The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Stoicism: A Walking Stick for your Soul
Speaker
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So it was a rough week I had a work the past five days; rougher than it had to be by half. Back during the winter I was working two jobs (a 9-5 and a restaurant job thursday through sunday nights) plus going to a math class monday nights and midwife/birth classes tuesday nights. I have to say, what really pulled me through months of that schedule was Stoicism (wiki article here). I needed a little of that, but it had left my mind.
So I'm going to revive my Stoic studies and thought I'd make a place for anyone else who is also interested. The wonderful thing about Stoicism is that it lets you look at the world in a way that buffers you from the demands and irritations of your environment and focuses you in on what you can do in every situation. You stay even tempered and proactive rather than getting suckered into a feeling of powerlessness or frustration or what have you.
Some major Stoic figures from ye olde Greek and Roman tymes:
Epictetus, a Greek slave who wrote the most succinct summary of the Stoic argument I've seen.
Epictetus wrote:1. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.
Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things. Instead, you must entirely quit some things and for the present postpone the rest. But if you would both have these great things, along with power and riches, then you will not gain even the latter, because you aim at the former too: but you will absolutely fail of the former, by which alone happiness and freedom are achieved.
Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.
That was from a short work of his, Epictetus's Enchiridion that is easily browsed.
Marcus Aurelius, one of the better Roman Emperors, whose work Meditations is also pretty accessible and classic.
Chrysippus of Soli, whose writing covers some of the more complicated work on Stoicism, and who doesn't really appeal to me - but maybe someone else can get something out of it.
Seneca the Younger, a Roman statesman and writer, whose work also doesn't appeal to me much. He is however incredibly famous as a good writer and I imagine he would be many many people's cup of tea.
So for the next week I'll be spending some time with these gentlemen, especially Epictetus, and posting my thoughts. I'd be glad of some company.
Speaker on
0
Posts
However, most people don't find it sustainable because people are naturally humanistic to varying degrees, and the inherent flaw in extroverted humanism is personal cost and coersion of others, which Stoicism (and therefore Objectivism) does not tolerate.
So tell me how all of that goes, later on.
To me there is always a balance to be found here, and it is a balance that needs to be found whether you are talking about Stoicism, or Christianity or Buddhism.
Because clearly slavery is not a good order for society, yet by the lights of Stoicism or Buddha or St. Paul the outer condition is immaterial - the soul is always free so long as it is unattached from the world and instead focused on inner freedom.
Yet I'm not prepared to countenance slavery and lecture the enslaved on the proper attitude of indifference to their condition. The stoic may be sick but happy, in danger but happy, poor but happy - yet a good society is not one in which people constantly are in danger, poor and sick.
Justice and good order in society is separate from inner philosophy.
Or conversly, a more snarky answer would be to recommend that you not be so concerned about other people coersing you, because the inner man is always free. People can only coerse you if you confuse what is not yours with what is yours. Then you become weak, angry and afraid and other men become your enemies. You have the choice to not be coersed by not desiring things that others can take away from you or give you.
True, but in objectivist terms, the slave from your example isn't free because his freedom is coerced from him. Personal liberty is the baseline value for both stoicism and objectivism; without it, the latter cannot exist at all and the former is just a coping mechanism.
That is not a sensible claim to make. One can claim that within a particular culture particular people are humanistic. But making the leap from "here is a group of humanistic human beings" to "human beings are naturally humanistic" is a flawed leap.
Stoicism usually works as a way for an individual to view the world and live one's own life. But if one engages in social interactions from a stoic perspective...
If someone in the [chat] thread says that one of their friends died and one's reply is "vases break", [chat] gets out the pitchforks.
(I need to read more, I want to read more, I want to read about different things, etc)
I don't know a great deal about Stoicism, but I've heard a few lectures and scanned the Wikipedia entry.
The stoic thinks that personal liberty is inalienable--regardless of your circumstance, you are in control of your attitudes. Everything else, such as the slavery you are faced with, is contained in the vicissitudes of fate, and you aren't supposed to invest yourself in caring about those. If you slip and fall in the mud, you are not to think that it is a bad thing, or to be unhappy that it happened. You are to maintain your inner calm and harmony with the world.
I don't think that stoicism and objectivism are really at all alike. Stoicism has no problems with charity, altruism, social duty, or anything like that. Nor does it (on the face of it) preclude slavery, wars of aggression, or other forms of unjust force. As was pointed out, Marcus Aurelius was a stoic, and he had no problem with either of those things. So I don't see the overlap that you do.
I think that something about stoicism is right; namely, that a person is to some degree the master of their own happiness, and that mastering your own happiness in the face of adversity is a valuable tool for living a good life. But I also think that once you get to a level much more detailed than that it starts to look suspicious.
Can you elaborate please?
The stoic philosopher is utterly immune to misfortune? Only stoic philosophers are free? There are no degrees of badness? Really?
Also, if we are to get into it:
Emphasis mine. Much like all the other ancient greeks, the stoics did not have access to the fruits or methods of modern science, and as such had some pretty ridiculous physical theories. These ridiculous theories tend to be enmeshed throughout the whole of their work. Granted, in many cases you can defend a modified version of their argument--one which has been stripped of the random shit they tended to believe and reformulated to fit a modern audience. But that is just exactly what I mean when I say that they may have had some valuable insights, however, when you get down to the details their doctrines are pretty suspicious.
Apart from the social duty aspect, Objectivism doesn't disallow charity or altruism, it just asks that you do so out of your own will and not from coercion from others or in order to coerce others in return for your generosity.
As to your other point, I don't think a pragmatic approach to "personal liberty" can be limited to "possession of one's own attitude." I understand the Stoic approach to such a thing, but honestly it sounds more like a psychological defense mechanism for POWs or something when applied to those who've had their practical liberties taken from them.
Well the urban areas of the Empire were apparently rather closely monitored by the classical equivalents of secret police and informers - at least so far as I can tell from brief mentions here and there*
For example Virgil often refers to informers and persecution and the commentaries seem to be pretty sure it wasn't just him being a bitch about Domitian. So, the life of an intellectual/philosopher/deep thinker could well have been not as free as one would like
As I understand stoicism, if you practice it fully, coersion is impossible. Period.
You should read Epictetus's Enchiridion.
It's linked in the OP, or you can find really cheap copies of it, usually coupled with the Discourses of Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius's Meditations.
Coercion of the soul and attitude, sure.
I'm saying that in a pragmatic application, if my liberty is being coerced from me, fuck my soul and attitude, I want to be free. In that form, Stoicism just seems like a coping mechanism, like the old adage about rape, a la, "you may take my body but never my mind." I mean, come on, rape still occurs.
Agreed.
It seems like the central truth of stoicism is immediately evident once stated, and it's usefullness and the moderate practice of it also immediate and practical. It has a texture you can feel, and a moment to moment practical application.
But once you get into the more abstract things like classifying indifferent appearances and whatnot, it seems like you move into an increasingly dark jungle. Personally after wandering around in there for a few hours, I wonder why the hell I ever got into it.
For that reason, I wouldn't say any kind of Stoic fundamentalism is a good idea.
You shouldn't claim Stoicism is somehow affiliated with your philosphy then.
This isn't a case of us having different takes on Stoicism. This is a case of you disagreeing with the one central and fundamental tenent of Stoicism - the tying of happiness only to that which we can control and the rejection of attachment to anything outside our control.
I don't think you and I disagree that Stoicism isn't something to build a political system onl, I just disagree that Stoicism is linked in any way with Objectivism.
Possibly. I'd probably say I practice stoicism up until the point my practical inherent liberties are disenfranchised, and then I go Objectivist.
I like the general idea of stoicism, particularly the non-coersion bit, but this strikes me as a bit odd. I think it's possible to be made happy by experiences without developing an attachment or need for them. Some of my most fondest memories I hold most dear precisely because they were things that were transient and outside of my control.
I'm not sure if the point is really not to enjoy anything, just not to want anything.
The core ethics of stoicism remind me a great deal of the core ethics of Buddhism: the primacy of reason and logic over emotions; escaping suffering through (first) a resistance of desire and (later) an abandonment of desire; a cheerful acceptance of the inevitability of misfortune; etc.
I'm sympathetic to it. It's generally good advice, just like the old serenity prayer they use at 12-step meetings: "God grant me the strength to change the things I can control, the calm to accept the things I can't control, and the wisdom to know the difference." Where I think all such disciplines are lacking - and maybe this speaks more to my lack of exposure to stoic reading material - is on the third point. Determining what is and is not in our control is not simple by any stretch of the imagination and is where most people fail - and, by the way, this distinction is not binary; there are great many things that we can somewhat control but not entirely, and very few things that are truly outside of our control.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There is a healthy balance between enduring misfortune and exerting effort to avoid or correct it, yet many ancient traditions focus on inaction, on passive acceptance, on calm in the face of adversity. Too much of that particular kool-aid can be just as destructive as selfish actions. Whether it's a codependent wife who believes that she is powerless to avoid abuse at the hands of her alcoholic husband; a soldier who sees his comrades committing war crimes and does nothing to stop them; or the passengers of United 93 who did not passively suffer their fate - there are many examples where we have to be wary of discouraging bravery as we encourage thoughtfulness.
And again this may say more about my lack of exposure to stoicism outside of condensed form from college textbooks, but maybe sometimes the proper response when one slips in the mud is not to laugh, but to ask who the hell let the street fall into disrepair.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
For the stoic (at least for Epictetus and Aurelius) the only things under my control are my thoughts, feelings, desires, and will. For them it's an all or nothing situation. If I can't totally control it then I have to let go. It doesn't mean that you start being a bastard to everyone around you because you can't totally control how they behave towards you, but rather you realize that when someone behaves in a bad way towards you that you do not have the final say in how they act, and you don't give them the ability to get to you. Actually one of the greatest lessons regarding that is one of my favorite lines from the Enchiridon.
"You would not give control of your body to a stranger in the street, why would you do so with your mind?"
I'm not so sure about the whole primacy of logic over emotion thing. Though I think that gets into one of the nuances within the stoic position. It seems like they want to dial up the happiness all the time, so they want you feeling intense emotion. It's just they have a way of reliably increasing the happiness. The one who addresses emotion the most is Zeno, and I haven't read him in a long time. Should find the book and look it over again.
Interesting fact. Stoic comes from the Stoa, which is the porch on the front of a building (where the columns are). They got the name because the first stoics used to hang out on the porch talking about stuff.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Yeah... personally I'm much more appreciative of Buddhist mindfulness, where suffering is a natural part of life, and must be experienced in order to experience life.
I'd much rather accept the impermanence of all things than avoid attachment entirely.
On a separate note, I imagine objectivism would conflict with stoicism in that objectivism is concerned with many of stoicism's "uncontrollables" but is concerned about them in a fashion not traditionally in line with humanitarian intervention. "Unregulated free trade" doesn't strike me as a core tenet of stoicism, and I don't imagine a philosophy that can write off suffering or persecution as an uncontrollable would suddenly do an about-face to struggle in the support of free trade capitalism.
Untrue. a key part of stoicism is accepting that we all have purpose in life and that we should fulfill it by being the most we can be - not wasting our potential. Of the most prominent stoics you had politicians, an emperor, head of philosophy schools, the most successful banker in his era, etc. Don't confuse stoicism with nihilism.
negative visualization is a huge part of stoicism, and for the more advanced users - practicing poverty. That doesn't mean there is anything in the system that says you should be poor or homeless - just that you need to realize that it's not that bad, and you shouldnt be making any moves in life based on the fear you have of ending up there.
it's not that it should be ignored, but it should be understood to be outside of your control. So that when bad things happen, you don't get upset.
Epictetus invokes the imagery of a banquet. Dishes are passed around, and when one comes to you, take from it. But when it's time for the dish to move on, let it go. Don't watch it come to you, anticipating its arrival, and don't mourn its passing. Understand that the nature of the banquet is that things come and go. So it's not as if you are forbidden from enjoying anything ever, just understand the nature of everything as coming and going.
As for having "no influence" on the rest of the world, such is not the case. As I pointed out earlier, it's that in regards to my own mind (thoughts, desires, feelings, will) I have the final say. I get to be the one making the decision. As to the other people in my life though, I don't have the final say. I can try to influence them, but in the end, it's out of my hands. The point is to not get frustrated with my lack of influence. I can't ever control the world around me, I can exert some small amount of power, but in the end, it isn't up to me.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I guess for clarity I'm wondering if any of the great stoics take this thought to a conclusion of "I cannot change the world, therefore I should not try." Is there a line drawn between recognition, acceptance, and submission? A certain amount of that is already implied through the philosophy, I'm curious if the matter is explicitly discussed.
Is it only our suffering or pleasure, only our passions, that move us through the world?
Stoicism would be perfect were it not so difficult to decide when to accept what is and when to work to change it, particularly when it comes to the path of one's own life. For the times when one has difficulty or challenge thrust upon oneself, it is of clear benefit. When one's life consists mostly of "things indifferent", Stoicism can make one less likely to take risks.
The problem is not with the theory, it is with the imperfect human practice. Stoics must train to ignore immediate emotional responses in favour of cool assessment. Yet those emotions are often exactly what show the path to greater long-term happiness. Stoicism is good at teaching how to find contentment when buffeted by the winds of fate; not so good at showing how to go past contentment to find one's heart's desire.
Reason and a cool evaluation of what is best can definitely move us through the world. When we are out on the flat plain of everyday life, however, they are not usually enough to move us to start climbing mountains.
Anyone know of a book that goes though all the concepts or ideas of this in a more modernly written English?
I would recommend A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy
It's good stuff - written by a professor of philosophy who discovered stoicism while searching for a philosophy of life - he started with buddhism, but ran into stoicism and found it a much better match. He reconciles some aspects with modern life, etc. So it gets into the practice, as well as talking about all the great stoics.