I do understand there’s a tremendously strong social prohibition on questioning hedonism and sexual liberation, particularly in Australia, but also in most liberal democracies. It’s far easier to go with flow, and a lot more pleasurable too.

Interesting comment about human sexuality Janus!

Perhaps Religious Fundamentalism could take a page from the Stoics book in that regard, and thus become indifferent towards those external influences!

I share your view

The emphasis upon not having others determine one's decisions constantly points to how we betray ourselves in that regard. The The Enchiridion by Epictetus is not a work that concerns itself with what provides the ultimate fulfillment to our endeavors but is a manual of training to help a fighter get better at fighting.

A knife is not a spoon.

:cool:

You always seem to interpret positions that disagree with yours as being the result of some kind of intellectual capitulation to taboo, "prohibition", hedonism or some-such, as though there is some default correct view that dissenters have necessarily "fallen" from.

I don't think you see that you are succumbing to dogma.

There is a strong presumption in favour of libertarianism and hedonism in modern culture. Anything questioning of that is associated, as you say, with 'prudery' or being repressive or restricting freedom. But from the perspective of stoicism, etc, people are literally enslaved by passions, led along by them, often to miserable states, sometimes to nihilism or addiction. But of course that will conflict with your dogma. :wink:

No, I am not advocating that people should be controlled by their passions, merely that they should not feel guilty about enjoying them provided they respect the welfare and feelings of others, of course.

People are generally more controlled by their habits, of thinking, feeling and doing, than by their passions. Leaving aside the etymology of "passion" which is related to passivity (habit); I am thinking of passion as vivid, active interest, in a Nietzschean kind of sense.

:up:

People are generally more controlled by their habits, of thinking, feeling and doing, than than of their passions. Leaving aside the etymology of "passion" which is related to passivity (habit); I am thinking of passion as vivid, active interest, in a Nietzschean kind of sense. — Janus

Stoicism is about limiting your expectations, not controlling your passions I think. — Pantagruel

Stoicism is great. It's the best example of a practical philosophy I can think of. So many others are useless.

It focusses on controlling the passions. But our passions are a gift from God... And God doesn't make mistakes. Nature is perfection, so why would God make a fatal flaw in his magnum opus? He did not. — PhilCF

Very funny, but do you have a serious objection?

Thanks @180 Proof, I missed that very apt comment by @Pantagruel.

Stoicism is great. It's the best example of a practical philosophy I can think of. So many others are useless. — S

For me, it's a close second to Epicureanism. Who was it that said something like 'stoic during war, epicurean during peace'? Probably wasn't a stoic ...

I don't know what you mean by coping tool but to my knowledge this term involves avoiding truth. Stoicism, au contraire, is about living with the truth.

As for passion vs reason I think Where passion begins
reason ends. Where reason ends, problems begin.


It's not that humans don't have emotions. Duh! Put humans in a context that brings into relief the truth. On one side we have animals, ruled by passion. On the other side we have the cold unfeeling logic machines - computers. Humans sit between them. If we become too passionate we become animals. If we try to become a Sar Trek Spock we become machines. We can't possibly ignore our animal heritage and neither can we overlook our rational abilities. We are both animal and machine.

As for God I think you're spot on considering our rational mind demands skepticism and that's deleterious to any and all religions. It's better for religion to have people be emotionally driven to believe god exists.

As for passion vs reason I think Where passion begins reason ends. Where reason ends, problems begin. — TheMadFool

:up:

It focusses on controlling the passions. But our passions are a gift from God... And God doesn't make mistakes. Nature is perfection, so why would God make a fatal flaw in his magnum opus? He did not. — PhilCF

This not a report of what or how Stoics thought at all. Instead, an expression of studied and applied ignorance and stupidity. Not ignorance? Tell us then what you know of God? Not stupidity? What do you call ignorance on parade?