Great essay. I had to read it a few times to understand and I think I still don’t understand half of it. I’m an engineer, not a philosopher. :)
Having said that, I find it practical to know what you can/should focus on and ignore what you can’t. To some level, it’s a relief but on the other hand, it can also be burden.
Morally, although you can only truly control your own feelings and behavior, than it is on you to behave as the best person you can be.
From a more “problem solving” standpoint (as an engineer tends to see files, as series of problems to resolve), by knowing that there are things you can’t work on, then it is on you to look for things you can work on and find a solution to.
At least, that’s how I think of this. As a Catholic myself (but not a scholar, just a regular dude who goes to Church for Christmas and Easter), I do believe that we are meant to help others, so sitting around and being lazy doesn’t jive with my mindset at all.
Anyway, I’ll be reading this essay several times over. Many terms in there I do not fully grasp. Thanks for the insightful essay.
Yeah there was indeed Stoicism had problems from the very beginning, of course there is nothing perfect like my english, but sometimes it feels like trend, first they love Stoicism when it’s rise, but after trending many people talk about Stoicism issues, i just want to say that someone read this just be what you want, be independent. Btw great essay, love this.
This was enlightening. I've found ideas from stoicism very helpful in my life the past few years. The personal responsibility and focus on ethics are simultaneously challenging and empowering. I can see the contradictions you highlight and it's understandable to not describe yourself as a stoic.
I relate to the issue of the word being highjacked so it's as likely to mean something other than what I intend. Or maybe I'm just too much of a philosophical hipster and I really only want to use words I get to explain.
I’ve noticed in Marcus, he often describes the world in a materialistic deterministic sense and yet he encourages himself constantly to change his thoughts and emotions. This has caused me to question if he truly felt that the determinism was final or not true determinism but merely influence?
Thank you for your article. I have only very recently become aware of Stoicism as a philosophy of life. Likely as you point out because it is “having a moment”. I should have been more skeptical because of that - as I tend to avoid following the crowd
I was attracted because of the ideas around the dichotomy of control and learning to “not stress” over things not on my control. There seem to be many troubling things out-my-control these days.
I found Massimo Pigliucci’s “A Field Guide to a Happy Life” and Gregory Lopez’s “A Handbook for New Stoics” as a way in.
I look forward to your further comment and your continued musings on note taking on YouTube.
Nice essay on stoicism. I like your critique against their holding to rational deliberative, ethical ascent, and fatalism. Seems correct.
I've never heard Taylor's concepts of the "buffered" and "porous" self. I have a few thoughts but, for brevity, I'll only share a couple.
Some stoics seem to be deterministic, but I think determinism is often stronger than Chrysippus' position. To some determinists, antecedent causes are necessary and sufficient for their consequence, right? There might be a bit of equivocation going on here if you call yourself a Christian compatibilist and determinist, but it's not my area of expertise, so maybe you could clarify.
If you believe in the separate, unique existence of consciousness, consciousness becomes epiphenomenal and spooky stuff. Aristotle's hylomorphism, as I understand it, is similar to emergentist theories of consciousness, which means it can stay in the causal chain regardless of your view on determinism. Obviously, you're discussing stoics, not Aristotle per se, but I wonder if you've come across that in your reading too.
Furthermore, interestingly, I've got a friend who is trying to defend a virtue ethics on something like the basis of a porous view of the self--namely, by arguing that virtues can be located in the social sphere/environment rather than the individual.
Anyway, good essay! Love to compare notes on philosophy with other Christians
Great essay. I had to read it a few times to understand and I think I still don’t understand half of it. I’m an engineer, not a philosopher. :)
Having said that, I find it practical to know what you can/should focus on and ignore what you can’t. To some level, it’s a relief but on the other hand, it can also be burden.
Morally, although you can only truly control your own feelings and behavior, than it is on you to behave as the best person you can be.
From a more “problem solving” standpoint (as an engineer tends to see files, as series of problems to resolve), by knowing that there are things you can’t work on, then it is on you to look for things you can work on and find a solution to.
At least, that’s how I think of this. As a Catholic myself (but not a scholar, just a regular dude who goes to Church for Christmas and Easter), I do believe that we are meant to help others, so sitting around and being lazy doesn’t jive with my mindset at all.
Anyway, I’ll be reading this essay several times over. Many terms in there I do not fully grasp. Thanks for the insightful essay.
Yeah there was indeed Stoicism had problems from the very beginning, of course there is nothing perfect like my english, but sometimes it feels like trend, first they love Stoicism when it’s rise, but after trending many people talk about Stoicism issues, i just want to say that someone read this just be what you want, be independent. Btw great essay, love this.
This was enlightening. I've found ideas from stoicism very helpful in my life the past few years. The personal responsibility and focus on ethics are simultaneously challenging and empowering. I can see the contradictions you highlight and it's understandable to not describe yourself as a stoic.
I relate to the issue of the word being highjacked so it's as likely to mean something other than what I intend. Or maybe I'm just too much of a philosophical hipster and I really only want to use words I get to explain.
I’ve noticed in Marcus, he often describes the world in a materialistic deterministic sense and yet he encourages himself constantly to change his thoughts and emotions. This has caused me to question if he truly felt that the determinism was final or not true determinism but merely influence?
Thank you for your article. I have only very recently become aware of Stoicism as a philosophy of life. Likely as you point out because it is “having a moment”. I should have been more skeptical because of that - as I tend to avoid following the crowd
I was attracted because of the ideas around the dichotomy of control and learning to “not stress” over things not on my control. There seem to be many troubling things out-my-control these days.
I found Massimo Pigliucci’s “A Field Guide to a Happy Life” and Gregory Lopez’s “A Handbook for New Stoics” as a way in.
I look forward to your further comment and your continued musings on note taking on YouTube.
For my highly mature and sophisticated response, I would like to offer this critique: BOO!
Nice essay on stoicism. I like your critique against their holding to rational deliberative, ethical ascent, and fatalism. Seems correct.
I've never heard Taylor's concepts of the "buffered" and "porous" self. I have a few thoughts but, for brevity, I'll only share a couple.
Some stoics seem to be deterministic, but I think determinism is often stronger than Chrysippus' position. To some determinists, antecedent causes are necessary and sufficient for their consequence, right? There might be a bit of equivocation going on here if you call yourself a Christian compatibilist and determinist, but it's not my area of expertise, so maybe you could clarify.
If you believe in the separate, unique existence of consciousness, consciousness becomes epiphenomenal and spooky stuff. Aristotle's hylomorphism, as I understand it, is similar to emergentist theories of consciousness, which means it can stay in the causal chain regardless of your view on determinism. Obviously, you're discussing stoics, not Aristotle per se, but I wonder if you've come across that in your reading too.
Furthermore, interestingly, I've got a friend who is trying to defend a virtue ethics on something like the basis of a porous view of the self--namely, by arguing that virtues can be located in the social sphere/environment rather than the individual.
Anyway, good essay! Love to compare notes on philosophy with other Christians