4 ms·

It was in the stoicism I studied in college, and stoics took it to be important to justify why their prescriptions were valid. But nowadays we don't need an ar

It was in the stoicism I studied in college, and stoics took it to be important to justify why their prescriptions were valid. But nowadays we don't need an argument, we can just point out that ancient people believed it and that's difficult convincing.

shantly 7y ago
Yeah, the difference between Stoicism-as-philosophy and Stoicism-as-self-help-book is that the former finds it necessary to justify the accuracy or reasonableness of its advice, starting from fundamentals like what physical reality consists of. Most people interested in Stoicism don't really care about that part now.
- gtirloni 7y ago
  I never heard of this distinction (self-help vs "true" philosophy). Wikipedia[0] has this: Stoics outlined what we have control over categories of our own action, thoughts and reaction. The opening paragraph of The Enchiridion states the categories as; "Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.". These suggest a space that is within our own control. Is that based on the self-help book approach? 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
  - shantly 7y ago
    It's more about how much you care that things like that are logically supported by and can be derived from the answers to questions like "what is physical reality?" For ancient Stoics—the ones who developed the philosophy—this was more important than for most people reading it today to learn how to be happier or whatever. So a modern reader might say "it's weird that this writer emphasizes determinism in their description of Stoicism" while an ancient Stoic might think it's weird that (basically) everyone interested in Stoicism today minimizes or ignores their physics. [EDIT] not to say their physics & metaphysics were constant over time—Stoicism's period of serious activity spanned centuries, after all—and that much of their "lower level" philosophy wasn't very likely produced by working backward from their conclusions, which is common in philosophies that attempt to prove or support their ethical beliefs in such manner (see also: "natural law" or "natural rights") [EDIT EDIT] and I'm not claiming that original approach is the superior one. It's just why there might be a difference in opinion over what's essential about Stoicism. The utility of a Stoic mindset may well be pretty unrelated to an underlying approach to the problem of evil, a statement about the nature of the divine, claims about what reality actually is, and so on.
    - gtirloni 7y ago
      Got it, thanks for clarifying.
- rwnspace 7y ago
  Who cares about the implementation, if it has the interface I (think I) want! :)

shantly 7y ago

Yeah, the difference between Stoicism-as-philosophy and Stoicism-as-self-help-book is that the former finds it necessary to justify the accuracy or reasonableness of its advice, starting from fundamentals like what physical reality consists of. Most people interested in Stoicism don't really care about that part now.

gtirloni 7y ago
I never heard of this distinction (self-help vs "true" philosophy). Wikipedia[0] has this: Stoics outlined what we have control over categories of our own action, thoughts and reaction. The opening paragraph of The Enchiridion states the categories as; "Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in a word, whatever are not our own actions.". These suggest a space that is within our own control. Is that based on the self-help book approach? 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
- shantly 7y ago
  It's more about how much you care that things like that are logically supported by and can be derived from the answers to questions like "what is physical reality?" For ancient Stoics—the ones who developed the philosophy—this was more important than for most people reading it today to learn how to be happier or whatever. So a modern reader might say "it's weird that this writer emphasizes determinism in their description of Stoicism" while an ancient Stoic might think it's weird that (basically) everyone interested in Stoicism today minimizes or ignores their physics. [EDIT] not to say their physics & metaphysics were constant over time—Stoicism's period of serious activity spanned centuries, after all—and that much of their "lower level" philosophy wasn't very likely produced by working backward from their conclusions, which is common in philosophies that attempt to prove or support their ethical beliefs in such manner (see also: "natural law" or "natural rights") [EDIT EDIT] and I'm not claiming that original approach is the superior one. It's just why there might be a difference in opinion over what's essential about Stoicism. The utility of a Stoic mindset may well be pretty unrelated to an underlying approach to the problem of evil, a statement about the nature of the divine, claims about what reality actually is, and so on.
  - gtirloni 7y ago
    Got it, thanks for clarifying.
rwnspace 7y ago
Who cares about the implementation, if it has the interface I (think I) want! :)