects for a Stoic environmentalism.The Greeks and the Environment L. Westra and T. Robinson (eds.). New York, Rowman and Littlefield: 151–66.Google Scholar
  12. Levine, M. (1994a).Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Diety. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Levine, M. P. (1994b). “Pantheism, Ethics and Ecology.”Environmental Values 3(2): 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd, A. C. (1976). “The Principle That the Cause Is Greater Than Its Effect.”Phronesis 21: 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Long, A. A. (1985). “The Stoics on World-Conflagration and Everlasting Recurrence.”Southern Journal of Philosophy SUPP 23: 13–37.Google Scholar
  16. Long, A. A. and D. N. Sedley (1987).The Hellenistic philosophers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. MacIntyre, A. (1967). Pantheism.Encyclopedia of Philosophy. P. Edwards (ed). New York, Macmillan and Free Press. 5: 31–35.Google Scholar
  18. Nussbaum, M. C. (1978).Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium: text with translation, commentary and interpretive essays. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Oppy, G. (1997). “Pantheism, Quantification and Mereology.”Monist 80(2): 320–336.Google Scholar
  20. Reydams-Schils, G. (1999).Demiurge and Providence: Stoic and Platonist readings of Plato’s Timaeus. Turnhout, Bepols.Google Scholar
  21. Schofield, M. (1983). “The Syllogisms of Zeno of Citium”.Phronesis 28: 31–58.Google Scholar
  22. Sedley D. N. (1982). “The Stoic Criterion of Identity”.Phronesis 27: 255–74.Google Scholar
  23. Sorabji, R. (1988).Matter, Space and Motion: theories in antiquity and their sequel. London, Duckworth.Google Scholar
  24. Stevens, W. (1994). “Stoic Naturalism, Rationalism and Ecology”.Environmental Ethics 16: 275–86.Google Scholar
  25. Von Staden, H. (2000). ‘Body, Soul, and Nerves: Epicurus, Herophilus, Erasistratus, the Stoics, and Galen’, inPsyche and Soma: Physicians and Metaphysicians on the Mind Body Problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment. J. P. Wright (ed). Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer SBM B.V. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Philosophy and BioethicsMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations