What is the motivation to "do something"? The assumption is.... — schopenhauer1
What a load of rubbish. tgw, it's not arrogant to claim a position is wrong, nor is it arrogant to claim is position is right (stop martyring yourself). This is a philosophy forum for Pete's sake. It's only arrogant, no, silly, to claim a position is wrong without any real arguments. — darthbarracuda
Except that it is impossible to argue with you. You do not make any claims which can be falsified by reasonable argument — Agustino
Here's an exercise for you: look for one claim in the wall of text you posted that can be falsified by reasonable argument, or even one that says anything other than 'I'm right, you're wrong.' I'll wait. — The Great Whatever
I also explained how I think pessimism sees that the problems exist in the first place, that compassion and recognition of fellow-suffering is the way to go and is more in tune with how things are. There is no need to rely on baseless virtue theory, no need to accept something because it is given. — schopenhauer1
3) How might a Philosophical Pessimist's answer to solving life's sufferings be different than a Stoic's? — schopenhauer1
it's hard to see what the source of that compassion is in the traditional stoic accounts". — OglopTo
On the surface, stoicism and emotion seem like contradictory terms. Yet the Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome were deeply interested in the emotions, which they understood as complex judgments about what we regard as valuable in our surroundings. Stoicism and Emotion shows that they did not simply advocate an across-the-board suppression of feeling, as stoicism implies in today’s English, but instead conducted a searching examination of these powerful psychological responses, seeking to understand what attitude toward them expresses the deepest respect for human potential.
In this elegant and clearly written work, Margaret Graver gives a compelling new interpretation of the Stoic position. Drawing on a vast range of ancient sources, she argues that the chief demand of Stoic ethics is not that we should suppress or deny our feelings, but that we should perfect the rational mind at the core of every human being. Like all our judgments, the Stoics believed, our affective responses can be either true or false and right or wrong, and we must assume responsibility for them. Without glossing over the difficulties, Graver also shows how the Stoics dealt with those questions that seem to present problems for their theory: the physiological basis of affective responses, the phenomenon of being carried away by one’s emotions, the occurrence of involuntary feelings and the disordered behaviors of mental illness. Ultimately revealing the deeper motivations of Stoic philosophy, Stoicism and Emotion uncovers the sources of its broad appeal in the ancient world and illuminates its surprising relevance to our own.
[Stoicism] taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.
God, according to the Stoics, "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He is the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). Conformably to their exegetical habits, the Stoics made of the different gods personifications of the Logos, e.g. of Zeus and above all of Hermes.
I don't know that they had any issues with emotions, as we generally think of them. — anonymous66
How about, all of mankind are brothers, and it is to our advantage to work together and to look out for each other? — anonymous66
I don't want to depreciate stoic principles, but it is a matter of historical fact that stoicism died out in part because of its lack of vitality - and because of the immense charisma of a certain Galilean. — Wayfarer
This idea that something is a good in itself does not sit well with me. — OglopTo
I don't doubt that people have opinions about what caused its decline.I think the historical reasons for the decine of the stoics are pretty clear, really, but would probably constitute at least a long essay, if not a book. — Wayfarer
But there's no reason not to consider objections also, it is quite a good discipline in its own right. After all a stoic ought not to be too moved by criticism ;) — Wayfarer
Still, the intellectually serious, and in fact Stoic, thing to do is to take a look at what an unsympathetic commentator has to say about the philosophy and use the occasion to reflect and learn.
I wasn't aware that there were others besides myself who have an interest in Stoicism.For many of the people on this forum, Stoicism is a stock answer to how people handle life faced with conditions that a Philosophical Pessimist might enumerate upon. Since Stoicism keeps coming up, I'd like to know what some users on here think of Stoicism in regards to it being an answer to the problems posed by the Philosophical Pessimist. — schopenhauer1
The Stoics believed that the world was created by a Benevolent Creator and that it is possible to see life as a festival. So, the short answer is "no" they weren't pessimists.1) Does the Stoic ethic provide an answer to the existential boredom/instrumentality/annoyances/negative experiences/desire/flux/becoming-and-never-being, etc. that the Philosophical Pessimist poses?
2) Is Stoicism a kind of Philosophical Pessimism or at least close cousins? If it is not a kind of Philosophical Pessimism, how might they differ?
3) How might a Philosophical Pessimist's answer to solving life's sufferings be different than a Stoic's?
For the purposes of this thread, the definitions of Philosophical Pessimism is this:
Either existence:
-contains much suffering (empirical), and thus not good. (negative contingent pain, negative experiences in general, etc. (pace Benatar and partly Schopenhauer)
-The world is suffering (metaphysical) and thus not good (the ceaseless striving and emptiness of the self-reflecting human animal). (pace Schopenhauer and some Eastern philosophies).
The definition of Stoicism is: an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.
Also included in the definition is anything related to these definitions that are not included but are implied. Clearly, one can write a thesis just on the definitions and specifications of thought on each school of philosophy, but obviously I just needed it as short as possible.
Stoicism is about pursuing Eudaimonia (flourishing as a human). So in that way it's anti-fatalistic. Unless one considers the pursuit of Eudaimonia itself to be fatalistic in some way.
I've been reading through Epictetus' Discourses, I've read most of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, I've read the Enchirdion, and I've read Musonius Rufus' fragments, and I've read many of Seneca's letters. I've also read Cicero's comments about Stoicism. I don't see Stoicism as fatalistic. They do believe the universe is deterministic in nature, but take comfort that one does have control over one's attitudes and one's actions and reactions. I've read about Seneca and Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, and I don't see a fatalistic attitude.
The Stoic attitude was such that they suggested if you saw something that needs to be changed, then you should do something about it. Their attitude toward friendship is such that, they said if you see a friend screwing his life up, you should say something. Epictetus was an influential head of a school, Seneca was a wealthy and successful businessman, Marcus Aurelius was one of the best Emperors of the Roman Empire, and he fought off the Germanic tribes. I know a modern-day Stoic blogger and podcaster who is involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. If that's evidence of fatalism (or pessimism) then I wonder how it is being defined. — anonymous66
That Stoics deny suffering and/or problems in general, seems to be a common misconception. From what I can tell, Stoics acknowledge there is a problem, and then look for a rational solution. Sometimes the solution is to reframe the problem in terms of "what judgments am I making?" But, sometimes the solution is to realize that there is a problem and and that we can do something about it. The Stoics have been accused of being fatalistic. I guess I just don't see it. — anonymous66
Stoicism is one proposed solution to the reality of human suffering — anonymous66
1. Stoicism fails to provide a solution to the prevention of future suffering.
Sure, stoicism works for some but only in the context of suffering-management and not suffering-prevention. It can work in the context of overcoming ongoing suffering but provides limited to no answer to prevent future suffering from occurring in the first place. "Future" in this context means (a) suffering of existing people and (b) suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.
Both Stoicism and Pessimism recognize the inevitability of suffering of existing beings. Stoicism's answer to (a) is to endure/overcome suffering when it comes. Pessimism's answer is similar but attempts to also minimize suffering via asceticism or repression of one's desires.
Stoicism doesn't answer (b), at least that's what I get from this thread. Pessimism's proposed answer to (b) is the anti-natalist stand. — OglopTo
Is Eudaimonia compatible with suffering? I don't know that I agree that suffering is out of one's control.The proposed Stoic solution is limited to managing present suffering, after the fact that we are already alive and is bound to suffer some time in the future. Suffering is taken as a fact of life, deemed out of one's control, and dealt with after the fact, i.e. once you're already suffering. — OglopTo
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.