I think you're right to bring Heidegger's being-toward-death into this. The whole point of being-toward-death is to get out of the Das Man doxa-pool and become 'resolute.' It's basically the source of freedom, as it is with Hegel (whom Heidi, perhaps enviously, devoured)...tho freedom for what? For Heidegger it's the freedom to authentically repeat a historical act in your own time and assume your destiny. It's all very grand, to the point of feeling a bit like the plot of a rpg. (or the plot of Nazism, which let's be frank, is not entirely alien to Heidi's thinking...his political engagement can't be written off as entirely external to his philosophy) Heidegger quickly degenerates into Bad Rilke. But to bring this back to freedom qua creativity, I think it's easy, as a young artist, to want to emulate the styles and attitudes of established artists you admire. That can mean emulating their fuck you! bad-assery (Dada, Francis Bacon, Pisschrist) or their no-nonsense formalism (I don't know enough about visual arts here - Mondrian? Kandinsky?), or their gentle delicate sensitive repose (impressionism, Russian Realism.) But you can't really understand what's behind their styles, or tap into it yourself, unless you come hard against some bad shit, however that manifests. To actually repeat your hero, you have to repeat the impulse behind him - and that means to actually feel the impulse, and if you actually feel that impulse you won't make what they made, but something entirely different. But in doing so, you'll be closer to what they did than someone who quotes or imitates them.

How'd you first get introduced to Berdyaev? What determined the order in which you read his books?

How'd you first get introduced to Berdyaev? — csalisbury

I'm not sure but I first looked into him as part of my interest in Russian thinking, along with authors like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Lossky, Ivan Illyin, Solovyov, etc. What attracted me to him was his focus on religion (as I also am an Eastern Orthodox), and I first started by reading whatever I could get my hand of online from him mostly from here (the shorter works - the essays which interested me):
http://www.berdyaev.com/

Then I read two books - Philosophy of Inequality and The End of our Time, both of which I liked, and looked into a third - Spirit and Reality, which I've never finished. As for how I found out about Berdyaev - I'm really not sure, I can't remember to be honest. It may have simply been after googling Eastern Orthodox thinkers/philosophers.

What determined the order in which you read his books? — csalisbury

I guess it's my interests. I looked into works which interested me, mostly those which had political and religious elements interlinked in them.

A Stoic is supposed to be largely indifferent to such things as money, power, property, the opinions of others, what others desire, customs, and the more we speak of social organization and cultural values the more speak of such things as they relate to many people. — Ciceronianus the White

Are you sure? Seneca was the richest man in Rome. I'd say that rather than indifferent to money, they should be indifferent to the loss of money. If he was the richest man in Rome, he obviously had quite a large estate, which must have taken time to adequately manage. So he certainly invested that time, one wouldn't invest the time if they were completely indifferent to money - nor would they acquire the money-making skills.

Marcus Aurelius was Roman Emperor - he couldn't have been Emperor if he wasn't interested in power. The difference was just that he wouldn't sacrifice virtue for power - he had the right hirearchy of values.

desire for matters and things which are of no real importance — Ciceronianus the White

In relation to virtue they are of no real importance. But not absolutely.

I don't think a Stoic would do anything which would foster such concerns and desires and it seems our politics, at least, is entirely devoted to them. — Ciceronianus the White

I agree - a Stoic would be opposed to our consumerist society, which is built on greed and lust.

I would start with The Meaning of the Creative Act if you want to get an overall sense for his ideas. (Or have you read him already?) It's his earliest work that gives a broad sense of his philosophy. It's rambling and brash, but it's brilliant.

I agree with what you say about authenticity; that it may take the form of emulating, but not slavishly imitating, a hero.

To be a valid expression of the spirit of the times quite probably entails quite unself-consciously being yourself, free of concerns about how your actions or works will fit in or not fit in with history, influence people or not, or even be recognized or not. I think there can never be any guarantees and the desirability of avoiding hubris demands that the degree to which sheer luck (or providence if you prefer) comes into it be whole-heartedly acknowledged.

Are you sure? Seneca was the richest man in Rome. I'd say that rather than indifferent to money, they should be indifferent to the loss of money. If he was the richest man in Rome, he obviously had quite a large estate, which must have taken time to adequately manage. So he certainly invested that time, one wouldn't invest the time if they were completely indifferent to money - nor would they acquire the money-making skills.

Marcus Aurelius was Roman Emperor - he couldn't have been Emperor if he wasn't interested in power. The difference was just that he wouldn't sacrifice virtue for power - he had the right hirearchy of values. — Agustino

Seneca wrote wonderfully of Stoicism, but his accumulation of riches and power has always made Stoics and aspiring Stoics somewhat uncomfortable. I'm more sympathetic towards him now than I was in the past. It seems to me he became more truly a Stoic as he fell out of favor with Nero. Then, he offered to transfer all his fortune to the Emperor, but this was refused. After the death of his partner in trying to govern Nero, Burrus, he began to divest himself of power and became less and less a figure in government. According to Tacitus, when he became implicated (as well as his nephew, Lucan) in a conspiracy to assassinate Nero and was told to kill himself or be killed, he died in a manner worthy of a Stoic and a philosopher.

Marcus Aurelius was born to be an emperor and groomed to be one. I think being an emperor was in many ways a matter of expected duty to him; all would have thought him likely to become emperor whether he grasped at power or didn't. I'm sure he wasn't immune to the lure of power, though.

Remember, I referred to what a Stoic is supposed to think, believe, feel. Being a Stoic isn't easy.

Remember, I referred to what a Stoic is supposed to think, believe, feel. Being a Stoic isn't easy. — Ciceronianus the White

Okay, but why shouldn't a Stoic be concerned about money for example? I agree such a concern shouldn't overpower their concern for virtuous living, but why should there be no concern at all? What's wrong with the concern so long as it doesn't get in the way of virtuous living, and so long as it doesn't become an obsession or a source of worry?

Okay, but why shouldn't a Stoic be concerned about money for example? I agree such a concern shouldn't overpower their concern for virtuous living, but why should there be no concern at all? What's wrong with the concern so long as it doesn't get in the way of virtuous living, and so long as it doesn't become an obsession or a source of worry? — Agustino

I think that for a Stoic there is nothing admirable about making money or possessing it; one should be indifferent to it in that sense. It isn't something to be desired or pursued, because normally we do so to acquire things, property, power and status, regarding which we should also be indifferent. Note that I'm not referring to need here. I'm not aware of any Stoic who was critical of doing what we must do to survive. But I think for a Stoic seeking money or property or possessing them has nothing to do with virtuous living and generally would be contrary to it.

I think that for a Stoic there is nothing admirable about making money or possessing it; one should be indifferent to it in that sense. It isn't something to be desired or pursued, because normally we do so to acquire things, property, power and status, regarding which we should also be indifferent. Note that I'm not referring to need here. I'm not aware of any Stoic who was critical of doing what we must do to survive. But I think for a Stoic seeking money or property or possessing them has nothing to do with virtuous living and generally would be contrary to it. — Ciceronianus the White

But what if someone were to need money, status, power and so forth in order to be able to better help his society? After all, the service we can render to our society is limited by the resources we have on the one side, and by our will to do good on the other.

But what if someone were to need money, status, power and so forth in order to be able to better help his society? After all, the service we can render to our society is limited by the resources we have on the one side, and by our will to do good on the other. — Agustino

I aspire to be a Stoic, but may be something of a cynic as I think it's very unlikely anyone has ever needed or ever will need to acquire money, status and power in order to help others or society in general. People don't become rich and powerful in order to help others let alone feel the need to do so for that purpose. Or, at least, the likelihood of that happening I so small that it can't be deemed a possibility which would sanction such a desire to acquire riches and power.

People don't become rich and powerful in order to help others let alone feel the need to do so for that purpose. Or, at least, the likelihood of that happening I so small that it can't be deemed a possibility which would sanction such a desire to acquire riches and power. — Ciceronianus the White

Then how would you suggest they go around helping people? Isn't social organisation - which takes both money and influence - the place where the greatest good can be done? I mean if that was properly done, we'd surely have a lot less troubles - both economic and social - than we do today.

Then how would you suggest they go around helping people? Isn't social organisation - which takes both money and influence - the place where the greatest good can be done? I mean if that was properly done, we'd surely have a lot less troubles - both economic and social - than we do today. — Agustino

Ideally? By doing the best we can with what we have, to paraphrase Epictetus, and not seeking power over others and to possess things we don't have. By living in accordance with nature, which is to say reason. Ideally, none of us would be consumed by envy, ambition, hate, fear, anger, etc., because what causes us to feel those emotions would no longer be of significant concern to any of us.

But we won't ever all be Stoic Sages, of course. So, we do what we can to counter those negative emotions and the havoc they cause. That may well include acting together in pursuit of that goal in various respects, but I don't think it would include doing what generally causes them in ourselves and others.

Otherness can be diminished by empathy, but there will still be differences; but those differences end up becoming more defining than similarities due to our tendency to define by noting exceptions. It is somewhat of a techno-trick, that taxonomies proliferate and jargon needs to keep up, so rhetoric is generated that resonates for some, but may vilify others. Perhaps our logic is so obsessed with cause, that we populate sources with bias to calm dissonance.

Typically, punishment is little more than wishing to will away a past affront to a socially constructed convention. Since we can't change the past, we try to affect the future by steering society by using harm, which generates fear. This seems more prominent than rewarding people for not doing bad things, since resources are limited and the value of state issued hugs have somehow lost value. When someone does do something they think is bad to another, and wish to be forgiven, penance must be accepted by the harmed party AND the person must be able to forgive themselves, to be able to find respite from remorse. It isn't enough for someone to forgive themselves if they are not forgiven; just as it is not enough for someone to be forgiven but still haunt themselves. Although, it should be mentioned that remorse may be healthy, and self-forgiveness may just be something of a luxury for the forever sinful. As an aside, I believe in penance. I think that people can change and that self-grief is capable of modifying someones actions and beliefs. I think that burning bridges is an overall detriment to society, but also value individual rights to steer clear of violators. Losing trust in each other and in ourselves does not tend to increase the agency of the whole; but getting a faction to distrust another faction does seem to make divisions more clear in order to root out the latter faction; which seems like increasing agency if the premise is that the latter faction are decreasing agency of the former faction.

Humanism was brought up quite a bit at the beginning of the thread. Perhaps we can do a better job of humanism if we look towards post-humanism. If we open empathetic channels to animals and computers, we may include other humans along the way.