Stoicism is not Therapy, but Training (Part 3)

 This email message from Grant Sterling to the International Stoic Forum is the third of a three part discussion he had with Jules Evans.

At 05:47 PM 2/25/2008, Stoic Stoic wrote:

>this would be a pity, because the core stoic

>insight - that our suffering often comes from

>our own thoughts and beliefs rather than from

>externals - is much easier to accept for most

>people. its much more practically useful.

>stoicism has survived because of that insight,

>not because of the more radical idea that the

>only real source of happiness is inner virtue.

Slow down. The belief that our suffering comes from our own

thoughts and not from externals is equivalent to the belief

that externals are neither good not evil. If externals were

genuine goods or evils, then our perception of a genuine evil

would cause suffering, as would the loss or absence of a genuine

good. So you cannot coherently believe that our suffering

never comes from externals without holding that externals

are neither good not evil.

Now, as I said, you can phrase this doctrine in whatever

way will help the other person learn it. You don't have to use the

_words_ "good" or "evil". But that's the doctrine.

It would be a shame to teach someone that externals have

no value [in whatever way you wish to phrase it] and not teach them

that Virtue _does_ have value. It would be odd to teach them that

suffering comes from our thoughts and beliefs and not from externals,

and not teach them that _happiness_ comes from having the proper

thoughts and beliefs. I see no reason why this "more radical idea"

would be hard to swallow for anyone who swallowed the "core

insight". Why would that be?

>and the techniques of stoicism - training

>oneself to stay mindful, to stay in the moment,

>to keep thought journals, to challenge negative

>thoughts etc - are also much more generally

>accessible and applicable than the more radical

>idea that the only source of happiness is inner virtue.

Train oneself to stay mindful _of what_? To keep thought journals

_about what_? All these techniques, it seems to me, either reflect the

underlying Stoic doctrine [we are to challange negative thoughts _because_

negative thoughts are based on the false belief that externals have value],

or else they are in no way distinctively _Stoic_ techniques [many other

philosophical systems recommend that you stay mindful of something, etc.]

>stoicism can actually help people to achieve

>their external goals. they decide they would

>like to overcome their shyness with the opposite

>sex and try to meet a nice girl or boy, for example.

That's great. I do not deny that Stoic techniques can

make people happier.

>the 'pure' stoic therapy would be to tell them

>that a girlfriend or a boyfriend is an

>indifferent, it's not a source of real

>happiness, so they should rather spend their

>time trying to accept the will of the Logos. so

>they accept the will of the Logos and don't change their situation.

This is false. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of

goodness that results from not understanding the doctrine of

preferred indifferents. Pure Stoic therapy would tell them no such

thing. [Although it _would_ tell them to accept the will of Logos

if they try to meet someone _and fail_...but you'd better be teaching

them that, or else your method won't be relieving their suffering at all.]

>but a more practical form of stoic therapy would

>treat the attempt to get a girlfriend /

>boyfriend as a stoic exercise, as a way to

>challenge one's shyness and conquer one's fear,

>which achieves the stoic goal of conquering fear

>and getting closer to a state of inner balance,

>as well as, hopefully, the practical goal of

>getting one to be more calm and confident with

>the opposite sex, so that you do actually find a nice girlfriend or boyfriend.

I have no trouble with this.

>this more practical form of stoic therapy is

>what CBT, REBT and positive psychology has

>incorporated. because it has retained the core

>insight of stoicism (thoughts often cause

>suffering) without the more radical claims (only

>source of happiness is virtue) it has gained

>great acceptance with the medical community,

>with governments, and with ordinary people.

The success it has had is the result of incorporating

Stoic _doctrine_. I see no reason to suppose that it

would have less success or popularity if it incorporated _more_

Stoic doctrine. :)

[This is no different from the way in which Freudian

psychotherapy is based on Freudian _doctrines_ about

the nature of the unconscious, repression, etc. The only

difference is that Freudian psychotherapy doesn't work,

because they underlying doctrines are false.]

>The waiting lists of people trying to get CBT in

>the UK are still huge - you have to wait at

>least six weeks in many places. But the

>government has now put in £400m to train more

>therapists and get waiting lists shorter.

>

>There are six million people with depression in

>the UK, and about 4 million with anxiety

>disorders. you can't wait for them all to accept

>that the only source of happiness is inner

>virtue. if they don't, i still believe stoic

>ideas and techniques can help them.

Indeed, it can help them because they will then be "making

progress", by adopting the first and most basic Stoic principles

and working upwards. More power to them. I have no objection

whatsoever to the expansion of Stoic-based psychological programs.

>All the best,

>

>Julian

Regards,

Grant

Stoicism is not Therapy, but Training (Part 2)

 This email message from Grant Sterling to the International Stoic Forum is the second of a three part discussion he had with Jules Evans.

At 12:07 PM 2/25/2008, Stoic Stoic wrote:

>Well, I don't agree with you, Grant. Im not saying that you havent

>done useful and helpful work with others, but I dont agree that to

>get the benefit from Stoic techniques and ideas, you must accept all

>of Stoic theory.

I never said that. I said you must accept the core Stoic

beliefs.

>Imagine you went to the doctor with a terrible fever and they said

>'now, before i can treat you, ill need you to accept in entirety all

>of my theories'!

If the fever was _caused by_ false medical beliefs, that's

exactly what I'd expect him to say. [Leaving out the "in

entirely all" part.]

>imagine if buddhists said, 'before you come in and learn this

>meditation technique, you must accept all buddhist doctrine and metaphysics'.

Again, Buddhists do not hold the same view as Stoics

with regard to the origin of the ills meditation is meant to deal

with.

>In fact, millions of people have been greatly helped by learning the

>basic insight of Stoicism - that much of our suffering comes from

>our interpretation of external events, rather than the events themselves.

Specifically, that the events themselves are never worth

suffering over. yes, I quite agree. That is why the only doctrines

I claimed most be accepted to derive benefits from Stoicism are

the ones connected with this concept. Please re-read my post.

>People can grasp that quite quickly, and take a leap forward in

>terms of how they view the world and their own minds.

I quite agree. I never said otherwise. But what you're saying

is that to derive the benefits of Stoicism, what is needed is that the

person come to _believe_ the core principle of Stoic thought...which

is what I thought I was saying in my post. :) Stoic therapy does

not work without this belief.

>of course you can use stoic techniques (thought journals, staying in

>the moment, visualizations, thought analyzing and

>challenging) without accepting all of stoic metaphysics.

I never said otherwise. But you cannot use these techniques

(or, at any rate, there won't be anything remotely _Stoic_ about

your use of these techniques) if you don't accept the core

principles of Stoicism.

>i have experienced this myself - i dont sign up to all of stoic

>metaphysics, i dont believe in a Stoic Logos, i dont think all good

>is equally good and all bad is equally bad, i dont believe in the

>dignity of suicide, and various other stoic dogma.

I, too, do not believe everything the ancient Stoics believed.

>nonetheless, i used stoic techniques to overcome social anxiety, by

>focusing on how my own thoughts caused my anxiety, rather than the

>people around me; and then learning to control those thoughts.

That's great. But, as you say, that is a direct and simple

application of a basic part of the Stoic belief system. Unlike

the doctor's fever medicine, or even the Buddhist's meditation

techniques, this method _does not work_ unless you believe the

principle upon which it is based. If you believe that our desires

and emotions are casued by external events, or that they are not in

our control, or that the external events are truly evil and so the

anxiety is justified...then you can't relieve the anxiety "Stoically".

>yes, modern psychotherapy is parasitic of stoicism, just as stoicism

>is parasitic of cynicism and platonism.

The relationship is not the same.

>thank god psychotherapy has taken parts of stoicism and put them to

>use in the real world. if they hadn't, all those millions of people

>wouldn't have got past the door, because they don't understand

>eupatheia or they don't accept that virtue is the only good...

So do they believe that external things are truly good, thereby

having desires for them, thereby becoming distressed when things

don't go exactly as they desire them to go? If so, then the

psychotherapy isn't helping them much. It would have been better

if they'd learned philosophy instead.

>As to stoicism only working as an immunization rather than a cure,

>there are literally millions of modern examples which disprove that,

>millions of examples where people have used stoic techniques to

>overcome emotional disorders which they are already in the grip of.

Not without chaning their beliefs, they didn't.

>and in the ancient world, cicero used stoic teachings to get over

>his breakdown when his daughter died. if he had fully accepted stoic

>teachings before she died, he wouldnt have had a breakdown. but he

>still found stoicism very helpful to get over his bereavement.

>

>stoicism is a therapy - its a cure. if we werent sick in the first

>place, we wouldnt need the cure.

We are sick in the sense that we have an underlying condition that

breaks out in incidents of distress. No real cure for the distress exists that

doesn't address the underlying condition.

>All the best,

>

>Julian

Regards,

Grant

Stoicism not Therapy, but Training (Part 3)

Stoicism is not Therapy, but Training (Part 1)

 

 This email message from Grant Sterling to the International Stoic Forum is the first of a three part discussion he had with Jules Evans. 


A useful exercise londonstoic 


At 03:12 AM 2/25/2008, Stoic Stoic wrote:

>OK...but I still think there's a question of how to open up

>Stoicism, so that it isn't merely a specialist conversation among

>academics, but is something that helps ordinary people with their problems.

>

>I think this forum could (and occasionally does) help give people an

>idea of how Stoicism can help with their emotional suffering, in

>practical examples, like Seneca's practical advice on dealing with

>rage, or Cicero's on bereavement, or Marcus Aurelius' on worrying

>about fame, etc

>

>This is why Stoicism is so enduringly popular - because of its

>practical and concrete applications to real emotional problems.

>

>Thanks for the heads up on the book, I will give it a read.

>

>All the best,

>

>Julian


As one of the professional philosophers on this List, and someone

who has often engaged on this list in highly technical discussions, I

thought I should say something on this topic.

My position, which I am sure is unpopular, is that it is _impossible_

to give people an idea of "how Stoicism can help their emotional sauffering"

without having a clear grasp on what Stoicism _is_.

Suppose my neighbor has lost a loved one. What does Epictetus

advise? Simply that I console him and pretend to grieve with him. In a

situation like that, it is highly unlikely that Stoicism [or, I

think, virtually

any other belief system or therapeutic method] will be able to do much

for him.

I didn't say that Stoicism is helpless to deal with such grief. It

is not. The problem is that the Stoic medicine has to be administered

before the shock. Stoicism functions as an immunization, not as a

cure. Let me have a chance to convince my neighbor of the truth of

Stoic doctrine long before the loved one dies, and he will feel no debilitating

grief when it occurs--or, at least, he will be in a position where he can

feel no grief, and where I can help him by reminding him of the Stoic

truths he has embraced.

So what would this Stoic immunization therapy look like? It

will and must take the form of nothing other than convincing him of

the truth of the core doctrines of Stoicism. If I can convince him that

things not in our control are neither good nor evil, and that Virtue is

the only Good and source of happiness, then he will be able to have a better

life. But if he does not make these beliefs part of his belief system,

Stoicism can do little or nothing to help him with his distress _from the

outside_. That's why I disagreed with Malcolm's claim that a modern

day Stoic would be a psychologist and not a philosopher--all psychological

benefits that Stoicism conveys can come only to those who believe

Stoic principles. [The psychological systems that most resemble

Stoicism do precisely this--they teach some basic Stoic _doctrines_,

sometimes with direct quotes from Stoic philosophers.] The psychology is

parasitic on the philosophy.

Now of course I need not convince him of these things using

Stoic technical terminology. But such terminology is helpful on

this List in allowing us to say things quickly and precisely. But

if I begin to discuss Stoic thought with my neighbor, I will bet [given

my experiences doing this sort of thing with friends and students]

that he will ask questions like "but doesn't this mean that I'd have to

be an emotional zombie?" and "doesn't this mean that I'd never eat

or doing anything else, since it wouldn't be good or evil to do so?",

etc. If he is persuaded of these things, he will never believe in

the principles of Stoicism, and will never rid himself of desires for

external things, and will therefore continue to suffer distress. How

can I answer such questions? By understanding the doctrine of

eupatheia, and the doctrine of preferred indifferents. Again, I need

not use that terminology with my neighbor, but I will have to explain

those ideas if I wish to convince him that Stoicism is not absurd.

"But", he will object, "I cannot change my desires." So I will have

to explain to him [in whatever words I choose] the Stoic doctrine that

desires follow from beliefs about value, that such beliefs are in our control,

that I can refuse to assent to impressions that I have been harmed,

etc.

So, speaking for myself, all my successes at making other

peoples' lives better through Stoicism have come from convincing them

of the truth of Stoic ideas...in other words, by engaging in exactly the

kind of conversations we have on this List. While [e.g.] Epictetus talks

a great deal about dealing with distressing circumstances, in every

case that I can think of off the top of my head his comments are

addressed _to someone who already accepts Stoic doctrine_. He

offers little or nothing in the way or advice as to how to deal with the

suffering _of someone who does not know and accept Stoic ideas

already_. Indeed, I don't think he _can_ say anything about that,

because at the bottom Stoicism says that distress comes from

false beliefs about the world, and the distress will not go away while

the false beliefs remain. If your problem is dealing with the suffering

of someone who is not able to rationally consider these fundamental

truths, then Stoicism has nothing to offer you--look elsewhere for

that advice. But even then, if Stoicism is true [and I think it is], you

will look elsewhere in vain--unless the sufferer changes his beliefs

about being harmed, he will continue to suffer.

Now I am not very good at offering general advice to people

who already have Stoic beliefs but fail to follow them in some

area or other. So if that's what you want--advice on dealing with

anger for someone who is convinced that Stoicism is true but

still gets upset--then of course it will be fine for people on this List

to offer whatever suggestions they may [or to cite suggestions

from the ancients on such matters, some examples of which you

gave in this post]. But I claim no special expertise in such matters,

and in any case as I said such advice comes only after the person

has come to believe that Stoicism is true--and whatever small

contributions _I_ might be able to make to Stoicism will have to

come in that area--"Stoic Apologetics", if you will.



Regards,

Grant

Stoicism is not Therapy, but Training (Part 2)

A Stoic theory of emotion versus an Aristotelian one

This entire page is a quoted message of Grant Sterling to the International Stoic Forum (date not available at this time). The subject is an argued contrast of Stoic and Aristotelian theories of emotion.

"I am withdrawing from this thread. I do not

see how it is possible to have a constructive conversation

about these matters. I have tried, valiantly, to understand

your views (and Nigel's) even when I disagreed with them.

I don't see that you are trying to understand me, or Steve,

or Kevin.

On 11/4/15 10:34 AM, Anna Kinesman [stoics] wrote:

>

>

> Dear Kevin,

>

> I believe that neither Nigel or I have offered any beliefs that are

> <<<demonstrably not Stoic>>>.

>

> We follow the Stoic principle that Stoicism must be rational, and that

> means not holding to ideas that have been shown to no longer be

> rational.Much as there have been claims to the contrary, none of our

> ideas have affected Stoic principles.

*****

    As I said before, the idea that we should believe

that which is rational is _a_ Stoic principle, but it is

by no means the only one! Marx thought that we should

believe that which is rational--does that mean that

you're Marxists? But Adam Smith thought that, too--are

you Marxist Capitalists? Aquinas thought you should

believe on the basis of Reason and so did Bertrand

Russell--are you Catholic atheists? Throw in Descartes--

are you rationalist empiricists?

    More to the point--Freud thought that you

should have psychological beliefs that are consistent

with the most advanced science. Does that mean that

all psychologists today who try to keep up with modern

science are Freudians?

    Look at the Sellars "Introduction to Stoicism".

It lays out fairly clearly the basic principles that

define what Stoicism is. Your views contradict _most_

of those basic principles.

    Your view is not Stoicism. Period. That

doesn't mean that it's false, or evil, or anything

like that. But it's not Stoicism in the very same way

that it's not Freudianism or Marxism or Cartesianism.

The ideas that are distinctive of the Stoics are

denied by you.

***

> Nigel has been very careful in his use of the word ‘principle’.After all

> the old Greek science as adopted by Stoicism regarding the blank slate

> mind is not considered to be a Stoic principle and it is no longer held

> to be rational.So if this one idea can be updated in light of newer

> ideas without affecting the Stoic principles why can’t others?

*****

    a) It has been pointed out that the Stoic

idea of a blank slate is typically misunderstood. I

am by no means convinced that the idea they meant to

express has been proven false.

    b) But suppose it has. Your rhetorical question

is absurd.

    Suppose Smith says "I am a Cartesian Dualist."

Smith then says "I believe that all substances are

made of physical matter". Jones now objects--"If you

believe that all substances are made of matter, then

you're a materialist, not a Dualist!" But Smith responds,

"The idea that the interaction between the mind and the

brain occurs in the pituitary gland (as Descartes

surmised) has been rejected. If we can update _that_

idea of Descartes' in the light of modern science without

affecting Dualism, why can't we modify other principles

and still be Cartesian Dualists?"

    The answer, of course, is that some principles

are central to the definition of "Cartesian Dualism",

and others are peripheral. If you hold the central ones

and not the peripheral ones, you can meaningfully be called

a "Cartesian Dualist", but others cannot be so modified--if

you change the belief about two kinds of substances, you cease

to be a C.D. and have become a Materialist. You may hold

on to some other things Descartes said (maybe, for

example, you believe in God or something), you may continue

to be inspired by Descartes' commitment to being rational...

but your views no longer fit the definition of "C.D."

and now fit the definition of "Materialism".

    Your views no longer fit the definition of

"Stoicism", they are much closer to "Aristotelianism".

Whether you have read Aristotle or not, whether you

like reading the Stoics or not, whether you continue

to hold on to the pantheism that some (but not all)

Stoics defended or not.

***

> What is being demanded by those who will not consider any change to the

> Stoic science is a bit like trying to teach sailors to navigate on the

> assumption that the world is flat even though the sailors are fully

> aware of both modern science and of the common sense that tells them the

> world is a sphere.

*****

    Again, this is nonsense. It amounts to what

looks to me like a willful attempt to misunderstand

what several of us having been saying.

    You interpret us as saying: [~ abbreviates 'not']

a) The Stoics believed ABCDEFGHIJ ~Q~R~S~T~U~V~W~X~Y~Z

b) I want to be a Stoic.

c) Ergo, I must believe ABCDEFGHIJ ~Q~R~S~T~U~V~W~X~Y~Z

even if some of them have been proven false (by modern

science or in some other way).

    That's not at all what I've been saying. I've

been saying:

a) We should believe whatever has been proven by the

best science (philosophy, etc.).

b) "Stoicism" is a word, which gets its meaning from

conventional understanding (like all other words). In

philosophy, it is the name for a set of beliefs, a small

subset of all the things that any of the ancient Stoics

might have believed: let's call that subset ACFI ~T~Y~Z

c) There are many other names of philosophical theories,

also defined by a subset of distinctive beliefs: Epicureanism,

Aristotelianism, Kantianism, Utilitarianism, etc. Each

word picks out a different set of beliefs. {Some pick

out a different set of beliefs when used in different contexts:

"Kantianism" in ethics isn't the same as "Kantianism" in

epistemology.}

d) One should only call oneself a "Stoic" if the beliefs

one holds [as a result of 'a'] resembles the set of beliefs

that define "Stoicism" closely, and resembles it more closely

than any other philosophical theory.

e) You and Nigel have a set of beliefs that denies the

majority of the central defining beliefs of "Stoicism".

On the other hand, your views are very, very close to

the central defining beliefs of Aristotelianism.

f) Ergo, you aren't Stoics. You're Aristotelians.

g) My beliefs are much, much closer to the Stoic core,

and are closer to Stoicism than to any other view. Not

because I want to be a Stoic and therefore I believe these

things, but because I think these beliefs are true and

have not been disproven by moderns science or anything else.

We disagree about what modern science has or has not proven.

h) Ergo, I'm a Stoic.

    Now you can object to how the word "Stoicism" has

been defined over the centuries. (And I really am talking

about centuries...two millenia, actually.) You can say

"the ideas that were _really_ central to the Stoics were

pantheism and the commitment to rational belief." I would

disagree with you as a matter of historical fact, but it's

irrelevant because neither of us gets to define what words

mean. If you want to know what the word "Stoic" means,

then look at the Sellars introduction to Stoicism, or

other similar sources. Then notice that you or Nigel

have denied the majority of the things it says there.

***

> The real question has to be, does the new science say that the Stoic

> principles are wrong.And the answer is no.

>

> For instance, we still have to make judgements free of emotions. All

> that has happened is that we now have a better understanding of how the

> various states of ‘stirrings’, that the writings talk of, actually work

> and a better understanding of where the reasoning faculty fits in.We can

> now include even the so called ‘good emotions’ in ‘emotions to be

> avoided’ when making value judgements without any justifiable objection

> being raised.

*****

    Before rejecting classical Stoicism it might be

helpful to listen to the various people on this list, and

the various sources that have been pointed to outside this

list, when we explain what the theory says.

    No Stoic says that when making a value judgment we

should include any emotion, including the 'good feelings'.

None of them, ever. The Stoics say that emotions and

good feelings _result from_ or _accompany_ value judgments

that have already been made.

    {Never mind that the idea that modern science says

anything at all about eupatheia is ridiculous to begin

with.}

    So I agree that no objection would be made, since

this isn't a change.

***

> The new science makes more sense as to why ALL emotions are to be put to

> one side when making decisions, an issue that many believe the ancient

> Stoics never fully resolved. Eupathos and other such ideas are often

> considered to have been a bit of a fudge.

*****

    "Often considered"? By whom? I don't know of one

single philosopher who regards the idea of "Joy" as a fudge.

Not one. But in any case since the Stoics never say that

we should make decisions on the basis of any emotions,

including Joy, this isn't a problem, either.

    I have no idea what sources you're reading, but

they don't overlap with any of the sources I read.

***

> The issue is just words.It is not an issue that concerns the Stoic

> principles.There is no choice between Stoicism and some form of new

> Stoicism on offer.It is a choice between sticking to old science no

> matter how irrational it is or of keeping Stoicism alive and fully

> supported by a reasoned overview of where knowledge is currently taking

> us regards being able to ‘learn from Nature’.

*****

I agree that it is partly a matter of words. You

wish to keep Stoicism "alive" by gutting some of its most

critical principles and replacing them with the principles

of a rival theory, Aristotelianism. (Again, I'm not saying

that you've read Aristotle and are doing it for that reason,

but the ideas are Aristotle's even if that's not where you

got them.) What you're doing is exactly the same as the

person who says "I'm a Marxist, but I want to update Marxism

in light of new developments in economics. So I don't

believe in the labor theory of value, or controlled economies,

or the downfall of capitalism by revolution. I believe that

we should encourage free market systems." OK, so you're not

a Marxist. You're a free market capitalist. Maybe you

don't like that name for some reason, but that's what you

are.

    You and Nigel are Aristotelians. You think that

modern science has disproven the ideas _that everyone else

uses to define the theory called "Stoicism"_. Granted

_you_ don't regard those theories as central, in the same

way that the hypothetical person above doesn't regard

those ideas as central to Marxism. But everybody else does,

so it is an abuse of language to take a version of Aristotelianism

and call it "Stoicism".

    As I said before, this might have been a more

productive conversation if you and Nigel had simply

presented your position as "modern science proves Stoicism

to be false, but here's a view that shares some of the

ideas of the Stoics in a modern setting". But you persist

in asserting that your views are "Stoicism".

    "Stoicism" is the theory that:

a) Emotions are caused by value beliefs (beliefs about

what things are good or evil).

b) I am my soul/prohairesis/inner self.

c) Everything else, including my body, is an external.

d) No externals are ever good or evil.

e) All beliefs that externals have value are, hence,

false.

f) All feelings that result from false value beliefs

are, therefore, pathological and should be eliminated.

This includes all fear, grief, and anger, as well as

mental "pleasure", passionate love, etc. We eliminate

them by changing the false value belief that generated

the emotion.

g) Any feelings that arise from true value beliefs are

not pathological. The primary example of this is "Joy".

h) Some feelings do not arise from a cognitive source,

and hence are by definition indifferent externals.

This includes 'startlement', physical pleasures and

pains, and a few other things.

i) The goal of life is eudaimonia.

j) Eudaimonia includes both living a virtuous life and

living a life of positive feelings.

k) Living a virtuous life is necessary for eudaimonia

[because it is part of the very definition of eudaimonia],

and is also sufficient for eudaimonia [because the virtuous

person will experience Joy, a positive feeling, and no

negative feelings whatsoever].

    That's the theory people mean when they call

someone a "Stoic". It's not a complete list of everything

the ancient Stoics believed (and the ancient Stoics

were not unanimous in what they believed--for example,

I don't think there's convincing reason to believe that

they were all pantheists, Epictetus shows no sign of

being a determinist, etc.). Those are the ideas that

people even in ancient times regarded as really distinctive

of Stoicism. [The skeptics excepted--they thought that

the concept of cataleptic impressions was the truly

distinctive doctrine, but that may be because they

were almost exclusively interested in epistemology.]

    As I said before, if you were only trying to

argue that modern science tells us that there are

a few more feelings in category 'h' than the ancient

Stoics recognized, that would clearly still be Stoicism

and, I think, would be well-justified. If you want

to argue that PTSD is a feeling not caused by a value

judgment, I'll cede the field to you, because I know

little about it. The same is true of clinical depression,

or phobias. But none of those are significant changes

because all of those are _bad things_ that we should

try to get rid of, and none of those require any changes

in any of the other core doctrines.

    But that isn't what you're saying. Either you

or Nigel have at times denied 'a' by holding that normal

emotions like anger and grief do not arise from value

beliefs; 'b', by denying that my mind/soul/etc. is

fundamentally separate from my body; 'c', by asserting

that my family is in some sense part of me; 'd-f',

by claiming that feelings of grief and anger and

other painful feelings are sometimes appropriate and

should not be removed; 'g', by denying that 'Joy'

should be regarded as always appropriate; 'i-j', by

denying that feelings of any kind are the goal of life,

and 'k', by asserting that even the virtuous person will

feel negative feelings.

    Your view is not Stoicism. It is not even

close to Stoicism. And if I were to introduce a

similar definition of Aristotelianism (with doctrines

like 'moderation in everything'), your views would

fit perfectly.

***

> Yours sincerely,

>

> Anna

    Adieu,

        Grant