Is the Stoic ideal largely aspirational
The ancient Stoic philosophers put great store on human beings living their lives according to reason. In other words the key to a virtuous life is to become a highly rational person who is not swayed in their actions by their emotions. But do the Stoics misunderstand human nature and how our emotions affect us? David Hume , the 18th century philosopher had the polar opposite view , according to Hume "Reason is the slave of the passions" . I wonder was he closer to the mark . Humans don't seem to be very rational creatures and so much of our motives, decisions, actions etc seem to be determined or greatly influenced by our emotions. Therefore is the Stoic ideal of virtue largely aspirational.
Comments (11)
Humans are creatures of desire and emotion.
Rationality is an idealisation of control. A method to try to
make nature "safe" and conceptual...
So I think the ideal of rationality is aspirational. But a false,unreachable and decadent aspiration.
To be human is to be passionate & rational. I suppose one has to be passionately rational and rationally passionate! Easier said than done though. Oh, how I wish I'd known this 20 years ago! :sad: My passion fills me with regret but my reason tells me not to cry over spilt milk. So, when I'm passionate, I'll cry and when reason takes over, I'll wipe my tears! :cry: :smile: Lather, rinse, repeat!
I don't think the ancient Stoics ever doubted that we're subject to emotion. I don't think they believed emotion could be eradicated. I believe they felt that it's possible to limit the impact of negative emotions such as anger and hate, and characteristics such as greed and envy, by accepting, for example, that we shouldn't let matters outside our control to disturb us or concern us excessively and understanding. This required discipline and practice, so it was no easy task. But it would promote tranquility, happiness and virtuous conduct.
whichever brings more hedonism will win
I think you hit on the answer without realizing it. Stoics were well aware that emotions could move us and often in wrong directions. Precisely for this reason they advocated the use of reason to temper the reactive component of human behavior. Makes sense to me.
The reason Hume said that was because, by his day, the Enlightenment had taken over philosophy (Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, etc), which taught that man should yield to his passions, not try to overcome them. The ancient teaching was not meant for everyman anyway, only for the few who had the capacity to conquer their passions by means of reason...like a Socrates or Diogenes.
:up:
As I see it, the Stoic ideal was a harmonious balance between the extremes of Spock Logic and Captain Kirk passion. It was the Cynics that tended to the extreme of living life like a dog (sorry mutts). :grin: :lol:
Balance, not my strong suit. Imbalance, my middle name.