The Stoic philosophy thread

[Akar]

Maximillian,

If I told you that there was only One God the Creator of life Who by His Three Persons made the universe in which we live would you believe me?

If I told you there was Seven Gods, who by their powers made the universe in which we live would you believe me?

[Septentrionalis]

I adhere to Classical Stoicism, as part of my overall angle into Hellenistic Roman religion. I am, as I've said before (though I have not logged onto this forum in a while) a hard polytheist.
To live in harmony with nature, and to live a balanced life, is one and the same to me as living in harmony with the ancient gods and the spirits of the land.

Thank you for contributing to thread and identifying yourself as a Stoic!

Your statement about polytheism is quite unusual, but I am going to assume that you are serious. I consider myself a monotheist, but I usually think of Divinity as something we cannot really fathom as mortals, and I sometimes find myself referring to God(s) in the plural like some of the ancient Stoics did on occasion. Or conjuring up the thought of a single deity as an aspect of divinity itself (such as hoping that Fortuna is with someone). I do not really think that it is that much of a sin as Christians and the like would think. As long as a person understands his position as a mortal in this great universe, the origin of which we cannot understand with our limited senses and lifespans.

I tend to find much more fault with Christians and other dogmatic religious monotheists in their habit of claiming what God is and what it wants according to their own liking. To give a practical example, I try to think that a force that created a universe with possibly millions of civilizations is not really that keen on making sure that some apes discriminate against other apes because they are homosexual and because some previous apes 3,000 years ago did not like it.

[Prodromos]

According to the Stoics, the only way to have a good life is to pursue virtue, and the only way to pursue virtue is to live in accordance with nature.

You may be familiar with Musonius Rufus. Tacitus described him as the foremost Stoic philosopher of his day and his influence on Stoic thought was pretty substantial. He was also Epictetus' teacher.



It's interesting to note that although Musonius was not a Christian and likely had little to no contact with Christians, his understanding of sexual virtue -- attained through reason and without the aid of special revelation -- is nearly identical to the Christian sexual ethic.

[enoch]

Sounds like a prude. Cynics > Stoics

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

If I told you there was Seven Gods, who by their powers made the universe in which we live would you believe me?

You heretic, it were the twelve, who made the universe!

Praios - God of the Sun and the Law
Rondra - Goddess of honorable Fighting and Thunderstorms
Efferd - God of the Sea, Water and Air
Travia - Goddess of Hospitality and Family
Boron - God of Death and Sleep
Hesinde - Goddess of Science and Art
Firun - God of Winter and Hunt
Tsa - Goddess of Fertility and Peace
Phex - Goddess of Thiefs and Merchants
Peraine - Goddess of Agriculture and Healing
Ingerimm - God of Blacksmiths and Artisans
Rahja - Goddess of Love and Wine

And the Nameless, whose name should not spell out!

---

Welcome Max,

to live in harmony and balance with nature is something, which i would support as living a good life.

Also the older i get the more i find polytheism attracting and convincing, but deep inside there's still the litte doubting atheist in me.

[Hobbes]

If I told you there was Seven Gods, who by their powers made the universe in which we live would you believe me?

I believe you Akar

[Septentrionalis]

According to the Stoics, the only way to have a good life is to pursue virtue, and the only way to pursue virtue is to live in accordance with nature.

You may be familiar with Musonius Rufus. Tacitus described him as the foremost Stoic philosopher of his day and his influence on Stoic thought was pretty substantial. He was also Epictetus' teacher.

It's interesting to note that although Musonius was not a Christian and likely had little to no contact with Christians, his understanding of sexual virtue -- attained through reason and without the aid of special revelation -- is nearly identical to the Christian sexual ethic.

A really interesting point to make and sorry for the late reply. I have not read Musonius Rufus yet but I have been vaguely familiar with him. He has a reputation of being something of an activist and a progressive influence even from a modern point of view let alone in his own time.

There are a few points here (provided that the translation is trustworthy) that strike me as odd. While most Stoics would agree that sexual excesses are not really advisable for a practitioner, some of the opinions in this excerpt deviate from the general Stoic understanding.

First of all I would like to know what is that "sin" in original Greek(?). Even if Musonius Rufus was not Christian, the translator is likely to be one and I would like to understand that translator's effect on the English rendition. Second, the claim that homosexual relations are "a monstrous thing and contrary to nature" somehow feels out of place. Stoics feel strongly about Nature as a governing principle but they do not do it in the sense of a fallacy. This is the first time I hear of any Stoic claiming that homosexuality, a tendency that occurs naturally, would be an unnatural thing.

When Rufus condemns having sex with "maid-servants" (= slaves), that sort of behavior commonplace in Rome is frowned upon by the Stoics. Stoics feel that imposing that kind of superiority on oneself over fellow human beings is unnatural; a rationale that has always made Stoics opposed to slavery. And when slavery cannot be abolished, Stoics have been proponents of respecting the rights of a slave as a human being and not treating slaves as if they were mere property.

As for the actual issue brought up by Prodromos, I can see how rational thought can coincide with Christian morals on the general matter of having solid family unit and avoiding extramarital affairs.

[MaximiIian]

Thank you for contributing to thread and identifying yourself as a Stoic!
Your statement about polytheism is quite unusual

Really? Modern polytheists aren't that rare. Especially in online circles, we're a rather outspoken crowd.

but I am going to assume that you are serious.

Why wouldn't I be?

I consider myself a monotheist, but I usually think of Divinity as something we cannot really fathom as mortals,

On that, we differ. I think the divine, while in some ways transcending human comprehension, is generally immanent and tangible. We can directly experience and interact with it, and understand it.

and I sometimes find myself referring to God(s) in the plural like some of the ancient Stoics did on occasion. Or conjuring up the thought of a single deity as an aspect of divinity itself (such as hoping that Fortuna is with someone).

Such soft-polytheistic ideas have a great deal of currency in many Neopagan circles, seeing as Hermeticism and Neoplatonism lay at the root of the Western Occult tradition, which in turn gave early Pagan revival groups their structure (the influence went both ways-- the Western Occult gradually "paganized" in the early 20th century, eschewing Christian mysticism for a greater emphasis on ancient Egypt and Greece). It's not my theology, I hew closer to hard polytheism, but it does have a place in the broader Pagan tapestry.

Maximillian,
If I told you that there was only One God the Creator of life Who by His Three Persons made the universe in which we live would you believe me?

We've had this song and dance for years, man, give it a rest.

[Septentrionalis]

Really? Modern polytheists aren't that rare. Especially in online circles, we're a rather outspoken crowd.

Why wouldn't I be?

Thank you for letting me in on that. I would say that is a prime example of the kind of bias or "bubble" that we all are so susceptible to. For someone who is interested in those matters and frequents sites or social media groups where like-minded individuals congregate, it may start to seem like such views and discussions are more commonplace than they are.

I have been interested in questions of theology and cosmology from an early age, and I have had only superficial contact with a small number of people expressing polytheistic views. And many of them have not not seemed serious but working for some sort of nationalist, identity-political agenda or a general rebellious anti-Christian agenda. I do not mean the former as a pejorative description; I see no fault with honoring one's culture's mythology and ancient traditions and I do not equate that with any kind of bigotry. The latter is harder to reconcile with.

But it is hard for me to grasp that someone would honestly believe that a certain polytheistic deity out of thousands, such as Apollo, truly exists. Like I genuinely believe that there is a power that is above and beyond the physical universe and can make physical existence happen. Because I do not believe that universes just pop into existence out of nothing. No scientific study has made me waver in that belief; quite the opposite.

On that, we differ. I think the divine, while in some ways transcending human comprehension, is generally immanent and tangible. We can directly experience and interact with it, and understand it.

If you find the time and want to educate me in how you see those things, I can assure you that I am all ears. I am dying to learn how you can somehow grasp and experience several divine beings as real. I am sincere; I know many have trouble understanding my monotheist/general divinity point of view although it seems crystal-clear to me that the physical laws of nature are artificial and they could not have given birth to themselves in a state of nothingness.

Such soft-polytheistic ideas have a great deal of currency in many Neopagan circles, seeing as Hermeticism and Neoplatonism lay at the root of the Western Occult tradition, which in turn gave early Pagan revival groups their structure (the influence went both ways-- the Western Occult gradually "paganized" in the early 20th century, eschewing Christian mysticism for a greater emphasis on ancient Egypt and Greece). It's not my theology, I hew closer to hard polytheism, but it does have a place in the broader Pagan tapestry.

I was not aware of soft and hard polytheistic ideas but it makes sense now. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

[MaximiIian]

Thank you for letting me in on that.

Admittedly, I may have a bit of a bias myself since I am Pagan, I am in mostly Pagan or pagan-friendly circles. But I figured that Modern Paganism was a pretty widely-known phenomenon; it's been in the media pretty consistently the past few decades, and has been in and out of the public eye since the 40s.

And many of them have not not seemed serious but working for some sort of nationalist, identity-political agenda or a general rebellious anti-Christian agenda.

The former is rarer than you think; the folkish and racist types are just very loud. And there has been a sharp backlash against that subset in the past several years.
The latter, well...it's true that a lot of Neopagans came to it because of toxic experiences with Christianity growing up, and Modern Paganism did come of age in a period of general youth Counterculture (the mid-1960s to mid-1970s), so it carries a bit of that counter-cultural attitude. But that, to me, does not invalidate it as a legitimate avenue of spiritual expression and exploration.

Most of us refer to what we're on as a spiritual path-- sometimes you're on that path for your life, sometimes it's just to pass through on your way to something else; neither are more or less legitimate. I used to say, "if they're serious, they'll stay", but thinking about it that seems overly judgmental; when it comes to spirituality, what matters is that you got what you needed out of it at the time.

But it is hard for me to grasp that someone would honestly believe that a certain polytheistic deity out of thousands, such as Apollo, truly exists.

For one, most modern polytheists tend to not deny that those thousands of other gods exist, either. Just...most of us narrow down our focus when it comes to devotional practice. Just because I believe in all kinds of gods, doesn't mean I have to worship all of them.
For two, it really isn't that much different from believing in any other well-attested/recorded deity. There's a wealth of material known about that deity, their personality, and their cult, as well as a some more modern constructs to guide oneself (i.e., modern pagan ritual structures that are a bit more detailed and cater to individual practice, than ancient ones). So when one encounters, say, Apollo-- continuing your example-- it's not really difficult to recognize, and honoring them is a relatively quick thing to pick up.

If you find the time and want to educate me in how you see those things, I can assure you that I am all ears.

Oh yeah, any time. I'm not so arrogant as to self-designate as an expert, but Modern Paganism, its history and roots, and the diversity of its practice and community, are all things that I've studied and been involved in quite a bit for about 15 years now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

I am dying to learn how you can somehow grasp and experience several divine beings as real. I am sincere

Same as any. It varies from person to person. For some folks it's a matter of faith. For others, it's a matter of mysticism. I can say that, for me, I was skeptical about the gods' reality until I had some personal experiences of them several years ago.

My tentative observation of the community is that a lot folks in the more eclectic Neopagan/Wiccan/Witchcraft side of the community tend to emphasize those personal, mystical experiences with the gods and spirits. Whereas most people on the devotional polytheist and polytheistic reconstructionist side of the community see belief in the gods as more of a matter of faith, and pattern recognition, though they emphasize tradition and ritual more than belief anyway. I would almost certainly chalk this up to the former's closer connection to the Occult roots of modern paganism, and to the latter's attempt to incorporate Ancient pre-Christian perspectives (which de-emphasized personal relationships with the gods, and emphasized communal relationship and ritual).

I was not aware of soft and hard polytheistic ideas but it makes sense now. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

The community has been kinda moving away from sharp delineations between the two, and most people fall somewhere inbetween, but they are kind of the main poles on a spectrum.