| My dissertation focuses on the early Stoics' conception of divinity, their thesis of providence and the theodicy they offered in response to the problem of evil. I argue for four main theses. First, I argue that the Stoics did not merely justify their view that Zeus and the other gods are benevolent by reference to a 'preconception' of them as benevolent. Rather, they argued on the basis of facts that they could agree upon with their opponents, that the designers of the world are benevolent, and that our preconception of them as such is adequate. The Stoics argue that since Zeus and the other gods have designed the world in such a way that the needs of all plants and animals are provided for within their natural environments, we may conclude that Zeus and the other gods are benevolent. My second thesis is that this argument, although considered inadequate by the Stoics' contemporaries, (as well as by Hume and others), is a perfectly good argument as long as it is understood in relation to Stoic moral theory.; My third thesis is that although the Stoics adequately characterize Zeus as benevolent, they attribute to him just three specific objectives in his design of the world, all of which are entirely self-interested. According to the Stoics, Zeus, who is identical to the world, designs the world in such a way that he ensures his immortality, maximal beauty and completeness. If Zeus did not design the world in the way that he has, according to the Stoics, he would have failed to accomplish one of these three objectives. My fourth thesis is that the Stoics' attribution of these three objectives to Zeus functions as the basis of the theodicy they offer in response to the problem of evil. The Stoics argued that there is vice and suffering in the world, because their occurrence, as is the case with everything that occurs, contributes to one or more of Zeus' three objectives. |
