English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

espanolEn la primera parte del presente articulo examino las categorias logico-epistemologicas con las que Ciceron analiza el problema del determinismo, en particular al hilo de la distincion entre necesidad causal y logico-epistemologica. En este contexto es fundamental el problema de la adivinacion, esto es, la posibilidad de proferir enunciados verdaderos referidos al futuro, lo cual sugiere —como intento argumentar en la segunda parte— que, aunque sumamente tecnica, la discusion de fondo no es logico-epistemologica, ya que esta en juego un problema religioso, esto es, politico-religioso. Siguiendo a Carneades, Ciceron critica de forma directa la epistemologia estoica (en particular en la version de Crisipo), pero porque indirectamente, y al margen del filosofo esceptico, desear superar las implicaciones teologicas de la concepcion estoica del destino, lo cual, a su vez, es fundamental en su proyecto politico de reconstruccion de la res publica: logica, religion y politica se dan la mano. EnglishIn the first part of this paper, I analyze the logical-epistemological categories that Cicero uses to address the problem of determinism, and in particular, the distinction between causal and logical-epistemological necessity. In this context, the problem of divination, that is, the ability to utter true statements about the future, is fundamental for Cicero, which suggests —as I argue in the second part of this paper— that Cicierou0027s substantive argument, albeit highly technical, in essence is not logical-epistemological, since what is fundamentally at issue is a religious, or political-religious, problem. Following Carneades, Cicero directly criticizes Stoic epistemology (in particular Chrysippus’s version), but he does so because, indirectly, and independent of the skeptical philosopher, Cicero wants to overcome the theological implications of the Stoic concept of fate, which, in turn, is central to his political project for the reconstruction of the res publica: logic, religion and politics thus go hand in hand.

Determinismo, fatalismo, necesidad: Cicerón contra los estoicos