Thank you for posting this exercise, the first in the discipline of assent.
I also notice that I find it difficult to practice these types of exercises, which require constant attention, especially while engaging in other tasks that rely on my working memory (which tends to be limited).
I have a question related to the exercise's instructions to catch harsh impressions, i.e. things that seem 'very desirable' or 'very undesirable'. It's a bit hard to set a threshold because I find many things desirable or undesirable, and distinguishing the 'very' part is challenging. Any thoughts on this?
José, well, what counts as “very” desirable / undesirable depends on the individual, of course. I’d say pick the two 2-3 things in each category and focus on those. Later on you can expand.
They don’t alter your character, right? So yes. Remember, “indifferent” doesn’t mean we don’t care, or that the thing has no value. It strictly means that you being a good person does not depend on it.
Hmmmm ...yes I do understand my behaviour is under my control. Perhaps starvation being selected as a test of DC over stealing food is too extreme an example?
Actually, not even your behavior in full. What you control are only your deliberate decisions to act or not to act, but not the outcomes of those decisions. As for food vs starving, one could argue that stealing an apple in order to survive is not an unvirtuous action, if you don’t have any other choice and live in a place where society is not bothered by the existence of people starving to death.
I think there is a danger in this thinking though. Many people justify their behavior because "the system is unfair." It seemed 'right' to them. In Disc. 1.29.21, Epictetus says, "That’s how I lost my lamp, because the thief was better than me at doing without sleep. But he paid dearly for it: in return for a lamp, he has become a thief, untrustworthy, less than human. And he thought he was turning a profit!"
I understand that a lamp and food are different things. But the concern about this line of thinking remains.
[Yep, I checked the "Also share to Notes." I don't know what that does, but I'm the type of person to click on buttons to see what happens. Sorry about that.]
I'll try to elaborate and do my best to avoid the slippery slope fallacy. I worry that one's virtue is at risk with this line of thinking. Stealing is a vicious act and damages your character. So, at what point is stealing okay? When does it not damage your character? When I haven't eaten in a week? A day? Four hours?
Maybe modern Stoicism looks at it differently, but it is my understanding that ancient Stoics didn't believe in graduated levels of virtue. You are either virtuous or vicious, but we can progress towards virtue. So, am I still progressing towards virtue when I steal in dire circumstances such as starvation? If yes, at what point do I start regressing (or moving towards viscousness)?
Yes, although there are limits to the kinds of action the need for survival will justify. For instance, if you need to kill another innocent person, then I think we’ve got a problem.
I recall that I read somewhere that "dissent" for the Stoics is actually a multi-step process that involves:
(1) Suspension of judgement
(2) Negating the Impression (¬p)
(3) Assenting to the Negation (assenting to ¬p).
Is that correct?
Epictetus text seems compatible with this. Before knowing that I thought that dissenting was more like "disregarding" the false impression (like ignoring it), but that would mean that there is no thought process involved. I really can't find the exact source, so I am not 100% sure, but this article seems to suggest that: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Prop.
I started using the Handbook last year, and I've recently finished week 52 and circled back to week 1. I don't plan to go over the entire syllabus in the same order, but I thought there was something poetic about starting, ending, and then restarting again with the Dichotomy of Control.
I find the exercises quite enlightening and very practical.
Sibbs, glad to hear it! Yes, I wouldn’t recommend doing all of the exercises again. Pick a subset that is particularly meaningful / helpful to you, and rotate among exercises within that subset. Think of it like going to the gym: you can’t use every weight and machine, and you get bored if you do exactly the same routine every time.
Thank you for posting this exercise, the first in the discipline of assent.
I also notice that I find it difficult to practice these types of exercises, which require constant attention, especially while engaging in other tasks that rely on my working memory (which tends to be limited).
I have a question related to the exercise's instructions to catch harsh impressions, i.e. things that seem 'very desirable' or 'very undesirable'. It's a bit hard to set a threshold because I find many things desirable or undesirable, and distinguishing the 'very' part is challenging. Any thoughts on this?
José, well, what counts as “very” desirable / undesirable depends on the individual, of course. I’d say pick the two 2-3 things in each category and focus on those. Later on you can expand.
.....so food, air, water are all preferred indifferents?
They don’t alter your character, right? So yes. Remember, “indifferent” doesn’t mean we don’t care, or that the thing has no value. It strictly means that you being a good person does not depend on it.
Hmmmm ...yes I do understand my behaviour is under my control. Perhaps starvation being selected as a test of DC over stealing food is too extreme an example?
Actually, not even your behavior in full. What you control are only your deliberate decisions to act or not to act, but not the outcomes of those decisions. As for food vs starving, one could argue that stealing an apple in order to survive is not an unvirtuous action, if you don’t have any other choice and live in a place where society is not bothered by the existence of people starving to death.
I think there is a danger in this thinking though. Many people justify their behavior because "the system is unfair." It seemed 'right' to them. In Disc. 1.29.21, Epictetus says, "That’s how I lost my lamp, because the thief was better than me at doing without sleep. But he paid dearly for it: in return for a lamp, he has become a thief, untrustworthy, less than human. And he thought he was turning a profit!"
I understand that a lamp and food are different things. But the concern about this line of thinking remains.
Sorry, I responded to your restack, but we probably are better off having the conversation here. Could you elaborate on what exactly the concern is?
[Yep, I checked the "Also share to Notes." I don't know what that does, but I'm the type of person to click on buttons to see what happens. Sorry about that.]
I'll try to elaborate and do my best to avoid the slippery slope fallacy. I worry that one's virtue is at risk with this line of thinking. Stealing is a vicious act and damages your character. So, at what point is stealing okay? When does it not damage your character? When I haven't eaten in a week? A day? Four hours?
Maybe modern Stoicism looks at it differently, but it is my understanding that ancient Stoics didn't believe in graduated levels of virtue. You are either virtuous or vicious, but we can progress towards virtue. So, am I still progressing towards virtue when I steal in dire circumstances such as starvation? If yes, at what point do I start regressing (or moving towards viscousness)?
Ok ... surely that is so. Difficult to be virtuous sans survival.
Yes, although there are limits to the kinds of action the need for survival will justify. For instance, if you need to kill another innocent person, then I think we’ve got a problem.
Thanks Massimo,
I recall that I read somewhere that "dissent" for the Stoics is actually a multi-step process that involves:
(1) Suspension of judgement
(2) Negating the Impression (¬p)
(3) Assenting to the Negation (assenting to ¬p).
Is that correct?
Epictetus text seems compatible with this. Before knowing that I thought that dissenting was more like "disregarding" the false impression (like ignoring it), but that would mean that there is no thought process involved. I really can't find the exact source, so I am not 100% sure, but this article seems to suggest that: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#Prop.
Demian, yes, that’s correct, and precisely for the reason you state.
I started using the Handbook last year, and I've recently finished week 52 and circled back to week 1. I don't plan to go over the entire syllabus in the same order, but I thought there was something poetic about starting, ending, and then restarting again with the Dichotomy of Control.
I find the exercises quite enlightening and very practical.
Sibbs, glad to hear it! Yes, I wouldn’t recommend doing all of the exercises again. Pick a subset that is particularly meaningful / helpful to you, and rotate among exercises within that subset. Think of it like going to the gym: you can’t use every weight and machine, and you get bored if you do exactly the same routine every time.