TheEarlOfCamden t1_iz90oqh wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Philosopher José Antonio Marina: 'The fact that happiness has become fashionable is catastrophic' by FDuquesne
But why do anything if your only goal is for things to happen as they will?
reboot_my_life t1_iz95j4m wrote
>But why do anything if your only goal is for things to happen as they will?
Acceptance wasn't the goal of Epictetus and the Stoics. Acceptance is a useful tool, but if used to it's own end, rather than a tool for pursuing virtue, it is more appropriate for a doormat than a philosopher.
The Stoics sought to live a eudaimonic life -- that is to say, a life worth living. Most of their philosophy is centered on what makes a good human -- one who lives in accordance with human nature, and they observed that the human was a rational animal who thrived on society. Thus the conclusion of stoicism, in order to live a life worth living, we must treasure reason and pro-social action.
To build this kind of character, and thus to live a good life, is independent of station in life, the whims of Fortuna, and in a word, anything external to the mind (even the body). One can be rational and pro-social if they are a slave with a broken leg, or if they are a Roman emperor.
This leads to the understanding that we should not be disturbed by acts of Fortuna, because they are external to our character and indifferent to the pursuit of virtue. In fact, any act of fortune must be seen only as an opportunity to practice virtue, and neither good nor bad in the real sense. This is not to say that one situation cannot be preferred over the other, but it cannot be rationally desired.
d4nu t1_iz9b41x wrote
A wonderful summary, thank you.
brutinator t1_iz9osfu wrote
Sorry if this is semantic, but what is the difference between "preferring a situation/outcome" and "(rationally) desiring a situation/outcome"?
reboot_my_life t1_izanwmc wrote
if you were given the choice of receiving ten million dollars or becoming a paraphalegic, I think it is obvious that you would prefer the ten million dollars, and rationally would do what is in your control to receive it. However, you must recognize that in the real sense, both outcomes are indifferent to your ability to cultivate virtue, and thus should not be approached with desire or aversion, because they are neither good nor bad.
It is only rational to desire true goods, and the only true good is virtue.
Casudemous t1_iz9uctw wrote
It is not semantic, it has different meaning. The difference is that preference are passion, thus are heteromous. I.g they happen to you. The rationally refer to reason and thus is autonomous i.g. you "make" them happen. (eddit was missing info)
Casudemous t1_iz9v73f wrote
Rationally desire is an oxymoron one is tied to the logos and the others to the pathos but you can for exemple rationally conclude but not desire
btas83 t1_iz9g8qw wrote
Happiness isn't the goal. It's the reward.
William_Dowling t1_iz9w3q5 wrote
> the human was a rational animal
1 out of 2 isn't bad, I suppose
simplySalad1234567 t1_iz98hu6 wrote
When you say external to the mind, but in that set of external things list the body, is that to say stoics believed the mind and body to be separate? Have there been attempts to adjust the philosophy in light of what we think we know about the mind being tied to the body/brain?
UncleGizmo t1_iz9am1k wrote
I think it’s more, “irrespective of your physical situation”, e.g., if you had a broken leg, or if you were born with a deformity, this wouldn’t necessarily restrict you from pursuing a life worth living.
kfpswf t1_iz9ad5d wrote
I'm not sure about Stoicism, but in Advaita Vedanta, which does have a striking similarity to Stoicism, the mind and the body are considered separate identities operationally, but are considered one entity. The mind affects the body, and the body affects the mind.
commonEraPractices t1_iz9lnqy wrote
In philosophy, this is called mind-body dualism, and it is famously well articulated by Descartes.
reboot_my_life t1_izapqh0 wrote
Most likely the stoics (the classical stoics) had a plurality of beliefs related to mind/body dualism -- some believed in a pneuma or soul, some did not. All believed that we -- whether mind or body, were part of an ordered universe, one giant machine of matter and logic, so even if body and mind were believed to be separate, they are still both part of logos.
Whether the mind exists out of the body's matter notwithstanding, Epictetus considers the body as external and not under our control, he says it right on page one of The Enchiridion actually. Despite your best intentions and efforts, you could be effected by cancer or be in an accident, for example. Neither situation is in your control, or prevents you from cultivating virtue, so to be emotionally disturbed by such events is irrational.
I think what the modern stoic must acknowledge, moreso than neurobiology, is that we now know that in some cases it may not be possible to control our own mind and we may lose our faculties of reason. Dementia being the most clear example but someone may fall victim to psychological disorders as well. This is tough to come to terms with and I personally am not sure I have a solution.
Tenderhombre t1_izcw260 wrote
Honestly stoicism has always felt a little like fatalism to me. Also a major problem I have is the not desiring an outcome. It's great when you are a class of people that enjoys privilege but kinda shifty for those of a lower strata.
simplySalad1234567 t1_izcagpy wrote
Thank you.
I just wondered if knowing what we now know of how the brain (physical) affects the mind if an updated version of stoicism would reflect the fact that even our minds don't seem to be fully under our control or exempt from fate/fortune.
[deleted] t1_iz9u8fd wrote
[deleted]
Mark_is_on_his_droid t1_izczl1q wrote
I started to hear Massimo Pigliucci reading this by the word eudaimonic.
yargotkd t1_iz9gp5y wrote
"Who thrived in society" "are a slave" hmm
reboot_my_life t1_izardgi wrote
Yes, a slave with a crippled leg, who's lessons were compiled into one of the most influential texts on ethics of all time, and who's legacy underpins the bulk of modern psychotherapy 2000 years later.
He lived a life in pursuit of virtue, with reason and pro-social action at its core. Does being enslaved or crippled have anything to do with cultivating either?
yargotkd t1_izasv6t wrote
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I don't like the idea of not being disturbed by Fortuna. I think one should actively fight and work against bad societal situations such as slavery, rather than learning how to live with it. I think thoughts like that lead to people not unionizing or not fighting for their rights. I didn't mean slaves could not be virtuous.
reboot_my_life t1_izautsy wrote
yes, and the stoics would say that you are morally required to take political action (if your intention is rational and pro-social), this is a core component of stoicism and what differentiates it from epicurianism (which is not the pure hedonism that many people think).
The stoics would say that you simply shouldn't have desire or attachment to the external result of your actions, rather than your intentions and actions themselves. They simply are not disturbed if their actions do not work out, instead they take fulfillment in being a person who pursues justice.
The layman often equates the meme comic with the dog in the room on fire saying "this is fine" with stoicism. If the dog were actually a stoic, he would be calmly but efficiently doing everything within his control to put out the fire.
wrt slavery specifically. In the Greco-Roman times slavery was thought of much differently than we do now. Many have wrote about this topic (mostly a lot of theologians and apologists) rationalizing slavery in the ancient times, but the truth is I just don't think we can simply relate to it. Obviously we've moved on and any rational person considers slavery horrible. But thinking about history begs us to question what do we think is OK nowadays, that future generations will think is horrible. I'm certain there is something.
kfpswf t1_iz92okv wrote
Because even with your best intentions and preparations, things will often not go your way. When you're detached from wanting certain outcomes, you're free from strife. It doesn't mean that you stop doing anything at all.
This is the same advice Krishna gives to Arjuna in Bhagvad Gita.
TheEarlOfCamden t1_iz93sni wrote
I guess I am struggling to see on what basis one would do anything (except perhaps the immediately gratifying) if one had no desires about future states of the world. Unlike Arjuna I can’t just ask a god what I should do!
angryherbalist t1_iz958tg wrote
its about attaching to an outcome, which causes suffering both if the outcome doesnt happen, or a delusion of control if it does.
it’s setting goals, having intentions, making choices, and instead of saying ‘i want this to happen’ you say ‘let’s see what happens’.
it’s curiosity, which ends in acceptance. acceptance that all of this shit is really random.
if you’ve ever done everything right and ‘failed’ then you can understand a bit easier.
TheEarlOfCamden t1_iz96681 wrote
What is a goal if not a desired outcome?
Is the idea that you say ‘I am working towards x, but I am indifferent as to whether x happens.’?
demo01134 t1_iz9aa2f wrote
I think the conflict causing the confusion here is that stoicism is meant to correct for the emotional mind, and acknowledges that humans are flawed and require over correcting. Stoicism doesn’t say that feelings are bad, but rather are something we can not directly control, and therefore we shouldn’t let them be involved in the rational thoughts of our day to day. A better way of phrasing your quotes is “I would personally prefer x to happen, but I know emotion prefers that outcome over logic, so instead I will pursue y, and will accept whatever outcome happens as fact”.
angryherbalist t1_iz99uwq wrote
acceptance.
attachment is the lack of acceptance.
you set goals, visions, dreams.
you identify all the things that could make that true.
you set out to accomplish all of those things.
and whatever happens, happens.
you can be disappointed, but your pain will be temporary. suffering lasts for as long as we remain attached to an outcome, and often grows in intensity
here’s a simplification:
‘i want my parents to live to their 80s’
your dad dies at 50.
it is painful.
you then spend the rest of your days wishing he were still alive, and that he made it to 80.
from 30-50, you spend your time attached to the idea that you want him to live until 80. worry, anxiety is the natural thing.
a dramatic example of our illusion of control.
while true we have more control in our lives than if/when someone dies, it’s not by much.
patientpedestrian t1_iza9ilg wrote
Attach your passions to the journey, not the destination. Do your best according to your current understanding of things, but know that your current understanding is incomplete and delight in the “surprises” of failure that allow you to improve that understanding.
Xabikur t1_izaidyv wrote
Others have said it really well, but what it boils down to, in every day parlance, is "hope for the best, prepare for the worst".
So certainly work towards your goals, but be prepared to find you don't reach them (incidentally, being resilient like this makes it more likely to reach your goals).
brownshoez t1_iz9dnwu wrote
You still set goals and try to achieve them (learn the piano for example). But if the outcome isn't what you set out for (you don't play Carnegie Hall) you don't lament it, but appreciate that you learned piano. Then set a new goal.
kfpswf t1_iz9562t wrote
>I guess I am struggling to see on what basis one would do anything (except perhaps the immediately gratifying) if one had no desires about future states of the world.
It's not that you can't work towards an aim, but just detach yourself from the expectation of outcomes. It's ok to want to become rich, so that you can help your near and dear ones, and work hard towards it. But always be aware that the outcome of your effort need not be plentiful always.
>Unlike Arjuna I can’t just ask a god what I should do!
You can read the Bhagvad Gita.
nicotinecravings t1_iz959e6 wrote
Try to do nothing. It is not easy
iamlikewater t1_iz9ih1f wrote
There is no such thing as nothing.
MetaDragon11 t1_iz94pje wrote
Your action contribute to things happening as they will, as does everyone else.
lordkisler t1_iz9jl0n wrote
Lead your horse to water, but pray for rain
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments