Why modern Stoicism misses the point (article)

[Treks]

This is a great article bringing attention back to traditional Stoicism and the role of Logos and Providence in this system of philosophy, in contrast to modern Stoicism which tends to drop out or minimize the role of these concepts, potentially to the detriment of the philosophy in practice.

The Idler | Why modern Stoicism misses the point

 

[shunyadragon]

This is a great article bringing attention back to traditional Stoicism and the role of Logos and Providence in this system of philosophy, in contrast to modern Stoicism which tends to drop out or minimize the role of these concepts, potentially to the detriment of the philosophy in practice.

The Idler | Why modern Stoicism misses the point

I have to give it more thought and reflection, but on an initial read it misrepresents the modern scientific view and materialism, and appears to present an idealistic unrealistic view. The statement here . . . 'if nature is . . .' makes unwarranted assumptions.

Careful selectively quoting Nietzsche, whose works are filled with contradictions irony and sarcasm.

I do believe in God, but I find it problematic to differentiate between the divine human nature and the natural human nature, because God Created nature, and the nature of humanity is natural.

I actually support a version of Stoicism, but this needs a little more sorting out and discussion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The article says that modern stoicim is 'Etiolated'

How to pronounce etiolated
M Webster definitions of etiolated: to bleach and alter the natural development of (a green plant) by excluding sunlight, to make pale, to deprive of natural vigor : to make feeble

You're welcome.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Films are more influential today than books. Do most people today know the term 'Stoicism'? I doubt it, and how often in modern times are people influenced more by Confucius than by Epictetus? I think I've noticed Confucian influence in films. If I noticed stoicism in a film I might assume the film was influenced by an Asian culture rather than by a Greek philosopher.

 

[Desert Snake]

Satan brought stoicism to greece. Previously, they had been practicing a type of Judaism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Satan brought stoicism to greece. Previously, they had been practicing a type of Judaism.

Very surprising. I have never heard that before.

 

[Treks]

Satan brought stoicism to greece. Previously, they had been practicing a type of Judaism.

Stoicism isn't a religion. :|

 

[Treks]

I have to give it more thought and reflection, but on an initial read it misrepresents the modern scientific view and materialism, and appears to present an idealistic unrealistic view. The statement here . . . 'if nature is . . .' makes unwarranted assumptions.

Careful selectively quoting Nietzsche, whose works are filled with contradictions irony and sarcasm.

I do believe in God, but I find it problematic to differentiate between the divine human nature and the natural human nature, because God Created nature, and the nature of humanity is natural.

I actually support a version of Stoicism, but this needs a little more sorting out and discussion.

Hi Shunya

What part of the article are you referring to by 'if nature is...'?

Nietzsche held no love for Stoicism, and the paragraph quoted is part of his writing in criticism of it. I agree with the author of this article, though. Nietzsche appears to understand Nature in a way the classical Stoics didn't - to the classical Stoics Nature is the the universe is Logos; rational, divine, Providential. But Nietzsche says it's indifferent, which indicates perhaps he misunderstood. Sure, if nature is not the divine nature classical Stoicism references, it could easily be seen as cold and indifferent, which would make Nietzsche's criticism more accurate.

Divine human nature vs natural human nature.. again, to the Stoics, nature=divine. Human nature is understood in a specific way - it is to be of good character, rational and social. This is our unique strength as humans and it is our task to excel in it and flourish. This is our nature.

What version of Stoicism do you support?

Thanks

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi Shunya

What part of the article are you referring to by 'if nature is...'?

"if, indeed, nature is indifferent and extravagant in its purposelessness, pitilessness, injustice. That’s our take on nature, or at least it’s the one sanctioned by today’s high priests, the scientists, with their creed of mechanistic materialism."

I find the above outdated and misrepresents science and materialism,

It's late, more to follow, It is late under star filled Carolina skies

 

[Desert Snake]

Stoicism isn't a religion. :|

This thread isn't in the religious section/s/, however, "stoicism"is involved in religions. Not being a named religion, does not disqualify the context of the subject. That being said, this is the philosophy dir, so i kept that to a simple statement.

 

[Treks]

"if, indeed, nature is indifferent and extravagant in its purposelessness, pitilessness, injustice. That’s our take on nature, or at least it’s the one sanctioned by today’s high priests, the scientists, with their creed of mechanistic materialism."

I find the above outdated and misrepresents science and materialism,

It's late, more to follow, It is late under star filled Carolina skies

Oh okay. The author has taken Nietzsche's lead there and then says it's the same version of nature that "scientists" today agree with, which isn't actually what Epictetus understood nature to be, at all.

I ask a question: If Nature isn't divine reason and Providential, how could nature be anything but indifferent, extravagantly purposeless, pitiless and unjust (from our perspective)?

I look forward to exploring this more with you when the sun comes up in your neck of the woods.

 

[Treks]

This thread isn't in the religious section/s/, however, "stoicism"is involved in religions. Not being a named religion, does not disqualify the context of the subject. That being said, this is the philosophy dir, so i kept that to a simple statement.

I admit to being a bit confused by your posts. Stoicism is a philosophy, and back in the day, classical Stoics up to Marcus Aurelius were practicing Roman and Greek Paganism. Although, their belief in the Logos (the Whole, would say Marcus), seems different than what you'd expect from a Roman or Greek polytheist. They do talk an awful lot about Zeus!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The article seems more like "Why what people think is Stoicism, rather than what actually is Stoicism, misses the point." The "grin and bear it" is a misconception of Stoicism entirely, not just a "modern Stoicism." It's more accurate to say Stoicism is similar to Nietzsche, but minus all the negative baggage and pages of *****ing. And from what I've read, this requirement for god isn't necessary. That may be a better way to describe "modern Stoicism," rather than continuing to use the term in a way that is a total bastardization of it, much like what the West did to the concept of Karma.

 

[Treks]

The article seems more like "Why what people think is Stoicism, rather than what actually is Stoicism, misses the point." The "grin and bear it" is a misconception of Stoicism entirely, not just a "modern Stoicism." It's more accurate to say Stoicism is similar to Nietzsche, but minus all the negative baggage and pages of *****ing. And from what I've read, this requirement for god isn't necessary. That may be a better way to describe "modern Stoicism," rather than continuing to use the term in a way that is a total bastardization of it, much like what the West did to the concept of Karma.

When you say "..from what I've read, this requirement for god isn't necessary." do you mean in terms of Stoic practice? If so, that precise point is a) what modern Stoicism currently promotes, and b) is what the article is arguing against. The article is saying that by removing God from Stoicism removes a lynch pin concept from the philosophy, because it reduces Nature down to what Nietzsche is describing.

I'm personally on the fence but leaning towards an opinion that God (as in, the pantheistic (or maybe panentheistic-I haven't got to that level of detail yet) universal divine reason type of God) is an essential piece of the Stoic framework. I'm interested in how modern Stoics plug the gap and choose atoms instead of Providence and still accept fate gladly.

 

[Treks]

Films are more influential today than books. Do most people today know the term 'Stoicism'? I doubt it, and how often in modern times are people influenced more by Confucius than by Epictetus? I think I've noticed Confucian influence in films. If I noticed stoicism in a film I might assume the film was influenced by an Asian culture rather than by a Greek philosopher.

Stoicism is making a comeback! There's a Stoicism Facebook group pushing 23,000+ members. There are 49,000+ members of /r/Stoicism

Tiny but mighty?

 

[Desert Snake]

Stoicism isn't a religion. :|

^

I admit to being a bit confused by your posts. Stoicism is a philosophy, and back in the day, classical Stoics up to Marcus Aurelius were practicing Roman and Greek Paganism. Although, their belief in the Logos (the Whole, would say Marcus), seems different than what you'd expect from a Roman or Greek polytheist. They do talk an awful lot about Zeus!

^

When you say "..from what I've read, this requirement for god isn't necessary." do you mean in terms of Stoic practice? If so, that precise point is a) what modern Stoicism currently promotes, and b) is what the article is arguing against. The article is saying that by removing God from Stoicism removes a lynch pin concept from the philosophy, because it reduces Nature down to what Nietzsche is describing.

I'm personally on the fence but leaning towards an opinion that God (as in, the pantheistic (or maybe panentheistic-I haven't got to that level of detail yet) universal divine reason type of God) is an essential piece of the Stoic framework. I'm interested in how modern Stoics plug the gap and choose atoms instead of Providence and still accept fate gladly.

Hmm

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh okay. The author has taken Nietzsche's lead there and then says it's the same version of nature that "scientists" today agree with, which isn't actually what Epictetus understood nature to be, at all.

I ask a question: If Nature isn't divine reason and Providential, how could nature be anything but indifferent, extravagantly purposeless, pitiless and unjust (from our perspective)?

I look forward to exploring this more with you when the sun comes up in your neck of the woods.

"if, indeed, nature is indifferent and extravagant in its purposelessness, pitilessness, injustice. That’s our take on nature, or at least it’s the one sanctioned by today’s high priests, the scientists, with their creed of mechanistic materialism."

The problem with this is it comes out of the anti-science extreme evangelical view of science, and as you agree not from Epictecus. It is a degrading lumping, and over the top accusations of 'high priests' is unbelievable negative sarcasm.

Let's get the basics down materialists are Metaphysical Naturalists, which is a philosophical assumption apart from the foundation of science Methodological Naturalists, which does not make any thesis nor hypothesis outside the physical nature of our existence, Virtually ALL scientists (with a few exceptions), very few, follow the principles of Methodological Naturalism regardless of their theological or philosophical beliefs. The bottom line is that materialism is NOT mechanistic, neither is science.

The descriptive terms; indifferent and extravagant in its purposelessness, pitilessness, injustice used are anthropomorphic, and make the assumption that a natural existence without God could not produce life and evolve to humanity with subjective positive qualities without God, which is a contemporary Theist negative assertion against science, and not an original view of stoicism. Along with this the contemporary view of Stoicism is a cold, not caring pessimistic Nihilist view of the world, and that is not Stoicism as proposed by Epictecus.

Extravagant is really an odd over the top descriptive word to use here.

 

[Treks]

^

^


Hmm

If you want to start a new thread to discuss whether or not Stoicism is a religion, please feel free. This thread, however, is meant to be about the relevance (or not) of God within the frame work of Stoic philosophy.

 

[Treks]

"if, indeed, nature is indifferent and extravagant in its purposelessness, pitilessness, injustice. That’s our take on nature, or at least it’s the one sanctioned by today’s high priests, the scientists, with their creed of mechanistic materialism."

The problem with this is it comes out of the anti-science extreme evangelical view of science, and as you agree not from Epictecus. It is a degrading lumping, and over the top accusations of 'high priests' is unbelievable negative sarcasm.

Let's get the basics down materialists are Metaphysical Naturalists, which is a philosophical assumption apart from the foundation of science Methodological Naturalists, which does not make any thesis nor hypothesis outside the physical nature of our existence, Virtually ALL scientists (with a few exceptions), very few, follow the principles of Methodological Naturalism regardless of their theological or philosophical beliefs. The bottom line is that materialism is NOT mechanistic, neither is science.

I think the author built himself a little strawman with his extrapolation and is calling on a philosophical definition of mechanistic materialism. I don't know much about it, but the wiki gives a bit of a primer: Mechanism (philosophy) - Wikipedia . The far reach to 'scientists' just tripped him up, though, and lacked decorum.

The descriptive terms; indifferent and extravagant in its purposelessness, pitilessness, injustice used are anthropomorphic, and make the assumption that a natural existence without God could not produce life and evolve to humanity with subjective positive qualities without God, which is a contemporary Theist negative assertion against science, and not an original view of stoicism. Along with this the contemporary view of Stoicism is a cold, not caring pessimistic Nihilist view of the world, and that is not Stoicism as proposed by Epictecus.

Extravagant is really an odd over the top descriptive word to use here.

Those words in bold are paraphrased from this translation of Nietzsche's criticism against Stoicism:

You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? . . . But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.
​

But what Nietzsche fails to recognise here (which the author of the OP article is pointing out), is that God--that is, the universe as a rational, Providential, divine whole--is a fundamental part of Stoic philosophy. Nietzsche has failed to understand Nature as classical Stoics did. For classical Stoics, it is not _insert adjectives in bold from above here_. But what about for "modern Stoics" who do away with the notion of God and Providence? How could they view Nature as anything but what Nietzsche says above?

Maybe you can help me understand, Shunya. Your religious tag says you're Baha'i, so I assume you are a theist, but your posts sound like they're defending materialism, which is something I'd expect from an atheist, so hopefully you can provide a well-rounded perspective. Do you think Nature can be Providential, whilst also not being divine, rational, or indeed, God?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the author built himself a little strawman with his extrapolation and is calling on a philosophical definition of mechanistic materialism. I don't know much about it, but the wiki gives a bit of a primer: Mechanism (philosophy) - Wikipedia . The far reach to 'scientists' just tripped him up, though, and lacked decorum.



Those words in bold are paraphrased from this translation of Nietzsche's criticism against Stoicism:

You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? . . . But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.
​

But what Nietzsche fails to recognise here (which the author of the OP article is pointing out), is that God--that is, the universe as a rational, Providential, divine whole--is a fundamental part of Stoic philosophy. Nietzsche has failed to understand Nature as classical Stoics did. For classical Stoics, it is not _insert adjectives in bold from above here_. But what about for "modern Stoics" who do away with the notion of God and Providence? How could they view Nature as anything but what Nietzsche says above?

Maybe you can help me understand, Shunya. Your religious tag says you're Baha'i, so I assume you are a theist, but your posts sound like they're defending materialism, which is something I'd expect from an atheist, so hopefully you can provide a well-rounded perspective. Do you think Nature can be Providential, whilst also not being divine, rational, or indeed, God?

Probably one thing I object to is quoting and paraphrasing Nietzsche, an old view as relevant today.

As a Baha'i I believe in the inherent unity of Nature (scientific description of existence), and the spiritual, God's Revelation and Creation. God Created by natural processes that science falsifies from the human perspective not absolutely correct, but progressively accurate as the knowledge of c=science evolves. . Traditional Theists often separate them, the scientific versus the theist perspective, and often in adversarial opposition. I actually do object to the association of science directly with materialism.

I view alternate worldviews objectively and not as adversaries as many Theists do. The materialists see our existence from the same Methodological Naturalism as Theists like myself who support the scientific view of our existence as it is, without Theistic presuppositions. What is described as Mechanism is no longer remotely believed by materialists today (philosophical naturalists) nor scientists today.

Actually I will argue different perspectives, particularly misrepresentation of other beliefs, in the Greek logic of Socratic adversarial debate and every position can be defended if the logic or the information is flawed.

Actually I consider the philosophical naturalist position concerning the nature of our physical existence to more consistent with reality than most Theists, but yes, I disagree with them concerning their philosophical assumptions concerning God. Also I disagree with most Theists concerning their adversarial position on science, or their conditional acceptance of some science but not all, based on their priority of beliefs.