Would you like another argument against the physical universe - one, admittedly, beyond the ken of your average five year old?

Here:

1. Anything that exists has either been caused to exist by something external to it, or it exists by its very nature
2. If any physical things exist, they do not exist by their very nature
3. Therefore, if any physical things exist, they have been caused to exist by something external.
4. If physical things have been caused to exist by other physical things, then if there are any physical things there will be an infinity of causes
5. There cannot be an infinity of causes (or anything else for that matter).
6. Therefore if there are any physical things, they have not been caused to exist by physical things
7. A non-physical thing is something that lacks extension - that is, something that does not occupy any space.
8. Therefore, if there are any physical things, then they have been caused to exist by things that lack extension
9. There can be no causal interaction between an extended thing and an unextended thing
10. Therefore, there are no physical things.

I thought you didn't want to be alive so why are you speaking? — Mark Dennis

Er, where are you getting that from? Ah, I see what you've done - you've applied your reasoning skills to some other arguments I have made about the rank immorality of procreation and you've arrived at a conclusion that was in no way implied by them. Good stuff!

I don't even believe in a soul but I do believe in the existence of the mind being rooted in our very physical brains. — Mark Dennis

Then you have some demonstrably false beliefs - not surprising in the least.

Sorry if my grasp of philosophy is too far ahead for you to even understand what I'm talking about. Maybe when you get your masters we can talk again. — Mark Dennis

Let me remember, that's an MA in business ethics, right? You know that any academic achievement with 'business' in the title is a joke?

You want an argument against the reality of the physical universe? Well, how about this one (and yes, I realize this is as pointless as presenting this argument to a sparrow, but meh):

1. If a physical thing exists, it will be infinitely divisible
2. No infinitely divisible things exist
3. Therefore, no physical things exist.

We do not live in a physical universe and it is certainly question begging to assert that in the context of a debate about an argument for the soul - a non-physical thing!

Do some research.

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.

I do not know why you are telling me about Sextus or about scepticism.

I have said that philosophy involves using reason to discover what's true.

You've then started talking about Sextus and scepticism.

I am not sure of the relevance.

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

Why? Shouldn't the most informed person decide? And you've just said - and demonstrated - that you do not know much philosophy. For the claims I attributed to the Stoics are well known Stoic claims (which isn't to say that every Stoic would make them, but that they are associated with the view).

And how is the audience a party to the discussion? They're not involved, it's just being done in front of them.

Anyway, it is huff time for you - you're overdue.

It was a trichotomy. And it wasn't false. Failed again.

Gibberish and patently false. — 3017amen

Gibberish can't be false.

And it isn't gibberish. It is a coherent statement.

And it isn't false. It is true.

You have failed.

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

Er, why did you quote the first bit and not the rest??? I said that Stoicism is either therapy, banal or false. Three possibilities. Three. Not one. Three.

Stoic number 1: "Believing X, Y and Z will make you psychologically robust in the face of reversals of fortune".

He/she is not a philosopher, but a therapist.

Stoic number 2: "It is good to be virtuous because being good involves possessing and exercising the virtues"

He/she is a philosopher, but his/her view is banal

Stoic number 3: "All wrongdoing is a product of ignorance because wrongdoing harms us and no-one would knowingly harm him/herself".

He/she is also a philosopher, but his/her view is false.

Also, you got your definition of classical scepticism wrong. — 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.

First, I never claimed that Stoicism was not a philosophy. — Bartricks
Yes you did. :p — Ying

No I didn't. There are some people who claim to be philosophers, but are not. And some of them would claim to be Stoics. But I am not thereby claiming that there is no philosophy known as Stoicism or that there are not Stoic philosophers.

You do realize that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic, right? — Ying

Relevance?

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.

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

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.

No. Actually checking what the stoics said might just be relevant to the discussion. Prevents the whole "straw man" nonsense. — Ying

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 and you're about to go off in a huff any. second. now.

Take me to school then.

Done. — Ying

No, not done at all. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Then there's Ying - he does neither.

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

Yes, that's the gist. Although what we ought to do and what a philosopher does qua philosopher are not necessarily the same. That was my point about how it is possible to be insane and a philosopher. For a philosopher is interested in the truth - and as Reason is our only guide to what's true, the philosopher dedicates him/herself to listening to what Reason says about what's true. But Reason doesn't just talk about the truth, but also about how we ought to behave. And it is in this way that the possibility of an insane philosopher emerges. For someone may be tracking very well what Reason says about truth, but systematically failing to track in any coherent way what she says about other things, and in that way may qualify as insane. For example, a philosopher is very sensitive to epistemic reasons, but they may be very insensitive to instrumental reasons - and they may be insensitive to the latter in such a way as to qualify as mad.

Another example: take ethics. A philosopher is interested in what's true about both the content and nature of ethics. But - pace the Stoics and Socrates - knowing what is right does not entail that one will do what is right. Understanding that one has reason to behave in a certain way, does not guarantee that one will. Thus, an ethicist may be immoral.

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

I don't know what you mean. 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? Well, a) I don't have to make that assumption - all I have to assume is that there are truths and that our reason is our source of insight into them - and b) it is an extremely safe assumption, given that I clearly do exist.

First, I never claimed that Stoicism was not a philosophy. Indeed, I said in numerous places that I am not denying there are Stoic philosophers.

But, as a philosophy, we can put all therapeutic claims to one side. That is, when we challenge the Stoic to defend their claims - that is, to show us the evidence in their support - we must be on guard, for almost invariably the Stoic will try and change the subject and tell us how beneficial it is for us to believe the things they believe. When that happens we must tell them in no uncertain terms to shut up and stick to philosophy.

"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.

and its method to be reasoned argument.

I believe some cynics would disagree with that one. — Ying

How? If they have a case, then they're appealing to Reason. If they don't, who cares - they're just asserting things.

"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

Yes, I know - read the OP.

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?

Both sincerely believe in the truth of their claims. But why is one a philosopher and the other not?

Answer: because the philosopher appeals to Reason whereas the other just insists that things are so because they say so, or becusae there's a long tradition of believing these things in this neck of the woods.

So, again, a true philosopher is someone who undertakes to use reason to find out what's true.

If you think otherwise, tell me what a philosopher is, and tell me what you'd describe a rational truth-seeker as if not a philosopher.

Ah, reason! OK. — Ying

Why a dismissive 'ok'? What do you use to find out what's true then, eh? Do you just guess? Do you just defer to your elders? Do you just blindly believe what the nearest whiffy unwashed wannabe guru tells you?

It seems to me you didn't do your homework on the stoics. — Ying

Take me to school then.

I sit around thinking nothing all the time. It's easy.

Well, I'm not surprised.

Thinking nothing is a great accomplishment. — Pantagruel

No, it really isn't.

The further point is that the kinds of truths which must be sought, as opposed to those everyday truths which we can hardly deny, at least as they are in their everyday dimension, cannot be known with certainty but must be taken on faith. — Janus

Really? You are sure about 'that' are you? How? Kindly defend your claim without contradicting yourself.

I think most of the philosophers you mentioned, bar perhaps Hobbes, would equate truth, or knowing truth with happiness or well-being in some sense — Janus

I don't think they do.

But anyway, they're clearly different concepts. If you believe you are loved, that does not entail that you are loved. If you believe you are 7ft tall, that does not entail that you are 7ft tall. If the belief that your car is about to collide with a tree makes you unhappy, that does not entail that it is false. I think all of the philosophers I mentioned would agree with me about all of that.

Remember you said that knowing the truth is sometimes awful — Janus

I said it is entirely possible that the truth may be awful.

What reason could we have for submitting ourselves, as slaves, to truths that would destroy our well-being? — Janus

Well, the kind of reason in question is known as an epistemic reason.

You are just assuming that we only have reason to do something or believe something if it contributes to our well-being.

That's false, or at least it appears to be.

I have reason to honour my promises even if I'd be happier breaking them.

I have reason to feel sorrow and anger at some things - injustices, deaths of loved ones, and so on - even if I'd be happier without those feelings.

And sometimes I have reason to believe that X is true, due to it actually being true, even if believing X is false would make me happier.

Note, 'evidence' is just another word for epistemic reasons.

Philosophers - true ones - follow the evidence.

Unless it is the case that truth and reason are therapeutic. — unenlightened

I don't think so, because even if doing philosophy does turn out to be therapeutic, that is not the reason a true philosopher does it. A true philosopher uses reason to discover the truth regardless of whether there are any therapeutic benefits to doing so.

Which they surely must be, as delusion and unreason are the very definition of insanity. — unenlightened

Again, I don't think so. I agree that insanity involves some kind of systematic failure to track reason. But it is possible, I think, to be a true philosopher and insane.

This is because true philosophy is about using reason to pursue the truth, rather than following reason in every respect. For example, it seems entirely plausible that it is reasonable to pursue personal happiness, at least up to a point. And in pursuing that goal, it may be best to acquire some false beliefs - for not all true beliefs make us happier.

So Reason herself sometimes bids us acquire false beliefs - false worldviews - due to the therapeutic benefits of doing so.

But despite the fact that Reason herself bids us do this, a true philosopher will ignore her on this score, for a true philosopher is interested in what's true rather than making themselves as happy as can be.

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. For a true philosopher commits themselves to tracking epistemic reasons, not other kinds. (Or at least, should epistemic reasons come into conflict with other ones, the true philosopher will follow the epistemic).

Have you considered Buddhism? I recommend Buddhism to you. It encourages you to think nothing. I think you'll do well.

No, you're not listening. I patiently explained, for instance, why simply making claims about psychological states - their causes and regulation - is not philosophy, but psychology.

Your response?

A quote about living a philosopher's life. A quote from someone else.

How is that a response?

How about addressing a Stoic doctrine - again, the view that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance.

Is that a plausible claim?

No, not on its face.

Maybe it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Maybe it inspires you.

Not evidence it is true.

Is it true?

No, it does not appear to be - virtually all of us have experience of believing something to be wrong, and doing it anyway.

Are we to think that if we believe an act is wrong then one way to test this thesis is to see if you do it? No, that's absurd.

So, our reason - and Stoics will tell you that they are all about reason and understanding the rational underpinnings to reality - does not represent wrongdoing to always and everywhere be the product of ignorance.

Again, normally ignorance operates as an excuse. That is, if you did something out of ignorance, then you are not blameworthy for what you did.

We would predict, then, that if it was manifest to reason that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, then it would be equally manifest to reason that no wrongdoers are blameworthy for their conduct. But precisely the opposite is manifest to reason.

So, if we follow reason rather than fuzzy warmth we find that one Stoic thesis is false.

No. Mind. Mind a lot. Warm, fuzzy words do not a philosophy make.

It won't make it not-true. — Pantagruel

True. It is irrelevant to its truth. To do philosophy well you have to get over yourself and follow reason instead.

I believe that people are in some sense misguided when they do misdeeds, yes. — Pantagruel

That isn't the view I asked you about. It is plausible that some wrongdoing is a product of ignorance. Is it plausible that it all is?

The answer is "no, it is not".

Look to yourself. Haven't you sometimes realized something was wrong and done it anyway?

I found the elements of Stoicism that inspire me, I get a thrill of inspiration reading the meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Maybe you will find something that you like. Maybe it isn't for you. — Pantagruel

Stop being so self-involved. So it inspired you. Doesn't matter. That won't make it true.

Now, once more, is it true that all wrongdoing is a result of ignorance? It may be inspiring and comforting to think it is - but is it actually true?

Yes, it was Socrates' view too. And it is absurd, yes?

I didn't ask you who else believed it. I asked you if you thought it was true.

Everyone's worldview is unique. — Pantagruel

Obviously false. What prevents two or more people from having identical worldviews??

You need to start listening to reason rather than car adverts.

Reality isn't in your gift. You need to get your beliefs to match reality. Reality is where you live - forever. And reality doesn't care what you believe. Hence why you need to listen to reason, not yourself.

Why? Give me a Stoic principle. Let's go through some one by one and examine them.

I have mentioned some of these.

For instance, a view associated with Stoicism is the view that all wrongdoing is the product of ignorance.

Do you think that's true? That is, do you think that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance? Do you think that claim is well supported by the evidence? Or is it a result of starting with a theory and then interpreting all the data in light of it?

This is what I find so humourous about these skeptical-stoical threads: If stoicism clearly does not resonate with you...why bother? — Pantagruel

Why bother what? I am interested in what's true. Whether a claim resonates with me (whatever that means) has no bearing on its truth. You, I think, are in serious danger of the fallacy of wishful thinking - of thinking that the fact you'd like a given proposition to be true, is therefore some kind of evidence that it actually is true. You're going to believe what you want, not what the evidence implies.

The entire point of the philosophy is its therapeutic benefits. — Pantagruel

That's questionable. But if it is true, then it is not a view that a true philosopher is interested in.

For example, it may well be the case that belief in God has therapeutic benefits. Now, that is no evidence that God exists.

A philosopher is interested in whether God actually exists, not in the therapeutic benefits that may (or may not) accrue from believing it.

So, again, if all Stoics are doing is offering a theory about how to improve your odds of being happy come what may, then it is just a therapy (and one radically underinformed by scientific data too).

I mean, if you really are interested in how best to be happy come what may, then consult a psychologist -- someone properly trained in this area - rather than a Stoic philosopher!

If the principles work, then Stoicism is valid in that it has been effective for you. If not, then it is not effective for you, but it could still be 'true' in that it may well be valid for someone else.... — Pantagruel

Now you're just misusing terms like 'valid' and 'true'. No, a worldview is not true if it 'works' for you. Even a 7 year old realises this.

For the Stoics, philosophy is a continuous act or art of living.
For Massimo Pigliucci it is ' a never-ending exercise of reflective equilibrium'.
It is an ongoing progress...
And this can also include study of analytical or continental philosophy. Whatever.
There is not just one way. — Amity

I don't know what you're saying. Sounds wishy washy and makes Stoicism into a label for nothing very clear.

There's a science of psychology that investigates the causes of people's emotions and what mechanisms can be used to regulate them.

In one sense psychology- like any science - is a branch of philosophy insofar as it is using reason to find out what is true.

But it is distinct in that the questions it seeks to answer - the causes and mechanisms of our mental states - is one that empirical methods can resolve.

Whereas other questions - such as whether we ought to feel such emotions, whether it is good or bad to feel them, and so on - are ones that empirical methods cannot resolve. They are squarely philosophical in that you have to use reason alone to investigate them.

Now, if a Stoic is merely interested in the causes and control mechanisms of our emotions, then Stoicism is a psychological thesis or project.

But Stoics are not like this - they mix psychological claims in with claims (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit) about how we ought to be, what we ought to be pursing, and so on.

Now those claims are philosophical - and it is on their basis that Stoicism can be considered a philosophical view and not just a therapy or branch of psychology.

But when it comes to those claims, they are either false or vacuously true.

When this is pointed out to a Stoic, they'll typically then change the subject to the supposed therapeutic benefits of their belief system.

Hence my claim that Stoicism is either banal, false or therapy (in truth, Stoics are guilty of a bit of all of these - they make some vacuously true claims, mix in some claims that are obviously false, and mix in some therapy).

Because my usage is not eccentric. It is the sense of the term according to which all of the following (and many others, of course) would qualify as philosophers: Plato, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Mill and so on.

We have a word for therapy. It is 'therapy'. We have a word for the single minded use of reason to pursue the truth: philosophy.

Now, I am not denying that some Stoics are philosophers, I am simply pointing out that to the extent that Stoics are doing no more than offering a half-baked view about how to be happy regardless of what the world throws at you they are not doing philosophy - for they have abandoned the pursuit of truth in favour of the pursuit of happiness.

There's a science devoted to that already.

Firstly there being a pill that makes you forget all about your partner (if you mean to literally have no memories of her or him) is not the same as a pill that would relieve your grief and allow you to focus on the happy memories. — Janus

So? Just imagine there's a pill that eradicates grief directly then - the point remains that if your partner has just died you ought not take it, other things being equal.

Sure, you can define philosophy as the analytic philosophers do; but that is just one small subsection of philosophy — Janus

The project of using reason to figure out what's true with no regard to anything else is a distinctive project. And it has come to have a name: philosophy.

Now, others may use the term differently. That is true of all terms.

But if a Stoic 'philosopher' is not engaged in the above project but is instead just concerned to make people more able to be happy regardless of what the world throws at them, then that person is not a philosopher in my sense of the term, but a therapist (and an unqualified one at that!)

Taking a pill to forget that the grief-causing event happened complicates the scenario, because most people would choose not to forget even if they would choose not to hurt. — Pfhorrest

It doesn't complicate it, it just renders vivid the point - which is that sometimes we ought to hurt. If the pill eradiated grief, it would be wrong to take it after your partner has just died. Wrong, because you ought to grieve.

When you ask for 'a reason' what you actually mean is not a reason, but an explanation that you personally find satisfying.

Reason herself approves of us feeling grief under certain circumstances. My evidence that this is the case is that our reason - the reason of most of us, anyway - tells us that those who feel no grief under certain circumstances are faulty, not pictures of rational health.

Again, consider my example: if there was a pill that could eradicate grief, ought you take it after your partner dies? No. Some grief is appropriate - that is, some grief is grief one ought to feel. It is grief one has 'reason' to feel.

I agree with your assessment of the author's critique of Plato's argument. Clearly talking about parts does not address it.

I also agree that, as stated, the real problem with the argument is the apparent regress it would generate.

However, far from generating a regress the argument shows why positing something immaterial - a soul - appears to be the only way to stop one.

The argument talks about those things we can see - so, sensible objects - and says of them that they appear always to be moved by something other than themselves.

And indeed, the only kinds of thing that would appear capable of movement would be extended things - that is, things occupying some space (for it is only they that have somewhere to move to and from). And it is only extended things that are objects of sensible observation. So it is sensible things that move, and sensible things whose movements require external causal explanation.

So, what Plato says about sensible objects does not apply to insensible ones. Insensible objects, being unextended, do not move. For there is nowhere for them to move to or from. And insensible things, by their very nature, are not objects of sensible observation.

Bearing this in mind then, it seems reasonable to conclude that all things that move require something that moves them. But things that do not move, do not. So, sensible objects - objects extended in space - move and their movements require causal explanation.

Clearly, however, we would be off on a regress if we kept positing more and more moving things to explain the movement in one moving thing. My fingers are moving. They cannot move themselves, so there must be something else that moves them. We can posit tendons and such like, but eventually this has to come to an end. It cannot come to an end in another moving thing. It cannot be my brain. For my brain, being a sensible thing, is one of those things that moves and whose movements require external explanation. Therefore, it must terminate with an unmoved mover. And an unmoved mover is going to be an insensible thing - a soul.

But philosophy as I - and I think most contemporary analytic philosophers - conceive it is not about being wise, but about figuring out what's true.

There are many wise people who are not philosophers, and there are many philosophers who are not wise.

An accountant is wise with money, but they are not a philosopher of money, for instance.

Yes, I am asserting it - but I only assert it because it appears self-evident to my reason and the reason of virtually everyone else. We recognise not just that these emotions are often felt, but that often it is entirely appropriate - that is, rational - that they be felt. And similarly, we recognise just as often when they are inappropriate. It would, for instance, be inappropriate for me to feel guilt about something I knew I did not do, or resent something I knew was not freely done to me (inappropriate to resent the tree for the branch that fell on my head, for instance), and so on.

As to choice - again, I gave an example. Imagine your partner dies and you know that if you take a certain pill all memory of her will be expunged, thus freeing you from grief. Should you take that pill? No, not unless this is a special case. Why should you not take that pill? Well, in part because you ought to feel grief and a good person does not try to escape those emotions under those kinds of circumstance.

The reason of most people represents this to be the case. Yours too, I'll wager. For just imagine that your friend's partner dies and he gleefully tells you that he feels no grief at all - well, you wouldn't think that was fine and dandy would you?!

Here is another example of a Stoic teaching that seems obviously false: that wrongdoing is always a product of ignorance.

This seems false to first appearances. Haven't we all sometimes believed that an act was wrong and done it anyway? Surely. I am sure I have, anyway.

Perhaps I am deceiving myself. But to insist that I am on the basis that my claim contradicts a Stoic claim is to have made Stoicism unfalsifiable.

Furthermore, as well as seeming false on its face, it seems false on further reflection too. For example, if all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, then it surely does not merit deserved punishment. So, no wrongdoer ever deserves punishment for what they do - for in relevant respects what they did was just a mistake. They require treatment, not just deserts.

But it seems clear to the reason of most that people - including ourselves - often deserve punishment for what they have done.

Thus our reason seems quite clear on the matter: much wrongdoing is done knowingly.

Perhaps the Stoic will reply that it does not benefit us or others to acknowledge this. Well, they may be right about that, but now the Stoic has once more become a therapist.

I am not sure what you mean.

I think we often have reason to feel emotions such as grief, anger, sorrow and so forth. Whether we do feel them or not is another matter. But the ideally rational person feels such emotions when and where they have reason to feel them and not otherwise.

If the Stoic thinks we never have reason to feel such things and that, ideally, we would not, then their view is implausible.

If the Stoic thinks that we sometimes have reason to feel such things, sometimes not, then their view is true but banal.

if the Stoic is simply offering us a way of gaining self-mastery, then they are not a philosopher anymore but a therapist.

Like I say, if a loved one dies and you feel no unhappiness at that, then you're not right.

There are a whole range of negative emotions that we ought, under certain circumstances, feel. If you are the victim of a great injustice, then resentment and righteous indignation are fitting emotions to feel. You are not irrational in feeling them, though in feeling them you are not happy.

Another example: a good therapist may be able to make an atrocious individual feel good about themselves and feel happy. Now, has the therapist make the world a better place if they do that? Or worse?

Worse, obviously. The atrocious individual who has done many bad things ought to be unhappy, not happy.

Therapy is therapy, not philosophy.

And the view that we only ever have reason to do that which makes us happy is a false one (or at least, we seem to have abundant evidence that it is false).

But what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? To what extent a view resonates with you, or bears similarity to another view, has nothing whatever to do with its truth.