Stoic Theory of Action and Sceptical Objections Against It

Abstract

The article considers the Stoic theory of action and its critique by Sceptics. The Stoics believed that the agent is autonomous due to his ability to give the assent to a representation. The theory of action is interwoven with the theory of knowledge in the assent-giving since the assent can be given to both value-neutral and value-loaded statements. It is thus appropriate to ask whether an adequate theoretical comprehension is required for performing a morally correct action, or is a correct practical comprehension sufficient? Sceptics actively criticized all parts of Stoic philosophy and often turned to the concept of “comprehensible representation”, dialectically arguing that such a thing does not exist. Revealing the deficiencies of Stoic views (which can be applied to other dogmatic theories), sceptics pointed out epistemic and moral flaws of the seemingly immaculate Stoic sage. A possible answer of the Stoics would be to distinguish between the practical and theoretical aspects of the comprehensible representation. Using the example of the assent given to a false representation, it is suggested that an error in the theoretical assent does not necessarily imply an error in the practical assent. In reaction to the Stoics' critique, Sceptics developed not only a non-dogmatic way of argumentation but also their model of action. Moreover, Sceptics should defend themselves from the apraxia charge. The charge, in general, argues that the Sceptic cannot be active because s/he would not give the assent to any representation. However, it is argued that having the ataraxia state does not imply a plant or animal-like life or the total quietism since it leaves room open for an undogmatic action, the action which avoids truth-valued statements or the assent to a representation. The discussion had the consequence that the Stoics loosened the connection between epistemology and ethics. In contrast, Sceptics had to develop a model of sceptical action, according to which one can act and live without adherence to beliefs.