So you believe that Stoicism makes no positive argument towards non-practitioners as to why to engage with it; rather, it's a practice that its practitioners find personal benefit from?
It seems to me that your understanding of Stoicism as some sort of enlightened state that can not be recommended to others directly conflicts with the motivations of the very founders of Stoic thought. Ask yourself this: "Why did the Stoics write their thoughts down in the first place if not to advocate for their adoption by others?"
Furthermore, Stoicism checks the boxes of a philosophy in the following manner: it is "a study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of experience", it is also "a theory or attitude held by a person that acts as a guiding principle for behavior".
Just because the principles aren't boiled down into explicit commandments and but are rather given shape and form by the nature of Stoic practices, does not mean they do not form a legitimate school of thought. I think of Stoicism as a philosophy that can be proven by personal experience and introspection.
The catching point for you seems to be the fact that the Stoics studied by practice. However, when they communicate and advocate for their practices, they are doing so by presenting to the reader the theoretical benefits they would attain if they too were to subscribe to Stoic thought and practice.
So given that you, I, and the great Stoics of the past have experienced the benefits of Stoic practice and therefore had the opportunity to verify Stoic thought via experience, why not prescribe it to others? A world of Stoics would be one better off.
I am very new to the study of stoic ideals and concepts. So far, I have been deeply appreciative of the capacity I find within what I read to help me face and deal life.
In the comments I hear contention about the word "philosophy". I would think it would matter how one would define the word to determine if it was used appropriately or not. I personally like Maxwell's concession in one of his replies that maybe Stocism is not just a philosophy.
What I hear and appreciate from the original article, however, is a caution against getting caught up in, I will use the word "preaching". I am unfamiliar with some of the other philosophies mentioned, but I have seen this habit applied to Christian scripture, where someone takes written words, extrapolates a meaning to suit their ideologies and then lambasts the world with the "truth" of this ideas, founded in "scripture" which therefore makes it "True".
I like the reminder in this article that the concepts of Stocism are primarily for individual reflection and aid. And I appreciate Maxwell putting the metephorical foot down to say stop using "Stocism" as a label to foist off generalized ideas for the masses that may or may not be helpful and may or may not even be what the original writers or teachers of Stocism would approve of.
I struggle with this similar misuse of "authority" in the religious context as well. I appreciate the tenure of this article to think and know for yourself what you believe in and what you are going to choose to do with that which is in your control, whether that extends beyond you or not.
Chrysippus was certainly a philosopher by any definition, having made important advances in logic. I'd say the Hellenistic schools in general became less 'philosophical', that is less speculative, in their Roman incarnations vs. their Greek roots. Is Epicureanism a philosophy?
I agree with a lot of the points in this, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Most other philosophies require action by people. Confucianism, for example, instructs people on how to live a harmonious life by urging people to treat others the way they want to be treated, among other actions. All philosophies make a claim about how to see the world and how to act in the world. Stoicism is no exception. Stoics see the world as things that are and are not within one's control; the action to take is to control your emotions and actions, and not let things outside of your control dictate your feelings. It is a simple and powerful personal philosophy with few tenants, but it is a philosophy nonetheless.
When Stoicism tells people to "accept our inability to control the world," that is a world view. The view on the world is that there are many things outside of one's control. The actions based on this world view, I agree, are to meditate, look inward, and work towards not allowing these uncontrollable actions to upset you -- to understand that each person is in control of their emotions and actions only, and so individuals can decide when to be happy and what makes them happy.
Isn't the best philosophy the one that leads to a positive personal practice? Doesn't stoicism improve the lives of its practitioners, therefore it's a good and not laconic philosophy?
Stoicism is associated with the notion of Oikeiosis. The notion was that under adverse circumstances some members of the oikos would behave in a dignified manner. This is still our notion of 'belonging'- if we are Americans or Brits or French or have a fucking nuclear force de frappe.
Oikeoisis as a deontic system has a concrete model in directed graph theory which itself can embed Aumann type uncorrelated symmetries.
Why the fuck are you talking such ignorant nonsense? Aumann's result was available when I was a teen.
This is nonsense. Like other systems of Paideia at the time, Stoicism aimed at endowning its students with something which, in itself, would create a Tardean mimetic effect- i.e. they would attract students and thus be able to live as their masters did. The Stoic notion of oikeiosis can give rise to 'sequent calculi', directed graph theory and a Voevodksy type univalent foundation for any deontic logic.
The idea that one only has control over the internal is false. It both underestimates the amount of external control we have and overestimates how much internal control we have or are capable of even with meditation and mantras and such
Could you give an example of how stoicism is misused as philosophy? Like how it's used by bad people to justify abrasive philosophies as you mentioned? Would be helpful to have something concrete to understand why it matters whether or not you call it philosophy. Thanks.
So you believe that Stoicism makes no positive argument towards non-practitioners as to why to engage with it; rather, it's a practice that its practitioners find personal benefit from?
Interesting
Connor's Contrary Contention Corner:
It seems to me that your understanding of Stoicism as some sort of enlightened state that can not be recommended to others directly conflicts with the motivations of the very founders of Stoic thought. Ask yourself this: "Why did the Stoics write their thoughts down in the first place if not to advocate for their adoption by others?"
Furthermore, Stoicism checks the boxes of a philosophy in the following manner: it is "a study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of experience", it is also "a theory or attitude held by a person that acts as a guiding principle for behavior".
Just because the principles aren't boiled down into explicit commandments and but are rather given shape and form by the nature of Stoic practices, does not mean they do not form a legitimate school of thought. I think of Stoicism as a philosophy that can be proven by personal experience and introspection.
The catching point for you seems to be the fact that the Stoics studied by practice. However, when they communicate and advocate for their practices, they are doing so by presenting to the reader the theoretical benefits they would attain if they too were to subscribe to Stoic thought and practice.
So given that you, I, and the great Stoics of the past have experienced the benefits of Stoic practice and therefore had the opportunity to verify Stoic thought via experience, why not prescribe it to others? A world of Stoics would be one better off.
See you in your next post
-Connor
I am very new to the study of stoic ideals and concepts. So far, I have been deeply appreciative of the capacity I find within what I read to help me face and deal life.
In the comments I hear contention about the word "philosophy". I would think it would matter how one would define the word to determine if it was used appropriately or not. I personally like Maxwell's concession in one of his replies that maybe Stocism is not just a philosophy.
What I hear and appreciate from the original article, however, is a caution against getting caught up in, I will use the word "preaching". I am unfamiliar with some of the other philosophies mentioned, but I have seen this habit applied to Christian scripture, where someone takes written words, extrapolates a meaning to suit their ideologies and then lambasts the world with the "truth" of this ideas, founded in "scripture" which therefore makes it "True".
I like the reminder in this article that the concepts of Stocism are primarily for individual reflection and aid. And I appreciate Maxwell putting the metephorical foot down to say stop using "Stocism" as a label to foist off generalized ideas for the masses that may or may not be helpful and may or may not even be what the original writers or teachers of Stocism would approve of.
I struggle with this similar misuse of "authority" in the religious context as well. I appreciate the tenure of this article to think and know for yourself what you believe in and what you are going to choose to do with that which is in your control, whether that extends beyond you or not.
Chrysippus was certainly a philosopher by any definition, having made important advances in logic. I'd say the Hellenistic schools in general became less 'philosophical', that is less speculative, in their Roman incarnations vs. their Greek roots. Is Epicureanism a philosophy?
This is an excellent article. A great reinforcement of the value Stoicism can provide by reminding us of its limits. Bravo!
I agree with a lot of the points in this, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Most other philosophies require action by people. Confucianism, for example, instructs people on how to live a harmonious life by urging people to treat others the way they want to be treated, among other actions. All philosophies make a claim about how to see the world and how to act in the world. Stoicism is no exception. Stoics see the world as things that are and are not within one's control; the action to take is to control your emotions and actions, and not let things outside of your control dictate your feelings. It is a simple and powerful personal philosophy with few tenants, but it is a philosophy nonetheless.
When Stoicism tells people to "accept our inability to control the world," that is a world view. The view on the world is that there are many things outside of one's control. The actions based on this world view, I agree, are to meditate, look inward, and work towards not allowing these uncontrollable actions to upset you -- to understand that each person is in control of their emotions and actions only, and so individuals can decide when to be happy and what makes them happy.
Isn't the best philosophy the one that leads to a positive personal practice? Doesn't stoicism improve the lives of its practitioners, therefore it's a good and not laconic philosophy?
Article titled, "stoicism is not a philosophy." Does not define philosophy. First sentence of concluding paragraph states stoicism is a philosophy....
This completely ignored stoic theology. Hardly a complete or even researched critique
Stoicism is associated with the notion of Oikeiosis. The notion was that under adverse circumstances some members of the oikos would behave in a dignified manner. This is still our notion of 'belonging'- if we are Americans or Brits or French or have a fucking nuclear force de frappe.
Oikeoisis as a deontic system has a concrete model in directed graph theory which itself can embed Aumann type uncorrelated symmetries.
Why the fuck are you talking such ignorant nonsense? Aumann's result was available when I was a teen.
This is nonsense. Like other systems of Paideia at the time, Stoicism aimed at endowning its students with something which, in itself, would create a Tardean mimetic effect- i.e. they would attract students and thus be able to live as their masters did. The Stoic notion of oikeiosis can give rise to 'sequent calculi', directed graph theory and a Voevodksy type univalent foundation for any deontic logic.
The idea that one only has control over the internal is false. It both underestimates the amount of external control we have and overestimates how much internal control we have or are capable of even with meditation and mantras and such
Could you give an example of how stoicism is misused as philosophy? Like how it's used by bad people to justify abrasive philosophies as you mentioned? Would be helpful to have something concrete to understand why it matters whether or not you call it philosophy. Thanks.