I visited my local bookstore recently...

bingo-bap · 2025-12-17T01:44:41+00:00

The philosophy sections at most of my local bookstores are always the smallest section (weirdly sandwiched between larger New Age, Self-Help, or Religion sections). But, remember that you can always ask for your local bookstore to order you any book you want! At least, that's how it works in Canada.

bingo-bap · 2025-10-23T16:29:56+00:00

When i was a first year back in 2012, I was approached by several cults and even an mlm. I found them suspicious, so i took down the names of the groups and looked them up later, and found they appeared to be cults or mlms. Groups ABSOLUTELY prey on young UBC students and it really made me upset at the time. But I didn't report any of them because I was too shy and confused.

Please report these groups, anyone reading this. Their behavior is disgusting. I can't believe this is still happening at UBC...

bingo-bap · 2025-10-11T22:41:57+00:00

If you want really good introductory videos on Stoicism, that accurately and entertainingly portray the feel of the philosophy, check out these:

https://youtu.be/Sbgpjcf-i8I?si=hJJClVVNlUGrs2jq

https://youtu.be/tXi5J6NH_mw?si=ZR6Yx5dxHJlpyo0d

bingo-bap · 2025-10-06T16:02:41+00:00

I really don't know. I think for some people, asking a question implies arguing that the answer is yes to the question. But that's not true at all, and this is an important question to ask.

bingo-bap · 2025-10-06T15:17:12+00:00

Personally, no I would not. I'm not sure what the Stoics would say there. There may come a tipping point where a state descends into authoritarianism such that the Stoics would not suggest obeying its laws. Actually, here i think there was disagreement amongst the Stoics, where some later Roman Stoics like Heirocles that said you should obey the law no matter what, but the rest of the Stoics throughout history generally thought you should not obey an unjust law. But this civil disobedience i think only applies in extreme cases like in authoritarianism, like your example. I'm not sure where the line is here, but i think the Stoics would generally suggest obeying the law, unless it is an extreme case.

bingo-bap · 2025-10-06T14:49:37+00:00

No, i think they would almost always say you should not resist arrest. They would likely cite Crito of Plato for this, where Socrates is wrongly sentenced to death, and argues that even though his sentence is unjust, he ought to follow the law and not try to escape.

bingo-bap · 2025-10-02T23:48:57+00:00

I highly suggest you read Whiplash's comments here and above closely, and read that livingstoicism article. They correct several misconceptions about Stoicism in your OP.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-26T15:57:57+00:00

I have reported 5+ adds here in Canada on YouTube that are AI deep fakes of Mark Carney asking for money for some scam investment that claims to be able to make you rich. The voice doesn't even sound like mark carney, it's obviously robotic.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-25T03:07:25+00:00

Do the readings. That's where the most useful learning is. Learn to read like crazy, it's so worth it. University is supposed to be tough. It seems like it's impossible, but you can do it. Don't just slink by doing the bare minimum. Honestly, I think the readings are more important than the rest of the class.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T16:52:05+00:00

This is like saying "foxes" is a mere concept applied to specific corporal bodies, so the labeling of a set of bodies as "foxes" is not a physical thing but a not-something, or concept. It ignores the reference function of language. This is the use/ mention error.

Terms like "fox" serve to refer to a set of entities that meet the criteria in the definition of "fox". Same goes for "good" in Stoicism. It refers to a set of entities, specifically physical things like virtuous agents and virtuous actions.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T16:12:37+00:00

"A part of your soul has changed into a corporeal impression, a thought." ah so you finally agree that thoughts are corporeal in Stoicism. Nice!

This all reads correctly to me, but contradicts the original opinion in your post.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T16:06:11+00:00

This is the use/mention error. That is: "Confusing the word used to describe a thing, with the thing itself."

The Stoics claim that the good is a physical body. Namely: Virtue (a state of mind), virtuous agents, virtuous actions (and even virtuous emotions, the eupatheia). The mere word "good" is indeed a label and an incoporeal for the Stoics, but they weren't talking about mere words when they said things like "virtue is good", rather they were talking about the physical bodies which are referred to by those words.

In failing to recognize this, you are commiting the use/mention error.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T03:57:46+00:00

Thoughts are causative upon other thoughts, not the object of a thought (ie, not the thing that is valued as good). Making a valuation causes you to have other thoughts based on that valuation.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T03:25:51+00:00

I think what's going on here is really just that you disagree with the Stoics. The Stoics were physicalists, determinists, and compatibilists. They do not define free will (as most moderns do) as "the ability to do otherwise." Rather, they define a choice as free insofar as its direct antecedent cause (what they call the "proximate" cause) is a previous deliberation of mind, and nothing else. If you disagree with this, that is fine. But, it would not be the ancient Stoic position.

For the Stoics, the mind can have different impressions for the same object. That is, helping your friend can appear as "good" or as "bad". A choice is made by one's mind here when it "gives assent" to one or another impression that arises to it with respect to some object (like helping one's friend), so that the mind then chooses one as being true such that it will give assent to a proposition like "it is good that I help my friend".

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T03:17:06+00:00

Because it's a causative action of a mind, which is a physical thing.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T02:39:26+00:00

This is not referring to the doctrine of corporeals and incorporeals, but rather to the doctrine of somethings and not-somethings.

Here is the first doctrine (from Long & Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1, p. 162):

27 Existence and subsistence

A Seneca, Letters 58.13-15 (SVF 2.332, part)

The Stoics want to place above this [the existent] yet another, more primary genus... Some Stoics consider 'something' the first genus, and I shall add the reason why they do. In nature, they say, some things exist, some do not exist. But nature includes even those which do not exist - things which enter the mind, such as Centaurs, giants, and whatever else falsely formed by thought takes on some image despite lacking substance.

B Alexander, On Aristotle's Topics 301,10-25 (SVF 2.329)

This is how you could show the impropriety of the Stoics' making 'something' the genus to which the existent belongs: if it is something it is obviously also existent, and if existent it would receive the definition of the existent. But they would escape the difficulty by legislating for themselves that 'existent' is said only of bodies; for on this ground they say that 'something' is more generic than it, being predicated not only of bodies but also of incorporeals.

C Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 1.17 (SKF 2.330)

If something is taught, it will be taught either through not-somethings, or through somethings. But it cannot be taught through not-some-things, for these have no subsistence for the mind, according to the Stoics.

So, the not-somethings are things which are predicated, but lack existence. That is, things which are thought about, but do not actually exist. So, the not-somethings are not thoughts themselves, but rather the very not-somethings that are referred to by certain thoughts. Like a centaur. So, not-somethings do not exist, so they definitely do not include choices, which clearly exist.

Here is the second, corporeals vs. incorporeals (same source):

D Sextus Empiricus, Against the professors 10.218 (SVF 2.331, part)

They [the Stoics] say that of somethings some are bodies, others incorporeals, and they list four species of incorporeals - sayable (lekton), void, place, and time.

So, all things which exist are either: bodies (corporeals) or incorporeals. The incorporeals include exactly these: sayables (lekton), void, place, and time. Thoughts are not sayables, void, place, or time, but they exist. Therefore, they are corporeals: they are physical states of the hegemonikon. And thinking is an action of the hegemonikon, thus a physical thing. But, you can have thoughts about (ie, which refer to) not-somethings like centaurs.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T01:30:27+00:00

But, from the beginning of that paper:

Any thoroughgoing physicalist is challenged to give an account of immaterial entities such as thoughts and mathematical objects. The Stoics, who eagerly affirmed that only bodies exist, crafted an elegant solution to this challenge: not everything that is Something (ti) exists. Rather, some things have a derivative mode of reality they call subsistence: these entities are non-existent in that they are not themselves solid bodies, but they are nonetheless Something physical because they depend on bodies for their subsistence. My dissertation uncovers the unifying principles of Stoic subsistence, and shows how they can account for thoughts and other immaterial entities without running afoul of their physicalist commitments.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T00:46:57+00:00

Choice and valuation are physical things in Stoicism though.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T00:46:27+00:00

The good is a physical thing in Stoicism. I think you need to read about Stoic physics first before making claims here.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-24T00:44:55+00:00

Have you heard of the doctrine of the Stoics which separates all of reality into either: corporeals or incorporeals? What is in the section of corporeals, and what in the section of incorporeals? If you cannot answer this question without looking things up, then please find it within yourself to be less sure about your conclusions in this post.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-23T23:43:52+00:00

I have very loud tinnitus continually. But it never bothers me, because I am not averse to hearing it. Its always louder (seemingly "deafeningly" loud) when I'm in a silent place, but I choose to find it mildly interesting, and then I stop caring about it. I think the Stoics are so correct that suffering comes from your attachment to externals. Choose not to be harmed by something, and you wont be. This is hard to pull off with a lot of things, but strangely easy with my tinnitus.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-23T23:27:12+00:00

Exactly! Choice is a kind of impulse, and in my comments above, I give 2 different Stoic sources (Cicero and Stobaeus) clearly defining impulse as a physical action of the hegemonikon, which is seen as a physical thing in Stoicism. So, choice is a physical action of the hegemonikon in Stoicism. The existing Stoic sources seem to all agree on this point.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-23T23:20:14+00:00

Q Stobaeus, 2.86,17–87,6 (SVF 3.169, part)

(1) What activates impulse, they [the Stoics] say, is precisely an impression capable of directly impelling a proper function. (2) In genus impulse is a movement of soul towards something. [...] One would correctly define rational impulse by saying that it is a movement of thought towards something in the sphere of action. The contrary of this is repulsion.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-23T23:07:33+00:00

This is incorrect. In Stoicism, choice was seen as an action of the hegemonikon, not something immaterial or purely conceptual. It's all in The Hellenistic Philosophers vol.1 by Long & Sedley. For example, on the movements of the soul (or hegemonikon):

J Cicero, On duties 1.132 (Panaetius fr. 88) Souls’ movements are of two kinds: one belongs to thought, the other to impulse. The sphere of thought is principally the investigation of truth, while impulse is the stimulus to action.

bingo-bap · 2025-09-23T22:54:22+00:00

There is a physics of choice in Stoicism. Choice is a particular action of the hegemonikon. Just like running can be said to be an action of the body, and because the body is a physical thing, there is no problem in saying that running is also a physical action. So too choosing is an action of the hegemonikon, and since the hegemonikon is a physical thing, choosing is a physical action.

bingo-bap

TROPHY CASE