The boon of ‘stoicism’ in humility. If someone is to take ‘stoicism’ as some ubiquitous elixir then they miss out on humility and knowing that limitation is not equivalent to inactively or surrender.

Stoicism can open the window to humility and resilience, but only a megalomaniac or a ‘hedonist’ (in the worst sense of ‘hedonism’) believing it as a path to some blissful state.

This is also why I steer clear of the buddhist doctrine of passivity. It’s more or less a path of ego manipulation for most who take it to heart. A great many ideas are overly idealised! Haha! :)

I do admit, I loved Epictetus' "Manual"="Enchiridion" in my youth. But, puh-leeze don't really treat it as a manual to live by in the slightest. Not if you want a sane and comfortable life of ease. If you're a masochist, then, by all means, go ahead!

I don't need to be a master of chess to appreciate how good it is or to continue to play relatively well. Likewise with stoicism.

And I don't know about you, but I'm happier when I'm resilient.

So I reject points 3 & 4.

Epiphenomenalism... Yes, epiphenomenalism deserves a mention here. It has been empirically demonstrated that our actions are quite at odds from a hard version of what one would 'want' them to appear as. The brain supposedly comes up with mental states before we are aware of them. This is the unconscious mind at work, where the conscious mind is akin to a whistle on a locomotive chugging along forward. — Wallows

Are you talking about the Libet experiments? Problematic, especially in how they are usually interpreted. The very instructions given to subjects basically ask them to prime their nervous systems for a certain kind of impulse and then allow random action potentials to reach the threshold for motor activation basically without interference. The subjects are basically asked to allow unconscious impulses to express as muscle activity. Nobody should be surprised that action potentials arise that begin before the subject is conscious of them and then, when allowed to proceed, cause movement. And everyone conveniently forgets Libet's "veto" findings and his own interpretation, which are quite at odds with what they want the experiments to show.

As for epiphenomenalism generally, if consciousness were ineffectual, how could you report your subjective states? How could you even know you are conscious? Presumably, the structure of your mental state is determined by the physical state of the brain, right? So any thoughts you have reflect that state. If that brain state contains information about your subjective state, that would seem to require that your very subjectivity must somehow influence the brain state, which would require consciousness to be effectual. If it were ineffectual, it would make no difference at all to behavior whether or not the physical state of the brain is accompanied by a mental state.

And in that case, if a body is making mouth noises that seem to report subjective experiences, they aren't actually caused by any subjective experiences. They actually don't have anything to do with experiences. The behavior is all completely accounted for by low-level, non-conscious physical processes. So we would be talking nonsense when we talk about consciousness. Even if we did have conscious experiences, there would be no way to report them or even have mental states that refer to mental states. Whatever reports we make would be entirely determined by non-conscious processes. See the problem? The phenomenal side of things would recieve causal influence from physical states but never send influence.

Suppose you are operating a radio station and are broadcasting information, but not receiving. Suppose I am in my car listening but not sending any information to you. How could you know about my listening? My state would be influenced by yours, but yours wouldn't be influenced by mine. In epiphenomenalism, my state here is like the mental state, and yours is like the physical state.

And strangely, I sometimes see people who seem to believe in epiphenomenalism go on to speak as though consciousness evolved by natural selection. if consciousness doesn't actually have anything to do with behavior, how could it evolve? What selective advantage would it offer? Why would natural selection favor it?

Of all the ideas in philosophy of mind, I think epiphenomenalism takes the cake as the most indefensible. It is a weird one-way dualism, for one thing. And the people who favor it often are hostile to dualism! Go figure!

But even if were the case, how does that invalidate stoicism?

But even if were the case, how does that invalidate stoicism? — petrichor

Among the many theories that Stoicism propounds, I have seen it professed that a free will is necessary for it to make sense. What's strange, is that Stoicism is a deterministic school of thought. So, go figure!

The uneasy, insane and foolish, both want and expect a life of ease, comfort and sanity. It certainly isn’t a manual for life. It is an example of someone dealing with the hardships, ideals and insanity of life - there there’s something to learn.

Giving up is itself contrary to the principles of Stoicism, as I understand it. If you're a quitter, then Stoicism isn't going to be for you. You actually have to practice the teachings of Stoicism against your own negative emotions, not just give in to your own negative emotions. Basically, you're doing it wrong.

Also, Stoics don't wallow.

The striking thing about Stoicism is that the significance of things outside your control is discounted. So, desire, envy, greed, hate don't arise and don't motivate or influence a true Stoic because they result from a person's desire for or fear of things/people outside their control.

it happens to be the case that it's easier to determine what isn't within your control that what's in your control, but in determining what is not in our control we get an idea of what we are capable of controlling.

Stoicism, especially Roman Stoicism, is very practical; it serves as a guide regarding how to live. You can if you wish indulge in speculation regarding free will, etc., but this does nothing for someone trying to make decisions on a moment to moment or day to day basis.

Equanimity is the goal of Stoicism; aequanimitas to the Roman Stoics, apatheia to the Greeks. What better way to achieve that that understanding what you can do and what is or is not worth doing? Stoicism is practical wisdom, and as such it serves quite well. If that's not philosophy, so be it.

The striking thing about Stoicism is that the significance of things outside your control is discounted. — Ciceronianus the White

Quite so, and this falls squarely into the sentiment I expressed in point #1. For any intellectual who has read such things as Manufactured Consent, by Chomsky, or is vaguely aware of the nature of American democracy in managing the expectations of the hoi polloi.

What am I getting at?

Namely, things under our control have been eroded to the simple choice of whether I want a Pepsi or Coca-Cola. Same shit I would say.

So, desire, envy, greed, hate don't arise and don't motivate or influence a true Stoic because they result from a person's desire for or fear of things/people outside their control. — Ciceronianus the White

OK, and here I would like to point out a side issue that I have noticed in Stoicism that has been irking me for quite a while. Namely, the idealization of what some Stoics consider as a true and genuine Stoic, apart from the purported sages. Just where do you draw the line here? I suppose the Cynics did away with the ambiguity, and really are the sages that the Stoics admired, which they actually did admire.

Stoicism, especially Roman Stoicism, is very practical; it serves as a guide regarding how to live. — Ciceronianus the White

As a follow up to the previous paragraph, this is hard to gauge. And, I return to point #4, as to whether Stoicism is actually making me a happier person, which is perhaps the only test that can be subjected to Stoic philosophy.

Equanimity is the goal of Stoicism; aequanimitas to the Roman Stoics, apatheia to the Greeks. What better way to achieve that that understanding what you can do and what is or is not worth doing? Stoicism is practical wisdom, and as such it serves quite well. If that's not philosophy, so be it. — Ciceronianus the White

Little disagreement here. For the matter, I think happiness is overrated. But, there's no way around the fact that some pragmatic test is demanded by any free-thinker or individual to asses the merit of Stoicism in coping(?) with the struggle of ascertaining what is in fact under their control or not...

Pragmatic, yes, which would mean to me, being a Dewey fan, no absolute conclusions but an appreciation of the fact we deal in probabilities and recognize that as circumstances differ so may assessments, and we learn from the failure to assess correctly.

The test is experience, judgments made and the intelligent analysis of results, I would think. What is or is not reasonably subject to what I do or think in certain circumstances and what is not? But again, I think the emphasis should be on what is not. If I can't do/control X, I do what I can and accept what I can't do without anger or other negative feelings.

Epictetus: "Make the best use of what is in your power and take the rest as it happens."

Epictetus: "Make the best use of what is in your power and take the rest as it happens." — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, despite the allure of Stoicism in seemingly empowering an individual to think and assess what is the best or more-so the right course of action, there is a lot of appeal to 'fate', 'what the god's want', 'fortune', and 'good-will'.

Are these things all things not under one's control?

They're "the rest" yes, or part of it.
Ancient Stoicism was grounded in large part on the belief in an immanent divinity. Stoicism need not be (see Lawrence Becker's book A New Stoicism). That divinity was thought by the ancients to be material, in other words a part of the universe, but in the nature of a fire or spirit infusing the world. The divinity was reason, roughly speaking. Humans have the capacity to reason and so partake in the Divine Reason; we have a bit of the divinity in us.

What's in accord with reason is in accord with the divine spirit which is the intelligence ultimately guiding nature (the universe, world). So in employing our capacity to reason we act "according to nature."

That said, the universe is rather large. It and the Divine Reason are in many ways unrelated to our concerns, as we're a small part of nature. We can't expect to control all that takes place in the universe. At best, we can control ourselves, or at least try to do so. So we do the best we can with what we can control, and accept what we can't control, which is to say we don't pout, as it were, or suffer from angst, or despair, or rant about the meaning or purpose of life. or for that matter, I suppose, wonder to the point of fixation whether or not we have "free will."

Have you read James' The Will to Believe?

I have lost "faith" in Stoicism, as a guide to ones life, as the feels of despair simply get sublimated into profound futility of what little I have actual control over.

And here I want to ask you about Seneca, the dark horse of Stoicism. The man had it made from birth to death, and adopting Stoicism as a philosophy of life simply made the guy larger than life. What's your take on Seneca?

I haven't read that work of James.

Control need not be absolute in order to be exercised. What is it you feel you don't have any control over? If you truly have no control over something, why let it disturb you to excess? One of the examples used by Epictetus comes to mind. We have no control over the fact we will die. Don't we have some control over our feelings about it and, at least in some circumstances, how we die (consider the manner of Seneca's death).

You may expect too much of Stoicism.

As for Seneca, he was a very able man, he wrote very well (though not always to my taste), but if the wealth and property he accumulated is any indication, he allowed his desire for things and power to overwhelm him. I think that to be fair we have to consider what it was like to be a tutor to Nero and a high functionary of Nero's court, and acknowledge that would put him in a very stressful position, but if he participated in the murder of Nero's mother or in preparing Nero's defense of that act before the Senate, that is difficult to forget. He apparently died consistent with Stoic ideals, however.

Studying Stoicism does not produce happiness. — Wallows

How do you define "happiness"? Stoics seemed to equate it with calm acceptance of whatever "happens" (Eudaimonia), not with "good luck" due to divine providence. At first, that sounds like Fatalism. But part 2 of Stoicism is to avoid worrying about "what ought to be". This is similar to Zen Buddhism, in that striving for perfection in an imperfect world is the cause of your unhappiness. That's not to say that you shouldn't try to improve your conditions (flourishing); just don't sink into anxiety & depression when you fail. Stoicism emphasizes virtuous character, so you can roll with the punches, and bend like a reed without breaking. Ultimately, happiness is a personal attitude, not an external goal to be reached.

You may expect too much of Stoicism. — Ciceronianus the White

I seem to have inverted that question and have asserted the converse. That Stoicism expects too much from modern-day man-kind. I'll get back if I have anything interesting to say.

I think stoicism is framed within a certain context viz. that which is beyond our control. Now what is beyond our control isn't one single thing. Rather it names a broad category of our experiences. What is within these categories, the members of the set of things beyond our control, aren't fixed themselves - they change. The kind and extent of these changes may necessitate changes in Stoicism or any other ism for that matter. Yet, here we are, 2019 to be specific, and Romans still haven't changed.

Stoicism expects too much from modern-day man-kind. — Wallows

By way of simile, it’s as though you suggest that the gym I go to expects too much from me. Of course that in order to gain a benefit from gym workouts a regular practice needs to be maintained, as well as balance in cardio/resistance training with adequate technique. Now that I think about it, I guess the gym does expect a lot. I guess the question is whether or not it’s too much, or rather, if the cost is worth the benefit.

Generally speaking, staying fit is healthy, and health is unquestionably good. ‘Modern-day’ mankind may have other priorities, however, which override the value of good health. I wonder if those priorities are worth it. Maybe those other priorities expect too much.

Is stoicism really a personal philosophy?

One of the things i find ironic about conservatives, and especially the more radical christian conservatives who preach self-responsibility, self-reliance, self-motivation etc which are values very much aligned with stoicism, is the fact they rely on preaching and perpetual communal gatherings to instil it, a permanent ongoing situation that is actually in direct contradiction to their message of self-motivation, self-reliability and self-responsibility.

I think that the conservative/evangelical mind-set is probably more resilient to life's misfortunes, which explains conservatism's appeal, but their actual practice for instilling and maintaining that mindset is communal and involves the social regulation, coercion and motivation of individuals, rather than individuals regulating and motivating themselves.

That’s why the religious right is so antisocialist. They see secular society as a competing religion. If the only social support system is religious then religions benefit. If there are alternatives then religions risk losing to the competition.

but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. — Epictetus, Enchiridion, 1.

Here are things that are self-contradictory in Stoicism.

Things I control are my actions.

Things I don't control are things.

Ergo I don't control my reputation etc.

Strangers control my reputation.

------------------

Stoicism's rules don't apply to strangers. I can't control my reputation, but they can. It's not their action; their control is extended to things. They have special controls; not over more actions then I have, but they have control over things. Which I don't.

So the rule of Stoic philosophy does not apply to everyone equally? I can't control things, but others can?

What sort of a philosophy is that? It's like a physics that says gravity acts on some objects with mass, but does not act on some other objects with mass.

Or in chemistry: some oxygen atoms combine with hydrogen atoms, but some other oxygen atoms never combine with hydrogen atoms.

That’s why the religious right is so antisocialist. They see secular society as a competing religion. If the only social support system is religious then religions benefit. If there are alternatives then religions risk losing to the competition. — Pfhorrest

Very smart. I always thought that the religious fight and fear atheism because of tribal patriotism. But there is more to it; in fact, the truly religious can't conceive of a life without a god faith. So they view atheism as a god-faith of some weird sort. Here, their fight is not only to preserve control, but also to preserve their god; and that is threatened, like you said, PFH, by socialism, which is the devil-worship of the atheists, so to speak.

That’s why the religious right is so antisocialist. They see secular society as a competing religion. If the only social support system is religious then religions benefit. If there are alternatives then religions risk losing to the competition. — Pfhorrest

This doesn't make sense for the simple fact that there are many religions in the world that may 'compete' and if secularity were seen as just another religion then it would simply be viewed as another competitor in the same category of competition. In any case, there's only a marginal difference between religious and secular charity. Secularity tends to support secular institutions and the religious tend to support religious institutions.

Religious competition against secular society is the same as its competition against other religions. Any given religion would be against any other religion having political power, and they're likewise against secular political power. The only difference here in the US at least is that there's virtually no chance of any religion besides Christianity gaining any measure of political power, while secular power is dominant and so an actual (perceived) threat to contend against.

In the US, religion has already lost to the state, in both political power and in supporting the populace. I believe the separation of church and state is written into the constitution. How can there be any sense of competition?

Is stoicism really a personal philosophy? — sime

The difference between religion and stoicism in this regard I believe lies in authority. There are certainly authorities in stoicism, such as Epictetus, but they're not ultimate authorities like God or the Pope, who maintain a dogma of some sort. Stoicism is more like a science that is open to revision, can accommodate vastly divergent metaphysics, and has no ultimate authority.

In the sense I already described. If the state implements social programs, people have less need to turn to the church for their social support. So the church has motive to be against state social programs to preserve a reason for people to turn to themselves instead.

In the sense I already described. If the state implements social programs, people have less need to turn to the church for their social support. So the church has motive to be against state social programs to preserve a reason for people to turn to themselves instead. — Pfhorrest

I think you will concede that the state has vastly more resources at its disposal than the church. This indicates a lack of competition.

Conservatives (not necessarily religious conservatives, as there are of course religious liberals) claim to be against socialism because they believe it's inefficient, or rather that the state is unable to do it as well as free-market capitalism. History tends to validate this claim. On the other hand, unregulated capitalism without social safety nets, etc. can lead to an unstable economy.

Religions aren't competing against the state to BE the state so how many resources they have in that capacity is irrelevant. Religions want to influence the state to make it not do things that will compete with them. Completely different game.

You're not being clear. What exactly is a religion (such as Christianity in the United States) competing with the state over? You seemed to claim that it was competing for political power earlier. If that's right, how will deregulation and deterioration of entitlements help religion gain political power?

religions provide social services. people turn to religions in part for those things. secular governments also provide those things sometimes. if they do, people have less reason to turn to religion. if they don't people have more reason to turn to religion. so religion has obvious motive to use their political influence (like everyone has political influence) to deter secular governments from providing social services.