Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

simplySalad1234567 t1_iz98hu6 wrote

Reply to comment by reboot_my_life in Philosopher José Antonio Marina: 'The fact that happiness has become fashionable is catastrophic' by FDuquesne

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?

5

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.

18

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.

10

commonEraPractices t1_iz9lnqy wrote

In philosophy, this is called mind-body dualism, and it is famously well articulated by Descartes.

9

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.

3

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.

2

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.

1