STRAW MAN!

Person 1: "Your family passed away and is gone".
Stoic: "Oh, I am indifferent to the situation"
Person 1: Your girlfriend left you
Stoic: "Oh did she? Oh well, I am indifferent to the situation"
Person 1: "No one cares about you"
Stoic: "Oh really? I am indifferent to the situation" — schopenhauer1

Much rather:

Person: "Your family passed away and is gone"
Stoic: "As much as that grieves me, there is nothing that I can do to bring them back. Their existence is now outside of my control, and as saddened as I feel, to maintain my moral worth, I must pursue the good things that are still left in this world: my character, my desires, and helping my fellow human beings. There is nothing to be achieved from focusing on the tragedies of the past"

There is nothing to be achieved from focusing on the tragedies of the past" — Agustino

This is what I particularly have a problem with. No, that is correct there is nothing you can "DO", but not focusing on the such a personal tragedy of the past seems cold at best. Quickly moving forward is ALMOST as bad as not grieving at all. Grieving means there was a sentimental attachment. It is recognizing one cares about something. Even if it does mitigate the pain (if that can really happen by quickly moving forward after the bereavement), there is something to me, wrong with having such little care for things in a rush to move on to the next thing.

This is what I particularly have a problem with. No, that is correct there is nothing you can "DO", but not focusing on the such a personal tragedy of the past seems cold at best. Quickly moving forward is ALMOST as bad as not grieving at all. Grieving means there was a sentimental attachment. It is recognizing one cares about something. Even if it does mitigate the pain (if that can really happen by quickly moving forward after the bereavement), there is something to me, wrong with having such little care for things in a rush to move on to the next thing. — schopenhauer1

Why must I suffer to prove my attachment and love for something? Why do you assume that if I don't torture myself, then it means that I have not loved my family? It seems that you are saying that I have a moral duty to suffer for no reason other than to prove my love. That somehow, if I don't prove my love, then it doesn't exist.

Why must I suffer to prove my attachment and love for something? Why do you assume that if I don't torture myself, then it means that I have not loved my family? It seems that you are saying that I have a moral duty to suffer for no reason other than to prove my love. That somehow, if I don't prove my love, then it doesn't exist. — Agustino

I couldn't honestly tell you except it seems intuitively wrong not to FEEL some some sense of loss for family or people that you loved. The nature of this is going to be different for everyone but it would be APPROPRIATE at the BEGINNING to feel the hurt of loss as part of the caring and attachment you had with those people.

I couldn't honestly tell you except it seems intuitively wrong not to FEEL some some sense of loss for family or people that you loved. The nature of this is going to be different for everyone but it would be APPROPRIATE at the BEGINNING to feel the hurt of loss as part of the caring and attachment you had with those people. — schopenhauer1

What does feeling hurt have to do with the fact of moving beyond it? The Stoic response does not prevent one from having a day each year to commemorate the loss of one's family, or to remember gratefully one's ancestors and what they have taught one, quite the contrary, Stoicism makes this a moral duty. So this idea of "indifference" that you're spewing is total anathema to the Stoic, as it goes against the notion of moral virtue. The difference between the Stoic and your average person is that whereas your average person focuses on their selfish desires (the negative, losing something they want to have), the Stoic focuses on the selfless, and positive (the importance of the loved one in their life, and one's duty towards the loved one and what they have done for one), realising that the Universe is not there to fulfill their selfish whims but rather they are there to fulfill the demands of universal Reason.

Again, you are talking nonsense and attacking a strawman. If you read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, you will see the effort spent showing gratitude for his family, his teachers, etc. No stoic teacher has behaved the way you describe, and you are just being intellectually dishonest in your attempted ridicule of stoicism.

What does feeling hurt have to do with the fact of moving beyond it? The Stoic response does not prevent one from having a day each year to commemorate the loss of one's family, or to remember gratefully one's ancestors and what they have taught one, quite the contrary, — Agustino

Yes, this is all well and good at an anniversary of death or a birthday, but to quickly move forward after the death doesn't seem appropriate. Rather than duty, it is the emotion of attachment one feels for a loved one. One doesn't love out of the duty to love (simply because they are your family) but because you have an attachment to that person. Stoicism seems to me to cut off those feelings just because they are negative. Sometimes it is appropriate to have negative feelings.

Similarly, if someone is attached to a project of some sort- something they care much about and worked super long on, to have it disregarded or lost would be probably bring about normal feelings of loss and frustration. To simply disregard to maintain a character of indifference, seems to disregard the fact that we care about things. Loss, frustration, etc. means at least we care and the idea of not caring for some abstract duty you call Reason seems odd and not a very great world.

Rather than duty, it is the emotion of attachment one feels for a loved one. One doesn't love out of the duty to love (simply because they are your family) but because you have an attachment to that person. — schopenhauer1

Oh, so love then should be found on the fickleness of human emotion? I shall love my wife because I have a temporal attachment to her... if that emotional attachment vanishes one day, then I should kick her out of the house, and not care for her for another second. See, views such as this are the source of much suffering and immorality in the world, as it gives human beings the moral freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, regardless of other people.

Similarly, if someone is attached to a project of some sort- something they care much about and worked super long on, to have it disregarded or lost would be probably bring about normal feelings of loss and frustration. To simply disregard to maintain a character of indifference, seems to disregard the fact that we care about things. Loss, frustration, etc. means at least we care and the idea of not caring for some abstract duty you call Reason seems odd and not a very great world. — schopenhauer1

Yes, but Stoicism doesn't mean that you won't have the feelings of loss and frustration. It just means you'll deal with them differently than your average person. And again, you assume without ever justifying that caring about something necessitates grief/sadness upon its loss.

I think you are expecting too much.

Of course if my dog died I would be filled with grief. It is a natural reaction to such circumstances, and it's probably unhealthy to keep it all bottled up.

A key concept in Stoicism is that a person has a duty. Ever been given a special job, even if it is menial? For some reason everyone seems to get perky when they have an important thing to do. It gives them a sense of purpose and pride. Move out of the way!, I'm here to deliver a very-important-package to a very-important-person!

So I think a Stoic would say the duty that someone has, no matter what, is to live virtuously. And if you cannot live virtuously anymore, it is time to die (which many voluntarily did so). And so no matter what happens to you, you can cope with it because it is your duty to do so, so you can continue to live virtuously.

Instead of interpreting Stoicism as an insta-cure to all pain and suffering, it might help to interpret it as a movement that advocates a certain perspective towards pain and suffering. I think this applies to other philosophies outside of Stoicism as well.

I am always baffled by the hostility I see toward Stoicism from some people. "Self control is fascist" seems to be the implicit (but never directly stated) premise.

As I understand Stoicism, the goal is simply to assign responses to the proper faculty (emotion versus reason). It's not that the Stoic is cold and indifferent, it's that emotion has a function and reason has a function, and it is a mistake to apply emotion where reason is better suited and vice versa.

I shall love my wife because I have a temporal attachment to her... if that emotional attachment vanishes one day, then I should kick her out of the house, and not care for her for another second. See, views such as this are the source of much suffering and immorality in the world, as it gives human beings the moral freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, regardless of other people. — Agustino

Well- so much for people for new people without enmity from the old thread answering...

Now who is strawmanning who? You are making so many category errors, I don't know where to start. In the whole cohabitation scenario that you present here, you are assuming if you stop having an emotional attachment to someone, that must mean that you have no obligations of fairness to that person. Where did you infer that from what I said? Rather, I was saying that it is appropriate to have emotional attachments to people- and the ensuing emotions from a loss of the recipient of that attachment. That has nothing to do with not treating someone with respect or fairness (a different issue) if your emotional status changes.

Yes, but Stoicism doesn't mean that you won't have the feelings of loss and frustration. It just means you'll deal with them differently than your average person. And again, you assume without ever justifying that caring about something necessitates grief/sadness upon its loss. — Agustino

Yep it is a description of what happens to people much of the time. Is it appropriate? It would seem if one cared about something, someone has a right to feel loss or grief or frustration. If it is debilitating the point of not functioning that is one thing, but I think at some level they are emotions that show people cared about something. To mitigate pain, the aim seems to become this muted existence of non-attachment. This just doesn't seem like an interesting life- even if it living by dictates of Reason or virtue. In fact, it might not be a life worth living as you are habituating your brain to essentially filter out the natural feelings that go along with being attached or caring about something or someone.

I think the general characterization of Stoics in this thread is too non-complexly algorithmic. It makes no sense to say that Stoics have no concern over their family dying or their wife leaving them as a matter of principle--in fact, it is quite impossible, since humans are evolutionary trial-and-error creatures, and brooding over tragedy is a natural human response, about as natural as not putting your hand on the Bunsen burner after that last time you burnt it. Rather, I see Stoicism as an attempt to streamline this trial-and-error process. Say you came up with a code of ethics, then Stoicism would simply be the engine you use as you approach the world accordingly, in the most efficient and effective way. Really, Stoicism isn't really a philosophical theory at all, it is more like a philosophical device.

Anyways, historically, after Zeno of Citium started popularizing it, it became the device of choice for many rich aristrocrats in Greece and Rome, and then codified into Roman law and culture as a means to ensure some sort of cultural obedience. Really, it became this tool for them Roman fascists (hey, I know using that word is ahistorical in this situation, but to be fair, the word fascist came from the Roman word fasces after all) to retain power and justify their despicable actions under the guise of 'honor'. So, as a philosophical device, there really isn't a problem with it if you're into building codes of ethics through lifelong contemplation and creating a sort of theory to help you abide by them, but when Stoicism became a political movement, then it's ugliness manifests itself.

You are making so many category errors, I don't know where to start. — schopenhauer1

I don't see any category errors in the quote that you replied to. Please point out these supposed category errors.

Others have done a pretty good job of setting the record straight regarding Stoicism in this thread and elsewhere, and you said that you'd rather entertain new participants in this discussion anyway, so I think I'll let it be.

Call it anything you like but misconstruing what I am saying is what it was doing. So replace "category error" with whatever you like.

I think the underlying issue is that Stoicism represents a partial or maybe even whole abandonment of Will in practice. What strikes me about your comments is just how insistent they are that the Stoic doesn't care enough or for anything, merely because they avoid intense reactions to the problems they encounter. You seem desperate for problems to matter to others in way that harms them. As if, for example, our concern for a lived one is measured by how much anxiety we experience on their death.

In short, you think life ought to be this particular kind of suffering, a restlessness, a desperation, to be something we are not in the moment. Without it, you suppose, a person doesn't care for anything.

You misrepresent the Stoic because they, one degree or another, got out this existential anxiety. They care in ways which don't involve this suffering. A conversation with a stoic goes something more like this:

Person 1: "Your family passed away and is gone".
Stoic: "Yes. It was a tragedy. I am sad. That's sometimes how the world goes. No point beating myself-up about it."
Person 1: Your girlfriend left you."
Stoic: "Yes. I loved her and it was upsetting. I didn't get what I deeply care about. Maybe I'll care for the rest of my life. Still, that's how I exist. Worrying about that which I will never get is just useless suffering"
Person 1: "No one cares about you"
Stoic: "I'm lonely and afraid. Still sometimes people exist without anyone. Cursing myself to be otherwise in this moment would just be needless pain and damage my ability to act in ways I care about."

It's not but not feeling. It's about not having damaging feelings.

I think there is an interesting question about Schopenhauer's asceticism here. Something the practice of the Stoic (and other similar practices which abandon Will, which quell the notion our existence is wrong) is helpful to deep caring. Supposedly, the problem with caring, according to Schopenhauer, is that we are always desperately disappointed because we don't get everything we might want. It just leads us into more horrible suffering.

But what if it doesn't? What is we are capable of accepting our failures without collapsing in a mess of self-loathing (or existence-loathing)? If we can, like Stoic, come out of tragedy with our sense of worth intact, the limits caring sort of disappear. To become emotionally invested in something or someone is no longer a problem, for failure holds no soul-destroying consequence. No matter how bad things might turn out, how much suffering might occur, our self-worth does not collapse. Without Will, we are free to care.

Schopenhauer's asceticism is indicative of him realising there is a problem (Will) and doing everything to hide from it (care about nothing, limit the times Will hurts him), rather coming to an understanding of the world, accepting its inevitable suffering and getting past the idea (Will) we need to be something we never are.

You seem desperate for problems to matter to others in way that harms them. As if, for example, our concern for a lived one is measured by how much anxiety we experience on their death. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I guess you used the word seem, so I can't fault you completely. But, that is not what I am saying at all. Rather, I am saying that it is ok to feel the natural reactions of loss and frustration in certain things we are attached to and that if we don't feel these feelings, we are not living a full human life, but a mere robotic one that is perpetually "stoned" on stoicism :).

Person 1: "Your family passed away and is gone".
Stoic: "Yes. It was a tragedy. I am sad. That's sometimes how the world goes. No point beating myself-up about it."
Person 1: Your girlfriend left you."
Stoic: "Yes. I loved her and it was upsetting. I didn't get what I deeply care about. Maybe I'll care for the rest of my life. Still, that's how I exist. Worrying about that which I will never get is just useless suffering"
Person 1: "No one cares about you"
Stoic: "I'm lonely and afraid. Still sometimes people exist without anyone. Cursing myself to be otherwise in this moment would just be needless pain and damage my ability to act in ways I care about."

It's not but not feeling. It's about not having damaging feelings. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As much as some of your other posts have irked me in the recent past, you finally put an example which I find to be more or less accurate. I think this dialogue reflects more of the middle ground of taking into account an event- feeling its natural effects, but not letting it become so damaging as to cause complete paralysis. Notice though that feelings were felt (at least as how I read your dialogue) and it was worked through rather than trying to be bypassed completely and moving on with no attachment or care.

I think there is an interesting question about Schopenhauer's asceticism here. Something the practice of the Stoic (and other similar practices which abandon Will, which quell the notion our existence is wrong) is deep caring. Supposedly, the problem with caring, according to Schopenhauer, is that we are always desperately disappointed because we don't get everything we might want. It just leads us into more horrible suffering.

But what if it doesn't? What is we are capable of accepting our failures without collapsing in a mess of self-loathing (or existence-loathing)? If we can, like Stoic, come out of tragedy with our sense of worth intact, the limits caring sort of disappear. To become emotionally invested in something or someone is no longer a problem, for failure holds no soul-destroying consequence. No matter how bad things might turn out, how much suffering might occur, our self-worth does not collapse. Without Will, we are free to care.

Schopenhauer's asceticism is indicative of him realising there is a problem (Will) and doing everything to hide from it (care about nothing, limit the times Will hurts him), rather coming to an understanding of the world, accepting its inevitable suffering and getting past the idea (Will) we need to be something we never are. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I never really thought Schopenhauer's prescription held up. While I think he described the problems very well- being an ascetic never seemed like an ultimate conclusion. However, to defend old Schopy, I would say I think there is a difference in his approach of asceticism with stoicism, though it is fine line. For example, he wants us to have empathy and compassion with others, as they suffer like we do. We are the same Will according to this, so we must see that in others as well. Asceticism, following this line of thought, is not meant to live life with a muted sense of emotion (negative or otherwise), but to completely caste off existence. His asceticism is an almost impossibility to reach, but is the only lasting "solution" to suffering according to him. Nothing short of it would solve the problem as Will never ceases unless one has gone through the somewhat tortuous path of the ascetic.

So one one aspect of his ethic comes from feeling and emotion and another comes from a complete denial of the will for the very few individuals who are able to do so. Either way, in this thread I am not necessarily trying to compare Stoicism to Schopenhauer's pessimism, as much as give some reasons what my "beef" is with some of Stoicism's approach or aims.

Anyways, historically, after Zeno of Citium started popularizing it, it became the device of choice for many rich aristrocrats in Greece and Rome, and then codified into Roman law and culture as a means to ensure some sort of cultural obedience. Really, it became this tool for them Roman fascists (hey, I know using that word is ahistorical in this situation, but to be fair, the word fascist came from the Roman word fasces after all) to retain power and justify their despicable actions under the guise of 'honor'. So, as a philosophical device, there really isn't a problem with it if you're into building codes of ethics through lifelong contemplation and creating a sort of theory to help you abide by them, but when Stoicism became a political movement, then it's ugliness manifests itself. — discoii

I can see how Stoicism could be used to ensure people are content even if their empire is abusing them.

I can see how Stoicism could be used to ensure people are content even if their empire is abusing them. — schopenhauer1

I can see how pessimism could be used to convince people that it's no use trying to even be content, because everything sucks anyway. Potential for abuse != necessity of abuse.

I can see how pessimism could be used to convince people that it's no use trying to even be content, because everything sucks anyway. Potential for abuse != necessity of abuse. — Pneumenon

That's the point- Pessimism knows the "empire" is abusing them and is not content with it.

And what does pessimism recommend they do about it?

And what does pessimism recommend they do about it? — Pneumenon

Schop's version says complete and full out asceticism in an all out denial of will (something most cannot reach). Otherwise, get out of individuated will-to-live through compassion, and/or aesthetic contemplation.

I can see how Stoicism could be used to ensure people are content even if their empire is abusing them. — schopenhauer1

This would be violating the principle of charity.

Generally, Stoicism is interested in extirpating the passions, and sees pleasure as an indifferent. I can't get on board with that, insofar as I am a hedonist and think pleasure is a good, and since it is a passion, eliminating the passions can't help. If you want to eliminate the passions, kill yourself, amen.

I think Schopenhauer's main criticism of Stoicism in The World as Will and Representation, was that Stoics left room for things like "preferred indifferents" which means that this leaves room for Will. Desiring anything- even "preferred indifferents" is still Will enacting itself. Perhaps Stoicism deals with mitigating excess responses, but I think his point was that desiring itself- even if it is just for preferred indifferents, still produces suffering so to completely cut it at its root, one has to give up even that. After all, any accomplishment needs the fuel of the desire to complete it, to see it done a certain way, etc. I am pretty sure that in this critique there is a subtle understanding that desire can never be without its negative consequences of frustrated desire, disappointment, boredom, etc.

That isn't quite my critique although he has a good point which is that it desire/goals themselves create suffering not wrong reactions to excess. So it is a matter of where the suffering resides. At the end of the day Schopenhauer thinks the efficacy of Stoicism and its diagnosis is wrong.

My critique is coming from another angle. My critique is saying that Stoicism is replacing one bad thing (anxiety and excess dwelling on pain) with an attitude of non-attachment and non-care which could be its own horror. I'll simply refer back to my first post as I would just restating my critique here.

Yet another critique I have is sometimes things in life are too annoying or repulsive to have perfect equanimity- no matter how great the effort. I suspect if a Stoic fell into a fetid sewer, filled to their mouth with raw sewage, with little escape, equanimity goes out the window- though contemplating equanimity in an internet forum will surely continue.

You are making so many category errors, I don't know where to start. In the whole cohabitation scenario that you present here, you are assuming if you stop having an emotional attachment to someone, that must mean that you have no obligations of fairness to that person. Where did you infer that from what I said? — schopenhauer1

You said:

Rather than duty, it is the emotion of attachment one feels for a loved one. One doesn't love out of the duty to love (simply because they are your family) but because you have an attachment to that person — schopenhauer1

So on what are your "obligations of fairness" based? On duty perhaps? It seems to me that if your moral obligation to be upset and to grieve at the loss of a loved one is based on emotion, equally your moral obligation to your wife must be based on emotion - if it isn't, then on what is it? You don't have much choice left...

In fact, it might not be a life worth living as you are habituating your brain to essentially filter out the natural feelings that go along with being attached or caring about something or someone. — schopenhauer1

But it's not doing this though... I have explained over and over again that Stoicism is not about not feeling, or escaping your negative feelings. It's more about being indifferent to their presence or absence, and not letting them overcome your reason.

So on what are your "obligations of fairness" based? On duty perhaps? It seems to me that if your moral obligation to be upset and to grieve at the loss of a loved one is based on emotion, equally your moral obligation to your wife must be based on emotion - if it isn't, then on what is it? You don't have much choice left... — Agustino

Your characterization of my premise is incorrect though. I am not saying it is a "moral obligation to be upset and to grieve at the loss of a loved one is based on emotion". Rather, I am saying it is natural to feel grief and loss to someone you care about and that a life where one is indifferent to every passion, especially ones that have to do with things or people one cares about quite strongly, may be not worth living- even if in order to follow the dictates of Reason. Fuck Reason and its dictates then (not that I believe there is Reason or its dictates to follow..but I will for the sake of indulging the Stoic conception of things). To live a life without much passion at all is a very stultifying life- one I compare to being stoned all the time. See my previous posts for more detail.

Rather, I am saying it is natural to feel grief and loss to someone you care about and that a life where one is indifferent to every passion, especially ones that have to do with things or people one cares about quite strongly, may be not worth living- even if in order to follow the dictates of Reason — schopenhauer1

What does it mean for something to be "natural"? Is it just that most people do it?

To live a life without much passion at all is a very stultifying life- one I compare to being stoned all the time — schopenhauer1

The Stoic doesn't live a life without passion - insofar as it's impossible to avoid passion. What is your idea of a good life?