Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

John Sellars + Why Stoicism is among best mind-hacks ever + Accordance with nature

#1
C C Offline
Interview: John Sellars
http://modernstoicism.com/interview-john-sellars/

EXCERPT: Q: What’s the most important aspect of Stoicism to you?

One of the things I admire about Stoicism is what we might call its ‘reality principle’, to borrow a phrase. Both Epictetus and Marcus continually insist that we face up to the reality of both particular situations we find ourselves in and the human condition in general. We cannot control every aspect of our lives, sometimes bad things happen and we just have to accept it, we cannot control other people and how they behave towards us, we cannot avoid the fact that we shall die and so will all our loved ones. These are just facts. I particularly like the idea that it is by studying Nature and understanding better how the natural world works that we can come to accept these as simply parts of the natural order of things rather than great tragedies or sources for melancholy. I think that connection between ‘physics’ and ‘ethics’ is important; you find the same connection in Epicureanism, which I also admire....

MORE: http://modernstoicism.com/interview-john-sellars/



What Does “In Accordance With Nature” Mean?
http://modernstoicism.com/what-does-in-a...eg-sadler/

EXCERPT: One guiding ideal for Stoics is living “in accordance with nature”. But what does this phrase really mean? To judge by the many questions and comments one sees in Stoicism-oriented social media, blogs and websites, this doctrine seems to be a perennial source of confusion. I get asked about it frequently when I teach online classes, lead seminars, give talks, or even post lecture videos.

When you first hear or read it, “in accordance with nature” sounds like a helpful criterion we could use to guide and measure our choices, beliefs, reasonings, desires, and actions. But then confusions and worries arise. For, without some clear conception in mind of what “nature” and “in accordance with” mean, it appears we might be just playing around with generalities, and thereby fooling ourselves with words that lack any definite meaning but do appeal to us on some merely emotional level. And that – if it really is the case – should be very troubling to a Stoic (pun intended)!

Given the uncertainties and confusions raised by this issue, it is quite natural to ask: Is there a simple and straightforward answer to this question – What does “in accordance with nature” mean? Well, I have some good news and some bad news for you.

The good news is that if it is a simple answer you’re looking for, you’re in luck! For there isn’t just one, but a whole slew of answers meeting that criterion. Then there’s the bad news: they all tend to be more or less wrong. Simple answers about complex matters abound, since there are multiple ways to go wrong through oversimplification.

There is, fortunately, a set of consistent answers contained within classic literature of (or about) Stoic philosophy. Unfortunately for us in the present, a significant portion of Stoic writings are lost (as is the case with many of the schools and thinkers of antiquity). Perhaps one of the greatest loss in this respect is the work that Zeno reportedly wrote, titled “On Life According To Nature” (Peri to kata phuisin biou). Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have that book in our hands? Nevertheless, the texts that we do still possess provide a fairly clear, though necessarily complex, account of this key Stoic concept and doctrine.

Which texts should we turn to, if our goal is to better understand what “in accordance with nature” means for the Stoics? In my view...

MORE: http://modernstoicism.com/what-does-in-a...eg-sadler/



Why Stoicism is one of the best mind-hacks ever devised
https://aeon.co/essays/why-stoicism-is-o...er-devised

EXCERPT: We do this to our philosophies. We redraft their contours based on projected shadows, or give them a cartoonish shape like a caricaturist emphasising all the wrong features. This is how Buddhism becomes, in the popular imagination, a doctrine of passivity and even laziness, while Existentialism becomes synonymous with apathy and futile despair. Something similar has happened to Stoicism, which is considered – when considered at all – a philosophy of grim endurance, of carrying on rather than getting over, of tolerating rather than transcending life’s agonies and adversities.

No wonder it’s not more popular. No wonder the Stoic sage, in Western culture, has never obtained the popularity of the Zen master. Even though Stoicism is far more accessible, not only does it lack the exotic mystique of Eastern practice; it’s also regarded as a philosophy of merely breaking even while remaining determinedly impassive. What this attitude ignores is the promise proffered by Stoicism of lasting transcendence and imperturbable tranquility.

It ignores gratitude, too. This is part of the tranquility, because it’s what makes the tranquility possible. Stoicism is, as much as anything, a philosophy of gratitude – and a gratitude, moreover, rugged enough to endure anything. Philosophers who pine for supreme psychological liberation have often failed to realise that they belong to a confederacy that includes the Stoics. ‘According to nature you want to live?’ Friedrich Nietzsche taunts the Stoics in Beyond Good and Evil (1886):

"O you noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being like nature, wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purposes and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile and desolate and uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power – how could you live according to this indifference? Living – is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is not living – estimating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And supposing your imperative ‘live according to nature’ meant at bottom as much as ‘live according to life’ – how could you not do that? Why make a principle of what you yourself are and must be?"


This is pretty good, as denunciations of Stoicism go, seductive in its articulateness and energy, and therefore effective, however uninformed.

Which is why it’s so disheartening to see Nietzsche fly off the rails of sanity in the next two paragraphs, accusing the Stoics of trying to ‘impose’ their ‘morality… on nature’, of being ‘no longer able to see [nature] differently’ because of an ‘arrogant’ determination to ‘tyrannise’ nature as the Stoic has tyrannised himself. Then (in some of the least subtle psychological projection you’re ever likely to see, given what we know of Nietzsche’s mad drive for psychological supremacy), he accuses all of philosophy as being a ‘tyrannical drive’, ‘the most spiritual will to power’, to the ‘creation of the world’.

The truth is, indifference really is a power, selectively applied, and living in such a way is not only eminently possible, with a conscious adoption of certain attitudes, but facilitates a freer, more expansive, more adventurous mode of living. Joy and grief are still there, along with all the other emotions, but they are tempered – and, in their temperance, they are less tyrannical....

MORE: https://aeon.co/essays/why-stoicism-is-o...er-devised
Reply
#2
Zinjanthropos Online
My sister called me today to ask about my latest stroke of bad luck, diagnosed with prostate cancer. Must have been something I said because she called me a stoic. Maybe its because I accept it, it's more common than you realize, been around for long time, it's just something that happens. Like I said in an earlier post on another subject, I used to tell my kids that there's at least 5 days in a year when you'd wish you hadn't woken up in the morning. I accept that and prepare for it mentally because I know those moments are unavoidable, there's nothing you can do if your name is called. I can't live forever, no one can, so somewhere down the line something is going to put me down. Expect the expected and you'll be better able to deal with it (death being the exception). Does that make me stoic?
Reply
#3
C C Offline
(May 5, 2017 02:27 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: My sister called me today to ask about my latest stroke of bad luck, diagnosed with prostate cancer. Must have been something I said because she called me a stoic. Maybe its because I accept it, it's more common than you realize, been around for long time, it's just something that happens. Like I said in an earlier post on another subject, I used to tell my kids that there's at least 5 days in a year when you'd wish you hadn't woken up in the morning. I accept that and prepare for it mentally because I know those moments are unavoidable, there's nothing you can do if your name is called. I can't live forever, no one can, so somewhere down the line something is going to put me down. Expect the expected and you'll be better able to deal with it (death being the exception). Does that make me stoic?

The ancient Stoics were theists, so maybe in context of a modern version of Stoicism.

The Debate: Do you need God to be a Stoic? Mark Vernon argues ‘Yes’, Tim LeBon argues ‘No’.

No ... Tim LeBon: How many of us can believe that the universe spins round the earth? How many of us believe that Zeus is in charge of our fate? I imagine that very few modern-day readers will accept these and some of the other metaphysical claims made by ancient Stoics. Logic therefore dictates that we have a choice. We could discard Stoicism on the grounds that it is based on claims that we can no longer believe. The title of this article – “In Praise of Modern Stoicism” – suggests an alternative. Rather than abandon Stoicism we can and should develop and a modern, acceptable and helpful form of Stoicism.

[...] Antonia Macaro [...] “Most of us could probably benefit from adopting Stoic perspectives like questioning what is really valuable in life, reminding ourselves that a lot of the things we commonly worry about are not that important; the habit of scrutinising our emotions, remembering that we can have a degree of influence on how we feel by changing how we think; and accepting that much of what happens to us in life is beyond our control.”

Such philosophical arguments can be taken a stage further by conducting empirical research. This is a key part of the Stoicism Today project. The results so far are encouraging. I have summarized the findings as follows in an article written earlier this year. “Our findings supported the view that Stoicism is helpful – Stoicism passed its initial test. [...]"

The development of the SABS (The Stoic Attitude and Behaviours Scale) has enabled us to go further and begin to understand which parts of Stoicism are most beneficial as opposed to the elements which may not really be “active ingredients”. As I wrote in my 2014 article, our findings so far suggest that four elements of Stoicism are the most helpful.

(1) Stoic mindfulness – making an effort to pay continual attention to the nature of my judgments and actions.

(2) Stoic disputation of thoughts – reminding oneself that an upsetting thought is just an impression in my mind and not the thing it claims to represent.

(3) Affinity with others – thinking of oneself as part of the human race, in the same way that a limb is a part of the human body.

(4) Stoic Premeditation – trying to anticipate future misfortunes and rehearse rising above them.

These four elements of Stoicism happen to be amongst those emphasized in what Donald Robertson has called a “Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism”. Key parts of this “Modern Stoicism” are the morning Stoic preparation, an evening Stoic reflection on the day, and practicing “Stoic mindfulness” throughout the day. I agree with Mark Vernon that some aspects of Stoic Metaphysics including the idea of a divine purpose feature much less heavily than Stoic ethics and Stoic practices in “Modern Stoicism”. As the research shows, however, this Modern Stoicism has proved to be very helpful to the majority of participants. [...]
--In Praise of Modern Stoicism

- - - - - - -

Yes ... Mark Vernon: Ancient Stoics believed that life was grounded in a benign principle they called the logos. Logos is one of those Greek words that can be translated in numerous ways, as word or reason, discourse or principle, law or activity, allure or attraction. The earliest extended Stoic text to survive the centuries is a hymn to Zeus, penned by Cleanthes, the second head of the Stoic school. He praises the high god for the logos that “moves through all creation”. He celebrates it as the wellspring of unity, direction, meaning, purpose. Suffering, he argues, arises from refusing the logos. Ignorance of its workings leads men and women into all manner of false hopes and expectations – the pursuit of fame and fortune, of pleasure for pleasure’s sake. Troubles resolve themselves in the letting go inherent in learning to follow the logos. [...] --In Praise Of Logos

================

Epictetus (IEP), by Keith H. Seddon: Metaphors for Life

Epictetus employs a number of metaphors to illustrate what the Stoic attitude to life should be.

Life as a festival

Epictetus encourages us to think of life as a festival, arranged for our benefit by God, as something that we can live through joyously, able to put up with any hardships that befall us because we have our eye on the larger spectacle that is taking place. Epictetus asks his students:

Who are you, and for what purpose have you come? Was it not he [i.e., God] who brought you here? … And as what did he bring you here? Was it not as a mortal? Was it not as one who would live, with a little portion of flesh, upon this earth, and behold his governance and take part with him, for a short time, in his pageant and his festival? The whole thrust of Stoic ethics aims to persuade us that we should ourselves contribute to the festival by living as well as we may and fulfilling our duties as sociable citizens of God's 'great city of the universe'.

Life as a game

[...] in encouraging his students to appreciate that external things are indifferent (being neither good nor bad), Epictetus says that we should imitate those who play dice, for neither the dice nor the counters have any real value; what matters, and what is either good or bad, is the way we play the game. Similarly, where Epictetus discusses the example of playing a ball game, no one considers for a moment whether the ball itself is good or bad, but only whether they can throw and catch it with the appropriate skill. What matters are the faculties of dexterity, speed and good judgement exhibited by the players, for it is in deploying these faculties effectively that any player is deemed to have played well. Epictetus also uses the metaphor of playing games when discussing suicide, for just as someone stops playing a game when they are no longer amused by it, so it should be in life generally: if life should become unbearable, no one can force us to keep living it. To summarize: remember that the door is open. Do not be more cowardly than children, but just as they say, when the game no longer pleases them, 'I will play no more,' you too, when things seem that way to you, should merely say, 'I will play no more,' and so depart; but if you stay, stop moaning. [...]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article The “new happy”: rethinking happiness thru science & philosophy + Among antinatalists C C 1 38 Mar 15, 2024 11:33 PM
Last Post: Syne
  3:16 interview with John Locke + Towards a planet-wide census of legs, eyes, & minds C C 0 90 Dec 10, 2022 09:04 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why kids make the best philosophers C C 0 52 Apr 29, 2022 05:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  John Searle's "easy" solution to the mind/body problem Magical Realist 6 219 May 13, 2021 01:58 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Quantum mechanics, free will & the Game of Life (John Horgon) C C 47 1,285 Feb 22, 2021 06:39 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Why are we in the West so weird? + Best philosophical science fiction C C 1 175 Oct 21, 2020 12:58 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Has physics ever been deterministic? + Why the laws of nature are not inevitable C C 1 261 Dec 16, 2019 04:09 AM
Last Post: Yazata
  Secrets of consciousness (video discussion among Goff, Blackmore, Humphrey) C C 2 722 Jul 14, 2018 03:18 AM
Last Post: C C
  John Searle interview: Where does consciousness come from? C C 0 431 Jul 16, 2016 02:30 AM
Last Post: C C
  Science, Power and Politics (Interview with John Horgan) C C 0 591 Aug 5, 2015 11:24 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)