Stoic Philosophy

[christianstoic]

What does everyone think about Stoic philosophy? Do you agree
with it? Do you disagree with it? Is it helpful to those who study
and practice it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What does everyone think about Stoic philosophy? Do you agree
with it? Do you disagree with it? Is it helpful to those who study
and practice it?

Hm, well, Stoic thought (the ethics) is similar to my own eudaimonist thought in some ways, and yet differs in others. I agree with its emphasis on living rationally and virtuously, and I love that they had spiritual exercises that they would practice to cultivate their trademark Stoic attitudes.

I personally place more emphasis on personal growth than they do. They seem to think that one could find eudaimonia even as a slave, and I find that very difficult to believe, even despite Epictetus's noteworthy survival of that condition. I don't see anything wrong with the view that we may need at least some external values (at least political freedom) in order to self-actualize and flourish.

I get the impression from some of their spiritual exercises that they try to view the world from the vantagepoint of "pure fact" in order to dispell their value judgments. They do this out of the view that we react to our perceptions (or valuation) of things, not to the things themselves. While this may be a valid insight, I view values as a species of fact, and so I would prefer to practice a proper view of values rather than no view as a corrective to whatever misapprehensions I have.

I imagine that Stoicism is helpful to those who practice it, though I wonder if it is most helpful to certain individuals with certain problems and certain personality types. It's difficult to say if everyone is helped equally.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[coberst]

Stoicism
"Only the educated are free." -- Epictetus
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/latergreeks.html

I would modify that quote to read “Only those who have developed an intellectual life are free.” One can develop an intellectual life only by becoming a self-actualizing self-learner.

 

[TranscendHumanity]

Stoicism have good element. Epicurus better.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Stoicism have good element. Epicurus better.

Epicurean philosophy does have good elements. Even the Stoic philosopher Seneca would praise the Epicureans for some of their ideas.

In what ways is Epicureanism better than Stoicism, in your view?



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TranscendHumanity]

Epicurean philosophy does have good elements. Even the Stoic philosopher Seneca would praise the Epicureans for some of their ideas.

In what ways is Epicureanism better than Stoicism, in your view?

Stoic is good, but being all inward. Does not consider society relationship. In many way Epicurus early market anarchist. This is why I am like it better.

 

[The Valkyrie]

What does everyone think about Stoic philosophy? Do you agree
with it? Do you disagree with it? Is it helpful to those who study
and practice it?

It was certainly a noble and benevolent philosophy to arise at the time. In a world that, being so long ago, might seem foreign to us today, Stoicism feels very modern and close.

One thing that struck me when I first learned about it was the similarities it has with Buddhism. Founded not so long apart but so far apart, it's surprising how they fit together. They both teach a removal of desire and a focusing on the moment.

It's not particularly something that I agree or disagree with, as it doesn't really make many objective claims. Well it does make some objective claims, but they can generally be loosely interpreted to be reasonable even with the rise of modern understanding. It's more of a way of life, and a way to view the universe. It's likely beneficial to some people that practice it.

I can't say that I find Stoicism to be to enthralling or a good fit for me personally. It doesn't seem to offer much.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Stoic is good, but being all inward. Does not consider society relationship. In many way Epicurus early market anarchist. This is why I am like it better.

I can understand that. The Epicureans had some early form of social contract theory. They also tended to withdraw into their own small communities instead of getting involved in politics.(*) I can understand how market anarchists would like that. I have some sympathies towards market anarchism, so I can relate to that view. Utimately, though, I cannot accept Epicureanism for its hedonistic ethical premises.

Contrary to what you have written, Stoicism did have ideas about politics and one's relationship to society. It isn't true that they were all about being inward. They sought to have a civil order that mirrors the order of the cosmos. I'm not certain what they imagined such a society to be like, but I have found this passage from an article online:

"In politics, as in ethics, freedom was a major value for the Stoics. They especially valued freedom in the sense of doing and saying what you think should be done and said (parrhesia, freedom of speech in the sense of outspokenness); under a tyranny, the only people free in this sense are those prepared to die - under any social arrangements, the free in this sense are those who are prepared to fail. But the Stoics also valued other sorts of political freedom; they supported monarchy, but not tyranny. Outward freedom is 'to be preferred', but is not essential to the good life. External enslavement cannot destroy the freedom everyone has to give or withhold assent and to live in accordance with reason. Whereas the good life as Aristotle conceived of it could be lived only by someone with freedom and leisure, not by slaves, artisans, women, barbarians, the Stoics taught that anyone can live the good life now, wherever he or she may be, and can continue living it no matter where - on the rack, in the bull of Phalaris."

Aristotle to Augustine

Given that political freedom was merely "to be preferred" (meaning: optional, not necessary, to the good life), their support for political freedom strikes me as a bit weak.

Personally, I lean a bit more towards Aristotle's views. The good life requires the active use of the mind and some scope for personal choices. In modern days, virtually everyone (certainly including women and artisans) in first world nations has the personal freedom and the resources and leisure time needed to live the good life. I would identify political freedom as potentially necessary, not merely preferable and optional, to the good life, since it is very difficult to grow as a person in a tyrannical society where little scope may be given to live the good life. It might not be impossible to live such a life, but only because tyranny might not have completely destroyed freedom, not because it is compatible with the good life in any way. Force is the enemy of mind.(*)

I don't see a valiant attempt of an oppressed peoples to overthrow Big Brother as sufficient to say that they lived a good life. Such an attempt may be noble and good and praiseworthy, but not reflective of a complete life. Presumably, they did not risk death and torture merely because they "preferred" freedom, but fought because it was something they truly needed to live a fully human life.


eudaimonia,

Mark


(*) This kind of discussion occurs in a modern philosophical community, the Fellowship of Reason, of which I am a member. The Founder of the organization recently published an article advocating that members deprioritize politics in their lives because of the near impossibility of converting even one fully formed adult individual to their libertarian political views. He regarded an obsessive interest in politics (common nowadays) as a waste of time compared to activities in which success is far more possible, such as growing in character, enjoying art, enjoying friendship, and such. One can far more easily improve the world by improving oneself, as compared to attempting to improve others through debate. He seems to be heading in an Epicurean direction on this issue.

(*) For a more complete presentation of a view on politics similar to mine, see this dissertation. It advocates a market anarchy based on neo-Aristotelian thought and Austrian economics. While these days I favor constitutional government, I still think this is a fantastic argument.

 

[TranscendHumanity]

Very interesting writing.
What is wrong with hedonism? Epicurian certainly not being crude hedonist, and I do not see what point of life is except self that life consist of.

 

[The Valkyrie]

There is nothing wrong with hedonism in itself, it's just that such an approach is viewed as unattractive to some.

The desires of one person may seem unimportant or insignificant to someone else, and so the other way around.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Very interesting writing.
What is wrong with hedonism? Epicurian certainly not being crude hedonist, and I do not see what point of life is except self that life consist of.

You are right that Epicurus was not a crude hedonist. I'm not saying that he was. I'm also not saying that pleasure is something bad. Pleasure is a good. Notice that I said "a good", not "the good". This is an important difference philosophically.

Philosophical hedonists attempt to make pleasure (perhaps as a release from pain) as the good. I believe that pleasure is not the essence of what is good, but is merely one ingredient in a good life. Pleasure does not justify any act all by itself. I believe that the standard of human well-being cannot be pleasure, but must be some other conceptualization of well-being.

Personally, I would place the good as something closer to what contributes to "self-actualization". The good is the sort of activity that a rational and creative person does that expresses that person's talents and allows for personal growth. The good is a kind of mental health in action, but not as most psychologists mean this, though maybe as "positive psychologists" such as Abraham Maslow mean it.


eudaimionia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is nothing wrong with hedonism in itself, it's just that such an approach is viewed as unattractive to some.

I don't mean hedonism in the sense that most people mean the word. I'm not talking about "sleeping around", for instance. I agree that some people who are regarded as hedonistic by some might be living good lives.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Valkyrie]

I don't mean hedonism in the sense that most people mean the word. I'm not talking about "sleeping around", for instance. I agree that some people who are regarded as hedonistic by some might be living good lives.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, I was mostly just referring to TranscendHumanity's post, to kind of add my two cents to her question about what is wrong with hedonism.

I don' think anything is intrinsically wrong with hedonism. If pleasure is what one desires most, then so be it, they can seek it.

Epicurean's hedonism was nothing like the modern understanding of hedonism. Almost the opposite really- living very simply, avoiding most pleasures, etc. He's only a hedonist in the philosophical sense that he views pleasure, or more accurately freedom from pain or fear, as the most important thing.

People who consider themselves hedonists today typically are all about pleasure-seeking through food, drink, sex, and entertainment. I see nothing invalid about this worldview either as long as one practices a certain amount of caution and accepts consequences for what they do.

I wouldn't consider myself a hedonist, I'm just saying I see nothing intrinsically bad about the approach.

People that disagree with hedonism typically do so because they believe in higher forms of satisfaction, either through divine things or through some sort of philosophical fulfillment. People with such a view may simply find pleasure as not as important, or only partially important, or possibly even distracting.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don' think anything is intrinsically wrong with hedonism.

What would tell you that something is "intrinsically wrong" with a way of life? What is your standard for understanding whether or not a way of life is a good one?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[selenacrowden]

Yes,I agree with it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes,I agree with it.

Cool, what do you agree with?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Valkyrie]

What would tell you that something is "intrinsically wrong" with a way of life? What is your standard for understanding whether or not a way of life is a good one?


eudaimonia,

Mark

The only thing I can think of that would make a way of live intrinsically wrong is if it is based on objectively incorrect information.

If it's a subjective philosophy, like stating what things are worth pursuing, then it can't really be intrinsically wrong.

 

[nolongerhome]

My major problem with stoicism is that it seems to lead to an acceptance of the problems in our world as something that should be tolerated, rather than the drive to do what we can to change those problems.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My major problem with stoicism is that it seems to lead to an acceptance of the problems in our world as something that should be tolerated, rather than the drive to do what we can to change those problems.

That seems to be a common view people have of philosophies that promote "acceptance" of the way things are. I'm not sure it's really a fair objection, though.

At least, Buddhists I have spoken with say that their practice of loving kindness is trying to reduce suffering in the world. What is this if not trying to change the world?

And the Stoics were politically active, and presented radical ideas to common people in an attempts to change their minds and the world. For instance, I think it was the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus who took reponsibility for a criminal, taught him Stoicism, and reformed him. This was a very radical idea back then! He showed the reformed criminal to the people, saying that isn't it better to reform a criminal rather than merely to punish or kill him?

But I don't want to suggest that your point is totally in error. Maybe there is something about pursuing inner peace that might lead one away from radical efforts to change the world. Perhaps there should be a greater tolerance of struggle, and maybe even an appreciation for this as part of a full life.

This is actually my view. I see life not as a quest for tranquility-at-any-price, but as a heroic adventure. Life is about meeting challenges, and accomplishing worthwhile missions in life.

Sure, it valuable to reduce inner-conflict so that one may live with grace, wholeness, and complete commitment to one's trek through life. But this effort to achieve inner peace should be seen as more of a means than an end. It is done to make one's pursuit and creation of values easier and more successful. It is not merely about reducing suffering, or some such thing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The only thing I can think of that would make a way of live intrinsically wrong is if it is based on objectively incorrect information.

If it's a subjective philosophy, like stating what things are worth pursuing, then it can't really be intrinsically wrong.

Ah, I see. Okay, I just wanted to know where you were coming from.

IMV, stating what things are worth pursuing can be objectively correct or incorrect. Some things really are worth pursuing, or not worth pursuing, based on objective facts about oneself and one's life context. (Even given the difficulties in making some ethical judgments, I'm pretty sure that Adolf Hitler pursued some objectively dubious goals.) So "subjective" philosophies, IMV, can actually be in error.

I realize that subjectivism is very popular these days. I blame David Hume.


eudaimonia,

Mark