What reason could we have for submitting ourselves, as slaves, to truths that would merely destroy our well-being (if there are such truths)? — Janus
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. — Bartricks
Therefore, An Enemy of the People tells the story of a man who dares to speak an unpalatable truth, and is punished for it. However, Ibsen took a somewhat skeptical view of his protagonist, suggesting that he may have gone too far in his zeal to tell the truth. Ibsen wrote to his publisher: "I am still uncertain as to whether I should call [An Enemy of the People] a comedy or a straight drama. It may [have] many traits of comedy, but it also is based on a serious idea." — wiki
I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true — Bartricks
and its method to be reasoned argument.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search. Hence it is with reason
that the main types of philosophy are thought to be three in number: the Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Skeptic."
--Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 1 (Translated by Benson Mates, Oxford University Press, New York Oxford 1996) — Ying
and its method to be reasoned argument.
I believe some cynics would disagree with that one. — Ying
"Now the Stoics and some others say that there are three parts of philosophy, namely, the logical, the physical, and the ethical; and they begin their instruction with the logical part, even though there has been much dispute about the proper place to begin."
-Ibid. book 2, ch. 2
So. Apparently there's more to the stoic view besides "therapeutic benefits". — Ying
Ah, reason! OK. — Ying
It seems to me you didn't do your homework on the stoics. — Ying
Your 'Reason' looks to me like the deity of a monotheistic humanism. The philosopher ought to die if necessary in pursuit of the POV of this deity. Take up your cross (the capital T) and follow, says Reason. I am the way, the light, the truth. None come to the Father Truth except by me. — Eee
But there are problems with this. One has to assume that philosophy can be resolved without ambiguity. That human language isn't haunted by metaphoricity and ambiguity, that we aren't essentially mythological as opposed to metaphysical beings, that a metaphysics transcending myth and metaphoricity is possible. Cases have been made against these assumptions. — Eee
First, I never claimed that Stoicism was not a philosophy. — Bartricks
Pyschology, not philosophy.
How? If they have a case, then they're appealing to Reason. If they don't, who cares - they're just asserting things.
As to these three parts - what do you understand them to be or mean?
Anyway, stop quoting others and put some skin in the game:
what do you think philosophy is, if not the use of reason to discover the truth?
I mean, would you accept that someone who just describes a world view - who just insists there's a choir of gods above us and that we all have overwhelming reason to give him 10% of our income - and insists it is true without providing any of his claims with reasoned support is not a philosopher?
I would.
And how does this person differ from a true philosopher?
Why a dismissive 'ok'?
What do you use to find out what's true then, eh?
Take me to school then.
First, I never claimed that Stoicism was not a philosophy. — Bartricks
Yes you did. :p — Ying
You do realize that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic, right? — Ying
Oh, let me guess. Scepticism also isn't a philosophy. — Ying
As to these three parts - what do you understand them to be or mean?
You can read about those in the "Outlines of Pyrrhonism". Sextus Empiricus is rather thorough in his attacks on stoicism. — Ying
No. Actually checking what the stoics said might just be relevant to the discussion. Prevents the whole "straw man" nonsense. — Ying
Take me to school then.
Done. — Ying
A true philosopher uses reason to discover the truth regardless of whether there are any therapeutic benefits to doing so. — Bartricks
That's homework and you know already that I don't do my homework - I thought you were going to take me to school? Teach me - tell me what you understand that gnomic quote to mean.
When I attributed to the Stoics the view that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, was I attacking a straw man?
When I attributed to the Stoics the view that grief is irrational, was I attacking a straw man?
I think you don't know what you're talking about
I'm about to go, yeah.and you're about to go off in a huff any. second. now.
No, not done at all. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
Didn't you say:
"So, I submit that Stoicism is either the label for a therapy and not a philoosphy..."
Oh wait. No, you're right. You where implying it wasn't a "philoosphy". OK, my bad. — Ying
Also, you got your definition of classical scepticism wrong. — Ying
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 — Amity
There are at least three parties in a public discussion. At least 2 interlocutors and the audience. I'll let them decide on this one. — Ying
I didn't offer one - I asked you what you understood it to mean. I know how I use the term, but I haven't a clue how you do.
Why do you keep quoting Sextus at me? Just say what you mean. — Bartricks
Why? Shouldn't the most informed person decide? — Bartricks
And you've just said - and demonstrated - that you do not know much philosophy.
Hence why you need to listen to reason, not yourself. — Bartricks
I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true — Bartricks
"When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search. Hence it is with reason that the main types of philosophy are thought to be three in number: the Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Skeptic."
--Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 1 (Translated by Benson Mates, Oxford University Press, New York Oxford 1996) — Ying
Pyschology, not philosophy. — Bartricks
You do realize that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic, right? Oh, let me guess. Scepticism also isn't a philosophy. — Ying
What do you understand by scepticism? Does a sceptic defend their scepticism using reason, or do they just assert it? If the former, then there are sceptical philosophers (and - for the record - I believe there most certainly are philosopher sceptics). Normally sceptics are sceptics about a particular domain, not about everything. But I accept that there can be philosophical sceptics about everything, I just believe their position is incoherent. Note, in claiming that their position is incoherent, I am not denying that it is a philosophy. — Bartricks
Also, you got your definition of classical scepticism wrong.
"Scepticism is an ability, or mental attitude, which opposes appearances to judgements in any way whatsoever, with the result that, owing to the equipollence of the objects and reasons thus opposed, we are brought firstly to a state of mental suspense and next to a state of "unperturbedness" or quietude. Now we call it an "ability" not in any subtle sense, but simply in respect of its "being able.""
-Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 4. — Ying
I didn't offer one - I asked you what you understood it to mean. I know how I use the term, but I haven't a clue how you do.
Why do you keep quoting Sextus at me? Just say what you mean. — Bartricks
Fine. Scepticism is the school of thought founded by Pyrrho of Elis. The generally accepted narrative claims that he was influenced by his encounters with the magi and gymnosophists whom he met during his travels with Alexander the Great. Most folks tend to forget that he also traveled with Anaxarchus of Abdera, a student of Diogenes of Smyrna. Diogenes was a student of Metrodorus of Chios, who studied under Democritus of Abdera (the atomism guy. He also was really happy, advocating "Euesto" and "Euthymia" as ways of life). Anyway, Metrodorus might have been a proto sceptic, and I find it hard to believe that Anaxarchus never talked to Pyrrho about his philosophical pedigree (I wasn't there though, so I don't actually know that. I'll just postpone judgement about that one then). Anyway, you know about Platos Academy right? Well, there was a period where the place was run by sceptics, the most prominent being Carneades and Arcesilaus. The main source on classical scepticism is Sextus Empiricus though, who wrote his works centuries later. Pyrrho's brand of scepticism is called "pyrrhonic scepticism", Carneades and Arcesilaus represent academic scepticism. Sextus Empiricus was a proponent of pyrrhonic scepticism. Both schools advocate the suspension of judgement, but the academics conceded that certain issues could be more (or less) plausible than others. Pyrrhonics just postpone judgement on "non evident matters" to attain "unperturbedness" or "ataraxia" and don't bother with the plausibility of non-evident claims. — Ying
Thanks. The cardinal virtues don't really address good in a moral sense do they? They seem more behavior-oriented. Someone who is wise, courageous, just and lives a life of moderation is observably "good". The theoretical basis of these behaviors are being sidestepped. — TheMadFool
Stoics think grief is irrational. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.