Just wondering if anyone else here follows the philosophy of Stoicism.  I'm finding it aspects of it to be very useful as practical advice for living in the world.  I follow modern authors like Ryan Holiday as well as the historical Stoics, particularly Epictetus.

The only stoic part of me is what I tend to present as SBF (Stoic Bitch Face).

(March 3, 2024 at 7:38 pm)Jillybean Wrote: Just wondering if anyone else here follows the philosophy of Stoicism.  I'm finding it aspects of it to be very useful as practical advice for living in the world.  I follow modern authors like Ryan Holiday as well as the historical Stoics, particularly Epictetus.

Have you looked into the Stoic's metaphysics at all? 

Their ideas about how to live derived directly from their views about how the Logos pervades the universe. I'm not sure I'd want to take their ethical advice if I rejected all of its foundations. 

Basically, the One emanates the Logos. This was common to several schools of thought in those days, including the Neoplatonists. And of course it is taken into Christianity with John 1:1.

I like some of the Stoics' ideas, or did. Marcus Aurelius in particular. But over time I've come to think the Stoics, like Buddha, didn't so much have it wrong as they did have it off the mark.

Still, phantasia katalepsis is one of my all-time favorite concepts.

(March 3, 2024 at 8:08 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 3, 2024 at 7:38 pm)Jillybean Wrote: Just wondering if anyone else here follows the philosophy of Stoicism.  I'm finding it aspects of it to be very useful as practical advice for living in the world.  I follow modern authors like Ryan Holiday as well as the historical Stoics, particularly Epictetus.

Have you looked into the Stoic's metaphysics at all? 

Their ideas about how to live derived directly from their views about how the Logos pervades the universe. I'm not sure I'd want to take their ethical advice if I rejected all of its foundations. 

Basically, the One emanates the Logos. This was common to several schools of thought in those days, including the Neoplatonists. And of course it is taken into Christianity with John 1:1.

Nah, I'm not into metaphysics. For me, the origin of the idea matters less than its practical usefulness, and I find the tenets of Stoicism to be useful to me. YMMV obviously.

(March 3, 2024 at 8:13 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I like some of the Stoics' ideas, or did. Marcus Aurelius in particular. But over time I've come to think the Stoics, like Buddha, didn't so much have it wrong as they did have it off the mark.

Still, phantasia katalepsis is one of my all-time favorite concepts.

I find much of Buddhist philosophy to be very useful as well.

On a practical level, it works for me. It enables me to live with what I cannot change. My understanding of stoicism is a superficial, pop-culture level, but it works for me.

(March 3, 2024 at 8:28 pm)Jillybean Wrote:

(March 3, 2024 at 8:08 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Have you looked into the Stoic's metaphysics at all? 

Their ideas about how to live derived directly from their views about how the Logos pervades the universe. I'm not sure I'd want to take their ethical advice if I rejected all of its foundations. 

Basically, the One emanates the Logos. This was common to several schools of thought in those days, including the Neoplatonists. And of course it is taken into Christianity with John 1:1.

Nah, I'm not into metaphysics.  For me, the origin of the idea matters less than its practical usefulness, and I find the tenets of Stoicism to be useful to me.  YMMV obviously.

I think the Stoics, like all schools of philosophy, derive their ethics from their metaphysics. Basically: the world is this way, therefore you should behave this way. 

In other words, if you ask a Stoic why you ought to live according to his ethics, he can give you strong reasons. Much more than just "this sounds good to me." 

In fact an emphasis on practical usefulness is probably a very modern thing. So choosing a set of ethics based on what seems useful would go against the original Stoics. They would say you ought to choose your ethics based on the the truth of the way the universe is. 

I used to read about Buddhism a lot too, and spent some time at a Zen retreat. But in the end I stopped because I couldn't accept their metaphysics. Granted, if I had continued to meditate seriously I might be better off psychologically right now -- but that would make Zen practices into mood therapy rather than real Buddhism.

(March 4, 2024 at 12:25 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 3, 2024 at 8:28 pm)Jillybean Wrote: Nah, I'm not into metaphysics.  For me, the origin of the idea matters less than its practical usefulness, and I find the tenets of Stoicism to be useful to me.  YMMV obviously.

I think the Stoics, like all schools of philosophy, derive their ethics from their metaphysics. Basically: the world is this way, therefore you should behave this way. 

In other words, if you ask a Stoic why you ought to live according to his ethics, he can give you strong reasons. Much more than just "this sounds good to me." 

In fact an emphasis on practical usefulness is probably a very modern thing. So choosing a set of ethics based on what seems useful would go against the original Stoics. They would say you ought to choose your ethics based on the the truth of the way the universe is. 

I used to read about Buddhism a lot too, and spent some time at a Zen retreat. But in the end I stopped because I couldn't accept their metaphysics. Granted, if I had continued to meditate seriously I might be better off psychologically right now -- but that would make Zen practices into mood therapy rather than real Buddhism.

Arguably though, the original Buddha (Gautama) did not focus on metaphysics at all. In fact he is quoted as saying that worrying about metaphysics is like being shot with a poisoned arrow and demanding to know where it came from, rather than focusing on getting it out of you before it poisons you. Most of the metaphysical ideas of Buddhism come from the pre-existing religion of Jainism. The Buddha's highest priority was to eliminate suffering rather than answer questions about the supernatural.