It’s a terse and breezy reading assignment in Little History today in CoPhi, on the Stoics Epictetus, Cicero, and Seneca. We're also looking at the first half of our chapter on Right & Wrong, concerned mainly with deontologists and utilitarians. (They're bumping last year's complementary discussion of Stoics & Pragmatists.)
’Being philosophical’ simply means accepting what you can’t change, for instance the inevitable process of growing older and the shortness of life.
‘Stoic’ came from the Stoa, which was a painted porch.
Like the Sceptics, Stoics aimed for a calm state of mind. Even when facing tragic events, such as the death of a loved one, the Stoic should remain unmoved. Our attitude to what happens is within our control even though what happens often isn’t. [The Philosophy of Calm, Ph'er Mail]
Stoics think we are responsible for what we feel and think. We can choose our response to good and bad luck… They believe emotions cloud reasoning and damage judgment.
The brevity of life and the inevitability of aging were topics that particularly interested Cicero and Seneca.
Cicero said old people can spend more time on friendship and conversation. He believed the soul lived forever, so old people shouldn’t worry about dying. [Epicurus already told us they needn't worry in any event.]
“The greatest obstacle to living is expectancy, which hangs upon tomorrow and loses today… The whole future lies in uncertainty: live immediately.” Maria Popova, Brainpickings
The Stoic ideal was to live like a recluse… studying philosophy and get[ting] rid of those troublesome emotions.
["Seneca falls"... "dead stoics society"..."philosopher walks"..."premeditation"..."per aspera"..."self-sufficient"... Seneca on anger (de Botton)... (The Shortness of Life: Seneca on the Art of Living Well Rather Than Living Long - Brainpickings) The Shortness of Life: Seneca on Busyness and The Art of Living Wide Rather Than Living Long]
|The New Yorker (@NewYorker)|
Seneca’s plays were gore-fests. His wealth was vast. He counselled tyrants. And he called himself a Stoic?nyr.kr/1EPqUOh
|Book of Life (@bkoflife)|
Philosophical meditation, a guide thebookoflife.org/
But Nigel Warburton‘s question is right on target: at what price? If you’re even half human, like Mr. Spock, you’ll only damage yourself by suppressing your affective side. Calm may not be the greatest good, after all. On the other hand, Stoicism is widely misunderstood - even by Vulcans. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/ … @mpigliucci
Anyway, Roman philosophy is under-rated. The Romans have done a lot for us.
And not all emperors were so bad as Nero. Marcus Aurelius was actually quite sane, and humane.
And if Stoicism can turn the chill of age into the warmth of experience, friendship, and joyous memory, that's quite an achievement. The older I get, the more I appreciate old Seneca's wisdom about time (not that it's in such short supply but that we're such bad managers of it). But I continue to question his passive compliance with crazy Nero. Is that Stoicism or impotent resignation? Surely there's a difference.
The Euthyphro Dilemma is on our plate today. "Is the pious or holy [or, ethically speaking, the right or the good] beloved by the gods because it is holy [right. good], or holy (etc.) because it is beloved?" Euthyphro didn't grasp the issue. Do we? Either God's not the source of good, or good's good only nominally and arbitrarily. Nigel implies there's something destructive or Hobson-ish about this choice, but isn't it just blindingly clear that pole A is the one to grab? Well no, it won't be to many students. A good discussion is called for.
"Deontology," a scary word for a scary over-devotion to "duty." Or so I'll say, today.
And, time permitting, I'll put in some good words for both Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill's respective versions of consequentialist utilitarian hedonism. Let's not choose, let's pick cherries.
Finally, the bonus topic: Robert Nozick's Experience Machine. Fire it up, we'll see if anybody really wants to step inside.
I'm "flipping" my classes these days, which practically means less of my "content" explicated during the precious minutes of classtime (though it's still right here for the taking, as always) and more group discussion. I like my DQs today, especially Do you think the only thing preventing you from being good is the fear of divine retribution for being bad? Or do you think that to be good one must simply believe in goodness and reciprocity ("Do unto others" etc.)?
In other words, Julia Sweeney, Why aren't the godless all "rushing out and murdering people"?
And, Is it better to be a sad but wise Socrates than to be a happy but ignorant fool?
Don't worry, be happy is not too far off the path of wisdom, is it?