“Normative” ethical theories

[Lucian]

Main players of modern stoicism that I know are William B. Irvine (Guide to the Good Life), Massimo Pigluicci (How To Be A Stoic) and Donald Robertson. Some caution here: there is no single authority of (modern) stoicism, so flavors will differ among these authors. Also stoicism has gained considerable popularity in the last decade due to the emerging self-help cult but not everything in the self-help section that claims stoic roots can be traced back to stoic roots.

A big difference between ancient stoicism and modern stoicism is that the metaphysics (belief in the greek gods and divine reason) and the corresponding doctrines are dropped in modern stoicism. For the greeks (and romans) stoicism was a system encompassing logic, physics and ethics. Modern stoicism focuses on ethics specifically related to the question how one should live. What is more or less shared between ancient stoicism and the modern version is the central position of virtues that mark the goals for how to live. One should live in accordance with these virtues. Four goals or virtues are stated by stoic thinkers: wisdom, courage, justice and temperance.

Irvine replaces the supreme stoic goal of "living in accord with virtue" with the goal of attaining "tranquillity" or freedom from emotional suffering, explaining that it is "unusual, after all, for modern individuals to have an interest in becoming more virtuous, in the ancient sense of the word"

It's a big topic in itself, so for now I''ll leave it to that.

Interesting, so in light of comparing between views, I think that that view of Irving kinda tallies with some Buddhist views?
Would you say this is a good summary? https://modernstoicism.com/wp-content/up...oicism.pdf

Given my anti-realist commitments I like that shift that Irving does. I suspect I would have to be careful around the use of virtue depending on whether they are seen as absolutes or instrumental goals. I just bought Irvine’s book A Guide to the Good Life on audible

[LoneWolf]

Interesting, so in light of comparing between views, I think that that view of Irving kinda tallies with some Buddhist views?
Would you say this is a good summary? https://modernstoicism.com/wp-content/up...oicism.pdf

Yeah it is a good summary. I think this is the Donald Robertson flavor as he is the organizer of stoic week.

And indeed, you are not the first to note some similarities with buddhism (both practical oriented, focus on the present, wisdom, compassion, the notion that attachment to stuff are primary sources of human suffering). But there are differences too (buddhism denies permanent self, stoicism places the self central to stoic practice, buddhism more about withdrawal from ordinary life, stoicism more about acting within it).

It is these comparisons and the reasons behind it, that I find more interesting than one or the other.

Given my anti-realist commitments I like that shift that Irving does. I suspect I would have to be careful around the use of virtue depending on whether they are seen as absolutes or instrumental goals. I just bought Irvine’s book A Guide to the Good Life on audible

They are more like guiding principles than absolutes.

Eager to hear what you think of Irvine's book.

[Lucian]

I am really enjoying Irvine so far. The ideas really appeal to me, especially about trying to find joy in the things we have and suggestions on how we can do that. Also a certain level of fatalism being involved which ties in nicely with my lack of believe in free will, even if he doesn’t think they entirely meant it about the future
I can see myself getting stuck into more books on this, but would love some that go into more depth for things like negative visualisation. I guess I might need to hit the actual ancient stoics for that?

What is the main thing you like about looking into comparisons between ethical views? Does that lead to a pick and mix ethical stance personally, or is it more of an intellectual exercise?