They are actually your three wise monkey's again. And I guess the interpretation of this favored line of yours is an attempt to suggest that I am not seeing the full picture. — Tom Storm

No. I don't know if your optimism is genuine or a matter of being diplomatic. So here's that to figure out.

Presumably through some kind of selective blindness. Is this a smear, or was your intent less cynical than it appears?

I want to see the breadth and depth of your mind. As I always do, with everyone. But particularly with people who appear optimistic, who "love life".

It's prudent to know whether the person one is talking to is a true optimist about life, with profound reasons to back up such optimism. Or whether they are a bitter cynic or a sad fool diplomatically hiding behind a veil of optimism. I have no use for the latter types.

But there's no evidence that Epictetus was "ambitious" in the sense we would use that word, I think. — Ciceronianus

I wonder what kind of person would develop the kind of outlook on life and life advice as captured in the Enchiridion (and other works of the Stoics). And the only description I can think of is "ambitious". Because the philosophy of the Stoics isn't the philosophy of someone who has given up on life, it's not quietism; it's also not the philosophy of someone who is simply trying to develop a soothing narrative for their troublesome life. No, it's the philosophy of someone who is proactive; someone who seeks to be in control, but who also recognizes the limits of it. And who never gives up. The best description I can think of for this is "ambitious".

(This also seems to be the aspect of Stoicism that is so appealing to modern enterpreneurs among whom the philosophy of Stoicism has a mesure of popularity.)

The ancient Stoics often would elaborate on how a true Stoic Sage, who had perfected himself, would think and react to events, but it's recognized this was an ideal. I don't know if anyone ever became a Sage, but if they did I doubt it's something they would claim to be.

So then it could be correct to qualify Stoicism as an aspirational philosophy.

It's very important whether any Stoic attained sagehood, ataraxia, aequanimitas. Humility aside, if they have not attained the highest goal of what they're teaching, then they're giving advice they themselves were unable to follow through. Which means we're justified to doubt their advice, and their whole philosophy.

Thanks for your response. I respect this. :up:

I'd love to see these modern-day stoics (and the old ones, too, actually) cope with some real problems, like poverty on the verge of homelessness or grave illness, or both.
— baker

I don’t see how your sadistic appetite is relevant to our little chat.
— praxis

*sigh*

When evaluating something that is proposed as a coping strategy, one has to test it to see how it performs under pressure. — baker

It's a rather odd take to view stoicism as a strategy for coping with grave suffering. Also odd to delight in the suffering of others, I will add. I see it as a practice to live well or achieve eudaimonia. Spirituality and a sense of self-worth, two aspects of human experience that you seem to emphasize, may be important aspects of that endevor but there's more to it.

Read the god damn thread and keep up with the discussion, instead of me having to repeat to you everything over and over and reply to everything to you specifically. — baker

You claim that the stoic feels like a powerful member of the divine and that this feeling is, in a roundabout way, the core of its efficacy. No doubt it's good to feel powerful, and it's good to feel connected, but there's much more to life than feeling powerful and connected. "After enlightenment the laundry" as the zen proverb succinctly puts it.

the philosophy of the Stoics isn't the philosophy of someone who has given up on life, it's not quietism; it's also not the philosophy of someone who is simply trying to develop a soothing narrative for their troublesome life. No, it's the philosophy of someone who is proactive; someone who seeks to be in control, but who also recognizes the limits of it. And who never gives up. The best description I can think of for this is "ambitious".

(This also seems to be the aspect of Stoicism that is so appealing to modern enterpreneurs among whom the philosophy of Stoicism has a mesure of popularity.) — baker

I think in line with the above we have to consider that Stoicism is a philosophy of rationally guided behavior (especially after reading about the divine logos guiding us all, women and men alike). This is what stands out as perhaps most appealing in Stoicism.

I think in line with the above we have to consider that Stoicism is a philosophy of rationally guided behavior (especially after reading about the divine logos guiding us all, women and men alike). This is what stands out as perhaps most appealing in Stoicism. — Shawn

Then why your glum OP?

Then why your glum OP? — baker

Because I'm not very happy about apathy in Stoicism. It seems like a natural result of Stoicism.

Thanks for your response. I respect this. :up: — Tom Storm

You respect Baker’s prudently polarized view that a person is either a true optimist about life, with **profound** reasons to back up such optimism, or a bitter cynic or a sad fool diplomatically hiding behind a veil of optimism?

:lol: People are not so tidily categorized, in my experience. In any case, I’m curious about this profundity that reasonably supports optimism. Just how profound must it be?

I was acknowledging Baker's answer to my response. I wasn't aware that respect meant that I had to be in total agreement too. :gasp:

I’m curious about this profundity that reasonably supports optimism. — praxis

I thought this was a turn of phrase. I certainly understand how people might view optimism in a complex world like ours as requiring a profound or robust framework to hold it up. I'm not sure that I am an optimist. I generally hold to that often quoted aphorism from Pablo Casals, the great Catalan/Spanish cellist: "The situation is hopeless; we must take the next step."

I was acknowledging Baker's answer to my response. I wasn't aware that respect meant that I had to be in total agreement too. — Tom Storm

I've been led to believe that it means to hold something in high regard and not merely a sign of acknowledgment. No matter, I just found it amusing, and thanks for that.

I certainly understand how people might view optimism in a complex world like ours as requiring a profound or robust framework to hold it up. — Tom Storm

The thing about profundity is that it tends to be short-lived.

Then why your glum OP?
— baker

Because I'm not very happy about apathy in Stoicism. It seems like a natural result of Stoicism. — Shawn

From the OP:

I would like to focus on the difference between inner calm and inner peace of a Stoic. The difference manifests itself in dispreferred and preferred indifferents. I won't go into what they are but the thesis of this thread is that stoicism presents itself as a constant struggle (in my experience) with analyzing what is important to control in one's life. Life in the Stoics inner citadel is rife with a sense of arising apathy towards what life or fate has in store for you — Shawn

What is the difference between 'inner calm and inner peace' ?

An explanation of your understanding of the Stoic concept of 'Indifference' would have been useful.
Why did you avoid this ? It is difficult to articulate. *

--------

You talk of your experience of stoicism as a constant struggle in analysing what is important to control.
Well yes. But it needn't be such a struggle that it exhausts you ! Once you have the basics under your hat, then it should almost be second nature, no ? You've studied this for years and knowledgeable people here such as @Ciceronianus have given much time and energy in your Stoic discussions.
Is it any wonder that:

I sometimes think I've said all I have to say about certain subjects. Then, suddenly, I think I haven't. — Ciceronianus

It's good that you still raise these questions. The discussion brings benefits, even if you appear 'unhappy' or frustrated with Stoicism. Again...

--------
Any analysis of what is of value in life - what makes the difference in achieving wellbeing - isn't easy.
Stoic concepts are confusing, challenging and don't always make sense.

What do you mean by 'life in the Stoics inner citadel' ?
Where is this found ?
Where do you see ' a sense of rising apathy' ? What do you mean by 'apathy' ?

--------
* I'm following Stoic Week. Some of the additional resources, relevant to discussion:

Epictetus on Indifference in Things - Philosophy Core Concepts ( 11:56)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hfSBbUxmQE

A consideration and dialogue re Stoic values and the question: “What’s most important for you in life?”
https://modernstoicism.com/a-stoic-values-clarification-dialogue-and-workshop-by-christopher-gill-and-tim-lebon/

There's a story about Epictetus that he was tortured while a slave and pointed out to his torturer that if he kept it up he'd break Epictetus' leg, and that once he broke it Epictetus said something like 'I told you so." I'm inclined to think that story is like the stories which were told regarding Christians who were tortured or martyred and how they acted while in pain or dying; i.e., not credible. — Ciceronianus

Yes, I think that this idea of Stoic 'indifference' towards 'pain' is not credible when it comes to the actual, physical experience. Indeed, it is a most convoluted concept. No wonder it turns people off !

There's no doubt that it would be difficult to live a Stoic life. That may be why professed Stoics like Marcus Aurelius were inclined to engage in the discipline of constantly reminding themselves of what that would entail- — Ciceronianus

I don't see Stoicism as being a perfect system of philosophy. Rather it gives guidelines and exercises in thought and considered, careful action.

What is it that might be gained realistically or practically ?
Grateful for the knowledge/experience you bring to the discussion :sparkle:

Because the philosophy of the Stoics isn't the philosophy of someone who has given up on life, it's not quietism; it's also not the philosophy of someone who is simply trying to develop a soothing narrative for their troublesome life. No, it's the philosophy of someone who is proactive; someone who seeks to be in control, but who also recognizes the limits of it. And who never gives up. The best description I can think of for this is "ambitious". — baker

That's an interesting perspective. I think "ambitious" is commonly defined as having a desire for fame, wealth, power, prestige, achievement, etc., in other words for things which make a person impressive, notable to others and influential over others. Ancient Stoicism expressly condemned that desire. I'm aware of the fact that some people who claim to be Stoics today think it can help us succeed in business. That's clearly a perversion of ancient Stoicism. There are those who claim accepting Jesus as our savior will help us succeed as well (like Joel Olsteen, I believe).

But I think you're right that the Stoic seeks to achieve certain things, like tranquility, equanimity.

It's very important whether any Stoic attained sagehood, ataraxia, aequanimitas. Humility aside, if they have not attained the highest goal of what they're teaching, then they're giving advice they themselves were unable to follow through. Which means we're justified to doubt their advice, and their whole philosophy. — baker

If we're justified in abstaining from any practice or philosophy which doesn't result in our perfect happiness (or tranquility, or enlightenment), then I doubt we'll find anything which meets with our satisfaction. I don't expect perfection in life, or knowledge. Epictetus suggests we make the best use of what's in our power, and take the rest as it happens. I do what I can do with what I have to promote my own tranquility and do right by others, and try not to let what I can't prevent from happening stop me from doing so. It seems a very sensible, even admirable way to live, to me.

I think "ambitious" is commonly defined as having a desire for fame, wealth, power, prestige, achievement, etc., in other words for things which make a person impressive, notable to others and influential over others. Ancient Stoicism expressly condemned that desire. — Ciceronianus

I understand the condemnation is due to their not being in our control and can all be lost rather easily. Virtue, on the other hand, is said to be something that we can control, and not as easily lost.

I don't see Stoicism as being a perfect system of philosophy. Rather it gives guidelines and exercises in thought and considered, careful action. — Amity

I think the same. It's a wise way of living.

I understand the condemnation is due to their not being in our control and can all be lost rather easily. Virtue, on the other hand, is said to be something that we can control, and not as easily lost. — praxis

I think the ancient Stoics thought that fame, wealth, etc. were ephemeral, and so were easily lost. So, you see Marcus Aurelius referring to the court of Vespasian or even of Augustus and how little they're remembered or thought of in his time. I also think that they felt that pursuing them requires that we concern ourselves with things beyond our control. But I think the fact that fame, wealth and power are temporary wasn't the only basis on which their pursuit was considered unworthy. I think they were considered insignificant as not conducive to virtue.

Again, is this the Aristotelian conception of arete or virtue? Also, there are preferred indifferents.

As a side issue of this thread, do you think apatheia is a natural conclusion of Stoicism or even quietism?

That's an interesting perspective. I think "ambitious" is commonly defined as having a desire for fame, wealth, power, prestige, achievement, etc., in other words for things which make a person impressive, notable to others and influential over others. Ancient Stoicism expressly condemned that desire. — Ciceronianus

Of course. Seeking fame for the sake of fame, wealth for the sake of wealth, etc. would be wrong from the Stoic perspective. But from what I understood, the Stoics were in favor of making good use of one's time and energy, which, if one has the predispositions and resources for them, would result in wealth, power, fame, etc. The Stoics were proactive about worldly matters. Like you say later, "Epictetus suggests we make the best use of what's in our power, and take the rest as it happens." The Stoics weren't like, for example, Buddhist monks who are forbidden from working for a living. (We could even compare the Stoics to Boy Scouts.)

I'm aware of the fact that some people who claim to be Stoics today think it can help us succeed in business. That's clearly a perversion of ancient Stoicism.

Indeed.

There are those who claim accepting Jesus as our savior will help us succeed as well (like Joel Olsteen, I believe).

I actually read a faux obituary the other day saying that Osteen drowned in a pool of cash ...

It's very important whether any Stoic attained sagehood, ataraxia, aequanimitas. Humility aside, if they have not attained the highest goal of what they're teaching, then they're giving advice they themselves were unable to follow through. Which means we're justified to doubt their advice, and their whole philosophy.
— baker

If we're justified in abstaining from any practice or philosophy which doesn't result in our perfect happiness (or tranquility, or enlightenment), then I doubt we'll find anything which meets with our satisfaction.

A doctor who smokes and wo tells you that you should stop smoking (and that it's easy enough to stop smoking) just isn't very convincing.

I don't expect perfection in life, or knowledge.

I do.

Epictetus suggests we make the best use of what's in our power, and take the rest as it happens. I do what I can do with what I have to promote my own tranquility and do right by others, and try not to let what I can't prevent from happening stop me from doing so. It seems a very sensible, even admirable way to live, to me.

Sure, and for ordinary practical intents and purposes I agree with what you're saying here. But I also hold higher aspirations. I do believe there are perfections worth striving for, primarily, perfect happiness and perfect knowledge.

As a side issue of this thread, do you think apatheia is a natural conclusion of Stoicism or even quietism? — Shawn

Because I'm not very happy about apathy in Stoicism. It seems like a natural result of Stoicism. — Shawn

Stoic apatheia isn't simply apathy, and shouldn't be the natural result of Stoicism, given that a Stoic lives in an orderly, divine universe in which it is possible to act virtuously. A Stoic is proactive, so there's no room for apathy.

Like I've been saying all along, it's only if we strip Stoicism of its metaphysical underpinnings that we end up with a glum perspective on life.

But perhaps the problem is that you don't really believe there is a divine logos guiding our lives?
(Believing in such divine logos certainly goes against modern scientific theories; there's quite a bit at stake here.)


This is from another thread, but I think it also belongs here:

Why is philosophy still associated with no inherent value, or even more practically, valued so little? — Shawn

There's a saying: "A philosopher deals in expendable theories, while the religious man puts his life on the line for the things he believes."

Again, is this the Aristotelian conception of arete or virtue? Also, there are preferred indifferents.

As a side issue of this thread, do you think apatheia is a natural conclusion of Stoicism or even quietism? — Shawn

The Stoic view of virtue as I understand it is distinguished from Aristotle's because in the Stoic view virtue is the only true, or real, good. So, virtue itself is sufficient for happiness according to the Stoics. External goods and even bodily goods are not needed, though they may provide benefits to a person--thus "preferred" indifferents. The Stoics claim that happiness isn't dependent on those goods, i.e., the claim it's possible to have happiness without fame, wealth, power, and even friends or lovers.

Apatheia in the sense of being without disturbance, without fear, without negative emotions or passions (anger, hate) is what the Stoics strive for; not indifference to all things.

There's a saying: "A philosopher deals in expendable theories, while the religious man puts his life on the line for the things he's been led to believe." — baker

And far too often the lives of others.

I fixed the quote, btw.

Of course. Seeking fame for the sake of fame, wealth for the sake of wealth, etc. would be wrong from the Stoic perspective. But from what I understood, the Stoics were in favor of making good use of one's time and energy, which, if one has the predispositions and resources for them, would result in wealth, power, fame, etc. The Stoics were proactive about worldly matters. Like you say later, "Epictetus suggests we make the best use of what's in our power, and take the rest as it happens." The Stoics weren't like, for example, Buddhist monks who are forbidden from working for a living. (We could even compare the Stoics to Boy Scouts.) — baker

Well, not Boy Scouts, I hope. I had trouble being a mere Cub Scout.

Seneca is sometimes thought to be a hypocrite or worse for claiming to be a Stoic while becoming rich and powerful during Nero's Principate (until Neo turned on him, of course). He defended himself from those claims, of course, maintaining (if I recall correctly) that wealth and power would not necessarily cause someone to be without virtue, and could even be used virtuously. Over time, I think Stoicism came to accept that certain conditions though they may result from things beyond our control aren't to be avoided solely for that reason, and may be "preferred" as a result. And, the Stoics thought that we're all citizens of the universe, united by the fact that we all carry within ourselves a part of the Divine Reason which generates and guides it, and should be treated well by each other accordingly.

I do believe there are perfections worth striving for, primarily, perfect happiness and perfect knowledge. — baker

I agree we should strive for them--make great efforts to obtain them. But we're imperfect beings in an imperfect world.

I fixed the quote, btw. — praxis

No, you put words into my mouth.

You were quoting yourself?

It is a fact that religious followers follow and a handful of leaders lead them.

Stoic week continues with Saturday: Stoic it up!

All about the choices we make, why and the consequences for self and others.
The Morning Quote:

“If you can find anything in human life better than justice, truthfulness, self-control, courage … if you can see anything better than this, turn to it with all your heart and enjoy the supreme good that you have found… if you find all other things to be trivial and valueless in comparison with this, give no room to anything else, since, once you turn towards that and divert from your proper path, you will no longer be able without inner conflict to give the highest honour to that which is properly good. It is not right to set up as a rival to the rational and social good anything alien to its nature, such as the praise of the many, or positions of power, wealth, or enjoyment of pleasures. All of these, even if they seem to suit our nature for a little while, suddenly take control of us and carry us away. But in your case simply and freely choose what is better and hold on to that. ‘But what is better is what benefits me’. If it benefits you as a rational creature, then maintain this. But if it does so as an animal, reject it and hold to your decision without a big fuss. Only take care that your enquiry is conducted securely”

Marcus Aurelius: Meditations 3.6

The part I bolded reminded me of @Shawn - his frustration with Stoicism; life choices and apathy.
Following Stoic guidance and exercises is not easy or simple, even when the mind is up for it and in a relatively stable state.

I 'should' go for a walk every day for health benefits BUT I'm tired, it's cold out...
I 'should' phone my nonagenarian, Christian Aunt - she's alone and grieving - and I care - BUT I'm afraid I lose it and say something I regret if she starts 'preaching'...being judgemental...

What would make me a better person - and do I really care ? 'Apathy' can be a bit of a killer...at least not a desirable state to stay in for long...

As discussed, even if the word is derived from the Greek, it shouldn't be confused with the Greek term 'Apatheia'.

Apatheia in the sense of being without disturbance, without fear, without negative emotions or passions (anger, hate) is what the Stoics strive for; not indifference to all things. — Ciceronianus

So, in contrast to apathy, apatheia is considered a virtue.
It doesn't help to be ambiguous in a discussion which is why I asked for clarification re the OP.
It is not a 'side issue', is it ?

As a side issue of this thread, do you think apatheia is a natural conclusion of Stoicism or even quietism?
— Shawn

Because I'm not very happy about apathy in Stoicism. It seems like a natural result of Stoicism.
— Shawn — baker

I think apathy can be a sign/symptom of mental/physical problems. Life circumstances.
It can be pretty normal or natural.
https://www.healthline.com/health/apathy#:~:text=Apathy%20is%20a%20symptom%20of%20several%20psychiatric%20and,palsy%207%20schizophrenia%208%20stroke%209%20vascular%20dementia

Why be unhappy and blame 'Stoicism' ?

--------

[ Re: Stoic Week]...If Shawn registers - might be interesting to compare thoughts.
— Amity

*Wallow wallow*

It's a pigs life. — Shawn

It makes me wonder when or why @Shawn began to identify as a pig *
An animal. As per morning quote, Marcus would advise us to reject seeing ourselves as wallowers in a pigsty. A cage of our own making ? How healthy is that ? Of what benefit to self or others.
* @Shawn - do you have the answers, would you be willing to share ?

The difference manifests itself in dispreferred and preferred indifferents. — Shawn

This constitutes the difference between inner peace and inner calm.

However, you did not say which is which. It would be helpful if you were a clearer writer. Does inner calm disprefer indifferents, and inner peace prefers indifferents, or the other way around? If you can, please clear this up. If you can't then I'll be a notch happier.

The difference is stated in such a conceptually abstract way, that any meaning it may have has surpassed the concept-gate as delimited by my IQ for understanding, accepting and internalizing it.

Shawn, you expressed my biggest concern about Stoicism: It can't be mastered. It can't be done. It can't be practiced.

That does not diminish its attractiveness to its followers, I understand that. Futility is a great utility in ultimate beliefs.

do you have the answers, would you be willing to share ? — Amity

I don't profess to wax and wane on answers. I just believe that Stoicism encourages one to desire a state of apathy. The state of being apathetic is wallowsome and quite perfunctory. Nothing seems to transpire or come to realization when being apathetic. That's why it doesn't cause me any joy or happiness or pleasure to be apathetic. Sometimes I would prefer to read a book or a magazine rather than just apathetically wait until I'm ready to do so, whenever or whatever that means.

Hope that offers some clarification.

Does inner calm disprefer indifferents, and inner peace prefers indifferents, or the other way around? — god must be atheist

Sorry if I made you confused. I suppose what I mean is that when confronted in life with so many potential ways of action and behavior with regards to different types of indifferents, then it can be a challenge to attain anything like inner calm and inner peace...

At best living inside the inner citadel of the stoic is a constant strife or struggle and attaining peace and tranquility at best amounts to apathy.

Hope that offers some clarification. — Shawn

Yes. Totally :party: