Stoicism

[Ares Land]

Unless you're a psychopath or something, the timeline usually goes like this from what I understand: You try to accomplish a task that is incompatible with dignity yet absolutely necessary for survival, get frustrated with it, repress the frustration, but then it returns in the guise of antisocial desperation. Has your livelihood (inclusive of immediate family) been threatened, forcing you, personally, to twist and turn like a rat on a sinking ship? Even if someone else had to do that for you, I wouldn't expect you to understand what they went through.

Sorry if you did have to go through that. Otherwise, watch F is for Family.

I'm terribly sorry, and I know that wasn't adressed at me, but could you rephrase that? I think you're onto something, but I'm not quite sure I get what you mean.

Either way, I'm not a Stoic. I think forcing emotions you don't feel and ataraxia are both phoney.

No, it's not really about forcing emotions; it's more like realizing some of the stuff you care about is phoney. Oh, and also that shit happens, and it's never the end of the world.

[rotting bones]

I'm terribly sorry, and I know that wasn't adressed at me, but could you rephrase that? I think you're onto something, but I'm not quite sure I get what you mean.

Uh, there is no deep inner meaning.

1. Your immediate family's livelihood is threatened.

2. Ensuring its survival forces you work a job that compromises your dignity.

3. This leads to frustration.

4. You repress the frustration to do your job well.

5. The frustration is expressed through meaningless associations with everything in society. As may be expected.

No, it's not really about forcing emotions; it's more like realizing some of the stuff you care about is phoney. Oh, and also that shit happens, and it's never the end of the world.

I learned about Stoicism a long time ago. Correct me if I've forgotten things.

In Stoicism, I don't like the idea of meeting your fate with dignity. This "fate" is created by the dignity with which its victims go to it. Unlike the Greeks, I think laws of nature are abstract physical mechanisms, not fate.

So what is the alternative? Every single victim should make such a big mess every single time that "fate" itself is overturned. Even if we can't change the outcome for ourselves, we may be able to collectively change them for others.

Think I'm exaggerating? People in India are not protecting themselves from Covid-19 because "whoever is fated for it will get it." Yes, really. Stoic sages didn't fight for the people against tyrannical Roman emperors and went to "meet their fate with dignity". You don't know what you can and cannot change until you try to change it collectively.

In Buddhism, I additionally don't like the idea of emotional transformation. Existential weight is in the words, not the feelings. The school of grammarians were right about that, but they were wrong to think that Sanskrit is special.

Edit: Somehow I managed to change "Ares Land" to "Linguoboy". Sorry.

[Ares Land]

I learned about Stoicism a long time ago. Correct me if I've forgotten things.

No, but Stoicism is often misrepresented. It's only natural, in a course on Greco-Roman history, philosophy or history of philosophy, you need to simplify things somewhat if you want students to get an idea of what all those identical-sounding schools stood for.

In Stoicism, I don't like the idea of meeting your fate with dignity. This "fate" is created by the dignity with which its victims go to it. Unlike the Greeks, I think laws of nature are abstract physical mechanisms, not fate.

The Greeks (or Romans) didn't have just one idea about fate. We usually think of it as Oedipus being assigned some awful fate by the gods or the Fates that he won't escape no matter what the does.
Fate in stoicism, while not quite our modern idea of determinism, is a bit more mechanical than that.

Think I'm exaggerating? People in India are not protecting themselves from Covid-19 because "whoever is fated for it will get it." Yes, really. Stoic sages didn't fight for the people against tyrannical Roman emperors and went to "meet their fate with dignity". You don't know what you can and cannot change until you try to change it collectively.

That is called the Lazy argument and it was refuted by the Stoic philosophe Chrysippus.
The gist of it is that whoever is fated to escape it is also fated with wanting to take proper precautions. (Not quite how Covid works, but whatever, I think you get my point).

The Stoics did fight against tyrannical emperors. Cato the Younger fought against Caesar; Stoic philosophers were exiled or killed by a suspicious Domitian.

From Severus: love of family, love of truth, and love of justice. To have got by his help to understand Thrasea, Helvidius, Cato, Dio, Brutus, and to conceive the idea of a commonwealth based on equity and freedom of speech, and of a monarchy cherishing above all the liberty of the subject.

Thrasea, Helvidius were executed for opposing the emperor, Cato and Brutus famously plotted against Caesar and went to civil war over their idea of the Roman Republic.

[rotting bones]

Admittedly, no. When I say that my life is a mess, admittedly I'm mostly talking about what are commonly called "First World problems".

That's good. I approve of fewer people having to go through it.

That is called the Lazy argument and it was refuted by the Stoic philosophe Chrysippus.
The gist of it is that whoever is fated to escape it is also fated with wanting to take proper precautions. (Not quite how Covid works, but whatever, I think you get my point).

I did not know about that. I also did not know that Brutus was a Stoic. Thank you. However, this does not address my full criticism.

The Stoics did fight against tyrannical emperors. Cato the Younger fought against Caesar; Stoic philosophers were exiled or killed by a suspicious Domitian.

I don't think Cato's brand of conservatism can stand up to the power of fate. The Roman economy was largely powered by slaves, a labor force that was replenished by war captives. When the captives stopped streaming in, the empire went belly-up. Cato opposed Spartacus and meanwhile, worried about his personal dignity. This is why I'm having a hard time conceiving of these people as wise. They seem to have no sense of priorities. I'm with Diogenes calling out "Vanity!" at passing crowds regardless of who went by.

Thrasea, Helvidius were executed for opposing the emperor, Cato and Brutus famously plotted against Caesar and went to civil war over their idea of the Roman Republic.

"Principled opposition", as in opposing the emperor with dignity. This is the root of my complaint. Stoicism doesn't seem to have a place for individual indignities securing dignity for a future collective. Half the momentum of insurrection comes from shocking the bourgeoisie or slaveowners, whoever is in charge. Spock has no business leading a revolution unless he at least pretends to have emotions. Spock should have cut off Jupiter's phallus and stuffed it up Nero's ass, slung his shit at the Pantheon; when they called him an ape, he should have treated a family of apes with the etiquette due to the emperor and said that they are far more human than the entire imperial family, etc. Whatever each situation called for. Not only that, but he should have taught others to do the same and beat the stuffing out of the bullies who would have tried to stop them. Once the authorities were discredited, he should have created a direct democracy including all sapients residing in the area.

If this behavior is compatible with Stoicism, then Stoics are comrades.

[Ares Land]

Heh. No, I don't think any Stoic would have condoned that. I think even the Cynics would have thought it excessive. Ancient philosophers weren't much for excess

Just to be a little pedantic: slavery was completely unquestioned in early, classical and late Antiquity. Even Spartacus wouldn't have wanted to abolish it.
The Romans had little trouble adapting to fewer war prisoners and fewer slaves, by the way. I don't think the empire went belly up because of that, it's more like they had fewer prisoners because they were going belly up. But that would be centuries after Cato's time. In fact part of the story of Caesar's rise to power was that having too many slaves around left many citizens without a living.

[rotting bones]

As for Rome adapting to a slave-free economy, that depends on what you mean by adaptation. Sparta would have collapsed without its slaves. Rome would not. On the other hand, the people who actually ran the place were rich from their family's slave farms. Adaptation would've probably been impossible without revolution. The ruling class wouldn't have simply let the people pass policies that hurt their slave business.

Spartacus wouldn't have abolished slavery, but if there were enough successful slave revolts, thinkers might have questioned the natural superiority of the ruling class. On the other hand, they might not. The philosophers thought they were being rational, but were they really? Either way, this is one way in which I suspect that Greek science gave the Stoics a false idea of what they can and cannot change.

To me, the Stoic opposition looks like a reactionary movement against populist imperialism. It's Caesar doling out grain to shore up support for himself against paleoconservative Stoics preaching a murderous morality at him. But there's no inherent reason why a popular movement must confer power on a strongman like Caesar or Stalin.

The core of my disagreement with Stoicism boils down to their inability to conceive of a universal resistance against tragedies of the commons. This idea would become more familiar in the Middle Ages because of changes in the economic situation.

PS. It's true the slaves were increasing during Cato's time. To me, his emphases still make him look like a short-sighted Talmudist. I don't agree that the slaves couldn't be replaced because of Rome's problems, but that's too far afield for now.

[rotting bones]

If we're done discussing Stoicism, I would like corrections of my beliefs regarding peripheral matters. In brief, my understanding is that Rome ran out of captives because by the time they had enslaved the last tribes with substantial numbers who were relatively easy prey (the Dacians?), the remaining populations (eg. the Germans) had reached a level of development that was sufficient to challenge Rome.

What else? I said both:

1. "This is the root of my complaint. Stoicism doesn't seem to have a place for individual indignities securing dignity for a future collective."

and

2. "The core of my disagreement with Stoicism boils down to their inability to conceive of a universal resistance against tragedies of the commons."

Unless some kind of logical implication can be established between these two statements, my position remains contradictory in matters of presentation if not substance. Since 2 clearly has priority over 1, is it really impossible for a "universal resistance against tragedies of the commons" to succeed without "individual indignities securing dignity for a future collective"? To me, this seems plausible, but I didn't establish the position through argument.

[Ares Land]

Re: slaves. I'm not entirely sure about when, exactly the number of captured slaves started declining.
I know Byzantines ans Germans still had Slav slaves. Hence the very word : 'slave'.

Otherwise the institution gradually turned into serfdom. (For that matter the helots could certainly be conceived off as serfs...)



As to your point 1and 2, that all depends on what you mean by 'indignities. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'trzgedy of the commons' here.

[rotting bones]

Re: slaves. I'm not entirely sure about when, exactly the number of captured slaves started declining.
I know Byzantines ans Germans still had Slav slaves. Hence the very word : 'slave'.

Otherwise the institution gradually turned into serfdom. (For that matter the helots could certainly be conceived off as serfs...)

The Germans probably had fewer captives than the Romans. If not, why were they so much poorer for so long? If it was because of a different economic system, I can't remember anything about that at the moment.

As to your point 1and 2, that all depends on what you mean by 'indignities. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'trzgedy of the commons' here.

Tragedies of the commons like the exploitation of workers hurting long term productivity. The people who actually made Rome prosper were worked to death as slaves. In my understanding, this undermined Roman power in the end. It was a bit like the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Indignities like rather than being afraid of looking like a fool, becoming a shameless activist and dragging the emperor down with you. I provided some colorful examples yesterday. (Some of this may actually be compatible with Mahayana Buddhism, which prioritizes stratagems over moral discipline. However, the stratagems are employed to end suffering, not to effect economic justice.)

It may be possible to end the exploitation of workers without looking like a fool, but when that becomes difficult, the former seems to have higher priority to me, being tied up with questions of long term survival. Is a Stoic's dignity really more important than economic justice or sustainable productivity?

PS. Or alternatively, the problem was not really with dignity, but with the fact that the Stoics didn't have an accurate understanding of what they can and cannot change.

[rotting bones]

Stoic logic is very interesting. I wish it had survived intact.

Given what you just said, part of the problem is not trying in some cases. Especially with China's mistreatment of the Uighurs. That should be a much larger issue at the moment.

I might support freeing Hong Kong depending on the method. Tax havens can probably look after themselves. But why the sudden enthusiasm to overthrow China and not Iran, where there are massive inequalities? Because in China, the corporations smell fresh meat. Could you overthrow Saudi Arabia first, or at least revoke executive order 13780 before throwing stones?

[rotting bones]

Ares Land: Is the Wikipedia article on Stoic logic accurate? "It is either day or night. It is day. Therefore, it is not night." is not a valid argument because it presupposes that day and night are mutually exclusive. (Midnight sun?) The valid form is listed as the conjunctive syllogism.

MacAnDàil: Are you suggesting that the current opposition to China has nothing to do with America's trade rivalry? I would support an attempt to install direct democracy in China, but is anyone arguing for that? Half the people seem to be complaining that corporations are not free to do business there. ("Communist economic system! Human rights!")

[Ares Land]

Ares Land: Is the Wikipedia article on Stoic logic accurate? "It is either day or night. It is day. Therefore, it is not night." is not a valid argument because it presupposes that day and night are mutually exclusive. (Midnight sun?) The valid form is listed as the conjunctive syllogism.

No idea! The works I read (Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus) dont' cover logic... But I think I'll research it, for conworlding purposes...

[MacAnDàil]

Ares Land: Is the Wikipedia article on Stoic logic accurate? "It is either day or night. It is day. Therefore, it is not night." is not a valid argument because it presupposes that day and night are mutually exclusive. (Midnight sun?) The valid form is listed as the conjunctive syllogism.

MacAnDàil: Are you suggesting that the current opposition to China has nothing to do with America's trade rivalry? I would support an attempt to install direct democracy in China, but is anyone arguing for that? Half the people seem to be complaining that corporations are not free to do business there. ("Communist economic system! Human rights!")

I would say that there is a massive difference between my own position (which includes priority on lack of genocide and anything resembling it, human rights and, preferably, direct democracy) and the position of the US government (which is nationalist antagonism in trade and other areas). India's border skirmish is a third position and other individuals will have other positions.

[rotting bones]

MacAnDàil: Do you have a plan to prevent corportations in China from being turned into people? The Saudi Arabia-led intervention in Yemen is still ongoing, mind you.

Ares Land: Maybe the Stoic "or" operator was the exclusive or (xor) rather than the disjunctive or? Even then the article is misleading IIRC. Or perhaps Stoic logic had some kind of convention to distinguish between the exclusive and inclusive "or"s that wasn't mentioned or I couldn't follow. Otherwise, maybe Stoics didn't distinguish between the two "or"s. In that case, Stoic logic had a gaping, fallacious hole in the middle.

Aside from logic, I have an issue with what appears to be Stoicism's total rejection of ambiguity. I think Stoicism largely accomodated itself to Greek religion (see the article on Stoic physics) because they were afraid of being bullied like that philosopher who had suggested that the sun is a stone. (Anaxagoras?) A huge aspect of Greek religion was respect for authority in practice. Based on Chrysippus' reaction to the Sorites Paradox, I'm starting to suspect that the Stoics talked about society functioning with slaves and assumed or concluded in line with Greek practice that society does function with slaves, or something like that. If I'm wrong, then is there a place in Stoicism for actively finding out what you can and cannot change? This is very important when the alternative is letting slaves be worked to death.

I'm not just "opposing slavery on utilitarian rights". The underpayment of workers by capitalist corporations leads to economic crises too. Total social capital grows when manufactures that improve the abilities of the working class are sold back to it, but corporations profit when workers are underpaid. All these societies exploit workers, threatening sustainable productivity in different ways. I have to figure out how Stoicism fits into the scheme. For example, the Optimates faction opposed debt relief for the plebs, etc. Was Stoicism somehow implicated in these policy choices?

[Ares Land]

. If I'm wrong, then is there a place in Stoicism for actively finding out what you can and cannot change? This is very important when the alternative is letting slaves be worked to death.

(...)

I have to figure out how Stoicism fits into the scheme. For example, the Optimates faction opposed debt relief for the plebs, etc. Was Stoicism somehow implicated in these policy choices?

Myself, I feel free to apply Stoicism according to my idea of virtue
The good thing is that it allows to use reason: you can follow the Stoics and disagree with them!

[rotting bones]

I finally read the SEP article on Stoicism.

1. It repeats the same idea on logic, so xor is probably what is meant.

2. Stoics were very much on board with uncertainty.

3. They supported positive emotions and caring for others. "The reforms instituted in Sparta (including the extension of citizenship to foreigners and the redistribution of land) were seen by some as a Stoic social reform, though it is less clear that it was anything other than an instrument of power for Cleomenes. ... The tradition of theories of natural law in ethics seems to stem directly from Stoicism. ... There seem to be strong affinities between the central role that Stoicism accords to judgement and the techniques of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or CBT."

4. They also accepted that radically divergent actions (e.g. cutting off your hand) may be appropriate given the circumstances.

5. They even appreciated the value of survival.

6. But according to Stoicism, the whole world is a quasi-biological (not mechanical) unity. They believed in natural preferences, and associated them with divine providence. Ugh. This does lead to the "meeting your fate with dignity" thing I said at the beginning. If my foot were rational, it would apparently desire to be muddy. "[The Stoic sage] only preferred to be wealthy if it was fated for her to be wealthy." This is "wisdom" in the bad sense of the word. If slaves were to accept their fate rather than seeking revenge and destruction, that would create a world I wouldn't want to live in.

[Ares Land]

Yes, Stoicism is sort of pantheistic.

Regarding you're last point: if reason tells you, as a slave, to seek revenge and destruction because it's the right thing to do, go do it. That's your date, if you will, and if you're a Stoic you'll be very happy doing it

CBT is stoicism. Albert Ellis just repackaged the Stoics in the fifties. And, paradoxically, I have my doubts about CBT!

Pepple often misunderstand Stoicism as probing inaction. If duty dictates that you participate in violent revolution, or go fight the Barbarians on the Danube, go do it! The only thing Stoici requires is that you be happy about it and ensure the resulting hardship with a smile.
So, to paraphrase Map Zedong, go make the revolution but don't expect it to be a dinner party!

[rotting bones]

Regarding you're last point: if reason tells you, as a slave, to seek revenge and destruction because it's the right thing to do, go do it. That's your date, if you will, and if you're a Stoic you'll be very happy doing it

Wouldn't work unless you're a psychopath like the fucking Naxalites who went around killing everyone. In Stoicism, truth is loosely an impression unalterable by reason, and the self along with the emotions forms a rational unity. It is possible that you know that seeking revenge and destruction is the right thing to do, but when doing it, you feel bad anyway. According to Stoicism, if you feel bad for even a single moment, that proves it cannot possibly be the right thing to do.* Only the sage lives in accordance with nature by never EVER doing anything that makes him feel bad, and everyone else is drowning all the time. Even the man drowning next to the shore is still drowning. The only difference is that it is easier for him to get to the shore than the man who is fifty fathoms below the surface.

What I'm about to say may sound really weird. Stoics did not try to become "the men of stone" because they valued logic over emotion, but because they did not believe that any part of the soul, including the emotions, is irrational at all. Part of the reason Platonism gained the upper hand in Late Antiquity seems to be that they admitted that an irrational part of the soul exists. Today, we all seem to be Platonists in this regard. This was the basis of classic Western ideas like knowledge being completed by faith in the truth.

Traditionally, we had faith in God because God is truth. The Ljubljana school replaces God with an existential "break". You start out with a vegetative-animal life where you are logically integrated with nature like in Stoicism. You then take a leap of faith in a cause, whether scientific, political, artistic or amorous. In this context, it is your neuroses that keep you from turning into a puppet of the cause. Your humanity is neither your natural life nor your membership in the Volunteer Fire Department but precisely the gap that prevents you from being able to wholly commit to either.

*Clarification: I agree that the Stoic solution here is to become a psychopath, not to refrain from revenge and destruction. I'm arguing that this won't do.

[quinterbeck]

Your humanity is neither your natural life nor your membership in the Volunteer Fire Department but precisely the gap that prevents you from being able to wholly choose either.

Is that a reference to a Series of Unfortunate Events?

[rotting bones]

Your humanity is neither your natural life nor your membership in the Volunteer Fire Department but precisely the gap that prevents you from being able to wholly choose either.

Is that a reference to a Series of Unfortunate Events?

Yes, I'm a fan.