Abstract

This article discusses the theory of confatalia developed by Chrysippus in response to the Lazy argument. After revealing its fallacy, we analyse the distinction used to respond to it (Cicero, Fat. 30). On the one hand, res simplices, which correctly describes the inevitability of fate, on the other, res copulatae, which assume a relationship of dependence between a result and a confatal action. Making Stoic fatalism more robust, the confatalia were part of the moral issues of the second book of Chrysippus’ On Fate. It is from this perspective that we examine the nature of the confatal relationship, concluding that it is not the effect of any law of fate that would make it necessary.