7 ms·
Seneca was a Stoic. But being a Stoic has little to do with the standard cliche of suppressing your emotions. It is a philosophy that emphasises a rational re
by SeamusBrady 17y ago
Seneca was a Stoic.
But being a Stoic has little to do with the standard cliche of suppressing your emotions.
It is a philosophy that emphasises a rational response to nature, your own and that of the universe. "Follow nature" is a common Stoic saying - unconditionally accept that which is the case and do not disturb yourself with emotional upheavals about that which one can do nothing.
The French philosopher Pierre Hadot summarised the four features that constitute the universal Stoic attitude in his book "Philosophy as a way of life".
These are:
- We are part of of a Cosmic Whole, made up of the totality of the universe and the totality of all human beings
- There is nothing evil in nature. The only evil is moral evil in humans. Realising this makes a person serene and free, the only thing that counts is the purity of your own conscience.
- The belief in the absolute value of the human person
- The concentration on the present moment through training and spiritual exercises. Through the present moment we have access to the entire cosmos.
Much of modern cognitive psychology owes it roots to the work of the Stoic philosopher Epictitus. Much of our beliefs about human rights, the basic ethical doctrines of Christianity and our notions of healthy psychological self sufficiency all come from the Stoics.
And yes, I am a fan :)
- Eliezer 17y ago> We are part of of a Cosmic Whole Bet you Seneca never said that. It's a highly evolved modern form of nonsense.
- scorciapino 17y agoSo it's time to actually read some Seneca instead of betting on your prejudice. I think I've read most of his work, and while I can't remember anything specially about this, as it was a well-known part of the stoic's cosmovision, from bits of information here and there, you can actually see this clearly.
- yters 17y agoNo, stoics tended to be pantheists.
- zackattack 17y ago"Highly evolved modern form of nonsense"... can you explain please?
- AngryParsley 17y ago- There is nothing evil in nature. The only evil is moral evil in humans. Realising this makes a person serene and free, the only thing that counts is the purity of your own conscience. What about natural disasters and diseases? I would call earthquakes and smallpox evil. They've killed more people than people have. If you want to play games with definition and only count things as evil if they intend to do harm, well then I'd still say they're bad and I would prefer we fixed them.
- gojomo 17y agoSmallpox may have killed more people than other people have. Earthquakes, probably not. I think most people reserve 'evil' as a moral judgment of intentional acts. Plate tectonics and viruses having no intention would thus not be considered 'evil'. (That's not a word game; that's the common meaning.) Smallpox is pretty much conquered. What's your plan for fixing earthquakes?
- mapleoin 17y agoSpaceships!!
- AngryParsley 17y agoI meant combined, earthquakes and smallpox have killed more than humans have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil Evil is defined as something that is immoral, causes pain or harm, is offensive, or threatening. The group of people I hang out with skew toward the definition I accept, but really it's just a definition. My real objection is that stoics (and many others) rationalize the current state of things as good. The alternative is to recognize that there are still a lot of big problems humanity needs to solve. I consider the eradication of smallpox the second greatest accomplishment of humanity so far. The first is the green revolution, headed by Norman Borlaug. His new strains of crops saved about a billion lives in the 20th century. With regards to earthquakes: Just because we can't solve a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I'm not offering a solution, just pointing out that earthquakes kill people. I don't want people to die, so that makes earthquakes bad in my book. It also makes disease, aging, and lots of other things bad. Is does not imply ought.