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

TED - Irrational Decision-Making

Here is another great TED talk that asks the question: "Are we in control of our own decisions?"

The answer is NO! This could be applicable to our previous discussion of Empathy and the Court. This TED talk clearly demonstrates how our emotions and other non-rational factors control our decision-making much more strongly than reasonable logic.

For example, the person on the far left is "Tom" and the one on the far right is "Jerry". The figure in the top middle is a distorted version of "Jerry" to make him look ugly. The middle bottom is an ugly version of "Tom".

When presented with the top form, and asked who they would date, most picked good-looking Jerry. When shown the bottom form, they picked good-looking Tom. Amazingly, the ugly choice totally changed the results of the selection process!

The TED presenter, Dan Ariely, uses several other examples to show how our decision process may be totally altered by the presentation of undesirable, non-chosen alternatives.

HOW DOES THIS BEAR ON PROFESSIONAL DECISION-MAKING?

Well, if a decision is close between two alternatives, which is always the case for hard decisions in business (or the Supreme Court, where, by definition, cases are almost always close choices), a good strategy could be to introduce a slightly "ugly" version of the choice you want the deciders to make.

For example, a prosecutor could include the death penalty as an option, even if he or she thought a 20-year sentence is most appropriate. The "ugly" death penalty option would make it more likely the jurors would settle on a long sentence. Given a choice between 10 years and 20 years, they might pick 10. If the death penalty was added to the menu, they would be more likely to choose 20 years.

The other lesson I take from this TED talk is that professionals should adopt methodologies that, to the extent possible, exclude emotional factors. For example, my Decision tool "forces" the deciders to consider multiple factors and weights in reaching a decision.

Ira Glickstein

Super Ethics

[From John] Ira previously wrote the following, “All animals, including we humans, are wired with an emotional system that has been "designed" (by evolution and natural selection) to serve as an ombudsman for the long term survival and reproduction of the society we have been socialized in. Absent a properly socialized emotional system, we would focus on our own short-term and short-sighted interests and our society would fail.”

I accept Ira proposition as far as he takes it. The problem as I see it is that his expression, “for the long term survival and reproduction of the society we have been socialized in” does not provide for the long term survival of humankind as a whole, rather it provides for the midterm survival of the strong, who, ultimately are overthrown and fade into history. There seems to be no inherent evolutionary (natural selection) process that assures the long-term survival of mankind as a whole. History bears this out, dynasties have continually risen and fallen since cities and nations were formed. Towns, cities and nations were sacked, men were enslaved if not killed outright, man warred against man. Today is no improvement, in the last century we have had the two most destructive wars in history. It also included the largest mass genocides in history – the Holocaust Stalin’s purges and the murders of the Pol Pot. Today we are confronted with terrorism and the constant wars in Africa. Nuclear war threatens us. There seems to be no end.

With the rise of the world economy man may find in his own individual selfish interest the need for stability throughout the world; this may lead to a form of super-ethics applicable to all mankind. Mini steps have been made with the Geneva Convention and the United Nations but they are very weak. While there is a general consensus amongst the developed nations that such super-ethical standards are necessary, national interests often over ride this consensus.
We have a long way to go.