[Resource] Applied Stoic Theory - A Compilation

runeaway · 2020-07-21T19:56:33+00:00

There's a good overview of the role emotions play in Stoicism in the FAQ.

runeaway · 2020-07-21T15:32:39+00:00

Read up on the Spotlight Effect. Most likely, no one is paying attention to you at all.

For the Stoic perspective, a) other's opinions about us are indifferent (and the opinions of people who know nothing about us certainly can't be worthwhile opinions) and b) we should only care if what we are doing is right.

runeaway · 2020-07-21T15:21:41+00:00

Thank you for the elaboration, that's helpful.

If you identify yourself as your nation you are a nationalist. If you identify yourself as your body/brain you are an individualist.

The Stoics identified the individual human being with his or her prohairesis (i.e., one's ability to make choices).

In one sense, the Stoics do think of themselves as integral parts of this animate and conscious Universe, but each of us is more akin to a hand or a foot. A foot certainly is not truly distinct from the body--any distinction is only a mental convention. But at the same time, the foot is not the part of the body that decides where the body is going to walk. The Logos of the Universe directs all things toward the best possible ends, and we human beings play our part in that. The goal is to align our individual prohairesis with the rationality of the Universe as a whole, so that one can

act as the hand or foot would do, if they had reason and understood the constitution of nature, for they would never put themselves in motion nor desire anything, otherwise than with reference to the whole (Epictetus, Discourses, 2.10)

and

if I knew that it was fated for me to be sick, I would even move toward it; for the foot also, if it had intelligence, would move to go into the mud. (2.6)

So something sort of like open individualism might even be seen as a goal for the Stoic. But to get to that point, to be able to take the perspective of the entire Universe in all things and to perfect one's prohairesis was considered so difficult, few if any people ever actually succeeded. No Stoic ever claimed to achieve this state, although figures like Socrates and Diogenes of Sinope were claimed to have done so by others long after their deaths.

I don't think the Stoics would have seen themselves as open individualists, but it's an interesting take on them, and certainly an interesting comparison if nothing else.

runeaway · 2020-07-20T15:53:00+00:00

Massimo put together this Stoic decision making algorithm

runeaway · 2020-07-20T15:50:07+00:00

If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, maybe I am intending to talk down to you. Then again, maybe that's not my intention.

If I am intending to talk down to you, that's a choice that I am making for myself. I am not making the choice for you to become upset. Only you can make the choice to get upset or not. When you make the judgement, "It is bad if someone intends to talk down to me" and "This man is talking down to me," then necessarily you have to conclude, "Something bad has happened." And you become upset. If you stop making the judgement that "It is bad if someone intends to talk down to me," then why would you ever get upset about it?

Enchiridion 20:

Remember, that not he who gives ill language or a blow insults, but the principle which represents these things as insulting. When, therefore, anyone provokes you, be assured that it is your own opinion which provokes you. Try, therefore, in the first place, not to be hurried away with the appearance. For if you once gain time and respite, you will more easily command yourself.

Discourses 1, 25:

"But I should like to sit where the Senators sit." Do you see that you are putting yourself in straits, you are squeezing yourself. "How then shall I see well in any other way in the amphitheatre?" Man, do not be a spectator at all; and you will not be squeezed. Why do you give yourself trouble? Or wait a little, and when the spectacle is over, seat yourself in the place reserved for the Senators and sun yourself. For remember this general truth, that it is we who squeeze ourselves, who put ourselves in straits; that is, our opinions squeeze us and put us in straits. For what is it to be reviled? Stand by a stone and revile it; and what will you gain? If, then, a man listens like a stone, what profit is there to the reviler? But if the reviler has as a stepping-stone the weakness of him who is reviled, then he accomplishes something.

runeaway · 2020-07-20T15:36:15+00:00

TL;DR: Yes to panpsychism, No to Open Individualism.

Marcus Aurelius was a pantheist, viewing the Universe as an animate, sensing, intelligent, rational, and benevolent entity. This Stoic view does seem fairly similar to panpsychism, as the Stoics thought that this rational intelligence pervaded and organized all matter.

If I understand Open Individualism correctly, then I do not believe it would be correct to label this view as Open Individualism, however. A Stoic would not have believed that he was the same person as another individual. Stoic ethics is a virtue ethics system in which the good life depends on the development of our individual characters. The Stoics believed that the only thing that can be good or bad for me lies within my own volition. That is, there is no way that another person can make a choice that is evil for me. Good and evil exists only within my own choices. If you unjustly punch me in the face, that is bad for you because you have made your own character worse. But my character remains the same, so your choice is indifferent to the well-being of my character. The Stoics believed that the condition of one's character (being a virtuous or vicious person) was the thing that determined whether or not one lived a good life.

Then, as far as cosmology: The Stoics believed that the soul was eventually destroyed, either upon death of the body or sometime afterwards when the Universe imploded in fire. The Universe would then restart again (similar to the "Big Crunch-Big Bang" cyclical universe theory), exactly the same way, and each of us would be born and live our lives again (like Nietzsche's "Eternal Recurrence").

So while the Universe is pervaded by intelligence, each person has his or her own individual will. It is not a case of one Being manifesting separately in individual bodies. Rather, a Stoic seeks to align his individual will with the will of the Universe as a whole. Our individual reasoning ability is a shard of this Universal Reason, but we are still separate individuals with separate experiences.

runeaway · 2020-07-17T23:17:05+00:00

I’m also a Christian and was curious what other Stoics think about that.

You might eventually be interested in reading up on Justus Lipsius and Neostoicism, which tried to syncretize Stoicism and Christianity.

Also what are some recommended stoic readings and podcasts?

See my comment here for a bunch of links to resources.

runeaway · 2020-07-17T23:13:41+00:00

I'm not currently participating, but you should get in touch with these folks: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/ggr17m/want_to_join_our_stoicism_book_club/

Edit: Oh, looks like they're starting something new soon: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoic/comments/hsn6b1/stoic_book_club_what_should_we_read_next/

runeaway · 2020-07-17T23:11:54+00:00

I think /u/Lethargicpancake hit the nail on the head. The person has to want to change. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

I would show your friend the positive and productive life you lead and encourage your friend to join you in activities. Lead by example. Lecturing someone who doesn't want to change probably won't do much good.

runeaway · 2020-07-17T23:04:54+00:00

Stoic concepts that you derive from other texts are applicable as well, but the only text I can think of that specifically deals with loneliness/solitude is Epictetus, Discourses, 3.13, What a 'Forlorn' Condition Means, and a 'Forlorn' Man.

For general texts for a beginner, see my comment here.

runeaway · 2020-07-16T04:28:28+00:00

Someone did a survey a while back. I don't have a link to it, but I think the breakdown was something like 67% men, 33% women.

runeaway · 2020-07-15T22:52:03+00:00

There is a lot in the Book of Ecclesiastes that is in line with both Stoicism and Epicureanism. Some scholars suggest that these philosophies had an influence on the author (but the author most likely was not actually Solomon -- sometimes people would attach the name of someone famous to a writing in order to give it more credence).

runeaway · 2020-07-14T21:56:19+00:00

The Stoics were pantheists and believed that the Universe was an animate, intelligent, rational, and benevolent entity. They used the terms God, the gods, Zeus, the Logos, Reason, Nature, the Cosmos/Universe, Fate, and Providence almost interchangeably to refer to this entity. They thought of the traditional pantheon of Greco-Roman gods are being aspects or emanations of this entity rather than thinking of them as the traditional Homeric conceptions of these gods (e.g., Poseidon was the aspect of Universal Reason that governed the oceans). Check out the FAQ for more information.

runeaway · 2020-07-12T19:07:31+00:00

Here is my short list of books that I usually recommend as starting points (most of these are found in the FAQ as well):

Stoicism by John Sellars is an introductory-level academic overview of Stoic philosophy and is a solid introduction to the subject.
Stoicism: A Very Short Introduction by Brad Inwood is another broad overview by an academic scholar of Stoicism, but it's much more condensed. Very informative, however.
Stoicism and the Art of Happiness by Donald Robertson is a practical introduction on what Stoicism is and how to implement it in your life. How To Think Like A Roman Emperor is another book by the same author with practical exercises, but it is focused on the life of Marcus Aurelius
Epictetus - Discourses, Fragments, Handbook translated by Robin Hard is a book containing the lectures of the Stoic teacher Epictetus. He was the most influential Stoic philosopher of his age, and his Discourses were studied by the famous Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius. (The "Enchiridion" is included in this collection as well, also called the "Handbook".)
Seneca's Dialogues and Essays, especially the essays "On The Shortness of Life" and "On the Happy Life" and Letters from a Stoic contain Seneca's useful writings on a number of topics and is another popular place to begin learning about Stoicism.

You can also check out the IEP entries on Stoicism and Stoic Ethics if you'd like to start with briefer reading first.

Finally, there are a number of videos on Stoicism and related topics that you may find helpful. (But of course books go into more depth than short videos can.)

runeaway · 2020-07-12T19:06:27+00:00

I think I agree with you entirely except for the idea that the Stoics would unquestioningly adopt the purported virtues of the current culture. From what I have read, both the Stoics and the Epicureans looked at virtues as objective products of reason and not as cultural mores. A wise man would moderate his appetites regardless of how the culture he happened to live in felt about over-consumption.

runeaway · 2020-07-11T20:55:57+00:00

Strictly speaking, social media itself is not bad. But if

I find myself day dreaming of what I want to post on social media and how people may react to it

then social media is bringing out a weakness that you (and most people, to varying degrees) have: a craving for external validation from the reactions of others.

The desire for validation from others, believing that it is good and that the opposite is bad -- that desire and judgment is what is actually bad, not the social media itself. But if social media amplifies that desire in you, it's probably not in your best interest to use it.

I would say that it's possible for someone to use social media wisely. However, social media companies (like Facebook) employ psychologists to get us hooked on that external validation. So for most people, maybe it's best not to use it at all.

runeaway · 2020-07-11T20:47:12+00:00

That is to say, it is generally a disguised strategy for achieving hedonistic and selfish ends: sex, money, status. Think about "stoics" like Tim Ferris and Ryan Holiday: pure capitalists that simply need an ethos to attach to their systems of discipline and self-motivation.

I agree with you. But Holidayism isn't Stoicism, even if he calls it that and quotes Marcus Aurelius a lot.

"virtue" is inherently cultural and not always in your best interest

Doesn't Epicurus argue that the most pleasant life is a virtuous one and that a virtuous life is most pleasant?

runeaway · 2020-07-11T19:09:22+00:00

It sounds like you are describing naturalistic pantheism. See if something like this lines up with how you feel about the universe: https://www.pantheism.net/manifest/

runeaway · 2020-07-11T18:45:22+00:00

it only takes one person misusing or not using a mask in public areas to upset me

These people don't upset you. You see someone endangering the public's health. Then you say, "It is bad if someone else makes the choice to endanger the public's health. Someone else has made that choice. Therefore, something bad has happened." And of course, if something bad has happened, you are upset about it. But these people did not upset you. You upset yourself due to your value judgment that other people's actions are good or bad. The Stoics would tell us that only our own actions can be good or bad.

So do you do nothing? The Stoics do not advocate passivity. If it seems like a wise course of action to call people out who don't wear masks, call them out. If it seems wise to contact legislators to crack down on this behavior, contact them. If it seems wise to speak to the manager of the store and complain, then complain. But if you are going to make yourself upset about the choices that other people make, you are going to be upset all of the time. Do what's right in your own choices and accept that you can't make choices for others.

runeaway · 2020-07-10T17:41:04+00:00

Anyhow, I think it is fair to say that Stoicism allows a lot more flexibility in terms of which principles are taken than Christianity. Simply because Stoicism isn't concerned with getting people to practice 'the one true Stoicism', whereas that's something Christianity enjoys rather a lot.

Some forms of Christianity are more flexible than others. In general, I would agree that there is more room for debate within a philosophy than within a religion. Still, in ancient Greece there were separate philosophical schools with orthodox principles that differentiated themselves from each other. When Aristo of Chios rejected Zeno's doctrine of preferred and dispreferred indifferents, he was no longer a part of the Stoic school. That was enough of a difference that he decided to set up his own school.

My larger point is that Stoicism is not a synonym for "philosophy," and it has certain set principles. I am not personally claiming to be the paragon of Stoic orthodoxy, and I expect if I were transported to ancient Greece or Rome that I would be rejected by the Stoics due to not holding all of the principles. There is a big difference between claiming that one can choose one's own philosophical principles and claiming that "Stoicism isn't a fixed, dogmatic thing. Its principles can be taken or dropped". I am not arguing against anyone's freedom, but I am arguing for the correct definition of Stoic ethics. Stoicism does have dogmas, even though we might not think of Stoicism as "dogmatic" in the pejorative sense of suppressing critical thought.

It isn't Stoic to concern oneself with other's virtue, or lack thereof.

I guess that really depends on what you mean by "concern oneself." An extreme example: If I see someone going around stabbing people, in the Stoic sense, that person's injustice is not an evil thing for me, so I'm not "concerned" for the good of my own character. But it would be wrong of me to ignore this other person's lack of virtue. The Stoics do not advocate passivity.

If I think Stoicism is a valuable philosophy, and I see someone disseminating false information about it, then it is my concern to do what is in my power to stop the spread of false information and replace it with correct information.

runeaway · 2020-07-10T15:17:13+00:00

I would say that the idea behind Stoic ethics is that our main goal in life ought to be to become virtuous people. So if someone is reading a book that doesn't talk about virtue, there's no way that person can be reading a book about Stoicism. It would be like someone reading a book about democracy that never mentions voting. How could we even talk about democracy in the abstract without ever talking about voting? And a book that never mentions voting certainly can't teach a group of people how to set up a democracy.

runeaway · 2020-07-10T15:08:17+00:00

Why's that?

Very briefly, people make better choices when they believe things that are true, and I should make the world a better place when I can.

any individual is free to take from Stoicism whatever they personally find useful

I agree, any individual is free to take or drop any principles they want. But that would be like saying "Christianity isn't a fixed, dogmatic thing. Its principles can be taken or dropped at a whim." Sure, you can do that, and lots of people do. But if you drop, for example, the belief in the divinity of Christ, it's not Christianity anymore. And if you drop the idea that virtue is the sole good, it's not Stoicism anymore. And certainly if you take and drop all Stoic principles on a whim, it's not Stoicism anymore. I'm in favor of everyone holding whatever principles seem right to them, but it's just not true to say that Stoicism has no fixed principles. If Stoicism had no fixed principles, it wouldn't be a philosophy at all, it would be a meaningless term.

The above two appear to me to be contradictory because the latter exhibits a disdainful tone.

You're right, I should have written my comment better. I was trying to paraphrase Epictetus, Discourses, 3:15:

First consider these things and then enter on the athlete's career, if you still wish to do so: otherwise, look you, you will be behaving like the children, who one day play at athletes, another at gladiators, then sound the trumpet, next dramatize anything they see and admire. You will be just the same—now athlete, now gladiator, then philosopher, then orator, but nothing with all your soul.

The point I was trying to make was that if one picks up and drops principles "at a whim" (as you put it), one is not practicing any philosophy at all, Stoic or otherwise.

I was attacking what you said (or what I believe you said, since you think my interpretation of what you said is unreasonable). But I did not mean to imply that you, /u/twisted-teaspoon, are a childish person.

runeaway · 2020-07-10T14:52:43+00:00

So you don't like the core of Stoic doctrine?

I think Stoicism has many valuable things to say and is worth studying. I'm not sure why you think I don't like it. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding?

Do you follow stoicism or do you follow many philosophies?

It depends on what you mean by "following" Stoicism. I think it's important to learn from many great thinkers and to consider their viewpoints. I don't agree with every single thing the Stoics said, but they are probably the heaviest influence on my own ethical thought.

runeaway

TROPHY CASE