Letters from a Stoic 106 - On the Corporeality of Virtue

On the Corporeality of Virtue

This is an 'academic' type letter in which Seneca outlines the argument that virtue is a body or corporeal.  There is nothing new or significant, in my opinion, about this letter.  For those interested (who are reading this letter), I would direct you to a couple of links.

See my summary of John Sellars chapter on Stoic Physics.  It discusses this at a good level as to what the argument was and why the Stoics took the position they did.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the entry on Stoic Physics is good too.

One other thing I will note from this letter - his introduction.  He writes,

My tardiness in answering your letter was not due to press of business. Do not listen to that sort of excuse; I am at liberty, and so is anyone else who wishes to be at liberty. No man is at the mercy of affairs. He gets entangled in them of his own accord, and then flatters himself that being busy is a proof of happiness.

This is an important observation he makes.  How often do we make excuses for things; and blame the excuse on something beyond our control, when in fact, it was up to us?  Indeed, blame 'busyness' for why you did not do something, but you were still 'at liberty' to stop the busyness and do whatever might be more important.

It may seem like a minor quibble, but it's worth a self-reflection.  Our choices make us who we are.  The tangled web of events are complicated, but be sure to not entangle what is 'up to you' in things that are 'not up to you.'  Take responsibility for what is 'up to you' and be precise when casting blame to a certain cause.

Letters from a Stoic 67 - On Ill-Health and Endurance of Suffering

On Ill-Health and Endurance of Suffering

Premise: the good is desirable

Premise: to be courageous under torture is good

Therefore: we should desire torture

More or less, that is the claim Lucilius seems to be making, to which Seneca replies:

there is something in them that is to be desired. I should prefer to be free from torture; but if the time comes when it must be endured, I shall desire that I may conduct myself therein with bravery, honour, and courage. Of course I prefer that war should not occur; but if war does occur, I shall desire that I may nobly endure the wounds, the starvation, and all that the exigency of war brings. Nor am I so mad as to crave illness; but if I must suffer illness, I shall desire that I may do nothing which shows lack of restraint, and nothing that is unmanly. The conclusion is, not that hardships are desirable, but that virtue is desirable, which enables us patiently to endure hardships.

The concept of "preferred indifferents" emerges strongly in this passage.  The Stoic knows that Fortune or Fate will make us prosperous or poor; it may ravage our body with sickness or grant us long-lasting health and life; it may cause war and famine to sweep over our country or it may grant us peace.  Regardless of these circumstances, we, rational beings, will choose how we react to each event - this is 'up to us' - we choose (or not) to exercise moral virtue.  But, back to the point that Lucilius raises and Seneca addresses.  Ought a Stoic to desire torture?  Seneca would respond: 'no, but she ought to desire to demonstrate excellence of soul if her fate placed torture in her path.'  In this example, 'torture' would be a "non-preferred indifferent."

Sellars quotes Cicero:

All other things, he [Zeno] said, were neither good nor bad, but nevertheless some of them were in accordance with Nature and others contrary to Nature; also among these he counted another interposed or intermediate class of things. He taught that things in accordance with Nature were to be chosen and estimated as having a certain value, and their opposites the opposite, while things that were neither he left in the intermediate class. Th ese he declared to possess no motive force whatever, but among things to be chosen some were to be deemed of more value and others of less: the more valuable he termed “preferred”, the less valuable, “rejected” [i.e. “non-preferred”]. (Acad. 1.36–7) (see Sellars, Stoicism, p. 111).

While a Stoic may voluntarily endure hardships to toughen herself, she does not seek them out per se.  She would prefer life over death; health over illness; peace over war.  But regardless of what Fate sends her way, she will act with virtue in every case.

Many in the ancient world clearly knew that all of us will reap the same, ultimate fate: death.  Therefore, what many sought and preferred, was to die for a cause (as opposed for no cause, or needlessly).  A stark example today would be: would you prefer to die of a heart attack while eating ice cream and cake or would you prefer to die by throwing yourself on a grenade to save your platoon?  One death demonstrates a preference for vice while another demonstrates courage and love of brother.

Do you doubt, then, whether it is best to die glorious and performing some deed of valour? When one endures torture bravely, one is using all the virtues. Endurance may perhaps be the only virtue that is on view and most manifest; but bravery is there too, and endurance and resignation and long-suffering are its branches.

In many cases, Fate throws surprises at us and in a single reaction, we demonstrate an amazing act of virtue - such as taking a bullet for a brother.  Other acts of Fate are slow and the Stoic who demonstrates a deep understanding of cause and effect, knows what awaits him and still makes the rational choice to demonstrate excellence.

There, too, is foresight; for without foresight no plan can be undertaken; it is foresight that advises one to bear as bravely as possible the things one cannot avoid.

Seneca's words from ancient Rome echo still today.  What we witness on social media, in public and on television is an unending stream of examples of people seeking pleasure at all costs and avoiding virtue.  A wise person will pause and reflect on the perspectives of aimless people as well as how a excellent human being appears.

withdraw for a little space from the opinions of the common man. Form a proper conception of the image of virtue, a thing of exceeding beauty and grandeur; this image is not to be worshipped by us with incense or garlands, but with sweat and blood.

Seneca concludes with a couple of examples and admonishes us to amor fati.

I think of our friend Demetrius, who calls an easy existence, untroubled by the attacks of Fortune, a "Dead Sea."  If you have nothing to stir you up and rouse you to action, nothing which will test your resolution by its threats and hostilities; if you recline in unshaken comfort, it is not tranquillity; it is merely a flat calm.

The Stoic Attalus was wont to say: "I should prefer that Fortune keep me in her camp rather than in the lap of luxury. If I am tortured, but bear it bravely, all is well; if I die, but die bravely, it is also well."

Essay on David Hume reductio ad absurdum Argument

Originally written August 2020

The Creation and the Creator

The context of this essay revolves around if the world (perfect or not) was created by a perfect or imperfect God.  Scottish Philosopher, David Hume, argues the world was not created by a perfect God.  He advances this claim with an analogy by comparing the world to a ship, which was created by a carpenter who finally succeeded by mimicking superior craftsmen, through repeated failures, attempts and successes.

Presented in the reductio ad absurdum form of argument, Hume claims:

To prove: the world does not have a creator in the way a ship does.

Assume the opposite: The world does have a creator in the way a ship does.

Argue that from the assumption we would have to conclude: an imperfect world must have been created by an imperfect god.

Show that this is false (morally or practically unacceptable): God cannot be imperfect.

Conclude: The world does not have a creator in the way a ship does.

This essay will first question the validity of Hume’s analogy and then respond to Hume’s premise that the world is imperfect.  If the analogy is not valid, then the argument breaks down.  Also, if it can be demonstrated that the world is indeed not imperfect, then Hume’s argument can be further refuted.  The essay will also elaborate on the Stoic concept of God, in response to the idea of perfection and imperfection.

Hume’s Analogy Not Quite Valid

Hume’s creator of the ship analogy is as follows:

But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellences can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiple trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving. 1

Hume’s creator of the ship analogy fails in a few ways.

First, a ship is an inorganic object which floats on water.  Earth, on the other hand, is organic, teeming with life inside an atmosphere.  The earth exists in the vacuum of space instead of a body of water or a dry dock.

Secondly, the degree of complexity between ship and a planet is wide and the required maintenance of each varies.  The actual mechanisms to manipulate the ship are simple compared to those of the earth.  A ship merely needs a rudder and an engine, from something as simple as a sail or a motor.  After that, the ship requires a captain and crew to steer it and maintain it (removing barnacles, replacing rotten wood, etc.).  The earth, however, has a core, layers of earth, complex life support systems in the land, water, and layers of atmosphere, to maintain its viability to sustain life.  And despite its complexity, the earth requires no intervention of a crew for on-going maintenance and repairs.  A simple ship would crash and rot without a crew.  The complex earth needs no crew to persist.

Thirdly, the purpose of a ship and the purpose of the world are different.  The goal of a ship may range from being a pleasure boat for people to explore exotic islands or it may be to transport thousands of passengers across the world to another continent or it may be designed to carry munitions in a war, to fire them on an enemy.  Broadly speaking, a ship’s purpose is for transport of people and things over water – its purpose and scope is finite.  The world, in contrast, may have a multivariate purpose, some of which may be deeply philosophical.  But it is evident, the world is not strictly a means of transportation.  There is no port from which the world has departed nor to which it will return – there is no evidence to support this idea.  And there is no clearly defined goal and universally understood mission or purpose of the world – it is not finite.

The other part of Hume’s analogy compares the creator of the ship to God.  This part of the analogy does not quite seem relevant to the scope of argument.

When most people who believe in a God, think of the concept of God, they will “go up the chain” as a matter of speaking, as far as possible.  Even the deeply seated philosophical question of “who created me” hits at the very essence of the question.  Of course, we know that my biological mother and father created me – that is how I literally came into existence.  But we want to go further, to the point of asking, who created the first human.  And even then, we may not know if whoever created the first human is indeed God or not.  Perhaps Hume was trying to limit his analogy to the scope of a creator of a ship, but in fact, he should have found an analogy that assumes a broader scope, such as one that asks the question of who designed the creator of the ship, or who is the original architect of the design of ships.  The goal would be to get to the ultimate fount of creation, instead of focusing on an intermediary.  In sum, the scope of his analogy is too limited.

His creator of the ship analogy falls apart on a few levels.  Comparing the ship to the world does not equate.  And the creator, in the analogy, is too limited in scope.

Even if we were to grant that Hume’s analogy is valid, it still fails on the point of God creating an imperfect world.  The concept of perfection versus imperfection must be addressed from a Stoic perspective.

Refuting the Idea of Perfection Versus Imperfection – a Stoic Response

The Stoic God is everywhere and is everything.  Nature is God, to the Stoics.  Everything flows from Nature, including the world.  As such, Nature is greater than the notion of perfection and imperfection.

The idea of perfection (or a superior standard), is a difficult definition to pin down, in time and space.  Things are in a constant state of change regarding time and space.  Humans have created the idea of perfection (or a superior standard), which simply means any standard they think should exist is perfect.  Without evidence of perfection, or a standard to refer to, the idea of perfection and imperfection, does not exist; rather it only exists in our minds.

As opposed to this dichotomous thinking (perfect vs imperfect), we have evidence of a hierarchy of tension in objects in the cosmos.  At the foundational level of tension are things that have no consciousness and are always acted on.  Next would be things that have consciousness but may act on other things.  At higher levels would be things that are conscious and usually act on other things.  At the highest level resides the Stoic God: Nature, which is conscious and acts on everything.  From Nature flows all things, both conscious and unconscious, both things that are acted on, and things that act.

In sum, if there is only one fount, from which all the universe, and the cosmos and everything in the cosmos, flows, then everything within the cosmos has continually changed, and simply exists now, and is in a constant state of change in the future, due to things acting on other things.  Therefore, as the universe is in a constant state of flux, if such an idea of perfection existed, it would only exist in the now.  More succinctly stated: Nature is.

The Stoic God

Marcus Aurelius explains the Stoic view of God in one concise verse:

Think always of the universe as one living creature, comprising one substance and one soul: how all is absorbed into this one consciousness; how a single impulse governs all its actions; how all things collaborate in all that happens; the very web and mesh of it all. 2

Stoic physics describe God as a philosophical God, “a living being” who is “rational, animate and intelligent.” 3  The basis for arriving at this conclusion comes from the logic that since humans are rational, animate and intelligent, therefore the cosmos cannot give rise to something which it does not possess.  Zeno stated, “that which employs reason is better than that which does not.  Now nothing is superior to the cosmos; therefore the cosmos employs reason.” 4

Beyond Nature is only void.  Consequently, there is nothing with which to compare Nature.  Nature simply exists and is “governed by reason” and exists as “the best possible organization … as there is only one possible organization.” 5

Perfection vs. Imperfection

Traditional Christians and Skeptics suggest that God is either perfect or imperfect.  Hume outlines this argument through the voices of Philo, Cleanthes and Demea.

The Christian argument might focus on the perfection of God with God’s intent to design the world preceding the creation of it.  On the other hand, the Skeptic might argue that the world was a lesser production than the creator intended.

But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellences can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiple trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving. 1

The Stoic view might respond to the debate between Philo, Cleanthes and Demea that this is dichotomous thinking.  How do we know what a perfect world is?  By what standard can we point that our world is the final result, stemming from a long string of mishaps and misfires?  It would seem the Skeptic is not skeptical enough!

To a Stoic, things, including our world, simply are.  There is no notion of perfect or imperfect.  Whereas the average person might question why brambles and bitter cucumbers were made and point to such things as evidence of an imperfect world, a Stoic, such as Marcus Aurelius, demonstrates the correct way of contemplating these things.

A bitter cucumber? Throw it away. Brambles in the path? Go round them. That is all you need, without going on to ask, 'So why are these things in the world anyway?' That question would be laughable to a student of nature, just as any carpenter or cobbler would laugh at you if you objected to the sight of shavings or off-cuts from their work on the shop floor. Yet they have somewhere to throw their rubbish, whereas the nature of the Whole has nothing outside itself. The marvel of its craft is that it sets its own confines and recycles into itself all within them which seems to be decaying, growing old, or losing its use: and then creates afresh from this same material. This way it requires no substance other than its own, and has no need for a rubbish-dump. So it is complete in its own space, its own material, and its own craftsmanship. 6

To reiterate, the Stoic response to the claim that the world is either perfect or imperfect, is to say that it is neither; rather, “it is complete in its own space.”

Marcus further emphasizes this point by demonstrating the philosophy of unity of the Whole.  Nature, and everything in it, is one whole and complete in its own space.

Everything is interwoven, and the web is holy; none of its parts are unconnected. They are composed harmoniously, and together they compose the world.

One world, made up of all things.

One divinity, present in them all.

One substance and one law—the logos that all rational beings share.

And one truth . . .

If this is indeed the culmination of one process, beings who share the same birth, the same logos. 7

In sum, Stoic physics explain the concept that everything is encompassed in Nature (God).  Things within may need to discard shavings, as evidenced in the metaphor of the carpenter.  But for Nature as a Whole, there is nowhere to place such things to be discarded.  Instead, Nature is able to self-regulate and use everything to its advantage.

The concept of self-regulation can be further explained through the concept of the hierarchy of tension of pneuma of things in the cosmos.

The Hierarchy of Tension

Stoic physics explain differing levels of tension or tonos of things in Nature.  At the low end is simple cohesion (hexis).  Things such as rock would have cohesion.  Moving up the hierarchy of tension is nature (phusis).  Things that have this level of tension would be classified as alive.  The next level up is soul (psuche).  Things with this level of tension would be animals that possess the power of perception, movement and reproduction.  And still higher would be the tension of rational soul (logike psuche).  Things with this level of tension would be adult human beings. 8

Taking this hierarchy one step further, we know that which is higher than the rational soul would be the rational Cosmos.  While the adult human being possesses a rational soul, she is still only “a fragment of matter that constitutes the cosmic body” of Nature.  From this basis of reasoning, we arrive at the conclusion that from Nature, all things flow, both things that are acted upon and things that act. 9

Observing this cosmic perspective of things and events, therefore, helps us to avoid the entire debate of things being perfect versus imperfect, or even good versus evil.

If we accept the premise that all things flow from Nature and that Nature (God) is rational, then we can assume that Nature has accounted for all and is able to self-regulate.

Therefore, as rational beings, we can observe the movement of the stars and the changes of the earth and the life cycle of the animals.  These things naturally manage themselves, without the need of oversight.  A weed grows, it dies, it replenishes the earth and enriches the soil.  If a person chooses to see a weed as an imperfection, then that person has not widened his aperture to the right level of perspective.  He should try to look at the weed in a broader, more cosmic perspective, and he may begin to not see the weed as imperfect, but as a necessary part of Nature’s way of self-regulation.

Summary

The essay has attempted to first, refute the validity of Hume’s creator of the ship analogy, by claiming that a ship does not equate to the world, nor does the scope of the creator quite arise to the scope of God.

The essay went on to also question the premise of God creating an imperfect world, by attacking the notion of perfect versus imperfect.  In so doing, it explained the macro framework of Stoic physics, including the Stoic God.  The Stoic God, which is Nature, encompasses things which have differing levels of tension, from simple cohesion such as in stones, all the way up to the fully rational, self-regulating organism of Nature itself.

Within Nature, some people have assumed the wrong perspective regarding perfection or imperfection.  If a person thinks our world is either perfectly made or not, then he has not considered the grand perspective of Nature, wherein all things are managed and in a constant state of change.  If he takes the correct perspective, he will appreciate that, to God (Nature) “all things are fair and good and just” and that it is “people [who] hold some things wrong and some right.” 10

Notes

1 David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part V

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm#chap05 

2 Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4, 40

3 John Sellars, Stoicism p. 93, 95

4 Sellars, Stoicism p. 93

5 Sellars, Stoicism p. 99  

6 Aurelius, Meditations 8, 50

7 Aurelius, Meditations 7, 9

8 Sellars, Stoicism p. 91

9 Sellars Stoicism p. 104-105

10 Heraclitus, DK B102, from Porphyry, Notes on Homer, on Iliad 4.4

Stoicism in Six Points

Often, people ask me for the summarized version of Stoicism.  The intent of this post is to get right to the heart of the Stoic disciplines without compromising the framework as a whole.  While the how is far more important, you will have a greater appreciation for Stoicism if you understand the why.  In this post, I will try to explain the why.  Then, in another post, I will explain the how.

the goal

First off, the goal of Stoicism, is to seek a flourishing, fulfilling life through excellence of character (arete).  It is also said the goal and end is eudaimonia, which is defined as happiness or well-being.  This is the summum bonum of philosophy, including the philosophy of Stoicism.

the framework

The framework of Stoic philosophy includes logic, physics and ethics; and this framework must be kept whole, to derive the full benefit of the philosophy.  It has been compared to an egg as well as a garden.

In the egg analogy, the logic is represented by the shell, keeping faulty reasoning from entering.  Physics is represented by the egg white, which provides the nurturing power by way of knowledge of the world and bodies and ethics is represented by the yolk, the ultimate practice of Stoicism.

In the garden analogy, the logic is represented by the fence, physics is the dirt, and ethics is the fruit produced from the garden.

Furthermore, each branch of Stoic philosophy is associated with a discipline.  These disciplines encapsulate practices, which when coupled with the demonstration of virtues, the Stoic lives arete (excellence) in his art of living.

With this framework in mind, I'll lay out how each branch of Stoic philosophy is related to a discipline.  With the three branches and three related disciplines, the why of Stoic philosophy can be explained in six points - hence the #StoicSix.

logic

Stoic logic is important because it lays out the foundation for how humans learn (cognition).  Related to cognition is perception of experiences and impressions.  If we understand how humans perceive and how perceptions, impressions and value judgments are made, then we begin to understand what truly is in our control.

The key thing you need to understand is the process of the four stages of assent.  Below is a summary of those four stages based on John Sellars book Stoicism on page 67.

1. “a perception of an external event or state of affairs”
2. “an almost involuntary and seemingly unconscious value judgement that is made about the content of the perception”
3. “the presentation to the conscious mind of an impression in the form of a proposition that is composed of both the perceptual data received from the outside and the unconscious value judgement”
4. “the act of assent or rejection of the impression”

For a fuller treatment on Stoic logic, see my notes here.

discipline of assent

The discipline of assent is the process of strengthening our hegemonikon to assent (agree) with only valid impressions and to disagree or ignore invalid or incorrect impressions.

The world is filled with external events.  We are confronted with and bombarded by these events incessantly.  These events "propose" an idea or opinion to us and then we have to decide if we agree or not with that proposition.  But before we agree or disagree, we need to deconstruct events and things.

The best way to practice this discipline, is to lengthen the pause between event/thing and your impression of it; and then decide to agree or disagree.

Epictetus said, "Don’t let the force of an impression when it first hits you knock you off your feet; just say to it, 'Hold on a moment; let me see who you are and what you represent. Let me put you to the test'" (Discourses 2.18).

Another quote that I quite like goes, "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."  I've heard this has been attributed to Viktor Frankl, but I'm not sure if that is confirmed or not.

In other words, we must mind the gap between perception and assent.  The more we can 'slow' that four stage process down, and the more we practice it, the better position we are in to make wise and accurate assents to a valid impression.

physics

From Stoic physics we gain an understanding of Nature.  We learn and understand our own nature as human beings - that we have both a physical and rational nature about us, and that we are part of a social order, which is a part of the cosmos - which is Nature itself.

From Stoic physics, we learn of fate, both simple fated and conjoined fated.  Simple fated things are “necessary and [are] a product of the essence of a thing.”  An example would be death – all mortals will die.  Conjoined fated things are more complex and involve “two types of causes” called internal and external.  External causes would be things external to human nature that would impact the outcome.  Internal causes are things inherent to human nature (see Sellars, p. 104).

We also learn of differing levels of tension, which relate to an order of organisms, with nearly inanimate beings at one end of the spectrum and human beings at the other end of the spectrum.  The key idea here is that humans' true nature is that they are rational beings and that they must put their rational self-preservation above their physical self-preservation to truly live according to their unique nature.

As rational beings, humans are tasked with the responsibility to live according to and in harmony with both their own nature and Nature (with a capital N).

Nature is the Stoic god.  It is not a Christian, Islamic or Hindu or any other deity in the religious sense.  Rather, Nature is the cosmos.

For a fuller treatment on Stoic physics, see my notes here.

discipline of desire

Your desire for self-preservation needs to be grounded in your nature as well as the desire of Nature

The desire of Nature is found in macro/global/universal events that are out of your control.  You should work to align your desires with the desire of Nature (the cosmos).  This can be difficult in some circumstances, but the Stoics would say, "Universe, your harmony is my harmony: nothing in your good time is too early or too late for me. Nature, all that your seasons bring is fruit to me: all comes from you, exists in you, returns to you." (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.23)

Pierre Hadot puts a unique perspective on this by making macro events exceptionally personal.  In his book, The Inner Citadel, he writes,

This brings us back to the theme of the present. A particular event is not predestined for me and accorded with me only because it is harmonized with the World; rather, it is so because it occurs in this particular moment and no other. It occurs in accordance with the kairos ("right moment"), which, as the Greeks had always known, is unique. Therefore, that which is happening to me at this moment is happening at the right moment, in accordance with the necessary, methodical, and harmonious unfolding of all events, all of which occur at their proper time and season.

To will the event that is happening at this moment, and in this present instant, is to will the entire universe which has brought it about. (see p. 143, as well as p. 75, 260)

Regarding your personal desire, you should desire and yearn for opportunities to practice virtue and excellence of the human soul.  Arete (virtue/excellence) is the sole good, according to the Stoics.  Therefore, in every event and circumstance, you should desire and be motivated to practice some virtue (wisdom, justice, discipline, courage) according to the how the situation and context dictates.  This demonstrates how excellent your soul is, given a fated circumstance.

When this is connected to the discipline of assent, we learn to lengthen that pause, we then need to ask ourselves, "what can I learn from this?  What virtue can I exercise given the situation?"

By practicing the discipline of desire, we place our rational nature above our physical nature and we learn to see our proper place in Nature (the cosmos).  Successfully practiced, our soul is content and at peace, leading to eudaimonia.

ethics

Stoic ethics is the action or the practice the philosophy.  It is based on how humans are oriented - namely that human beings have an impulse for self-preservation.  And the ultimate self-preservation for human beings is to preserve their rational nature by living a life of arete.

In ethics we learn that arete is the sole good.  It is demonstrated with virtue, such as wisdom, justice, courage and temperance.  It is also demonstrated by avoiding vices.

Anything that does not fall into the categories of virtue or vice, falls under the category of indifferents - things that do not ultimately matter.

One thing that set the Stoics apart from other philosophy schools was their division of indifferents into preferred and non-preferred.  Preferred indifferents generally support the self-preservation of the body, such as health.  But even without preferred indifferents in a Stoic's life, he can still seek after the sole good of virtue and attain eudaimonia.  Cynics reject the notion of preferred indifferents and take a stauncher approach to virtue as the sole good.  Aristotelians lean in the other direction and support the seeking of preferred indifferents in the pursuit of happiness.

So what does all of this have to do with ethics?  Remember, the basis for action is self-preservation.  Humans share the need for physical self-preservation with all animals, but what makes our nature truly unique, is our rational nature.  We preserve our rational self when we pursue a life of virtue and excellence.  Therefore, all our actions should be viewed through the lens of arete.  Just as drinking clean water is good for the body, so to is living a life of arete good for your soul (your rational nature).

The other important idea regarding Stoic ethics is social oikeiosis.  Once a Stoic understands how to truly preserve himself (rational self-preservation), he will extend that circle of care and compassion to those nearest him.  From there, he casts a wider net of concern for his neighbors, then to strangers and other people in the world and he continues to cast a wider net of concern until he see himself as a true cosmopolitan of Nature.

For a fuller treatment on Stoic ethics, see my notes here.

discipline of action

Having lengthened your "pause" in judgement and having learned proper desire, you are now willing to act.

I am not well versed in Epicureanism, but I have heard and read many other aspiring Stoics discuss the differences between Stoicism and Epicureanism.  The Epicureans believed pleasure was the sole good and believed the best way to accomplish this was to "to live modestly, to gain knowledge of the workings of the world, and to limit one's desires." (source)  One way to achieve this was to disengage with society and seek tranquility in a garden or peaceful place.  Indeed this sounds wonderful and peaceful; however Stoicism offers this same peace and tranquility while engaging with society.  For the Stoics, virtue is the sole good and the only real way to practice virtue is in society.  One cannot practice discipline, courage, wisdom and justice unless there are other human beings around, who would give the aspiring Stoic opportunities to practice said virtues.

Furthermore, Stoics would bring others into their circle of care by wanting others to flourish.  The technical Greek term for this is social oikeiôsis.  It can be roughly translated as "familiarity" or "affinity".  Practically speaking, it means each of us as individuals, are naturally programmed to care for ourselves, physically and logically.  While we practice to be better at that, we can also extend our circle of affinity to those closest to us, then on to an ever-widening circle, until we have that same affinity to all citizens of the cosmos; we become true cosmopolitans.

Albert Einstein provides a great visual for circles of compassion:

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

With these two principals in minds, (acting with virtue in the context of society and viewing all people as "in our circle of care"), Stoicism gives us the tools to enter the world every day and engage with others and keep our tranquility.

action required: stoic exercises

The ancient Stoics, especially Epictetus, were very keen on putting their doctrines into practice.  Musonius Rufus made it clear regarding which was more important: theory or practice.  He asked people if they would rather be healed by a physician who can expound on all sorts of medical theory, but lacks vital experience, or would they rather be healed by an inarticulate doctor with loads of experience and a good track record.  It's rather clear, that most would prefer the experienced over the inexperienced (see p. 33, Sellars, Stoicism).

Similarly, Epictetus made the point using an athletic analogy.  "Come now, show me what progress you're making in this regard.  Suppose I were talking with an athlete and said, Show me your shoulders, and he were to reply, 'Look at my jumping-weights.'  That's quite enough of you and your weights!  What I want to see is what you've achieved by use of those jumping-weights" (p. 11).

In sum, Stoics need to walk the talk, and they demonstrate the walk with Stoic exercises or practices.  Then, as you make these exercises a habit in your life, you will begin to see the benefits as you go through the day by day events and you will be prepared for life altering events - both preferred and non-preferred.  You will be an artist whose media is lived experience.

Stoic exercises help you make the transition from theory to a lived philosophy, in all that you do.  For a detailed treatment on Stoic exercises see my post Stoicism in Practice.

conclusion

I know I may have taken a bit more time to explain all that, but hopefully the read wasn't too long.  If you want more in-depth analysis on this, I suggest you read my blog post On Happiness - Part Two: Stoic Style.

Also, I highly recommend The Path of the Prokopton Series by Chris Fisher.

#StoicSix

Notes on Stoic Ethics from Stoicism by John Sellars

The beginning, the foundation and basis for Stoic ethics is oikeiosis.  This is “the nature of living beings.”  Roughly translated into English, it means ‘orientation’ and ‘appropriation’ (see p. 107, Sellars).

The theory of oikeiosis is that animals, including human beings, first and foremost have a desire and impulse for self-preservation – they love to physically exist and wish to protect that desire.

With this innate impulse to survive and to continue existence, humans will ascribe good and bad values to things that will help them preserve their existence.  Platonism, alternatively, “posits the existence of an absolute, transcendent concept of ‘the Good’ to which all value ascriptions may be referred” (p. 108, Sellars).  It is on this basis that Platonism looks to in order to understand everything else.  The Stoics, on the other hand, will honestly and seriously consider “the primitive behavior of animals and human beings, and [they do] not try to pretend that selfish motivations are not at the heart of most people’s actions” (p. 108, Sellars).

As discussed in the previous chapter on physics, we learned pneuma has different levels of tension; and the levels of tension increase in complexity from cohesion up to having a soul.  The nature of humans is unique in that self-preservation not only exists for the physical body, but it also exists for our rational nature.  As Sellars states, “If I am to survive as a rational being and not merely as an animal then I must pursue those things that will help preserve my rationality as well as those things that will preserve my body” (p. 108).  And furthermore, humans will put a higher priority on their rational existence over their physical existence.  Therefore, if an individual’s freedom as a rational being is put at risk with the threat of physical death, then the rational choice may be to commit suicide rather than give up rational independence.  This was the choice Socrates, Cato the Younger and Seneca faced, and all chose suicide.

“Zeno divided things that exist into three groups:” (p. 110, Sellars)

1. good / virtue / arete / and things that participate in virtue
2. bad / vice / kakia / and things that participate in vice
3. indifferents / adiaphoron – things such as life, reputation, health, poverty or wealth, external objects

arete / virtue is the only good.  A broader translation would be “excellence” or “an excellent disposition of the soul … perfect rationality” (p. 110, Sellars).
 
Just as food is valuable because it ensures the viability of our physical body, virtue is valuable because it “contributes to our survival as rational beings” (p. 110, Sellars).

There are three reasons why virtue is the only good: (see p. 110-111, Sellars)

• First, as the basis of self-rational-preservation, exercising excellence in rationality preserves this unique trait in rational beings.
• Second, indifferents are a means to an end – either for good or for bad, therefore they are not inherently good.
• Third, externals cannot guarantee happiness in rational beings.  But virtue can.

Indifferents were divided into three categories: (see p. 111, Sellars)

1. preferred
2. non-preferred
3. indifferent

It is natural to prefer wealth, health and respect to the non-preferred indifferents of poverty, illness and ill repute.  In a sense, these things bring value to physical well-being of rational beings.  They can also bring an added measure of happiness in one’s life.

There are no varying degrees of vice.  If something is bad, it is all bad (see p. 112, Sellars).

The Cynics, Stoics and Aristotelians are on a rough spectrum when it comes to what brings happiness in a rational being’s life.  On the one end, the Cynics strictly adhered to the notion that virtue is the sole good and “they would reject any attempt to prioritize among the indifferents.”  One the other end, the Aristotelians “argued that such things [indifferents] are necessary along with virtue for a happy life.”  The Stoics do not go to either end of the spectrum, and say externals are not necessary for a happy life – that virtue alone is sufficient – but they do recognize that preferred indifferents add to the value of a physical life (see p. 112-113, Sellars).

Epictetus categorized the good, the bad and the indifferent into two categories: things that are “up to us” and things that are “not up to us” (p. 113, Sellars).

Epictetus said that spending time and effort choosing between preferred and non-preferred indifferents was not a good use of time and energy.  We would be much better off if we spent “all our attention on developing the only thing that is genuinely good, namely our virtue or excellence.”  Furthermore, he would contend that there is a slippery slope from “frustration to a violent emotion” for those people who would pursue preferred indifferents (see p. 114, Sellars).

The one thing that is good (virtue / arete / excellence) is also found completely within our control by means of “our faculty of ‘choice’ (prohairesis)” (p. 114, Sellars).  This means, we can always choose virtue and live virtuously, no matter the circumstance or what preferred or non-preferred indifferents we possess.

Zeno held emotions to be the product of judgments instead of thinking emotions are judgments (as Chrysippus contended).  Zeno’s reasoning is more reasonable due to the notion that people’s actual emotions of an event (say a death of a parent) will usually fade over time.  But, the person’s opinion of the death of their parent may be that the death was still a terrible thing, even years later.  Therefore, if we assume judgments are emotions, then it would stand to reason the emotion from an event, should be just as strong (years later) as at the time of the event.  But since this is usually not the case, we can conclude the judgement causes emotion instead of judgement being emotion.

The process leading to the formation of an emotion (p. 115-116, Sellars):

1. “receive impressions that present external objects to us” over which we have no control
2. “we make a judgment” and “sometimes we add an unconscious value judgement to our impressions”
3. “if we assent to impression that includes one of these unconscious value judgments then we shall create an emotional response”

First movements are “immediate physical responses” people will sometimes experience “before they have had a chance to form a judgement about what is happening” (p. 116, Sellars).

The difference between first movement and a genuine emotion is the gap in time and thinking of the presentation of the external event or object.  Seneca notes that genuine emotion is in the act of surrendering to these snap, unconscious judgments (see p. 116, Sellars).

The more often we practice proper reasoning, in order to avoid mistaken judgments and “assents to impressions that include unwarranted ascriptions of value” the better off we can control our emotions.  And since our rationality and ability to judge and assent are entirely within our control, our emotions can be entirely within our control (see p. 117, Sellars).

The three good emotions are: joy, caution and wishing (p. 118, Sellars).

Caution can be a good emotion as “rational avoidance” in counter to fear.  Caution is good (wise) as one takes measures “to prevent the loss of ones’ virtue” (p. 119, Sellars).

The three good emotions produce six good emotional states as follows:

• joy --> mirth and cheerfulness
• caution --> modesty and reverence
• wishing --> benevolence and friendliness

A rational being preserves oneself as a rational being “by cultivating virtue” (p. 120, Sellars).

The names of the two types of appropriate actions (kathekon) that one should pursue are middle or intermediate (meson kathekon) and perfect or completely correct (katorthoma) (see p. 120-121, Sellars).

According to Stoics, non-rational animals can pursue appropriate actions, but they cannot pursue completely correct actions (see p. 121, Sellars).

When two people perform appropriate actions throughout their life, in exactly the same way, but the first person does so “without much conscious thought or consideration” and the second person acts consciously and deliberately and has “come to a firm conclusion that these are the most appropriate actions to undertake” then the second, ‘conscious’ person is said to have taken “completely correct” action and their behavior would be preferable to the first person’s.  Furthermore, the second person would be able to explain exactly why they have taken appropriate action – they would be able to explain their art and craft of living and would be able to sustain their way of life in the future (see p. 121-122, Sellars).

Sellars writes, “Being virtuous is good because in some sense it is good for me to be virtuous” (p. 122).  Returning to the basis of Stoic ethics is the idea of self-preservation both physically and rationally.  Not only should rational beings not harm themselves physically or rationally, but they should do what must be done to promote well-being within themselves in both the physical and rational sense.  In other words, they would want to flourish physically and rationally.  Therefore, choosing a life based on arete and striving for that excellence in living is good for (beneficial for) the rational being.

“The Stoics, like the vast majority of ancient philosophers, are “eudaimonists.”  Eudaimonia has been translated to mean ‘happiness.’  “It refers to a substantive well-being in one’s life … [and] is sometimes translated as ‘well-being’ or ‘flourishing’” (p. 123, Sellars).  Ancient philosophers considered eudaimonia to be universally desired and therefore there was no reason to explicitly state that the end of all philosophy was to achieve eudaimonia.  They simply viewed it to be “the summum bonum, namely that ‘for the sake of which everything is done but which is not done for the sake of anything else’” (p. 123, Sellars).

Regarding the translation of arete to ‘virtue’ – it would be better to simply use the word arete as there is no precise translation and the meaning is much broader than ‘virtue’ alone.  Sellars defines it as “an excellent disposition of the soul” and sometimes the translation is shortened to ‘excellence.’  In sum, one should educate himself of the full definition and meaning of the word and use the word rather than simple English translations.

Eudaimonia (translated as happiness) is the end-all of philosophy.  It is not some external benefit (i.e. preferred indifferent) like health and wealth.  Since the Stoic can act with excellence of soul and thus possess eudaimonia, and this effort is entirely within the control of the rational being, happiness, therefore, is not an external benefit – it is the end.
 
The Stoics, beginning with Zeno, have stated that to achieve the summum bonum one must live in harmony or consistently with Nature.  There are three aspects to living according to Nature (see p. 125, Sellars).

1. “living harmoniously with oneself … living consistently and free from internal emotional conflict”
2. “living in accordance with one’s own nature … as a rational being” and actively pursuing this rather than “passively reacting to external forces”
3. “bringing oneself into harmony with Nature as a whole”

There are two aspects to human beings: the physical and the rational.  Sellars only discusses the rational.  But one could say that a human should live in harmony with their physical nature.  Choosing to live free from external physical conflict by doing what should be done to promote a healthy, sound physical body.  Sellars gets close to addressing this on page 128 when he writes, “Thus it is in harmony with Nature (my own nature) to choose those things that will contribute to my own self-preservation, things such as health and wealth …”  And he goes on to clarify that it is in the choosing that we remain in harmony with Nature, and that actually obtaining those things is beyond our control.

We become cosmopolitan when we widen our circle of self-preservation to those nearest to us and then extending that concern outward to neighbors, communities, cities, states, nations, then eventually the world and the universe.  This is known as “social oikeiosis” (p. 131, Sellars).

Albert Einstein shared a similar sentiment when he consoled a grieving father who lost his young son to polio.  Einstein wrote, “A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty” (source).

Notes on Stoic Physics from Stoicism by John Sellars

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being and deals with all questions about the physical world.  The fundamental ontological assertion of the Stoics “underpinning all of Stoic physics is the claim that only bodies exist” (p. 81, Sellars).

The Platonic position was a “claim that the material world that we experience is merely a shadow of another realm where real existence lies” (p. 81, Sellars).

Plato was attacking all hard-lined, as well as moderate materialist perspectives.  He wished for any and all materialists “to admit to the existence of something that is not a body” (p. 82, Sellars).

Stoics believe that for something to exist it must have a body.

To avoid the Platonic trap, Zeno claimed that certain intangible things like soul, justice, virtue, and wisdom actually do exist and are bodies.  He grants Plato’s assumption that only bodies can act and be acted upon (p. 82, Sellars).  But as was discussed in the chapter on Logic in Sellars’ book, propositions (cognitions, impressions we assent to) are physical entities and so therefore intangibles such as virtue, justice or wisdom would be considered bodies.

Incorporeals subsist.  The four types of incorporeals are: void, time, place and sayables (p. 83, Sellars).

The present moment “belongs.”  This means the past and the future are non-existent realities and therefore subsist.  But the present is more real than the future or past, but still “is not as real as a physical object” and therefore “belongs” (p. 84, Sellars).

Universals of Platonic ideas, according to the Stoics “neither exist nor subsist” and “such entities are dismissed as ‘not-somethings’” … but by labeling these as “not-somethings” it creates another “category within the Stoic ontological scheme” therefore they “explicitly reject universals conceived as Platonic ideas” (p. 84, Sellars).

The ‘Stoic trap’ that Chrysippus devises goes like this:

If someone is in Athens, he is not in Magara;
“man” is in Athens;
Therefore, “man” is not in Magara.

The point Stoics want to make is “to deny that the generic name ‘man’ refers to anything at all.”  Platonists would insist that “man” is someone or something, yet the argument shows it cannot be someone or something.  The Platonist would agree with the first two premises, but if he agrees with the conclusion, he will agree with the Stoics that “man” is not-something, while if he rejects the conclusion, he must reject that “man” is someone or something – which he won’t want to admit.

The two material principals are:
a) “that which acts (to poioun) and
b) “that which is acted upon (to paschon) or we might say the active and the passive; they are God and matter” (p. 86, Sellars)

“Ancient sources” and “modern commentators suggest that the Stoics proposed a strict monism, that is, a conception of a single unified material reality.”  This conflicts with the two material principals, because how can a unified body, with nothing beyond itself, both act and be acted upon?

One way to resolve this conflict is to think of the two principles as “merely abstract or conceptual” and that the Stoics wanted “to give an account of the material world that does not have to refer to anything outside of Nature in order to explain its movement or development” thus “they are able to say that the material cosmos both acts and is acted upon … itself” (p. 87, Sellars).

The three ways in which two material entities might be mixed together are:

1. juxtaposition
2. fusion
3. total blending

Fusion is where the original two entities cease to exist and a third entity is created.

Total blending is where the original two entities continue to distinctively exist and a third entity is created.

Pneuma or breath is “the active principle in Nature, sometimes identified with God, sometimes with the soul of God” (p. 163, Sellars)

Pneuma has three principle conditions, “reflecting a different level of ‘tension’”

1. cohesion (hexis) – the force that holds physical objects, such as a stone, together.
2. nature (phusis) – the living force, which causes biological organisms to live.
3. soul (psuche) – the principle of life in animals that have powers of perceptions (impressions), movement (impulses) and reproduction. (See p. 91, Sellars)

Sellars states, “It is thus possible to make Stoic physics sound quite modern and thoroughly naturalistic.”  The three levels of tension coincide to levels of life forms and consciousness as well as a division between things that are purely acted upon and things that act as well as a division between things that are acted upon and which can also act.  Thus a rock would only possess cohesion pneuma and would not possess nature or soul and would be acted upon.  Going up the continuum, algae and plants would possess both cohesion and nature pneuma and could act on dirt and rocks.  Animals would have soul pneuma and could act on plants and rocks and even within animals, some animals such as humans might have greater soul pneuma.  Any modern biology class would most likely show simple versus complex lifeforms, not unlike the pneuma principles outlined above.

Two essential beliefs about the Stoic God are: God is not external to Nature, but rather God is Nature.  The other is “the cosmos is a living being” (p. 92-93, Sellars).

The orthodox Stoic belief was that Nature / the cosmos is conscious (see quotes from Zeno and Diogenes Laertius p. 93-94, Sellars).

The Stoic God is a conscious, living being that is Nature.

The Stoic cosmos can be described in a few points.

Point 1: there is nothing but void beyond the cosmos; therefore nothing external to the cosmos orders it: “The Stoics are thoroughgoing naturalists who want to give an account of the movement and order in the cosmos that does not depend on any entity outside the cosmos” (p. 95-96, Sellars).

Point 2: Nature / the cosmos “organizes and regulates itself” (p. 95, Sellars)

Point 3: Nature / the cosmos is a “living organism [and] is also conscious” (p. 95, Sellars)

Point 4: the cosmos is viewed as “a spherical being” and is “a finite cosmos” (p. 96, Sellars)

Point 5: the cosmos is “held together by the breath or pneuma that pervades it” (p. 97, Sellars)

Point 6: “at certain moments, the entire cosmos was dissolved entirely into fire” causing its destruction and birth.

Point 7: The destruction and birth are cyclical.  “The life of the cosmos in each cycle is identical to its predecessor.  The cosmos, governed by reason, has the best possible organization, this is repeated in each cycle.  Thus, there is eternal recurrence … as a single cycle, repeated endlessly” (p. 99, Sellars).

“Whole” or holon “refers to the cosmos.  “All” or pan “refers to both the cosmos and the infinite void surrounding it” (p. 97, Sellars).

Pneuma or breath holds the cosmos together and “is a conscious and rational organizing principal.  It is the soul of the cosmos, analogous to the soul of any other living being” (p. 97, Sellars).

Per the Wikipedia page, the phoenix “is a long-lived bird that cyclically regenerates or is otherwise born again. Associated with the sun, a phoenix obtains new life by arising from the ashes of its predecessor.”  This is an appropriate comparison to the Stoic eternal recurrence, where the cosmos goes through conflagration and birth in a single cycle, repeated endlessly.

Stoic fate is described as “a continuous string of causes, an inescapable order and connection between events” (p. 100, Sellars).

Stoic providence is described as “God, who pervades the entire cosmos, forms the cosmos into a harmonious whole and orders events in a providential manner.  The cosmos is ‘administered by mind and providence’” (p. 100, Sellars).

Fate and providence are reconciled by Stoics who argue that they “are in fact one and the same thing.”  God’s will is an ordered, continuous string of events and furthermore, because “God is supremely good and supremely rational, then there will surely be only one course of action open to him, namely the best and most rational course of action.”  And this “necessary and unalterable order of causes … is providentially arranged by God to be the best possible order” (p. 101, Sellars).

The theory of cosmic sympathy offers that all parts of the cosmos are continually interacting, such as the sun’s charged particles striking atoms in the earth’s atmosphere causing auroras to appear.  “This sympathy between all of the parts of the cosmos is a product of the fact that it is all permeated by breath or pnuema” (p. 103, Sellars).  Therefore, small events can have wide-ranging impacts.

Between Stoic fate, Stoic providence and cosmic sympathy, it would appear human will or agency is limited.  Some would suggest that individual humans have little to no free will and that their fate is entirely determined, regardless of their actions – so why should humans bother acting at all?  This is known as the “lazy argument.”

Chrysippus’ response to the “lazy argument” references two types of fated things.

• Simple fated things are “necessary and [are] a product of the essence of a thing.”  An example would be death – all mortals will die.
• Conjoined fated things are more complex and involve “two types of causes” called internal and external.  External causes would be things external to human nature that would impact the outcome.  Internal causes are things inherent to human nature.

Thus, humans can attempt to influence their fate when they are sick and may die at night.  While dying is an internal cause, dying at night is not a given as the human may call a doctor or take medication, thus influencing the outcome.

The cosmos is mirrored at the human level.  Where the cosmos has pneuma which constitutes God’s soul, the human soul is a fragment of the cosmic pneuma.  Where the cosmos is embodied in matter, so too the human body is a fragment of cosmic matter (see p. 104, Sellars).

The rational human being has pneuma at four levels of tension (p. 105, Sellars):

• hexis – cohesion of the body
• phusis – being alive in most basic biological sense
• psuche – animal faculties of impression and impulse
• logike psuche – rational power of judgement that can intervene between receiving impressions and acting on impulses.

The commanding faculty of the pneuma is called hegemonikon and is comprised of three parts (p. 105, Sellars):

• faculty of impressions; faculty of impulse; faculty of assent
• Humans share the faculties of impression and impulse with animals.
• The faculty that makes humans unique (their nature) is the faculty of assent.

Notes on Stoic Logic from Stoicism by John Sellars

The different parts of classical Stoic logic were “reason, language or argument – in all of its forms, including formal arguments, rhetorical arguments, speech, grammar, philosophy of language and truth (i.e. epistemology)” (p. 55, Sellars)

Today’s logic is usually understood to be “the formal analysis of arguments.”

For the Stoics, logic was divided into two principal divisions: rhetoric and dialectic.

Rhetoric is defined as: “the art of speaking or writing effectively” (Merriam-Webster).

Dialectic is defined as: “discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation” (Merriam-Webster).

The central them of Stoic logic is “the acquisition of knowledge” (p. 79, Sellars).

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge – “the process by which the individual gains knowledge” (p. 64-65, Sellars)

Birth of Cognition

At birth, human infants possess little to no knowledge.  Jean Piaget’s knowledge experimentations on babies conclude infants are born not knowing much.  To quote a Time magazine article, “Piaget's work led him to conclude that infants younger than 9 months have no innate knowledge of how the world works or any sense of "object permanence" (that people and things still exist even when they're not seen). Instead, babies must gradually construct this knowledge from experience” (The Brain: What Do Babies Know? Time, Monday, Jan. 29, 2007).  The article later notes modern experimentation have drawn the same conclusions as Piaget.

Humans gain information about our world, largely through impressions and sensations – through experience, as stated in the previous point.

Empiricism is defined as: “a theory that all knowledge originates in experience” (Merriam-Webster).

Regarding the epistemology of the Stoics, Sellars notes, “Whereas most impressions are assumed to come from sensation, and so the Stoics might broadly be characterized as empiricists in epistemology, they do also acknowledge impressions received from the mind that are the product reasoning” (p. 65, Sellars).

An example of an inadequate impression might be light coming into a room and someone thinking it is day, when in fact, they’ve not gone outside to check that it is night, and it was a fire or street light causing the light to enter the window.

An example of an adequate impression would be someone thinking it is day while they are standing outside at noon, with the bright sun over their head.

The Stoic response to the Skeptics’ claim that we can never know if an impression is adequate, would be to “reply by saying that over time it will become possible to develop a certain ability to recognize adequate impressions.  One might not be infallible at first, but one might eventually be able to become highly accurate with certain sorts of impressions” (p. 70, Sellars).  Therefore, a Stoic can point to the sun directly above our heads and be absolutely certain that it is day; while at the same time, the Stoic can accept the possibility of mistakes by suspending judgement when uncertain (see p. 73, Sellars).

When we give assent to an impression, the impression is called an adequate impression (p. 73-73, Sellars).

When we withhold assent to an impression, we are suspending judgment (p. 73, Sellars).

The Greek word for cognition is katalepsis (p. 70, 164, Sellars).

An instance of cognition is “an assent to an adequate impression; a building block for knowledge” (p. 70, 164, Sellars).  It is the mental process of knowing (by experience or through reasoning) by giving assent to an adequate impression.

For the Stoics, knowledge (episteme) is more substantial than cognition.  To me, it represents putting experience from cognition together into a system or structure.  Cognition provides the basis and building blocks to make something – knowledge – which is to see a wider, bigger picture as it were – something greater than the individual part.

Cognition Analysis

Sellars states “An adequate impression is an impression that is so clear, vivid and distinct that it is its own guarantee of its accuracy” (p. 69).  We can also guarantee the accuracy of an empirical impression by observing the “causal history” and ensuring that nothing has interfered with “one’s sense organs, the object in question, and all the other variables involved are not obstructed or in an abnormal state” (p. 69).

“The impressions we receive that present external objects to us are not within our control.  We do not have the power to choose them; instead they force themselves on us.  However, we do have the power to choose whether to assent to these impressions or not” (p. 66, Sellars).  Stoics will often be forced to confront these external circumstances and will at least have the choice to behave virtuously and serenely, but this does not mean they will choose to do so every time.  Because “first movement” emotions come to all humans, many people do not question or analyze these emotions and propositions before assenting to them.  The Stoic will try to pause and reflect on the emotions and proposition from the “first movement” before fully assenting to or rejecting an external object.  Assuming a Stoic consistently practices this pause before assent, then over time, the Stoic will act correctly (virtuously) and serenely more often than not.

The four stages of assent are (p. 67, Sellars, emphasis added):

1. “a perception of an external event or state of affairs”
2. “an almost involuntary and seemingly unconscious value judgement that is made about the content of the perception”
3. “the presentation to the conscious mind of an impression in the form of a proposition that is composed of both the perceptual data received from the outside and the unconscious value judgement”
4. the act of assent to an adequate impression or we suspend judgement of the impression

Propositions have corporeal and incorporeal aspects.

• The corporeal aspect would be physical utterance or written word of the proposition.
• The incorporeal aspect would be the meaning of the physical element presented.
• Incorporeal propositions subsist, if they are never spoken or written and remain as a cognition in our mind.

"The meaning or sense of a proposition is a sayable", which is purely in the mind of the utterer and listener, is incorporeal.  “Sayables only subsist” (p. 79, 63, Sellars).

Sellars notes, “What is perhaps unique to the Stoic position is their rejection of meaning as something that exists.  As incorporeals, sayables only subsist” (p. 63).  How does this explain how the meaning of words can cause action?  The key aspect would be in the assent of the person comprehending the sayable.  A man shouts a warning to a woman that a ball is being thrown her way.  She hears the words the man shouts, she comprehends the sayable, she assents to the meaning and therefore chooses to act, either to catch the ball or move out of the way to avoid being hit by the ball.

There are two kinds of sayables – complete and incomplete (p. 62, Sellars).

1. A complete sayable would be: Rocky is typing on his computer.
2. An incomplete sayable would be: is typing.

Complete sayables are used in dialectic.

Dialectic

“An assertible is a complete sayable” (p. 58, Sellars).

The four important characteristics of assertibles are (p. 58-59, Sellars):

1. True
2. False
3. Simple assertibles can be
• affirmative
• negative
4. Complex which include logical connectives
• conditional ... if
• conjunction ... and
• dis-junction ... either/or
• pseudo-conditional ... since
• causal ... because
• comparative ... more/less-likely

While not characteristics, all assertives can be distinguished by their modality:

• possible - an assertible which can become true and is not hindered by external things from becoming true
• impossible -  an assertible which cannot become true or which can become true but is hindered by external things from becoming true
• necessary - an assertible which (when true) cannot become false or which can become false but is hindered by external things from becoming false
• non-necessary - an assertible which can become false and is not hindered by external things from becoming false

The four kinds of assertibles listed above are the propositions that can be combined to form Stoic arguments for systematic scientific knowledge of the world.  These arguments are called syllogisms (p. 59, Sellars).

Summary of Stoic Logic (p. 79, Sellars)

1. “the mind at birth is like a blank sheet of paper”
2. “via sensory experiences or impressions … we gain information” of an external event or state of affairs.
3. we experience "first movements" which are almost involuntary and unconscious value judgements
4. “the impressions we [initially] assent to are presented to the mind in the form of propositions” which are composed of the perceptual data and the unconscious value judgement.
5. we either assent or reject the impression as either adequate or inadequate.
6. "a proposition is a physical entity” or corporeal [spoken or written] which carries meaning/sense, which subsists and incorporeal.
7. Sayables are the subsistence of the meaning of the proposition.
8. Sayables are either complete or incomplete.
9. Complete sayables are called assertibles used in Stoic dialectic.
10. Four kinds of assertibles (true/false/simple/complex) can be combined with other assertibles to form syllogistic arguments.

Syllogistic arguments “form the foundation for systematic scientific knowledge of the world.”  A syllogism is an argument with premises and a conclusion.  Aristotle was the first to use the syllogism (p. 56, Sellars).
Aristotelian syllogisms used universals with letters, whereas Stoic syllogisms could use either universal or particular assertibles for their propositions. In Stoic formal logic, ordinal numbers replace propositions, not individual terms. (p. 57-59, Sellars).

An argument may be valid “in its logical form” but if we doubt the premise, the conclusion may not be true. So, we can just say, "no." :)

An example of a logically valid argument that is untrue would be:
All Texans are human;
All humans are male;
Therefore, all Texans are male.

An example of the 3rd Stoic argument using ordinal numbers:
Not the seventh and the eighth;
The seventh;
Therefore, not the eighth.

The above example would contain a complex negative conjunction assertible as one premise and a simple assertible as the second premise.

An example from the physical world of the 3rd argument would be:
The temperature is not both hot and cold;
It is hot;
Therefore, it is not cold.
 
Examples of the other four arguments (1, 2, 4, 5):

If the man is in Texas, then he is in the United States;
The man is in Texas;
Therefore, the man is in the United States.

If the boat is sailing, then it is on the water;
The boat is not on the water;
Therefore, the boat is not sailing.

Either is it night or it is day;
It is night;
Therefore, it is not day.

The animal is either a mammal or a reptile;
It is not a reptile;
Therefore, it is a mammal.

More on Stoic Logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_logic

Notes on Introduction and The Stoic System from Stoicism by John Sellars

Below are some notes and key things I learned from reading and studying the first two chapters of Stoicism by John Sellars.

While fragments of early Stoic writers have been found through the years, the earliest, complete surviving record of the philosophy comes from Cicero around 45 BC.

The founder of Stoicism is Zeno of Citium.  Citium is in modern day Larnaca Cyprus.

Zeno actually studied at two philosophy schools before founding the philosophy of the porch.  He studied with Polemo at Plato's Academy, and then studied with Stilpo at the Magarian school.

Zeno published a work entitled Republic in which he advocated for the abolition of law courts, currency, marriage and traditional education.

One of the first arguments in Stoicism was about "preferred" and "non-preferred" indifferents.  Zeno's student Aristo did not want the classification - he wanted to call all of them simply "indifferents."  But he lost the argument with other students.

The second founder of Stoicism was Chrysipus.  As Diogenes Laertius said, "If there had been no Chyrisippus, there would have been no Stoa" (p. 7, Sellars).  Chyrisippus advanced the philosophy by bringing all the ideas of his predecessors together, and then adding his own original material, thus leaving a highly systematic philosophical system for students learning Stoicism for the first time (see p. 7, Sellars).

In 128 BC, Panaetius became head of the Stoa.  He deviated from his predecessors in three major ways.

First, he "rejected the Stoic doctrine of the periodic destruction of the world" and instead declared the world eternal (p. 9, Sellars).

Second, he denied that virtues was "sufficient on its own" for a person to achieve happiness.

Third, he shifted "the focus of attention from the ideal sage to the average person on the street" (p. 9, Sellars).

The Stoic Posidonius was important because his most famous pupil was Cicero.  Posidonius was also a polymath, studying history, geography, astronomy, meteorology, biology and anthropology.

Both Panaetius and Posidonius deviated from the early Stoic doctrines.  Had they not deviated, perhaps they would been faithful disciples rather than philosophers who “expanded and developed” the early Stoic philosophy.  Posidonius deviated from Stoic orthodoxy in psychology.  Early Stoics did not separate reason and emotion into distinct faculties, whereas “Posidonius followed Plato in proposing a tripartite psychology, dividing the soul into the faculties of reason, emotion and desire” (p. 10, Sellars).

We own much to Seneca, who was born between 4 and 1 BC and survived until 65 AD.  We own him our gratitude for his diligence in writing.  Many of his texts have survived and have also "[shaped] the image of Stoicism in the West" especially as he was seen by the early "Church Fathers, medieval reading and Renaissance humanists" as sympathetic to Christianity" (p. 13, Sellars).

Musonius Rufus is sometimes called the third founder of the Stoa due to “his status as a Stoic sage … combined with his influence as the teacher of Epictetus, Euphrates, Dio and others” (p. 15, Sellars).

Sellars makes brief notes on Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, but nothing new for me.

Sellars notes the decline of Stoicism around 200 CE.  While the decline can be explained by the rise of Neoplatonism, he also believes that the decline can also be attributed to the strong teaching and focus of Epictetus practicing the philosophy as opposed to commentating and theorizing on it.  As Sellars notes, Epictetus placed “value on deeds rather than words” (p. 26).  Coupled with Epictetus’ fame as a philosopher, followers would have spent more of their time practicing the philosophy rather than writing about it, hence writings of Stoicism would have diminished.

While I personally appreciate Epictetus’ sentiment on applied Stoicism over theoretical Stoicism, I do admit that we of the present day, owe it to subsequent generations to keep the flame alive as it were.  And being a rudimentary student of history and knowing how quickly knowledge can be lost, I feel it should be a duty and obligation of scholars and librarians to preserve the record as much as possible.  For my part, I take notes on what I read and commentate on Stoic books.  I try to share what I’ve learned with others, including my children and close friends.  In sum, we need to continue to learn and practice what we’ve learned.  However, in that process, we need to preserve in writing the theoretical.

Sellars said, “If we assume that the Stoics were philosophers simply in the same sense in which a modern academic is a philosopher, then we run the risk of countless misunderstandings and distortions” (p. 31).  If I understand the context correctly, then it would seem the modern academic philosopher is one who studies the various philosophies that have been developed over the centuries.  The academic philosopher would be able to describe frameworks and philosophic paradigms and may not necessarily practice any of the philosophies.  Whereas the ancient Stoics sought love of wisdom in practice – it was a never-ending pursuit for identifying the proper way to live and then demonstrating that knowledge.  They viewed philosophy as the way to properly live life and not simply describe how it ought to be lived.  Much like a doctor who demonstrates her ability to heal as opposed to writing a book on it.  The value is in the doing and practicing, rather than the learning and teaching.

The Epicureans hold pleasure to be the key to happiness.  The Peripatetics “hold virtue to be the key to happiness, but [required] favorable external circumstances” as well (p. 32, Sellars).  The Stoics, on the other hand, “must be able to translate those doctrines into concrete behavior.  It is not enough to say that one can be virtuous, and thus happy, regardless of circumstances; one must actually be happy regardless of circumstances, whether one is in danger, disgraced, sick or dying” (p. 32, Sellars).  Therefore, the Stoics differ from the Peripatetics by dropping the requirement for favorable external circumstances.  They view that happiness is found entirely from one’s attitude and perspective and adherence to virtue, no matter the circumstances or external factors.

Regarding the sage -  the problem with the sage is the near impossibility of the criteria for a person to become a sage.  The qualifications for sage-hood would be a person who is “never impeded, who is infallible, who is more powerful than everyone else, richer, stronger, freer, happier and the only person truly deserving of the title ‘king’” (p. 36, Sellars).  The qualifications for being a sage are so high, the Stoics could hardly produce an example of someone who embodied the Sage.  “There is something inevitably futile about devoting one’s life to trying to become a sage if that is an impossible goal to reach” (p. 41, Sellars).  Stoics addressed this problem by providing some examples of people who embodied various examples of specific Stoic doctrine.  Therefore, while Socrates and Diogenes the Cynic may not have been a full Sage, they nonetheless practiced key teachings that Stoicism embraced, and subsequently, provide examples for people who are trying to live the philosophy (see p. 41, Sellars).

There are various similes which represent the three parts of Stoic philosophy.

One is the animal, where logic corresponds to bones and sinews, and where ethics corresponds to the fleshy parts and physics corresponds to the soul.

Another simile is that of an egg: shell is logic, the white is ethics and the yolk is physics.

Another simile is the orchard: the fence is logic, fruit is ethics and soil and trees are the physics.  Posidonius rejected the orchard simile because the representations of the orchard could exist independently of each other (p. 42-43, Sellars).

The second stage of philosophy after one learns doctrines or theory, is “to put those doctrines into practice” through “a series of exercises (askeseis)” or what Pierre Hadot called “spiritual exercises” (p. 45, Sellars).  The purpose of this practice “is to habituate the soul so that one’s consciously chosen philosophical beliefs can shape one’s unconscious habits, and so determine one’s everyday behavior” (p. 46, Sellars).

Is the two-stage paradigm of learning and live philosophy necessary?

Socrates maintained that if a person gains knowledge of something, they will necessarily follow on with the correct behavior.  This stands against the Stoic notion of practice, because the first stage is sufficient and all that is needed to change behavior.

It appears not all classical Stoics were united on the two-stage process.  Aristo argued exercises would be of no benefit for someone who is ignorant and for someone who is free from ignorance, the exercises are unneeded.  Seneca cites Cleanthes “who held that this second stage of philosophical education ‘is indeed useful, but that it is a feeble thing unless it is derived from general principles’” (p. 49, Sellars).

I think the two-stage process is needed for people (like me) who have never seriously inquired about their personal philosophy until much later in life, having lived in a world full of false judgements and emotions.  However, for a young person who is taught philosophy from youth, perhaps with right knowledge written on a somewhat ‘blank mind’ then right actions will naturally follow and therefore, practice is not needed.  With all that said, I am of the opinion that the large majority of people will need to learn then practice before full absorption takes hold.