Stoicism is an underappreciated philosophical treasure

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe there is a dark side to Stoicism that I'm not appreciating. Which is exactly why I'm starting this thread; to peek behind the veil.

Back in the ancient days of Greece and Rome, there was nowhere near the need to be vigilant and active in daily life as there is today. One of the important features of stoicism is a term called, 'apatheia' or more commonly known as apathy. I guess being apathetic is natural for a stoic; but, is hard to reconcile with modern day life.

That's one negative I have encountered with actually living out stoicism. Another issue is the conflict with managing what is under ones control. There are many things one must constantly harass oneself with being proactive nowadays in maintaining what one has control over. It's a dismal state of constantly checking and maintaining control over all these trifle issues. Hence, more often than not I have appealed to cynicism to nullify the need or rather desire to control what little I actually have control over.

Edit:
There's also one other irreconcilable difference between modern day life and ancient Greece or Rome for example. Namely the life in the polis and the brotherhood and unity of the stoic philosophy and the individualism of modern day life. The atomic unit of the family in modern day living is at odds with the unity and brother/sisterhood of ancient stoicism. In other words, you're stuck in your shell.

I don't think you're missing anything.

It's a very level-headed way of living life, sticking to living in the moment rather than worrying about all the things that might be. Very Buddhist-like indeed. The two may have even influenced each other. (Especially the Greeks being influenced by traveling eastern sages)

Stoic "apatheia" is freedom from emotional disturbance, not "apathy" as currently defined. Tranquility was valued, as was equanimity. The period of Roman Stoicism was, in fact, a fairly turbulent one in the Empire, including trouble with the Germanic tribes which kept Marcus Aurelius away from Rome for many years, trouble with Parthia, the onset of Christianity and failure of traditional religion, the rise of the mystery religions; the Bar Kochba rebellion in Palestine. Stoicism had a broad appeal, and its most significant Roman adherents included an emperor and a slave.

Quoting Ciceronianus

Stoic "apatheia" is freedom from emotional disturbance, not "apathy" as currently defined.

So, why isn't the current use of apatheia, not consistent with the ancient use of it? Was there some magical reification of it or did external circumstances change so much that apathy has no bearing on the ancient use of the term?

Quoting Ciceronianus

The period of Roman Stoicism was, in fact, a fairly turbulent one in the Empire, including trouble with the Germanic tribes which kept Marcus Aurelius away from Rome for many years, trouble with Parthia, the onset of Christianity and failure of traditional religion, the rise of the mystery religions; the Bar Kochba rebellion in Palestine.

All the more reason to admire Marcus Aurelius as a Roman stoic.

Quoting Shawn

Was there some magical reification of it or did external circumstances change so much that apathy has no bearing on the ancient use of the term?

Pardon me for butting into the conversation but I think the quality relates to the modern idea that one is a slave if one agrees to be one. Epictetus was a militant in many ways.

The two books that cemented my interest in Stoicism are "How to Think Like a Roman Emperor" by Donald J. Robertson and "The Beginner's Guide to Stoicism" by Matthew Van Natta. Especially the first book mentioned.

What makes Stoicism so interesting to me, is how natural it feels, personally speaking. I seem to passively gravitate towards the teachings of Stoicism. Which I am grateful for.

I intend to seek out and mature/nurture my understanding of Stoicism, if only to be a more well-rounded person. Which seems to be a common thread running throughout many of the lives said to embody the Stoic image.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe there is a dark side to Stoicism that I'm not appreciating. Which is exactly why I'm starting this thread; to peek behind the veil.

I don't "practice" Stoicism or Buddhism in any doctrinal sense, but my personal philosophy could be characterized as "stoic", in a general sense. The only "dark side" I'm aware of is a tendency toward Fatalism. Most ancient Greeks, culturally, were fatalists : submissive toward the divine Fates, and compliant toward the fickle fortunes of human destiny (like the oppressed proletariat of most cultures). But they also applauded the few romantic heroes who defied Fate against all hope, and accepted the inevitable consequences, as in Homer's Odyssey.

So, if you believe in human Free Will (heroically denying Determinism), to deliberately practice passive Stoicism might cause you to adopt an attitude of resignation, and a slide into personal apathy, angst and homelessness. On the other hand, Stoicism, with a touch of Optimism, could allow you to enjoy the benefits of Apatheia (freedom from worry or anxiety), while following your dreams. :smile:

Stoic Fatalism — Is it Bad? :
The original Stoics were indeed fatalists in the deterministic sense. In other words, they thought that all actions were predetermined by nature. According to Jordan (1987), the Stoics thought that “God, who is Nature, knows the whole system of interrelated causes and ‘what every future event will be,’ including every event in the life of each person. Any freedom of the human will is therefore, on the face of it, out of the question” .
https://chadebrack.com/stoic-fatalism-is-it-bad/

Reply to Bret Bernhoft I prefer primary sources on Stoic philosophy such as

Letters from a Stoic: Seneca's Moral Letters to Lucilius by Lucius Annaeus Seneca (transl. R. Gummere)

Discourses, Fragments, Handbook (Oxford World's Classics) by Epictetus

which are saturated with the social and political contexts of the turbulent, early Roman Empire in which they were written.

Quoting 180 Proof

Discourses, Fragments, Handbook (Oxford World's Classics) by Epictetus

That is the best textual reference. I still like my translations that refer to a 'manual'. How to set up a tent. What to do when the fire conks out. Etcetera.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft I think I may be more of an Epicurean, but Stoicism is massively popular these days - podcasts, books, YouTube, TikTok. It has significantly influenced a number of approaches to psychology and interpersonal counselling (RET later CBT) from the 1950's and on.

Reply to Tom Storm
But not relevant to your practice?

Reply to Paine I was talking about my personal life. Yes, CBT is useful.

Reply to Tom Storm
It is useful to me as well.
If I understand your work life correctly, then the matter relates to what you do as well.
I am just curious, not trying to challenge you.

Quoting Tom Storm

I think I may be more of an Epicurean ...

:up:

Quoting Tom Storm

CBT is useful.

:100:

Stoicism is an underappreciated philosophical treasure. It's also one of the most overrated ones.

If you give full validity to the social applicability of the evolutionary theory, then you must admit that both Stoicism and Buddhism are ridiculously false and illegitimate philosophies, as well as the philosophies of most modern religions, if not of all religions.

Yes, I admit they are much more romantic, likeable, and attractive, Stoicism et al, compared to scientific materialism. But philosophers are supposed to be loving the the truth, not an attractive, illusionary and artistically falsified version of it.

Quoting 180 Proof

..are saturated with the social and political contexts of the turbulent, early Roman Empire in which they were written.

Thank you for the recommendations. I agree, that getting as close to the original writings as possible is wise. I'm still feeling my way around in the world of Stoicism at the moment. And to examine thoughts from such a period of time is especially interesting.

I feel like I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject, so I'm reading books that are more general and user-friendly. But I do aspire to enjoy those firsthand sources.

I deeply appreciate all of the responses to this post. I get the feeling that there is more to Stoicism than I understand at the moment. But I do sense that I'm on the right trail to understanding this philosophy and set of lifestyle choices.

Stoicism is interesting to me and I will continue my studies, gradually, over time. I have so many other subjects that I'm studying right now, that it doesn't make sense to dedicate all of my intellectual efforts to just one subject.

As I progress in my appreciation and "gnosis" for/of Stoicism, I would enjoy having another conversation with everyone here about the subject. It seems there are some exceptionally knowledgeable people herein, that have pointed me in some exciting directions for further research.

Quoting 180 Proof

..are saturated with the social and political contexts of the turbulent, early Roman Empire in which they were written.

Stoicism originated in Athens as part of Athens's thinking about virtues and ethics.

Quoting Wikipedia

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. It is a philosophy of personal virtue ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia (happiness, lit.?'good spiritedness'): one flourishes by living an ethical life. The Stoics identified the path to eudaimonia with a life spent practicing the cardinal virtues and living in accordance with nature.

However, your comment is supported by this explanation of Brits appearing very stoic. It begins with the French Revolution.

Quoting Olivier Guiberteau

“It was a moment that views coalesced around. The revolution had looked like a great triumph of humanist Republican politics, but quickly turned very nasty and very violent,” Dixon told me. “It reinforced this idea that passions were dangerous, mad and should be resisted.”

Within four years, the two nations were at war as France took on the remaining powerful European monarchies during the Revolutionary Wars. While the stiff-upper-lip concept in its most extreme form was still some way off, it was here that British sensibilities began to tighten. The radical social revolution that had overtaken France threatened the status quo, and this “madness” had to be matched with restraint.

Quoting Athena

Stoicism originated in Athens as part of Athens's thinking about virtues and ethics.

Yes, I know, Zeno of Citium et al. However, I recommended Roman Stoics because their writings I've found best epitomize classical stoicism.

Quoting 180 Proof

Yes, I know, Zeno of Citium et al. However, I'd recommended Roman Stoics because their writings I've found best epitomize classical stoicism.

I think what is important to know about Stoicism is its place in the Athenian attempt to define the good life and how it is achieved.

I think saying the Roman writers epitomize classical stoicism is like saying that Roman Christianity epitomizes the Christian movement. That might be true but the truth has been radically changed. But then I speak in ignorance. I do not know what the Romans added or took away from the Athenian effort and I am curious about that change. Why does Roman writing set our understanding of classical stoicism?

Reply to Athena I'm not aware of any writings by Greek Stoics. I'm mostly familiar with Seneca, Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius as well as those stoic influences on early Christianity, medieval Jewish philosophy, Spinoza et al. Please recommend any primary sources of Greek Stoicism you've read (I'm familiar with some extant tertiary summaries).

Quoting Athena

Why does Roman writing set our understanding of classical stoicism?

I think a lot of that can be credited to the destruction of texts from the closing of the Hellenistic time where we can see many sources are referred to but are now lost.

One of the last to view the Platonic legacy in regard to Stoicism was Plotinus. He wrote polemics challenging Stoics in the Enneads but also included elements that recognized many previous arguments,

This essay by Gerson does a good job of contrasting Plotinus from the 'classical' thinkers: Plotinus On Happiness.

I take issue with his view of a Platonism 'beyond Socrates' but the stuff about Aristotle was helpful to me.

Quoting Paine

I think a lot of that can be credited to the destruction of texts from the closing of the Hellenistic time where we can see many sources are referred to but are now lost.

One of the last to view the Platonic legacy in regard to Stoicism was Plotinus. He wrote polemics challenging Stoics in the Enneads but also included elements that recognized many previous arguments,

This essay by Gerson does a good job of contrasting Plotinus from the 'classical' thinkers: Plotinus On Happiness.

I take issue with his view of a Platonism 'beyond Socrates' but the stuff about Aristotle was helpful to me.

Your link demands some thinking. My first thought is Aristotle didn't deal with Christians who definitely use the Bible for comfort, and how they make themselves feel happy with a fantasy of knowing God and trusting God helps them in all things even though they may be racist bigots.

Neither did Aristotle deal with today's people programmed for PowerPoint presentations and very focused on crass worldly things, like a Roman, not like an Athenian. We might think of the career-focused young as Rome on steroids and far from the more metaphysical and abstractly inclined Athenian,

I can appreciate Aristotle's notion of happiness being the feeling of high morale that we have when we believe we are doing the right thing but this is a refined appreciation of the virtuous life, It is not the human norm. This subject of happiness is pretty tangled up with materialism. Aristotle defined real as something that exists. Piety is real but it is not matter. Piety is of the mind but does not require a lot of intellect. Or what the heck, we can just be practical and go for money and power and enjoy a lot of happiness.

What do you find helpful about Aristotle? I am listing to lectures about his ethics and may have something more intelligent to say in a few days. I am actually fascinated by virtues and how they can improve our lives. I think Stoicism has much to offer. That fascination goes with also being fascinated by how aging changes our thinking. There was a time in Athens when there wasn't much effort to educate those below 30 years of age. The older I get the more I have a sense of meaning and the ability to see the bigger picture.

Quoting 180 Proof

?Athena I'm not aware of any writings by Greek Stoics. I'm mostly familiar with Seneca, Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius as well as those stoic influences on early Christianity, medieval Jewish philosophy, Spinoza et al. Please recommend any primary sources of Greek Stoicism you've read (I'm familiar with some extant tertiary summaries).
a day ago

I love Spinoza and would like to know about him.

Quoting Wikipedia

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. It is a philosophy of personal virtue ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia (happiness, lit.?'good spiritedness'): one flourishes by living an ethical life. The Stoics identified the path to eudaimonia with a life spent practicing the cardinal virtues and living in accordance with nature.

Epictetus was a Greek philosopher who lived in Rome. His thoughts are not so different from Aristotle's thinking and contemplating the golden mean.

Reply to Athena
If for no other reason, Plotinus is interesting because he would have been the first to object to Augustine co-opting him as the 'best Platonist'. Plotinus saw himself as carrying forward the best interpretation he could make in his circumstances. If somebody told him he was better than Plato, he probably would have lapsed into a coma.

Before looking at Athens as an ideal not attainable to the Romans, consider that slavery was a big part of both societies. Aristotle took it for granted that society was hierarchical. I don't say that to erase differences. There are many. But I am reluctant to invoke Golden Ages after Plato did such a good job of making fun of them.

Quoting Athena

Epictetus was a Greek philosopher who lived in Rome.

:up: I stand corrected. It was my impression that Epictetus, along with Seneca, primarily influenced late Roman thinkers and mores.

Quoting Athena

I do not know what the Romans added or took away from the Athenian effort and I am curious about that change. Why does Roman writing set our understanding of classical stoicism?

There are some fragments of the writings of the Greek Stoics available, but as far as I know we're aware of them only because they're referred to by others. In addition to Zeno, we have some information regarding Cleanthes (Zeno's successor as leader of the Stoa) and Chrysippus, his successor, and quotes from them. You can find the Hymn of Cleanthes easily enough on the Web. Chrysippus is credited with defending Stoicism against its early critics.

The Roman Stoics are generally believed to have "softened" Stoicism and making it more human, less committed to the perfection of the ideal Stoic Sage. Also, at least compared to Chrysippus whose focus was on epistemology and logic, and the theory underlying Stoicism, the Roman Stoics emphasized ethics and practical wisdom. That emphasis makes it more sympathetic to most.

Quoting Ciceronianus

the Roman Stoics emphasized ethics and practical wisdom.

:up:

Quoting Ciceronianus

The Roman Stoics are generally believed to have "softened" Stoicism and making it more human, less committed to the perfection of the ideal Stoic Sage. Also, at least compared to Chrysippus whose focus was on epistemology and logic, and the theory underlying Stoicism, the Roman Stoics emphasized ethics and practical wisdom. That emphasis makes it more sympathetic to most.

Yes. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly :clap:

Quoting Paine

?Athena

If for no other reason, Plotinus is interesting because he would have been the first to object to Augustine co-opting him as the 'best Platonist'. Plotinus saw himself as carrying forward the best interpretation he could make in his circumstances. If somebody told him he was better than Plato, he probably would have lapsed into a coma.

Before looking at Athens as an ideal not attainable to the Romans, consider that slavery was a big part of both societies. Aristotle took it for granted that society was hierarchical. I don't say that to erase differences. There are many. But I am reluctant to invoke Golden Ages after Plato did such a good job of making fun of them.

I love talk of Athens because I have realized I don't really learn anything unless I am working with the ideas I want to know. Like being virtuous depends on taking action, so does learning anything.

I have no idea why Rome could not achieve everything Athens achieved. I think the Athenian legacy was stronger in Roman controlled Constantinople, but why? Why did Islam pick up the learning that spread from Athens and Christian Rome throw us into the dark age by destroying the places of learning?

Not only did Athens have slaves, but they were patriarchal and sexist! :rage: :lol: Anyone want to open that can of worms? I think I would have preferred to be a Spartan woman than a Athenian one.

Speaking of Sparta, Aristotle thought Spartan authoritarianism was superior to Athens whisy-whasy liberal ways. Socrates was discussed with Athens since it lost the war with Sparta, and then comes Plato's republic and then Aristotle. I don't think Aristotle would have thought highly of Pericles' funeral speech about how being generalist and comparatively lacking direction was a good thing. It would be super fine to have a symposium with Pericles and Aristotle as the main speakers. That is my idea of heaven. :lol:

I would not claim Athens had a golden age, but it distinctly gave the world a whole new way of thinking about reality and mans' place in it. Maybe some day I will know enough to develop the story of moments that changed human consciousness in a big way. Athens changed human consciousness and separated the west from the east. Do you want to argue that point?

Quoting Ciceronianus

the Roman Stoics emphasized ethics and practical wisdom.

How could anyone emphasize ethics more than Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? I am reminded of the Protestants who divided into several different denominations and each one thinking its interpretation of the Bible superior to the others. I have read the Romans were pretty obnoxious with their since of self importance, and these yahoos destroyed the Greek temples of learning. Oh dear, that reminds me of the culture wars in the US with its increasing potential of another civil war and the possibility that the nonintellectuals could do to the US what they did to Rome.

Quoting Ciceronianus

The Roman Stoics are generally believed to have "softened" Stoicism and making it more human, less committed to the perfection of the ideal Stoic Sage.

Aristotle thought what separated humans from the rest of the animals is their capacity to be rational. That is just their capacity. Reasoning and rationality require constant effort to develop and obviously not many humans want to put in the effort. However, some of the Greeks thought the greatest happiness was the result of making that effort. In the US today some people are strongly opposed to those who think we should make the effort. What is superior about that? Perhaps you can give us an example of the greater humanism Rome introduced?

Now I will argue against what I said by saying I have heard Roman women were gaining equality. That could make Rome more liberal. Conservatives oppose increasing liberalness while I think the suppression of women has been a draw back to western culture. We are witnessing a political battle between liberals and conservatives now and this seems to be the result of women gaining power. Athens was known for its suppression of women. For many the objection to Jesus was he was too feminine and we know Nietzsche thought Christianity destroys the vitality of civilizations. :lol: Would Nietzsche be a good stoic?

Oh dear, those thoughts seem wonder all over the place without making a point.
1. How could any Roman improve on the Greek considerations of ethics?
2. Is being soft a good thing?

Quoting 180 Proof

:up: I stand corrected. It was my impression that Epictetus, along with Seneca, primarily influenced late Roman thinkers and mores.

I really don't know that much, but I am learning. Wouldn't be wonderful to a color coded map that showed where ideas originated and traveled and perhaps change the shade of colors as the original idea was effected by the thinking in new places. It is easier for me to understand when I have visuals.

Stoic women. I appreciate this video.

Quoting Athena

How could anyone emphasize ethics more than Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?

Well, I was comparing the Roman Stoics (e.g. Epictetus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius) to the early Greek Stoics, and specifically Chrysippus. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not at issue. But at least
in regard to practical wisdom and public life in politics, I would think the Roman Stoics would be superior to that trio in some respects, given the fact that Socrates got himself killed by the Athenians, Plato made a fool of himself in Syracuse and Aristotle for about 8 years was the teacher of Alexander, one of history's greatest autocrats who presided over the slaughter of who knows how many unfortunates in his conquests. Many Roman Senators were Stoics, which led them to oppose the injustices of some of the emperors (and got them killed).

IQuoting Athena

Perhaps you can give us an example of the greater humanism Rome introduced?

The Stoic contribution would probably be through Stoicism's conception of the "brotherhood of man." The Stoic Musonius Rufus, Epictetus' teacher, taught the equality of men and women. Aristotle thought all non-Greeks inferior. The Roman contribution would likely be through its law and natural law jurisprudence (an offshoot of Stoicism), and the eventual extension of Roman citizenship to everyone in the Empire.

Quoting Athena

Would Nietzsche be a good stoic?

Nietzsche's Amor Fati is thoroughly Stoic, though he never acknowledged that to be the case, to my knowledge. Elsewhere he famously berated the Stoics in one of his many rants.

Reply to Athena
It is difficult for me to respond to many of your ideas because my experience with these various texts has been more along the line of trying to see a point of view I did not understand rather than forming a cogent view of history and the history of philosophy. I don't know what is happening.

Quoting Paine

?Athena
It is difficult for me to respond to many of your ideas because my experience with these various texts has been more along the line of trying to see a point of view I did not understand rather than forming a cogent view of history and the history of philosophy. I don't know what is happening.

Hum, I am listening to different professors explain philosophy and I wonder if that is fundamentally different from reading? Part of my thinking includes my personal response to the professor, if I like him or not. Or maybe it is my sex and age that shapes my thinking? For me, this has become a wonderful, ongoing conversation and you all are very important to it. It is more than just learning facts. It is looking at how history unfolds and the different characters who have shaped our understanding of the past and our potential for the future.

For me, thinking we are part of nature and all the secular thinking that goes with that, instead of the religious mythology that is all tied up with superstition, makes a huge difference in our understanding of democracy. The Greek focus was very worldly and about arete, human excellence. I see democracy as a realistic effort to raise the human potential. It is as we create it. Athens is a transition from superstitious thinking, to reasoning based on observation of nature. The gods aren't doing this and that to us. What happens is the consequence of what we do. We are not experiencing God's will but our own great and terrible moments, so we better"get it right" and have good outcomes instead of bad ones.

Reply to Athena
I agree that the emergence of classical Greek thinking was a conscious recognition of nature where beings are understood to have come into being according to what they are.

I don't share your confidence that the logic of history is a path from the purely theological to the purely secular. If one is to see history as having a telos, that perspective becomes a theory of the human condition of the sort Hegel developed. That sort of dynamic is interesting to me and has merit in making models but I am not convinced by it as a theory of the world above all others.

Quoting Paine

I agree that the emergence of classical Greek thinking was a conscious recognition of nature where beings are understood to have come into being according to what they are.

I don't share your confidence that the logic of history is a path from the purely theological to the purely secular. If one is to see history as having a telos, that perspective becomes a theory of the human condition of the sort Hegel developed. That sort of dynamic is interesting to me and has merit in making models but I am not convinced by it as a theory of the world above all others.
seconds ago
12

What is the logic of history? :nerd: Can I call in sick today and spend the rest of the day wrestling with the thoughts you stir in my head? I think one of the most pivotal points in time was when Sparta won the war with Athens. This defeat of the most glorious democracy the world had known up to that time caused Socrates to ponder what had Athens done wrong. Up to this moment in time, I think he was only playing word games his peers and enjoying the attention it got him. But when Athens lost the war, I think he took everything much more seriously, and that set the path Plato and Aristotle were to follow. Ethics is no longer just a personal matter, but leads to the glory or failure an entire city/state.

This is over-simplistic but Athens was very liberal with very little control of the individual. Sparta maintained strict control of everyone's life and Pericles had told Athens that Athenian values must be defended in war. We must defend our ideals against the wrongs of another.

Plato takes this up with the Republic and questioning what is the best way to have the ideal city/states. This is, personal ethics are important, but virtues such as courage and commitment to the state is even more important. A philosophy that is political. I don't know how political Stoicism is, but I think we can agree war or getting through a pandemic advances Stoicism.

Aristotle favored Sparta's very authoritarian organization, where ethics is not an individual matter but a state decision strictly enforced. Sparta won the war. Why? Why would Aristotle favor Spartan authoritarianism?

Then Rome conquers Greece and embraces Stoicism. quote

"Zeno taught that a happy life is one lived in accordance with the providential laws of cosmic nature (logos). He advocated virtue as being rooted in reason (the pathway to acceptance of logos) and believed that vice results from the repudiation of reason."

Okay, who has not said that? I think we have a problem if we cut Thales of Miletus and Heraclitus and others with a more scientific bent out of the discussion. One line of philosophy being a matter of cause and effect and focused on what causes things to happen, and another line of philosophy dealing more a personal matter of what makes a person happy. What is good and what is evil and why did Athens fail in war?

"a theory of the human condition of the sort Hegel developed." Yes :nerd:

Quoting Athena

Aristotle favored Sparta's very authoritarian organization, where ethics is not an individual matter but a state decision strictly enforced. Sparta won the war. Why? Why would Aristotle favor Spartan authoritarianism?

Which text from Aristotle supports this view?

Quoting Paine

Which text from Aristotle supports this view?

I love that question. I have made a note of it and need to search for where I picked up that information. I have a long weekend and will hopefully answer your question in a couple of days.

Did anyone watch "Hacking Your Mind"? The show is about personal data being gathered and then used to trigger a person's emotions so that the person buys something or votes for a particular candidate. I think we have mentioned how our emotions can lead to bad judgment.

What is happening today is the best reason to follow stoicism that I can think of. If we learn to control our reactions to emotions, we can better control our own brains and be less vulnerable to the brain hacking that is happening today.

Quoting Paine

Which text from Aristotle supports this view?

This is not an Aristotle quote but it is quick and easy and considering our own concerns about corruption and the corruption brought on by money, We might want to know more about Sparta's relationship with the other Greek city-states. And regarding stoicism the Spartans are well known for complete obedience to military discipline and very harsh child-rearing practices intended to raise children to adults with strong endurance.

Quoting Wikipedia

Philosophers

Lycurgus of Sparta, legendary founder of the city's constitution
Laconophiles nevertheless remained among the philosophers. Some of the young men who followed Socrates had been Laconophiles. Socrates himself is portrayed as praising the laws of Sparta and Crete.[5] Critias, a companion of Socrates, helped bring about the oligarchic rule of the Thirty Tyrants, who were supported by Sparta. Xenophon, another disciple of Socrates, fought for the Spartans against Athens. Plato also, in his writings, seems to prefer a Spartan-type regime over a democratic one.[6] Aristotle regarded the kind of laws adopted by Crete and Sparta as especially apt to produce virtuous and law-abiding citizens, although he also criticises the Cretans and Spartans themselves as incompetent and corrupt, and built on a culture of war.[7]

Greek philosophy, therefore, inherited a tradition of praising Spartan law. This was only reinforced when Agis IV and Cleomenes III attempted to "restore the ancestral constitution" at Sparta, which no man then living had experienced. This attempt ended with the collapse of the institutions of Lycurgus, and one Nabis established a tyranny in Laconia.[citation needed][8]

In later centuries, Greek philosophers, especially Platonists, often described Sparta as an ideal state, strong, brave, and free from the corruptions of commerce and money.[citation needed] These descriptions, of which Plutarch's is the most complete, vary in many details.[9] Many scholars have attempted to reconstruct which parts of these utopias the classical Spartans actually practised, which parts Cleomenes, and which later classical authors invented.[10]

Reply to Athena
Where the matter of the application of law concerns this statement:

Quoting Athena

Aristotle favored Sparta's very authoritarian organization, where ethics is not an individual matter but a state decision strictly enforced.

the following from Nichomachean Ethics should be considered:

Quoting Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Book 5, section 10, translated by WD Ross

Just acts occur between people who participate in things good in
themselves and can have too much or too little of them; for some beings
(e.g., presumably the gods) cannot have too much of them, and to oth-
ers, those who are incurably bad, not even the smallest share in them is
beneficial but all such goods are harmful, while to others they are ben-
eficial up to a point; therefore justice is essentially something human.
10 Our next subject is equity and the equitable (to epiekes), and
their respective relations to justice and the just. For on examination they
appear to be neither absolutely the same nor generically different; and
while we sometime praise what is equitable and the equitable man (so
that we apply the name by way of praise even to instances of the other
virtues, instead of ‘good’ meaning by epieikestebon that a thing is bet-
ter), at other times, when we reason it out, it seems strange if the equi-
table, being something different from the just, is yet praiseworthy; for
either the just or the equitable is not good, if they are different; or, if
both are good, they are the same.
These, then, are pretty much the considerations that give rise to the
problem about the equitable; they are all in a sense correct and not
opposed to one another; for the equitable, though it is better than one
kind of justice, yet is just, and it is not as being a different class of thing
that it is better than the just. The same thing, then, is just and equitable,
and while both are good the equitable is superior. What creates the prob-
lem is that the equitable is just, but not the legally just but a correction
of legal justice. The reason is that all law is universal but about some
things it is not possible to make a universal statement which shall be
correct. In those cases, then, in which it is necessary to speak univer-
sally, but not possible to do so correctly, the law takes the usual case,
though it is not ignorant of the possibility of error. And it is none the less
correct; for the error is in the law nor in the legislator but in the nature
of the thing, since the matter of practical affairs is of this kind from the
start. When the law speaks universally, then, and a case arises on it
which is not covered by the universal statement, then it is right, where
the legislator fails us and has erred by oversimplicity, to correct the
omission—to say what the legislator himself would have said had he
been present, and would have put into his law if he had known. Hence
the equitable is just, and better than one kind of justice—not better than
absolute justice but better than the error that arises from the absolute-
ness of the statement. And this is the nature of the equitable, a correc-
tion of law where it is defective owing to its universality. In fact this is
the reason why all things are not determined by law, that about some
things it is impossible to lay down a law, so that a decree is needed. For
when the thing is indefinite the rule also is indefinite, like the leaden rule
used in making the Lesbian moulding; the rule adapts itself to the shape
of the stone and is not rigid, and so too the decree is adapted to the facts.
It is plain, then, what the equitable is, and that it is just and is better
than one kind of justice. It is evident also from this who the equitable
man is; the man who chooses and does such acts, and is no stickler for
his rights in a bad sense but tends to take less than his share though he
has the law oft his side, is equitable, and this state of character is equity,
which is a sort of justice and not a different state of character.

Reply to Paine

How about a different thread started with the last post because the topic is different from Stoicism?
I find that post requires some heavy thinking. It would be nice to dismiss the whole thing by saying Aristotle was focused on the "golden mean". Not too much of anything. But without more careful thinking it would be wrong to drop the consideration with a comment of the golden mean.

I spent this morning looking for why I thought Aristotle was in favor of Sparta and didn't find anything that helpful. Maybe this weekend I can check my books. This is important to me because in my head is a whole story about how the Roman Church, through scholasticism, used Aristotle to justify its authority. You know like dominos if you knock one down they all go down. I am afraid my line of thinking needs to be corrected.

Quoting Ciceronianus

The Stoic contribution would probably be through Stoicism's conception of the "brotherhood of man." The Stoic Musonius Rufus, Epictetus' teacher, taught the equality of men and women. Aristotle thought all non-Greeks inferior. The Roman contribution would likely be through its law and natural law jurisprudence (an offshoot of Stoicism), and the eventual extension of Roman citizenship to everyone in the Empire.

Aristotle also thought women inferior. I think most groups of people thought they were superior to all others. It seems to be a human trait.

Roman law of nature is not about nature. However, it was used to give Christianity its form. Roman law of nature took what was common to different people and determined that is a truth. I think we could call that rule by reason because they made the effort to understand who is right about something and who is wrong. When I look at Christianity I see a lot of beliefs mixed into it with Christianity taking credit for the "brotherhood".

Quoting Athena

How about a different thread started with the last post because the topic is different from Stoicism?

I did not mean to hijack the thread. I just thought that Aristotle was not well represented as a strict Draconian.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft What philosophical - as opposed to psychological - theses do you understand Stoicism to stand for?

Note: philosophy is not therapy and beliefs that make people happy and more successful are not thereby shown to be true. (Philosophy is the enterprise of using reason to try and find out what's true. It is not the enterprise of trying to make people happy or successful or psychologically robust).

So, what claims about the nature of reality - and what supporting arguments - do you understand Stoicism to denote? (Because I think they'll either be banal or obviously false).

Quoting Bartricks

Philosophy is the enterprise of using reason to try and find out what's true. It is not the enterprise of trying to make people happy or successful or psychologically robust

Tell Plato that. :roll:

Reply to Bartricks

Well, instead of embarrassing myself, can you point me towards any resources for deepening my understanding of Stoicism?

Quoting Paine

I did not mean to hijack the thread. I just thought that Aristotle was not well represented as a strict Draconian.

I have totally enjoyed your post and that is why I thought we could open another thread. I am still determined to find what I read that lead me to think Aristotle favored at least some things about Sparta. I want to learn more and your question hit my curiosity.

I like your term "Draconian". That is exactly what I was thinking, that Aristotle was Draconian.
But how can one strive for perfection and not be uptight? On the other hand, he did speak of moderation and the golden mean.

Weren't all the Greek philosophers a little uptight about getting it just right because the consequences of not getting right are bad? And Sparta winning the war with Athens, threw Socrates and his followers into a spin, questioning what did Athens do wrong, leading to losing the war. Obviously, Sparta had to be doing something right if it won the war. This interests me but it is not the topic of this thread. help

Quoting Bartricks

Note: philosophy is not therapy and beliefs that make people happy and more successful are not thereby shown to be true. (Philosophy is the enterprise of using reason to try and find out what's true. It is not the enterprise of trying to make people happy or successful or psychologically robust).

So, what claims about the nature of reality - and what supporting arguments - do you understand Stoicism to denote? (Because I think they'll either be banal or obviously false).

Socrates was very interested in happiness and there is much philosophical discussion of what virtues have to do with happiness. Buddhism is missing from this discussion but shares much with Stoicism and those world views are very much about happiness.

A philosophical way to determine the concern with happiness is to ask a person what he wants and then why he wants it. What do you want and why do you want it?

Reply to Shawn That's Plato's definition.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft You are the one who has said that Stoicism contains something important. What? What interesting philosophical thesis - so, not a psychological thesis, but a thesis about how things are with reality - does it contain?

Reply to Athena You haven't said anything there.

Reply to god must be atheist

What is attractive about Stoicism tho? This is the part that baffles me.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

At the recommendation of others, I recently dove head-first into the world of Stoicism. And I'm shocked at what I am discovering. The quality and (above almost all else) practicality of the lessons and dialogues is stunning.

Stoicism reminds me of Buddhism in many ways, especially in terms of framing desire, suffering and what is optimal for growth. Also in terms of the asceticism, and simplicity.

Has anyone else here researched or even practiced Stoicism? What was your experience with this particular philosophy? I ask, because I am interested in being pointed in the correct direction when it comes to furthering my understanding of Stoicism.

Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe there is a dark side to Stoicism that I'm not appreciating. Which is exactly why I'm starting this thread; to peek behind the veil.

The problem with Stoicism in particular nowadays is that people divorce it of its full metaphysics and epistemology. They try to take its axiological elements, like you can just take bits and pieces. The philosophy was meant to be followed in its entirety, and that means its huge mystical underpinning. Here is a whole video on it actually.

Quoting Sumyung Gui

What is attractive about Stoicism tho? This is the part that baffles me.

I studied it so I guess I can respond to this. It was practiced in daily life -- you're supposed to not be perturbed about things you cannot change and things that already happened. Do not cry over spilled milk. This is the mind over matter mantra.

You should look up the practitioners of this philosophy -- Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus. Yes, obviously, we can say -- "easy for them to say don't sweat the small stuff. After all, they're emperors and wealthy land owners. They had achieved great things." But know that Epictetus lived a penniless life all throughout his life. He lived just enough to be able to do philosophical discourse. ( He didn't write anything)

Stoicism was the precursor for the Christian religion.

You may not like Christianity, but Jesus Christ lived the stoic life as well and was truly a good, peaceful person, according to history. And yes, I saw the sample of the page where a snippet of his description was written.

Quoting Gnomon

According to Jordan (1987), the Stoics thought that “God, who is Nature, knows the whole system of interrelated causes and ‘what every future event will be,’ including every event in the life of each person.

"God" is a creative addition to the writings about Stoicism, as the movement came about before Christianity, whose conception of God is quite the religious conception we know now. "Nature" or mythological is more in line with it.

Reply to L'éléphant Oh I know what it is. I'm just not sure why it's attractive. I was raised Christian unfortunately.

Reply to Gnomon

"with a touch of Optimism" How much and of what?

Quoting Sumyung Gui

Oh I know what it is. I'm just not sure why it's attractive.

I left out "raised Christian" in your quote as Stoicism was prior to Christianity, as I have already said.

So, knowing it, you really don't know what's attractive about Stoicism?

Reply to L'éléphant I have no idea. Christianity as I understand it is false. But there you are promised salvation whatever it means. Stoicism is far less anchored.

Reply to Sumyung Gui Okay, first let's stop referring to Christianity when talking about Stoicism itself. Stoicism had gone out of practice way before Christianity was born.
Are you just confused as to the historical events?

Reply to L'éléphant Yes.
Still curious why people find it attractive.

Reply to Sumyung Gui Well, there's my answer as to why it was once a good practice.

Reply to L'éléphant Ah. No I mean now.

Reply to Sumyung Gui I suppose there is a thing called adaptation -- we could take the teachings of Stoicism and use in our life.

.

Reply to L'éléphant I'm none the wiser.

Quoting Sumyung Gui

I'm none the wiser.

Of course not! You never practiced Stoicism yourself. You're just talking here in the forum. Practice it then come back and report to us if you've become wiser as a result. Stoicism is not about talking -- it's doing.

Reply to L'éléphant Omg. I don't know why it would seem attractive from the outside.

Reply to schopenhauer1

Thank you for the video from the Esoterica YT channel. It's one of my favorite such channels. Although, I haven't seen this particular upload before. I will give it a watch.

Quoting L'éléphant

?Sumyung Gui Okay, first let's stop referring to Christianity when talking about Stoicism itself. Stoicism had gone out of practice way before Christianity was born.
Are you just confused as to the historical events?

Really? Jesus supposedly lived in the early first century C.E. (A.D. if your prefer). Paul was born around 5 C.E. and lived until around 65 C.E. Paul, it seems, had something to do with Christianity. The Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus died in 95 C.E., 30 years after Paul. The Stoic philosopher Seneca was a contemporary of Paul's and was an advisor to Nero, who it was claimed burned Christians after Rome's great fire during his reign. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus died around 135 C.E. Marcus Aurelius was Emperor from 161 C.E. to 180 C.E They were Stoics, you see. Marcus Aurelius referred to Christians in his Meditations. So did the Emperor Trajan in his correspondence with Pliny (Trajan was Emperor from 98 C.E. to 117 C.E. ).

It seems you're wrong. Or just confused as to historical events.

Quoting Ciceronianus

It seems you're wrong. Or just confused as to historical events.

Not wrong or confused. You have to look at the time of Constantine, who made the formal acknowledgement of the Christian religion around 313 CE. The school of Stoic closed around the first century, I think. (I don't have my books anymore, sorry).

Before Constantine, it was a sect, not a religion. They were called the Nazarenes.

To be human, is to also fully realize the absurdity of the contingency of our actions and reasons, and the ability to be a thoroughly existential and constantly counterfactual creature. That is say, the moorings of anchors like "the good life" and "intrinsic value of the virtues" are indeed examples of bad faith psychological anchoring mechanisms. It's putting the cart before the horse. It is wishfully thinking oneself into a non-deliberative and determined being. The sedated comfort of not just law, but NATURAL LAW at that! Of course, don't look at the man behind the curtain, the saintly "sage" who will divine for you exactly WHAT that natural law IS.

Quoting L'éléphant

Not wrong or confused. You have to look at the time of Constantine, who made the formal acknowledgement of the Christian religion around 313 CE. The school of Stoic closed around the first century, I think. (I don't have my books anymore, sorry).

Before Constantine, it was a sect, not a religion. They were called the Nazarenes.

You astonish me!

It's very odd, then, that centuries before Constantine, Pliny the Younger referred to "Christianis" and "Christiani" and "Christo" in his letter to Trajan, inquiring how they should be treated, and Tacitus wrote of "Chrestianos" who were followers of "Christus" who had been executed by Pontius Pilatus. I wonder who they were referring to, really.

I admire your blithe exclusiveness. Not only do you relegate the authors of the Gospels and Acts to non-Christian status, but also the revered Church Fathers Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr (called "martyr" because he was martyred, but apparently not for being a Christian), Clement of Alexandria and Ignatius of Antioch (the third bishop of that city, though it seems not a Christian one), all of whom lived and died long before Constantine.

I asked the new GPT-4 AI to explain Stoicism to me, and this is what I was greeted with:



Thoughts?

At the risk of derailing this thread -- I think we already did, btw. I will respond one more time. The details are vast and long to discuss here.

Quoting Ciceronianus

Pliny the Younger referred to "Christianis" and "Christiani" and "Christo" in his letter to Trajan, inquiring how they should be treated, and Tacitus wrote of "Chrestianos" who were followers of "Christus" who had been executed by Pontius Pilatus. I wonder who they were referring to, really.

That word was derogatory as Pliny used it.

Ah. So Christianity didn't become a religion until it was looked upon favorably and sanctioned by the Imperial government. It's certainly an interesting though peculiar perspective.