Stoicism is alright... but it ain't that great
It's OK. It's a great coping tool and if you're really struggling, to become a stoic will help you to calm down and make better decisions, but there is a problem inherent within all practicing stoicism, and indeed much ancient philosophy.
It focusses on controlling the passions. But our passions are a gift from God... And God doesn't make mistakes. Nature is perfection, so why would God make a fatal flaw in his magnum opus? He did not.
The flaw is not in us having passions. The flaw is in us adopting ideologies that seek to erase them from our conscious mind.
x
It focusses on controlling the passions. But our passions are a gift from God... And God doesn't make mistakes. Nature is perfection, so why would God make a fatal flaw in his magnum opus? He did not.
The flaw is not in us having passions. The flaw is in us adopting ideologies that seek to erase them from our conscious mind.
x
Comments (44)
When Plato said that we have 3 parts of the soul (thoros / spirits, appetites and rational mind), he was right. When he said that the just society is one in which man uses his rational mind to control his appetites - here he is wrong.
Man is polyamorous by nature. That's why until he finds "the one" he finds it insanely difficult not to cheat in a "monogamous" relationship. Because he is not living in alignment which his true nature, which is given to him by God (the creator).
Supposition. It misleads to claim as fact what can't be shown as true. 'Faith' is an honest word.
Neither Plato nor the Stoics tell one to erase emotion from the mind.
As you may or may not know, the Stoics practiced indifference toward external influences, in Greece during the fall of Rome.
Stoicism was useful not only to the Roman empire ( and subsequent fall of same) but also during the 1930s depression era. To people, ethically, the psychological benefits were obvious.
Conversely, notwithstanding the psychological damages associated with repression or suppressed emotions, having control over one's thoughts to not worry about things one has no control over (external influences), indeed gives us the power to be free. It's a source of self-empowerment.
But once again, surely, if one dichotomizes stoicism into an all or nothing campaign, then we are in danger of denying our (as you would say God given) most valuable emotional intelligence.
As you suggested, it's a useful tool not to be overused.
I explained that whatever rhetoric a great stoic uses in the application of their calming philosophical method, Stoicism does result in a less passionate individual. If the reigning ideology of the world was stoicism, the world would definitely be cooler and calmer, but it would also be a lot less beautiful.
3017 amen nailed it above when he said: "its a useful tool not to be overused." This is abundantly wise, and therefore true x
And this comes to your second point about having to invoke faith and that being an unsteady base to claim that God exists is a truism. When you are enlightened, you dont have faith. You KNOW. I do nor believe that God exists. I know it to be true.
What more did you find out about God's nature through the divine experiences?
You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think this is true.
I haven't read all the Stoics; only Marcus Aurelius, and the man is very clearly filled with love and passion for life and for his fellow man.
“When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive — to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love.” - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
"Whoever, then, understands what is good, can also know how to love; but he who cannot distinguish good from bad, and things which are neither good nor bad from both, can he possess the power of loving? To love, then, is only in the power of the wise." - Epictetus, Discourses
Haha, same. I thought this was going to be an interesting read until I got to the God part. I just deflated.
Like you say the initial topic is very useful... . Just guide him through the awareness of his leap of faith (not that that's bad of course).
Okay, I will break the ice. Phil, read Poetic's question... ? The temporary detour (or clue) here is: the nature of existence (Existentialism). (Contemplate that before answering/the nature of God's existence.)
In terms of Seneca, his book letters is one i frequently pick up. He had a beautiful mind, but youll feel the shorticmings of Stoicism in his words x
"I am the teacher. Disprove me on the battlefield (dialectic), or bend the knee x "
In good faith, I'll take the challenge!
Ready: Does God exist a priori or a posteriori? And if you choose one of those methods, what is God's nature? Is he sentient? Did the Universe always exist? What is his consciousness like? Did he give you the formula for creation of the universe? Ethically, I want to be perfect and make no mistakes; why can't I be? Why am I hardwired to have unsatiated needs? Why do human's feel the need to procreate? What is Love? Would you kill someone for Love? Why do I have self-awareness?
Sorry for all those questions, but God created us right? And since you said you're the teacher, don't ask me for the answers LOL.
PS: you may want to start a new thread in Religion... .
BTW, I am a Christian Existentialist. Are you a right-wing Fundamentalist?
Peace brother!
"It has been claimed that Radical Existential Christians’ faith is based in their sensible and immediate and direct experience of God indwelling in human terms"
___https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism
Quoting PhilCF
This should be interesting. Two enlightened beings, with "direct experience of God", but with different worldviews, meeting on the field of philosophical battle. :smile:
You are literally filling any form of interesting discussion with "God" talk. It's answering nothing, it says nothing, it's devoid of discussion because you quite literally cannot have a back and forth discussion because it's forever clogged with uninteresting God-talk mojojojo. It's why the discussion about "stoicism" turns into a God debate or discussing God that has zero relevancy to the actual topic, because you leave quite literally no room to talk about anything else. How is anyone supposed to add anything fruitful here other than a self-righteous God discussion as substitution for actual arguments or points?
It's a bad strategy on a philosophy forum outside of subjects that aren't specifically about "God", most people shy away from things like this because it literally turns into a big God derail with nothing productive happening.
Also, no offense, I am substance free (aside from a little alcohol) here and there, so I doubt it.
Quoting PhilCF
And um, yeah, spare me. No thanks.
I'm already making popcorn to eat while watching this.
I also invited 72 other, various prophets and religious/transcendentalists who have already begun discussion; here's what went on:
I looked in on the Two and Seventy Sects,
And heard but the Karma of the Barking Dogma:
Some Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and Jews
Wondered what stories they should choose.
Even thought they’d already so many chosen,
They just didn’t want to keep notions so frozen;
So they met to merge the postulations into one,
Thinking that this might be a whole lot of fun.
“In our hypothesis, there is just the only One.”
“Well, our conception is a multitude of many Some.”
“Well, we’ll part way meet: there’s only the Holy One”
“Nah, the odds of that are over three million to one!”
“Buddha of us was one, so of Gods there are none;
A human above all that now’s not seen by the sun!”
“Humph! Holy Jesus of our one God was His son!
He lit mankind’s darkness with light of the Sun!”
“No, Jewish Jesus was not of any nature Divine,
But was just a mere man much ahead of his time.
This you all should know, being there at the time.
Look at our history singing old biblical rhymes.”
“All is not real, so what is this great big fuss?
Retreat back to where it’s all at to slow the rush.”
“Oh God’s universe and creatures are so real
And that is why we’re making this very big deal.”
“In the afterlife, we in Hell or Heaven reside.”
“Not so fast, for in between these realms we lie,
And if you in this testing life don’t do so well,
You’ll have so many subhuman tales to tell.”
Reason arrived: “Possibility reigned way then back
‘Before’; there’s nothing even holy about all that.
‘Tis all made up, those many fabrications made,
So just let it all be, for this is what existence bade.”
…
The reason I love being stoic. I’m a Pisces so I really don’t use a lot of frontal lobe or my thoughts are usually present thoughts.
1. It’s the Balance. In order to have energy you must have the positive and the negative for current. Those both have a 180 degree spectrum. Zero positive zero negative. Full positive full negative. Every other digit 1-? between zero and full must exist. 2 cannot exist with our 1 and so fourth. So irregardless of how down or up you feel, the current has a median which Is always more stable than fluctuation.
2.There’s really no highs and no lows. Your friends and family will enjoy you better because you have the same attitude daily. There isn’t “well screw you for not helping.” Because you already understand in order to help you must not help. When you help someone your not helping yourself. So you take it as it is.
3.You stop worrying about false ego. You become you versus what society wants you to be that day.
I can go on and on. Have a good day!
"Even thought they’d already so many chosen,
They just didn’t want to keep notions so frozen;
So they met to merge the postulations into one,
Thinking that this might be a whole lot of fun."
Lmao you never cease to amaze me Poetic!!!!
I don't know that it would be either all that intriguing or would provide any new Revelations of sorts. Even though I just spit those questions out at random, they represent sort of old Kantian type questions viz the nature of existence.
The nature of things in themselves is a tough one and leads to alot of existential angst lol. So where do we go from there... hey, Metaphysical theories in this case, as you say, can be fun!
After all, as Christian's, our revelatory wisdom may uncover some new probabilities!!!!
Yes, I think some detachment helps one feel better. While some reactions are involuntary, we need not let them grow, sometimes, lest the anxiety deepen, for this would be on us and be hard to get rid of, for emotion can stain the brain. Some would-be annoyances had to happen and so they don't need to get compounded.
Stoic.
asked Bob Guccione, offering me a big fat spliff.
Interesting comment about human sexuality Janus!
Perhaps Religious Fundamentalism could take a page from the Stoics book in that regard, and thus become indifferent towards those external influences!
I share your view
A knife is not a spoon.
I don't think you see that you are succumbing to dogma.
People are generally more controlled by their habits, of thinking, feeling and doing, than by their passions. Leaving aside the etymology of "passion" which is related to passivity (habit); I am thinking of passion as vivid, active interest, in a Nietzschean kind of sense.
:up:
[quote=Janus]People are generally more controlled by their habits, of thinking, feeling and doing, than than of their passions. Leaving aside the etymology of "passion" which is related to passivity (habit); I am thinking of passion as vivid, active interest, in a Nietzschean kind of sense.[/quote]
[quote=Pantagruel]Stoicism is about limiting your expectations, not controlling your passions I think.[/quote]
Quoting PhilCF
Very funny, but do you have a [I]serious[/I] objection?
For me, it's a close second to Epicureanism. Who was it that said something like 'stoic during war, epicurean during peace'? Probably wasn't a stoic ...
I don't know what you mean by coping tool but to my knowledge this term involves avoiding truth. Stoicism, au contraire, is about living with the truth.
As for passion vs reason I think [i]Where passion begins
reason ends. Where reason ends, problems begin.[/i]
It's not that humans don't have emotions. Duh! Put humans in a context that brings into relief the truth. On one side we have animals, ruled by passion. On the other side we have the cold unfeeling logic machines - computers. Humans sit between them. If we become too passionate we become animals. If we try to become a Sar Trek Spock we become machines. We can't possibly ignore our animal heritage and neither can we overlook our rational abilities. We are both animal and machine.
As for God I think you're spot on considering our rational mind demands skepticism and that's deleterious to any and all religions. It's better for religion to have people be emotionally driven to believe god exists.
:up: