27 ms·

Personally, I would cut out the middle men. Avoid glossy-covered and over-marketed summaries of other men's work. Grab a copy of Epictetus' discourses and his

Personally, I would cut out the middle men. Avoid glossy-covered and over-marketed summaries of other men's work. Grab a copy of Epictetus' discourses and his Enchiridion. Read Aurelius' meditations. Get familiar with Plutarch's Lives. This will get one started cheaply: http://www.ebay.com/itm/LUCRETIUS-EPICTETUS-12-Britannica-Great-Books-1952-A-/200793378954?pt=US_Fiction_Books&hash=item2ec037d08a http://www.ebay.com/itm/LUCRETIUS-EPICTETUS-12-Britannica-Gr... Be aware, this volume includes Lucretius who is not a stoic, rather, a typical reductionist Epicurian. The Enchiridion can also be found cheaply: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Enchiridion-Dover-Thrift-Editions-By-Epictetus-/310586449786?pt=Fiction&hash=item4850651f7a http://www.ebay.com/itm/Enchiridion-Dover-Thrift-Editions-By... . Here's a fine translation of Plutarch's Lives: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plutarch-Great-Books-of-the-Western-World-1952-Vol-14-/251209763683?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item3a7d44cb63 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plutarch-Great-Books-of-the-Western-... . These works are cheap and readily available used on eBay and elsewhere. Take advantage of it if you are seriously interested in learning. Avoid the marketing. Read Knuth or K&R rather than "How to Program in 24 hours", etc. The same goes for philosophy. There's nothing new under the sun. Seek out what's stood the test of time, incorporate it into your fundamentals, and proceed from there.

snth 14y ago
Ah, but we do know more about the world in many ways than the original Stoics did. William Irvine's book recasts the Stoic teachings a bit: we don't believe that we were created by Zeus, for example, so he talks about how to interpret Stoicism in an atheist way (if one wishes).
- kingmanaz 14y ago
  >Ah, but we do know more about the world I disagree completely. The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition. We do know more physical minutia, ie., slates and chalk have fallen to iPhones, sandals to sports cars, and yet the essential spirit of man is the same as it ever was, and that is what the Stoics are addressing. The descendents of Aristotle have continued reducing the world to its sub-components in the centuries since Plato and he disagreed as to whether reality is in the whole or the part. But again, this is a fundamental division found in philosophy, and ultimately nothing new. >he talks about how to interpret Stoicism in an atheist way ...it would be better if he had taught how to interperet it in an agnostic way, rather. Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism.
  - igravious 14y ago
    > The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition. And what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology and culture? > Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism. Ouch. There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak.
    - kingmanaz 14y ago
      >what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology What if it isn't? Man no longer wars with trebuchets. Does that mean that the nature of man has changed? Similarly, man will someday set aside personal computers for something else. Does that mean that the nature of man will again change? A man's tools are not his nature, rather, nature is known through man's acts. Such acts are exampled in works such as Plutarch's lives or in the Meditations of Aurelius and speak just as true today as when they were written. Epictetus and the above cited wrote for the layman and require no arbitrator to make them pertinent or safe for the present day. Recognize that there materialistic and idealistic worldviews, and further, that the the former is ubiquitous today. Try to see beyond the coloring of the present. Man's stuff is not the stuff he's made of. Capiche? >what if the spirit of man is shaped by his culture? Then one would benefit by looking outside of the prejudices of the present when reading for edification. Avoid marketing forces. >There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak. Atheists are really just closed minded agnostics. They are believers every bit as much as theists. Both are dogmatic. Kant rationally discusses this in his Critique of Pure Reason. We have only five senses and a handful of a priori concepts with which to understand the world. All our knowledge is heaped up upon these principles of reasoning. In other words, what we know is fundamentally limited by what is used to know things. Objective certitude is far rarer than it is generally made out to be. Beware of dogma, whether atheistic or theistic.
      - snth 14y ago
        We're veering pretty far off topic here, but consider that, rather than attacking atheists or agnostics, we should just be more precise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabili...
ryanholiday 14y ago
Agreed. Stoicism is not "philosophy" as we've been taught to think of it (that is, dense, boring, confusing). Even the old translations of Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus are straight forward enough for anyone.

snth 14y ago

Ah, but we do know more about the world in many ways than the original Stoics did. William Irvine's book recasts the Stoic teachings a bit: we don't believe that we were created by Zeus, for example, so he talks about how to interpret Stoicism in an atheist way (if one wishes).

kingmanaz 14y ago
>Ah, but we do know more about the world I disagree completely. The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition. We do know more physical minutia, ie., slates and chalk have fallen to iPhones, sandals to sports cars, and yet the essential spirit of man is the same as it ever was, and that is what the Stoics are addressing. The descendents of Aristotle have continued reducing the world to its sub-components in the centuries since Plato and he disagreed as to whether reality is in the whole or the part. But again, this is a fundamental division found in philosophy, and ultimately nothing new. >he talks about how to interpret Stoicism in an atheist way ...it would be better if he had taught how to interperet it in an agnostic way, rather. Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism.
- igravious 14y ago
  > The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition. And what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology and culture? > Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism. Ouch. There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak.
  - kingmanaz 14y ago
    >what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology What if it isn't? Man no longer wars with trebuchets. Does that mean that the nature of man has changed? Similarly, man will someday set aside personal computers for something else. Does that mean that the nature of man will again change? A man's tools are not his nature, rather, nature is known through man's acts. Such acts are exampled in works such as Plutarch's lives or in the Meditations of Aurelius and speak just as true today as when they were written. Epictetus and the above cited wrote for the layman and require no arbitrator to make them pertinent or safe for the present day. Recognize that there materialistic and idealistic worldviews, and further, that the the former is ubiquitous today. Try to see beyond the coloring of the present. Man's stuff is not the stuff he's made of. Capiche? >what if the spirit of man is shaped by his culture? Then one would benefit by looking outside of the prejudices of the present when reading for edification. Avoid marketing forces. >There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak. Atheists are really just closed minded agnostics. They are believers every bit as much as theists. Both are dogmatic. Kant rationally discusses this in his Critique of Pure Reason. We have only five senses and a handful of a priori concepts with which to understand the world. All our knowledge is heaped up upon these principles of reasoning. In other words, what we know is fundamentally limited by what is used to know things. Objective certitude is far rarer than it is generally made out to be. Beware of dogma, whether atheistic or theistic.
    - snth 14y ago
      We're veering pretty far off topic here, but consider that, rather than attacking atheists or agnostics, we should just be more precise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probabili...

ryanholiday 14y ago

Agreed. Stoicism is not "philosophy" as we've been taught to think of it (that is, dense, boring, confusing). Even the old translations of Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus are straight forward enough for anyone.