Thank you for the write up Massimo. I welcome criticism and everything here is civil and constructive - we can agree to disagree on a few points and that's all good.
One point I will pick up is this:
"I’m not sure Stoicism was ever designed to change society, as that may be a bit too much to ask from a personal philosophy of life."
Think of Zeno's Republic - written by the very founder of the school - the bottom-up radicalism of that egalitarian vision (compared to Plato's top-down Republic). Stoicism is absolutely "political" in a broad sense and certianly anarchic (in the best possible way) in flavour. No temples, no law courts, no borders. Of course, it's utopianism, but it's a lode star for meaningful change in society, starting with attitudes.
My (new) reading group just discussed Book One, chapters 18 and 19 from Epictetus's Discourses, and those are two chapters that are absolutely concerned with social change and even political transformation (What makes it more pointed is that Epictetus, a manumitted slave, was teaching the future Roman elite (Arrian among them)).
The beauty of Stoicism is the seamless way it flows through the personal and the social (which ties back to my notion of the Stoic Non-Self), the "politics" (for want of a better word) flows from the personal and vice versa. This is why contintgency is such a concern to me. If I reject universals (of science and religion), the best traction I can get - from the human condition - is conditional necessity... that will do for me to reconstruct Stoicism.
Anyway - I'm honoured that you spent the time to consider my ideas in detail, and I look forward to reading your own. Very best wishes, Steve.
Steve, thanks for the gracious reply, appreciated!
Yes, Zeno’s Republic allegedly is about a utopian anarchic vision. But we don’t really have anything other than fragments, so it’s hard to say. And of course utopian anarchism is not a political program at all. Not compared to the explicitly political ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero.
I agree that in Stoicism the socio-political seamlessly flows from the personal, but I’m talking about the lack of an explicitly political vision, again along the lines of those articulated by the thinkers just mentioned. Stoicism is, in the end, compatible with a number of political systems, including enlightened authoritarianism.
I am intrigued by the fact that we both value what you call conditional necessity, and yet you reject scientific universals. For me it is exactly science that tells us that there are no moral universals, and yet provides us with the basis for a contingent morality along the lines of Philippa Foot’s Natural Goodness and Frans de Waal’s Primates and Philosophers.
I'd reject all universals beyond the axioms of mathematics or logic. I think conditional necessities (like death, and knowing we'll likely someday die) are more aligned to my level of skepticism than the "laws" of science, which I cannot assent to!
I wonder to what extent this isn’t a semantic difference. For instance, I think of natural laws as tentative, though very well established, empirical generalizations. Always open to revision.
Religion is, at its best, experiential. As having been through two “NDE’s” (Near Death Experiences), it is amazing to me that, regardless of religious upbringing or inclination, the experiences are essentially the same regardless of background. People having experienced this are (to the best of my studies), without exception, changed profoundly.
This leads me to believe that there is an “uncaused first cause” as the Greeks called it.
Science also bears witness to the “exquisite fine tuning” of our universe to support life.
To assert that all of this is the product of random chance is somewhat irrational, in my opinion.
Ethics is the study of “right and wrong “ actions. Without some framework or meaning or absolutes: some reference, it soon degenerates into “moral relativism “.
The conscious sense of “right and wrong “ (conscience) seems to be programmed to a certain extent in all humans (minus sociopaths).
Latin “con + scio”). To know together- with whom? Certainly “each other”, but might there not, perhaps, be a higher power as well?
Jim, the studies I have seen on NDE's actually indicate the opposite: what people experience is highly cultural dependent, as one might expect if those experiences were subjective, and not a window in an actual reality.
The fine tuning problem in science is indeed a problem. But there are solutions that don't require gods, such as the idea of a multiverse. More generally, "god did it" is simply not an explanation at all, it's a way to relabel our ignorance.
Ethics, in the Greco-Roman tradition, is *not* the study of right and wrong, as it is in modern approaches like Kantianism and Utilitarianism. It's the study of how to become an excellent human being and live a eudaimonic life.
Massimo, I always have this thought when the fine tuning "problem" is brought up. What if there was a universe with a planet with a highly advanced civilization and they had a science fair and one of the student's project was to create a universe which was fine tuned to create beetles? This solves the questions of why the universe appears to be fine tuned and why there are so many species of beetle in our universe, and has the added humor that people on Earth are really worshiping an alien teen beetle at a science fair.
And yes, I probably do watch "Rick and Morty" a bit too much
Andrew, there are worse things to do with one's time than watch "Rick and Morty"!
The fine tuning "problem," in my mind, is a red herring. It's simply another label for our ignorance. We don't know how the laws of nature and accompanying constants came to be the way they are. That's an interesting question, which we may never get an answer to. But from there to jump to "god did it!" is an exercise in unnecessary relabeling.
I think it is possible to have a nearly objective ethics if one reasons as the libertarian philosophers do, from the standpoint of human action. That humans act is axiomatic. *How* humans act towards each other is the basis of ethics. After all, just because Stoics decide to act ethically for the good of themselves and others doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to do so. But to then couch the rights of acting humans in the sphere of other acting humans necessitates some prior restraints, famously starting with "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" or some such.
I'm not sure. How humans act towards each other is what ethics is supposed to determine, it's hard to imagine how it may be axiomatic.
The notion that others are not obliged to act in certain ways, even though we deem those ways ethical, is correct, but I don't think of ethics that way. I think of it as analogous to medicine. Nobody is obligated to exercise and eat healthy. But IF they want to live long and well THEN they ought to exercise and eat well. Both medicine and ethics are based on conditional imperatives.
Yes, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. But why? A proper conditional imperative provides the answer: IF you wish to live and flourish in a community of social animals THEN your right to switch your fist ends where your nose begins.
Thank you, perhaps I wasn't clear about the axiom of human action. We act. We can't NOT act. What we choose to act on depends on our circumstances, knowledge, and valuations. Ethics is a secondary consideration for most, but for Stoics it's the primary consideration.
Right. A good part of why ethics is primary for the Stoics (and the Epicureans, and the Aristotelians, etc.) is because in virtue ethics the word "ethics" encompasses every action we engage in. The problem with the modern conception is that it sees ethics as a separate subset of our actions, which makes it easier to ignore or downplay.
Whether to act ethically, once the options are known, is an individual choice, and always has been. One may have to hide one's unethical acts from others, unless one is powerful enough to ignore such opprobrium. In any case, the Austrian economists have explored many of the ethical considerations around praxeology (the science of action), which might be worth exploring.
Yes, to act or not to act ethically is an individual choice. But it carries consequences. Both in terms of how others will respond and in terms of one's own conscience.
Could you comment on Richard Dawkins' and others' assertion that we don't need religion to be moral? It seems to me that virtue is independent of imaginary religions...
Darin, I think Dawkins' point, which has been made by countless people before, is exactly right. No, we obviously don't need religion to be moral. Lots of non-religious people are moral, and lots of religious ones are not.
That said, religion is a particular type of philosophy of life. And I think a (good) philosophy of life is helpful, even if not required, to live a meaningful existence.
Thank you for the write up Massimo. I welcome criticism and everything here is civil and constructive - we can agree to disagree on a few points and that's all good.
One point I will pick up is this:
"I’m not sure Stoicism was ever designed to change society, as that may be a bit too much to ask from a personal philosophy of life."
Think of Zeno's Republic - written by the very founder of the school - the bottom-up radicalism of that egalitarian vision (compared to Plato's top-down Republic). Stoicism is absolutely "political" in a broad sense and certianly anarchic (in the best possible way) in flavour. No temples, no law courts, no borders. Of course, it's utopianism, but it's a lode star for meaningful change in society, starting with attitudes.
My (new) reading group just discussed Book One, chapters 18 and 19 from Epictetus's Discourses, and those are two chapters that are absolutely concerned with social change and even political transformation (What makes it more pointed is that Epictetus, a manumitted slave, was teaching the future Roman elite (Arrian among them)).
The beauty of Stoicism is the seamless way it flows through the personal and the social (which ties back to my notion of the Stoic Non-Self), the "politics" (for want of a better word) flows from the personal and vice versa. This is why contintgency is such a concern to me. If I reject universals (of science and religion), the best traction I can get - from the human condition - is conditional necessity... that will do for me to reconstruct Stoicism.
Anyway - I'm honoured that you spent the time to consider my ideas in detail, and I look forward to reading your own. Very best wishes, Steve.
Steve, thanks for the gracious reply, appreciated!
Yes, Zeno’s Republic allegedly is about a utopian anarchic vision. But we don’t really have anything other than fragments, so it’s hard to say. And of course utopian anarchism is not a political program at all. Not compared to the explicitly political ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero.
I agree that in Stoicism the socio-political seamlessly flows from the personal, but I’m talking about the lack of an explicitly political vision, again along the lines of those articulated by the thinkers just mentioned. Stoicism is, in the end, compatible with a number of political systems, including enlightened authoritarianism.
I am intrigued by the fact that we both value what you call conditional necessity, and yet you reject scientific universals. For me it is exactly science that tells us that there are no moral universals, and yet provides us with the basis for a contingent morality along the lines of Philippa Foot’s Natural Goodness and Frans de Waal’s Primates and Philosophers.
I'd reject all universals beyond the axioms of mathematics or logic. I think conditional necessities (like death, and knowing we'll likely someday die) are more aligned to my level of skepticism than the "laws" of science, which I cannot assent to!
I wonder to what extent this isn’t a semantic difference. For instance, I think of natural laws as tentative, though very well established, empirical generalizations. Always open to revision.
So far so good. I can hardly wait for the next essay. In the meantime, I'll meditate on the non-self and the 5 aggravates. It helps keep me sane.
Ron, keeping all of us sane is one of the goals...
Religion is, at its best, experiential. As having been through two “NDE’s” (Near Death Experiences), it is amazing to me that, regardless of religious upbringing or inclination, the experiences are essentially the same regardless of background. People having experienced this are (to the best of my studies), without exception, changed profoundly.
This leads me to believe that there is an “uncaused first cause” as the Greeks called it.
Science also bears witness to the “exquisite fine tuning” of our universe to support life.
To assert that all of this is the product of random chance is somewhat irrational, in my opinion.
Ethics is the study of “right and wrong “ actions. Without some framework or meaning or absolutes: some reference, it soon degenerates into “moral relativism “.
The conscious sense of “right and wrong “ (conscience) seems to be programmed to a certain extent in all humans (minus sociopaths).
Latin “con + scio”). To know together- with whom? Certainly “each other”, but might there not, perhaps, be a higher power as well?
Jim, the studies I have seen on NDE's actually indicate the opposite: what people experience is highly cultural dependent, as one might expect if those experiences were subjective, and not a window in an actual reality.
The fine tuning problem in science is indeed a problem. But there are solutions that don't require gods, such as the idea of a multiverse. More generally, "god did it" is simply not an explanation at all, it's a way to relabel our ignorance.
Ethics, in the Greco-Roman tradition, is *not* the study of right and wrong, as it is in modern approaches like Kantianism and Utilitarianism. It's the study of how to become an excellent human being and live a eudaimonic life.
Massimo, I always have this thought when the fine tuning "problem" is brought up. What if there was a universe with a planet with a highly advanced civilization and they had a science fair and one of the student's project was to create a universe which was fine tuned to create beetles? This solves the questions of why the universe appears to be fine tuned and why there are so many species of beetle in our universe, and has the added humor that people on Earth are really worshiping an alien teen beetle at a science fair.
And yes, I probably do watch "Rick and Morty" a bit too much
Andrew, there are worse things to do with one's time than watch "Rick and Morty"!
The fine tuning "problem," in my mind, is a red herring. It's simply another label for our ignorance. We don't know how the laws of nature and accompanying constants came to be the way they are. That's an interesting question, which we may never get an answer to. But from there to jump to "god did it!" is an exercise in unnecessary relabeling.
I think it is possible to have a nearly objective ethics if one reasons as the libertarian philosophers do, from the standpoint of human action. That humans act is axiomatic. *How* humans act towards each other is the basis of ethics. After all, just because Stoics decide to act ethically for the good of themselves and others doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to do so. But to then couch the rights of acting humans in the sphere of other acting humans necessitates some prior restraints, famously starting with "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" or some such.
I'm not sure. How humans act towards each other is what ethics is supposed to determine, it's hard to imagine how it may be axiomatic.
The notion that others are not obliged to act in certain ways, even though we deem those ways ethical, is correct, but I don't think of ethics that way. I think of it as analogous to medicine. Nobody is obligated to exercise and eat healthy. But IF they want to live long and well THEN they ought to exercise and eat well. Both medicine and ethics are based on conditional imperatives.
Yes, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. But why? A proper conditional imperative provides the answer: IF you wish to live and flourish in a community of social animals THEN your right to switch your fist ends where your nose begins.
Thank you, perhaps I wasn't clear about the axiom of human action. We act. We can't NOT act. What we choose to act on depends on our circumstances, knowledge, and valuations. Ethics is a secondary consideration for most, but for Stoics it's the primary consideration.
Right. A good part of why ethics is primary for the Stoics (and the Epicureans, and the Aristotelians, etc.) is because in virtue ethics the word "ethics" encompasses every action we engage in. The problem with the modern conception is that it sees ethics as a separate subset of our actions, which makes it easier to ignore or downplay.
Whether to act ethically, once the options are known, is an individual choice, and always has been. One may have to hide one's unethical acts from others, unless one is powerful enough to ignore such opprobrium. In any case, the Austrian economists have explored many of the ethical considerations around praxeology (the science of action), which might be worth exploring.
Yes, to act or not to act ethically is an individual choice. But it carries consequences. Both in terms of how others will respond and in terms of one's own conscience.
Could you comment on Richard Dawkins' and others' assertion that we don't need religion to be moral? It seems to me that virtue is independent of imaginary religions...
Darin, I think Dawkins' point, which has been made by countless people before, is exactly right. No, we obviously don't need religion to be moral. Lots of non-religious people are moral, and lots of religious ones are not.
That said, religion is a particular type of philosophy of life. And I think a (good) philosophy of life is helpful, even if not required, to live a meaningful existence.
Philosophers speculate, God laughs
Hard to laugh if one doesn't exist...
Ah, faint laughter… and something about having the last laugh 🙄
👍