ABSTRACT
In this chapter, I argue that the early Stoics did not have a single and unified doctrine of causation. Instead, they developed a variety of proposals with family resemblance. Although these proposals may share their basic tenets and often build on each other’s arguments, there is no need to assume, in addition, that the Stoics were engaged in adversarial partisan apologetics and the construction of a single genuine Stoic system. The surviving evidence allows us to distinguish, at least, three main moments in the early Stoic discussion of causation. These stages are not necessarily coherent and consistent with each other.
My analysis will offer three main outcomes. First, it will uncover how closely Zeno engaged with Plato’s discussion of causes and how later Stoics became more independent from the Platonic tradition. Second, it will also become easier to differentiate Chrysippus’ contribution from previous and later developments. Finally, my analysis will help to clarify how the Stoics establish the number of relata they attribute to the causal relation and how their theories understand and assign moral responsibility.
