PDA

View Full Version : Stoicism



LDAHL
1-8-19, 11:42am
Is it just me, or does there seem to be more interest in Stoic philosophy in the media and the netsphere lately? There seem to be many more blogs and podcasts than a few years ago.

Rogar
1-8-19, 12:24pm
One of the only podcasts I listen to is Sam Harris, "Waking Up". He covers a range of topics, but the center around mindful living, meditation, and various religious philosophy. Interestingly one of his most recent got into stoicism as a way to deal with anxiety and anger.

Tybee
1-8-19, 1:21pm
It's not just you, am seeing it in conjunction with some men-centric posters (not sure what to label them, but they believe feminism is destroying this country, believe they are "red-pilled", etc.). It's kind of big right now.

catherine
1-8-19, 2:13pm
It's not just you, am seeing it in conjunction with some men-centric posters (not sure what to label them, but they believe feminism is destroying this country, believe they are "red-pilled", etc.). It's kind of big right now.

Really? I didn't know that stoicism was necessarily a guy thing. I've actually read a couple of books on it, for my own interest in its philosophy. I certainly never thought of it as an anti-feminism thing.

bae
1-8-19, 2:44pm
I've been reading Marcus Aurelius for years and years now, but I don't see Stoicism as being particularly anti-feminist/MRA. Except perhaps for the embedded culture of the time in his writing.

LDAHL
1-8-19, 3:34pm
It’s hard to see what one school of thought might have to say to the other. The one is about how the individual regulates his relationship to the world around him. The other is about collective guilt, collective grievances and collective power relationships.

It’s difficult for me to see how Musonius or Seneca or Epictetus might critique feminism if they were here today. It would be like attacking geometry with botany.

catherine
1-8-19, 3:41pm
It’s hard to see what one school of thought might to say to the other. The one is about how the individual regulates his relationship to the world around him. The other is about collective guilt, collective grievances and collective power relationships.

Out of curiosity, can you provide a link to an example of the latter?

LDAHL
1-8-19, 4:06pm
Out of curiosity, can you provide a link to an example of the latter?

For instance, it’s hard to imagine a Stoic saying “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women” in support of a political candidate. When it’s just you deciding how to perceive and respond to the universe for yourself, allies and intersectionality and doctrinal differences would seem to be pretty much irrelevant.

razz
1-8-19, 4:35pm
Well, I did study Philosophy for a semester at university but today made a real effort to ensure that I understood what a stoic really is. Mostly it seems to be a materialist who sees virtue in self-government. Stanford University https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/ offers the many variations/interpretations of the belief system. I see nothing that would antagonize any man or woman who was inclined in that direction.

Perhaps, a feminist might say that having the vote, freedom to choose, equality of opportunity/reward would be included in options for self-government as men have had excluding all those men who were slaves, etc. Did Aureius believe that slaves could freely choose to be stoic?

Self-government by the individual would be a desirable state to see in our present circumstances and perhaps going back to Idahl's original post, this is why stoicism is receiving attention. Not having TV to watch daily, I do miss out on the current trends at times.

oldhat
1-8-19, 4:47pm
For instance, it’s hard to imagine a Stoic saying “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women” in support of a political candidate. When it’s just you deciding how to perceive and respond to the universe for yourself, allies and intersectionality and doctrinal differences would seem to be pretty much irrelevant.

Wha...? I'm scratching my head. That's merely someone expressing a political view. I don't see what that has to do with Stoicism. It seems to me a Stoic would simply shrug and say you're entitled to your opinion.

The central idea of Stoicism is virtue. That is, does a person lie, cheat, steal, harm others? Is he calm and unaffected by calamity? There are all sorts of ontological and epistemological underpinnings to why you should behave that way (see Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, et al.), but in practical terms that's the main message.

If you want a splendid example of what Stoicism is not, forget Madeleine Albright and look no further than our current president. Dishonest, vain, self-deluded, bigoted, impatient and selfish, Trump is an encyclopedia of non-Stoic characteristics.

catherine
1-8-19, 5:15pm
Wha...? I'm scratching my head. That's merely someone expressing a political view. I don't see what that has to do with Stoicism. It seems to me a Stoic would simply shrug and say you're entitled to your opinion.

The central idea of Stoicism is virtue. That is, does a person lie, cheat, steal, harm others? Is he calm and unaffected by calamity? There are all sorts of ontological and epistemological underpinnings to why you should behave that way (see Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, et al.), but in practical terms that's the main message.


That's exactly how I see it.

Tybee
1-8-19, 5:54pm
For the record, I was not saying that Stoicism is anti-anyone. I was saying that I have seen some very unpleasant misogynist posters later rhapsodizing about their forays into Stoicism.
I was discussing the original question, is Stoicism undergoing some boost in popularity lately.
My mom was both a Stoic and a feminist, so there is no conflict that I can see.

JaneV2.0
1-8-19, 6:02pm
Stoicism is at the core of my nature, I think, and I've been a feminist since I knew what the word meant.
I don't pay much attention to crackpot theories about it; I'm just not much for histrionics.
And I haven't studied philosophy, but oldhat's definition fits me pretty well.

I just always think "My father lived through slogging through the jungles of New Guinea, dodging bullets, with jungle rot in his leg. I can survive this."

LDAHL
1-9-19, 9:42am
Wha...? I'm scratching my head. That's merely someone expressing a political view. I don't see what that has to do with Stoicism. It seems to me a Stoic would simply shrug and say you're entitled to your opinion.

The central idea of Stoicism is virtue. That is, does a person lie, cheat, steal, harm others? Is he calm and unaffected by calamity? There are all sorts of ontological and epistemological underpinnings to why you should behave that way (see Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, et al.), but in practical terms that's the main message.

If you want a splendid example of what Stoicism is not, forget Madeleine Albright and look no further than our current president. Dishonest, vain, self-deluded, bigoted, impatient and selfish, Trump is an encyclopedia of non-Stoic characteristics.

My point was that stoicism offers little by way of tools to understand or address a demand for loyalty based on an arbitrary group identity. As far as the obligatory Trump condemnation, I would guess that a First Century Stoic would regard both the President and many of his detractors as the tragic result of an unexamined life.

LDAHL
1-9-19, 9:48am
Did Aureius believe that slaves could freely choose to be stoic?



I would think probably yes. That one’s circumstances do not dictate how one can view or respond to them.

I believe Epictetus was a slave for much of his life.

razz
1-9-19, 10:17am
I would think probably yes. That one’s circumstances do not dictate how one can view or respond to them.

I believe Epictetus was a slave for much of his life.

And BBC has a perfect short video explaining it all. Talk about good timing!
https://www.bbc.com/reel/playlist/how-to-be-wise?vpid=p06wzkb4

oldhat
1-9-19, 11:15am
My point was that stoicism offers little by way of tools to understand or address a demand for loyalty based on an arbitrary group identity. As far as the obligatory Trump condemnation, I would guess that a First Century Stoic would regard both the President and many of his detractors as the tragic result of an unexamined life.

Condemning Trump isn't an obligation; it's a pleasure ;).

I will concede, however, that Trump is probably a poor example to use in this discussion. Insofar as Stoicism demands an attempt at objective self-examination, Trump is a sociopath who is congenitally incapable of any kind of self-examination.

Your first statement still puzzles me, though. You talk about an "arbitrary group identity" as if that somehow negates the validity of having that viewpoint. For example, I'm a liberal Democrat. My political views are shaped by my belief that certain candidates and political groups best represent my interests and ideals. You may not agree with my reasons, but there's nothing arbitrary about them, even if you don't agree with them.

My point, again, is that I don't think most Stoics would be that concerned with the chain of reasoning I used to reach my beliefs, or you yours. It would have much more to do with how you or I react to misfortune, or how we cope on a daily basis with life's inevitable slings and arrows.

ApatheticNoMore
1-9-19, 11:30am
I don't know very much about stoicism really. I do suspect people are using it for things it's probably not really a great fit for, clinical depression, completely untenable life circumstances, etc.. The MRA folks, I didn't know it was big with them, maybe they are just stoic about the inability to convert society to their toxic views :~). The rest of us are merely grateful for that small blessing.

Teacher Terry
1-9-19, 11:48am
Now trump is threatening not to give California anymore fema money. Just when you think he can’t be anymore despicable.

LDAHL
1-9-19, 11:54am
Your first statement still puzzles me, though. You talk about an "arbitrary group identity" as if that somehow negates the validity of having that viewpoint. For example, I'm a liberal Democrat. My political views are shaped by my belief that certain candidates and political groups best represent my interests and ideals. You may not agree with my reasons, but there's nothing arbitrary about them, even if you don't agree with .

I would maintain that insisting a given group has a duty to vote a certain way because they have two X chromosomes is the very essence of arbitrary. Becoming a liberal Democrat is a matter of personal conviction, which is not the same thing.

oldhat
1-9-19, 12:42pm
I would maintain that insisting a given group has a duty to vote a certain way because they have two X chromosomes is the very essence of arbitrary. Becoming a liberal Democrat is a matter of personal conviction, which is not the same thing.

I don't think Albright was arguing that anyone should vote for Clinton solely because she was female. Her point was more nuanced than that (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/madeleine-albright-my-undiplomatic-moment.html). In that election, I'm sure Albright wouldn't have argued that you should vote for Carly Fiorina over a male Democrat. That would have been arbitrary.

I guess it depends on how you define "arbitrary." To me, opposing Trump because I don't want a malignant narcissist holding the most powerful political office in the world isn't arbitrary. Opposing him because he has ridiculous hair would be.

LDAHL
1-9-19, 1:16pm
I don't think Albright was arguing that anyone should vote for Clinton solely because she was female. Her point was more nuanced than that (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/madeleine-albright-my-undiplomatic-moment.html). In that election, I'm sure Albright wouldn't have argued that you should vote for Carly Fiorina over a male Democrat. That would have been arbitrary.

I guess it depends on how you define "arbitrary." To me, opposing Trump because I don't want a malignant narcissist holding the most powerful political office in the world isn't arbitrary. Opposing him because he has ridiculous hair would be.

Her actual statement left little room for nuance. Her after-the-fact exegesis was a world-class parsing of plain words worthy of a Clinton appointee.

JaneV2.0
1-9-19, 2:32pm
Luckily we are all free to identify with any group or cause we agree with, regardless of the opinions of others.

Turns out Trump's hair-on-fire "crisis" speech was mostly about getting his supporters to pungle up money for his re-election campaign. I sincerely hope he won't be able to run from prison...:D

LDAHL
1-9-19, 3:21pm
Luckily we are all free to identify with any group or cause we agree with, regardless of the opinions of others.

Turns out Trump's hair-on-fire "crisis" speech was mostly about getting his supporters to pungle up money for his re-election campaign. I sincerely hope he won't be able to run from prison...:D

We are all free to identify with any group we like. What’s objectionable is when we try lumping everyone with some identifiable trait into a group we expect to think and act in certain ways as Albright did. That’s identity politics, and it’s ridiculous when practiced by either the left or the right.