Abstract

Martha Nussbaum has proposed an influential interpretation of the stoic theory of the passions, which will be challenged in this article. According to Nussbaum, the Stoics view the passions as judgments, rather than as intentional states caused by previous judgments. It will be argued that Nussbaum does not distinguish the passion, which is in fact an impulse of thehegemonikon, and the judgment that causes it. Such a distinction, however, is crucial to the Stoics, as it allows them to present the passion as an intentional movement having evaluative, kinetic and affective properties, while at the same time analysing the judgment that causes it. It will also be argued that Nussbaum fails to mention the existence of a first quasi-impulse, prior to the passion, which Chrysippus, Cicero and Seneca took into account in their therapy of the passions.