Stoicism is not philosophy according to your definition then. So what, why should we care that you define philosophy in an inappropriate way?

Because my usage is not eccentric. It is the sense of the term according to which all of the following (and many others, of course) would qualify as philosophers: Plato, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Mill and so on.

We have a word for therapy. It is 'therapy'. We have a word for the single minded use of reason to pursue the truth: philosophy.

Now, I am not denying that some Stoics are philosophers, I am simply pointing out that to the extent that Stoics are doing no more than offering a half-baked view about how to be happy regardless of what the world throws at you they are not doing philosophy - for they have abandoned the pursuit of truth in favour of the pursuit of happiness.

There's a science devoted to that already.

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 don't know what you're saying. Sounds wishy washy and makes Stoicism into a label for nothing very clear.

There's a science of psychology that investigates the causes of people's emotions and what mechanisms can be used to regulate them.

In one sense psychology- like any science - is a branch of philosophy insofar as it is using reason to find out what is true.

But it is distinct in that the questions it seeks to answer - the causes and mechanisms of our mental states - is one that empirical methods can resolve.

Whereas other questions - such as whether we ought to feel such emotions, whether it is good or bad to feel them, and so on - are ones that empirical methods cannot resolve. They are squarely philosophical in that you have to use reason alone to investigate them.

Now, if a Stoic is merely interested in the causes and control mechanisms of our emotions, then Stoicism is a psychological thesis or project.

But Stoics are not like this - they mix psychological claims in with claims (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit) about how we ought to be, what we ought to be pursing, and so on.

Now those claims are philosophical - and it is on their basis that Stoicism can be considered a philosophical view and not just a therapy or branch of psychology.

But when it comes to those claims, they are either false or vacuously true.

When this is pointed out to a Stoic, they'll typically then change the subject to the supposed therapeutic benefits of their belief system.

Hence my claim that Stoicism is either banal, false or therapy (in truth, Stoics are guilty of a bit of all of these - they make some vacuously true claims, mix in some claims that are obviously false, and mix in some therapy).

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

Why bother what? I am interested in what's true. Whether a claim resonates with me (whatever that means) has no bearing on its truth. You, I think, are in serious danger of the fallacy of wishful thinking - of thinking that the fact you'd like a given proposition to be true, is therefore some kind of evidence that it actually is true. You're going to believe what you want, not what the evidence implies.

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

That's questionable. But if it is true, then it is not a view that a true philosopher is interested in.

For example, it may well be the case that belief in God has therapeutic benefits. Now, that is no evidence that God exists.

A philosopher is interested in whether God actually exists, not in the therapeutic benefits that may (or may not) accrue from believing it.

So, again, if all Stoics are doing is offering a theory about how to improve your odds of being happy come what may, then it is just a therapy (and one radically underinformed by scientific data too).

I mean, if you really are interested in how best to be happy come what may, then consult a psychologist -- someone properly trained in this area - rather than a Stoic philosopher!

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.... — Pantagruel

Now you're just misusing terms like 'valid' and 'true'. No, a worldview is not true if it 'works' for you. Even a 7 year old realises this.

Why bother what? I am interested in what's true. — Bartricks

Ok, then you should in good faith make an effort to learn and adopt stoical principles in a way that makes sense to you, and then decide if they have the purported effect. That is the essential "truth" of the Stoic philosophy (or any moral/ethical philosophical system).

No, a worldview is not true if it 'works' for you. — Bartricks

What worldview? Everyone's worldview is unique. All anyone has are the principles and strategies he lives by. People can (and often do) misrepresent what they claim to believe, when in practice they will do something entirely different. The gap between "espoused" and "enacted" beliefs is often very wide indeed.

Is it juvenile to expect to live by one's philosophy? Out of the mouth of babes I guess.

Why? Give me a Stoic principle. Let's go through some one by one and examine them.

I have mentioned some of these.

For instance, a view associated with Stoicism is the view that all wrongdoing is the product of ignorance.

Do you think that's true? That is, do you think that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance? Do you think that claim is well supported by the evidence? Or is it a result of starting with a theory and then interpreting all the data in light of it?

For instance, a view associated with Stoicism is the view that all wrongdoing is the product of ignorance. — Bartricks

This is a pretty common position among ancient philosophers. If the good is by definition desirable, why do men do evil? Socrates for sure.

I found the elements of Stoicism that inspire me, I get a thrill of inspiration reading the meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Maybe you will find something that you like. Maybe it isn't for you.

Everyone's worldview is unique. — Pantagruel

Obviously false. What prevents two or more people from having identical worldviews??

You need to start listening to reason rather than car adverts.

Reality isn't in your gift. You need to get your beliefs to match reality. Reality is where you live - forever. And reality doesn't care what you believe. Hence why you need to listen to reason, not yourself.

Yes, it was Socrates' view too. And it is absurd, yes?

I didn't ask you who else believed it. I asked you if you thought it was true.

I found the elements of Stoicism that inspire me, I get a thrill of inspiration reading the meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Maybe you will find something that you like. Maybe it isn't for you. — Pantagruel

Stop being so self-involved. So it inspired you. Doesn't matter. That won't make it true.

Now, once more, is it true that all wrongdoing is a result of ignorance? It may be inspiring and comforting to think it is - but is it actually true?

It is the sense of the term according to which all of the following (and many others, of course) would qualify as philosophers: Plato, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Mill and so on. — Bartricks

If anyone is interested in Massimo Pigliucci's article on Hume:
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/david-hume-the-skeptical-stoic/

Analogously, says Hume, a few people can live the life of the philosopher in the narrow sense, i.e., spend most of their time reading and writing philosophy at a fairly abstract level, treating it almost as a monastic practice. But most of us can live a “philosophical” life in the sense of reading and reflecting about certain principles and attempting to put them into everyday practice, while at the same time engaging in other, more common, pursuits, what the Stoics call “preferred indifferents.”

The Stoic position, then, becomes untenable for Hume if they meant that only the narrow philosophical life is conducive to happiness. But they clearly did not. Just like there were Stoics who did live that life — Zeno, Chrysippus, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus — there were others who lived a Stoic life in the broad sense, including Cato and Marcus Aurelius.
— Massimo Pigliucci

My personal belief is that, phrased as a question, as Socrates did, the observation has merit. I believe that people are in some sense misguided when they do misdeeds, yes.

Stop being so self-involved. So it inspired you. Doesn't matter. That won't make it true. — Bartricks

It won't make it not-true.

It won't make it not-true. — Pantagruel

True. It is irrelevant to its truth. To do philosophy well you have to get over yourself and follow reason instead.

I believe that people are in some sense misguided when they do misdeeds, yes. — Pantagruel

That isn't the view I asked you about. It is plausible that some wrongdoing is a product of ignorance. Is it plausible that it all is?

The answer is "no, it is not".

Look to yourself. Haven't you sometimes realized something was wrong and done it anyway?

I don't know what you're saying. Sounds wishy washy and makes Stoicism into a label for nothing very clear. — Bartricks

Never mind, eh. So many isms, so little time...

No. Mind. Mind a lot. Warm, fuzzy words do not a philosophy make.

What I mind about is up to me.
You are clearly not listening. Repeating your claims when I, and others, have addressed them is a waste of time and energy.

No, you're not listening. I patiently explained, for instance, why simply making claims about psychological states - their causes and regulation - is not philosophy, but psychology.

Your response?

A quote about living a philosopher's life. A quote from someone else.

How is that a response?

How about addressing a Stoic doctrine - again, the view that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance.

Is that a plausible claim?

No, not on its face.

Maybe it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Maybe it inspires you.

Not evidence it is true.

Is it true?

No, it does not appear to be - virtually all of us have experience of believing something to be wrong, and doing it anyway.

Are we to think that if we believe an act is wrong then one way to test this thesis is to see if you do it? No, that's absurd.

So, our reason - and Stoics will tell you that they are all about reason and understanding the rational underpinnings to reality - does not represent wrongdoing to always and everywhere be the product of ignorance.

Again, normally ignorance operates as an excuse. That is, if you did something out of ignorance, then you are not blameworthy for what you did.

We would predict, then, that if it was manifest to reason that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, then it would be equally manifest to reason that no wrongdoers are blameworthy for their conduct. But precisely the opposite is manifest to reason.

So, if we follow reason rather than fuzzy warmth we find that one Stoic thesis is false.

↪Bartricks
What I mind about is up to me.
You are clearly not listening. Repeating your claims when I, and others, have addressed them is a waste of time and energy. — Amity

:up:

Thanks.

Have you considered Buddhism? I recommend Buddhism to you. It encourages you to think nothing. I think you'll do well.

Unless it is the case that truth and reason are therapeutic. — unenlightened

I don't think so, because even if doing philosophy does turn out to be therapeutic, that is not the reason a true philosopher does it. A true philosopher uses reason to discover the truth regardless of whether there are any therapeutic benefits to doing so.

Which they surely must be, as delusion and unreason are the very definition of insanity. — unenlightened

Again, I don't think so. I agree that insanity involves some kind of systematic failure to track reason. But it is possible, I think, to be a true philosopher and insane.

This is because true philosophy is about using reason to pursue the truth, rather than following reason in every respect. For example, it seems entirely plausible that it is reasonable to pursue personal happiness, at least up to a point. And in pursuing that goal, it may be best to acquire some false beliefs - for not all true beliefs make us happier.

So Reason herself sometimes bids us acquire false beliefs - false worldviews - due to the therapeutic benefits of doing so.

But despite the fact that Reason herself bids us do this, a true philosopher will ignore her on this score, for a true philosopher is interested in what's true rather than making themselves as happy as can be.

As insanity involves some kind of systematic failure to listen to Reason in some or other regard, it is possible to be a true philosopher and insane. For a true philosopher commits themselves to tracking epistemic reasons, not other kinds. (Or at least, should epistemic reasons come into conflict with other ones, the true philosopher will follow the epistemic).

for they have abandoned the pursuit of truth in favour of the pursuit of happiness. — Bartricks

I think most of the philosophers you mentioned, bar perhaps Hobbes, would equate truth, or knowing truth with happiness or well-being in some sense. Remember you said that knowing the truth is sometimes awful; well it is only under the assumption that knowing the truth, even if it is awful, would ultimately serve well-being better than denying it that we could justify the thought that knowing of the truth is, tout court, wisdom.

What reason could we have for submitting ourselves, as slaves, to truths that would merely destroy our well-being (if there are such truths)? The further point is that the kinds of truths which must be sought, as opposed to those everyday truths which we can hardly deny, at least as they are in their everyday dimension, cannot be known with certainty but must be taken on faith.

A true philosopher — Bartricks

:rofl:

I think most of the philosophers you mentioned, bar perhaps Hobbes, would equate truth, or knowing truth with happiness or well-being in some sense — Janus

I don't think they do.

But anyway, they're clearly different concepts. If you believe you are loved, that does not entail that you are loved. If you believe you are 7ft tall, that does not entail that you are 7ft tall. If the belief that your car is about to collide with a tree makes you unhappy, that does not entail that it is false. I think all of the philosophers I mentioned would agree with me about all of that.

Remember you said that knowing the truth is sometimes awful — Janus

I said it is entirely possible that the truth may be awful.

What reason could we have for submitting ourselves, as slaves, to truths that would destroy our well-being? — Janus

Well, the kind of reason in question is known as an epistemic reason.

You are just assuming that we only have reason to do something or believe something if it contributes to our well-being.

That's false, or at least it appears to be.

I have reason to honour my promises even if I'd be happier breaking them.

I have reason to feel sorrow and anger at some things - injustices, deaths of loved ones, and so on - even if I'd be happier without those feelings.

And sometimes I have reason to believe that X is true, due to it actually being true, even if believing X is false would make me happier.

Note, 'evidence' is just another word for epistemic reasons.

Philosophers - true ones - follow the evidence.

The further point is that the kinds of truths which must be sought, as opposed to those everyday truths which we can hardly deny, at least as they are in their everyday dimension, cannot be known with certainty but must be taken on faith. — Janus

Really? You are sure about 'that' are you? How? Kindly defend your claim without contradicting yourself.

I have reason to honour my promises even if I'd be happier breaking them. — Bartricks

Sure, but that involves the happiness of others. I never said it was only your happiness that matters.

Really? You are sure about 'that' are you? How? Kindly defend your claim without contradicting yourself. — Bartricks

It should be obvious. If the truths that philosophy seeks could be known with certainty then why have they not long since been found?

Even the 'truths' of science are defeasible; you should know that. Of course knowing the truth (if it can be known) would be an epistemic matter. That's just a matter of definition. What you need to show is that there is an ethical imperative to know the truth, per se, an ethical imperative which is independent of all other considerations. How will you argue for such a thing?

↪Pantagruel Have you considered Buddhism? I recommend Buddhism to you. It encourages you to think nothing. I think you'll do well. — Bartricks

Thank you, I do consider myself philosophically a buddhist. Thinking nothing is a great accomplishment.

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. — Bartricks

It complicates it because, as someone else said after me, someone might want to eradicate grief but not eradicate memory. I know I would. Eradicating the grief doesn't mean changing your preferences about the situation, like thinking that your partner dying is just as good as her not dying. It just means not feeling the actual pain of it.

For example, for most of this year I have suffered with a horrible anxiety about death -- my own, that of my loved ones, of strangers around the world, of poor wild animals being eaten by other animals, of the world, of the whole universe in trillions of years. Nobody particularly close to me is particularly close to death in a way that most people would think would warrant this kind of crippling panic about it, so when I say to people that I wish I would stop feeling this way, everyone understands. Nobody thinks that I wish that I was indifferent about any of that. When I'm not suffering from that panic and anxiety, I still prefer to live as long as possible, and for everyone else to too. I'm just not crushed under emotional pain about the seeming inevitability of it; or I'm wishing I wasn't, when I am.

Right now as I typed this sentence, countless other people I've never met died. Right now, I'm not feeling cripplingly awful about that, but I still think it preferable that they hadn't. That's a reasonable thing, no? It's better that I'm not crushed under the emotional weight of all these deaths happening right now that I can't do anything about, isn't it? What is different about the case of a single loved one's death? Obviously, there are factual differences about how easy it would be to shrug off that pain, and so it's far more understandable that someone would be hurt by that more than by the death of millions of strangers they never saw. But that's like saying it's more understandable that someone would be hospitalized by a gunshot wound than by a stubbed toe; most people are tough enough to take a stubbed toe, but not a gunshot would. What we're talking about is the emotional equivalent of being bulletproof, and whether or not you ought to be. Nobody is saying that it is somehow wrong of someone to fail to be bulletproof, or "emotionally bulletproof", but if you can somehow manage to be, why ought you not?

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

That's what a reason is. You keep typing "Reason" with a capital R, and referring to it with personal pronouns, like you think it's some kind of deity. A reason is just a justification, a motive, a "because" given in answer to a "why" question. I ask why is it unhealthy to be able (if you are able) to shrug off emotional pain more easily or quickly. If you say "because reason", that's like saying "because because". It's not an answer.

Well, I'm not surprised.

Thinking nothing is a great accomplishment. — Pantagruel

No, it really isn't.