A Grant Sterling message to the International Stoic Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/message/23882
Re: [stoics] Definition of a (modern) Stoic
At 01:16 PM 3/3/2009, Steve Simmonds wrote:
>A question for those on this list who consider themselves stoics
>...what definition do you use to determine yourself to be a stoic?
>
>Are there a set of essential requirements? if so, what are they?
>
>All answers welcome.
>
>Steve S.
This is off the top of my head, so I may have missed something:
I think a Stoic is someone who holds (most or) all of the
following beliefs:
1) Happiness (eudaimonia) is to be found exclusively in Virtue.
2) Things not in our control are neither good nor evil.
3) The only things we control are inner events such as our
beliefs, desires, and act[s] of will.
4) Emotions (or passions, if you prefer) arise from (false) beliefs that
external things have value.
5) Virtue (or virtue and certain things that can be attained only by
those with virtue) is the only genuine good, and vice the only
genuine evil.
I think anyone who held all 5 of those beliefs could
reasonably be called a Stoic, and maybe someone who
held almost all of them. I don't think anyone who rejects
most of these 5 could be reasonably called a Stoic. You
might add a sixth, along the lines of "No-one should be
distressed by any external occurrance", but I think that
is derivable from the 5 above.
Certainly classical Stoicism could add many other
principles (pantheism/panentheism, materialism, determinism,
divine Providence, assent to appearances, etc.), but none of
them seem to me to be as critical to whether someone
counts as a Stoic as these. I don't think, for example, that
Epictetus was a pantheist, and I'm not sure he was a
materialist or determinist {he might have been, but I can't
tell}, but he was surely a Stoic.
I'm not a pantheist, materialist, or determinist, FWIW.
Some people on this List are.
Regards,
Grant
No comments:
Post a Comment