stoicism

Hm. It appears that there IS no new synod of stoicism.

we're contemplating stuff, man.

Already, there are qualms. It seems that Seneca is not against the death penalty as some kind of tool of social order so long as it's not used in anger. If the state (or whoever?!??!) executes someone as a punishment or to deter others or simply as a last resort for the incorrigible, it's fine, provided it's done CALMLY and RATIONALLY. I find this problematic.

This is why I wanted to call it reformed.

I still have high hopes. Stoicism will save us. This can work.

further bulletins as events warrant.

epicureanism all the way, dude.

There IS there IS a new synod of stoicism. We're just really relaxed, you know, and sort of in control of our emotions, and hence not part of your whole uptight, type-a, deadline-ridden lifestyle choice. Which apparently we judge, though not in a way that suggests we are angry with you. No, our anger is managed, man.

I might add for the record that your whole renaissance stoicism revival is all well and good, but we're talking the original here, the source. Stoicism.

Okay, so here's how we get it to work. Seneca's whole thing about anger is that you need to keep it under control because it IS a form of judgement that you, yourself, make, not something that competes with or works against judgement. Hence, you can't say, in his model of the psyche, that you have judgement on the one hand and then emotions on the other. The emotions ARE judgements. Anger is a kind of opinion, one in which you think you have been hurt or slighted in some way, and wish to have revenge or punish that person. So, a rational person could reach the same decision and have the same wants, including to punish someone, it's all a matter of controlling how you reach your judgements and hence how you decide about your actions.

All of this is to point out, then, that one can disagree with Seneca about, say, the death penalty, but that doesn't mean that that one (gender neutral and yet still grammatical, so the grammar underground won't get on our ass) is not a stoic. So long as you're exercising your reason (and some other stuff, but more about that later, when I've figured it out!!!!), you're good. AND he'd be the first one to say that you can disagree with him, again so long as your MODE of conclusion-reaching/decision-making is a good stoic one.

This in turn means that you can take OTHER stoic precepts, e.g. being community-minded and doing favors, and revamp them to fit out (mostly) non-monarchical modern state, and possibly even to do political activism so as to (rationally, with compassion, and without anger) make things better and nicer for us all.

TAKE THAT, EPICUREANISM!

so, here are some advantages of stoicism as a religion. Join today! Getting converted has never been so easy!

You absolutely do not need to believe in any kind of supernatural being, incarnate or otherwise. This is a MAJOR advantage, and not one offered by any other world religion. Call now, supplies are limited!
We're just kidding. Supplies are not limited. Supplies are practially endless, and everyone can have some. Everyone can have as much stoicsm as they want.
It's all about praxis. This is not some hoity-toity, theory-based, abstract thingy here. This is about going out and being happy (well, relaxed and content, maybe? I'm still not sure what the policy is here. One thing's for sure, though, you don't have to walk around all pissed off and stressed out all the time) and doing good in the world.
Stoicism is not about ranks and hierarchies, not a way to get saved at the expense of others. With Stoicism, EVERYBODY WINS!
stoicism does not pretend not to have political goals and then foist them on you. Stoicism is all about political goals, and we'll tell you all about it in our next installment, COMING SOON, all about community-mindedness and On Doing Favors. Don't miss it!

But what about pleasure and voraciously seeking out new experiences? That's what I like about epicureanism.
Well, if you want to go through life thinking only of yourself, I guess that's your choice...

And what about what Shadi Bartsch says about stoicism and all that inuring yourself to violence through lots of obsessing about it stuff? What about that, huh?
What about it, indeed? It's not the new synod of Shadi, dude. But hey, if you want to you through life thinking only what other people tell you to instead of reading the text yourself and coming to your own conclusions, I guess that's your choice.

Comments:

From Rob [64.241.37.140] - 5/13/05 12:52 PM

"You absolutely do not need to believe in any kind of supernatural being, incarnate or otherwise."

Taoism???

From eager undergrad [128.135.227.131] - 4/20/04 10:22 PM

I've seen your marginal doodles, Phil, and I know you're a big fat procrastinator. (I'm serious about the marginalia. Ha! Trumped your big important job. And I was in college at the time.)

Some of us also consider the 16th and 17th centuries un peu, shall we say, nouveau.

"Renaissance" my ass.

From Philip Melanchthon [128.135.245.170] - 4/20/04 10:16 PM

Some of our jobs involve knowing all there is to know about religion and philosophy in the 16th-early 17th centuries. At least, right now, as some of us prepare for seminar tomorrow.�

From all right, some of us have jobs [128.135.227.131] - 4/20/04 10:14 PM

so I'm a little behind! I am filled, FILLED with enthusiasm. Surely that counts for something.

From pseudonym - 4/20/04 9:54 PM

ONLY the most important neo-Stoic of them all. Yer darn tootin' -- fer cripes sake!

From nicole - 4/20/04 9:48 PM

Who the hell is Justus Lipsius? Should I know this? These questions are too complicated.

From rebecca - 4/19/04 6:15 PM

My question is, though, what about Justus Lipsius? That's my question.

Last Modified 4/24/04 1:39 AM

Hide Tools

Site
Changes
Index
Search

User
Log In
Register