Talk:Stoicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] The Influence of Stoicism

I was wondering if instead of having "Stoicism's influence on Christianity" as a separate section, it might be better to have a section entitled "The Influence of Stoicism", which could also include Renaissance and Enlightenment thought, and the current resurgence of interest in Stoic ideas. Solri 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passions, Reason and Virtue

"Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous." Maybe I'm quibbling, but I think the important point in Stoicism is that passions are the result of incorrect reasoning (although once activated, of course they tend to produce further error). Similarly, while it is trivially true that the pursuit of truth is virtuous for the Stoics (as for almost all classical and Hellensitic philosophers), the uniquely Stoic doctrine is that correct judgment is identical to virtue (which in turn is necessary and sufficient for happiness). Solri 13:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to humanism?

When I read the "brotherhood" section of this article, I instinctively thought of a clear link to the central ideas of humanism, but this is absent from the article. I've not contributed to this article yet, and I'm reluctant to just start editing, so I just want to post the question for input from other people. So; am I wrong here?

Cheers, flnielsen 10:12, April 22, 2006

You might have a point. So certianly more reading will be neccesary to improve the article, as if you are confused, the it needs fixing. It also seems like few people watch this page, so it's kind of out of the spotlight. Feel free to start editing and know that it's for the best and that at least one member of the WP:HEC is ready to help! -- ∞Dbroadwell 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of humanism you're talking about. Stoicism can be regarded as a humanistic philosophy because of its cosmopolitanism and the idea that all adult humans are sparks of the "artistic fire" (pyr technikon - the translation is Long's) a.k.a. Zeus. More specifically, Stoicism places humans in a unique position because of their faculty of language and hence reason (this radical division between humans and opther creatures is explained well in Nussbaum, Martha Craven, The Therapy of Desire: theory and practice in Hellenistic ethics Princeton University Press 1994). On the other hand, the degree to which renaissance and modern ideas of humanism were influenced by the Stoics is a matter of much disagreement. Solri 13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i don't understand

I don't understand, wouldn't "living according to nature" INCLUDE living according to love, pain, feelings, etc? Why is only reason part of nature?

-dan_d4n@hotmail.com

Yes--for the Stoics, reason / nature included feelings. In modern times, the word "reason" has a more restricted definition ("rational thought"). Stoic "Reason" was more like "cause and effect" (the "reason" behind things)--much more like concepts of Tao or Logos.

Stoic Reason IS the concept of Logos. Reason is one common translation of this word, and logos is preserved in some translations. Whilst nature included feelings, this does not necesitate either an emotional or physical response to them. Reason allows us to understand WHY we feel what we feel, and react rationally.

[edit] Moving this section to the talk page

[edit] Stoicism and Altruism

Which stoic held that stoicism "teaches that altruism is the primary good in life and is all that is required for happiness"? Does anyone have a source to cite?

Cheers, barce 12:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could change the word "altruism" to something else. I don't think Stoicism advocates martyrdom, which altruism means to some. Still, generosity, kindness, compassion, service to the community and duty to others are all basic tenets of the philosophy and are mentioned by many Stoics. The happiness of one is linked to the general well-being of all, so "self" and "other" hold equal priority. This is especially true in a material sense--you might as well be generous, since the only "real" possessions a Stoic has are reason, choice, and virtue--everything else is fleeting. Some passages from Marcus Aurelius:

"What does not benefit the hive is no benefit to the bee"--Meditations VI:54

"All things are woven together and the common bond is sacred, and scarcely one thing is foreign to another, for they have been arranged together in their places and together make the same ordered universe." --Meditations VII:9

(sorry, the meditations is all I have handy--if someone has some other sources, that would be ideal).--Pariah 19:28, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is the Stoic perspective on happiness and the Good?

The Stoics believe in a process of virtue accompanied by reason in order to seek happiness. They argue that if you do this you will lead a good life. They also believe that power breeds non virtue. A stoic must also seek an attunement with nature. An example of a stoic would be Seneca, a Roman advisor to an emperor. Although he was a stoic he was forced to commit suicide. Many people in power, especially emperors, did not like stoics, because they did not like that they had the ability to control their emotions, even before the throne of power. The Stoic view of the search for happiness is similar to Aristotle’s view in that a person must seek virtue with the aid of reason and virtue. An example of a stoic philosopher king was Marcus Aurelius, but he was not a good king, although he is considered by many people to be a very good emperor. The reason that he is not a good king is because he sought knowledge for itself, like Prospero in the Tempest. A king should not primarily be concerned with seeking knowledge; they must concern themselves more with ruling. I admire Marcus Aurelius, but I would have preferred that he had restored order to his house (especially with his son Comates) instead of seeking knowledge for itself. Nature has a lot of irony; the philosopher king has a very vulgar son.

Doesn't seem like it belongs in the article. --128.138.169.68 21:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't but it was an interesting read, if true Piepants 20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants

[edit] Stoic Spiritual Ethics

Added descriptions of Stoic concept of passion, as well as some notes on Stoic Spiritual Exercises. --Pariah 03:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Pariah. The Stoic Spiritual Exercises is a good addition to this article. I took the liberty of changing Stoic Spiritual Exercises to a heading level within Stoic Ethics. Following Zeno of Citium, most Stoics categorized philosophy broadly into concepts they called Logic, Physics, and Ethics. (These terms being, of course, not exactly what we'd use to call those concepts today.) So, to preserve their categories, I thought that the present two headings for Ethics and Physics ought to be at a level where a third heading for Logic could be added later. I hope this change makes sense to you and is OK. --Tregonsee 21:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stoicism: past versus present

Is it an oversight or intentional that some parts of the article refer to Stoicism and Stoics in present tense (eg. Stoicism is a school of philosophy which teaches... and A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its...) while other parts make it sound like Stoics and Stoicism either no longer exist or have changed (eg. Stoicism was not just a set of beliefs, it was about... and Philosophy for a Stoic was... ). Thoughts? --Ds13 08:42, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

It's an oversight; the inevitable product of multiple authors. There are certainly modern Stoics. We should edit the document to be in the present tense.--Pariah 23:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

When you say that there are certainly modern Stoics, what are your grounds? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll yield to Pariah's answer to the question addressed to him/her (him --Pariah), but here are my $0.25... There are books on Stoicism (at least one that I'm aware of, the one referenced in the article by Lawrence Becker) that show how Stoicism is separate from its naturalistic assumptions and is used in life today. (That modern author calls himself a Stoic, for what it's worth.) Anyways, if I remember correctly, his claim is that the credo of Stoicism from Zeno right through today hasn't changed at all (i.e. that virtue alone is the key to living) and that the naturalistic stuff was just window dressing for the times. --Ds13 15:01, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

In answer to Mel, I guess it'd be more accurate to say there are people today who consider themselves Stoics. I'd consider myself one, but I'm half a dozen other things too, and my inner-Cynic hates labels ;)

Adding to Ds13's comment, there's been a lot of recent interest in Stoicism (and virtue ethics in general). Stoic works and academic commentaries are easier to find than a few years ago. Some good discussions include Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot, and The Courage to Be by Paul Tillich, where he argues that Stoicism is the best alternative to Christianity in the western spiritual traditions. There's a little Stoic reasoning embedded in modern Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, too; and further back, the Transcendentalists were at least somewhat influenced by the Stoics.

Theatrical Stoics--Terence Stamp's character in Red Planet was undeniably Stoic. Also, in an unnamed chunk of recent made-for-TV movie, a woman trapped in an elevator claimed to be a Stoic, which she summarized: "Realize what you can and cannot control, and take responsibility for your actions." Of course, there's the most famous & quintessential Stoic, Spock; though more recent Vulcans are definitely NOT Stoics.

Out of curiostiy, can you elborate on the separation of Stoicism and its naturalistic assumptions mentioned in the articles?

--Pariah 19:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the book references. The main naturalistic assumption I'm referring to is belief in the Logos. I don't claim to be a Stoic and my study of them is not comprehensive, but more than one source (e.g. the Becker book) argues that Stoicism does not need the Logos to remain Stoicism. This is significant to modern people interested in Stoicism, I think, because they may be dedicated to virtue but find the Logos hard to swallow because it requires faith in an invisible, animating force of the universe (reason- and knowledge-based as it may be). That's all I know! --Ds13 20:29, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Thanks DS--I was just curious. I guess it all depends on how Logos is defined. Christian scholars often identified Logos with God, and originally was rooted in Greek physics. Presumably modern scholars wish to break these associations. I always figured the logos was not so much an animating force, but the totality of everything animated, leaving it compatible with modern science. If that's true, Stoic ethics simply spring from the logical implications of a complex, dynamic world, just as they do in many Eastern philosophies. No matter. Virtue for its own sake is still a good thing--Pariah 22:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

As for whether there are still modern, practicing Stoics, take a look at James Stockdale, who has written, among other Stoic works, Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot, ISBN 0817993924. This is a collection of his essays and speeches. It'd be a worthwhile read for anyone interested in Stoicism's application to life today.--Tregonsee 12:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow--yeah, 7 years in a vietnamese prison does wonders for your perspective.--Pariah 14:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tregonsee. I've added that book and others by Stockdale to his entry. Another title that sounds very on-topic is: Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus's Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior, ISBN 0817936920 (apparently a short essay). --Ds13 23:01, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ds13. Nice to meet you. It is on topic. Courage Under Fire is also contained in Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot, as well as being, as you noted, published separately. A quick Google search also turned up a couple of Stockdale's other papers, which appear to have been part of an ethics course taught at the US Naval Academy, Stockdale on Stoicism I: The Stoic Warrior's Triad and Stockdale on Stoicism II: Master of My Fate.

As for other modern, practicing Stoics, some of 'em seem to be hanging out on the Web. I once found a website by some fella offering a correspondence course on Stoicism, I believe for a fee. There's a website still up, Stoic Voice, although it hasn't been updated in awhile. It's a source of older and contemporary writings re: Stoicism, overall decidedly from a Stoic POV. And there's a Stoic discussion group on Yahoo, International Stoic Forum. Me mentioning these sites here doesn't constitute an endorsement or recommendation of their respective POVs. Just continuing the conversation, trying to answer Mel's question. --Tregonsee 23:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"In Tom Wolfe’s latest novel, A Man in Full, Epictetus’ Stoicism provides the deliverance of two different male characters" -- http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Stephens/HRS-PHL-403-Honors-Stoicism.htm

[edit] Table

I think this thing is ugly. I want to incorporate the information without it.

Old Stoa: Zeno of Citium to Antipater (d.129 BCE)
Middle Stoa: Panaetius of Rhodes (185–109 BCE)
Posidonius of Apamea (c.135–51 BCE)
Late or Roman Stoa: Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius

Apollomelos 04:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say go for it, unless there's a way to make it better--Pariah 05:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you can, do. I only included it in a box because I couldn't see how to incorporate it smoothly into the article. I'll have another look, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I waited for over a month, but as the table was removed but the information still hasn't been incorporated, I've replaced the table until some other way can be found. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

It feels like it doesn't fit here, but I'd like to see if there's concurrence before I go ahead and remove it. UnDeadGoat 00:44 08 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should keep the Buddhist references--the two philosophies are different, but they're also very similar in the aspects mentioned in the article, and it helps to get that perspective. Perhaps we can qualify the references a bit (e.g. Buddhism generally doesn't emphasize duty or discipline the same way as Stoicism) but I think we should definitely keep some mention of the similiarities.--Pariah 14:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is remarkable how close Taoism and Stoicism are. They are nearly identitical and were formed around the same time. Apollomelos 13:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

...Right down to conceptions of Logos & Tao. Taoists always remind me of the Cynics--ready to thumb their noses at social convention and tell it like it is, while Buddhism & Stoicism seem more reserved & concerned with politeness. I guess it's like Epictitus' outrageous social comments, and Marcus Aurelius on the deep solace & discipline of philosophy. It's all great--I wish we had more of it in these days of confusion--Pariah 01:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think we absolutely should keep parallels with other religions. --Amit 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting stuff. But it's a theory. (And maybe a good one.) So we need to be careful that this article isn't the first to present such a theory, since WP has a strict no original research policy. Parallels and analogies can become dangerously subjective and POV. So consider, if at all possible, attributing any such theories or analogies to previously published reputable sources that can be verified. Have Buddhist-Stoic analogies been commented on or published elsewhere to anyone's knowledge? --Ds13 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A Google search on stoicism buddhism, etc. yields links to several articles indicating parallels between stoicism and Eastern religions. I of course haven't researched any of those articles/publications, but it seems quite fair to say that analogies exist. --Amit 05:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Amit. It sounds promising, then. My sole intent was to point out that when claims of analogy or parallel are given in a WP article, they should be cited so future readers (like myself) don't question them as possibly original or made-up and have to go a-Googling for supporting evidence. --Ds13 06:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree. --Amit 12:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

All of these religions and philosophies have a natural law basis, which is why they seem (and actually are) quite similar. They are all based on the notions of philosophical realism and a morality based on human nature; that is, the beleif that an objective reality exists independent of our senses, and that humans are basically good but flawed. The first notion makes all of these philosophies sound kind-of religious, while the second notion makes them highly concerned with morality. Modern philosophical systems tend to be highly skeptical and deny a fixed human nature, and therefore tend to be irreligious and amoral. --Marcusscotus1 10:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Christianity

The reference to Christianity is justified because (unlike either Jews or Buddhists) Christians made claims similar to those mentioned, and have assumed that such ethical views originated with them (hence the common description in Christian mediæval writings of Plato and Aristotle as "Christians before Christ"). Stoic writings had an effect on Christian thought that they certainly didn't on Jewish or Buddhist thought. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Bhuddists had the same or similiar ethical theories well before or parallel to stoicism. The fact that Christianity claims Plato and Aristotle as Christians before Christ makes no difference. Aristotle and Plato influenced Judaic and Islamic thought in many ways. If what you say has a historic basis, I suggest you clear it up. I suggest touching upon how stoicism influenced Christianity, where such influence can be found, through other articles or otherwise, and in what way Christianity draws from Stoicism to make it have a distinct claim as a promulgator of its tenants.

Guy Montag 23:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm unaware of Buddhist claims that all men are brothers, etc. Could you give references? The central problem, though, is that you mention two groups of religions: those that were influenced by Stoicism and those that shared some of its ideas. Is there one beside Christianity that falls into both groups? (And the point about claiming originality of such ideas is also important.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, if that is what you meant, that it shared some ideas and was influenced by stoicism, it should be made clear. "Even before Christianity" is very vague. I suggest you clear it up because it is confusing.

Guy Montag 21:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not what I meant, as I didn't add the comment; I'm just pointing out that it was justified. I don't really see its vagueness (it made the claims before Christianity did, and that seems clear enough), but it's true that it could be more detailed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eupatheia and propatheia

Would a brief discussion of eupatheia clear up some of the questions about reason and emotion? The introductory paragraph uses the word "emotion" as synonymous with "pathos", whereas the patheia only include disturbing emotions.

I'm also wondering if it might be worth mentioning propatheia. Solri 10:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea. I hadn't heard of these terms before, but if there are stoic terms to distinguish reason, emotion, and disturbing emotion, I'm all for mentioning them. Are you still interested in adding this, Solri?--Pariah 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, done. Sorry about the year-long delay! Solri 13:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jainism

I moved this to the talk page...

"The followers of Jainism, a classical religion of India, now reduced to a tiny minority, still follow codes that confirm with stoic ideas."

This didn't seem relevant to the section of the article (Spiritual descendants) where it was placed, but I do find this kind of interesting and don't object to this sort of thing in the article. We've already mentioned Buddhism and Taoism. Would it be possible to elaborate on how Jainism and Stoicism might be similar, with specific examples? --Pariah 22:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Perhaps the quotes section should be moved to Wikiquote and only a link to them should remain in this article. --Jjhake 19:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flattery

Wasn't flattery considered to be a vice by early stoics? My understanding is that early stoic scholars regarded flattery as actually degrading to the person who was being flattered. But the following excerpt instead shows that the reason that flattery wasn't so popular, was because it borders lying.

In the third discourse Dio praised Trajan but argued that he was not flattering him, claiming he was the only one bold enough to risk his life in telling the truth to Domitian when others thought falsehood necessary. Flattery he considered outrageous because it gives to vice the rewards of virtue. Such a perverter of truth lies to the very persons who know best one is lying. Unless the object of flattery is a fool, one appears more odious than pleasing. When flatterers are discovered, they are hated and mocked.

I know that it is a very minor subject and of little importance to many, but does anyone care to indulge me by discussing this? Stoa 05:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] capitalisation

What's the difference, if any, between stoicism and Stoicism? The word is capitalised in the article. But so is the word altruism. Why? Paul Beardsell 12:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So, I'll wait another day or so for comments failing which I'll uncapitalise the words as appropriate. Paul Beardsell 00:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] awkward phrasing

"Thus, before the rise of Christianity, Stoics recognized and advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings."

This is unclear. It suggests one of two things. Either that the Stoics advocated brotherhod before the Christians did. Or that they advocated brotherhood until the Christians did. Should be clarified.

[edit] Atheists

Atheists tend to be against stoicism, this should be mentioned, they are against it because they are for people giving in completely to their desires, Nietszche was for this, Atheists believe in a 'morality' that makes man no better than beast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs).

Please, if I didn't assume bad faith from your past history right from the start [1] to make the generalization saying all atheists adhere to that particular atheist's position is ludicrous, and they don't, if you would care to educate yourself on the subject before making such claims, that would be more productive. Stop trolling, I am soon to report you to the admins if this crusade of yours keeps going. Star Ghost 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where you got this idea from, but most stoics were atheists, pantheists or deists. The few who concerned themselves with gods talked in very nebulous terms. A central concept within stoicism is not attempting to control things which are not in your control - anything besides your own actions, decisions and judgments is worthless to a stoic, including the belief in gods. A belief in a divine force behind physics, geometry and the greater happenings of the universe the stoics called the Logos (this is not unlike Thomas Paine's deism). Beyond the Logos, the stoic philosophy cares little for personal gods. Also within stoicism is a nihilistic world view best summed up by Marcus Aurelius in Meditations:

"Like seeing roasted meat and other dishes in front of you and suddenly realizing: This is a dead fish. A dead bird. A dead pig. Or that this noble vintage is grape juice., and the purple robes are sheep wool dyed with shellfish blood. Or making love - something rubbing against your penis, a brief seizure and a little cloudy liquid.

Perceptions like that - latching onto things and piercing through them, so we see what they really are. That's what we need to do all the time - all through our lives when things lay claim to our trust- to lay them bare and see how pointless they are, to strip away the legend that encrusts them."

[edit] Passions

Perhaps it would improve this article to place the Stoic's definition of passion in the opening paragraph. Although it is stated later on that Stoics used the term passion to roughly mean "anguish" or suffering, the initial paragragh seems to infer that the idea of "distancing one's self from passions" means to repress one's emotions, where in fact this statement is used to mean "removing one's own suffering". It seems that adding this into the opening paragraph would help to clarify and, although it does state later on the use of the terms "passion" and "apathy" in Stoicism, clarifying the opening paragraph would prevent one from forming a misconception of what the actual philosophy of Stoicism teaches. --66.24.229.7 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno

May I insert a

(Not to be confused with Zeno of Elea)

on the fisrt line after the word Citium. Ozone 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/o/Talk%7EStoicism_2fc8.html"