I feel that we are in a nihilistic position where we can't can justify any of our actions by reference to rules, objectivity or teleology. — Andrew4Handel

This was my main point.

Making choices without out any recourse to truth.

The Hitler example was an ad aburdum of the unforeseen consequence of an action. And in that sense we have to predict the future before we act and make assumption about the results of our choices. On forming some beliefs about future outcomes we can decide to act.

this could be a quick process where I come to believe I l refer apples to oranges and quickly choose an apple based on prior taste experiences.

But I believe with out recourse to facts of the matter about what we should do we could be said to acting on faith, faith in the validity of our beliefs and ethical stances but can they ever be validated? It can make our situation seem absurd.

Your choice of top web search definition is a result of typing in 'What is stoicism?'.
From the 2 dictionary definitions, you chose the first 'stoicism' with a small 's'.
A case of cherry-picking. You know that. — Amity

No it is not. I stated which definition of stoicism I was referring to. I assume the common used and philosophy are somewhat related however.

I found this "The Stoic Conception of Fate Josiah B. Gould"

"Aristotle maintains in his Nicomachean ethics that no one deliberates about things which cannot be otherwise."

Who decides that things cannot be otherwise? As I suggested before

"A privileged person telling a disenfranchised person to be stoical is way of preserving the power imbalance. The people requiring the most stoicism are the most disenfranchised and least fortunate."

Stoicism - Accepting one's fate. Aspects of control and choice.

Embracing Our Own Fates

The concept of embracing fate, of thinking we’re releasing control of our lives, is one of the harder aspects of being a Stoic as it requires one to come to terms with aspects of their lives they may not be ready to come to terms with; the idea of the Dichotomy of Control is hard to embrace in itself simply because we do not like to think we’re not in control of our lives.

But it is not that we’re not in control of our lives, rather, it is that there are aspects within our lives for which we are fully in control and it is within these that we should embrace the opportunity to make the most out of those actions, out of those things which we do have control over, versus pouring ungodly amounts of energy into things for which we have little to no control.

The acceptance of one’s fate falls within this category. We do not have full control over our lives.
[...]
Accept the event. Embrace fate. Grow from the experience.

We can understand this concept and begin to see the powers for which we do have, specifically, the powers over our own actions. But by knowing this, by embracing what we do have control over, we have a greater ability to influence other aspects of our lives. While we may not be able to have full control over our lives, we have control over a large portion of them, namely, the actions, judgments, and beliefs we hold. By embracing these things, we can tip the scales further into our favor. Sure, we will never have full control over other aspects of our lives, but neither does anyone else.

Therefore, we should learn to lean in and embrace those that we do have control over. We should check our judgments and actions, journal daily, and investigate what we’re doing, asking penetrating questions to get to the bottom of what we’re thinking and the direction we’re attempting to move our lives into. We have far more control over these aspects of our lives than most think, and need we must learn to embrace them. Too often we create excuses for why something does or does not work out in our favor when if we were to investigate it, we could see we may have had more power over the situation than we realized and just did not take the necessary steps to advantage ourselves.

As for the things that may or may not befall us and are outside our control, we say amor fati and embrace them for in the end, we will learn from those experiences. It is through those adversities, the times where things did not go according to plan, that we will learn and grow the most. But in order to truly benefit from these times, we must embrace the obstacles, the difficulties, the adversities for which we did not anticipate.

From this, we will be better prepared for the future, for the next go around, for the rest of life. Nothing will ever be perfect, nothing will ever be fully within our control, but we can still grow and be wiser for them. Before we know it, we will no longer have the time to embrace these moments, we will no longer have the time and energy to grow. We will meet the end which we must all accept. So while we’re still here, while there is still time, let us embrace everything that comes our way.

Remember:

“Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whichever way they happen: this is the path to peace.” Epictetus. Enchiridion. 8.
— Stoicism

Therefore, we should learn to lean in and embrace those that we do have control over. We should check our judgments and actions, journal daily, and investigate what we’re doing, asking penetrating questions to get to the bottom of what we’re thinking and the direction we’re attempting to move our lives into. We have far more control over these aspects of our lives than most think, and need we must learn to embrace them. Too often we create excuses for why something does or does not work out in our favor when if we were to investigate it, we could see we may have had more power over the situation than we realized and just did not take the necessary steps to advantage ourselves. — Stoicism

This amounts to self blame.

People are aware they cannot have much control and this develop justified apathy. This is apathy caused by other peoples unreasonableness and can lead to learned helplessness.

I had abusive parents. I was stoical about that. I was bullied a lot as a child especially in school. I was stoical about that. Grew up in a religious cult. Was stoical about that.

I have always reflected intensely on my own thoughts and conduct it is the people affecting your well being that should be doing the reflecting. I should have been more proactive as a child but I couldn't see any options.

Like I sad in favour os psychoanalysing stoicism I think it is motivate by the person who advocates own desires.

Are the stop Oil Protestors being stoical or are they causing disruption in other peoples lives to save us all from destroying out environs and the future of peoples offspring?

I think the things we cannot change are relativist. The reasons we can't change them are situational and the claim we can't change them can be tactical.

Therefore, we should learn to lean in and embrace those that we do have control over. — Stoicism

That is the issue I am raising here I suppose.

We don't know whether we have control or not and cannot predict outcomes so we are in a kind of Wild West of decision making. How does stoicism square with risk taking?

This amounts to self blame. — Andrew4Handel

It might be but I think it's mainly about self-awareness and analysis with a view to improving.

I have always reflected intensely on my own thoughts and conduct it is the people affecting your well being that should be doing the reflecting. I should have been more proactive as a child but I couldn't see any options. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. So it seems you practised a form of stoicism from an early age. That says a lot given your circumstances. I am not sure if Stoic concepts are easy for anyone to understand and apply, far less a traumatised child. There are limitations to Stoicism and dangers in accepting it all wholesale.

We can't choose not to be harmed or not to feel harmed.
Minorities and those not in power are harmed by political decisions or indecision. Action/inaction.
Our responses in protest are being increasingly criminalised.
There is systemic abuse.

The abused are mostly not in a position to be proactive - if under absolute control. And if they think, wrongly, that they are to blame. If they see no way out.

Now, there is more awareness and knowledge about what happens behind closed doors.
Childline and support groups exist; public campaigns are run about domestic abuse.
Sometimes difficult to stay vigilant and alert.
Laws and progress made - so quickly and easily overturned.

I disagree with Epictetus:

“Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whichever way they happen: this is the path to peace.” Epictetus. Enchiridion. 8. — Stoicism

I see hope as a motivational force. Hope for the best, expect or plan for the worse...

Are the stop Oil Protestors being stoical or are they causing disruption in other peoples lives to save us all from destroying out environs and the future of peoples offspring? — Andrew4Handel

Perhaps they are being both.

I think the things we cannot change are relativist. The reasons we can't change them are situational and the claim we can't change them can be tactical. — Andrew4Handel

What do you mean by 'relativist'?

We don't know whether we have control or not and cannot predict outcomes so we are in a kind of Wild West of decision making. How does stoicism square with risk taking? — Andrew4Handel

Do you think we can control our thoughts and behaviour?
What kind and degree of risk-taking?

Isn't the environment the outside force motivating animals?

I tend to view animals as more driven by outside forces than us. — Andrew4Handel

Isn't that view in conflict with the understanding that animals act more on instinct than humans do? Maybe not. Maybe we could say that animals act more on instinct, so they have less choice, therefore are more reactive to outside forces.

I guess I think humans are more able to say "no" to impulses or to delay gratification than animals, but we all act in response to outside forces. We are getting to, probably have gone beyond, my level of knowledge in this area.

Agnes Callard and Myisha Cherry both defend anger as a motivator.

I am just listening to this Agnes Callard discussion:



Agnes wrote a paper called "The Reason to Be Angry Forever" which I also need to reread.

Myisha defends rage on Philosophy bites and elsewhere.

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/philosophy-bites/myisha-cherry-on-rage/

The classic question is are emotions rational and which emotion should guide action?

Do people get anger for no reason or is there always a good reason for anger. Are emotions caused by judgements? Should emotions and judgements be divorced?

Psychoanalysts would proper look for the unconscious roots of emotions.

Isn't that view in conflict with the understanding that animals act more on instinct than humans do? Maybe not. Maybe we could say that animals act more on instinct, so they have less choice, therefore are more reactive to outside forces. — T Clark

Behaviourism had a model based on instincts learned by stimuli responses. It was undermined by studies of rat behaviour which suggested they had mental maps as they performed short cuts in mazes and led to the cognitive revolution.

It is a big topic in psychology. Some biologists think all organisms behaviours can be described without reference to volition or perception and some even apply that to humans where our responses are caused by neuronal or biochemical reactions to stimuli.

But these reductive explanations become incoherent because at some stage you have to refer to symbolic representations such as in the language we are using here. Science it self relies on symbols. So that is a criticism of the naturalistic, physicalist, materialist world view.

I think the things we cannot change are relativist. The reasons we can't change them are situational and the claim we can't change them can be tactical.
— Andrew4Handel

What do you mean by 'relativist'? — Amity

It can depend on your perspective and knowledge base.

In a child abuse/neglect scenario The child from his or her position likely has less knowledge of resources than an adult but this can also apply to some adults. So they have to make decisions from their perspective and what they know.

But a child welfare expert, a social worker or someone with legal knowledge on child protection issues is in the position to make more decisions and more informed decisions and intervene. We wouldn't expect the social services to be stoical.

But in relation to the wider topic every decision can only be made with limited knowledge. Nowadays with the internet we have a huge amount of knowledge hence the dilemma in my opening post. More knowledge can bring greater responsibility, less knowledge and power can shift responsibility for those with greater knowledge and power.

There is an emotional constraint as well because decisions can have emotional and mental well being impacts where the consequences of decision would seem to painful.

Do you think we can control our thoughts and behaviour?
What kind and degree of risk-taking? — Amity

I don't know to what extent we can control thoughts and behaviour? When I was studying the "no free will" position was most popular. I defend free will with constraints of circumstance personally.

How can we know that we are in control? Freudians would say we need extensive psychoanalysis to uncover our motivations.

Taking a risk would be doing something that is risky for you in terms of the unknown and consequences. Training for a profession is taking a risk. Some people regret the career they end up in and feel stuck. Sometimes making a random decision can have really positive of unforeseen positive consequences.

Some people advocating taking lots of risks and seeking out new opportunities all the time.

On the other hand some people believe we already know what we want and would automatically find our path in if it weren't for obstacles. I had a strong preference for music and have sung in choirs, joined an amateur orchestra and collect sheet music etc. I was just drawn to do this despite my parents not liking it. In this sense we might know what's best for us somehow.

Behaviourism had a model based on instincts learned by stimuli responses. It was undermined by studies of rat behaviour which suggested they had mental maps as they performed short cuts in mazes — Andrew4Handel

Yes, behaviorism is mostly discredited at this point. When I was a psych major back in the 1970s, I did do some rat conditioning experiments.

Science it self relies on symbols. So that is a criticism of the naturalistic, physicalist, materialist world view. — Andrew4Handel

I don't think that's necessarily true.

The Hitler example was an ad aburdum of the unforeseen consequence of an action. And in that sense we have to predict the future before we act and make assumption about the results of our choices. On forming some beliefs about future outcomes we can decide to act.

This is one of the perils of utilitarianism. One cannot fathom the entire results of one’s actions, and one can never be sure what will produce the greatest good to the greater number. Too many variables, I suppose. This is what the baby Hitler thought experiment reveals. People are willing to kill an innocent child to prevent a future catastrophe on what amounts to a hunch. No matter how positive he was that this child would murder millions, he will never find a beneficiary of that action, he will never be able to justify his motives by showing us something in the world, and the reality that he has sacrificed a child to an idea will eventually set in. In adding up the sum total of goods to the greatest number, he has instead propagated more evil than he has good.

There is an alternate, an old one: do Justice though the heavens fall. With this in mind one can survey his actions according to justice rather than utility, consequences be damned. The just at least reserve some sense of dignity in dealing with others and are generally superior moral exemplars than any utilitarian.

In a child abuse/neglect scenario The child from his or her position likely has less knowledge of resources than an adult but this can also apply to some adults. So they have to make decisions from their perspective and what they know.

But a child welfare expert, a social worker or someone with legal knowledge on child protection issues is in the position to make more decisions and more informed decisions and intervene. We wouldn't expect the social services to be stoical. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. We don't always know the choices or what support services are available to us.
Sometimes we don't even know what we need or want so embroiled are we in the challenges of everyday living. Cost of living crises and political decisions mean that services, including education and health are being cut even more. So, a whole heap of anxieties and anger are piled on top of the presenting problems. Stoicism is only one life philosophy available to help with emotional and psychological resilience to potentially stressful events.

It is not services that might be 'stoical', it is the people in and around any decision-making process. But the lessening of care provision and its adverse effects can reach a tipping point, where action needs to be taken. Cue protests and strikes.

[Note again, the tendency to confuse Stoicism with lower-case stoicism, the "stiff upper-lip" personality trait which can be unhealthy.]

But in relation to the wider topic every decision can only be made with limited knowledge. Nowadays with the internet we have a huge amount of knowledge hence the dilemma in my opening post — Andrew4Handel

Already addressed. Thanks for the discussion. Time up. Take care.