The ancient Greek philosophers...remained more faithful to the Idea of the philosopher than their modern counterparts have done. “When will you finally begin to live virtuously?” said Plato to an old man who told him he was attending classes on virtue. The point is not always to speculate, but ultimately to think about applying our knowledge.
Today, however, he who lives in conformity with what he teaches is taken for a dreamer. Kant
So, after reading Philosophies for Sale, which I found to be utterly absurd in the most hilarious way possible, I began to wonder if there were anything which would have satisfied Lucian. He seems to be one of the most critical men of the hellenistic philosophies, but Doctor Layne also mentioned in class that he was somewhat of a Cynic. It is ironic to me that a man who was so critical could actually identify with one particular philosophy, namely a philosophy which seems, in my opinion, to be far more absurd than, let us say, Stoicism or even Skepticism. I understand that he saw countless flaws within the logic of the Stoics, but, I, personally, would rather adhere to some sort of rational dogma than to go around flaunting my crazed ways in order to prove a point. In my opinion, the cynics wasted too much time concerning themselves with others. At the same time, however, it could be said that in that their insane style of living was flaunted for all to see in the hopes that it could inspire others to renounce their worldly possessions in order to live alive of virtue and truth. In this respect, I do understand their intent. The only problem is, though, that I feel as if people thought the Cynics to be merely insane, which would ultimately deter anyone from desiring the life of a Cynic.
The neoplatonic implementation of Stoic monism brings forth a certain example of the circular movement of the cosmos, starting with the one (Not Keanu Reeves). But the first example given in class today placed a line between the one and intellect principle, then a line from the intellect principle to the soul, and thus the soul emanates to to matter closesly surrounding the previous circles formed between the aforementioned areas due to their reciprocity. Yet the one is of more significance then the intellect principle, but when I drew out these circles, the intellect principle seemed more centered. Now it may just be me and my rediculous tendencies, but I feel that a better discription through a similar fashion dealing with a circle could be done with the one at the center, since it is the source. From this center, the line to the intellect principle should be straight and to the outside of the circle. After that, a line should then go from the intellect principle to the soul, which is also located on the outside of the circle. And you can only guess from this pattern that the soul then has a line to matter, which is also located on the outside of the circle. This shape thus forms an equilateral triangle within the circle that is split in half (two triangles with a 60,30,90 setup) with each line flowing in reciprocal fashion.
Now if you look at the circle I've posted above, you can see this represented, in a way considering it was best image I could find and I am not very good at creating something of the like on my own. For all intents and purposes, ignore D and the line from it to E. E is the one, being that it is in the center. It first goes to A, Intellect Principle, which has a line to B, the soul, then from there a line to C, matter. They all work in and out of each other, and flow back and forth. Now there is time for criticism.
If I've ever lived a philosophy its Catholicism. And in today's brief lecture on neo-Platonism, I really felt that Christian theology was coming. Like the film Agora, to sack the more vocal and open body of Hellenistic philosophy, it took a little time, but, the majority of people stopped discussing big questions they couldn't answer. Consider it mission accomplished.
Not to say discussion was put down. In my past religion classes we always got a little philosophical, but at some point skepticism and cynicism would set in and dialogue would get stuck in the mud, unable to move further. It went Good (purpose) to Happiness to God; they were all suppose to be the same thing and you should see each of them together, if seen in the right way. Someone might say, 'but what if I don't believe in God?' but it wouldn't go any further.
With the neo-Platonism of early Christian thinkers what I understood was this:
the one ----> duality.
As soon as we say that something is this or that, then we attribute unity to it.
So for example,
In x is y we attribute unity, and that seems to be enough for Plotinus.
But further in my reading, the insight was set again in Schopenhaur, Sartre, or even Camus or Dostoyevsky:
x is...? When did we decide that?
All things try to preserve one's existence. We use this simple logical trap though. We haven't proven anything.
one= being one= good
good= being
I don't think that Plotinus is a poor thinker, and I have so much respect for him. I am reading him with preconceptions though. And I feel, even more so, that towards the end of the semester, coming full circle, I can be ok with skepticism. It isn't the best way to get around, as Jared pointed out, but it seems a necessary precaution to fight off dogmatism. That philosopsy, in order to reconcile the Good of Plato, the thought thinking of itself in Aristotle, and the Nature of the Stoics, that the ellipsis of the legendary Hypathia are only forged in the midst of fighting the Skeptics and Cynics off of their backs.
We began Friday's class with a brief discussion of the movie, Agora. The movie was about the female philosopher, Hypatia, who, in the end of the movie, is stoned to death. We first talked about how many historians dispute the way in which Hypatia was killed, because there are some who say that she was stoned to death, but others believe that she was flayed alive with pieces of either glass or pottery. Regardless, the movie depicted Davis, her slave, as one who first suffocated Hypatia before her stoning so that she would not have to endure the pain of a death of that nature. We also discussed that the library in the movie was not the great library of Alexandria, as the movie tells us. Dr. Layne, along with numerous other class mates, felt as though the sieging of the library was one of the most emotional scenes in the movie. As Jennifer stated, it is so sad to see that many human achievements up until that point in time were destroyed with the seizing of the library.
What, exactly, was the film about? Many of our classmates thought that the film was about the historical battle between faith and reason. In the film, Hypatia is accused of being godless, or believing in nothing, and many believe Hypatia to be a witch of sorts. It is arguable, though, whether or not that is true. Hypatia did, after all, have much faith in philosophy, as she stated at one point in time. For her, however, one should not adhere to the dogmatic beliefs of a religion. Hypatia told one of the bishops in the film, "You can't question what you believe, I have to question what I believe." Additionally, it could be said that there is some sort of faith-like quality to science, as Dr. Layne pointed out. It is inaccurate to say that in hypothesizing, one is not basing his or her claim on faith. Hypatia even told Davis at one point that she knew she could prove him wrong, but she did not know how she was going to do it. In that statement, it is evident that Hypatia did, in fact, have some sort of faith which preceded here scientifically backed claims to knowledge.
After our discussion of the movie, we continued to read "Philosophies for Sale." We encountered a Heraclitian, a Demacritian, a Platonist, and a Stoic. The Heraclitian and Demacritian were on sale together, and the literary juxtaposition of these two was quite humorous. On one hand, there was the Demacritian, an atomist, who believed that all things were relative, so he was constantly laughing at everyone around him. On the other hand, there was the Heraclitian, who believed that all was in constant flux and that fate was indifferent to us. Because the Heraclitian believed that all were deaf to the eternal cycle, he was weeping. After the two of them, we saw a Platonist for sale. Lucian mocked Plato's "Republic" with a discussion of the possession of wives, and we talked about how many misconstrue the purpose of the "Republic" to be a political guide, when it is not. Finally, we encountered the sale of a Stoic, and, here, we could see a mockery of stoic logic and the assent to knowledge with the example of the veiled figure.
I am slowly falling asleep in class as the professor continues to lecture on Karma in the Jain religion. She mentions that Karma in the Jain religion is broken up into two different kinds, ghati ("destructive") and aghati ("non-destructive”). Aghati Karma affects only the soul and ghati Karma affects the body and can be broken up into four types of Karma: Happiness-determining, Body-determining, Status-determining, and Longevity- determining. You accumulate these four types of Karmas by doing bad deeds against others; such as fining happiness in hurting someone or making fun of someone’s lower status. She talked on for a bit about these four types of destructive Karmas and just as I am about to move from my “I’m just resting my eyes” stage to “I am now asleep” stage she says that based on what we know about the Janis we can clearly see that they were very egoist. Egoistic? I was shocked. I may be wrong in saying this, but I thought that Egoism was defined as each person having one goal: looking out solely for one’s own welfare by doing what brings pleasure to oneself. I didn’t, and still don’t, think that Jains can be egoistic when one of their “natural laws of the universe” says that you accumulate destructive karma(energy) if you treat others badly: you gain happiness-determining karma by finding happiness in hurting others, like seeking revenge; you gain body-determining karma by not loving the ugly or making fun of the unattractive; you gain status-determining karma by making fun of the people below you or praising you own elevated status; and you lose longevity-determining karma by killing someone (leading to a shortening of your life). I think that none of this sounds very egoistic. If anything it sounds hedonistic. Hedonism is defined as having the goal of looking out for one’s welfare by doing what brings pleasure to oneself but with the consideration of others. This “consider of others” is what the belief of destructive karma is based on. From that moment on in class I couldn’t even pretend to be uninterested in what my professor was saying because I kept on thinking to myself, “This can’t be right. Jainism isn’t egoistic it’s hedonistic.” I was just about to ask this one little twist in words that was bothering me it was time to go. On Monday the first thing I’m going to do is bring this issue up. Maybe I don’t understand hedonism/egoism too much or maybe I don’t understand the Jains. And then again maybe I do. I can’t even finish this blog and be satisfied with my answer. I will definitely follow up on this Monday night.
This film had me thinking about the possibilities that could have been had events such as the destroying of the library in Alexandria had never occured. Although there is no certainty about Hypatia's discover of the planets orbits on elipses rather than perfect circles, it seems very likely that such ideas could have become more concrete within the world much sooner than when Johannes Kepler finalized it over a milennia later. This film certainly sheds such a negative light on early Christianity, but there is a significance to this in my opinion. The elimination of the polythiestic religions within the greater Helenic world is such a foreshadowing to the dark ages, where man lost connection to the thoughts and ideas of some of the brightest thinkers in the past. But would be it possible to sense such a change, or foreshadowing, even today? Texas, the biggest distributer of school text books, has decided to eliminate key figures and moments in recent history which bring back this age of Helen through exogesis of surviving texts. If the enlightenment is no longer taught, then even that connection to this great era of philosophy of the Greeks and Romans seems to be cut. Now it may be likely that such an event would occur within texas and some other parts of the U.S., but I put much faith in other countries to keep with such traditions even if we dip into a modern dark age.
When I heard the title Philosophy for Sale, I immediately thought of something Nietzsche said, which is that all philosophers have certain intentions in their work. This is something I think is very important to consider when studying philosophy, and try to always keep in mind. Philosophers have a variety of different intentions. Some search for truth, some seek to justify their own actions and behavior, some seek honor and prestige, some seek a better world. Whether they realize it or not, everyone has some sort of philosophical viewpoint.
I think the idea of philosophy being for sale is really interesting. People come up with philosophy that fits the way they want to think of things, and the way they want to live their lives. They use philosophy to justify their lifestyles. Everyone "shops" for philosophy. If someone has something they want to do, or a way they want to view the world, they can always justify it with something some philosopher said. Does philosophy shape us, or is it simply our means of justifying who we are? Wittgenstein said philosophy is the logical clarification of thought. I think of it more as a way to defend our feelings.
I will admit that I, initially, abhorred the skeptics. I have to say that they are still not exactly my favorite hellenistic movement, but I came across an article on the internet which argued that it is "right" to be a modern day skeptic. The link is posted below. To summarize the article briefly, the author talks about the necessity in questioning truths that have, previously, been held as immune to any criticism. Included in the list of truths which have been previously held as immune to criticism is the geocentric theory, which we are all familiar with. As I thought more about skepticism, I realized the importance of at least questioning everything I am told, because there is clearly danger in accepting things at face value.
Having said all of that, however, I do believe that we, as humans, are capable of assenting to knowledge, and this is where I find validity in the logic of the Stoics.
It seems that all evidence we glean concerning the world is mediated through our senses. What else do we have but our senses? I really enjoy the phenomenological task of returning to "the lived world." The use of the lived world as the spring from which all truth is engendered is an idea that I think can be related to Skepticism. To be a little dogmatic about the whole issue, which skepticism might possibly be at its core, I think it makes sense to say that at each moment our ideas express not only the truth but also our capacity to attain it. This understanding of truth may be the one way to maintain a practical approach to skepticism without delving into the hardcore skeptical debates inherent to discussions of other minds, the external world, and theoretical entities. If ideas express the truth and our capacity to attain it, maybe there is something truly wise in applying skepticism to all philosophies, and also something that is essentially dependent on foundations.
Some thoughts on "hardcore" skepticism, which should probably be called radical skepticism, and how it differs from non-radical skepticism.
Skepticism of the external world, I think , has evolved into two distinct yet similar philosophical understandings. There is the Skepticism of the hellenistic period and one that took rise with Descartes in the modern tradition. Skepticism of the external world is only one type in a much broader philosophical concept with many pros and cons in its actualization. The way hellenistic skepticism is similar to that of the modern is in the way that both are founded on the argumentation of refuting given foundations. It seems that many people would argue, maybe even people in this class, that skeptical arguments rely on the idea they are attacking. Skeptics rely on the conviction that our beliefs concerning the world are "underdetermined" by evidence on which truth is based. This is the portrait of skepticism that I would like to distinguish. This skepticism relates to the foundationalist assumption (Wikipedia, YEAH!) and in this relationship the foundationalism essentially gives rise to skeptical argument.
Each moment our ideas express not only the truth but also our capacity to obtain the truth at a given time. Skepticism begins once we conclude that our ideas/beliefs are always unjustified or unreasonable--but this relies on some sort of absolute knowledge to base your false ideas upon. If we consider our ideas as something wrapped up in our contact with being and culture, although limited by the given moment, they are able to express the truth provided we keep and recognize this dialogue between the moment, ideas expressed, being, and culture. They all mediate truth in an almost inexpressible way. The we all conceptualize the cogito may be this expression of the inexpressible. Grasping myself requires a limiting to an "I think", but the way we know we think could be interpreted as the cogito acting as doubt. In this doubting I question all objects of experience--my phenomenal experience. Doubting becomes a self grasping act because in doubt the very fact of doubt obstructs doubt. It seems like this relationship between the fact of doubt and the doubting act are somewhat contingent. The doubting act is essentially dependent on the reality of doubt, which is in an gross generalization, the way skepticism is essentially dependent on epistemological foundations.
I grasp myself, not as transparent, but as a particular thought engaged with objects. I am a thought which grasps itself as possessing an ideal of truth. Thought is given to itself, we find ourselves thinking and become aware of this thinking some way, the way I am assuming is through doubt.
I have been reading The Primacy of Perception, so that is a major influence on this blog post.
Doubt
I am going to continue formulating this later, maybe use it as the beginning to my paper?
In Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, which I am reading in one of my classes we often talk about the distinction between musicians and philosophers. Music, often inspired by muses who have no idea what they are saying will, by appealing to emotion, make you suffer worse; as opposed to philosophy personified, who tries to get Boethius through a rough time by reason alone. For Boethius, the poets don't really know what is going on too often. The same notion rings true much earlier in Plato's Apology; however, whatever some musicians may know, I really like Wilco. Their music is beautiful and more, very Stoic. Upon interview, songwriter Jeff Tweedy told Pitchfork magazine, in relation to their album Sky Blue Sky, that its first track "Either Way," is about a relationship that is endless. "The song tries to express some acceptance of the idea that we don't know what is really going to happen...more accepting of ambiguity."
The show Mythbusters seems to be in the skeptical spirit: it looks at everyday beliefs that some have and try to uncover the reality of the situation. Now, there are major derivations. The Mythbusters do claim to "bust" myths, something a skeptic might be uncomfortable with, but there is something essentially in the spirit of skepticism. In the numerous myths they have tackled, they recognized that they is not enough evidence in favor of any side, and will suspend any final judgment on it.
After taking our quiz, we reviewed the 10 modes of skepticism: 1. based on the variety in animals; 2. on the differences in human beings; 3. on the different structures of the organs of sense; 4. on the circumstantial conditions; 5. on positions and intervals and locations; 6. on intermixtures; 7. on the quantities and formations of the underlying objects; 8. on the fact of relativity; 9. on the frequency or rarity of occurrence; 10. on the disciplines and customs and laws, the legendary beliefs and the dogmatic convictions.
Or, in Dr. Layne’s “catchy” acronym: A SIC A QuPREC (Dr. Layne narrates "It kinda ryhmes and reminds me of something a character in Alice in Wonderland might say. Imagine Humpty Dumpty getting annoyed and instead of telling her 'Ah I am sick of pricks.' He says A SIC A QuPREC which ultimately just means I have ten ways of refuting pricks") A nimals, humans
S ense Organs I nterval, place, position C ircumstance
A dmixture Qu antities P roportions R elativity E vents (Rare or Frequent) C ustoms, dogmas, laws
These modes each constitute a reason why our perception/judgments are distorted and unreliable. We then discussed Pyrro of Elis, and how he was influenced by Democritus, whose atomistic views suggested that since the senses are unreliable, reality was unknowable. Much of what we know of Pyrro comes from Timon, who suggests 3 questions: 1) What are objects like by nature? 2) What attitude should we then have? 3) What results from this attitude?
With corresponding answers: 1) Things are indifferent and cannot be judged. 2) So our perceptions/beliefs are not t/f—no trust in them—and they must remain without belief. 3) Speechlessness and ataraxia.
Pyrro: “No more this than that” “Both is and is not”
Academic Skepticism was led by Arcesilaus (315-240), who became the head of the academy. He attempted to relate skepticism back to Plato and Socrates to avoid being overly controversial, but he basically taught Pyrronian skepticism. He advocated not advocating anything; he asserted that one should not make assertions; he preferred to not have preferences; he didn’t "know that he does not know." He also rejected that Truth was attainable and believed it was irrelevant to morality. The third academy was led by Carneads (214-129), who believed that he could not know anything, yet accepted probability as good substitute for absolute knowledge. He was fervently anti-stoic, being a radical skeptic, and he formulated a criteria for living.
Continuing from the heated debate yesterday. I would like to enter my input after listening. First of all, I question if skepticism can be considered philosophy. I have to ask, "What is philosophy?" It surely isnt continous question with no answer. It is like any other schience where one tries to arrive at a answer. Second of all, they wouldnt even know if the would consider themselves philosophers because they are so indecisive of everything. Third of all skeptics trying to apply some sort of dogma to their indecisiveness is absolutely absurd. You have to have a starting point at any philosophy or science and so forth. Nothing just is or just is continous. One lady in class said if you make one statement that is wrong in what you have to say then youre completely false. I think that is amusing, because she is the same person that prior to that said, "youre just attacking their physics, what about their metaphysics?" Im going to take her statement and apply it. If their physics is wrong so is their metaphysics Besides, metaphysics is a lot of things that will eventually become physics with technology and science. I am not disregarding skepticism. I am somewhat of a skeptic, but surely the absurdity is obvious within some of the philosophy.
My introduction to philosophy was a verbatim summary of Descartes' meditations, minus the part about God making everything okay. My friend Allen and I stayed up all night dicussing philosophy, as we would often do in coming years. I was almost entirely ignorant. He mopped the floor with me as he explained why I couldn't trust even my firmest knowledge. I endeavored to prove him wrong.
Four years later, never having proved Allen (Descartes) wrong, I was a philosophy major at Loyola. When I started my philosophy course, called "Skepticism, Knowledge, and Certitude," I was the #1 defender of Descartes and his skeptical ideas. We studied G. E. Moore, who attempted to move past skepticism, and epistemological idealism, by saying "Here is a hand (raising one of his hands). Here is another hand (raising the other). There are at least two objects external objects in the world. Therefore, an external world exists." Needless to say, I was unconvinced. Then we began to read On Certainty by Ludwig Wittgenstein.
One of the first things pointed out be Wittgenstein was that a Cartesian subject--a solipsistic entity that has imagined all human contact and other perceptions--could not possibly even articulate his ideas or philosophy, for he must doubt even his words. Furthermore, a private language is impossible, since words must be learned through observing their use in a community. A Cartesian subject would have no use for language, and therefore would never have conceived of it.
The most important point that Wittgenstein makes is that there is a certain frame of reference or foundation that all human beings must accept in order to engage in debate, or research, or in survival. These unquestionable items constitute the very locus from where all knowledge is analyzed. These certainties are displayed in action, not in language, and constitute a separate category, for they cannot properly be called knowledge. A belief or hypothesis becomes knowledge once it is tested, but can we test the very means or foundation of testing? Of course not; to test something like our own existence is ludicrous. We don’t know that there is an external world, but it is a certitude that is demonstrated when we do anything. Thus, Wittgenstein draws a distinction between knowledge, and certainty. Certainty is born out in action; it is accepted regardless of examination.
What the skeptics do, essentially, is bring these certainties into the realm of propositions, creating what Wittgenstein calls "hinge propositions," because all knowledge hinges on such propositions. These propositions, such as "Here is a hand (raising my hand).", rest on nothing, and cannot be supported by anything more basic than them--they constitute the base of all thinking. I shouldn’t even have to say I have a hand—it is just accepted. It is the world-view we have all inherited. Wittgenstein's certainties constitute a new foundationalism.
So finally I had reached the end of the road. Descartes’ entire project (as well as the Hellenistic skeptics’) is merely a category mistake, a failure to identify “Wittgensteinian certitude” the true foundation of what we call “knowledge”. I wrote Allen a letter—the jack-ass.
As I sit in class I get lost in thought and think, "Those poor Greeks. How they suffered. They were attacked daily with the ideas of the Skeptics, the Epicureans, the Stoics, and the Aristotelian. " I can't imagine living in Greece at a time where I'm being told that, "that the world is made up of atoms and void that are randomly colliding to make what is around us." Then turning the corner and hearing, "you know the world is made all interconnected made up of a logic order." Then hearing from across the street, "We can't know. We can't even know why we don't know. So, it's best just not to believe anything you hear. " I couldn't be any more confused if I was scuba diving and told that I needed to find a way to make a campfire using a jellyfish and a coral reef or else the little mermaid wouldn't be able to cook her steak for dinner.
Now, I know that I'm going to the extreme by saying something as crazy as that (because the littler mermaid is obviously a vegetarian) but I do admit that out of the many philosophies we've gone over so far I do have my favorite. So far I think that I like the ideas of the Skeptics the most. They don't pretend to know everything. They accept that they don't know and don't go any further. The Skeptics even tell you that they have no clue what's going on and it is that honesty that I admire. At time it might seem like the Skeptics are doubting out ability to gain knowledge, but that's not the case. The term Skeptic actually means examination, inquiry, consideration; their doubtful attitudes are not negative at all, but inquisitive. The Skeptics attempt to gain knowledge through asking and investigating and don't take anything to be certain until they are 100% sure that it is (the word used to describe this suspension is epoche) ; which unfortunately rarely happens.
The Skeptics are just covering all their bases before they make a decision about anything. I think that this is one of the best ways to live-- if you can't understand something or answer a question leave it off making a decision or answering the question until you are completely informed over the matter. This might just seem like a way to procrastinate but I feel that it is a way to get things done more efficiently. It reminds me of a saying my other always recites, "El arragan tiene que hacer las cosas de nuevo y en tratando de ser menos trabajo verdaderamente hace mas." (The lazy person that tried to cut corners ends up doing more work-- I apply this saying to the art of thinking off course.)
I was watching the movie office space recently and thought there were some aspects of the main character's approach to philosophy in regards to the importance his boss and his work have in his life. The story is centered around Peter who has a job he feels is meaningless and is constantly finds himself stressed by his bosses and coworkers. After being pressured to do so Peter sees an occupational hypnotherapist to help make him at peace with his job. While in trance, however, the therapist has a heart attack and dies before he can return Peter to a normal state. Because of this he stays in his relaxed state and becomes more hedonistic. He sleeps in until the later afternoon on a work day and when asked why he didn't show up to work her replies "because I didn't feel like it." Because work was not pleasurable for him he determined it wasn't a good and turned away from it. But because being fired wouldn't be pleasurable he eventually shows up to work but with laid back attitude because he is ignoring his bosses (the Gods of the workplace who have the pure pleasure of existing without doing any real work) and is unconcerned with most of what they have to say to him. He comes out of this trance later in the movie, but while he is still in this daze Peter is the Epicurean of his office. He is only concerned with what he finds pleasurable and only returns to work because it wouldn't be pleasurable to get fired. But in terms of ignoring the minor things in his life that were causing him to be unhappy he makes a pretty good Epicurean.
I talked about this part of the movie in class. Essentially the Turtle tells the mouse that he has to let go of the illusion of control. The two debate whether or not we have control over things, and to what extent we have control. the whole conversation had clear Stoic undertones (possibly Buddhist, but I am not trained to claim that).
I found this entire conversation enlightening for several reasons. Essentially, the turtle is saying that we have little control over what happens in the world, but we do have the ability to choice whether or not to follow it. The turtle is simply expounding Stoic metaphysics. At the end of the clip, he even returns to nature. He gets carried of into the sky by a gust of wind and flower petals. That scene to me seemed to be overtly Stoic: he returns to nature upon his death becomes one with it.
So yes don't worry about reading anything new this weekend as we will be reading "Philosophers for Sale" in class on Monday. Yet I do want to hear your opinions of Sextus before we start the play so also come to class with your favorite quotes and questions. Also, I plan to make this activity a chance for some of you to make up for bad quiz grades. To do this I need all of you to bring 3 pennies to class.
After today’s class and our discussion of stoicism, I couldn’t help but think about my dad. I have always been a pretty emotional person. Commercials make me cry, my temper has a hairpin trigger, and I tend to get emotionally bogged down in the trials of everyday life. When I lived at home with my parents, they would often get frustrated with the constant emotional rollercoaster that were my teen years. Each crisis with my academic or social life would send me into a tailspin of negative emotions and they would inevitably try to get me back on course. Like the Stoics, my father would offer me the advice that should not let other’s control my emotions. He would say, people, events, and circumstances cannot affect your happiness or mood unless you allow them to. This is very similar to the aspects of Stoic philosophy we discussed today. Stoics teach that if you do not concern yourself with the good or bad actions of others and do not allow it to affect your own feelings, you are completely free from worry. By realizing the absolute control an individual has over his or her own emotional state, one may realize that happiness is a choice one makes and a way of life. While I don’t think my dad has been studying stoic philosophy, I can say that from personal experiences following his advice has given me peace in some difficult situations.
I think that to be a Stoic is to suppress one's personality and limit one's life. Living with the intent to avoid suffering is very limiting, and the most boring world would be one in which everyone followed the Stoic philosophy. The greatest works of art have been created by people in states of ecstasy and agony, and the most interesting stories in history are about people who fully experienced and lived with their emotions. I think that the real way to live is to feel all your feelings to their highest capacities, and that experiencing something really exhilarating at the expense of feeling misery later is absolutely worth it.
I hate the idea of not favoring one's loved ones. I think that strong connections between people are really beautiful, and to say,"I don't really love my son specifically, I just love humans in general," is to miss out on an important aspect of life. I'm not religious, but I think it's beautiful when people say they can feel their loved ones are watching down on them, or that they feel their ghosts. Nobody would ever feel this way if it weren't for these intense bonds between people.
The class started off with a review of what we had talked about in class previously. We started to talk about universality and how we can conceive of it but this doesn’t mean that it exits. In other words, the universal is not real but the reference is real. Another thing we reviewed was the process of sensation to perception to concept. What we mainly reviewed was the passage from evident things, or inference. Dr. Layne explained that all things have a mediated notion from immediate evident; the example given was that of a child eating an ice cream cone and their first perception of sweetness. In the example with the ice cream a child is first presented the ice cream, then they taste it, then they form an experience; the steps in this process are presentation, intellection, and experience. These three steps can be incorporated into three different ways of inference, or more specifically, of determining what something is through your perception of the sensations. The three methods of inference are resemblance, composition, and analogy. Resemblance occurs when an object mimics what the true form is; the image of Socrates to Socrates himself. Composition is when you see two or more object in combination and form a conception of what the combined objects now form; more simply looking at the whole instead of the pieces. An example of composition would be combining the image of a woman and a fish to get a mermaid. The last of the three was analogy which is defined as an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably agree in others or more simply drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect. An example of this would be to say that a flower has leaves and trees have leaves so they must be in some way related. After going over the old material we charged into the new material by going over pantheistic monism, God and phusis, Fate, Ethics, and taking a quiz. Pantheistic monism is a term used to describe how God is in all and God is all. This idea comes from the explanation that all that is matter or form is a body and all bodies mingle totally. This goes completely against the beliefs of Epicureans who say that everything is composed of atoms and void and that the random combinations of both are what form the universe; in this theory all atoms are separate. Our conversation then continued talking about God and Phusis. We had mentioned this before in the previous class saying that God, who is Phusis, or nature, is also logos, or logic (the principle of intelligence). But we went further in the explanation by saying that God is Pneuma, or spirit, that extends through the universe with different intensities and hierarchies, and gradations all while remaining one; which goes back to the theory of pantheistic monism. We then summarized Pronia or Providence which stated that all things were produced by divine principle and that they are meant to be exactly as they are –this concept goes against the mechanism of the Epicureans and once again show this connection to God, Pneuma, Logos, and Phusis. We then transitioned into a talk about Fate or Heimanmene, which once again backs up the idea that all things have a purpose, all things were created by principle, and that all things are in one. One of the most important things, which we went over this day— which later showed up on our quiz as a clip from the Jungle Book and Star Trek— were the ideas of necessity, freedom, and ethics. The Stoics believed that the only thing up to us was our will and that we have the freedom of the assenting of faith. This, we all agreed, was a theory based on the times; there was nothing that anyone could do about the changes taking place but they had to make the best of it by going with the flow. Your will was the only thing which you were responsible for and nothing else. Freedom was allotted only to things, which had to do with the will.Not only this, but also everything and everyone had a proper function and a proper way of life. It was necessary and great to follow ones set path and not deviate from the order. We then transitioned into speaking about the ethics of Stoicism, that which our reading was on. These ethics defined happiness as being the demand of the good or reason, which transcended the individual. Also, Stoics demanded that all human being realize that they are conditioned by fate to be in their place, going back to the idea of the necessity to live accordingly to ones lifestyle. The Stoic ethics focused a lot on the human being (as opposed to the Epicurean ethics). As you might remember the Stoics believed almost the opposite of what the Epicureans did. One of the things that they stressed was that the Epicureans had missed a step on the road towards happiness and that was preservation of the self. The Primary Instinct, or Oikeiosis, of all things is to see to preserve themselves. For, all things are attached to themselves and things feel an attachment of being at home in the world. This Instinct is the first step on the road to happiness. After we went over this bit we finished up our quiz and went off to break.
In the most recent class we covered Epictetas. He was a slave of Epaphraditus. Epaphraditus educated Epictetas extensively. He went to lectures of Rufus. He is considered to be a bright light in neo stoicism. He later gained his freedom. After suffering in Rome due to Domition and banishing philosophers, he moved to Nicopolis. Epictetas being a slave allowed him to be among the common people, however being educated by his master allowed him to also be among royalty. Epicetetas did no write down hisworks. Arrian wrote his lectures for him.
Epictetas taught Spiritual Exercises. These spiritual exercises are Exegesis; exegesis is discipline at self. It is spiritual exercise that relieves pain. If it is not relieving pain then the exercises are not being done right. He also believed that there is a difference between discourse and praxis. Certain things depend on people. Rectitude of judgment, right attitude toward cosmos and duty has to be carried out for people to truly live a good life.
Lastly we began to cover Marcus. He was a philosopher that was informed by his way of life. He wrote meditations only for himself. It was similar to a diary. This allowed him to focus on his day along with his intent and desires.
Our discussion today on stoicism and psychoanalysis has prompted me to share a bit more of my thoughts on the topic. I would argue that most psychological endeavors are in complete harmony with the Stoic beliefs. It is not that a therapist or psychiatrist is offering an excuse for a human to act in accordance with nature. Rather, the psychiatrist offers a patient a sort of rational or backing for the patient’s emotions. Once a patient understands why and how he or she feels the way that they do, it is then the job of the psychiatrist to guide the patient in his or her emotional transformation. A GOOD therapist or psychiatrist should not merely allow a patient to act irrationally. A therapist, in my opinion, should listen, help one’s patient to understand his or her underlying issues. Without reaching that understanding, it is very difficult for a person to change. I think that psychology may be misunderstood if one takes it to be a mere defense for irrational behavior. Psychology should be used to help a person understand that his or her feelings are NATURAL, but just because those feelings are NATURAL does not make them RATIONAL.
“You know the old joke. How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? It will change only when it truly wants to change.”
It took almost 50 years, but slowly, slowly David Stewart went blind. Until the day, that is, that he saw again.
Upon his interview, David showed no signs of being a flake or a hysteric. He was a manager, a financial officer, a pioneer in arts broadcasting in Europe. He's a sober man. But he was very blind by the end of his trial. He lost his memory for color - for blues, yellows and reds - and he lived in a black and white world. Until the day, he discovered to his delight, that he can still experience color, even though, technichally there is nothing there for him to see.
It's an experience manufactured by his halluncinating brain. And after about 30 minutes, the images will fade, but then others will follow. Paintings coming to life. Wallpaper moving. Mysterious curtains appearing. Stewart said he wasn't frightened, but he wondered what triggered all this.
One of his sons, who is already experiencing the same disease, found the explanation. Stewart has Charles Bonnet syndrom, a condition that often affects people with macular degeneration or diabetic eye disease. "The brain is doing a mash-up of stored visual memories," says ophthalmologist Jonathan Trobe of the University of Michigan. "A surprisingly large number of people who lose sight start seeing things."
The example of David Stewart does some work on the Pre-Socratics.
The first philosophers conceived being as (being) made of matter. Democritus for instance, and other Atomists, viewed Being as comprised of an infinite number of small particles. Both Epicureans and Stoics in the Hellenistic age imagined an outside world of Being, comprised of atoms, literally meaning 'indivisible'. Many people have this same view, though there is more science to back up their groundwork. Today, atoms combine to form all the objects of the universe. They are solid, microscopic, move in space and join one another to form more complex objects. Movement of atoms is possible since inbetween each one of them is a void.
The void is nothing at all. Non-being. A Non-being that, for the Hellenistic philosophers, existed; though, just Greek philosophy had to pass through another thinking revolution in order to postulate the existence of it. A second sailing. The leading figure in this revolution was Plato who conceived the tenet of the Forms. The Forms as the ultimate real Beings, having no special nor material properties.
For me, David Stewart is pragmatically Platonic. And he reminds me that we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe. That we see things internally. That in the search for certainty, it is natural to begin with present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt, knowledge is to be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our immediate experineces make us know is very likely to be wrong. Discouse and exegesis of texts, formulating tenents based on reasonable arguments rather than on theological doctrine, and setting the foundation on which the future realizations can be created. That process is valuable in and of itself.
The article says, David Stewart in fact has learned to enjoy what he calls 'phantoms'. He can even tigger them, he thinks.
I have been thinking a lot about the last slide that we had in class on Wednesday. Especially the Stoic point that infants did not seek what was pleasurable in foods when they were young, meaning that pleasure is not what we seek but rather we seek what keeps us alive. Though this makes sense, I do not believe that it is true. I remember watching an episode of "I Shouldn't be Alive," which is a show about people who have survived dangerous situations, and in this episode a man was adrift at sea on a raft. He was able to catch fish, but oddly he found himself not craving the meat of the fish but the fish eyes. This is because fish eyes have a very high fat content which he needed to survive. This suggests that our bodies in some cases will change what we find pleasurable in order to keep us alive. If this same concept is applied to the infant example provided by the Stoics it does not seem as damaging to the Epicurean point. Rather it might suggest that both the Stoics and Epicureans were partially right, but failed to grasp the whole concept.
One thing I found really interesting in the Enchiridion is where it said that if you, "confine your aversion to those objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse." This doesn't relate perfectly, but reading this made me think of something I have heard many times before, which is that in order to live up to your full potential you should not focus on trying to fix things you're bad at, but instead focus on what you're good at. For example, say you're terrible at math but you're an amazing artist. You shouldn't try to get an A in your math class because by doing that you'll expend all your energy on something that you can probably become mediocre at at best. Instead you should put all of your energy into you art, because if you do that you can accomplish really amazing things. This also reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by the poet and environmental activist Gary Snyder:
"One's lesser talents might lead to success in craft or business, but then one might never find out what one's more playful capacities might have been."
This quote has really affected me, and kind of relates to what I was just talking about, but would relate even more if you thought of it like this: "One's lesser talents might lead to success in something one doesn't care about and isn't that great at, but then one might never find out what one's natural, passion-fed capacities might have been." That's kind of the same idea, I think. So basically just do what you like to do.
Going back to the Enchiridion, I don't necessarily think you should "confine your aversion to those objects only which are to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control," because there are certain cases where I think you should show your aversion to things that don't seem to be in your control. For example, though you yourself might not have the ability to get rid of a corrupt ruler, by expressing your aversion to this ruler you might end up contributing to a larger group of people who can collectively get rid of this ruler.
Like Alex, I've been getting pretty frustrated with the Stoics, especially with their metaphysics. There are a ton of things you can reason successfully about. Still, these guys never seem to get enough, and they continue to reason about experience--working backwards. It can't be done.
'if there is something in the world which human reason, strength and power are incapable of producing, that which produces it must be better than man. But the heavens and everything that, which display unceasing regularity cannot be produced by man. Therefore that by which those things are produced is better than man. And what name rather than God would you give to this?'
I wouldn't give it a name. Sure, you can understand an experience of strength or power but that is completely different. Understanding just puts labels on everything so your brain can file it neatly away. That color you're seeing? Yellow. The shape? Curved. The curved yellow thing? Banana. Check. Everything you know about bananas, you know because you had an experience and you understood; what more could reason possibly tell you beyond that? If you're trying to get to the 'essence' of the banana, its 'ultimate reality', then enjoy your aneurysm.
For the Stoics, A man is a creature who possesses the capacity to see connections as a natural endowment. The whole world is the work of immanent logic, and in his power of articulate thought man is supposed to have the means to formulate statements that mirror cosmic events. That is an attractive notion. More, I like it. Few contemporary philosophers offer us such sweeping visions of our world and ourselves; few have the courage to reach as far or as wide. But the Stoics think they can reason there way to anything. "The world has no beginning-- otherwise, there would have been nothing to start it!" Yeah, that makes sense--wait a second. What? "The world had a beginning-- and infinite regress is impossible!" Both of those seem reasonable, since we can't experience either. That's exactly the sort of dialectic crap that ruins it for me. Time and space don't belong to reason. You're better off watching Carl Sagan videos on Youtube.
One of the things that I find the most frustrating about reading ancient philosophy is the huge number of unsubstantiated claims that get thrown around. For example, the Stoics' belief in the gods. Where did they see them? What experience do they have with them? What they provide us with is a line of reasoning that seems, for some reason, strange, antiquated, irrelevant. I realized, however, that this is because I am being presented a world-view drastically different than any one which I could encounter today. Our most basic premises are not shared, and for this reason, it is very difficult to wrap my finger around the totality of what they're saying. Every sentence I read from the book floods my mind with a million objections that I need to suppress in order to focus and try to latch on to a world-view such as the Stoics', that says free-will is freedom of the attitude, or that nothing is something. These claims make no sense to me, and my head is screaming "no, no, no", but whenever I am able to forcibly silence my own thoughts, I can sometimes catch a glimpse of the thoughts of the Hellenistic philosophers.
This has led me to conclude that there are multiple (perhaps equally valid) ways to view the world, and existence. The issue is that many of them are mutually exclusive.
We began by discussing Zeno as a reactionary. He saw that Epicureanism was sweeping Greece and sought to reverse this trend, because he saw Epicureanism as a false philosophy. Zeno harbored a special hatred for atomism, and hedonism (pleasure as the good), two Epicurean staples.
We then learned that the word for Epicurus’ school, “Stoa”, means “porch” in Greek. This name was used because, being a foreigner, Zeno was not permitted to own his own space, and thus he and his followers met on a porch.
There were three main periods of Stoic thought: ancient, middle, and Roman/new Stoa.
On a side note, Dr. Layne mentioned that not-being has an ontological status of being to the Stoics, which is a crucial point, for it will have many implications in metaphysics.
Again expressing the dialogue between Epicureanism and Stoicism, Dr. Layne showed us a chart which depicted the almost diametrical nature of their belief systems. Glancing over: where the Stoics believed in monism, the Epicureans believed in atomism; where the Stoics defended an absolute teleology, the Epicureans disregarded any notion of an ultimate end or goal; where the Stoics were Pantheistic (their Gods played an integral role in the composition and nature of our world), the Epicureans believed in absentee gods; to the Stoics the soul was distinct from the body, but to the Epicureans, the soul was embodied (made of tiny, round atoms); where the Stoics held a strict, deontological ethic, the Epicureans believed that pleasure was the good.
The metaphor of the orchard illustrated the tripartition of philosophy from the Stoics’ perspective. The walls or outer parameter of an orchard is logic: it delimits and defends the orchard. The necessary conditions of the orchard, like sunshine, and water, and everything necessary for the trees to grow, represents physics. And finally, the fruit of all our labor is Ethics.
Logos meant many things to the Stoics. It was the source of truth in logic, the constructive principle in physics, and the normative principle in ethics. Long describes logos as having two parts: 1) dialectic, and 2) rhetoric. By all accounts, logos acts as a fountainhead of understanding. Rejecting the Parmenidian and Platonic sense of nous, the Stoics subscribed to a Heraclitean logos in order to argue for the objective and subjective man. This point became very unclear to me as it was then connected to episteme (mind), and ousia (being). It seemed to boil down to logos being “in us”.
The Stoics placed a heavy emphasis on language, and saw logos as the principle of truth, i.e., the law of thinking, knowing, and speaking (again, dialectic and rhetoric). Since logic is the elaboration of the criteria for truth, it needed to be treated first, so that it could act as the hand-servant of the Stoics’ other investigations (especially ethics).
The Stoic reliance on the senses, or their epistemological optimism, led them to engage in a dispute with the skeptics. For the Stoics, man is born “Tabula Rasa” or “blank slate”. We have no intuitive knowledge. Experience is the source of everything we know, meaning that sensation holds an important position to the stoics, for all knowledge depends upon it.
Foreshadowing Descartes’ “clear and distinct” ideas, the Stoics argued that only cataleptic sensations were infallible. These referred to any comprehensive presentation of reality. The term verdical presentation was brought up, meaning a sensation to which we assent—logos in our soul. This is important to the stoics, because they believed that we were not free as to whether or not we experience a certain sensation, but we were free to affirm/assent to or deny said sensation.
This “liberty of assent” should adhere to certain rules put forward by the stoics. These rules took the form of Stoic logic, or dialectic, which provides guidelines for inference.
