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 the garden.  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.

Thoughts on Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig

Chris & Robert Pirsig

If anyone saw me sitting in my truck, in a parking garage on Valentine's day at 5:43am in the morning, they would have found a grown man crying.

I had just finished listening to the Audible version of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

The book is about living a good (quality) life.  There are a number of stories in this book.

There is the story of the first person, who is taking a cross-country motorcycle trip with his son and friends.

There is the story of Phaedrus who is the previous "version" of the first person.

There is the story of actual motorcycle maintenance.

And there is a story of the chautauqua - which ties all of the above stories together.

Some Thoughts on the Book

One problem he is trying to solve is the alienation of people ... conservatives, liberals, hippies, etc.  Somewhere along the line, people began to culturally reject the way society was living.  He tries to understand why and how can we (re)bridge the schism.  This is where he gets into the Romantic and the Classic view of the world.

The question that really got him thinking was from a teacher colleague about if he was teaching his students quality.

The Romantic view is enamored with the final product, as it were.  While the Classic view loves the inner workings.  Quality is a unification of the two perspectives.

The motorcycle, throughout the book is symbolic of any hobby, or career, or job or even the way of living life itself.  The motorcycle is symbolic of technology and modernization.  It's interesting to note, as I'm reading John Sellars' Stoicism I learned the Greek word technē is translated to art and is defined as "a practical skill requiring expert knowledge" (p. 163).

One way to solve alienation is to fall in love with something (a job, a career, a hobby such as motorcycle maintenance) and all of life, and to care about it - to love it - to make an art of it.  Too many people have not fallen in love with acquiring expert knowledge of modern life or how to live a quality life.

One of the most important somethings a person should focus on and acquire expert knowledge is that of philosophy - the art of living.  When you read the book, just substitute his discussions on motorcycle maintenance with the art of living or philosophy, and you will gain a lot of insight.

Attentiveness is needed for quality; you have to give a damn (about the subject/hobby/career/life).

He gets into aretē which has been translated into virtue or excellence (of the soul).  And although Pirsig writes:

“Then Phaedrus feels a tugging to read the passage again, and he does so and then…what’s this?!…’That which we translate ‘virtue’ but is in Greek ‘excellence.’
Kitto had more to say about this arête of the ancient Greeks.  ‘When we meet arête in Plato,’ he said, ‘we translate it ‘virtue’ and consequently miss all the flavor of it.  ‘Virtue,’ at least in modern English, is almost entirely a moral word; arête on the other hand, is used indifferently in all the categories, and simply means excellence.’”

... he discounts the virtue aspect of it.  When I look at it from a Stoic perspective, I see aretē is virtue (courage, justice, wisdom, temperance) and a human shows these qualities no matter what the platform or technē / art he expresses himself in.  It is all-encompassing; in living as a quality father, a quality employee, a quality neighbor, a quality chess player, and on and on.

He later writes:

“Arête implies a respect of the wholeness or oneness of life, and a consequent dislike of specialization.  it implies a contempt for efficiency — or rather a much higher idea of efficiency, an efficiency which exists not in one department of life but in life itself.”

Pirsig (the first person of the book and Phaedrus) is learning to grapple with the art of being a quality father.  He doesn't do such a good job on the road trip, but by the end, he finally realizes it and we can see the immediate changes in his style of fathering.

The book is a love book.  The love of a practical skill; the love of art; the love of being a parent; the love of being a teacher; the love of quality itself - of workmanship; the love of wisdom - philosophy.

I cried at the end of the book after listening to the epilogue.  Chris (the son), was stabbed to death in San Francisco just before his 23rd birthday.  Pirsig describes the death in detail and then discusses where and what Chris is after his death.

And one more thought ... I loved his description of how we see the present, past and future.  It is as if we are walking backwards.  We see all that we have passed up to the present.  That is all we can see and know.  But the back of our body/head faces the future - it's unknowable.

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.

Notes and What I Learned From: Philosophy as a Way of Life - the essay "The View from Above"

The philosophical and spiritual exercise of "the View from Above" is one that places the proper perspective of the individual in time and space.  Whereas the last exercise discussed, intensely focuses on "the now", the "View from Above" opens up the rest of the cosmos to the individual and invites him to view his problems, stresses, fears, anxiety and desires in that grand, mind-numbing context.  When petty things are viewed in the context of the vastness of time and space, they seem insignificant and facilitate the proper response to these emotions, feelings and desires.

The View from Above is not necessarily linked to physical flight

This spiritual exercise firstly, was about the power of thought and imagination.  It is "a specific conception of the power of thought and the divine nature of the soul, which is able to raise itself above the categories of space and time" (p. 240).

The ancients also viewed this spiritual exercise under even more specific and intense circumstances.  "it was something that could only be experienced under extraordinary circumstances: in particular, it came about as a consequence of the separation of the soul from the body" (p. 240).

Hadot then discussed two circumstances where the soul and the body are separated.  In Plato's Phaedrus we learn "prior to [the soul's] incarnation in a terrestrial body, the soul is thus able to rise up to the outermost limits of the heavens, and follow the procession of the winged chariots of the gods" (p. 240).  Later, when the soul and body are separated from death, "the soul can contemplate the supracelestial world of eternal forms, as it did in its previous life, before its fall into the corporeal world" (p. 240).

"Plutarch, in his essay On the Delays of Divine Vengeance, recounts the experiences of a certain Thespesius of Soloi, who had also been left for dead:

He saw nothing like what he had seen before: the stars were enormously large, and immeasurably far from one another, and they shone forth with a light of great force and marvelous colours, so that the soul, gently and lightly transported by this light like a ship on a calm sea, could quickly move to wherever it wished. (p. 241)

As has been discussed before, philosophy is nothing other than training for death.  Plato, therefore states:

Shall we not say that purification occurs ... when man separates the soul as much as possible from the body, and accustoms it to gather itself together from every part of the body and concentrate itself until it is completely independent, and to have its dwelling, so far as it can, both now and in the future, alone and by itself, freed from the shackles of the body?

And in this process of gathering itself together, the soul looks down from above and "holds all this to be puny and meaningless, [and the soul] contemptuously wanders all over the place" (p. 241)

"In the Republic, Plato expresses the view that greatness of soul consists in precisely such an attitude: 'For smallness is particularly contrary to the soul which always strives after the complete and perfect, both divine and human.' Such a soul, capable of observing the totality of space and time, has no fear even of death" (p. 242).

The Goal of Practicing the View from Above

Hadot reiterates that the goal of this exercise - the View from Above - is "to help people free themselves from the desires and passions."  Furthermore, "the goal of philosophy was to eliminate them, so that the individual might come to see things as nature herself sees them, and consequently desire nothing other than that which is natural" (p. 242).  The exercise also attempts to "raise up mankind from individuality and particularity to universality and objectivity" (p. 242).

Let me restate that: the goal of practicing the View from Above is to help you eliminate desires and passions and to help you see things universally and to be objective in your assents.  Specifically for the Stoic, this exercise puts "oneself in accord with universal reason, the all-embracing Logos, both interior and exterior" (p. 242).

Consider this passage from Philo of Alexandria (p. 243-244):

As their goal is a life of peace and serenity, they contemplate nature and everything found within her: they attentively explore the earth, the sea, the air, the sky, and every nature found therein.  In thought, they accompany the moon, the sun, and the rotations of the other stars, whether fixed or wandering.  Their bodies remain on earth, but they give wings to their souls, so that, rising into the ether, they may observe the powers which dwell there, as is fitting for those who have truly become citizens of the world.

Marcus Aurelius similarly admonished himself to take the same flight: "Further, the rational soul traverses the whole universe and its surrounding void, explores the shape of it, stretches into the infinity of time, encompasses and comprehends the periodic regeneration of the Whole. It reflects that our successors will see nothing new, just as our predecessors saw nothing more than we do: such is the sameness of things, a man of forty with any understanding whatsoever has in a sense seen all the past and all the future." (Meditations 11.1.2)

And in another passage he wrote, "Observe the movement of the stars as if you were running their courses with them, and let your mind constantly dwell on the changes of the elements into each other. Such imaginings wash away the filth of life on the ground.  Further, when your talk is about mankind, view earthly things as if looking down on them from some point high above flocks, armies, farms, weddings, divorces, births, deaths, the hubbub of the law-courts, desert places, various foreign nations, festivals, funerals, markets; all the medley of the world and the ordered conjunction of opposites." (Meditations 7.47)

As stated in the previous passage from Marcus, this spiritual exercise also reminds us of the squalor of mankind; and the view invites us to rise above all this mess and to leave it behind.  "In Ovid's Metamorphoses, we find a Neo-Pythagorean version of the theme: 'It is a delight to travel along the starry firmament and, leaving the earth and its dull regions behind, to ride on the clouds, to stand upon stout Atlas' shoulders and see, far below, men wandering aimlessly, devoid of reason, anxious and in fear of the hereafter, thus to exhort them and unroll the book of fate!'" (p. 245).

Hadot states, "The view from above thus lead us to consider the whole of human reality, in all its social, geographical, and emotional aspects, as an anonymous swarming mass, and it teaches us to relocate human existence within the immeasurable dimensions of the cosmos.  Everything that does not depend on us, which the Stoics call indifferent - such as health, fame, wealth and even death - is reduced to its true dimensions when considered from the point of view of the nature of the all" (p. 245)

Hadot also quotes Lucian from his Charon, or the Inspectors.  "Charon remarks: 'If only humans could get it straight from the beginning: that they're going to die; that, after a brief stay in life, they have to depart from this life like a dream and leave everything on earth behind, then they'd live more wisely and die with fewer regrets.'" (p. 246)

Ad Astra

A popular film was released last year, starring Brad Pitt and Tommy Lee Jones.  In Ad Astra, (spoiler alert), the protagonist played by Brad Pitt, is summoned to a mission to send a message to his father, played by Tommy Lee Jones.  Jones' character has been on a space voyage beyond Neptune, to discover life beyond our solar system.  But the space station has been sending electrical pulses back to earth, causing major electrical disruptions and death.  This is the catalyst to send Pitt's character to make contact with his father to fix the problem.  The theory is that the father has gone rogue.

We watch the journey of Pitt's character, as he leaves earth, to travel to the moon and then to Mars.  On his voyage, we learn he has experienced regret and he wonders if he is simply running from his problems on earth.  He notes that the same discord, jealousies and animosities on earth, have followed humankind to the moon and to Mars.

After some daring maneuvers, Pitt's character meets his father on the space station near Neptune.  It would seem his father too, has been running from internal problems, in his frantic search to discover life beyond the solar system.  But alas, after thousands of scans and pictures of exoplanets and systems, he's concluded there is no life beyond the stars.  His failure has exacerbated his internal, philosophical failures as well.

Pitt's character realizes that the most amazing journey in the universe is the one to be found internally and with other people on earth.  The ending scene is him meeting an estranged wife in a coffee shop.

I think the film is very fitting in the context of the spiritual exercise of the view from above.  We don't have to travel to Neptune to get away from our problems.  We can take a mental flight, to put our problems in context, but we can remain on earth to confront and deal with the now.  We have been equipped with all that we need to lead a life of equanimity.

Notes and What I Learned From: Philosophy as a Way of Life - the essay "'Only the Present is our Happiness': The Value of the Present Instant in Goethe and in Ancient Philosophy"

As I do often at work and at home and in many aspects of my life, let me start by stating the problem that needs to be solved.  The problem is stated in the last paragraph of the essay.

• There is a "tragic lack of balance which has come about in the modern world between 'power' and 'wisdom.'"
• "Modern man ... [is] hypnotized ... by language, images, information, and the myth of the future [which] seemed to us to provide one of the best means of access to this wisdom."
• We, in post-modern society have not taken care for the self, in terms of wisdom and sound thinking.  And as such, we have allowed "all human institutions" the power of preventing us "from feeling [our] life, by means of the constant dispersion of [our] thoughts." (p. 235)

While the sentiment expressed above was written several decades ago, it rings true more than ever before, in the year 2019.  The thoughts of the majority - despite being ever so connected with the world - are constantly being dispersed (distributed and spread over a wide area).  Few focus on the weightier matters of wisdom and the love of it (philosophia).

The proposal of the essay, and one which, if carried out, might begin to tip the balance toward 'wisdom' and away from 'power,' is for the individual to "enjoy the present moment" and to "will it intensely" as a duty (p. 230).

While Hadot focuses a lot on Goethe and Epicureanism, I will limit my commentary to the Stoic aspects of the essay.

The practicing Stoic, in an attempt to keep his equanimity, will limit his focus to things in his control.  Out of his control are the past and the future.  Only the present remains in his control.  If he chooses to rehash the past, causing anxiety and consternation, he will not keep his equanimity.  If he fears the future or stews over it, he will not keep his equanimity.  But if he is mindful of the present, and keeps his judgements, actions and inner attitude in balance with nature, then he will retain his equanimity.

Marcus wrote to himself, and so too we should heed the advice:

These will suffice: the present certainty of judgement, the present social action, the present disposition well content with any effect of an external cause (Meditations 9.6)

In another passage, he repeated and expanded on the same idea of focusing on the present:

All that you pray to reach at some point in the circuit of your life can be yours now - if you are generous to yourself. That is, if you leave all the past behind, entrust the future to Providence, and direct the present solely to reverence and justice. To reverence, so that you come to love your given lot: it was Nature that brought it to you and you to it. To justice, so that you are open and direct in word and action, speaking the truth, observing law and proportion in all you do. You should let nothing stand in your way - not the iniquity of others, not what anyone else thinks or says, still less any sensation of this poor flesh that has accreted round you: the afflicted part must see to its own concern. 

If, then, when you finally come close to your exit, you have left all else behind and value only your directing mind and the divinity within you, if your fear is not that you will cease to live, but that you never started a life in accordance with nature, then you will be a man worthy of the universe that gave you birth. You will no longer be a stranger in your own country, no longer meet the day's events as if bemused by the unexpected, no longer hang on this or that. (Meditations 12.1)

What a beautiful passage which describes a life full of equanimity and how to achieve it.

Hadot said, "there are two reason why the present is sufficient for our happiness: in the first place, Stoic happiness is complete at every instant and does not increase over time.  The second reason is that we already possess the whole of reality within the present instant, and even infinite duration could not give us more than what we have right now" (p. 228).

Only the Present is our Happiness

If you strive, right now, to always have objective assents and judgements, and if your actions are moral actions, right now, and if you understand that the whole history of events and circumstances have brought you to this point and that they belong to you and you love your fate, now, then you will always retain your equanimity.  It could then be said, that you lack nothing - that you are content.  And like a circle, your equanimity is whole and complete, regardless of the size - it is a perfect circle.

Therefore if you can spend a few brief moments, now, in perfect harmony (i.e. a perfect circle), then the duration does not matter; only the quality of it matters.  "Happiness is nothing more nor less than that instant in which man is wholly in accord with nature" (p. 228)

Hadot quotes Chrysippus: "If a person has wisdom for one instant, he is no less happy than he who possesses it for an eternity" (p. 228).

And since all the ingredients that are needed to go into this instant of happiness are within our control, the only variable that needs to be determined is your desire for it (or not).  Happiness, therefore, is a choice that you can make in the present moment.

"What is needed is the immediate transformation of our way of thinking, acting, and accepting events.  We must think in accordance with truth, act in accordance with justice, and lovingly accept what comes to pass.  In the words of Marcus Aurelius: 'How easy it is to find oneself, right away, in a state of perfect peace of mind.'  In other words, it is enough to just want it" (p. 229).

To give a sense of urgency of the importance of our "transformation" we must always realize that death may come to us at any moment (memento mori).  "We must live each day with a consciousness so acute, and an attention so intense, that we can say to ourselves each evening: 'I have lived; I have actualized my life.' ... In the words of Seneca: 'He has peace of mind who has lived his entire life every day.'" (p. 229)

Existence is a Duty and should be Intensely Willed

I think many people lack context and awareness of their position in the universe.  Personally, I believe we are parts of a cosmos, which is one whole.  As Marcus has said before, there is divinity within each of us; and collectively, we represent the consciousness of the cosmos.  Accepting this, we must grant that other people have divinity within them and we must cooperate with them, not unlike a hand which would cooperate with a foot in playing a basketball game.

Furthermore, our interface with the cosmos is the present time and space.  All the events that have preceded me and have brought me to this point, represent the sum total of my fate.  It is uniquely mine and I ought to love it.  Hadot says, "The instant is our only point of contact with reality, yet it offers us the whole of reality; precisely because it is a passage and metamorphosis, it allows us to participate in the overall movement of the event of the world, and the reality of the world's coming-to-be" (p. 229).

Our duty, in this moment in time and space "is the harmonization of the reason within us with the reason which guides the cosmos, and produces the chain of causes and effect which makes up fate.  At each moment, we must harmonize our judgement, action, and desires with universal reason" (p. 229).

This is why Marcus said, "He who sees the present has seen all things, both all that has come to pass from everlasting and all that will be for eternity: all things are related and the same" (Meditations 6.37).

And later on he added, "Whatever happens to you was being prepared for you from everlasting, and the mesh of causes was ever spinning from eternity both your own existence and the incidence of this particular happening" (Meditations 10.5).

Hadot continues, "At each moment and every instant, we must say 'yes' to the universe; that is, to the will of universal reason.  We must want that which universal reason wants" (p. 230).  Hence Marcus cries out:

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. The poet says, 'Dear city of Cecrops': will you not say, 'Dear city of Zeus'? (Meditations 4.23)

And for Seneca, he notes that the Stoic sage "plunges himself into the whole of the universe (toti se inserens mundo)" (p. 230).

This mindset helps produce, within the individual, an attitude of "giving your all" and being fully engaged with life.  It leaves behind the victim mentality and empowers the individual to carpe diem and confront the events of life.  And the more this mindset becomes entrenched in an individual, the more the individual begins to want events to happen exactly as they do.  There is no more cowering or disengagement or cordoning of "safe zones."  Rather, there is active participation in life and the whole world and cosmos becomes your home.

To finish, let me quote two passages from the essay that encapsulate what has been discussed.

"The ultimate meaning of Goethe's attitude toward the present is thus, as it was for ancient philosophy, the happiness and the duty of existing in the cosmos.  It is a profound feeling of participation in and identification with a reality which transcends the limits of the individual."

Hadot, quotes Nietzsche again in this essay (p. 235).

Let us assume we say "Yes!" to one single, unique moment: we have thus said yes, not only to ourselves, but to the whole of existence.  For nothing is isolated, neither in ourselves nor in things.  And if, even once, our soul has vibrated and resounded like a string with happiness, all eternity was necessary to created the conditions for this one event; and all eternity has been approved, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.

Notes and What I Learned From: Philosophy as a Way of Life - the essay "Reflections on the Idea of the 'Cultivation of the Self'"

Although a short essay, this one gave me a lot to think about, especially in this age when Stoicism has seen a resurgence and it would appear that many have embraced it for the wrong reasons.

The two ideas at odds with each other, in terms of self-cultivation are a type of "Dandyism" and a type of Stoic "transcendentalism."

The basis for Hadot's essay is the analysis of the work "The Care of the Self" by Foucault.  Foucault "meticulously describes what he terms the 'practices of the self', recommended in antiquity by Stoic philosophers.  These include the care of one's self, which can only be carried out under the direction of a spiritual guide; the attention paid to the body and the soul which the 'care of the self' implies; exercises of abstinence; examination of the conscience; the filtering of representations; and, finally, the conversion toward and possession of the self." (p. 206)  Hadot contends that these techniques are "focused far too much on the 'self', or at least on a specific conception of the self" (p. 207).

Foucault contends that these practices of the self will replace the "violent, uncertain, and temporary pleasures with a form of pleasure one takes in oneself, serenely and forever" and he cites Letter 23 from Seneca about "the best portion of oneself."

Hadot counters that the translation of "pleasure" is crucial in understanding Seneca.  "Seneca explicitly opposes voluptas [vs] gaudium - pleasure and joy."  He goes on,

This is not just a quibble over words, although the Stoics did attach a great deal of importance to words, and carefully distinguished between hedone - "pleasure" - and eupatheia - "joy".  No, this is no mere question of vocabulary.  If the Stoics insist on the word gaudium/"joy", it is precisely because they refuse to introduce the principle of pleasure into moral life.  For them, happiness does not consist in pleasure, but in virtue itself, which is its own reward.  Long before Kant, the Stoics strove jealously to preserve the purity of intention of the moral consciousness (p. 207).

Furthermore, the Stoic doesn't find joy in himself, but rather, as Seneca said, "the best portion of the self" or in "the true good" - meaning virtue.  "Joy is to be found 'in the conscience turned towards the good; in intentions which have no other object than virtue; in just actions. ... The 'best portion of oneself,' then, is, in the last analysis, a transcendent self.  Seneca does not find his joy in "Seneca", but by transcending "Seneca"; by discovering that there is within him - within all human beings, that is, and within the cosmos itself - a reason which is a part of universal reason" (p. 207).

Hadot contends "the goal of Stoic exercises is to go beyond the self, and think and act in unison with universal reason."  He goes on,

In my view, the feeling of belonging to a whole is an essential element: belonging, that is, both to the whole constituted by the human community, and to that constituted by the cosmic whole.  Seneca sums it up in four words: Toti se inserens mundo, "Plunging oneself into the totality of the world."

Another contention Foucault makes, with regard to writing, is that one performs this meditative exercise as a "refusal of a mental attitude directed toward the future, and the tendency to accord a positive value to the possession of a past which one can enjoy autonomously and without worries" (p. 209).  Therefore, in Foucault's view, the writing / meditative exercise (think Marcus' Meditations) was to give one pleasure of the past and pain-avoidance of the future.

However, Hadot contends this exercise was designed to help one live in the ever-present now.  So while one might write and record dogmas that have "already been said", they do so in the context that what was best in the past (think hindsight is "20/20") therefore is best for now - the present.  "It is because one recognizes, in the dogmas of Epicurus or Chrysippus, an ever-present value, precisely because they are the very expression of reason ... one is utilizing formulae considered as apt to actualize what is already present within the reason of the person writing, and bring it to life" (p. 210)

Furthermore, "the point is not to forge oneself a spiritual identity by writing, but rather to liberate oneself from one's individuality, in order to raise oneself up to universality ... Writing ... changes the level of the self, and universalizes it.  The miracle of this exercise, carried out in solitude, is that it allows its practitioner to accede to the universality of reason within the confines of space and time" (p. 210-11).

Hadot cautions, that if people look at the spiritual exercises outlined in the essay, and in the entire book for that matter, from the perspective of "making-me-feel-better-about-myself", then they've missed the point.

What I am afraid of is that, by focusing [Foucault's] interpretation too exclusively on the culture of the self, the care of the self, and conversion toward the self - more generally, by defining his ethical model as an aesthetics of existence - M. Foucault is propounding a culture of the self which is too aesthetic.  In other words, this may be a new form of Dandyism, late twentieth-century style (p. 211).

He consequently believes "that it is possible for modern man to live, not as a sage (sophos) - most of the ancients did not hold this to be possible - but as a practitioner of the ever-fragile exercise of wisdom" (p. 211).  I love this particular quote from the book.  Recently, I've had this question rattling around the back of my head, as I make decisions and act in my every-day life: what is the wise thing to do/think/say?  So much of today's outrage / triggered culture, entirely overlooks the over-arching purpose of living, in order to score a few piddly "political" or Twitter points.  They sacrifice wisdom in order to be an online-Dandy.

The essay ends with a couple of quotes from Nietzsche and Marcus.  I will cite the Nietzsche one, since it popped up in this book as well as "The Inner Citadel" - and I quoted it recently in another blog post; therefore, it seems to be a very important quote - especially for me.  In this essay, Hadot says, "In the enjoyment of the pure present, he discovers the mystery and splendor of existence.  At such moments, as Nietzsche said, we say yes 'not only to ourselves, but to all existence'" (p. 212).