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
No comments:
Post a Comment