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
No comments:
Post a Comment