Why I gave up on Stoicism.
I used to be an avid Stoic wannabe, and that's about as much of my desire amounted to, being a wannabe.
Despite the revival of Stoicism or neo-Stoicism as a school of thought, there is much to be desired about this path that an individual might go by in wanting.
So, without too much mumbo-jumbo, here's why I gave up on Stocism:
1. Modern day life is much harder to master in terms of wants and needs contrary to the life of a slave or Emperor of Rome back in the days of the Roman Empire. The things we can control, per, Epictetus' Enchiridion can be found here:
Quoting Epictetus, Enchiridion, 1.
1 cont'... Ok, so you might wonder what I'm getting at here. Namely, the things in our control being opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own action, smacks of some hardcore version of rationalism. So, just a phil-101, rationalism has gone into disregard since the heyday of David Hume and empiricism. Delving a little deeper, it is quite difficult to disentangle the sine qua non of Stoicism of what is actually in our control from the things that aren't.
2. Epiphenomenalism... Yes, epiphenomenalism deserves a mention here. It has been empirically demonstrated that our actions are quite at odds from a hard version of what one would 'want' them to appear as. The brain supposedly comes up with mental states before we are aware of them. This is the unconscious mind at work, where the conscious mind is akin to a whistle on a locomotive chugging along forward.
3. Stoicism is really hard to master. Keep in mind, that Stoicism has been classically been thought of as a philosophy for the future governors of the land, being from West Point military academy, officers, and statesmen. Now, you might say, 'hold on', 'Epictetus was a slave and meant to pass on his teachings to future slaves or what have you'; but, I ask 'why?' Why would a slave concern him or herself with things over which they already have so little control over? What's the point? Is there any apparent logic to teaching a slave the virtues of Stoicism? Think about it, if a slave is miserable, and picks up the purported private thoughts of Marcus Aurelius, who never intended to publish them, then doesn't that smack of some fishiness? What is the underlying logic here to put a miserable life to more misery of trying to overcome the stark reality that they apparently have control over nothing of import, apart from their own happiness?
4. Studying Stoicism does not produce happiness. Yes, Stoicism, much like logotherapy, or modern-day Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, does not produce happiness. As I said in point 3, Stoicism, is a philosophy that teaches resilience, not happiness. But, again I ask, resilience towards what exactly? One's own unhappiness? Does anyone see the apparent neuroticism that can arise from the sublimation of one emotion or desire by another?
Despite the revival of Stoicism or neo-Stoicism as a school of thought, there is much to be desired about this path that an individual might go by in wanting.
So, without too much mumbo-jumbo, here's why I gave up on Stocism:
1. Modern day life is much harder to master in terms of wants and needs contrary to the life of a slave or Emperor of Rome back in the days of the Roman Empire. The things we can control, per, Epictetus' Enchiridion can be found here:
Quoting Epictetus, Enchiridion, 1.
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.
1 cont'... Ok, so you might wonder what I'm getting at here. Namely, the things in our control being opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own action, smacks of some hardcore version of rationalism. So, just a phil-101, rationalism has gone into disregard since the heyday of David Hume and empiricism. Delving a little deeper, it is quite difficult to disentangle the sine qua non of Stoicism of what is actually in our control from the things that aren't.
2. Epiphenomenalism... Yes, epiphenomenalism deserves a mention here. It has been empirically demonstrated that our actions are quite at odds from a hard version of what one would 'want' them to appear as. The brain supposedly comes up with mental states before we are aware of them. This is the unconscious mind at work, where the conscious mind is akin to a whistle on a locomotive chugging along forward.
3. Stoicism is really hard to master. Keep in mind, that Stoicism has been classically been thought of as a philosophy for the future governors of the land, being from West Point military academy, officers, and statesmen. Now, you might say, 'hold on', 'Epictetus was a slave and meant to pass on his teachings to future slaves or what have you'; but, I ask 'why?' Why would a slave concern him or herself with things over which they already have so little control over? What's the point? Is there any apparent logic to teaching a slave the virtues of Stoicism? Think about it, if a slave is miserable, and picks up the purported private thoughts of Marcus Aurelius, who never intended to publish them, then doesn't that smack of some fishiness? What is the underlying logic here to put a miserable life to more misery of trying to overcome the stark reality that they apparently have control over nothing of import, apart from their own happiness?
4. Studying Stoicism does not produce happiness. Yes, Stoicism, much like logotherapy, or modern-day Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, does not produce happiness. As I said in point 3, Stoicism, is a philosophy that teaches resilience, not happiness. But, again I ask, resilience towards what exactly? One's own unhappiness? Does anyone see the apparent neuroticism that can arise from the sublimation of one emotion or desire by another?
Comments (64)
Stoicism can open the window to humility and resilience, but only a megalomaniac or a ‘hedonist’ (in the worst sense of ‘hedonism’) believing it as a path to some blissful state.
This is also why I steer clear of the buddhist doctrine of passivity. It’s more or less a path of ego manipulation for most who take it to heart. A great many ideas are overly idealised! Haha! :)
I do admit, I loved Epictetus' "Manual"="Enchiridion" in my youth. But, puh-leeze don't really treat it as a manual to live by in the slightest. Not if you want a sane and comfortable life of ease. If you're a masochist, then, by all means, go ahead!
And I don't know about you, but I'm happier when I'm resilient.
So I reject points 3 & 4.
Are you talking about the Libet experiments? Problematic, especially in how they are usually interpreted. The very instructions given to subjects basically ask them to prime their nervous systems for a certain kind of impulse and then allow random action potentials to reach the threshold for motor activation basically without interference. The subjects are basically asked to allow unconscious impulses to express as muscle activity. Nobody should be surprised that action potentials arise that begin before the subject is conscious of them and then, when allowed to proceed, cause movement. And everyone conveniently forgets Libet's "veto" findings and his own interpretation, which are quite at odds with what they want the experiments to show.
As for epiphenomenalism generally, if consciousness were ineffectual, how could you report your subjective states? How could you even know you are conscious? Presumably, the structure of your mental state is determined by the physical state of the brain, right? So any thoughts you have reflect that state. If that brain state contains information about your subjective state, that would seem to require that your very subjectivity must somehow influence the brain state, which would require consciousness to be effectual. If it were ineffectual, it would make no difference at all to behavior whether or not the physical state of the brain is accompanied by a mental state.
And in that case, if a body is making mouth noises that seem to report subjective experiences, they aren't actually caused by any subjective experiences. They actually don't have anything to do with experiences. The behavior is all completely accounted for by low-level, non-conscious physical processes. So we would be talking nonsense when we talk about consciousness. Even if we did have conscious experiences, there would be no way to report them or even have mental states that refer to mental states. Whatever reports we make would be entirely determined by non-conscious processes. See the problem? The phenomenal side of things would recieve causal influence from physical states but never send influence.
Suppose you are operating a radio station and are broadcasting information, but not receiving. Suppose I am in my car listening but not sending any information to you. How could you know about my listening? My state would be influenced by yours, but yours wouldn't be influenced by mine. In epiphenomenalism, my state here is like the mental state, and yours is like the physical state.
And strangely, I sometimes see people who seem to believe in epiphenomenalism go on to speak as though consciousness evolved by natural selection. if consciousness doesn't actually have anything to do with behavior, how could it evolve? What selective advantage would it offer? Why would natural selection favor it?
Of all the ideas in philosophy of mind, I think epiphenomenalism takes the cake as the most indefensible. It is a weird one-way dualism, for one thing. And the people who favor it often are hostile to dualism! Go figure!
But even if were the case, how does that invalidate stoicism?
Among the many theories that Stoicism propounds, I have seen it professed that a free will is necessary for it to make sense. What's strange, is that Stoicism is a deterministic school of thought. So, go figure!
Also, Stoics don't wallow.
it happens to be the case that it's easier to determine what isn't within your control that what's in your control, but in determining what is not in our control we get an idea of what we are capable of controlling.
Stoicism, especially Roman Stoicism, is very practical; it serves as a guide regarding how to live. You can if you wish indulge in speculation regarding free will, etc., but this does nothing for someone trying to make decisions on a moment to moment or day to day basis.
Equanimity is the goal of Stoicism; aequanimitas to the Roman Stoics, apatheia to the Greeks. What better way to achieve that that understanding what you can do and what is or is not worth doing? Stoicism is practical wisdom, and as such it serves quite well. If that's not philosophy, so be it.
Quite so, and this falls squarely into the sentiment I expressed in point #1. For any intellectual who has read such things as Manufactured Consent, by Chomsky, or is vaguely aware of the nature of American democracy in managing the expectations of the hoi polloi.
What am I getting at?
Namely, things under our control have been eroded to the simple choice of whether I want a Pepsi or Coca-Cola. Same shit I would say.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
OK, and here I would like to point out a side issue that I have noticed in Stoicism that has been irking me for quite a while. Namely, the idealization of what some Stoics consider as a true and genuine Stoic, apart from the purported sages. Just where do you draw the line here? I suppose the Cynics did away with the ambiguity, and really are the sages that the Stoics admired, which they actually did admire.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
As a follow up to the previous paragraph, this is hard to gauge. And, I return to point #4, as to whether Stoicism is actually making me a happier person, which is perhaps the only test that can be subjected to Stoic philosophy.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Little disagreement here. For the matter, I think happiness is overrated. But, there's no way around the fact that some pragmatic test is demanded by any free-thinker or individual to asses the merit of Stoicism in coping(?) with the struggle of ascertaining what is in fact under their control or not...
The test is experience, judgments made and the intelligent analysis of results, I would think. What is or is not reasonably subject to what I do or think in certain circumstances and what is not? But again, I think the emphasis should be on what is not. If I can't do/control X, I do what I can and accept what I can't do without anger or other negative feelings.
Epictetus: "Make the best use of what is in your power and take the rest as it happens."
Yes, despite the allure of Stoicism in seemingly empowering an individual to think and assess what is the best or more-so the right course of action, there is a lot of appeal to 'fate', 'what the god's want', 'fortune', and 'good-will'.
Are these things all things not under one's control?
Ancient Stoicism was grounded in large part on the belief in an immanent divinity. Stoicism need not be (see Lawrence Becker's book A New Stoicism). That divinity was thought by the ancients to be material, in other words a part of the universe, but in the nature of a fire or spirit infusing the world. The divinity was reason, roughly speaking. Humans have the capacity to reason and so partake in the Divine Reason; we have a bit of the divinity in us.
What's in accord with reason is in accord with the divine spirit which is the intelligence ultimately guiding nature (the universe, world). So in employing our capacity to reason we act "according to nature."
That said, the universe is rather large. It and the Divine Reason are in many ways unrelated to our concerns, as we're a small part of nature. We can't expect to control all that takes place in the universe. At best, we can control ourselves, or at least try to do so. So we do the best we can with what we can control, and accept what we can't control, which is to say we don't pout, as it were, or suffer from angst, or despair, or rant about the meaning or purpose of life. or for that matter, I suppose, wonder to the point of fixation whether or not we have "free will."
Have you read James' The Will to Believe?
I have lost "faith" in Stoicism, as a guide to ones life, as the feels of despair simply get sublimated into profound futility of what little I have actual control over.
And here I want to ask you about Seneca, the dark horse of Stoicism. The man had it made from birth to death, and adopting Stoicism as a philosophy of life simply made the guy larger than life. What's your take on Seneca?
I haven't read that work of James.
Control need not be absolute in order to be exercised. What is it you feel you don't have any control over? If you truly have no control over something, why let it disturb you to excess? One of the examples used by Epictetus comes to mind. We have no control over the fact we will die. Don't we have some control over our feelings about it and, at least in some circumstances, how we die (consider the manner of Seneca's death).
You may expect too much of Stoicism.
As for Seneca, he was a very able man, he wrote very well (though not always to my taste), but if the wealth and property he accumulated is any indication, he allowed his desire for things and power to overwhelm him. I think that to be fair we have to consider what it was like to be a tutor to Nero and a high functionary of Nero's court, and acknowledge that would put him in a very stressful position, but if he participated in the murder of Nero's mother or in preparing Nero's defense of that act before the Senate, that is difficult to forget. He apparently died consistent with Stoic ideals, however.
How do you define "happiness"? Stoics seemed to equate it with calm acceptance of whatever "happens" (Eudaimonia), not with "good luck" due to divine providence. At first, that sounds like Fatalism. But part 2 of Stoicism is to avoid worrying about "what ought to be". This is similar to Zen Buddhism, in that striving for perfection in an imperfect world is the cause of your unhappiness. That's not to say that you shouldn't try to improve your conditions (flourishing); just don't sink into anxiety & depression when you fail. Stoicism emphasizes virtuous character, so you can roll with the punches, and bend like a reed without breaking. Ultimately, happiness is a personal attitude, not an external goal to be reached.
I seem to have inverted that question and have asserted the converse. That Stoicism expects too much from modern-day man-kind. I'll get back if I have anything interesting to say.
By way of simile, it’s as though you suggest that the gym I go to expects too much from me. Of course that in order to gain a benefit from gym workouts a regular practice needs to be maintained, as well as balance in cardio/resistance training with adequate technique. Now that I think about it, I guess the gym does expect a lot. I guess the question is whether or not it’s too much, or rather, if the cost is worth the benefit.
Generally speaking, staying fit is healthy, and health is unquestionably good. ‘Modern-day’ mankind may have other priorities, however, which override the value of good health. I wonder if those priorities are worth it. Maybe those other priorities expect too much.
One of the things i find ironic about conservatives, and especially the more radical christian conservatives who preach self-responsibility, self-reliance, self-motivation etc which are values very much aligned with stoicism, is the fact they rely on preaching and perpetual communal gatherings to instil it, a permanent ongoing situation that is actually in direct contradiction to their message of self-motivation, self-reliability and self-responsibility.
I think that the conservative/evangelical mind-set is probably more resilient to life's misfortunes, which explains conservatism's appeal, but their actual practice for instilling and maintaining that mindset is communal and involves the social regulation, coercion and motivation of individuals, rather than individuals regulating and motivating themselves.
Here are things that are self-contradictory in Stoicism.
Things I control are my actions.
Things I don't control are things.
Ergo I don't control my reputation etc.
Strangers control my reputation.
------------------
Stoicism's rules don't apply to strangers. I can't control my reputation, but they can. It's not their action; their control is extended to things. They have special controls; not over more actions then I have, but they have control over things. Which I don't.
So the rule of Stoic philosophy does not apply to everyone equally? I can't control things, but others can?
What sort of a philosophy is that? It's like a physics that says gravity acts on some objects with mass, but does not act on some other objects with mass.
Or in chemistry: some oxygen atoms combine with hydrogen atoms, but some other oxygen atoms never combine with hydrogen atoms.
Very smart. I always thought that the religious fight and fear atheism because of tribal patriotism. But there is more to it; in fact, the truly religious can't conceive of a life without a god faith. So they view atheism as a god-faith of some weird sort. Here, their fight is not only to preserve control, but also to preserve their god; and that is threatened, like you said, PFH, by socialism, which is the devil-worship of the atheists, so to speak.
This doesn't make sense for the simple fact that there are many religions in the world that may 'compete' and if secularity were seen as just another religion then it would simply be viewed as another competitor in the same category of competition. In any case, there's only a marginal difference between religious and secular charity. Secularity tends to support secular institutions and the religious tend to support religious institutions.
In the US, religion has already lost to the state, in both political power and in supporting the populace. I believe the separation of church and state is written into the constitution. How can there be any sense of competition?
Quoting sime
The difference between religion and stoicism in this regard I believe lies in authority. There are certainly authorities in stoicism, such as Epictetus, but they're not ultimate authorities like God or the Pope, who maintain a dogma of some sort. Stoicism is more like a science that is open to revision, can accommodate vastly divergent metaphysics, and has no ultimate authority.
I think you will concede that the state has vastly more resources at its disposal than the church. This indicates a lack of competition.
Conservatives (not necessarily religious conservatives, as there are of course religious liberals) claim to be against socialism because they believe it's inefficient, or rather that the state is unable to do it as well as free-market capitalism. History tends to validate this claim. On the other hand, unregulated capitalism without social safety nets, etc. can lead to an unstable economy.
You're not being clear. What exactly is a religion (such as Christianity in the United States) competing with the state over? You seemed to claim that it was competing for political power earlier. If that's right, how will deregulation and deterioration of entitlements help religion gain political power?
So for a real-world example, let us say that I become homeless and need help to get back on my feet. Let's also assume that all state/fed social safety nets that might once have helped me out have been dismantled by the Godfearing Trump administration and that my only salvation can be found in religious social programs. Having benefited from their help, I'm compelled to convert to conservativism and henceforth use my voting power to further the conservative agenda, as well as generously donate to the church.
Is that about how it's supposed to work?
I'm merely trying to glean something meaningful from your abstractions. Feel free to help me out.
My studies in psychology inform me that you're being unnecessarily hostile.
So my example does illustrate how it's supposed to work? What is the fallacy then?
You said "compelled". That suggests a degree of force I didn't insinuate, like there's some kind of obligation backed by force comparable to that of law. If all you meant was that people who are helped by religions will be more likely to do things to support them in turn, then we're in agreement.
I am not sure where the knife is balanced between being a result of causes and being responsible for the choices one makes.
Basing an ethic strictly upon one or another method seems to be all mixed up with the topic of what the hell is going on.
Not the stoic apparently.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I imagine that it might seem weirdly obtuse to someone who could see no problems with your theory. Did you come up with it, by the way, or did you get it from someone else?
Quoting Pfhorrest
We are most definitely not in agreement. This does help to clarify your theory though, such as it is.
I suddenly feel 10 years old.
You just discovered the elixir of eternal youth. (-:
That has a business angle, too, you know.
I would have mentally substituted "morally obliged" or "due to feelings of gratitude" for "compelled". Compelling does not necessarily involve law; but gratitude and moral conviction are forces to reckon with.
In all fairness, I don't know what strength of force you did not insinuate, I must go back further in this thread to find it out.
things considered for competing in politics between religion and state:
1. Income.
2. Military power.
3. Abortions.
4. Votes. (Everyone loves them.)
Things NOT considered for competing in politics between state and religions:
1. Social services (Yuck... this man is stinky, that woman is a crack ho, that kid is delinquent, must build more jails immediately, must privatize government, and must privatize democracy.)
2. Social services (Hey, guys... this costs money. Nobody said that before we started. Must abort this involvement immediately.)
3. Social services. (Settle down, guys... we don't want to be branded "bloody commies".)
It's not just religion in general of course. Buddhists, for instance, are too busy navel-gazing to care about politics, and in the US they're mostly liberal besides. Religious conservatives are the demographic being discussed, which from what I can glean from the Pew Research Center is around 60-70%. It makes me wonder what the religious left does with all that cash they're not spending on the needy in order to apply psychological pressure on them. Yachts, I'll bet.
Religions often operate social services. That's a good thing I don't think anyone's complaining about. Some religious people might be perfectly happy if the state also operated social services. But there is also a clear motive for religions to oppose state-operated social services, so that religion is the only place to turn to for social services, and so more people turn to religion. That would be a motive more for people who are concerned about their religion "winning" over alternative worldviews and lifestyles, and less for people who see other religions and the state providing those same things as allies in a common cause. In other words, the right vs the left.
You seriously couldn’t tell that I was being facetious?
Quoting Pfhorrest
Your meaning isn’t clear, but you seem to be suggesting that the religious left doesn’t care about “winning.” Why should they care any less about winning than the right? I can assure you that the left cares a great deal about not losing in political issues like abortion, etc.
So does the religious left use their psychological pressure on the needy to promote Pro-choice laws and policies, and effectively work against their Conservative religious brethren in the adjacent pew?
The meaning of Pfhorrest's post is clear. It does not suggest at all what you say it suggests, because it does not differentiate between religious left, and religious right.
Where do you see an effect of the religious left not trying to win new members for their congregations?
Where did I claim that was the case?
Quoting praxis
You did not claim this, @Praxis. You said that the correspondent @PfHorrest did not claim this. And you claimed that Here:
Quoting praxis
I am now asked by you to explain the most obvious. Do you want to continue in this vein, @Praxis? If you do, please state it now, because I refuse to give minute baby step-by-step reiterations of what has gone down only because you pretend to not follow the flow of discussion.
To recap, pfhorrest claimed that the religious right (henceforth RR) uses charity to psychologically pressure the needy to support conservative causes (increase the number of unwanted children in society or whatever). Then I wrote something. Then he wrote something. I wrote something else. He got cranky, having had a bad day at work. Then I said, “not the stoic apparently.” Not my best moment. Anyway, at some point I mentioned something about boats. Wait, no I said yhats... yachts? That’s hard to spell. What was I talking about?
You got that backwards. I’m not saying they use religion to further their political ends, but that they use politics to further their religious ends. That they oppose government doing what they see as religion’s job because if it does then fewer people will turn to religion.
I've been noticing, too, that @Praxis got this backwards. Somehow along the line a switch happened in his comprehension of the posts. I am abandoning the conversation with him on this topic for a while. I will consider conversing with him on other topics, I think he is a good man, but here he got fatally confused, and there seems to be no way to reverse his confusion.
My point was that he claims you differentiate between the religious right and the religious left, while you never once did that in this thead.
The conservative ends and religious ends of the RR differ?
It's not the stoic way, but for some it's good to stay within their comfort zone.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting Pfhorrest
You don't value truth, God. May I call you God for short? What do you value?
I think religion in the USA, particularly Christianity, has lost it's real essence. They have stuck to a few principles that complement their culture and left the rest of them. Religion is just used for getting people together these days, it isn't an individual thing anymore. That's why the political right finds religion to be the most effective tool to gather support, since they do not have much to offer. This is also why we have both extreme ends in politics these days, it is either all conservative or all liberal. It has become difficult for people to identify themselves in the political spectrum if they do not lean far right or far left.
Where did this theory originate? I’ve asked this before and received no answer. Also, can you back it up with any evidence at all?
Stoics believe that we have complete control of thought, judgment, and action. For my personal experience in controlling thought, I just check my meditation app and it says that over the last 12 months I've meditated for 127 hours and eighteen minutes. Very very little of that time was I able to control thoughts as I intended to. On the other hand, I did have some success and having had that success I know how to go about arranging the conditions that are conducive to quieting the mind (how I practice controlling thought in meditation). Basically the same story for judgment and action. I have biases and bad habits that are deeply ingrained but I can nevertheless make plans of action to overcome them, should I choose to.
So it's not quite as bad as you suggest, I believe. A more apt analogy might be something like a tugboat controlling an oil tanker. An oil tanker has such mass and momentum that it takes time for changes in speed and direction to take significant effect. Also, the oil tanker can be affected by other tugboats in ways that we may not be consciously aware of.
Whatever the case, the point of the Stoic dichotomy of control is serenity, or to put it in neurological terms, to deactivate a hyperactive default mode network. I don't know much about CBT but it sounds very similar, if not practically identical.
I'm not sure if it is all supposed to work that way... that would require a tremendous amount of forethought as well as preceding action taken in step by step fashion...
Perhaps you're overestimating those who seek to end public assistance programs.
However, I'm sure that the scenario you've put forth most certainly happens to some people, by chance. However, I'm absolutely certain that there are quite a few folk who call themselves "Christian" in the US that are disgusted with much of Trump's behaviour.