Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 70

Thread: The Stoic philosophy thread

  1. #21
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    That article is great and Marcus Aurelius was a great man, but i prefer Epicureanism.

    Searching the modest pleasures in life in order to attain a state of tranquillity, freedom from fear ("ataraxia") and absence from bodily pain ("aponia") and living hiddn outside the public life seems more preferrable to me.

    https://www.philosophybasics.com/bra...cureanism.html
    Also a good comparison. Certainly ahead of time in egalitarianism. But I do think his aversion to politics was a bad ideal. people who followed his ideals would have been excellent bring his way of thinking into government.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  2. #22
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Yes, his aversion against politics is one thing, Cicero critizised sharply on Epicur's philosophy.

    But on the other hand 8 of his fourty principal doctrines are about natural justice:

    31) Natural justice is the advantage conferred by mutual agreements not to inflict nor allow harm.

    32) For all living creatures incapable of making agreements not to harm one another, nothing is ever just or unjust; and so it is likewise for all tribes of men which have been unable or unwilling to make such agreements.


    33) Absolute justice does not exist. There are only mutual agreements among men, made at various times and places, not to inflict nor allow harm.


    34)
    Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the accompanying fear of being unable to escape those assigned to punish unjust acts.


    35)
    It is not possible for one who secretly violates the provisos of the agreement not to inflict nor allow harm to be confident that he won’t get caught, even if he has gotten away with it a thousand times before. For up until the time of death, there is no certainty that he will indeed escape detection.


    36)
    Justice is essentially the same for all peoples insofar as it benefits human interaction. But the details of how justice is applied in particular countries or circumstances may vary.

    37)
    Among actions legally recognized as just, that which is confirmed by experience as mutually beneficial has the virtue of justice, whether it is the same for all peoples or not. But if a law is made which results in no such advantage, then it no longer carries the hallmark of justice. And if something that used to be mutually beneficial changes, though for some time it conformed to our concept of justice, it is still true that it really was just during that time – at least for those who do not fret about technicalities and instead prefer to examine and judge each case for themselves.

    38)
    Where, without any change in circumstances, things held to be just by law are revealed to be in conflict with the essence of justice, such laws were never really just. But wherever or whenever laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in circumstances, in that case or time the laws were just when they benefited human interaction, and ceased to be just only when they were no longer beneficial.

    http://www.epicurism.info/etexts/PD.html

    So politics has a place for Epicur in creating mutually beneficial laws for the society, but not in seeking a political career for yourself.
    Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; January 25, 2021 at 01:22 PM. Reason: as usual wrong link :(
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  3. #23
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,306
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Having put more thoughts into this I've come to the conclusion that Stoicism is the de facto secular path to sanctity, without any religious or bigoted connotation.

    One could argue that the word "sanctity" in itself contradicts this statement, but its's semantic; and of course being a Stoic doesn't necessarily exclude being religious as well, though I have to say that there's a degree of cynicism in it that really does not go well together with the idea of "holy" as codified in many religions.. if anything what attracts me personally towards Dudeism (and Stoicism, in a more general sense), is the fact that it puts the individual in the center of their own life, I mean they do not need any holy or spiritual intermediary to get to happiness and fulfillment, since as I already said, they are their own source of both happiness and distress.
    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader

  4. #24

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    That article is great and Marcus Aurelius was a great man, but i prefer Epicureanism.
    I am going to be consciously polemic here, which is perhaps hypocritical considering how I wished people to behave in the opening post that I wrote. But it surprises me that Epicurean thought pops up so often in this time and age in discussions, even though I am not aware of much significant Epicurean activity. Of the people I have met who said they support Epicurean thought, I don't think one has had any serious philosophical ambitions. Of course I am partial and not very read in Epicureanism. Certainly the rather generous description in your link differs from the partisan descriptions that someone involved with the Stoic movement like me would come across frequently. I admit that. Stoicism too can become a bubble and an echo chamber of like-minded individuals.

    At the risk of insulting you, Morticia, I get the feeling Epicureanism gives this kind of fire and forget approach to philosophy that is pleasing to people in intellectually lazy times. An easy sell. That yes, you can concentrate on enjoyment and pleasure as long as you don't overdo things (for your own harm, not because moderation would be good by its very nature). When you ride with Epikuros, you can easily dismiss Divinity, which is a great selling point for the recent generations of Western people who have made it their mission to rebel against the idea of God(s). It sure is easier than coping with the paradox of living in a vast universe that somehow exists even though its own physical laws state that, without exception, not a single atom can just materialize out of nothing.

    Denial of virtue is one of the most difficult things to digest in Epicurean thinking. I understand that Epicureans do not believe in a division of good and evil. Is that really so? We witness every day how good deeds lead to a better human condition and how good thoughts lead to more enjoyment of life. And we see how evil deeds and thoughts make everything worse for everyone involved. To quote Aurelius slightly out of context, "I have seen the beauty of good and the ugliness of evil". One can apply the label of Epicurean and after that there is none of the everyday moral struggle that Stoics are involved with. Such as questioning whether my intense grief for someone's death two weeks after the fact is a true expression of compassion for the deceased or just me being a very important and special little mortal who cannot cope with the idea of something being taken away from *ME*. Constant second guessing of ones own motives and trying to improve as a person is hard work, and avoiding that would be an easier way out.

    Given that, it is understandable that Epicurean activity is a bit under the radar. But still some Epicureans try to spread the word of their philosophy, which is counterintuitive. There should not be any virtue in getting more people onboard with that school of thought if no virtue even exists. Why do it? What is the motivation? In contrast, us Stoics spread the word because we believe there is something good to it, even though we do not posit any reward in the afterlife nor threaten people with imaginary ideas of hell. Striving for good is a reward in itself for the rational mind.

    Like you said, "Marcus Aurelius was a great man, but I *prefer* Epicureanism" (highlighting of "prefer" is mine) and "seems preferable to me". Why do you prefer Epicureanism? Does it cater to your preferences that are prior to genuine philophical contemplation or after that? You seem like a virtuous person, always having something nice to say and something interesting to share with others for their enjoyment. I am asking you to question where your preferences come from. However you feel about Stoicism, I will love you just the same <3.

  5. #25
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Oops i have added the wrong link in the post above...

    Latin was my second language after English from the 7. class up to the 13. class in school. So we have read many latin works like Livius, Sallust, Ovid and Cicero, especially his 'Tusculanae disputationes', where Cicero is writing about the different philosophical schools of his time. It was very interesting and led myself deal with hellenistic philosophy at this time.

    Why i prefer Epicureanism?

    Because Stoicism is too much driven by the intellectual part of our brain.

    Stoicism:

    'You must controll your emotions to become a happier better human being!'

    But that doesn't work, as our brain has a intellectual and a emotional part. If you constantly try to deny and subdue your emotional wishes, they will break one day all the more powerful their way to the surface.

    The epicurean way seems more human like to me:

    You have emotional needs and wishes but be modest with them, as only modestia is the way to real happiness.

    Now to your critic points one by one:

    That yes, you can concentrate on enjoyment and pleasure as long as you don't overdo things (for your own harm, not because moderation would be good by its very nature).
    5) It is impossible to live pleasantly without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking (when, for instance, one is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly) it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.

    8) No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but some pleasures are only obtainable at the cost of excessive troubles.

    20) Bodily pleasure seems unlimited, and to provide it would require unlimited time. But the mind, recognizing the limits of the body, and dismissing apprehensions about eternity, furnishes a complete and optimal life, so we no longer have any need of unlimited time. Nevertheless, the mind does not shun pleasure; moreover, when the end of life approaches, it does not feel remorse, as if it fell short in any way from living the best life possible.
    21)
    He who understands the limits of life knows that things which remove pain arising from need are easy to obtain, and furnish a complete and optimal life. Thus he no longer needs things that are troublesome to attain.


    http://www.epicurism.info/etexts/PD.html

    As you can see Epicureanism is not simple: be modest with eating and drinking and everything is fine.

    Instead: Do i need this bodily pleasure really? Is it worth the extraordinary costs i have for a relativ small benefit?

    Or is it unwise and unjust to waste my resources for my pleasure?

    When you ride with Epikuros, you can easily dismiss Divinity, which is a great selling point for the recent generations of Western people who have made it their mission to rebel against the idea of God(s). It sure is easier than coping with the paradox of living in a vast universe that somehow exists even though its own physical laws state that, without exception, not a single atom can just materialize out of nothing.
    But Epicur says:

    11) If we were never troubled by how phenomena in the sky or death might concern us, or by our failures to grasp the limits of pains and desires, we would have no need to study nature.
    12) One cannot rid himself of his primal fears if he does not understand the nature of the universe but instead suspects the truth of some mythical story. So without the study of nature, there can be no enjoyment of pure pleasure.

    13) One gains nothing by securing protection from other men if he still has apprehensions about things above and beneath the earth and throughout the infinite universe.

    http://www.epicurism.info/etexts/PD.html

    By the way Epicur didn't deny the existence of Gods, he denied that they had influence on our daily lives. So no reason to fear them.

    Epicurus rejected the conventional Greek view of the gods as anthropomorphic beings who walked the earth like ordinary people, fathered illegitimate offspring with mortals, and pursued personal feuds.[108] Instead, he taught that the gods are morally perfect, but detached and immobile beings who live in the remote regions of interstellar space.[109] In line with these teachings, Epicurus adamantly rejected the idea that deities were involved in human affairs in any way.[107][110] Epicurus maintained that the gods are so utterly perfect and removed from the world that they are incapable of listening to prayers or supplications or doing virtually anything aside from contemplating their own perfections.[109] In his Letter to Herodotus, he specifically denies that the gods have any control over natural phenomena, arguing that this would contradict their fundamental nature, which is perfect, because any kind of worldly involvement would tarnish their perfection.[110] He further warned that believing that the gods control natural phenomena would only mislead people into believing the superstitious view that the gods punish humans for wrongdoing, which only instills fear and prevents people from attaining ataraxia.[110]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus#Ethics

    And here i'm on the same side with Epicur Gods/God don't care or solve any of my daily problems.

    Denial of virtue is one of the most difficult things to digest in Epicurean thinking. I understand that Epicureans do not believe in a division of good and evil.
    For Epicureans evil is, what is causing bodily and mentally pain. They believe in natural justice:

    31) Natural justice is the advantage conferred by mutual agreements not to inflict nor allow harm.

    32) For all living creatures incapable of making agreements not to harm one another, nothing is ever just or unjust; and so it is likewise for all tribes of men which have been unable or unwilling to make such agreements.


    33) Absolute justice does not exist. There are only mutual agreements among men, made at various times and places, not to inflict nor allow harm.


    34)
    Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the accompanying fear of being unable to escape those assigned to punish unjust acts.


    35)
    It is not possible for one who secretly violates the provisos of the agreement not to inflict nor allow harm to be confident that he won’t get caught, even if he has gotten away with it a thousand times before. For up until the time of death, there is no certainty that he will indeed escape detection.


    36)
    Justice is essentially the same for all peoples insofar as it benefits human interaction. But the details of how justice is applied in particular countries or circumstances may vary.

    37)
    Among actions legally recognized as just, that which is confirmed by experience as mutually beneficial has the virtue of justice, whether it is the same for all peoples or not. But if a law is made which results in no such advantage, then it no longer carries the hallmark of justice. And if something that used to be mutually beneficial changes, though for some time it conformed to our concept of justice, it is still true that it really was just during that time – at least for those who do not fret about technicalities and instead prefer to examine and judge each case for themselves.

    38)
    Where, without any change in circumstances, things held to be just by law are revealed to be in conflict with the essence of justice, such laws were never really just. But wherever or whenever laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in circumstances, in that case or time the laws were just when they benefited human interaction, and ceased to be just only when they were no longer beneficial.

    http://www.epicurism.info/etexts/PD.html

    Why do you prefer Epicureanism?
    I prefer Epicureanism, because as i said, it don't neglects the emotional part of how our brain works (our needs/wishes /pleasures).

    And i don't like the missionary aspect of Stoicism, the moralistic imperative, which must be spread to the world.

    I don't like missionaries.
    Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; January 25, 2021 at 02:17 PM.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  6. #26

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    I spent the time in between my previous post and this time actually studying Epicureanism from neutral sources (albeit superficially, as it was only a couple of hours). I came back here to apologize and to say that I am something of an ass for having made up my mind on the school on too simplistic and partial testimonies. And now I see that Morticia has already taken the trouble to educate me. I appreciate that a great deal. I am too tired to give a meaningful and well thought-out response tonight, but I will review her reply tomorrow (hopefully) and give it the attention that it deserves.

    Thank you Morticia for not losing your temper with me and my insolence!

  7. #27
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Why should i lose my temper?

    This thread is great, because its really interesting with thought-out posts.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  8. #28
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    The so called Trilemma:

    Last edited by chriscase; January 28, 2021 at 01:16 PM. Reason: continuity
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  9. #29

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    The so called Trilemma
    I was almost counting the hours in between the first appearance of the Epicureans and having the Trilemma shoved on us. I think that this particular display of mortal word play to reach a conclusion that is favorable to anyone willing to dismiss Divinity is overrated at best. We mortals cannot possibly understand the motivations of an entity that can create a universe or, for all we know, any number of universes. In my opinion, it is quite insolent to assume that God would be bound by such simplistic pseudologic.

    For some reason that we can only guess, we have a universe in which life is born and evolves into complex forms that can be aware of their own existence, experience pleasure and pain, fall in love and feel sad, build or tear down, do good or do evil, or practice philosophy or indulge in fleeting passions. Without opposites, there would not be any of this, not even the good. I do not see any evil in a Divine being for creating this sandbox for us to do our thing, become different kinds of individuals, and debate our choices. One is a Mother Theresa, the other is Hitler, and the great many of us are just excellent stealth archers.

    Either willing or able to prevent evil and nothing in between? Are Epicureans really saying that if I decide to steal someone's sweet roll and the master of the entire universe and possibly millions of civilizations does not descend from the very heavens there and then to prevent my ill deed, then that entity is evil itself? That is preposterous. I find it likely that God could just wish all evil to go away, but then none of this fascinating stuff would be anymore. Just pure bliss all over without individuals and their conflicting points of view and personal struggles and triumphs.

    I don't know why all this is, but I can see why it must be something like this to have anything of interest going on.
    Last edited by chriscase; January 28, 2021 at 01:17 PM. Reason: continuity

  10. #30
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Obviously Epicur has found a way to solve this trilemma for himself.

    In line with these teachings, Epicurus adamantly rejected the idea that deities were involved in human affairs in any way.[107][110] Epicurus maintained that the gods are so utterly perfect and removed from the world that they are incapable of listening to prayers or supplications or doing virtually anything aside from contemplating their own perfections.[109] In his Letter to Herodotus, he specifically denies that the gods have any control over natural phenomena, arguing that this would contradict their fundamental nature, which is perfect, because any kind of worldly involvement would tarnish their perfection.[110]

    All i need to know: Gods may exist, but they don't interfer with the mortal world, which is fitting with my observations so far.

    So i don't seek "divine good". Its irrelevant. Relevant is only, what is making live for me and most human beings pleasant.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  11. #31
    chriscase's Avatar Chairman Miao
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,732

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    If anyone wants to discuss something other than Classical Stoicism please make sure you relate your posts directly to the subject.

    Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
    - Demetri Martin

  12. #32
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    My guess although I'm not sure it is perhaps we are supposed to stay closer to Stoicism and maybe it direct critiques by other classical view points (which would seem fair). In your case you might to dig up something by say Augustine and his feelings on Stoicism if you want your christian view point that is at the background of your version of christian faith.
    Last edited by conon394; January 31, 2021 at 02:34 PM. Reason: continuity
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  13. #33

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    In line with these teachings, Epicurus adamantly rejected the idea that deities were involved in human affairs in any way.[107][110] Epicurus maintained that the gods are so utterly perfect and removed from the world that they are incapable of listening to prayers or supplications or doing virtually anything aside from contemplating their own perfections.[109] In his Letter to Herodotus, he specifically denies that the gods have any control over natural phenomena, arguing that this would contradict their fundamental nature, which is perfect, because any kind of worldly involvement would tarnish their perfection.[110]

    All i need to know: Gods may exist, but they don't interfer with the mortal world, which is fitting with my observations so far.

    So i don't seek "divine good". Its irrelevant. Relevant is only, what is making live for me and most human beings pleasant.
    Thank you for your great input. This is where we agree in many ways if not all. It does seem that the universe is set on very strict, unnegotiable rules of physics and we do not see any deviation from them whatsoever. Things happen the way they do, and I cannot recall any event in the world in which Divinity would have obviously intervened with anything. That is not to say that a divine being would not have the power to at least theoretically influence human thought without us noticing it. Our Christian fellow men take the testimonies in the Gospels and the Old Testament as proof, but I have to admit that I cannot view those as solid enough proof. That said, I would feel uneasy about engaging in blasphemy or even calling devout people of sincere faith outright liars.

    Unlike Jews and even Muslims to some degree, Christians have cherished the idea of a personal relationship with God. To me that kind of relationship seems hard to understand. What could I possibly say in prayer that God would take heed of? Can I tell God something that God does not already know? Hardly. Would God "think" that okay, I did not know that your aunt Silvia is dying of cancer, but now that you, an insignificant mortal being of the planet Earth, brought it to my attention in your prayer, I am going to see that it does not happen? I find that hard to believe. Of course, we should be very careful about extending human behaviors such as thinking to an entity that operates outside confines of our material universe*.

    The Stoic good is and is not "divine good" at the same time. There are many kinds of virtues such as civic or societal good in Stoic thinking. A theist Stoic such as myself is likely to see a connection to the divine in the virtues, whereas an atheist Stoic, of which we have many in the modern community, do not. My understanding is, however, that even the theist Stoics do not view virtue as something depending on divine grace or promise of salvation. Good should be done for the sake of good, and if God itself told me that there is no reward for me in the afterlife based on what I do or do not do, I would not stop trying to live in a virtuous way. When one has seen the beauty of good and the ugliness of evil, there is no conscious decision of going back to evil. There is enough evil in our selfish passions and vanities to deal with on a daily basis anyway.

    *I personally feel that one of the most important things in trying to understand divinity, as daunting a task as it is, is to really wrap ones head around the idea the BOTH time and place are properties of the physical universe. The universe that was supposedly created by a divine force. Yes, even time is relative according to modern mainstream physics. For a mortal being, it is almost impossible to understand even superficially and completely impossible to understand in the deep sense that the supposed divinity is not even bound by constraints such as "before" and "after".
    Last edited by Septentrionalis; January 30, 2021 at 02:55 PM.

  14. #34
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Yes, a epicurean would see a pure selfish pleasure as unwise and unjust aka evil, as the cost of reaching and realizing that pleasure are out of proportion.

    There is much common ground between the two philosophies, only different ways of solving a philosophical problem.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  15. #35

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Online event: STOICON-X MILITARY

    Since this online community at large is home to a great number of people interested in military affairs, I am taking the opportunity to advertise an online conference of Stoics in the military. There is a good number of very interesting and accomplished speakers (please see the link below for the present line-up). The conference is open to all and has no set ticket price, but a donation of ones own choosing is expected from attendees. Any surplus money after covering the expenses goes to the non-profit Modern Stoicism organization that organizes events such as this.

    https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/stoicon-x-military-conference-courage-honor-and-stoicism-tickets-138626889759

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stoicon_military.jpg 
Views:	2 
Size:	107.0 KB 
ID:	363549
    Last edited by Septentrionalis; February 01, 2021 at 10:56 AM.

  16. #36

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Something like the Trilemma does in a nutshell at least work trough to its conclusion.
    The Trilemma does in a way work through to its conclusion, but the reason why I (somewhat too provocatively) called it word play and pseudologic is that it makes assumptions that I find untenable. Mainly that Divinity would necessarily have to either be evil or not let anyone do anything that we consider evil in any manner. Here already the very definition of evil is more or less a human interpretation that is not universal even among our species.

    We live in a sandbox of a kind for reasons that we cannot fathom. In a game such as Skyrim, one can play in a way that is more or less morally sound, or one can murder and steal ones way through the game. Still, we cannot make the direct assumption that the game designers are either evil themselves or unable to prevent players from doing evil things. One could perhaps argue that there was some kind of evil disposition if the game completely refused to reward players for anything but unwholesome actions. That is not true of Skyrim and certainly not true of the world we live in. I think there is ample evidence that people who attempt to do good and improve their moral character live better lives, are more content, and achieve better things than those who seek to sow chaos, distrust, and suffering around them or just let their basest insticts rule them.

    Importantly, a game without any choice would not be as interesting and it certainly would not be the game that Skyrim is. I hope that you do not think that I am insulting your intellect with an analogy like that. I actually find the analogy useful even though I recognize that many analogies are not. At least to the degree that the person presenting them like to think.

  17. #37
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    So, if stoicism is a method that puts up with any difference of opinion or even more, actions, who decides how this is to be observed? If a debate is stifled by opinion then it is not a debate, rather just a collection of same selfthinking people who dictate what is allowed and what is not. The stoic philosophy is about I assume being able to function amongst all sorts of types yet is that really the case?
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; February 05, 2021 at 07:51 AM. Reason: Off-topic.

  18. #38
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Septentrionalis View Post
    The Trilemma does in a way work through to its conclusion, but the reason why I (somewhat too provocatively) called it word play and pseudologic is that it makes assumptions that I find untenable. Mainly that Divinity would necessarily have to either be evil or not let anyone do anything that we consider evil in any manner. Here already the very definition of evil is more or less a human interpretation that is not universal even among our species.

    We live in a sandbox of a kind for reasons that we cannot fathom. In a game such as Skyrim, one can play in a way that is more or less morally sound, or one can murder and steal ones way through the game. Still, we cannot make the direct assumption that the game designers are either evil themselves or unable to prevent players from doing evil things. One could perhaps argue that there was some kind of evil disposition if the game completely refused to reward players for anything but unwholesome actions. That is not true of Skyrim and certainly not true of the world we live in. I think there is ample evidence that people who attempt to do good and improve their moral character live better lives, are more content, and achieve better things than those who seek to sow chaos, distrust, and suffering around them or just let their basest insticts rule them.

    Importantly, a game without any choice would not be as interesting and it certainly would not be the game that Skyrim is. I hope that you do not think that I am insulting your intellect with an analogy like that. I actually find the analogy useful even though I recognize that many analogies are not. At least to the degree that the person presenting them like to think.
    Certainly no insult.

    I did not mean say the Trilemm was some perfect logic. Its assumptions can be attacked but it is a piece reasoning to be examined. A more obvious solution as noted above is to move closer to the Prime move or disinterested gods concept.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; February 05, 2021 at 07:51 AM. Reason: Continuity.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  19. #39

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    I am currently reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. As you are most certainly aware, Aurelius was a prominent Stoic, and the book has been praised by a lot of modern Stoics.

    The book is interesting in that it was written by a Roman emperor, but it has a lot of references to gods and fate, which I assume people in Antiquity worried a lot about, but that a scientifically literate atheist in the 21st century does not. In the book, he also commits the appeal to nature fallacy. Am I missing something here?

  20. #40
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: The Stoic philosophy thread

    On the last probably not but its been a very long time since I read them so specific examples might be nice. But these are his meditations if you recall not a transcript of him engaging in a cage match debate with Zeno, Diogenes, Plato, Democritus, Aristotle and others...

    A lot of people still worry about god(s) and fate now you know.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •