I think it could be argued that Stoicism, like all the ancient philosophies, was developed as a response to an obvious issue. Life can be difficult. Philosophies are therapeutic. Stoicism is one proposed solution to the reality of human suffering (it does promise to be a path to Eudaimonia).

If not difficulties, then not philosophy (as a solution.) — anonymous66

d) The FACT that there is suffering to overcome is not addressed. — schopenhauer1

I believe I did cover it very well. All of philosophy exists as a therapeutic solution to suffering.

Are you also promoting the idea that less humans = a better world because it would mean less suffering?

What I hear people saying in this thread is that there is a problem. The problem is that there is a lot of suffering in the world. And it's suggested that Stoicism does or can do nothing about future suffering. The solution? Promote a lifestyle such that it will result in less humans in the future. Less humans = less suffering.. Or so the proposal goes.

It's like you're not even trying to sell a good solution. Just one that is supposedly less bad than you believe Stoicism to be.

"

As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." (Russell, p. 180). Russell, Bertrand., Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits,London: George Allen & Unwin, 1948. — Bertrand Russell

This thread is a proposing, "let's compare Pessimism and Stoicism", and suggesting that Pessimism is the better choice

It's suggested that Stoicism can't stop suffering.

It's also admitted that Pessimism can't stop suffering. But, the premise is that Pessimism is better because less humans will be around to suffer.

I do see a valid question. Can Stoicism make things better for future generations? That's worth debating. I personally think it's important to consider the well-being of future generations, but I don't agree with the premise that less humans=a better world.

Edit;
If you accept that a Stoic sage would not suffer, and that Stoicism is suggesting that we all make as our goal, to become a sage. Then, if at some point in the future, all become Stoic sages, then there would be no suffering.

Assuming we agree that the Stoic sage doesn't suffer and that the point of Stoicism is to make all humans into Stoic sages.

The problem is, I don't see Stoics going and and trying to convert anyone. Perhaps the next best world would be one in which there are many Stoic sages, and they would be living in harmony with everyone else, who have found their own path to Eudaimonia. This seems like a possibility, because there is no agreement on how to reach Eudaimonia (or even if that is a good goal).

I can also conceive of a future in which everyone eventually becomes a Stoic sage, just because everyone is attracted to the Stoic way of living one's life.

But that's just me.

Yes, I get from this thread that pessimism does propose a solution to prevent suffering from happening in the first place. I'm copying Critique #1 again for the proposed Pessimist solutions I got from this thread: — OglopTo

Okay. I hear you saying that you believe that Stoicism doesn't answer the problem of suffering, so you're proposing that Philosophical Pessimism is a competing philosophy, while admitting it doesn't solve the problem of suffering.

Is that a valid summation?

You want to know if Stoicism prevents suffering... Hmm. Good question. Are you proposing that there is some way to prevent suffering, but Stoicism isn't it?

It's kind of a loaded question, isn't it? I mean... does anyone think that suffering can be totally gotten rid of?

Perhaps the "right" answer is that the Stoic sage would not suffer. Edit: If everyone were to become a Stoic sage, then there would be no suffering. Stoicism does suggest that we all attempt to become sages.

I get the strong sense that you don't quite get that all ancient philosophies promise Eudaimonia and that Eudaimonia is not compatible with suffering. Are you being deliberately obtuse? (I think it's a fair question, all things considered).

I'd like to have a decent conversation with you, but you're going to have to give me something. What are you proposing is the nature of suffering? Are you proposing an alternate solution, or are you just content with letting everyone know that there are those who don't think that Stoicism actually is the solution to the problem of suffering, hence the point of this thread?

See my previous post

I think I see this thread as the assertion that "while Stoicism does promise a path to Eudaimonia, many of you are doubtful that Stoicism will actually lead to Eudaimonia."

Is that the message you mean to convey?

There's not much to elaborate on. My premises are 1. the ancient philosophies promised a path to Eudaimonia and 2. Eudaimonia is not compatible with suffering.

The proposed Stoic solution is limited to managing present suffering, after the fact that we are already alive and is bound to suffer some time in the future. Suffering is taken as a fact of life, deemed out of one's control, and dealt with after the fact, i.e. once you're already suffering. — OglopTo

Is Eudaimonia compatible with suffering? I don't know that I agree that suffering is out of one's control.

Every heard of negative visualization?

Here is more...

If you're a Stoic and you're in denial... then you're doing it wrong.

I think it could be argued that Stoicism, like all the ancient philosophies, was developed as a response to an obvious issue. Life can be difficult. Philosophies are therapeutic. Stoicism is one proposed solution to the reality of human suffering (it does promise to be a path to Eudaimonia).

If not difficulties, then not philosophy (as a solution.)

Here's my response to the question, "is Stoicism fatalistic?"..

Stoicism is about pursuing Eudaimonia (flourishing as a human). So in that way it's anti-fatalistic. Unless one considers the pursuit of Eudaimonia itself to be fatalistic in some way.

I've been reading through Epictetus' Discourses, I've read most of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, I've read the Enchirdion, and I've read Musonius Rufus' fragments, and I've read many of Seneca's letters. I've also read Cicero's comments about Stoicism. I don't see Stoicism as fatalistic. They do believe the universe is deterministic in nature, but take comfort that one does have control over one's attitudes and one's actions and reactions. I've read about Seneca and Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, and I don't see a fatalistic attitude.

The Stoic attitude was such that they suggested if you saw something that needs to be changed, then you should do something about it. Their attitude toward friendship is such that, they said if you see a friend screwing his life up, you should say something. Epictetus was an influential head of a school, Seneca was a wealthy and successful businessman, Marcus Aurelius was one of the best Emperors of the Roman Empire, and he fought off the Germanic tribes. I know a modern-day Stoic blogger and podcaster who is involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. If that's evidence of fatalism (or pessimism) then I wonder how it is being defined. — anonymous66

For many of the people on this forum, Stoicism is a stock answer to how people handle life faced with conditions that a Philosophical Pessimist might enumerate upon. Since Stoicism keeps coming up, I'd like to know what some users on here think of Stoicism in regards to it being an answer to the problems posed by the Philosophical Pessimist. — schopenhauer1

I wasn't aware that there were others besides myself who have an interest in Stoicism.

1) Does the Stoic ethic provide an answer to the existential boredom/instrumentality/annoyances/negative experiences/desire/flux/becoming-and-never-being, etc. that the Philosophical Pessimist poses?

2) Is Stoicism a kind of Philosophical Pessimism or at least close cousins? If it is not a kind of Philosophical Pessimism, how might they differ?

3) How might a Philosophical Pessimist's answer to solving life's sufferings be different than a Stoic's?

For the purposes of this thread, the definitions of Philosophical Pessimism is this:
Either existence:

-contains much suffering (empirical), and thus not good. (negative contingent pain, negative experiences in general, etc. (pace Benatar and partly Schopenhauer)

-The world is suffering (metaphysical) and thus not good (the ceaseless striving and emptiness of the self-reflecting human animal). (pace Schopenhauer and some Eastern philosophies).


The definition of Stoicism is: an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Also included in the definition is anything related to these definitions that are not included but are implied. Clearly, one can write a thesis just on the definitions and specifications of thought on each school of philosophy, but obviously I just needed it as short as possible.

The Stoics believed that the world was created by a Benevolent Creator and that it is possible to see life as a festival. So, the short answer is "no" they weren't pessimists.

I think the historical reasons for the decine of the stoics are pretty clear, really, but would probably constitute at least a long essay, if not a book. — Wayfarer

I don't doubt that people have opinions about what caused its decline.

But there's no reason not to consider objections also, it is quite a good discipline in its own right. After all a stoic ought not to be too moved by criticism ;) — Wayfarer

You don't have to look very hard to find people critical of Stoicism.

Of course, there are responses, as well.

Still, the intellectually serious, and in fact Stoic, thing to do is to take a look at what an unsympathetic commentator has to say about the philosophy and use the occasion to reflect and learn.

This idea that something is a good in itself does not sit well with me. — OglopTo

I don't share your conviction. I think we just disagree about what is good in and of itself.

I don't want to depreciate stoic principles, but it is a matter of historical fact that stoicism died out in part because of its lack of vitality - and because of the immense charisma of a certain Galilean. — Wayfarer

It is a historical fact that it did die out, and that Christianity became popular. Is anyone in a position to say they know for a fact why that happened? The term "underdetermination" comes to mind.

@Wayfarer
The Stoics may not have had the name of a sage in mind (some suggest that perhaps Socrates or Diogenes were examples), but they did know what qualities a sage required.

The article on Stoicism in the Stanford Encyclopedia gives rough idea of what an ideal Stoic sage would be like.

The quickest way to dispel incorrect beliefs about Stoicism is to acknowledge what beliefs one currently has about the philosophy, and then check to see if those assumptions agree with what is the case.

For instance. What in fact, do the Stoics believe about emotions? I don't know that they had any issues with emotions, as we generally think of them. They have an issue with the passions

Stoicism and Emotion.

On the surface, stoicism and emotion seem like contradictory terms. Yet the Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome were deeply interested in the emotions, which they understood as complex judgments about what we regard as valuable in our surroundings. Stoicism and Emotion shows that they did not simply advocate an across-the-board suppression of feeling, as stoicism implies in today’s English, but instead conducted a searching examination of these powerful psychological responses, seeking to understand what attitude toward them expresses the deepest respect for human potential.

In this elegant and clearly written work, Margaret Graver gives a compelling new interpretation of the Stoic position. Drawing on a vast range of ancient sources, she argues that the chief demand of Stoic ethics is not that we should suppress or deny our feelings, but that we should perfect the rational mind at the core of every human being. Like all our judgments, the Stoics believed, our affective responses can be either true or false and right or wrong, and we must assume responsibility for them. Without glossing over the difficulties, Graver also shows how the Stoics dealt with those questions that seem to present problems for their theory: the physiological basis of affective responses, the phenomenon of being carried away by one’s emotions, the occurrence of involuntary feelings and the disordered behaviors of mental illness. Ultimately revealing the deeper motivations of Stoic philosophy, Stoicism and Emotion uncovers the sources of its broad appeal in the ancient world and illuminates its surprising relevance to our own.

it's hard to see what the source of that compassion is in the traditional stoic accounts". — OglopTo

How about, all of mankind are brothers, and it is to our advantage to work together and to look out for each other?

3) How might a Philosophical Pessimist's answer to solving life's sufferings be different than a Stoic's? — schopenhauer1

That Stoics deny suffering and/or problems in general, seems to be a common misconception. From what I can tell, Stoics acknowledge there is a problem, and then look for a rational solution. Sometimes the solution is to reframe the problem in terms of "what judgments am I making?" But, sometimes the solution is to realize that there is a problem and that we can do something about it. The Stoics have been accused of being fatalistic. I guess I just don't see it.

Marcus Aurelius didn't say "well, the Germanic tribes are attacking... I guess it's meant to be."

If I could be convinced there was a benevolent Creator who was telling me about certain things I could do to improve myself and/or live an objectively better life, then wouldn't it be silly not to listen?

The way the OP presents it, it's more like he wants us to believe there is a tyrannical God who just makes demands. "do this if you want to please me...if you don't please me, there will be consequences." I don't know of any evidence that a God like that exists.

The OP needs to convince me that he knows there is a God and that he knows what this God wants before I can engage in a conversation about how I feel about this God.

If there is no evidence that a God wants anything from us, then I think the title of this thread is right. God doesn't matter.

I do see a lot to admire in the people and in the teachings. To me it's basically about believing the world is a certain way, and believing that if one knows certain things and acts in certain ways, then one can make progress towards Eudaimonia. Even if they're ultimately wrong about the nature of the world, if everyone were to practice what the Stoics taught, the world would be a better place. The Stoics were also accepting of people who disagreed. I see very few downsides that might come from reading Stoic teachings and putting them into practice.

I did get into a debate with some other modern day Stoicism enthusiasts who pointed out that Sellars in his book Stoicism, said quote "they denied free will". I did a little research and found that the early Stoics, including Chrysippus did teach a doctrine of "universal determinism" that does sound very fatalistic, and does seem to deny free will. But, A.A. Long in his book Epictetus suggests that Epictetus himself may have dismissed the doctrine. Epictetus definitely suggests that we do have a free will that is compatible with determinism, and that we better work on our "Governing Principle" if we expect to make any kind of progress.

So, perhaps the early Stoics were fatalistic (or at least their doctrine was) but by late Stoicism, it sounds like they had abandoned the fatalistic doctrine of "universal determinism".

I understand the philosophy was taught for something like 600 years, and the doctrines did change over time. One of the few things we know that all Stoics believed is that Virtue is necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia. The 4 cardinal virtues are Wisdom, Justice, Courage and Temperance.

Thanks Wayfarer,
I'm not sure if my friends/family/enemies see any changes, but I feel like I'm on a path to freedom (from the passions, at least). It's about progress.

Birds show some fairly complex thinking skills. If they can truly understand the concept of 0, I think that is evidence of an intellect that would satisfy even Adler.

I wonder if the evidence of logical reasoning that is mentioned in the study above would satisfy Adler as being evidence of animal intellect.

I guess I hear you saying you know that the statement "there is likely a correlation between bigger brains and higher intelligence" is false. I'm not ready to go there.

I think we have pretty good evidence that there is in general a correlation (there is evidence that animals with smaller brains are less intelligent). But, we do have to take into consideration the evidence we have that birds' brains are more efficient. And we don't know if the general correlation of brain size to intelligence carries over to specific examples in specific species. (like Langan said, we don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that a larger human brain equates to a higher IQ- do you really think that Down's syndrome should be included in this discussion?- they actually have smaller heads). Your point of male vs female brains is a good one, and worth looking into.

Some suggest the issue of IQ in men vs women is such that it's just way too politically charged to have a rational debate.

The arguments continue even as the pendulum swings between the biological and environmental interpretation. Perhaps the whole issue becomes so politically charged that it is virtually impossible to have a rational debate. This in turn means scholars avoid the research area which “too hot to handle”.

The long and the short of it is that I'm willing to follow the evidence where ever it should lead. Even if larger heads/brains does equate to higher IQ. Does it follow that people with high IQ are somehow better than those with lower IQ?

I think I'd rather have an IQ within the normal range and experience Eudaimonia, than have a high IQ and be a terrible (unhappy, miserable) person.

Stoicism is about pursuing Eudaimonia (flourishing as a human). So in that way it's anti-fatalistic. Unless one considers the pursuit of Eudaimonia itself to be fatalistic in some way.

I've been reading through Epictetus' Discourses, I've read most of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, I've read the Enchirdion, and I've read Musonius Rufus' fragments, and I've read many of Seneca's letters. I've also read Cicero's comments about Stoicism. I don't see Stoicism as fatalistic. They do believe the universe is deterministic in nature, but take comfort that one does have control over one's attitudes and one's actions and reactions. I've read about Seneca and Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, and I don't see a fatalistic attitude.

The Stoic attitude was such that they suggested if you saw something that needs to be changed, then you should do something about it. Their attitude toward friendship is such that, they said if you see a friend screwing his life up, you should say something. Epictetus was an influential head of a school, Seneca was a wealthy and successful businessman, Marcus Aurelius was one of the best Emperors of the Roman Empire, and he fought off the Germanic tribes. I know a modern-day Stoic blogger and podcaster who is involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. If that's evidence of fatalism, then I wonder how it is being defined.

here are some more modern Stoicism blogs and podcasts
Traditional Stoicism
The Painted Porch
The Immoderate Stoic

But, I admit I'm biased.
I plan on participating in Stoic week again this year (Oct 17-23).. And I recently bought my ticket for Stoicon.
Pierre Hadot wrote quite a bit about the Stoics and has nothing but good things to say. I will soon start his book about Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, called The Inner Citadel.

I credit my interest in Stoicism with an increase in tranquility and an increased satisfaction with life in general. I think Stoic joy is within reach.

So given you seem to be involved in some religious argument, it seems sensible to concede a discontinuity between humans and animals on this basis - grammatical language capability. Humans are intellectualising for this biologically-based reason. And not because they are God's creatures partaking of the divine nous, or whatever. — apokrisis

I don't believe it can be said that Adler is making a religious argument in his book (at least not in the first 4 chapters). As far as I can tell from his book, he's just using theological terms to distinguish them from things for which there is sense evidence. I think the point is that even if it turns out there is no God, no angels, etc.. the fact remains that man can think about and communicate about things that may or may not exist in the first place, while animals are only aware of what they have sensed (vs intellectualized about). I think it's very possible that all theological concepts only exist in the minds of men. The point is, man was able to conceive of them, even though they don't exist in the real world. As far as we can tell, animals don't have the capability to think about things that don't exist in the real world.

It almost looks like you're saying that you agree with Adler (man is not on a continuum with animals in regards to intellect, he is in a category by himself) because of the evidence, but if that's the case, you want to be sure that everyone knows it's not because "God created us that way".

I might not be heartbroken either, if it turns out that there is no evidence. And in any case, I don't expect ever (well, not in the next 2,000,000 years anyway) to find a wolf or a whale thinking about God, angels, infinity, souls, the great chain of being, or such topics. — Bitter Crank

Here is a quote from Ten Philosophical Mistakes
Is the human mind a single cognitive power, however complex, one that involves the functioning of our senses and whatever follows from their functioning, such as memory and imagination, or should the human mind be divided into two quite distinctive cognitive powers-sense and everything to which sense gives rise, on the one hand, and intellect, able to understand, judge, and reason, on the other? — anonymous66

What about evidence that they can understand, judge and reason? What about evidence they understand they have and that there are other minds?

Studies in animal behavior (including emotions, cognition, memory, perceptions, etc.) will either validate your intuition or they won't. Personally, I bet that it will be shown that your intuition is correct: Animals (including humans) occupy a continuum of capacity and performance in both emotion and intellect. — Bitter Crank

Here is a quote from Ten Philosophical Mistakes
Is the human mind a single cognitive power, however complex, one that involves the functioning of our senses and whatever follows from their functioning, such as memory and imagination, or should the human mind be divided into two quite distinctive cognitive powers-sense and everything to which sense gives rise, on the one hand, and intellect, able to understand, judge, and reason, on the other?

And another that explains what Adler means by the intellect:
To the second group [the intellect] belong all purely intelligible objects, such as the objects as purely spiritual beings, for example, souls, angels, and God. It also includes such objects of thought as liberty, justice, virtue, knowledge, the infinite, and even mind itself. None of these can ever be perceived by the senses. None is a sensible particular. — anonymous66

No one is arguing that animals aren't capable of cognition. Adler is saying that there are 2 distinct kinds of cognitive powers. Sensible and intellectual.

If there is a bunch of evidence that shows that animals aren't merely using their senses (perception is obviously in the realm of the sense, imagination is in the realm of the senses, memory is the realm of the senses, ), and are also capable of intellectual activity (are they capable of thinking about purely intelligible objects... do they think about justice, virtue, knowledge, souls, angels, God, the infinite, mind itself? Can they understand, judge and reason?), then I haven't seen it. If someone else has, please list that evidence.

Adler also suggests that animals are nominalists.... the fact that Nim was able to group certain pictures together by placing a picture of himself with a group of pictures of humans, suggests that there may be some abstract thought going on. But, that's the only example I can think of.

But, perhaps your (Bitter Crank) point was that there isn't much evidence now, but if people actively look for it, they might derive ways to find it?

I might not be heartbroken if it turns out that there is no evidence.... and that we are in a completely different category. Perhaps there is something to the idea that rational thought is god-like and special.

Perhaps this is could be considered to be evidence... "When sorting photos of humans and apes, he placed his own photo among the humans." "he" refers to Nim, a chimpanzee (thank you Wayfarer, for the link).

Thanks for the replies. I'd like to refute Adler's claims with some evidence. But, as of now, I'm not sure there is any.

It is my intuition that animals are on a continuum with humans, when it comes to the intellect (as defined by Adler). But, I'm not sure how to prove that my intuition is correct.

Thinking about the existence of a deity seems pointless, unless I also know what this deity might want from us, if anything.

I think it might make more sense to try and figure out what the universe is like, and if this particular universe is such that behaving in certain ways has desirable benefits.

Stoicism is attractive to me. Their views of the deity are difficult to summarize. Suffice it to say that they believe there is a benevolent Creator who created the universe such that living a life of virtue will lead to the best life possible (Eudaimonia).

@the OP
Are judgments about right and wrong really all that different than the fields of medicine or mathematics?

Just as we don't just say, "it's all just a matter of preference" when it comes to medicine or mathematics, we don't have to throw up our hands in despair when it come to ethics and morality.

And think about how different the world would be if we were convinced that medicine and mathematics were really just about preferences.

I think the 2 can be compatible, in that pleasure is important. And reason and virtue are important. Seneca actually praises some things that the Epicureans said (while trying to convince his friend that Stoicism is actually better/closer to the truth).

Perhaps they're compatible in that the followers of both were ultimately most concerned with wisdom/rationality/reason.

But, honestly, they were opposing schools of thought, in that the Stoics believed that there is reason permeating the universe in the form of a benevolent Creator. He created the world such that, being virtuous is necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia. Also, they believed that our ability to reason is special in that it is a fragment of the gods. So that, when we are rational and reasonable we are most like the gods.

The Epicureans believed that gods exist and that they created the universe, but that they don't give a whit about us. We are completely on our own. According to them, the best life (Eudaimonia) is one in which pleasures are at a maximum. So, not instant gratification, but using reason to help determine how to live a life of maximum pleasure, overall- spread out over the entire lifetime.

"I propose that a person can be a Stoic Epicurean."
pshhh. I had that thought way before you.

8-)

What is right or wrong is an opinion — apatheticynic

Kinda like the opinion about whether or not 2+2=4? When someone says, "it's my opinion that 2+2=5... " It doesn't change my mind. I just look at them funny.

I think it all depends on if you think some ways of living our lives are better than others. Is there such a thing as living a life of excellence?