When you ask “What Does X believe”, you don’t read a book, you ask the members of the religion. — Ennui Elucidator

And you get extremely inconclusive results.

And you get extremely inconclusive results. — baker

Yup. Which is why attacking religion with a particular description of religion writ large is pointless. It doesn’t carry any weight with respect to what actual people believe or why they belong/self identify.

I wonder, which other of the Stoic authors may I turn to for an exposition of this topic? — Michael Zwingli

There's very little of the works of the ancient Stoics that now exist, and of which I'm aware, which address the Stoic conception of the deity. You'll find references to God (Zeus) and Providence in Epictetus' Discourses. Marcus Aurelius makes occasional references in his Meditations. Seneca addresses the deity somewhat. There are only fragments of the works of the three "founders" of Stoicism--Zeno, Cleanthes and Chyrisippus--that are now available.

So most of the sources are secondary, and are works of those who read what is not available now. Diogenes Laertius wrote on the lives of the philosophers, including the Stoics, summarizing their views. Cicero was sympathetic to Stoicism and his De Natura Deorum describes the Stoic and other conceptions of God.

A book I've been trying to get is God and Cosmos in Stoicism, edited by Ricardo Salles.

Essentially, according to my understanding, the Stoic deity, sometimes referred to as the Divine Reason, is immanent (the Stoics being materialists). However, it is pneuma, likened to fire or breath, and is the active principle which governs the universe. The Stoic maxim "live in accordance with Nature" is a reference to this divine principle which is a part of Nature but also that which guides it.

I envy you if you can read Latin. My knowledge of it is too spotty to do so.

Thank you, Ciceronianus. I will revisit Seneca in English, and will look for copies of M. Aurelius and the others.

Cicero was sympathetic to Stoicism and his De Natura Deorum describes the Stoic and other conceptions of God. — Ciceronianus

Haha, I never got far enough along in Latin to bother with man's labyrinthine prose! English translation, though...

Haha, I never got far enough along in Latin to bother with man's labyrinthine prose! — Michael Zwingli

But he's considered the great master of Latin prose, or was considered so at least. Not that I've read him in Latin, of course, and so can have no opinion, but such was his reputation. He was admired even by Christians, like St. Jerome who was berated in his famous "bad dream"--Ciceronianus es, non Christianus. Erasmus wrote that intellectuals of his time were too inclined to imitate Cicero, and complained that Cicero as a pagan couldn't be a model for a Christian writing Latin (tongue in cheek, perhaps).

he is absolutely the master of Latin prose. When I call his prose "labyrinthine", I mean that it is complicated, and one must be fully conversant in Latin to read Cicero without difficulty. One usually starts reading with Caesar, proceeds through Livy and Seneca to Tacitus, and only attempts Cicero after those become relatively easy. He was considered a great writer and orator even by the Greeks, who after Sulla had little love for Latin. As a writer, he is certainly one of the most sophisticated prosaists of all time, in any language.

By "factually incorrect" you mean what?
That there is no heaven, no eternal damnation, and no nibbana? — baker

Pretty much. Also that Jesus probably didn't do any miracles, etc. And all religious teaching are scientifically unprovable.

if I like the advice itself, I might ignore the fact that it comes from a 'not very credible source'. — stoicHoneyBadger

I agree. That's what I would do too. — Alkis Piskas

Probably best example for this would be Nietzsche, who lived a rather miserable life himself, yet you feel tremendous energy and power coming from his writings.

Well, this sounds like a prejudice. It also sounds that you didn't read what I wrote on the subject! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Probably I misses something, but anyway, how do you derive an ethical system from an observation using logic? Without slipping some value judgement into it, such as "we should all live in peace"?

What constitutes a religious teaching? You can go to many a religious institution and find teachings on how to read. Do you think they are using ineffective methods based on science or maybe that they have bad metrics for verifying language is taught? What about when they teach the history of Germany or Italy? Do you think that history is a fiction inaccessible to scientific scrutiny?

What if they give a class on chemistry and teach that a spark plus oxygen and hydrogen yields water? Because a religious institution teaches it, it is scientifically unprovable?

In other words, besides teaching “science” what can be taught that is, on your view, scientifically provable?

What if they give a class on chemistry and teach that a spark plus oxygen and hydrogen yields water? Because a religious institution teaches it, it is scientifically unprovable? — Ennui Elucidator

Einstein was a religious guy. It even inspired his view on quantum mechanics ("der Herr Gott wūrfelt nicht").

Probably best example for this would be Nietzsche, who lived a rather miserable life himself, yet you feel tremendous energy and power coming from his writings. — stoicHoneyBadger

Nietzsche is a giant and very popular philosopher. I don't know anything about his private life. Rich or poor, is certainly of no importance to me. I would even accept statements even by Wittgenstein, who was heavily deppressive and looked like wandering curse --one the most depressive figures I have ever seen in my life!-- if he didn't say such shallow things as "The limits of my language are the limits of my world" (I have created a topic on that!)

Probably I misses something, but anyway, how do you derive an ethical system from an observation using logic? — stoicHoneyBadger

You said "I highly doubt that you can use logic to derive an ethical system", which is quite general, although I specifically explained that the ethics system I was talking about relies on reason (logic) and that the basis of it, the main principle, is survival, which is something objective and logical (at least, it is accepted as such in almost all civilizations). So, If you meant that you doubt about the viability of the specific ethics system I described, then it's OK. But I would like --not require! -- if you could also tell me why. (I always like to hear things that challenge my reality! :smile:)
(Re: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/595946, second part, after the 3 asterisks)

You said "I highly doubt that you can use logic to derive an ethical system", which is quite general, although I specifically explained that the ethics system I was talking about relies on reason (logic) and that the basis of it, the main principle, is survival, which is something objective and logical (at least, it is accepted as such in almost all civilizations). So, If you meant that you doubt about the viability of the specific ethics system I described, then it's OK. But I would like --not require! -- if you could also tell me why. (I always like to hear things that challenge my reality! :smile:) — Alkis Piskas

I would totally agree with you here, that all ethics are based on survival. Pretty much Nietzsche's idea that ones instincts take into account his capabilities and select a best survival strategy. For example, a strong person would see it as ethical to fight the enemy, as he has a good chance of winning. While a weak person would whine about "let's all be friends", not because he is "ethical", but because it is his best strategy.

This clearly explain origins of Christianity - they could not win over Romans by force, so they opted for whining. But what is going on with modern Christians - why are they so reluctant at defending their values, while they kinda have the tools to do so?

My only opinion is that they want to live out their messiah, they want to suffer for their believes, not to win.

2. Giving moral guidance in a form of only 10 commandments or 4 noble truth, etc. just printed on a page would not have much interest, so it need to be wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes. — stoicHoneyBadger

That's the whole point about religions at the end. That's their goal indeed.

What are religions? Simple human inventions and nothing more.
What people invent? What they need.

And they DID need a moral guidance as to live organized in societies. They still DO need it (the vast majority nowadays are theists) as a source of morals . That's pretty obvious from the fact that humans keep maintaining them and follow them. It's the most sufficient "moral glue" for human societies. So far.

What can replace it? I opened a thread some time ago about that and the sensation I got from it was that there isn't something that is able to replace it, yet at least.
Many had proposed better education. I found that most appropriate too. As one day, people might reach to the point to get their morals simply by Logic. And no need of any God.

As one day, people might reach to the point to get their morals simply by Logic. And no need of any God. — dimosthenis9

Not sure how people can create morals by logic?
It does seem they need a 'supreme being' to live, be it Jesus and God and Karl Marx and Lenin. Doesn't really matter what, as long as it is something that gives them a noble goal to strive for, be it paradise or equality.

Like a husky dog needs to run 50km a day to feel happy and fulfilled, while the destination doesn't really matter. Same is with human, they need to peruse something they see as meaningful.

Not sure how people can create morals by logic? — stoicHoneyBadger

For me it's not that difficult when you realize that if you want to live in organized societies, it is for your own benefit at the end to behave "good".

But it might not be possible indeed. I'm not very sure about it either.
Well I m sure that simple Logic is really enough for that. But not so sure that Logic will be enough as to "convince" people for that purpose.As to reach to that point.

There's very little of the works of the ancient Stoics that now exist, — Ciceronianus

And this because of the active repression of Stoic ideas by Christians - the tragedy of their rise is the destruction of the literature and art of antiquity.

Sigh.

the tragedy of their rise is the destruction of the literature and art of antiquity. — Banno

No different from some islamians indeed. Or Mohammedians.

Christianity got there first. It's a consequence of the intolerance inherent in monotheism.

Christianity got there first. It's a consequence of the intolerance inherent in monotheism. — Banno

No. It's the consequence of people being intolerant.

"The research of Phil Zuckerman at Pitzer College, demonstrates that secular societies, such as Sweden and Denmark, among others, are more likely to enjoy broadly shared prosperity and a high level of societal health and happiness than traditionally religious ones, and certainly more so than the United States.

Gregory Paul has done a similar comparison, as well as one between states within the US, and found parallel results. Which way the causal arrow goes is an interesting question: does secularism foster healthy caring, or does religiosity die away in societies where people care for one another? Paul himself says, “once a nation’s population becomes prosperous and secure, for example through economic security and universal health care, much of the population loses interest in seeking the aid and protection of supernatural entities.” Times

Intolerance is a Christian invention.

Wasn't it brotherly love?

intolerance
1765, "unwillingness to endure a differing opinion or belief," from Latin intolerantia "impatience; unendurableness, insufferableness; insolence," from intolerantem "impatient, intolerant" (see intolerant). https://www.etymonline.com/word/intolerance

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=intolerant+etymology

Wasn't it brotherly love? — Thunderballs

Ask Hypatia.

Christianity got there first. It's a consequence of the intolerance inherent in monotheism. — Banno

Christianity wasn't the first monotheistic religion (see, e.g. Judaism and Atenism) and it's not universally accepted as monotheistic due to the trinity theology. Mormonism admits to polytheism, which holds itself to be a form of Christianity.

Hinduism is polytheistic but discriminates based upon a rigid caste system and isn't what I'd consider "tolerant."

The term "religious war" is a Western inventiion, creating a rigid distinction between secular ambitions (land, power, etc ) and religious ones. The two are always mixed.

My point being that regardless of the problematic history of Christian oppression, your quote above is factually incorrect on many levels.

Christianity wasn't the first monotheistic religion — Hanover

Sure.

It was the first to achieve political power, in late Rome, and to unleash the logical consequence of monotheism - the repression of alternatives.

Which is why we have so few stoic texts from antiquity.

Hinduism is polytheistic but discriminates based upon a rigid caste system and isn't what I'd consider "tolerant." — Hanover

Not to mention intolerance against Muslims. Source

I don't think so. For Kant, IIRC, noumenon corresponds to the limit of phenomenon rather than something "beyond"; it is immanent, not transcendent (not to be confused with transcendental). "Ultimate truth", Buddhist or otherwise, is the transcendent half of a duality paired with "relative truth", which is metaphysical and not epistemological in the Kantian sense.

As far as alternatives to what seems to be our common upbringing in the Catholic faith, for me, the immanent deity of the Stoics has an appeal, or some form of pantheism or pandeism. — Ciceronianus

Pandeism (i.e. Spinozism sub specie durationis). :up:

"Ask Hypatia." :100:

Ask Hypatia. — Banno

I asked heŕ. She said people abuse religion to excercise their natural will to have power. Once religion (or any other culture, like science) becomes the norm, they can hide behind it. To overpower other people. Like a scientist uses science to impress with their so-called intelligence. Intelligence as a means to power. To keep others, the not-knowing, the non-intelligent, down and feel more than them.

Not to mention science's intolerance towards the non-scientific.