Most of Stoics view aesthetics in virtue and happiness as per the whole eudaimonia pursuit.

I found this on 'Aesthetics': https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics
Stoicism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

As far as I understand, aesthetic appreciation is open to all humans, no matter their ideology. It's a synthesis of sense and intellect. We look, see, feel and judge works of art or nature, no matter whether they are ugly or beautiful.

An interesting OP. Much more can be said :smile:

It's a synthesis of sense and intellect. We look, see, feel and judge works of art or nature, no matter whether they are ugly or beautiful. — Amity

Right, so perhaps a stoic finds meaning in the understanding of works of art, whereas a hedonist finds meaning in being attracted, surprised, provoked etc by works of art. Therefore, it might matter for the hedonist whether a work is ugly or beautiful or at least interesting.

@jkop@Shawn@Amity I was thinking more along the lines of feeling passionate

perhaps a stoic finds meaning in the understanding of works of art, whereas a hedonist finds meaning in being attracted, surprised, provoked etc by works of art. Therefore, it might matter for the hedonist whether a work is ugly or beautiful or at least interesting. — jkop

Perhaps. I don't know. There are so many different kinds of people attracted to different types of either system of belief. Does it help to know what philosophical Hedonism means ? 6 types identified here:
https://iep.utm.edu/hedonism/

Again, 'works of art' - creative expression of any type is meaningful for different reasons. It can cause pain or pleasure - Jeezy peeps, that hurts my eyes/ears - that blows my mind...God, thank you for the world in all its glory and challenges. I'll paint the roof in appreciation.

For me, an 'aesthetic appreciation' can be at any level and is not necessarily '-ism' dependent.
Usually, an understanding, deeper meaning comes after the immediate impact on the senses.

This can involve how 'passionate' we are about the object or our aims. A hedonist might simply aim to please self at the expense of others. A stoic might want to reign in the passions so as to live a balanced life. It depends.

I was thinking more along the lines of feeling passionate — I like sushi

Well, why didn't you say so! :roll: :smile: Will read later...

That is ONE perspective I imagine among many. The floor is more than open to any other lines of engagement :)

This can involve how 'passionate' we are about the object or our aims. A hedonist might simply aim to please self at the expense of others. A stoic might want to reign in the passions so as to live a balanced life. It depends. — Amity

My understanding is that Hedonism was the original Stoicism. That is, Stoicism branched off from Hedonistic thinking - hedonists coming to the understanding of temperance as preserving the most long lasting 'pleasure' rather than drowning in excesses.

I do actually think one must dip into excesses to know where the optimal positioning is.

How this relates to aesthetics though is something I feel is important but it has not registered properly in any rational sense.

My understanding is that Hedonism was the original Stoicism. — I like sushi

OK. You could also say that we are all hedonists but that doesn't preclude having a stoic attitude.
We can seek pleasure at the same time as seeing importance of wellbeing and ways to reach optimal state for self.

Historical relationships and influences:

During the Greek and Roman periods, hedonism was popular but controversial; many Greeks worshipped a god called Dionysus, the god of wine and pleasure. His festivals were crazy hedonistic parties with plenty of drinking, overeating, and reckless behavior. The traditional religious authorities permitted and in some cases encouraged this sort of hedonism. It even played a role in philosophy: one of Plato’s most famous works is all about a wild drunken party where all the best philosophers gather to discuss the pleasures of love.

Philosophy in the later Roman Empire was dominated by Stoicism, a philosophy with a complex relationship to hedonism. The Stoics are usually thought of as opposite to hedonists. They argued for rigorous discipline and control of the emotions; they were somewhat ascetics. But they also believed in training their minds to get pleasure out of behaving in a healthy and moral way. This strongly resembles Buddhism and many historians believe that Stoicism was influenced by the Greek contact with Buddhists in what is now Pakistan, where Buddhism ruled at that time. — Hedonism

More to say later...it's sunny out...:cool:

Edit:

How this relates to aesthetics though is something I feel is important but it has not registered properly in any rational sense. — I like sushi

Say more? Perhaps we need to talk to Plato (see above)...

I don't think the link I provided earlier is the best source. Its focus mostly on the modern. There are no quotes from the ancient hedonists, e.g. Epicurus.

As for Plato's work about 'a wild drunken party where all the best philosophers gather to discuss the pleasures of love'. Well. Assuming this is the Symposium, this isn't a correct depiction. For sure, some drink would have been present, it's a banquet. However, I think Socrates - as the only philosopher present - encouraged other participants, eminent men to take turn in giving a series of speeches on eros. Each arguing their perspective, as in in a competition.

Epicurus taught that the point of all one’s actions was to attain pleasure (conceived of as tranquility) for oneself, and that this could be done by limiting one’s desires and by banishing the fear of the gods and of death. Epicurus’ gospel of freedom from fear proved to be quite popular, and communities of Epicureans flourished for centuries after his death. — IEP - Epicurus

So, a different connotation from the modern. He advocated a simple, moderate life. Excess leads to pain. Pleasure is the absence of troubles to mind and body.

Another of Plato's dialogues - the Philebus - is concerned with whether pleasure or reason and wisdom are the good.

Philebus and Protarchus are hedonists; they consider pleasure as the highest good and equate it with the absolute Good. Socrates represents the opposing view, prioritizing reason and insight. While he does not dispute the legitimacy and value of pleasure, he points out the diversity of pleasures and argues for a more nuanced assessment. — Wiki - Philebus

So, it is not a case of one or the other. It is the source of pleasure that counts. The life of the mind can give pleasure - as at TPF - working through the pain pricks as we try to understand.

I think reading the Symposium can provide an 'aesthetic experience' - being there a blast! :party:

I am curious about how different forms of stoicism approach aesthetics in general given the common disposition being somewhat oppositional to hedonism? — I like sushi

I don't know much about stoicism, but I thought this might be of interest. It's from "The Principles of Art" by R.G. Collingwood.

In order to clear up the ambiguities attaching to the word 'art', we must look to its history. The aesthetic sense of the word, the sense which here concerns us, is very recent in origin. Ars in ancient Latin, like tέxvn [technē] in Greek, means something quite different. It means a craft or specialized form of skill, like carpentry or smithying or surgery. The Greeks and Romans had no conception of what we call art as something different from craft; what we call art they regarded merely as a group of crafts, such as the craft of poetry (πOINTIKη TÉXνn, ars poetica), which they conceived, sometimes no doubt with misgivings, as in principle just like carpentry and the rest, and differing from any one of these only in the sort of way in which any one of them differs from any other.

It is difficult for us to realize this fact, and still more so to realize its implications. If people have no word for a certain kind of thing, it is because they are not aware of it as a distinct kind. Admiring as we do the art of the ancient Greeks, we naturally suppose that they admired it in the same kind of spirit as ourselves. But we admire it as a kind of art, where the word 'art' carries with it all the subtle and elaborate implications of the modern European aesthetic consciousness. We can be perfectly certain that the Greeks did not admire it in any such way. — R.G. Collingwood - The Principles of Art

I thought this might be of interest.
— T Clark

The Greeks and Romans had no conception of what we call art as something different from craft; what we call art they regarded merely as a group of crafts... — R.G. Collingwood - The Principles of Art

Right, art became an off-shoot from crafts, like philosophy became an off-shoot from science.

Some contemporary art is craft-like, and some contemporary philosophy is practiced scientifically. But there's a lot of art without craft (replaced by concepts, originality, fame etc), and there's a lot of philosophy practiced like literature (some being critical or hostile to science).

What might the ancient stoics say about modern concept art? A modern stoic?

Right, art became an off-shoot from crafts, like philosophy became an off-shoot from science. — jkop

I think you have gotten that backwards ;)

What might the ancient stoics say about modern concept art? A modern stoic? — jkop

Probably something related to kalos or some thread of beauty/harmony. It is clear they understood beauty in craft, so they may well not have had a specific word for Art but certainly had enough terms to talk of it how we do.

..art became an off-shoot from crafts, like philosophy became an off-shoot from science.
— jkop

I think you have gotten that backwards ;) — I like sushi

Well, philosophy used to be the name for science, recall. The off-shoots from this old sense of science are the special sciences and philosophy in their modern senses. Likewise, the modern sense of 'art' is an off-shoot from an older and more inclusive sense of crafts.

they may well not have had a specific word for Art but certainly had enough terms to talk of it how we do. — I like sushi

They could, but modern art, especially concept art, is often context-dependent, whereas the meanings of craft manifest in the works.