Stoicism: banal, false, or not philosophy.

Bartricks

I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true and its method to be reasoned argument.

It is not, then, a form of therapy. There may be many worldviews which, if sincerely believed, will have therapeutic benefits. Believing, for example, that the future will be better than the past seems likely, in the main, to be beneficial psychologically. But that is not evidence it is true. And there seems nothing contradictory in the idea that the truth may be awful - that believing what is true may be psychologically harmful.

Nevertheless, it is what's true that philosophy is concerned with regardless of any therapeutic benefits believing it may or may not have.

So, if all that can be said about a stoic worldview is that it has therapeutic benefits, then it is not a worldview that should interest a true philosopher. A true philosophy wants to know what's true and hang the consequences.

What about banality? Well, let's say that Stoicism is the view that we ought to cultivate the virtues. Well, now it is banal, for virtues just are character traits that it is good and right to cultivate in oneself and in others. So now it is saying just "it is good to be good". Yes, it is. But we knew that already.

Even if it is more specific - that is, if it involves the cultivation of particular character traits - then these character traits will either be ones we have independent reason to think are character traits we ought to cultivate, or they will not be. If the former, then the view remains banal - for it is saying no more than that it is good to cultivate good character traits. If the latter, then it is most likely false. For if the character traits are ones that we seem to have moral reason not to cultivate - that is, if Stoicism makes prescriptions that seem to fly in the face of Reason's prescriptions - then it is most likely false, for it is what Reason says that is the philosopher's touchstone, not what some theory says.

So, I submit that Stoicism is either the label for a therapy and not a philoosphy, or it is the label for a banal view (the view that it is good to cultivate good character traits), or it is the view that we ought to cultivate very specific character traits that we do not appear to have reason to cultivate.

As an example of the latter, take the view - often associated with Stoicism - that it is irrational to feel grief for those who have died.

Now, on its face that claim seems false. Someone who felt no grief for a loved one who has just died is not healthy. They have reason to feel grief. They are not a model of rationality, for they are either failing to recognise a reason to grieve, or failing to respond to a reason to grieve - a reason most of us recognise.

Perhaps that is not the Stoic view, and the Stoic view is in fact the view that it is irrational to feel grief when it is irrational to feel grief, and rational otherwise.

Okay, but now it is banal.

Perhaps that is not the Stoic view and the Stoic view is that it is beneficial to oneself not to feel grief and so beneficial to reflect on the (bad) arguments for thinking that death is not a harm to the one who dies (and to overlook their badness and try and be convinced by them).

Okay, maybe. But that is just a point about the therapeutic benefits of believing certain things and is not evidence of the truth of the beliefs in question.

In this way, then, it seems to me that Stoicism is going either to be banal, or false, or not really a philosophy at all.

Valentinus

Perhaps you could provide an example of what you militate against.
A lot of bad things happen to most people, including their impending demise. For myself, I like the Manual quality of Epictetus: Do this when things go South.

Bartricks

↪Valentinus

I think I did that above - Stoics think grief is irrational.

But it appears often to be rational. If my partner dies, then I have reason to grieve her death. If there was a pill that would make me forget all about her, then I ought not to take it. And so on.

So, we often appear to have reason to feel grief. Other things being equal, that is evidence that we really do have reason to feel grief, despite the fact we would be happier not feeling it. And thus, it is evidence that Stoicism - or this particular Stoic belief - is false.

If a Stoic replies that I have misrepresented the view and that in fact the view is that grief is rational when it is rational and not when it is not, then the view is banal.

If the Stoic replies that we will be better off not feeling grief, then they have ceased doing philosophy and have become a therapist.

Pantagruel

Stoicism really seems to attract a lot of skeptical attention around here. The expression of stoicism that says the most to me is to learn to control one's expectations. This resonates well with my Buddhist orientation.

Valentinus

Grief is a feeling and an act. I don't look at the teaching as a betrayal of my feeling. But I understand how it can be taken that way.
These are deeply personal things to consider. My interest in the teachings is not to make it other than that.

Bartricks

↪Valentinus

But it is rational to feel grief when someone with whom one enjoyed a close relationship dies, yes?

Someone who didn't - someone who managed to persuade themselves that death is nothing to the one who dies and so felt nothing upon learning of their death - is not a model of rationality.

So this is a case where the Stoic says something that flies in the face of Reason. A good Stoic, who feels no grief when his/her partner or friend or parent dies, is not a rational person.

We often have reason to be unhappy - reason to feel unpleasant things. That is, a rational person is not someone who has managed to find a way of being happy no matter what the world throws at them. No, it matters what's thrown at you. If some things are thrown at you, you ought - ought - to be unhappy and you are not fully rational if you are happy despite them.

If the Stoic is simply trying to teach us how to be happy whatever the world throws at us, then they are a therapist, not a philosopher and often what they teach will be profoundly immoral.

Bartricks

↪Pantagruel

But what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? To what extent a view resonates with you, or bears similarity to another view, has nothing whatever to do with its truth.

Pfhorrest

Why ought anyone ever be unhappy, if they can manage not to? What use is it to feel bad, all else being the same?

Bartricks

↪Pfhorrest

Like I say, if a loved one dies and you feel no unhappiness at that, then you're not right.

There are a whole range of negative emotions that we ought, under certain circumstances, feel. If you are the victim of a great injustice, then resentment and righteous indignation are fitting emotions to feel. You are not irrational in feeling them, though in feeling them you are not happy.

Another example: a good therapist may be able to make an atrocious individual feel good about themselves and feel happy. Now, has the therapist make the world a better place if they do that? Or worse?

Worse, obviously. The atrocious individual who has done many bad things ought to be unhappy, not happy.

Therapy is therapy, not philosophy.

And the view that we only ever have reason to do that which makes us happy is a false one (or at least, we seem to have abundant evidence that it is false).

Valentinus

↪Bartricks

I accept that others may read those texts differently, and that perhaps I am missing something essential, but I see the existence of grief, anger, and sorrow as a given in the responses. The appeal to be "rational" is not a negation but a negotiation. Sort of like the deal Apollo cut with the Furies.

Bartricks

↪Valentinus

I am not sure what you mean.

I think we often have reason to feel emotions such as grief, anger, sorrow and so forth. Whether we do feel them or not is another matter. But the ideally rational person feels such emotions when and where they have reason to feel them and not otherwise.

If the Stoic thinks we never have reason to feel such things and that, ideally, we would not, then their view is implausible.

If the Stoic thinks that we sometimes have reason to feel such things, sometimes not, then their view is true but banal.

if the Stoic is simply offering us a way of gaining self-mastery, then they are not a philosopher anymore but a therapist.

Bartricks

↪Valentinus

Here is another example of a Stoic teaching that seems obviously false: that wrongdoing is always a product of ignorance.

This seems false to first appearances. Haven't we all sometimes believed that an act was wrong and done it anyway? Surely. I am sure I have, anyway.

Perhaps I am deceiving myself. But to insist that I am on the basis that my claim contradicts a Stoic claim is to have made Stoicism unfalsifiable.

Furthermore, as well as seeming false on its face, it seems false on further reflection too. For example, if all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, then it surely does not merit deserved punishment. So, no wrongdoer ever deserves punishment for what they do - for in relevant respects what they did was just a mistake. They require treatment, not just deserts.

But it seems clear to the reason of most that people - including ourselves - often deserve punishment for what they have done.

Thus our reason seems quite clear on the matter: much wrongdoing is done knowingly.

Perhaps the Stoic will reply that it does not benefit us or others to acknowledge this. Well, they may be right about that, but now the Stoic has once more become a therapist.

Pfhorrest

↪Bartricks

You’ve only asserted that there’s something wrong with not feeling bad in the face of tragedy, when I asked for a reason why that’s wrong. I’m not asserting that it’s irrational or otherwise wrong to feel bad in such circumstances, just that to whatever (dubious) extent someone has a choice in the matter, there’s clearly nothing wrong that I can see about choosing not to feel bad. If you think there is, I’d like to hear a reason.

Janus

Nevertheless, it is what's true that philosophy is concerned with regardless of any therapeutic benefits believing it may or may not have. — Bartricks

Philosophy is usually defined as "love of wisdom". If believing the truth is sometimes "awful" and not psychologically beneficial, then in those cases believing the truth would not be wise. It follows therefore that wisdom is more important to philosophy than truth. The other point here is that, ultimately, we do not know what is true in the most general sense, and no amount of thinking will enable us to do so, we can only determine what seems most [plausible, and that is always based upon certain groundless assumptions. On the other hand, we can certainly come to understand what attitudes and beliefs are the most wise, at least for ourselves, if not for others.

Bartricks

↪Pfhorrest

Yes, I am asserting it - but I only assert it because it appears self-evident to my reason and the reason of virtually everyone else. We recognise not just that these emotions are often felt, but that often it is entirely appropriate - that is, rational - that they be felt. And similarly, we recognise just as often when they are inappropriate. It would, for instance, be inappropriate for me to feel guilt about something I knew I did not do, or resent something I knew was not freely done to me (inappropriate to resent the tree for the branch that fell on my head, for instance), and so on.

As to choice - again, I gave an example. Imagine your partner dies and you know that if you take a certain pill all memory of her will be expunged, thus freeing you from grief. Should you take that pill? No, not unless this is a special case. Why should you not take that pill? Well, in part because you ought to feel grief and a good person does not try to escape those emotions under those kinds of circumstance.

The reason of most people represents this to be the case. Yours too, I'll wager. For just imagine that your friend's partner dies and he gleefully tells you that he feels no grief at all - well, you wouldn't think that was fine and dandy would you?!

Bartricks

↪Janus

But philosophy as I - and I think most contemporary analytic philosophers - conceive it is not about being wise, but about figuring out what's true.

There are many wise people who are not philosophers, and there are many philosophers who are not wise.

An accountant is wise with money, but they are not a philosopher of money, for instance.

Pfhorrest

↪Bartricks

Taking a pill to forget that the grief-causing event happened complicates the scenario, because most people would choose not to forget even if they would choose not to hurt.

Consider also that such feelings like grief naturally fade over time, and we consider that to be a kind of emotional healing from an emotional wound. If one were able to heal faster, or less vulnerable to wounds in the first place, why would that be bad? And to say that it would be good is not to fault those who do suffer such wounds and take long to heal; I’m not saying that people who get hurt and take time to recover are doing something wrong. You, in contrast, are saying that those who can heal faster or take more trauma without injury are somehow doing something wrong, and I’m calling for you to back that up instead of just calling it obvious to “Reason”. Reason without a reason is just an assertion of faith.

And if I had a friend who seemed eerily unperturbed by a trauma, my fear would be that he was only hiding his pain that I would expect he dis really feel — but if he convinced me that he had genuinely moved past it already, I would be proud of and happy for him.

Janus

↪Bartricks

Sure, you can define philosophy as the analytic philosophers do; but that is just one small subsection of philosophy.

I would say that there are no wise people in a general sense who are not philosophers (I'm not talking about their being professional philosophers, of course).

There are also, no doubt, many philosophers who are not wise; some because they have failed at their profession, and others because they belong to the unwise subsection of philosophy that thinks the search for truth, in the narrow sense as they conceive it, is more important than wisdom.

Also, not all accountants are wise with money, and those who are I would count as being philosophers of money; in the sense that they love the wisdom of money.

Janus

But it appears often to be rational. If my partner dies, then I have reason to grieve her death. If there was a pill that would make me forget all about her, then I ought not to take it. — Bartricks

Firstly there being a pill that makes you forget all about your partner (if you mean to literally have no memories of her or him) is not the same as a pill that would relieve your grief and allow you to focus on the happy memories. Having said that, it is also not a given that all grief is necessarily psychologically detrimental or even totally unhappy. Have you heard of the expression "bittersweet"?

Amity

I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true and its method to be reasoned argument. — Bartricks

Stoics think grief is irrational. — Bartricks

So, is it true that Stoics think grief is irrational ? Where is your evidence for this ?
Stoics look at natural facts. The philosophy is evidence-based. To reach awareness and understanding.

People around us will die and it will hurt. Often, quite badly.
The question for the Stoics then was how to make sense of this fact, how to come to terms with it. How does one deal with the natural grief that loss provokes?

The Stoics are often stereotyped as suppressing their emotions, but their philosophy was actually intended to teach us to face, process, and deal with emotions immediately instead of running from them. Tempting as it is to deceive yourself or hide from a powerful emotion like grief— by telling yourself and other people that you’re fine—awareness and understanding are better.

https://dailystoic.com/stoic-response-grief/

...philosophy as I - and I think most contemporary analytic philosophers - conceive it is not about being wise, but about figuring out what's true. — Bartricks

So, I don't think this is an either/or situation.
Practical wisdom relies on exploring and reflection, particularly of the self and how it relates to others in the world.

The centrality of self-knowledge is not something most modern and contemporary philosophers address. There are probably a few exceptions out there that you can think of.
As you say, the goal would rather seem to be about achieving certainty about certain topics via philosophical discourse.
And when has this ever resulted in agreement between 2 opposing parties, or views ?

For the Stoics, philosophy is a continuous act or art of living.
For Massimo Pigliucci it is ' a never-ending exercise of reflective equilibrium'.
It is an ongoing progress...
And this can also include study of analytical or continental philosophy. Whatever.
There is not just one way.

Amity

I will copy my previous post from the Guest Speaker section where posters have the opportunity to pose questions to Massimo Pigliucci:

@Bartricks Have you considered offering up a question in the form of detailed OP, here ?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7089/discuss-philosophy-with-professor-massimo-pigliucci/p1

Hi Wallows - I don't intend to compete with this excellent set of questions.
However, I'd like to comment on what you've written so far, if that's OK.

I have sympathy with the view that Stoicism can be seen as secular spirituality with religious overtones.
Re: 'How to be a Stoic':
I read in an interview that Massimo talked of Epictetus as 'playing the role of his personal 'daimon'. This reminded me of Socrates' 'daemonion' who kept him on the right track. This seems to be spiritual if not divine in nature.
It would be interesting to ask just how Massimo has his Conversations with Epictetus ? Is it 'spiritual' in that Epictetus is seen as some kind of 'God' - or is it by a close, analytical reading of the Discourses.

There does seem to an evangelical zeal involved. Having said that, perhaps it is warranted so as to balance out the extremism of certain religious beliefs.

I like the idea of life as an ongoing project. Massimo has shown how an individual's life can be changed by conscious reflection ( 'Know Thyself' ) and a bit of serendipity. From being a scientist, going through a midlife crisis, to being a personable, pragmatic, public philosopher of Stoicism.

Re: the Athens TED talk and the role model of Nelson Mandela. I didn't know that he had been inspired by Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. I love that ! He speaks to me too.
I do see philosophy, in particular Stoicism, as a practical way to progress wellbeingness. (Massimo points out the overlap in psychology and psychiatry. Also, the importance of an evidence-based approach. It's all good ).

From the Meditations 5.9:
'Do not give up in disgust or impatience if you do not find action on the right principles consolidated into a habit in all that you do. No: if you have taken a fall, come back again, and be glad if most of your actions are on the right side of humanity.
Do not come back to philosophy as schoolboy to a tutor but rather as a man with opthalmia returns to his sponge and salve...obedience to reason is no great burden, but a source of relief.'

[ My bolds: In other words, you can only do your best ! ]

Finally, this quote:
'I have a habit of reflecting about my feelings and experiences...adjusting what I actually do and what I want to do in a neverending exercise of reflective equilibrium' - Massimo Pigliucci.

How inspirational is that ?
The forthcoming discussions should be fabulous.

Pantagruel

But what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? To what extent a view resonates with you, or bears similarity to another view, has nothing whatever to do with its truth. — Bartricks

Well, Stoicism is a moral philosophy, which suggests principles upon which to base one's life and one's actions. So nothing could be more relevant to a moral philosophy than that it 'resonates' with a person.

This is what I find so humourous about these skeptical-stoical threads: If stoicism clearly does not resonate with you...why bother?

Pantagruel

Okay, maybe. But that is just a point about the therapeutic benefits of believing certain things and is not evidence of the truth of the beliefs in question. — Bartricks

The entire point of the philosophy is its therapeutic benefits. That is the entire point of any moral philosophy. IF you do X, THEN result Y. The only way to prove or disprove Stoicism is to adopt it 'in good faith'. If you haven't actually applied any of the principles of Stoicism diligently in your life then you aren't in a position to comment on its validity. If the principles work, then Stoicism is valid in that it has been effective for you. If not, then it is not effective for you, but it could still be 'true' in that it may well be valid for someone else....

unenlightened

I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true and its method to be reasoned argument.

It is not, then, a form of therapy. — Bartricks

Unless it is the case that truth and reason are therapeutic. Which they surely must be, as delusion and unreason are the very definition of insanity.

TheMadFool

So, if all that can be said about a stoic worldview is that it has therapeutic benefits, then it is not a worldview that should interest a true philosopher — Bartricks

I thought Stoicism had as a belief the distinction controllable vs uncontrollable. It so happens, quite unfortunately for most of us, that the former is usually internal and the latter is external. To add insult to injury it's usually the external that is painful. Isn't this truthful? If, yes, then its therapeutic quality would be one more feather in Zeno's cap. Right?

What about banality? Well, let's say that Stoicism is the view that we ought to cultivate the virtues. Well, now it is banal, for virtues just are character traits that it is good and right to cultivate in oneself and in others. So now it is saying just "it is good to be good". Yes, it is. But we knew that already. — Bartricks

I think the nature of goodness is difficult to pin down. There's much controversy about what the definition of "good" is. "Virtue" seems an easier target, a safer bet so to speak, if one wanted to talk about ethics.

3017amen

↪Bartricks

I submit that Stoicism is either the label for a therapy and not a philosophy,

The short answer is yes. Stocism is indeed a Philosophy.

Unless you are thinking that Philosophy does not include cognitive science (Psychotherapy), then in your case it would not be a philosophy.

The entire point of the philosophy is its therapeutic benefits — Pantagruel

Sure, a self-empowering therapy!

Amity

What about banality? Well, let's say that Stoicism is the view that we ought to cultivate the virtues. Well, now it is banal, for virtues just are character traits that it is good and right to cultivate in oneself and in others. So now it is saying just "it is good to be good". Yes, it is. But we knew that already.
— Bartricks

I think the nature of goodness is difficult to pin down. There's much controversy about what the definition of "good" is. "Virtue" seems an easier target, a safer bet so to speak, if one wanted to talk about ethics. — TheMadFool

You are right, there will always be controversy in defining what 'good' is.
There is nothing banal about considering how to live as well as we can, cultivating certain virtues.

Given that the discussion is about Stoicism, here's an Introducion to the 4 cardinal virtues:

1. Wisdom
2. Courage
3. Justice
4. Temperance

https://dailystoic.com/4-stoic-virtues/

Bartricks

↪Pfhorrest

Taking a pill to forget that the grief-causing event happened complicates the scenario, because most people would choose not to forget even if they would choose not to hurt. — Pfhorrest

It doesn't complicate it, it just renders vivid the point - which is that sometimes we ought to hurt. If the pill eradiated grief, it would be wrong to take it after your partner has just died. Wrong, because you ought to grieve.

When you ask for 'a reason' what you actually mean is not a reason, but an explanation that you personally find satisfying.

Reason herself approves of us feeling grief under certain circumstances. My evidence that this is the case is that our reason - the reason of most of us, anyway - tells us that those who feel no grief under certain circumstances are faulty, not pictures of rational health.

Again, consider my example: if there was a pill that could eradicate grief, ought you take it after your partner dies? No. Some grief is appropriate - that is, some grief is grief one ought to feel. It is grief one has 'reason' to feel.

Bartricks

↪Janus

Sure, you can define philosophy as the analytic philosophers do; but that is just one small subsection of philosophy — Janus

The project of using reason to figure out what's true with no regard to anything else is a distinctive project. And it has come to have a name: philosophy.

Now, others may use the term differently. That is true of all terms.

But if a Stoic 'philosopher' is not engaged in the above project but is instead just concerned to make people more able to be happy regardless of what the world throws at them, then that person is not a philosopher in my sense of the term, but a therapist (and an unqualified one at that!)

Bartricks

↪Janus

Firstly there being a pill that makes you forget all about your partner (if you mean to literally have no memories of her or him) is not the same as a pill that would relieve your grief and allow you to focus on the happy memories. — Janus

So? Just imagine there's a pill that eradicates grief directly then - the point remains that if your partner has just died you ought not take it, other things being equal.

Janus

↪Bartricks

Why not?

Stoicism: banal, false, or not philosophy.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions