Our options are to live or not live. If we live, we live; we must do what is necessary to live and will feel what humans feel. It's futile to be concerned that this is the case; that's simply the way of it. There are things beyond our control if we live. For those who live, Epictetus' recommendation is sensible--do the best with what you have and take the rest as it happens.

For those who live, Epictetus' recommendation is sensible--do the best with what you have and take the rest as it happens. — Ciceronianus the White

Well could one for example make the best with what one doesn't have? Or could one take what is out of one's control any way but the way it happens? I think the greatness of the stoics lies primarily not in the rationality of their philosophy but in engendering good attitudes - the purpose of stoic discourse obviously can't be to rationally enlighten someone - it's patently obvious that one can only do the best with what they have, and can do nothing but accept what is outside of one's control. The purpose must be to create the attitude in the soul, such that when one encounters a certain type of experience (obviously a difficult one) then one's reaction is changed. Furthermore, one develops certain virtues, such as resilience in the face of adversity, perseverance, courage, and so forth. Stoicism is less philosophy and more way of life, achieved via a certain oft-repeated discourse aimed at re-minding one of key principles.

The ancient Stoics had their forays into logic and "physics" and so were probably as much philosophers as others of their time, but I quite agree Stoicism is a way of life, and it was treated as such by the Stoics of the Roman era in particular. As you say, Stoic practice serves to foster that way of life.

That's why I think Epictetus is pertinent, though. It's life (I think!) that's being addressed in this thread, and rather shabbily. It seems to me this is due to an excessive concern over things which aren't in our control (to use Stoic phraseology). And for my part, I think that concern is unreasonable, if not irrational, and in that sense Stoicism can "rationally enlighten" us.

That's why I think Epictetus is pertinent, though. It's life (I think!) that's being addressed in this thread, and rather shabbily. It seems to me this is due to an excessive concern over things which aren't in our control (to use Stoic phraseology). And for my part, I think that concern is unreasonable, if not irrational, and in that sense Stoicism can "rationally enlighten" us. — Ciceronianus the White

I agree but I lean more towards thinking that the thread is about a particular state of consciousness which experiences the world in a certain way. This is ultimately a self-contradictory state of consciousness as it undermines itself - it is unhappy with its own way of being, and seeks for a sort of escape. There is no question of rationality here - the pessimist / instrumentalist or however else he is to be called understands that there is no point in complaining about the world. And yet he still does it, the way a bird would still sing its song even if there were no purpose to it. So making one understand that it is not rational will not change their act - they understand that, and their song is a protest - a self-consciously absurd one. It's their attitude and reaction to something that has to be changed, and yes, stoicism does potentially have the tools to do this. But it's not about rationality. It's about showing that the fulfilment of this state of consciousness lies outside of itself, and then of course in actually inducing the switch. Because it is like a switch - change the glasses, and then the world looks and feels entirely differently.

Survival may be both partially socially constructed or biological but it is certainly exists and adds to the absurd state of having to move forward at all despite the knowledge of the situation. — schopenhauer1

The absurdity lies in the new culturally-evolved and rather pointless habit of being able to question what we in fact take for granted.

We are biological creatures with all that naturally entails. It is not absurd in itself but all very reasonable.

But we are also - for a few centuries at least - rationalising animals, socially trained in the art of "giving reasons" to justify our behaviour.

It is useful that we see ourselves as "selves" - individuals who can creatively negotiate an acceptable balance between our private (biological and historical) desires and our public social systems (that exist to sustain our human lives).

And the Enlightenment - as a philosophical break with theistic social traditions - was the advance by which this implicit social contract was itself made explicit within culture. We stepped up another level in being able to debate even the rights and wrongs of this social construction of a "free-willing" selfhood. We could improve on its design as a matter of political choice. And so we had the reforms that empowered individuals to actually have more control over their own lives - the social constraints on their actions now being as abstract as possible in being framed within bills of rights, constitutions and other legal frameworks.

But of course, the very nature of rationality - the sharp construction of choice states - is that for every yes, there must be the possibility of a no. For every go, there must be the counterfactual thought of whoah.

That is not absurd. It is what makes rationality work. To act this way is to also decide not to act that way.

However, as action produces reaction, the Enlightenment did conjure up its own cultural response in Romanticism. If the Enlightenment looked outwards to the social conditions that fostered freewill - the development of a culture of self-hood based on an explicit habit of self-regulation - then that also made concrete its (impractical) "other". People could start to imagine doing the opposite in some way - like acting in unregulated abandon, returning to an animal state of unthinkingness, or ascending to some superman state where the individual became larger than his/her social conditions.

That made for great art. People find fictional worlds entertaining. And Romantic portrayals can even reinforce the Enlightenment's rational choices. The sharpness of the "other" also sharpens what it busily "others". Rationality can also take on its own absurd cultural representations as a consequence - the nerdy engineer with pens and a pocket protector.

So it is not hard to track the origins of romanticism, existentialism and eventually pessimism. The more the average individual human is empowered by improvements in his/her social conditions, so too can become more exaggerated the irrational reaction displayed to that very fact.

The pessimist can now come onto social forums waggling his/her bleeding stumps, complaining of the most absolute personal disempowerment. The pessimist has "discovered" that the whole of life is a fraud - socially conditioned, based on biological imperatives - and so he/she is not going to put up with that any more.

And yet - even worse - the pessimist can't see a point to anything. Abstract away the sustaining social conditions, the natural biological imperatives, and the habit of self-regulating selfhood is left with no meaningful choices to make. All that freewill and now no reasons to act! What a colossal tragedy (or farce)!

The pessimist claims this is all philosophically sound because it is where rationality itself leads. If you keep stepping away from the conditions of life, the conditions of society, you wind up as a knot of thought that is simply saying no because it has discovered it could also be saying yes. And in being this detached from the reasons for saying yes, logic seems now to dictate the choice must be no because yes depends on those reasons.

Instrumentality is simply a line of questioning that has painted itself into a corner. It is no different from Cartesian doubt, solipsism, and other familiar exercises in rationality which overshoot the mark by leaving behind the original grounds for belief that made such questioning meaningful.

Sure, the whole point of the modern, empowered, enlightened, negotiating individual is to be an able-minded questioner of the given. But to overshoot the mark and wind up disempowering their own selves through a questioning regress is obviously silly.

If that is the point you have reached, time to turn back and engage with mundane reality again.

I agree but I lean more towards thinking that the thread is about a particular state of consciousness which experiences the world in a certain way. This is ultimately a self-contradictory state of consciousness as it undermines itself - it is unhappy with its own way of being, and seeks for a sort of escape. There is no question of rationality here - the pessimist / instrumentalist or however else he is to be called understands that there is no point in complaining about the world. And yet he still does it, the way a bird would still sing its song even if there were no purpose to it. So making one understand that it is not rational will not change their act - they understand that, and their song is a protest - a self-consciously absurd one. It's their attitude and reaction to something that has to be changed, and yes, stoicism does potentially have the tools to do this. But it's not about rationality. It's about showing that the fulfilment of this state of consciousness lies outside of itself, and then of course in actually inducing the switch. Because it is like a switch - change the glasses, and then the world looks and feels entirely differently. — Agustino

Perhaps you're right. In that case this is in the nature of a problem, I think. If a resolution is sought, there are ways of addressing problems rationally. In the case of psychological problems, cognitive behavioral therapy, which owes much to Stoicism, has been employed successfully to combat depression.

If a resolution isn't being sought, what can be said?

In the case of psychological problems, cognitive behavioral therapy, which owes much to Stoicism, has been employed successfully to combat depression. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes I agree. CBT in fact is very much like stoicism - apart from the metaphysical propositions and the worldview. I think actually stoicism is superior as it is a worldview (great applicability) - CBT is a therapy designed to cure particular problems - say fear of airplanes, or health anxiety - and thus has a smaller scope. I found ACT therapy to be an improvement on CBT and stoicism though - basically a combination of CBT and mindfulness, and somewhat better than CBT at changing a person's attitudes not only in regard to a specific problem, but in the entire way they approach life. One of my best friends is a psychologist who works primarily using ACT - they often deal with patients who have to live with chronic pain and other such conditions.

If a resolution isn't being sought, what can be said? — Ciceronianus the White

Well the seeker has to start disliking the way they experience the world - maybe because it is unfulfilling - and seek after a different way of relating with it. There's many different ways of experiencing the world. Even after one recovers from depression, even that recovery may not be an optimal state yet. Very often people who recover from severe depression or trying circumstances retreat from life - in the sense that they become easily satisfied, and prefer to do as little as possible so long as they can remain comfortable doing that. And when discomfort comes, they just bear it - but they don't reach out into the world very much - their desires become quite minimal. Their consciousness is quite stoic - so they attain to equanimity, but their life becomes quite tedious too. They learned to deal with pain and adversity, but maybe they could live a bit more colorfully while retaining those lessons. All that can be done in that case is suggest the possibility to them - sooner or later they will understand that they are living a good life, but could perhaps live better. Not by renouncing what they learned - but by incorporating it into a practice that is more expansive in the world.

For those who live, Epictetus' recommendation is sensible--do the best with what you have and take the rest as it happens. — Ciceronianus the White

I read the Echiridion. There were some useful ideas in it but overall I was struck by how many "do's" and "do not's" there were, as if we had to jump through so many hoops just to maintain some element of virtue. The resolutions only seemed to illuminate the problems more.

The absurdity lies in the new culturally-evolved and rather pointless habit of being able to question what we in fact take for granted. — apokrisis

Though you gave a somewhat interesting history with regards to Enlightenment and Romanticism, you overlook earlier periods of probable ennui. The ancients wrote about this- thought it was probably limited to the upper class. It is hard to say with any certainty what a peasant thought when he was plowing his fields. Perhaps he had a vague feeling of instrumentality when he saw each day look pretty similar. However, perhaps he was simply too forced with immediate survival needs to even have such vague thoughts enter his mind. Either way, as you say, when humans come to a point of this kind of rationalization- perhaps only after a certain time period, as you mentioned, then we can come to this conclusion. The more free time, the more we can see the bigger picture of what is going on behind the immediacy of simply reacting to hand-to-mouth needs. Like a lot of things (math, science, etc.), the brains that evolved for certain tribal lifestyles had the latent capacity to unlock far beyond the probable social/biological niche problems our species were trying to figure out in the original habitats of our first ancestors.

Instrumentality is simply a line of questioning that has painted itself into a corner. It is no different from Cartesian doubt, solipsism, and other familiar exercises in rationality which overshoot the mark by leaving behind the original grounds for belief that made such questioning meaningful.

Sure, the whole point of the modern, empowered, enlightened, negotiating individual is to be an able-minded questioner of the given. But to overshoot the mark and wind up disempowering their own selves through a questioning regress is obviously silly. — apokrisis

If that is the point you have reached, time to turn back and engage with mundane reality again. — apokrisis

I think the key here is that you already know the given, so you cannot just turn back without distraction, isolation, anchoring, and all the mechanisms at your disposal to do so. Its like the brightness of the sun was too much, so you cannot sustain it. That is fine, but realize what is going on. The instrumentality may be the farthest we can go, as you indicate, but at least we understand our situation. De facto, by continuing to live life, we have already engaged with the mundane reality, so that is simply a truism. If you want to ignore it, you may do so.

By the way, you can be as condescending as you want, that alone does nothing against the argument, it simply gives the ambiance of "rightness" but proves little. Hopefully, people who read your comments cut through that style to actually see the arguments rather than the rhetoric.


Condescending: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others
condescendingly play \-ˈsen-diŋ-lē\ adverb

I read the Echiridion. There were some useful ideas in it but overall I was struck by how many "do's" and "do not's" there were, as if we had to jump through so many hoops just to maintain some element of virtue. The resolutions only seemed to illuminate the problems more. — darthbarracuda

"But everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare" - someone wise said that. But people today expect everything on a silver platter...

The ancients wrote about this- thought it was probably limited to the upper class. It is hard to say with any certainty what a peasant thought when he was plowing his fields. Perhaps he had a vague feeling of instrumentality when he saw each day look pretty similar. — schopenhauer1

Yes, the invention of the individual, the invention of democracy, began in Ancient Greece - Socrates in particular - and got rediscovered with the recovery and dissemination of those texts in Europe. All hail the printing press.

So in Ancient Greece, there were thoughts about these things - among the small circle of the privileged class. Not so much among slaves and women. But also, the Greek peasant in the field was a little different just because of the small-holding nature of Greek agriculture. That itself makes for a mentality that is both individualistic and co-operative - socially flexible in a way that grain empires, rice paddy colllectives, and nomad lifestyles are not.

The Greek peasant was the reason for the fearsome "total war" machine of the Hoplite citizen-soldier. Greek individualism meant also the new possibility of men banding together in the name of a common abstraction - the state - to fight to the last person standing in defence of the abstract right to a bit of dirt.

This is the irony of Western civilisation. In enabling people to think of themselves as parts of a larger machine, not a rabble, tiny military forces could conquer vast hordes everywhere they went.

I mention this because it again shows that you have to come back always to the reasonableness that underlies the social contract. The Enlightenment took over the world so quickly because it was a form of social organisation that worked so well.

The West did not win and takeover the planet because it looked inside itself and discovered some superhuman source of will. It won because it empowered the individual to act - as an intelligent and self-interested choice - in an unrestrained collective fashion.

Of course, you will now miss the point and say this machine-like social style is exactly what you are complaining about. But again, I emphasise that when it works, it works precisely because it socially constructs individuals who can think for themselves - and through that, really commit to the collective action which best advances any self-interest.

The more free time, the more we can see the bigger picture of what is going on behind the immediacy of simply reacting to hand-to-mouth needs. — schopenhauer1

But you are not seeing the bigger picture if you don't actually understand the dynamics of the cultural history that produced you.

Modern life did not take away all the usual immediate concerns of life - like a roof over your head, food to fill your belly - so you could fritter your existence away in gaming and complaining. No, your job now is to get on with earning big bucks and consuming - accelerating the fossil fuel entropification of the planet.

Whoops. Yes, that doesn't have to be your job of course. It would be nice if you applied yourself to society's question of what better collective action we should be striving after. That might be a really useful use of the gift of life.

But you get the gist. The fact that you find yourself at a point of cultural history where - like a small circle of Greek aristocrats - you have endless "free time" to contemplate your navel, does not mean you should then waste your time in that fashion.

So if you do indeed find your own personal meaning to life in terms of "striving after the bigger picture", then you have to put in enough effort to make sure you really achieve that. Instrumentality and pessimism just seem like lazy shortcuts to me. They demand the least effort to make sense of the world. Just curl up on the couch and wait to die.

By the way, you can be as smug as you want, — schopenhauer1

What is more smug than to be telling me that I am sadly self-deluding in believing life involves an effort for good reason?

So in Ancient Greece, there were thoughts about these things - among the small circle of the privileged class. Not so much among slaves and women. — apokrisis

Again, that is speculation. We don't know much about slaves, and women because they had little if anything to write and all we know is characterizations from those who could.

The West did not win and takeover the planet because it looked inside itself and discovered some superhuman source of will. It won because it empowered the individual to act - as an intelligent and self-interested choice - in an unrestrained collective fashion. — apokrisis

One possible story, but perhaps just one story out of many for why the West won out. This may be a good generalization, but you know more than many I am sure, that there is way more complexity to the West besides the small number of cultural reasons that are encapsulated here. Not doubt, free-thought, and individualism within boundaries that cultivate some social benefits is a good start, though not complete.

Of course, you will now miss the point and say this machine-like social style is exactly what you are complaining about. But again, I emphasise that when it works, it works precisely because it socially constructs individuals who can think for themselves - and through that, really commit to the collective action which best advances any self-interest. — apokrisis

Now you are going from "what is" to "what should happen" in an ever so sleight-of-hand way. What I am talking about is not that we "should not" try to benefit the social good with our individual problem-solving skills and curiosity, but rather, "at the end of the day" the individual problem solving and curious things to puzzle over are part of the instrumentality of being, that we clearly are capable of being self-aware of. You called it earlier- overshooting our mark, but really it is just assessing the situation as it is. Again, to quote myself earlier- instrumentality is: the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking life. This feeling can make us question the whole human enterprise itself of maintaining mundane repetitive upkeep, maintaining institutions, and pursuing any action that eats up free time simply for the sake of being alive and having no other choice. There is also a feeling of futility as, the linguistic- general processor brain cannot get out of its own circular loop of awareness of this. Another part of the feeling of futility is the idea that there is no ultimate completion from any goal or action. It is that idea that there is nothing truly fulfilling. Time moves forward and we must make more goals and actions.

But you are not seeing the bigger picture if you don't actually understand the dynamics of the cultural history that produced you. — apokrisis

Who says I don't understand the cultural history? Just because you put down some interpretations of the Enlightenment and backlash of Romanticism, and then some ideas about development of Western values from Greek democracy, that means that I do not read about history, read other interpretations, and make my own conclusions- in good ole Greek free-thought, individualized fashion?

so you could fritter your existence away in gaming and complaining. — apokrisis

Condescending- again, employing "rightness rhetoric" does not mean you are right.

Whoops. Yes, that doesn't have to be your job of course. It would be nice if you applied yourself to society's question of what better collective action we should be striving after. That might be a really useful use of the gift of life. — apokrisis

Ha! That is my point, my dear sir... USEFULNESS for WHAT!?

But you get the gist. The fact that you find yourself at a point of cultural history where - like a small circle of Greek aristocrats - you have endless "free time" to contemplate your navel, does not mean you should then waste your time in that fashion. — apokrisis

So, you are going to paint me as aristocratic and navel-gazing- again a canard and patronizing.. all rhetorical, nothing of sound argument.. and you are going to contrast it with what? The "simple man" working in the factories, working in the trades.. the blue collar.. the "real" scholar? Those solving "real" problems.. and again, for WHAT... that is the POINT of instrumentality.

So if you do indeed find your own personal meaning to life in terms of "striving after the bigger picture", then you have to put in enough effort to make sure you really achieve that. Instrumentality and pessimism just seem like lazy shortcuts to me. They demand the least effort to make sense of the world. Just curl up on the couch and wait to die. — apokrisis

Yep, that's how I make a living.. Again, so many poor assumptions.. "Striving after bigger picture"- what the hell is that? What is the "bigger picture" talk about false telos. Fame? To be in a Scientific American? Encyclopedia Brittanica? The smile of knowing you "did" something "innovative"? How is that still not instrumental? Is this innovation, creation (making furniture, writing a theory, creating art, what not), are you making some really vague case that these are intrinsic goods.. that just NEED to be accomplished by any person of worth? Besides your rhetoric of some 19th century middle-class gent who thinks he knows "common decency" and "good taste", you have no argument, just some arrogant dude on an internet forum who thinks they know what is "good taste" and that for explaining my views on instrumentality MUST not have it.

I read the Echiridion. There were some useful ideas in it but overall I was struck by how many "do's" and "do not's" there were, as if we had to jump through so many hoops just to maintain some element of virtue. The resolutions only seemed to illuminate the problems more. — darthbarracuda

The Enchiridion is a summary statement of Epictetus' teachings prepared by his student Flavius Arrianus (Arrian). The Discourses are far more detailed, but again are made up of notes taken by Arrian. If Epictetus wrote anything (it's doubtful he did) it didn't survive. So what we read is in any case what Arrian thought significant. The Enchiridion is I think is best viewed as a short statement of thoughts and recommendations for use in Stoic practice; it's a "handbook" (that's its translation). It's a guide on how to live a Stoic life, and isn't meant to be an argument in favor of Stoicism or discussion of the theoretical foundation of Stoicism.