OK, but pragmatically I see no reason why a philosopher can't in principle answer a question purportedly exclusive to a therapist. And, I mean no disrespect to either or both professions. — Wallows
Have you ever been to therapy, may I ask? — Wallows
I would suggest that actual goodness is superior to theoretical goodness, in the sense that the purpose of goodness is exactly to be realized or enacted. So a practical ethic that realizes some good is superior to the practice of theoretical ethics. Exactly in this sense that Stoicism, yes it has many dimensions, but always the bottom line is that it guides personal development in a practical sense. — Pantagruel
Yes, that's the gist. — Bartricks
That was my point about how it is possible to be insane and a philosopher. — Bartricks
But Reason doesn't just talk about the truth, but also about how we ought to behave. — Bartricks
Let's just focus on one of those bizarre assumptions that you insist I must make, namely that we "aren't essentially mythological as opposed to metaphysical beings". Now, what do you mean? Do you mean that I have to assume I exist? — Bartricks
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/from-conventionalism-to-social-authenticity-heideggers-anyone-and-contemporary-social-theory/Heidegger constantly reminds us throughout Being and Time, the account of 'inauthentic' life of everyday anyone is not to be interpreted evaluatively or morally but rather ontologically. It is an a priori Existential of being human: "the anyone is the condition of possibility of all human action" (p. 2). Thonhauser writes: "To be socialized in the framework of established modes of intelligibility and regulated modes of comportment is the prerequisite for becoming an agent in one's own right" (ibid.).
First of all and most of the time (Heidegger's zunächst und zumeist, BT 370), humans live following the social rules that they apprehend in some kind of mindless, non-explicit, anonymous manner. — link
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/While engaged in hitch-free skilled activity, Dasein has no conscious experience of the items of equipment in use as independent objects (i.e., as the bearers of determinate properties that exist independently of the Dasein-centred context of action in which the equipmental entity is involved). Thus, while engaged in trouble-free hammering, the skilled carpenter has no conscious recognition of the hammer, the nails, or the work-bench, in the way that one would if one simply stood back and thought about them. Tools-in-use become phenomenologically transparent. — link
The less we just stare at the hammer-thing, and the more we seize hold of it and use it, the more primordial does our relationship to it become, and the more unveiledly is it encountered as that which it is—as equipment. The hammering itself uncovers the specific ‘manipulability’ of the hammer. The kind of Being which equipment possesses—in which it manifests itself in its own right—we call ‘readiness-to-hand’. (Being and Time 15: 98) — H
It is precisely because the philosopher's questions can only be answered by careful reasoned reflection, whereas the therapist's questions require detailed empirical investigation, that we have separate disciplines dedicated to answering them. — Bartricks
https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1525&context=etdThe traditional philosopher views philosophy as an armchair discipline relying, for the most
part, on reason and reflection. — link
Again, relevance?
I said that philosophy is the project of using reason to discover the truth.
You then provide a quote that makes a different point - a point about the attitudes of truth-seekers.
You then tell me that the author of the quote was a sceptic.
I do not understand the relevance of either the quote or scepticism, but as you also asked whether I considered scepticism a philosophy, I said something about it - namely that, as I understand 'scepticism', it is, or can be a philosophy if the sceptic believes their position is supported by reason.
You then tell me that I have not understood scepticism.
So I asked what you understood the term to mean.
Rather than answering, you give me a potted history of scepticism - without telling me what you actually understand the term to mean.
Anyway, this is pointless as you're not addressing anything I've actually said or the OP. This thread is about Stoicism, not scepticism. — Bartricks
To be honest I used to be a stoic. And I can say it isn't even therapeutic from my personal experience. All it does is conceals emotions you're feeling without having an outlet to it. And just like a bubble, your emotions will burst. I truly think if something bothers you, address it head on. Life's too short to dodge negative things around you. Either embrace it or fight it. — Reverie
What do you make of the is/ought problem? Various 'great' philosophers have taken the position that reason just tells us what is, not what ought to be. — Eee
I dealt with that one by actually quoting stoics since that's what we are talking about, not some halfwitted understanding someone cooked up during lunchbreak. — Ying
Stoicism surely can't be merely therapy. The stoic ideas were formulated with a metaphysical doctrine in mind. It is the relation between the therapy and the metaphysics that effectively makes stoicism a philosophy. — Pelle
I’m not sure Stoicism is against grief. I think the issue is more about grieving the death of someone who is still alive. Once they are dead then grief is faced. — I like sushi
you just called me a halfwit, right? — Bartricks
Yes? So, as far as I'm concerned, that now makes you - you - a really rude person who can, with justice, be spoken to in a fashion that would be rude were it applied to anyone else. That's what I do. I talk to rude people - like you - in the manner you deserve.
Now, again, stop attacking me - stop suggesting I'm a halfwit - and actually address the OP.
Stop quoting and put things in your own words, otherwise a) it is not clear that you understand at all what is in the quote and b) it is not clear whether you endorse what is in the quote.
Was I wrong - half-witted - to say that a core Stoic belief is that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance?
Was I wrong to say that a core Stoic belief is that grief is irrational?
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Then there's Ying - he does neither", earlier? Not exactly the epitome of politeness either. — Ying
As for my understanding of stoicism, well, lets just say that I'm not wholly uninformed, — Ying
but I'm more informed than your average run of the mill guy off the streets I guess. — Ying
Was I wrong - half-witted - to say that a core Stoic belief is that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance?
Yes. As in, you're wrong about that being a core belief of stoicism (they also pointed to other causes like greed and being ruled over by emotions; stating that the stoics boiled the entire issue down to just ignorance would be a gross oversimplification). Not making any claim on you being a halfwit or not. That's not for me to decide. — Ying
but I would not have you sorrow more than is fitting. That you should not mourn at all I shall hardly dare to insist; and yet I know that it is the better way. — Ying
So, you just changed your initial claim into something else? You first stated that "a core Stoic belief is that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance", which then became "No one does wrong willingly, yes? That's a core Stoic view". Hmmm, suspicious. Like, moving the goalposts, suspicious — Ying
Seems like you claim that stoicism advocates that one shouldn't feel grief at all ("Someone who felt no grief for a loved one who has just died is not healthy. "). The quote I provided says otherwise. — Ying
No, Stoics also make the first - Socrates famously maintained that all wrongdoing was a product of ignorance and Zeno followed him in that belief.
Plus, depending on what assumptions one makes about the connection between reasons and motivation, they're not even obviously distinct claims - there's a long tradition of believing that what one takes oneself to have reason to do, one is necessarily motivated to do (seems to have been Socartes' view, for instance, and it continues to be held in some form or other up to the present day).
If that's true then any desires that prevent one from doing as one ought are themselves symptomatic of ignorance. — Bartricks
No, read the quote again. Read what it actually says, not what you think it says.
Prudent. I'm going to do the same. :) — Ying
To be honest, though, the thoughts Bartricks is professing is not that different than the caricature of Stoicism that any newbie might encounter, through reading about "stoicism" from Jordan Peterson and his sage Stoic being a bloke on an SSRI's eating tons of lobsters. — Wallows
I hope the visit organized by Baden and other mods, of Massimo Pigliucci, will benefit his understanding on the matter.
You seem to be trying to parcel stoicism off as part of psychology rather than as part of ethics? — I like sushi
My claim is not that Stoics are therapists, or that Stoicism is therapy, but that it is either therapy, or a collection of true, but banal ethical injunctions (such as 'be good'), or controversial but false claims, such as that guilt is irrational and that wrongdoing is a product of ignorance.
In reality, Stoics flit between these - that is, they may defend a controversial ethical claim - such as that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance - by appeal not to evidence (as a true philosopher would), but by appeal to the supposed therapeutic benefits that may come from believing it.
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.