yes, but they have very little in common. Stoicism doesn't cover all the bases so to speak. It covers the bases of how you should behave, but that's about it. It doesn't tell you whether there's a God or not (there are both Stoic atheists and Stoic believers), it doesn't tell you where man comes from, and where man is going to, etc. It doesn't answer existential questions. It just gives you a practice that you can do here and now. Religions aren't like this.Really? I encountered Deists in the UU church I attended. And, ever heard of Stoicon? I went last year, I'll probably go again this year. There is a thriving community of Stoics online. I suspect the same is true of Deism. — anonymous66
You mean like Christianity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtmlIt doesn't tell you whether there's a God or not (there are both Stoic atheists and Stoic believers),
Precisely the problem I was talking about. Also most of today's Stoics would disagree with the Ancient Stoics on, for example, sexual morality.Actually, the Stoic texts we have make it very clear that the Ancient Stoics did believe in God. I challenge anyone to find me even one Stoic in the ancient world who was an atheist...
However, it is also the case that a majority of people interested in Stoicism today are atheists... and most of them acknowledge that the Ancient Stoics were believers.. most modern Stoics just think the Ancient Stoics were wrong about the question of God's existence. — anonymous66
No. You won't see a Christian atheist in a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church, which are the oldest Christian churches that you can find. Sure, there are some insignificant branches of Christianity where the are atheists, but that's all.You mean like Christianity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml
It also has atheists and believers. — anonymous66
I've been involved with Stoicism for a little over a year. At it's core, Stoicism is the belief that Morality is The most important thing. Stoics believe that they are merely people who are on a path toward moral perfection. They are people who believe that Virtue is Necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia (flourishing as a human).Precisely the problem I was talking about. Also most of today's Stoics would disagree with the Ancient Stoics on, for example, sexual morality.
Okay, what's his view on fornication then and promiscuous sex?He also writes a Stoic advice column. Here is his take on Infidelity... — anonymous66
On the contrary. It was very specific, talking about the limitations of language. — Mariner
Don't you think it is curious that you then ask me to give a... linguistic account of "some kind of private mystical experience"? — Mariner
This was not the subject of my post. The subject of my post was that language has limits, and that both sides (atheists and theists) should recognize that and take it into account when trying to understand the other side. — Mariner
No, I am asking you a question. The question was:Are you merely asserting that you know that modern Stoics don't care about what the ancient Stoics texts say? — anonymous66
Here's the thing. Modern Stoics, just like they disregard what Ancient Stoic texts said about God, also disregard some things ancient texts said about fornication. They go hand-in-hand with modern culture on these issues of sexuality and God. Most people out there - even those who commit adultery (not even talking about fornication now) will say that adultery is wrong. So it's no surprise that modern stoics say that too.Okay, what's his view on fornication then and promiscuous sex? — Agustino
What are you talking about in particular? Can you give an example? And if you're talking about God, which, in the context of this discussion, would not be unusual, then why don't you just say so plainly? What do you mean by the phrase "point at" truth? What is that exactly? How does it work? — Sapientia
And obviously, if we were to have any hope of getting to the truth of the matter, then merely saying so wouldn't do. It would have to be put to the test. — Sapientia
In addition, if you say that you can't put something into words or explain it properly, then that is certainly no where near being enough to warrant that this is indicative of some kind of significant truth that's being pointed at. On the contrary, nonsense cannot be true. — Sapientia
If I were talking about God, I'd have written "God". I wrote "X" precisely because the problem is not limited to theology.
We can analyze "American Pie" and the problem will be the same. — Mariner
Sure. But not here, since here we are using language to communicate, and since I'm not talking about any particular X (which is why the symbol X is being used). — Mariner
If you want me to talk about God, there is no problem with that. But talking about God will not "put it to the test", ["it"=my experience of God], due to the limitations of language. If you want to put this specific "it" to the test, you'll have to interact with me in other ways than merely linguistically. For example, I'd mention that I did some stuff, and that if you did this stuff, perhaps you'd experience something similar. — Mariner
I didn't say that "if something cannot be put into words, then it points at truth". I said that sometimes truths cannot be put into words, and must be pointed at. The important thing is that there is no linguistic criterion to distinguish which is which. Whenever you see someone claiming that language has hit a wall and that therefore you must transcend language to get to the truth, you have to verify the claim (by following its non-linguistic aspect) by yourself.
Note that "to transcend language" has a weighty sound but it is nothing mystical or extraordinary; toddlers do it, all the time. — Mariner
STOP!The problem is that nothing you can tell me about or get me to do will necessarily cause me to reach the conclusion that God exists — Sapientia
I'm after a specific example that is relevant to the topic which you think illustrates what you were talking about in that part of your original comment that I quoted, and I'd like you to elucidate any vague terms that you've used, like those I've pinpointed. — Sapientia
The problem is that nothing you can tell me about or get me to do will necessarily cause me to reach the conclusion that God exists — Sapientia
There's a big difference between, on the one hand, the difficulty of a young child, or someone with a learning disability, or a poorly educated adult, struggling to explain or put into words something which is sensible and capable of being explained, and, on the other hand, people who just have vague, muddled, nonsensical thoughts and feelings, and cannot explain them properly or put them into words because of the very nature of those thoughts and feelings. It seems clear to me, although I could be wrong, that you have in mind some sort of special and profound truth which is being pointed to, rather than the truth that these people are simply confused and emotional. — Sapientia
Even if I was lacking in linguistic ability, I might nevertheless notice the causal relationship between flicking the light switch and the light coming on, but that's a world apart from having a funny feeling and leaping to the conclusion that God must exist. — Sapientia
STOP!
You're going in with a preconceived idea. It's like telling me that nothing I tell you to do, even putting your hand in the right place, will convince you of the existence of fire. What I mean by fire is precisely what you experience when you put your hand in the right place.
So similarly, what Mariner means by God will be what you experience by doing the secret "stuff" he wants you to do. Not daddy in the sky, or whatever other preconceived ideas you have. — Agustino
Okay but reason can only make do with what you've got. — Agustino
Like "American Pie"? — Mariner
I know, this is why I won't even try. — Mariner
I'm not talking about God, but about the limitations of language, remember? — Mariner
False dichotomy. It is not "either disabled or confused". — Mariner
What I have in mind is not "some sort of special and profound truth", it is the very ordinary and commonplace phenomenon of observing the limitations of language. My 5-year old kid can grasp it. I'm sure you can too. It is, after all, observed in any internet conversation, including this one. — Mariner
It is not about lacking any linguistic ability -- how could it be? If I'm talking about intrinsic limits of language? Not even Shakespeare could defeat intrinsic limits of language. — Mariner
You mean like Christianity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml
It also has atheists and believers. — anonymous66
...they are lacking in linguistic ability in terms of vocabulary and finding the right words to explain things well... — Sapientia
my understanding is roughly that you have spoken of a truth that can be pointed to behind language, and that this can be accessed somehow through certain experiences and by doing stuff. — Sapientia
I've criticised that on account of being too vague and for other reasons, which I don't think that you've properly addressed, so I think that in your next reply you should go back and start from there. And don't forget, this is about atheism, so of course, I expect this to be about things like how one can know whether or not a certain experience is an experience of God and not something else. — Sapientia
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.