The Dominant Stoic Position on Emotion

In this message to the International Stoic Forum Grant Sterling corrects Anna Kinesman and Seneca, too.

9/25/15 3:57 AM, Anna Kinesman [ ... ] [stoics] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Grant,
>
> From Seneca we have [On Consolation to the Bereaved]: ‘When emotion has
> prompted a moderate flow of tears, and has, so to speak, ceased to
> effervesce, the soul should not be surrendered to grief.’
>
> Note that there is a recognition of different aspects of emotions and
> that the natural emotions are seen as normal, whereas the extreme is
> advised against.

*****
I have read the "Consolation...", and other works by
Seneca, but it is not obvious to me whether:
a) Seneca is speaking to someone who wants to make
progress as a Stoic but is still somewhat trapped in habits
of accepting the value in externals, or
b) Seneca is not accurately presenting the view held
by most Stoics.

The dominant Stoic position is that one should feel
no grief whatsoever. "If you kiss your child or your wife,
say that you are kissing a human being; when when they die,
you will not be upset." (Epic., Ench., 3)
See below...
***



> Nature intended that we have emotions – and we are meant to seek harmony
> with Nature.

*****
Our nature, with which we are to seek harmony, is
Reason. Emotions (again, as the word is used in English
most of the time) are irrational--hence, we are not to
have them. Emotions are rooted in _false_ beliefs, and
false beliefs conflict with reason.

I repeat my argument from earlier in this thread:
A) We only control our beliefs, desires, and will.
B) Nothing out of our control is either good or evil.
C) Emotions and desires are caused by beliefs that things
are good or evil.
D) Ergo, we should have no emotions or desires connected with
any external thing, that is, anything other than our own
beliefs, desires, and will.

If Seneca (or you, or anyone else) holds that we
should feel grief at an external (say, for example, the death of
a child), then either A, B, or C must be false.
Which of these principles do you claim are not part
of Stoic teachings?
***


> Your interpretation of Stoicism seems extremely harsh as not even the
> Stoic sage was expected not to feel – Seneca [On Philosophy and
> Friendship]: ‘Our ideal wise man feels his troubles, but overcomes

> them…the wise man is self-sufficient.Nevertheless, he desires friends,


> neighbours and associates… he can do without friends, not that he
> desires to do without them.’
>
> Note that the wise man has feelings and desires.
>
> I believe that your confusion is that you are seeing the mind as a

> single integrated whole.The human mind is a collaborative affair.The


> emotions are there for a purpose.

*****
This is truly remarkable. You are exactly right that I see
the mind as a single, integrated whole, in opposition to theories
(such as those of Plato and Aristotle) that regard it as a collaborative
affair in which emotions arise independently of Reason.

And that idea of the soul is distinctive of the theory known
as Stoicism. For example:

"Their account of the human soul (mind) is strongly monistic. Though
they speak of the soul's faculties, these are parts of the commanding
faculty associated with the physical sense organs (Aetius, 53H). Unlike
the Platonic tri-partite soul, all impulses or desires are direct
functions of the rational, commanding faculty."
-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Stoicism"
(Long interprets this unitary nature of the soul as a
process by which Reason comes to transform the previously
a-rational impulses of the child, but I'm not interested here in
the questions of human childhood development. See, for example,
"Hellenistic Philosophy", pp. 173-4.)
***



> The aspect that Stoicism recommends should avoid being influenced by
> emotions is that which makes judgements – the soul as Seneca and others

> call it.The emotions will be there as part of our animal nature
> regardless.If they are not then there is a psychological problem that
> needs to be addressed.

*****
Once again--you are right that your theory is consistent
with common sense, but your theory is simply not Stoicism. Almost
everything you say is Aristotelian.
***


> Stoicism does not advocate <<< the elimination of all the things that
> people ordinarily think of when they think of "emotions". >>>Even though
> you are a professional philosopher you are wrong when you say, <<<
> Stoicism completely rejects the ordinary view of emotions. >>> and that
> <<< Stoicism is utterly radical. >>>
>
> Your view of what ‘ordinary people’ think seems to suggest that you do
> not talk to ordinary people very often.

*****
I talk to them a great deal. I wish that you would describe
to me exactly which of my assertions is incorrect. But I am puzzled
because you seem to be saying that:
a) Stoicism is consistent with common sense,
b) Stoicism says that we should seek moderate emotions.
Yet when I claim that common sense says that we should feel
emotions but they should be moderated, you claim that I don't
understand the ordinary view of emotions.
***

> I view myself as an ordinary person.I aim to live a Stoic life.What you
> describe is not the Stoic life that I have read of.It is a form of


> radicalism that I do not recognise as representing what Stoicism all

> about.It is even more radical than that which we have from Epictetus.

*****
It is almost word for word from Epictetus. For example:
"Actions do not disturb people, but opinions about actions;
for example, death is nothing terrible, or else it would have appeared
so to Socrates also, but the opinion about death, that it is terrible,
that is what is terrible.
So when we are hindered or disturbed or grieved, let us never accuse
another, but ourselves, that is, our own opinions.

So we should not feel upset even about death, and whenever we
are upset we should blame our (false) opinions.
***



> Seneca:
>
> On the Happy Life
>
> iii.‘Meanwhile, I follow the guidance of Nature – a doctrine upon which

> all Stoics are agreed.Not to stray from Nature and to mould ourselves


> according to her law and pattern – this is true wisdom.’
>
> On the Care of Health and Peace of Mind
>
> ‘One must indulge genuine emotions; sometimes, even in spite of weighty
> reasons, the breath of life must be called back and kept at our very
> lips even at the price of great suffering, for the sake of those whom we
> hold dear; because the good man should not live as long as it pleases

> him, but as long as he ought.He who does not value his wife, or his


> friend, highly enough to linger longer in life – he who obstinately
> persists in dying – is a voluptuary.’
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Anna

Regards,
Grant