Talk:Stoicism
I don't understand, wouldn't "living according to nature" INCLUDE living according to love, pain, feelings, etc? Why is only reason part of nature?
-dan_d4n@hotmail.com
Moving this section to the talk page
What is the Stoic perspective on happiness and the Good?
The Stoics believe in a process of virtue accompanied by reason in order to seek happiness. They argue that if you do this you will lead a good life. They also believe that power breeds non virtue. A stoic must also seek an attunement with nature. An example of a stoic would be Seneca, a Roman advisor to an emperor. Although he was a stoic he was forced to commit suicide. Many people in power, especially emperors, did not like stoics, because they did not like that they had the ability to control their emotions, even before the throne of power. The Stoic view of the search for happiness is similar to Aristotle’s view in that a person must seek virtue with the aid of reason and virtue. An example of a stoic philosopher king was Marcus Aurelius, but he was not a good king, although he is considered by many people to be a very good emperor. The reason that he is not a good king is because he sought knowledge for itself, like Prospero in the Tempest. A king should not primarily be concerned with seeking knowledge; they must concern themselves more with ruling. I admire Marcus Aurelius, but I would have preferred that he had restored order to his house (especially with his son Comates) instead of seeking knowledge for itself. Nature has a lot of irony; the philosopher king has a very vulgar son.
Doesn't seem like it belongs in the article. --128.138.169.68 21:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Stoic Spiritual Ethics
Added descriptions of Stoic concept of passion, as well as some notes on Stoic Spiritual Exercises. --Pariah 03:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Pariah. The Stoic Spiritual Exercises is a good addition to this article. I took the liberty of changing Stoic Spiritual Exercises to a heading level within Stoic Ethics. Following Zeno of Citium, most Stoics categorized philosophy broadly into concepts they called Logic, Physics, and Ethics. (These terms being, of course, not exactly what we'd use to call those concepts today.) So, to preserve their categories, I thought that the present two headings for Ethics and Physics ought to be at a level where a third heading for Logic could be added later. I hope this change makes sense to you and is OK. --Tregonsee 21:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Stoicism: past versus present
Is it an oversight or intentional that some parts of the article refer to Stoicism and Stoics in present tense (eg. Stoicism is a school of philosophy which teaches... and A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its...) while other parts make it sound like Stoics and Stoicism either no longer exist or have changed (eg. Stoicism was not just a set of beliefs, it was about... and Philosophy for a Stoic was... ). Thoughts? --Ds13 08:42, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
- It's an oversight; the inevitable product of multiple authors. There are certainly modern Stoics. We should edit the document to be in the present tense.--Pariah 23:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- When you say that there are certainly modern Stoics, what are your grounds? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll yield to Pariah's answer to the question addressed to him/her (him --Pariah), but here are my $0.25... There are books on Stoicism (at least one that I'm aware of, the one referenced in the article by Lawrence Becker) that show how Stoicism is separate from its naturalistic assumptions and is used in life today. (That modern author calls himself a Stoic, for what it's worth.) Anyways, if I remember correctly, his claim is that the credo of Stoicism from Zeno right through today hasn't changed at all (i.e. that virtue alone is the key to living) and that the naturalistic stuff was just window dressing for the times. --Ds13 15:01, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
- In answer to Mel, I guess it'd be more accurate to say there are people today who consider themselves Stoics. I'd consider myself one, but I'm half a dozen other things too, and my inner-Cynic hates labels ;)
- Adding to Ds13's comment, there's been a lot of recent interest in Stoicism (and virtue ethics in general). Stoic works and academic commentaries are easier to find than a few years ago. Some good discussions include Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot, and The Courage to Be by Paul Tillich, where he argues that Stoicism is the best alternative to Christianity in the western spiritual traditions. There's a little Stoic reasoning embedded in modern Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, too; and further back, the Transcendentalists were at least somewhat influenced by the Stoics.
- Theatrical Stoics--Terence Stamp's character in Red Planet was undeniably Stoic. Also, in an unnamed chunk of recent made-for-TV movie, a woman trapped in an elevator claimed to be a Stoic, which she summarized: "Realize what you can and cannot control, and take responsibility for your actions." Of course, there's the most famous & quintessential Stoic, Spock; though more recent Vulcans are definitely NOT Stoics.
- Out of curiostiy, can you elborate on the separation of Stoicism and its naturalistic assumptions mentioned in the articles?
- --Pariah 19:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting. Thanks for the book references. The main naturalistic assumption I'm referring to is belief in the Logos. I don't claim to be a Stoic and my study of them is not comprehensive, but more than one source (e.g. the Becker book) argues that Stoicism does not need the Logos to remain Stoicism. This is significant to modern people interested in Stoicism, I think, because they may be dedicated to virtue but find the Logos hard to swallow because it requires faith in an invisible, animating force of the universe (reason- and knowledge-based as it may be). That's all I know! --Ds13 20:29, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
- Thanks DS--I was just curious. I guess it all depends on how Logos is defined. Christian scholars often identified Logos with God, and originally was rooted in Greek physics. Presumably modern scholars wish to break these associations. I always figured the logos was not so much an animating force, but the totality of everything animated, leaving it compatible with modern science. If that's true, Stoic ethics simply spring from the logical implications of a complex, dynamic world, just as they do in many Eastern philosophies. No matter. Virtue for its own sake is still a good thing--Pariah 22:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Table
I think this thing is ugly. I want to incorporate the information without it.
|
Apollomelos 04:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I say go for it, unless there's a way to make it better--Pariah 05:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
- If you can, do. I only included it in a box because I couldn't see how to incorporate it smoothly into the article. I'll have another look, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Buddhism
It feels like it doesn't fit here, but I'd like to see if there's concurrence before I go ahead and remove it. UnDeadGoat 00:44 08 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the Buddhist references--the two philosophies are different, but they're also very similar in the aspects mentioned in the article, and it helps to get that perspective. Perhaps we can qualify the references a bit (e.g. Buddhism generally doesn't emphasize duty or discipline the same way as Stoicism) but I think we should definitely keep some mention of the similiarities.--Pariah 14:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- It is remarkable how close Taoism and Stoicism are. They are nearly identitical and were formed around the same time. Apollomelos 13:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)