Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Stoicism 1 - A Critique


[From Frank Schulwolf] On Friday, July 7th, at The Villages (FL) Philosophy Club, we were offered up the philosophy of stoicism. By contemporary standards stoicism is perhaps not seen as a major philosophical movement—it is none the less deserving of a more thorough examination than the one presented.




A philosophy should deliver a good deal more than a disconnected set of floating bromides, clichés
or homilies. Philosophy studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence. Philosophy’s
task is providing man with a comprehensive view of life, which in turn provides a comprehensive
reference for all his action—mental or physical, psychological or existential.

Stoicism as presented was bereft of intellectual content. We learned nothing of its structural workings
as a system. No raison d'être. We are instead given selected chestnuts of wisdom (I paraphrase) “Stoics do not respond to anger with anger." Perhaps a useful tool when backed by rationale. Unanchored it is without value.

If we set aside the lighter than air presentation, we find that Stoicism holds specific views on the
nature of the universe and mans place within it. A number of these are problematic positions—
many of which if verbalized in presentation would not be likely to attract adherents. Some so repugnant, all but the numbest would head for the exits.

Stoicism is a by design/determinist philosophy, with all that implies. The philosophical equivalent of
(the movie) Ground Hog Day. In the Stoic universe, all has happened before. Because the universe
is eternal it will happen endlessly again and again. It is therefore futile and a waste of time
bemoaning ones fate. Realize instead, an unlimited acceptance of “reality” because it was all
meant to happen. That in turn means emotions are irrelevant because it was supposed to happen.
So, why not be good boys and girls, follow the rules and control your emotions. They are worse
than useless. They are irrational and therefore counter productive. Such a simplistic proposition
disregards the nature of emotions.

Emotions are the product of man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly. Man’s emotional mechanism is very important component of the computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses. Its main function being the integration of ideas.

If you consign your emotions to the dustbin, your disciplined emotional repression will deny your conscious mind the tools necessary to reach firm convictions. It is your conscious mind that programs the computer. If you default, if you cannot reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no need to repress them.

Interestingly, while the Greeks idealized man, The Stoics degraded him by calling for the suppression
of emotion.

The philosophy of Stoicism produces the antithesis of what our founding fathers had in mind—the
individual pursuing his happiness. Determinism recognizes no individuals. A position antithetical to
our Bill of Rights. What is more, determinisms flaws lead to nightmarish ethical issues.* This from
a philosophy which proudly proclaims its dedication to reason.


Frank Schulwolf


* See Ivan’s argument in The Brothers Karamazov

5 comments:

Ira Glickstein said...

Frank: THANKS for posting your Critique! Though, as a long-time Stoic (since College!) I do not agree with many of your points, I hope your posting incites thoughtful discussion on my Blog. I thought the presenter did a good job, highlighting some positive aspects as an introductory invitation for further study.

You say, in part:

"Stoicism is a by design/determinist philosophy, with all that implies. ... It is therefore futile and a waste of time bemoaning ones fate. Realize instead, an unlimited acceptance of 'reality' because it was all meant to happen. ..."

Although it is true that Stoics accept the world as it is, and we should not enter into combat when we are bound to lose, we should, never-the-less actively fight the battles we can win.

You continue:

"Man’s emotional mechanism is very important component of the computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses. Its main function being the integration of ideas.

"If you consign your emotions to the dustbin, your disciplined emotional repression will deny your conscious mind the tools necessary to reach firm convictions."

I do not think Stoics put their emotions in "the dustbin". Rather, we try to direct them in positive ways.

You continue:

"Interestingly, while the Greeks idealized man, The Stoics degraded him by calling for the suppression of emotion.The philosophy of Stoicism produces the antithesis of what our founding fathers had in mind—the individual pursuing his happiness."

I think Stoicism enhances humanity by employing reason over useless, futile emotion. As for happiness, I subscribe to the Roger Miller tune: "YOU CAN'T ROLLERSKATE IN A BUFFALO HERD ... But you can be happy if you've a mind to be." see http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/y/youcantrollerskateinabuffaloherd.shtml

Love, Ira

PS: By the way, I’m scheduled for Aug 14 at The Villages Science Tech Club for a somewhat technical talk about “The Consequences of a Discrete, Finite, Isolated DETERMINISTIC Universe” and will get into the proper interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

PMI said...

Unfortunately, I was not able to commute to this presentation, since I live in Kingston, NY and come to The Villages in the Winter. So my comment is limited to the interesting comments on the presentation.

Philosophic discussions usually benefit from an understanding of how our brain functions and how it develops. In the case of understanding stoicism, it is helpful to appreciate that the emotion center of our brain resides in the amygdala, and emotions are brought under control by our prefrontal cortex. As infants, we have no control over our emotions. Our amygdala is unchecked. Anxiety, fear, and anger - in the spectrum of fight or flight responses - express themselves overtly. Parental and early childhood guidance bring these emotions under control of our brain's executive function in the frontal lobe. We are taught that unconstrained expression of such emotions is antisocial. For example, when another child grabs a toy with which we are playing or which we consider our possession, we may be taught to share rather than to hit the grabber in anger. Stoicism is an exaggerated application of such constraints. It arose as a reasoned consequence of such efforts to control antisocial emotions, under a generalized inference that all emotional responses are less virtuous than intellectual detachment. Since the gamut of our emotions includes social as well as antisocial responses - including love, empathy, and sexual feelings (see a fascinating history of sexual mores in "Sex and the Constitution" by Geoffrey R. Stone) - the virtue of indiscriminate suppression of emotions is disputable. Does this provide a useful perspective?

Prof Ira said...

PMI: Thanks for your thoughtful Comment. Also, thanks for letting us know you are a "Snowbird" in The Villages and live in Kingston, NY. As you may know, my wife and I lived in Newark Valley, NY and then Apalachin, NY (in the Binghamton, NY area) for most of our married life, until 2003 when we became "Frogs" (here till we "croak").

As I understand Stoicism, emotions are channeled into reasonable responses and actions, rather than being suppressed. Destructive emotions are controlled by understanding and clear thinking and reason regarding Natural forces in the Universe. Classical Pantheism (such as Spinoza) takes a similar view.

Selected Quotes from "The Enchiridion" http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html :

1. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. ...

4. When you are going about any action, remind yourself what nature the action is. If you are going to bathe, picture to yourself the things which usually happen in the bath: some people splash the water, some push, some use abusive language, and others steal. Thus you will more safely go about this action if you say to yourself, "I will now go bathe, and keep my own mind in a state conformable to nature." And in the same manner with regard to every other action. For thus, if any hindrance arises in bathing, you will have it ready to say, "It was not only to bathe that I desired, but to keep my mind in a state conformable to nature; and I will not keep it if I am bothered at things that happen.

26. The will of nature may be learned from those things in which we don't distinguish from each other. For example, when our neighbor's boy breaks a cup, or the like, we are presently ready to say, "These things will happen." Be assured, then, that when your own cup likewise is broken, you ought to be affected just as when another's cup was broken. Apply this in like manner to greater things. Is the child or wife of another dead? There is no one who would not say, "This is a human accident." but if anyone's own child happens to die, it is presently, "Alas I how wretched am I!" But it should be remembered how we are affected in hearing the same thing concerning others. ...

29. In every affair consider what precedes and follows, and then undertake it. ... When you have evaluated all this, if your inclination still holds, then go to war. ...

31. Be assured that the essential property of piety towards the gods is to form right opinions concerning them, as existing and as governing the universe with goodness and justice. And fix yourself in this resolution, to obey them, and yield to them, and willingly follow them in all events, as produced by the most perfect understanding. For thus you will never find fault with the gods, nor accuse them as neglecting you. ...

35. When you do anything from a clear judgment that it ought to be done, never shun the being seen to do it, even though the world should make a wrong supposition about it; for, if you don't act right, shun the action itself; but, if you do, why are you afraid of those who censure you wrongly?

Ira Glickstein

C.M.England said...

Tho lacking in intellectual content (as Frank Schulwolf’s critique stated), the Stoicism presentation on July 7th may have offered listeners unfamiliar with some of the underlying principles that are reflected in current philosophy a peek into delving deeper. Reading the 52 principles recorded so many years ago might give those listeners a “different view” than the one given by both the presenter AND Schulwolf. For I’ve found that much of the deeper philosophies imbedded within many, if not all, of the major religions of the world express similar principles, allowing those that seek the more profound understanding of this human/divine being that we are to merge or blend into a more balanced creature as we travel this path of existence on earth.

The wisdom from previous great thinkers evolved BEFORE the Stoic period and have continued up through to the present time, with modern philosophies reflecting scientific knowledge dealing with “man”, even into the quantum world of physics. There are two sides to the coin.

No, no. Not the dustbin. Rather, understanding that emotions are the results of experiences of life, and to deny them is NOT the method to apply. To RECOGNIZE them for what they are…a reflection of past experiences that have little to do often times with the PRESENT MOMENT, is a modern application of this principle. For to first RECOGNIZE an emotion for what it really is (a shadow from the past) allows one to apply REASON to the present moment and therefor to be cognizant of present behavior or reaction to present events. This allows better choices for REACTIONS, by recognizing the “human” conditioning from the past, considering its application to the present, and choosing a “best way” to respond. This is not “dustbin”; this is evolved awareness…an advancement of human consciousness.

No, no. Not “disciplined emotional repression”. This is instead AWARENESS of emotions and through reason, choosing a better way. This is the “evolution of man”.

Perhaps the presentation will motivate some of the listeners to “seek and find” a better way…

Ira Glickstein said...

Connie: Thanks for posting your Comment to my Blog - I hope it is the start of more collegial cross-discussion, perhaps a rebirth of the kinds of conversations on this Blog five or ten years ago when the Chairman of my PhD Committee, Howard Pattee, was active here, along with Joel Fox, Stu Denenberg, and some others.

You wrote, in part: "... Recognizing the 'human' conditioning from the past, considering its application to the present, and choosing a “best way” to respond. This is not “dustbin”; this is evolved awareness…an advancement of human consciousness."

Indeed, EVOLVED AWARENESS - couldn't have said it better myself.

Ira Glickstein