"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. "

- However, the "truth of the way the universe is" is always debatable, so if a set of ethics is good for oneself and for others, why dissect it further?

(March 4, 2024 at 9:02 pm)Jillybean Wrote:

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

The Buddha also said that up to a certain point, you needed the raft to get you across the river.

(March 4, 2024 at 9:02 pm)Jillybean Wrote: 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.  

Yes, I can see that. 

If we take someone else's word about what it means to behave well, then we don't have to know about science or metaphysics or any of the foundations of their thought. Most of us are raised with certain values and use these to judge if we've been good or not. 

Quote:The Buddha's highest priority was to eliminate suffering rather than answer questions about the supernatural.

Metaphysics isn't necessarily about the supernatural. None of what I believe about metaphysics includes anything supernatural. 

To me, whether we're talking about Stoicism or Buddhism, the danger is that we accept some deracinated out-of-context version that wouldn't be recognized by serious practitioners. 

When we read a text by a Stoic, we judge it according to values that we already hold. If you think "that's right; these are good values," it almost certainly means that what you interpret the text to mean is in line with your current values. If it were NOT in line with your current values, after all, then you wouldn't say it was a good text. This is why it's important to understand it within its context and foundations. 

I learned this with Buddhism. When I was an undergrad in art school, we talked about Zen all the time. We had all kinds of ideas about it, from John Cage and Alan Watts, mostly. But then I got to Japan and discovered that what we thought of as Zen is entirely different from the Zen that Japanese people practice. We had Americanized it -- severed it from its roots and made it into something else. In fact when I read James' Varieties of Religious Experience it was clear to me that we had simply used exotic terms to describe a tradition of thought that was already old in America and Europe. 

Now, there's nothing immoral about this. Religions always seem to change when they move into a new area. Everything that we admired about the San Francisco Zen Center (e.g. their charity work) is more American than traditional Buddhist. It is in fact more Christian than anything else -- just cut off from the Christian traditions that started it. 

If we really want to learn about different traditions and people who think differently than we do, we have to get the wider context.

(March 4, 2024 at 9:07 pm)Jillybean Wrote: "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. "

- However, the "truth of the way the universe is" is always debatable, so if a set of ethics is good for oneself and for others, why dissect it further?

How do you know it's good?

Stoicism has always struck me as rather selfish. I’m more of a work-a-day utilitarian.

Boru

(March 5, 2024 at 11:14 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Stoicism has always struck me as rather selfish. I’m more of a work-a-day utilitarian.

Boru

Could you explain more? I'm not sure in what way you see it as selfish.

(March 5, 2024 at 11:59 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(March 5, 2024 at 11:14 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Stoicism has always struck me as rather selfish. I’m more of a work-a-day utilitarian.

Boru

Could you explain more?  I'm not sure in what way you see it as selfish.

Because stoicism doesn’t take into account the value of other people, or the greater good. The ‘well-lived life’ is purely personal.

This is fine as far as it goes, I just don’t see how practicing virtue benefits anyone beyond the practitioner. Might as well be a hermit in a cave.

Boru

(March 5, 2024 at 12:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(March 5, 2024 at 11:59 am)Angrboda Wrote: Could you explain more?  I'm not sure in what way you see it as selfish.

Because stoicism doesn’t take into account the value of other people, or the greater good. The ‘well-lived life’ is purely personal.

This is fine as far as it goes, I just don’t see how practicing virtue benefits anyone beyond the practitioner. Might as well be a hermit in a cave.

Boru

I've always viewed the different branches of ethics, virtue ethics and the others, as different approaches to the same goal. One tries to be virtuous so that one will behave as a good person should, and being good contributes to the prospering of the whole as that itself is part of the good. I don't view Stoicism as advocating virtue for virtues sake alone any more than deontologists view following rules as being valuable in and of itself. The point is to free oneself from the internal obstacles which would prevent acting on one's principles for the benefit of the good, whether that good is of the person or society.

Looks like I misunderstood what you were calling selfish, Boru. I don't know much about the underlying philosophy of Stoicism, but I was just thinking about the practical aspect of it, of, similar to Buddhism, not trying to control the external environment but rather how you respond to it. I don't see that as selfish or not just a useful tool or perspective to have on the world.

(March 5, 2024 at 1:20 pm)emjay Wrote: Looks like I misunderstood what you were calling selfish, Boru. I don't know much about the underlying philosophy of Stoicism, but I was just thinking about the practical aspect of it, of, similar to Buddhism, not trying to control the external environment but rather how you respond to it. I don't see that as selfish or not just a useful tool or perspective to have on the world.

When I said ‘selfish’ I didn’t mean as in the sense of greedy or spiteful, just that stoicism’s primary focus is on improving the Self. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that (we could all do with some self-improvement), but I’m not convinced that individuals living virtuously will necessarily extend that virtue to society as a whole.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand is just the opposite. While bits of it are certainly problematic, its focus is the greatest good for the greatest number in order to reach maximal happiness for as many people as possible. It’s a goal I find to be more laudable and useful than stoicism.

Boru