reboot_my_life t1_iz95j4m wrote
Reply to comment by TheEarlOfCamden in Philosopher José Antonio Marina: 'The fact that happiness has become fashionable is catastrophic' by FDuquesne
>But why do anything if your only goal is for things to happen as they will?
Acceptance wasn't the goal of Epictetus and the Stoics. Acceptance is a useful tool, but if used to it's own end, rather than a tool for pursuing virtue, it is more appropriate for a doormat than a philosopher.
The Stoics sought to live a eudaimonic life -- that is to say, a life worth living. Most of their philosophy is centered on what makes a good human -- one who lives in accordance with human nature, and they observed that the human was a rational animal who thrived on society. Thus the conclusion of stoicism, in order to live a life worth living, we must treasure reason and pro-social action.
To build this kind of character, and thus to live a good life, is independent of station in life, the whims of Fortuna, and in a word, anything external to the mind (even the body). One can be rational and pro-social if they are a slave with a broken leg, or if they are a Roman emperor.
This leads to the understanding that we should not be disturbed by acts of Fortuna, because they are external to our character and indifferent to the pursuit of virtue. In fact, any act of fortune must be seen only as an opportunity to practice virtue, and neither good nor bad in the real sense. This is not to say that one situation cannot be preferred over the other, but it cannot be rationally desired.
d4nu t1_iz9b41x wrote
A wonderful summary, thank you.
brutinator t1_iz9osfu wrote
Sorry if this is semantic, but what is the difference between "preferring a situation/outcome" and "(rationally) desiring a situation/outcome"?
reboot_my_life t1_izanwmc wrote
if you were given the choice of receiving ten million dollars or becoming a paraphalegic, I think it is obvious that you would prefer the ten million dollars, and rationally would do what is in your control to receive it. However, you must recognize that in the real sense, both outcomes are indifferent to your ability to cultivate virtue, and thus should not be approached with desire or aversion, because they are neither good nor bad.
It is only rational to desire true goods, and the only true good is virtue.
Casudemous t1_iz9uctw wrote
It is not semantic, it has different meaning. The difference is that preference are passion, thus are heteromous. I.g they happen to you. The rationally refer to reason and thus is autonomous i.g. you "make" them happen. (eddit was missing info)
Casudemous t1_iz9v73f wrote
Rationally desire is an oxymoron one is tied to the logos and the others to the pathos but you can for exemple rationally conclude but not desire
btas83 t1_iz9g8qw wrote
Happiness isn't the goal. It's the reward.
William_Dowling t1_iz9w3q5 wrote
> the human was a rational animal
1 out of 2 isn't bad, I suppose
simplySalad1234567 t1_iz98hu6 wrote
When you say external to the mind, but in that set of external things list the body, is that to say stoics believed the mind and body to be separate? Have there been attempts to adjust the philosophy in light of what we think we know about the mind being tied to the body/brain?
UncleGizmo t1_iz9am1k wrote
I think it’s more, “irrespective of your physical situation”, e.g., if you had a broken leg, or if you were born with a deformity, this wouldn’t necessarily restrict you from pursuing a life worth living.
kfpswf t1_iz9ad5d wrote
I'm not sure about Stoicism, but in Advaita Vedanta, which does have a striking similarity to Stoicism, the mind and the body are considered separate identities operationally, but are considered one entity. The mind affects the body, and the body affects the mind.
commonEraPractices t1_iz9lnqy wrote
In philosophy, this is called mind-body dualism, and it is famously well articulated by Descartes.
reboot_my_life t1_izapqh0 wrote
Most likely the stoics (the classical stoics) had a plurality of beliefs related to mind/body dualism -- some believed in a pneuma or soul, some did not. All believed that we -- whether mind or body, were part of an ordered universe, one giant machine of matter and logic, so even if body and mind were believed to be separate, they are still both part of logos.
Whether the mind exists out of the body's matter notwithstanding, Epictetus considers the body as external and not under our control, he says it right on page one of The Enchiridion actually. Despite your best intentions and efforts, you could be effected by cancer or be in an accident, for example. Neither situation is in your control, or prevents you from cultivating virtue, so to be emotionally disturbed by such events is irrational.
I think what the modern stoic must acknowledge, moreso than neurobiology, is that we now know that in some cases it may not be possible to control our own mind and we may lose our faculties of reason. Dementia being the most clear example but someone may fall victim to psychological disorders as well. This is tough to come to terms with and I personally am not sure I have a solution.
Tenderhombre t1_izcw260 wrote
Honestly stoicism has always felt a little like fatalism to me. Also a major problem I have is the not desiring an outcome. It's great when you are a class of people that enjoys privilege but kinda shifty for those of a lower strata.
simplySalad1234567 t1_izcagpy wrote
Thank you.
I just wondered if knowing what we now know of how the brain (physical) affects the mind if an updated version of stoicism would reflect the fact that even our minds don't seem to be fully under our control or exempt from fate/fortune.
[deleted] t1_iz9u8fd wrote
[deleted]
Mark_is_on_his_droid t1_izczl1q wrote
I started to hear Massimo Pigliucci reading this by the word eudaimonic.
yargotkd t1_iz9gp5y wrote
"Who thrived in society" "are a slave" hmm
reboot_my_life t1_izardgi wrote
Yes, a slave with a crippled leg, who's lessons were compiled into one of the most influential texts on ethics of all time, and who's legacy underpins the bulk of modern psychotherapy 2000 years later.
He lived a life in pursuit of virtue, with reason and pro-social action at its core. Does being enslaved or crippled have anything to do with cultivating either?
yargotkd t1_izasv6t wrote
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I don't like the idea of not being disturbed by Fortuna. I think one should actively fight and work against bad societal situations such as slavery, rather than learning how to live with it. I think thoughts like that lead to people not unionizing or not fighting for their rights. I didn't mean slaves could not be virtuous.
reboot_my_life t1_izautsy wrote
yes, and the stoics would say that you are morally required to take political action (if your intention is rational and pro-social), this is a core component of stoicism and what differentiates it from epicurianism (which is not the pure hedonism that many people think).
The stoics would say that you simply shouldn't have desire or attachment to the external result of your actions, rather than your intentions and actions themselves. They simply are not disturbed if their actions do not work out, instead they take fulfillment in being a person who pursues justice.
The layman often equates the meme comic with the dog in the room on fire saying "this is fine" with stoicism. If the dog were actually a stoic, he would be calmly but efficiently doing everything within his control to put out the fire.
wrt slavery specifically. In the Greco-Roman times slavery was thought of much differently than we do now. Many have wrote about this topic (mostly a lot of theologians and apologists) rationalizing slavery in the ancient times, but the truth is I just don't think we can simply relate to it. Obviously we've moved on and any rational person considers slavery horrible. But thinking about history begs us to question what do we think is OK nowadays, that future generations will think is horrible. I'm certain there is something.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments