Epictetus: On public bath houses and the Internet

[Gary Childress]

"When you are about to take something in hand, remind
yourself what manner of thing it is. If you are going to
bathe put before your mind what happens in the bath--
water pouring over some, others being jostled, some
reviling, others stealing; and you will set to work more
securely if you say to yourself at once: 'I want to bathe,
and I want to keep my will in harmony with nature,' and
so in each thing you do; for in this way, if anything turns
up to hinder you in your bathing, you will be ready to say,
'I did not want only to bathe, but to keep my will in
harmony with nature, and I shall not so keep it, if I lose
my temper at what happens'." (Epictetus, Enchiridion, 4,
trans. P. E. Matheson)

I found this translation in a compilation titled _Classics of Western
Philosophy_, edited by Steven M. Cahn, and, so far, like it better than the
George Long translation I've been reading in the Prometheus Books edition of
the Enchiridion.

This looks to me like a perfectly good example of the Internet, assuming that
when Epictetus refers to taking a bath he is refering to the public bath houses
where the Romans gathered in numbers--probably the younger ones splashing
around, getting in fights, making a lot of noise. When you are bathing in a
public bath house in Ancient Rome, or chatting on the Internet, like I am in
this newsgroup, a lot will go on around me, including some things I don't
approve of. Instead of loosing my temper as I have done (and, no doubt, others
loose of me), I should seek to "keep my will in harmony with nature."

But what does he mean by "harmony with nature"? Does he mean keep a sort of
inner peace and tranquility in the middle of all the chaos going on around you?
That's sort of the way I interpret it, although he doesn't really explicate,
at least not here, what is mean't by "harmony with nature". If that is the
case, how do you do that? He doesn't seem to explicate that either, other than
telling us to sort of remind ourselves that we "want to bathe, and...want to
keep [our] will in harmony with nature." Perhaps reminding ourselves, to
ourselves, when necessary, that we want to "keep our cool", is the way to "keep
our cool".

But here I am throwing my theorems out there for everyone to see, including the
"uninstructed". For Epictetus also says:

"...even sheep do not vomit up their grass and show to
the shepherds how much they have eaten; but when they
have internally digested the pasture, they produce
externally wool and milk. Do you also show NOT [my
emphasis] your theorems to the uninstructed, but show
the acts which come from their digestion." (Enchiridion,
XLVI, trans. George Long)

Aaaaaaargh.


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Gary Childress
But what does he mean by "harmony with nature"?

Read "Studies in Words" by C. S. Lewis. "Nature" is an /extremely/
tricky word to interpret across centuries, no matter what language.

[Gary Childress]

Post by John W. Kennedy
Read "Studies in Words" by C. S. Lewis. "Nature" is an /extremely/
tricky word to interpret across centuries, no matter what language.

That sounds like an interesting book or essay or whatever it is. What are some
other words, if any, which are studied in it?


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[Jack Fearnley]

Post by Gary Childress

Post by John W. Kennedy
Read "Studies in Words" by C. S. Lewis. "Nature" is an /extremely/
tricky word to interpret across centuries, no matter what language.

That sounds like an interesting book or essay or whatever it is. What are
some other words, if any, which are studied in it?
Gary the Philologizer
Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university
philosophy major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games,
mentally ill but stable on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

You can find it at Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521398312/qid=1095127087/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-5530849-4260913

He gives a chapter on each of the following words:

Nature (with Phusis, Kind, Physical)
Sad (with Gravis)
Wit (with Ingenium)
Free (with Eleutherios, Liberal, Frank)
Sense (with Sentence, Sensibility, Sensible)
Simple
Concience and Concious
World
Life
I dare say

I remember particularly enjoying the chapter on World.

Best Regards,
Jack Fearnley

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Gary Childress
But what does he mean by "harmony with nature"? Does he mean keep a sort of
inner peace and tranquility in the middle of all the chaos going on around you?
That's sort of the way I interpret it, although he doesn't really explicate,
at least not here, what is mean't by "harmony with nature".

It was assumed by the Greeks that the ways of nature were 'the ways
of pleasantness,' and that 'all her paths' were 'peace.' This may
seem to us a startling assumption, but that is because we do not mean
by 'nature' the same thing as they did. We connect the term with the
origin of a thing, they connected it rather with the end; by the
'natural state' we mean a state of savagery, they meant the highest
civilization; we mean by a thing's nature what it is or has been,
they meant what it ought to become under the most favourable
conditions; not the sour crab, but the mellow glory of the Hesperides
worthy to be guarded by a sleepless dragon, was to the Greeks the
natural apple. Hence we find Aristotle maintaining that the State is
a natural product, because it is evolved out of social relations
which exist by nature. Nature indeed was a highly ambiguous term to
the Greeks no less than to ourselves, but in the sense with which we
are now concerned, the nature of anything was defined by the
Peripatetics as 'the end of its becoming.' Another definition of
theirs puts the matter still more clearly. 'What each thing is when
its growth has been completed, that we declare to be the nature of
each thing'.

Following out this conception the Stoics identified a life in
accordance with nature with a life in accordance with the highest
perfection to which man could attain. Now, as man was essentially a
rational animal, his work as man lay in living the rational life. And
the perfection of reason was virtue. Hence the ways of nature were no
other than the ways of virtue. And so it came about that the Stoic
formula might be expressed in a number of different ways which yet
all amounted to the same thing. The end was to live the virtuous
life, or to live consistently, or to live in accordance with nature,
or to live rationally.

(extract from;
A Little Book of Stoicism
Author: St George Stock
available from Project Guttenberg)

Regards. Ed

[Ed Cryer]

For an analysis of "living in accord with nature" from a man who lived and
died before Christ, spoke Latin and Greek, was a philosopher, saw the word
"natura" from within a contemporary mind-set, see Cicero's "De Finibus
Bonorum et Malorum" (Concerning the ends of good and bad), especially Book
III, which examines Stoicism through the mouth and thoughts of Cato himself
(whom he knew, but could never be quite certain whether he liked or not).

Unfortunately I can't find an English translation online, but maybe someone
else can.
It's worth a read if for no other reason than to see the dry wit that Cicero
uses. There's something very British and humorous about Cicero's attitude to
Cato.

Ed

[Gary Childress]

Post by Ed Cryer
For an analysis of "living in accord with nature" from a man who lived and
died before Christ, spoke Latin and Greek, was a philosopher, saw the word
"natura" from within a contemporary mind-set, see Cicero's "De Finibus
Bonorum et Malorum" (Concerning the ends of good and bad), especially Book
III, which examines Stoicism through the mouth and thoughts of Cato himself
(whom he knew, but could never be quite certain whether he liked or not).
Unfortunately I can't find an English translation online, but maybe someone
else can.
It's worth a read if for no other reason than to see the dry wit that Cicero
uses. There's something very British and humorous about Cicero's attitude to
Cato.
Ed

I may try reading him someday. The book sounds like material I would be
interested in, at least the way I've been going lately. Although, right now
I'm pretty full up with Epictetus, Schopenhauer and Goethe--as far as my
limited resources for self study are concerned anyway.

I'm thinking of rereading Alain de Botton's _The Consolations of Philosophy_
again just to refresh my memory on the book. I've been thinking of buying gift
copies for non-philosophy friends but I can't quite remember how accessible the
book is. I want to take another look. I do remember enjoying it though.


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[Rich Alderson]

Post by Ed Cryer
For an analysis of "living in accord with nature" from a man who lived and
died before Christ, spoke Latin and Greek, was a philosopher, saw the word
"natura" from within a contemporary mind-set, see Cicero's "De Finibus
Bonorum et Malorum" (Concerning the ends of good and bad), especially Book
III, which examines Stoicism through the mouth and thoughts of Cato himself
(whom he knew, but could never be quite certain whether he liked or not).

Umm, aren't we talking about two different Catones here? The contemporary of
Cicero who was a vehement opponent of Caesar is not the elder Cato of the 2nd
Century BCE, into whose mouth Cicero put things like the _De senectute_.

Trivial note: The infamous "lorem ipsum dolor" text used by a laser printer
company in the 1980s started off as the top of a page of the Loeb edition of
_De finibus_.

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by Rich Alderson
Trivial note: The infamous "lorem ipsum dolor" text used by a laser printer
company in the 1980s started off as the top of a page of the Loeb edition of
_De finibus_.

Not a "laser printer company", but Aldus, the creators of PageMaker
(since then bought out by Adobe, the creators of PostScript). Anyway,
they didn't start it; it's been used for dummy text at least since the
1960s, and some sources maintain that its use dates back to the 15th
century.

[Rich Alderson]

Post by John W. Kennedy

Post by Rich Alderson
Trivial note: The infamous "lorem ipsum dolor" text used by a laser printer
company in the 1980s started off as the top of a page of the Loeb edition of
_De finibus_.

Not a "laser printer company", but Aldus, the creators of PageMaker
(since then bought out by Adobe, the creators of PostScript). Anyway,
they didn't start it; it's been used for dummy text at least since the
1960s, and some sources maintain that its use dates back to the 15th
century.

Excuse me, but I saw it as the test output of a Xerox laser printer years
before Aldus existed. Remember that laser printers, like computers, predate
the Macintosh. IIRC, Framemaker also used it, among Aldus' contemporaries.

The 16th Century claims were debunked long ago (in comp.fonts, I believe)
when the page in the Loeb edition was identified as the source. Hell, I
went out and *bought* the Loeb edition just because I was so amused by it.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Rich Alderson
Umm, aren't we talking about two different Catones here? The contemporary of
Cicero who was a vehement opponent of Caesar is not the elder Cato of the 2nd
Century BCE, into whose mouth Cicero put things like the _De senectute_.

No. Have a read of the "De Finibus". Cicero sets book III in a library where
he found Marcus Cato reading. Just he and Cato discussing Stoicism.
"quo cum venissem, M. Catonem, quem ibi esse nescieram, vidi in bibliotheca
sedentem multis circumfusum Stoicorum libris."

Ed

[Rich Alderson]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Rich Alderson
Umm, aren't we talking about two different Catones here? The contemporary
of Cicero who was a vehement opponent of Caesar is not the elder Cato of the
2nd Century BCE, into whose mouth Cicero put things like the _De senectute_.

No. Have a read of the "De Finibus". Cicero sets book III in a library where
he found Marcus Cato reading. Just he and Cato discussing Stoicism.
"quo cum venissem, M. Catonem, quem ibi esse nescieram, vidi in bibliotheca
sedentem multis circumfusum Stoicorum libris."

Thanks for the correction.

[Gary Childress]

Post by Gary Childress

Post by Gary Childress
But what does he mean by "harmony with nature"? Does he mean keep a sort

of

Post by Gary Childress
inner peace and tranquility in the middle of all the chaos going on around

you?

Post by Gary Childress
That's sort of the way I interpret it, although he doesn't really

explicate,

Post by Gary Childress
at least not here, what is mean't by "harmony with nature".

It was assumed by the Greeks that the ways of nature were 'the ways
of pleasantness,' and that 'all her paths' were 'peace.' This may
seem to us a startling assumption, but that is because we do not mean
by 'nature' the same thing as they did. We connect the term with the
origin of a thing, they connected it rather with the end; by the
'natural state' we mean a state of savagery, they meant the highest
civilization; we mean by a thing's nature what it is or has been,
they meant what it ought to become under the most favourable
conditions; not the sour crab, but the mellow glory of the Hesperides
worthy to be guarded by a sleepless dragon, was to the Greeks the
natural apple. Hence we find Aristotle maintaining that the State is
a natural product, because it is evolved out of social relations
which exist by nature. Nature indeed was a highly ambiguous term to
the Greeks no less than to ourselves, but in the sense with which we
are now concerned, the nature of anything was defined by the
Peripatetics as 'the end of its becoming.' Another definition of
theirs puts the matter still more clearly. 'What each thing is when
its growth has been completed, that we declare to be the nature of
each thing'.
Following out this conception the Stoics identified a life in
accordance with nature with a life in accordance with the highest
perfection to which man could attain. Now, as man was essentially a
rational animal, his work as man lay in living the rational life. And
the perfection of reason was virtue. Hence the ways of nature were no
other than the ways of virtue. And so it came about that the Stoic
formula might be expressed in a number of different ways which yet
all amounted to the same thing. The end was to live the virtuous
life, or to live consistently, or to live in accordance with nature,
or to live rationally.
(extract from;
A Little Book of Stoicism
Author: St George Stock
available from Project Guttenberg)
Regards. Ed

Hello Ed,

Glad to see you're still out and about on the Internet.

So it sort of sounds--maybe I'm over simplifying here--but it sounds like
Epictetus is more or less saying that one should maintain a reasonable attitude
toward what one encounters, say on the Internet for instance. Being in
"harmony with nature" would then be, more or less, being in accord with reason
and responding in accord to reason to what one encounters in the public forum.
Again, perhaps that is an oversimplification, but I think I understand what is
being alluded to by suggesting one live "the rational life."



Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Gary Childress
Hello Ed,
Glad to see you're still out and about on the Internet.
So it sort of sounds--maybe I'm over simplifying here--but it sounds like
Epictetus is more or less saying that one should maintain a reasonable attitude
toward what one encounters, say on the Internet for instance. Being in
"harmony with nature" would then be, more or less, being in accord with reason
and responding in accord to reason to what one encounters in the public forum.
Again, perhaps that is an oversimplification, but I think I understand what is
being alluded to by suggesting one live "the rational life."
Gary the Philologizer
Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

It is, as you say, an oversimplification. Stoicism was a very thoroughly
worked out system by Epictetus's day, and to try to equate their concept of
virtue with "cool" doesn't really work. It is in connection with another
Stoic virtue; that of "apatheia", something like "freedom from emotions".
They had a dichotomy; reason/emotions. The Christian concept of "love" is an
emotion, even when rendered in Greek as "agape" or "philia", rather than
"eros".

I always like this poem by Rudyard Kipling. It seems to incorporate a
watered-down version of old Stoicism.

"If"

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

By Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936).





Ed

(Still on the Internet, but preferring Classical studies to philosophy.)

[Gary Childress]

Post by Ed Cryer
It is, as you say, an oversimplification. Stoicism was a very thoroughly
worked out system by Epictetus's day, and to try to equate their concept of
virtue with "cool" doesn't really work. It is in connection with another
Stoic virtue; that of "apatheia", something like "freedom from emotions".
They had a dichotomy; reason/emotions. The Christian concept of "love" is an
emotion, even when rendered in Greek as "agape" or "philia", rather than
"eros".

So would Epictetus say that one ought to act in accord with reason when on the
Internet and not with the emotions? And how would that compare with acting
according to the Christian maxim of "turning the other cheek." When one is
acting in accord with reason, does one "turn the other cheek" or does one
respond according to a different set of dictates, those of reason? I know many
of the Stoics were adopted by early Christian thinkers. How compatible is
Stoicism with Christianity I wonder?

Post by Ed Cryer
I always like this poem by Rudyard Kipling. It seems to incorporate a
watered-down version of old Stoicism.
"If"
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
By Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936).

That's a very nice poem. I like it.

Post by Ed Cryer
Ed
(Still on the Internet, but preferring Classical studies to philosophy.)

Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress
So would Epictetus say that one ought to act in accord with reason
when on the Internet and not with the emotions?

I'm pretty sure that's a counterfactual that isn't worth
investigating. Epictetus never considered the Internet, and asking
"what if he had" is a little too out-of-time for me.

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
So would Epictetus say that one ought to act in accord with reason
when on the Internet and not with the emotions?

I'm pretty sure that's a counterfactual that isn't worth
investigating. Epictetus never considered the Internet, and asking
"what if he had" is a little too out-of-time for me.
Thomas

I disagree. Keeping in "harmony with nature" certainly sounds like good advice
to me while surfing newsgroups.


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
So would Epictetus say that one ought to act in accord with reason
when on the Internet and not with the emotions?

I'm pretty sure that's a counterfactual that isn't worth
investigating. Epictetus never considered the Internet, and asking
"what if he had" is a little too out-of-time for me.
Thomas

I disagree. Keeping in "harmony with nature" certainly sounds like
good advice to me while surfing newsgroups.

I didn't say it was bad to "keep in harmony with nature". I said that
it wasn't worth investigating what Epictetus would have said about the
Internet.

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
I didn't say it was bad to "keep in harmony with nature". I said that
it wasn't worth investigating what Epictetus would have said about the
Internet.

Why? Wouldn't he have said one ought to "keep in harmony with nature" while
surfing newsgroups?


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
I didn't say it was bad to "keep in harmony with nature". I said that
it wasn't worth investigating what Epictetus would have said about the
Internet.

Why? Wouldn't he have said one ought to "keep in harmony with nature" while
surfing newsgroups?

I don't know what he would have said. Perhaps if he surfed
newsgroups, he would have discovered an argument that changed his mind
about his entire philosophical outlook. Such counterfactuals are
silly. We can conclude, of course, that he would have probably been
Greek Orthodox, right, since most Greeks who surf the internet are?

Counterfactuals that far from reality are silly.

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
I don't know what he would have said. Perhaps if he surfed
newsgroups, he would have discovered an argument that changed his mind
about his entire philosophical outlook. Such counterfactuals are
silly. We can conclude, of course, that he would have probably been
Greek Orthodox, right, since most Greeks who surf the internet are?
Counterfactuals that far from reality are silly.

How far is it from reality to compare the Internet with a public bath house or
a busy crowded market place in Ancient Rome and Greece, youngsters "goofing
off", people arguing with each other, stealing, some talking serious subjects,
some just casually conversing? People from around the area and in some cases
from around the "world" (depending upon how big and notable the bath house, in
that case) mixing it up, causing distractions, sometimes irritating the hell
out of you? And would not placing yourself in "harmony with nature" not then
be good advice? Assuming of course Epictetus (when in Rome...) would not be
Greek Orthodox and therefore given to their ways of viewing the world over the
Ancient views of Stoicism and placing oneself in "harmony with nature"...

Gary


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Gary Childress
So would Epictetus say that one ought to act in accord with reason when on the
Internet and not with the emotions? And how would that compare with acting
according to the Christian maxim of "turning the other cheek." When one is
acting in accord with reason, does one "turn the other cheek" or does one
respond according to a different set of dictates, those of reason? I know many
of the Stoics were adopted by early Christian thinkers. How compatible is
Stoicism with Christianity I wonder?

Favoured by different sections of society. Stoicism was for philosophers;
intellectuals, thinkers. Christianity was for the masses; slaves, family
values, downtrodden in a highly stratified old Roman world.

I can't see Stoicism ever advertising itself with a manger-crib layout, a
god hanging on a cross, parables of miracles, God is a loving father etc.

Your question about "reason and turning the other cheek" strikes me as
showing the limits of reason in any social situation. It can't effect much.
It all depends on the top-of-the-hierarchy values that you adopt; and reason
is here subservient to taste and value.

Ed

[Gary Childress]

Post by Ed Cryer
Favoured by different sections of society. Stoicism was for philosophers;
intellectuals, thinkers. Christianity was for the masses; slaves, family
values, downtrodden in a highly stratified old Roman world.
I can't see Stoicism ever advertising itself with a manger-crib layout, a
god hanging on a cross, parables of miracles, God is a loving father etc.
Your question about "reason and turning the other cheek" strikes me as
showing the limits of reason in any social situation. It can't effect much.
It all depends on the top-of-the-hierarchy values that you adopt; and reason
is here subservient to taste and value.
Ed

So, then, it sounds to me like "turning the other cheek" would be an irrational
response when pushed to the extreme or taken as a solution for every situation
and set of circumstances, though it may be appropriate for some perhaps.

Being so, then putting oneself in "harmony with nature" would not entail
"turning the other cheek" in every situation but would entail, maybe, giving
the appropriate (for lack of a better word) response to the appropriate
circumstances--whatever that may be, and however one may determine what is
appropriate, assuming there are "benchmarks" to be adhered to, and not being a
case of "anything goes."

But with that said, if it is even accurate to say, I get the impression that
"harmony with nature" does not include reacting with the emotions such as
anger, or even love.

But what about joy and sorrow? Are they emotions, or are they something else
to the Stoic? Should one react with joy to a joyous event or sadly to a
sorrowful event? Or do the Stoics view that as "unnatural" as well? Judging
by some of what Epictetus has dictated in the Enchiridion I get the impression
that even showing sorrow over the death of a wife and child are to be avoided.
Even showing empathy with the sorrow of others is somewhat to be avoided, at
least beyond "superficial" acknowledgement of their sorrow.


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress
So, then, it sounds to me like "turning the other cheek" would be an
irrational response when pushed to the extreme or taken as a
solution for every situation and set of circumstances, though it may
be appropriate for some perhaps.

Or, perhaps, Epictetus is wrong. It seems you have not seriously
considered that possibility.

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Or, perhaps, Epictetus is wrong. It seems you have not seriously
considered that possibility.

Yes. I have.


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Or, perhaps, Epictetus is wrong. It seems you have not seriously
considered that possibility.

Yes. I have.

You only get points in the Academy if you put forth your
consideration. You do not consider it in your posts; you start with
the assumption that he must be right, and then proceed from there.
This might be reasonable in the Modern Stoics Society, but it's not
reasonable in the Academy.

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
You only get points in the Academy if you put forth your
consideration. You do not consider it in your posts; you start with
the assumption that he must be right, and then proceed from there.
This might be reasonable in the Modern Stoics Society, but it's not
reasonable in the Academy.
Thomas

OK. I'll put forth my consideration.

1. If I do not act in "harmony with nature" on the Internet this will place me
in a state of disharmony with nature which will be unsettling and chaotic to
the soul.

2. If I am in a state of disharmony with nature which is unsettling and chaotic
to the soul, then I will not have a tranquil flow of life.

3. I should have a tranquil flow of life.

4. Therefore I should act in "harmony with nature"

I might consider invoking Hume's fork as one alternative to attacking it but I
think I have it covered with premise number 3.

How's that?

Gary

-----------------------------------------------------------

"A dilettante who takes his subject seriously and a scholar who works
mechanically turn into pedants." -- J. W. von Goethe

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress
1. If I do not act in "harmony with nature" on the Internet this
will place me in a state of disharmony with nature which will be
unsettling and chaotic to the soul.

What does "nature" mean in this context? I'm suspicious of most uses
of the word "nature" because it's a very broad and flexible word.

There are two common uses of the word; one refers to whatever is not
artificial: whatever is not an artifice, created by people. In that
sense, there is virtually nothing natural about the Internet.

The other use refers to everything that is: the entire natural world,
including us. I don't even have any idea how one would be begin not
to be "in harmony with nature". It seems to me that, as a part of
nature myself (in this sense of nature), I cannot help but be in
harmony with it.

So I must be misunderstanding your usage; can you spell it out for me?

Post by Gary Childress
2. If I am in a state of disharmony with nature which is unsettling
and chaotic to the soul, then I will not have a tranquil flow of
life.

Why should being in disharmony with nature be unsettling and chaotic
to the soul?

Post by Gary Childress
3. I should have a tranquil flow of life.

Why? Cannot this be extraordinarily selfish? What establishes your
own tranquillity as the summum bonum? Do we not often admire the
"tortured soul" who produces great works of art, or the struggling
advocate for justice, who lives a life of great trial?

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
1. If I do not act in "harmony with nature" on the Internet this
will place me in a state of disharmony with nature which will be
unsettling and chaotic to the soul.

What does "nature" mean in this context? I'm suspicious of most uses
of the word "nature" because it's a very broad and flexible word.
There are two common uses of the word; one refers to whatever is not
artificial: whatever is not an artifice, created by people. In that
sense, there is virtually nothing natural about the Internet.
The other use refers to everything that is: the entire natural world,
including us. I don't even have any idea how one would be begin not
to be "in harmony with nature". It seems to me that, as a part of
nature myself (in this sense of nature), I cannot help but be in
harmony with it.
So I must be misunderstanding your usage; can you spell it out for me?

Apparently "nature" to the Stoics, if I'm understanding correctly what has been
told to me so far in this newsgroup, means, more or less, being in accord with
reason. So "harmony with nature" would be somewhat synonymous with being
rational. For the Stoics, nature is the fulfillment of the full potential of
one's place in nature and doesn't have anything to do per se with something's
having been created by man or not. For men, to be in accord with our nature is
to be rational. (for certain animals it may be other aspects) To be in
"harmony with nature" for us would be to be rational, guided by reason, not
guided by the passions which may lead us into irrational behavior. Things like
anger and love cause us to "loose our heads" running around bumping into things
without full consciousness of what we are doing or what we are bumping into.
Would it not solve problems if we could eliminate such influences in our lives?
Think of how much less fighting and anguish there would be if we could rid
ourselves of the passions, and think of how much fighting and anguish is
unsettling to the soul, causing us restless nights and aggrivation when we are
awake.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
2. If I am in a state of disharmony with nature which is unsettling
and chaotic to the soul, then I will not have a tranquil flow of
life.

Why should being in disharmony with nature be unsettling and chaotic
to the soul?

See above.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
3. I should have a tranquil flow of life.

Why? Cannot this be extraordinarily selfish? What establishes your
own tranquillity as the summum bonum? Do we not often admire the
"tortured soul" who produces great works of art, or the struggling
advocate for justice, who lives a life of great trial?
Thomas

Are there not two kinds of "tortured artist" those who choose to be great
artists at any cost and those who use art to vent their torture? Is the first
not mistaken as to what will give him the greatest satisfaction and would the
second not be happy to trade his torture for tranquility if only he knew how
and where to find it?

And among "advocates for justice" are there not those who seek to be great
advocates at any cost and those who advocate justice to alleviate inner turmoil
of the soul over injustice? Likewise, are the former not mistaken as to what
will bring them the greatest satisfaction and would the latter not be happy to
trade his struggle for tranquility of the soul, for a conscience which is
appeased?

Perhaps if only they knew how to establish true harmony in the soul they
wouldn't be tortured artists and struggling advocates for justice.


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress
Apparently "nature" to the Stoics, if I'm understanding correctly
what has been told to me so far in this newsgroup, means, more or
less, being in accord with reason.

The "humanities.classics" newsgroup may not be the optimal place for
philosophical subtlety. It's ok, but classicists and philosophers
have different training. Anyhow, I'm more interested in *your* usage,
since it was your statement that's at issue here.

Post by Gary Childress
So "harmony with nature" would be somewhat synonymous with being
rational.

If nature simply means being rational, why not say rational? What is
added by this use of "natural"?

Post by Gary Childress
For the Stoics, nature is the fulfillment of the full potential of
one's place in nature and doesn't have anything to do per se with
something's having been created by man or not.

See, this doesn't mean the same thing as "whatever is rational". And
it assumes all kinds of questionable things, like the notion that we
have "a place in nature", that is, some kind of teleological
purposiveness in which things have "places". Moreover, what is the
"potential of one's place"?

Post by Gary Childress
For men, to be in accord with our nature is to be rational.

Here you've changed your tune, though likely without realizing. It is
one thing to say that being natural just means being rational, but now
you've said something different: that being natural, for a person,
*entails* being rational.

This latter is a more sensible statement perhaps, but I wonder how we
know whether it's true. It also begs the question of "rationality",
as if that were a simple and unproblematic concept; it's actually just
as difficult to handle as "natural".

How should we evaluate this claim? Why is rationality so particularly
relevant? It can't just be that this is a possibly unique property of
human beings. Human beings are also known for starting wars,
something we don't see in other species, but I don't think we're going
to say that to be in accord with our nature is to be warlike. Or if
we do, we are unlikely to say that this is the road to happiness and
fulfillment.

Post by Gary Childress
To be in "harmony with nature" for us would be to be rational,
guided by reason, not guided by the passions which may lead us into
irrational behavior.

But are not these passions equally natural to us? On what grounds is
rationality singled out here?

Or, alternatively, why is it irrational to be guided by the passions?
And is there not perhaps some middle ground here? Why must it be the
stoic renunciation of the passions or else being guided by them?
Cannot one have a little of both?

Post by Gary Childress
Would it not solve problems if we could eliminate such influences in our lives?

I'm suspicious about whether it would actually solve anything. But
suppose it did: that hardly means it's possible. I mean, it would
solve a lot of problems if humans were incapable of willing to harm
each other, but that doesn't mean that we are going to change the
facts of human psychology. Wishing doesn't make it so.

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
Apparently "nature" to the Stoics, if I'm understanding correctly
what has been told to me so far in this newsgroup, means, more or
less, being in accord with reason.

The "humanities.classics" newsgroup may not be the optimal place for
philosophical subtlety. It's ok, but classicists and philosophers
have different training. Anyhow, I'm more interested in *your* usage,
since it was your statement that's at issue here.

I'm using "nature" here, as best I can, in the way in which it has been told to
me in this group that the Stoics used it, reason being the highest expression
of man, "nature" meaning that which is the highest expression of something,
therefore reason being, more or less, the "nature" of man.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
So "harmony with nature" would be somewhat synonymous with being
rational.

If nature simply means being rational, why not say rational? What is
added by this use of "natural"?

As has been noted earlier, I have been prone to oversimplification. I don't
mean to say that nature "simply" means being rational. "Nature" can mean
something quite different for another object in the world. For a rock "nature"
might mean being "solid" or "good for a wall" or whatever the Stoics would
attribute to it, whatever is it's highest expression--being the highest
expression for God I suppose.
On the other hand, why Epictetus doesn't just say, "be rational" I don't know.
Perhaps he has a slightly different idea of what "nature means" than to just be
rational. I'm only trying to give my personal interpretation of what I believe
he mean't based upon responses to my original post asking what he mean't by
being in "harmony with nature".

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
For the Stoics, nature is the fulfillment of the full potential of
one's place in nature and doesn't have anything to do per se with
something's having been created by man or not.

See, this doesn't mean the same thing as "whatever is rational". And
it assumes all kinds of questionable things, like the notion that we
have "a place in nature", that is, some kind of teleological
purposiveness in which things have "places". Moreover, what is the
"potential of one's place"?

For man, one's full potential is to be rational.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
For men, to be in accord with our nature is to be rational.

Here you've changed your tune, though likely without realizing. It is
one thing to say that being natural just means being rational, but now
you've said something different: that being natural, for a person,
*entails* being rational.
This latter is a more sensible statement perhaps, but I wonder how we
know whether it's true. It also begs the question of "rationality",
as if that were a simple and unproblematic concept; it's actually just
as difficult to handle as "natural".

I would say that "natural" and "rational" are somewhat ineffable for the most
part. We can only use other words to describe them and those other words have
their own meanings. But I think we all have a sense of what is being talked
about, even though that too probably rests on shifting sand so to speak.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
How should we evaluate this claim? Why is rationality so particularly
relevant? It can't just be that this is a possibly unique property of
human beings. Human beings are also known for starting wars,
something we don't see in other species, but I don't think we're going
to say that to be in accord with our nature is to be warlike. Or if
we do, we are unlikely to say that this is the road to happiness and
fulfillment.

Being "warlike" would not be expressing our highest potential which is reason.
However this would not rule out going to war when a situation demands it.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
To be in "harmony with nature" for us would be to be rational,
guided by reason, not guided by the passions which may lead us into
irrational behavior.

But are not these passions equally natural to us? On what grounds is
rationality singled out here?
Or, alternatively, why is it irrational to be guided by the passions?
And is there not perhaps some middle ground here? Why must it be the
stoic renunciation of the passions or else being guided by them?
Cannot one have a little of both?

Post by Gary Childress
Would it not solve problems if we could eliminate such influences in our lives?

I'm suspicious about whether it would actually solve anything. But
suppose it did: that hardly means it's possible. I mean, it would
solve a lot of problems if humans were incapable of willing to harm
each other, but that doesn't mean that we are going to change the
facts of human psychology. Wishing doesn't make it so.
Thomas

Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress
I'm using "nature" here, as best I can, in the way in which it has
been told to me in this group that the Stoics used it, reason being
the highest expression of man, "nature" meaning that which is the
highest expression of something, therefore reason being, more or
less, the "nature" of man.

But that can't be enough, because the possiblity exists that the
Stoics were using the term incoherently.

Moreover, the buck-passing isn't really appropriate. If you don't
know what the word means, then don't use it; if you do know, please
give me *your* meaning, as best as you have it, rather than just
passing the buck.

So, taking your definition as you give it, if by nature you mean the
highest expression of a thing, how do we know that reason is the
highest expression of humanity, rather than, say, being warlike? What
are the tests, or what argument can you give, to support the claim
that complicated reasoning is higher than equally complicated
emotions?

Post by Gary Childress
For man, one's full potential is to be rational.

Do you have an argument for this, or just a bare assertion?

Post by Gary Childress
Being "warlike" would not be expressing our highest potential which
is reason. However this would not rule out going to war when a
situation demands it.

So the stoic argument is that we should be rational because that's our
nature. What makes it our nature, according to you, is that it is our
"highest potential", or the "highest expression" of our humanity. So
how do you know it's higher? What makes it higher?

Given a thing in the world that I'm looking at--whether stone, cat,
chair, or human being, even myself, how do I know which of its traits
are higher than others?

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
I'm using "nature" here, as best I can, in the way in which it has
been told to me in this group that the Stoics used it, reason being
the highest expression of man, "nature" meaning that which is the
highest expression of something, therefore reason being, more or
less, the "nature" of man.

But that can't be enough, because the possiblity exists that the
Stoics were using the term incoherently.
Moreover, the buck-passing isn't really appropriate. If you don't
know what the word means, then don't use it; if you do know, please
give me *your* meaning, as best as you have it, rather than just
passing the buck.

As best I have it, "nature" means the highest expression of something and
reason is the highest expression of man, therefore the "nature" of man is to be
rational.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
So, taking your definition as you give it, if by nature you mean the
highest expression of a thing, how do we know that reason is the
highest expression of humanity, rather than, say, being warlike? What
are the tests, or what argument can you give, to support the claim
that complicated reasoning is higher than equally complicated
emotions?

I can't really give an argument per say only my opinion perhaps, that being
"warlike" is not the highest expression of man. Anger, which is an emotion is
one of the causes of war, which is irrational. Even love or desire can be
causes of war and strife (as with the Trojan war). I can't think of an
instance, other than self defense, where rational men would sit down and say,
we ought to go to war where civilizations will be wrecked and thousands,
possibly more, will loose their lives.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
For man, one's full potential is to be rational.

Do you have an argument for this, or just a bare assertion?

Just a bare assertion at this point I'm afraid.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
Being "warlike" would not be expressing our highest potential which
is reason. However this would not rule out going to war when a
situation demands it.

So the stoic argument is that we should be rational because that's our
nature. What makes it our nature, according to you, is that it is our
"highest potential", or the "highest expression" of our humanity. So
how do you know it's higher? What makes it higher?

I don't know what makes it higher. Perhaps because leading a rational life
will give one a more tranquil flow of life, less aggrivation and upheaval from
the emotions.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Given a thing in the world that I'm looking at--whether stone, cat,
chair, or human being, even myself, how do I know which of its traits
are higher than others?

I haven't given it much thought as to what traits are highest for a stone or
cat or chair. I'm not sure how you would know. Perhaps you'd have to be a
stone or cat or chair to know. I'm not sure what Epictetus would say to that.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Thomas

Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress
As best I have it, "nature" means the highest expression of
something and reason is the highest expression of man, therefore the
"nature" of man is to be rational.

If you are trying to tell me what humanities.classics has told you,
don't bother. I can read the newsgroup myself. I'm interested in
*your* ideas, not so much your report about other people's ideas,
especially since I can just go read those other people myself.

Post by Gary Childress
I can't really give an argument per say only my opinion perhaps,
that being "warlike" is not the highest expression of man. Anger,
which is an emotion is one of the causes of war, which is
irrational.

I'll grant you for the sake of argument that war is irrational. Why
is it not the highest expression of man? How do you determine that
reason is the highest expression? Merely repeating "because it's
rational" doesn't answer the question.

Post by Gary Childress

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Do you have an argument for this, or just a bare assertion?

Just a bare assertion at this point I'm afraid.

But then you should just jettison all the stuff about "nature" or
"highest expression". It's flowery language for "I like reason, and
that's that."

There is a very strong irony in being unable to give any reasons for
why you like reason. Nothing really to be criticized in that, but
perhaps the irony is why you want to give a "reason" for preferring
reason ("because it's more natural"), but that's really just a red
herring. You have no reason for why reason is more natural either.

So why not just drop all the "nature" and "highest expression"
language, and say "I like reason, and that's that"?

Post by Gary Childress
I don't know what makes it higher. Perhaps because leading a
rational life will give one a more tranquil flow of life, less
aggrivation and upheaval from the emotions.

This might explain why a person would want it, but the Stoic claims
something bigger: that this is what you *should* want. Or,
alternatively, that this tranquility just is the same thing as
happiness.

Now remember that we started here because of your misgivings about
Jesus' counsel to turn the other cheek when abused or attacked. You
said that doing this might be rational or might not, and one should do
it just only when it is rational.

What I wonder is that you haven't given me any reasons at all why I
should preference your sort of rationality, or your sort of
tranquility. If perfect happiness is actually *not* tranquility, but
is instead something like conformity to the will of God (as many
Christians through the ages have said it), then perhaps doing what
Jesus says will *not* produce tranquility, but *will* produce
happiness?!

If all you can say is "I like it and that's that", then well and good,
but you haven't given me any reasons why I should change my mind.

And this is what I meant by saying that you had not critically
examined the Stoic position, but simply take it as certainly true. If
you cannot give reasons for it, then you have not critically examined
whether it might be true. I do not mean that you must abandon it; I
simply mean that you haven't examined it.

Post by Gary Childress
I haven't given it much thought as to what traits are highest for a
stone or cat or chair. I'm not sure how you would know. Perhaps
you'd have to be a stone or cat or chair to know. I'm not sure what
Epictetus would say to that.

I don't care a fig what Epictetus would say to that. I'm asking about
*you*.

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
As best I have it, "nature" means the highest expression of
something and reason is the highest expression of man, therefore the
"nature" of man is to be rational.

If you are trying to tell me what humanities.classics has told you,
don't bother. I can read the newsgroup myself. I'm interested in
*your* ideas, not so much your report about other people's ideas,
especially since I can just go read those other people myself.

Post by Gary Childress
I can't really give an argument per say only my opinion perhaps,
that being "warlike" is not the highest expression of man. Anger,
which is an emotion is one of the causes of war, which is
irrational.

I'll grant you for the sake of argument that war is irrational. Why
is it not the highest expression of man? How do you determine that
reason is the highest expression? Merely repeating "because it's
rational" doesn't answer the question.

I don't think war is the highest expression of man either. War is needless
destruction and doesn't seem like a very high form of expression to me. By
"highest" I mean something along the lines of "greatest" or "best". Are the
passions higher than reason in guiding man through life? It seems to me that
reason will act as a better guide than the passions when determing what one
should do in a particular instance.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Do you have an argument for this, or just a bare assertion?

Just a bare assertion at this point I'm afraid.

But then you should just jettison all the stuff about "nature" or
"highest expression". It's flowery language for "I like reason, and
that's that."

So why did the Stoics not just say "I like reason" too. It sounds like they
justified it by appealing to man's nature and nature being the highest
expression of something and not the lowest. I think I see what you are saying.
Perhaps it would be much better to just dispense with the part about being
more "natural" and just say "reason is better" or something along those lines.
Perhaps even "higher" can be dispensed with, since some works of art may be
irrational but very "high" expressions of man's abilities. On the other hand
if an artist creates a work of art that his reason tells him not to release to
the public for fear of dire consequences, then it would not be a very "high"
work of art if he did so in my opinion. So, I think I would still have to go
with reason as "higher" even than artistic impulses in the final analysis.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
There is a very strong irony in being unable to give any reasons for
why you like reason. Nothing really to be criticized in that, but
perhaps the irony is why you want to give a "reason" for preferring
reason ("because it's more natural"), but that's really just a red
herring. You have no reason for why reason is more natural either.

Point taken. I should be able to give reasons for adopting reason as the
prefered method for dealing with the world. Otherwise I am clinging to reason
irrationally.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
So why not just drop all the "nature" and "highest expression"
language, and say "I like reason, and that's that"?

I suppose I could just say "I like reason and that's that". But then that
would leave me in a position of adopting reason irrationally. I would have to
say that reason seems like the best way to go as opposed to running around the
world bumping into things guided by the passions, being driven by love and
anger and all the things that make us do crazy things we end up regretting or
loosing sleep over. I'll give an example. I'm in love with a married woman
who has a child. If I act on my love I could ruin her marriage and wreck the
life of everyone involved. But my reason tells me not to act on my emotion of
love or infatuation or whatever it may be. My reason tells me that if I do
that then x, y, and z will happen. So I use my reason to override the passions
in this case. I may not be perfectly happy but I believe I am happier than I
would be involved in a horrible mess like the one described above. Now if I
could turn off the passions all together, then I WOULD be almost perfectly
happy, in this case.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
I don't know what makes it higher. Perhaps because leading a
rational life will give one a more tranquil flow of life, less
aggrivation and upheaval from the emotions.

This might explain why a person would want it, but the Stoic claims
something bigger: that this is what you *should* want. Or,
alternatively, that this tranquility just is the same thing as
happiness.
Now remember that we started here because of your misgivings about
Jesus' counsel to turn the other cheek when abused or attacked. You
said that doing this might be rational or might not, and one should do
it just only when it is rational.
What I wonder is that you haven't given me any reasons at all why I
should preference your sort of rationality, or your sort of
tranquility. If perfect happiness is actually *not* tranquility, but
is instead something like conformity to the will of God (as many
Christians through the ages have said it), then perhaps doing what
Jesus says will *not* produce tranquility, but *will* produce
happiness?!
If all you can say is "I like it and that's that", then well and good,
but you haven't given me any reasons why I should change my mind.

What is your position on reason that I would potentially be in danger of
changing?

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
And this is what I meant by saying that you had not critically
examined the Stoic position, but simply take it as certainly true.
If
you cannot give reasons for it, then you have not critically examined
whether it might be true. I do not mean that you must abandon it; I
simply mean that you haven't examined it.

Point taken. It seems I was mistaken about having seriously considered my
position. But it is difficult to examine anything in a vacuum.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
I haven't given it much thought as to what traits are highest for a
stone or cat or chair. I'm not sure how you would know. Perhaps
you'd have to be a stone or cat or chair to know. I'm not sure what
Epictetus would say to that.

I don't care a fig what Epictetus would say to that. I'm asking about
*you*.
Thomas

Gary

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress
I don't think war is the highest expression of man either. War is needless
destruction and doesn't seem like a very high form of expression to me. By
"highest" I mean something along the lines of "greatest" or "best". Are the
passions higher than reason in guiding man through life? It seems to me that
reason will act as a better guide than the passions when determing what one
should do in a particular instance.

The problem here is that your reasoning is circular. Reason is best
because it is highest, and reason is highest because it's best. War
isn't good because it isn't highest, and it isn't highest because it
isn't best.

Post by Gary Childress
So why did the Stoics not just say "I like reason" too. It sounds
like they justified it by appealing to man's nature and nature being
the highest expression of something and not the lowest.

I think the Stoics *have no argument* for why they should prefer
reason, and this is one of the most serious problems with the Stoic
philosophy. It is (ironically) fundamentally irrational about its
commitment to reason!

If you insist that the Stoics must be right, then this won't do.

Post by Gary Childress
I think I see what you are saying. Perhaps it would be much better
to just dispense with the part about being more "natural" and just
say "reason is better" or something along those lines. Perhaps even
"higher" can be dispensed with, since some works of art may be
irrational but very "high" expressions of man's abilities. On the
other hand if an artist creates a work of art that his reason tells
him not to release to the public for fear of dire consequences, then
it would not be a very "high" work of art if he did so in my
opinion. So, I think I would still have to go with reason as
"higher" even than artistic impulses in the final analysis.

But this is still wildly circular. Art isn't as high as reason
because, well, it's not as rational. This isn't an argument, it's
just more assertion.

Post by Gary Childress
I suppose I could just say "I like reason and that's that". But
then that would leave me in a position of adopting reason
irrationally. I would have to say that reason seems like the best
way to go as opposed to running around the world bumping into things
guided by the passions, being driven by love and anger and all the
things that make us do crazy things we end up regretting or loosing
sleep over.

This would be an excellent argument, but it proves too much. Many
people have found that being driven by reason can cause them to do
things which they end up regretting or losing sleep over, and realize
"if only I had followed my passions about that thing!"

If by reason you mean "doing whatever is right", then this can't
happen, but if that's all you mean by reason, then saying "you ought
to follow reason" means nothing more than "you ought to do what is
right", which is empty.

So reason must be something other than "whatever is right", and then
it is a substantive and interesting question whether following reason
always happens to be right or not. Immanuel Kant would agree that
following reason is always right, but he had a sophisticated argument
for this position--and, I hasten to add, an argument that the Stoics
would be forced to reject. The Stoics only have the bare assertion
that following reason is always right, and that's not enough.

Post by Gary Childress
What is your position on reason that I would potentially be in danger of
changing?

In danger? Huh?

I think that reason is a tool, but not the judge of best behavior.
There are many tools and guides which can lead us to act rightly, and
which can lead us in the direction of happiness, but I do not think
that reason will do the trick alone.

Consider that reason is fallible. Now the Stoics of course claim that
it is not your fallible reason that you should follow, but rather
"right reason"--that is, reason when it is operating properly and not
making mistakes. But then I would simply reply that one should also
follow "right passions"--that is, passions when they are operating
properly and not wrongly.

I have a view of human nature in which the right and proper function
of reasons *and* the passions is such to lead us to happiness and
right action, and I believe that our reason *and* our passions are
both corrupted and thus fallible and sometimes misleading guides. But
the situation between the two is, I believe, the same.

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
I don't think war is the highest expression of man either. War is needless
destruction and doesn't seem like a very high form of expression to me. By
"highest" I mean something along the lines of "greatest" or "best". Are

the

Post by Gary Childress
passions higher than reason in guiding man through life? It seems to me

that

Post by Gary Childress
reason will act as a better guide than the passions when determing what one
should do in a particular instance.

The problem here is that your reasoning is circular. Reason is best
because it is highest, and reason is highest because it's best. War
isn't good because it isn't highest, and it isn't highest because it
isn't best.

I don't see where my reasoning is circular at all here. Observe the first two
sentences which effectively constitute an argument:

1. "I don't think war is the highest expression of man either" --this is
actually the conclusion presented prior to the premises and can be represented
as [No W are H] = No Wars are Highest forms of expression.

2. "War is needless destruction..." is the first premise and can be
represented as [All W are N] = All Wars are Needless destruction

3. "...and doesn't seem like a very high form of expression to me." the second
premise, can be represented as the missing step: [No N are H] = No Needless
destructions are Highest forms of expression.

So the argument would effectively be:

All W are N = All Wars are Needless destructions
No N are H = No Needless destructions are Highest forms of
expression
Therefore No W are H = therefore, No Wars are Highest forms of expression

I don't know how to draw a Venn diagram using text but I checked it with paper
and pencil and it is a valid argument. It should be plain to see without a
diagram though.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
So why did the Stoics not just say "I like reason" too. It sounds
like they justified it by appealing to man's nature and nature being
the highest expression of something and not the lowest.

I think the Stoics *have no argument* for why they should prefer
reason, and this is one of the most serious problems with the Stoic
philosophy. It is (ironically) fundamentally irrational about its
commitment to reason!
If you insist that the Stoics must be right, then this won't do.

Post by Gary Childress
I think I see what you are saying. Perhaps it would be much better
to just dispense with the part about being more "natural" and just
say "reason is better" or something along those lines. Perhaps even
"higher" can be dispensed with, since some works of art may be
irrational but very "high" expressions of man's abilities. On the
other hand if an artist creates a work of art that his reason tells
him not to release to the public for fear of dire consequences, then
it would not be a very "high" work of art if he did so in my
opinion. So, I think I would still have to go with reason as
"higher" even than artistic impulses in the final analysis.

But this is still wildly circular. Art isn't as high as reason
because, well, it's not as rational. This isn't an argument, it's
just more assertion.

Again I fail to see the circularity. And considering the examples I gave I
would hardly call it mere assertion. Perhaps counter examples on your part
would be appropriate?

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
I suppose I could just say "I like reason and that's that". But
then that would leave me in a position of adopting reason
irrationally. I would have to say that reason seems like the best
way to go as opposed to running around the world bumping into things
guided by the passions, being driven by love and anger and all the
things that make us do crazy things we end up regretting or loosing
sleep over.

This would be an excellent argument, but it proves too much. Many
people have found that being driven by reason can cause them to do
things which they end up regretting or losing sleep over, and realize
"if only I had followed my passions about that thing!"

And is it not their reason which tells them "if only I had followed my passions
about that thing?" Is it not reason that tells a man that this or that passion
should have been responded to in this or that way?

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
If by reason you mean "doing whatever is right", then this can't
happen, but if that's all you mean by reason, then saying "you ought
to follow reason" means nothing more than "you ought to do what is
right", which is empty.
So reason must be something other than "whatever is right", and then
it is a substantive and interesting question whether following reason
always happens to be right or not. Immanuel Kant would agree that
following reason is always right, but he had a sophisticated argument
for this position--and, I hasten to add, an argument that the Stoics
would be forced to reject. The Stoics only have the bare assertion
that following reason is always right, and that's not enough.

Post by Gary Childress
What is your position on reason that I would potentially be in danger of
changing?

In danger? Huh?
I think that reason is a tool, but not the judge of best behavior.

Is reason not THE "tool" by which we judge best behavior?

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
There are many tools and guides which can lead us to act rightly,

But is reason not the highest among them? If I go into a court of law, should
I expect the emotions of the judge and jury to preside over my case or would I
rather have their reason dictate a verdict? I'd rather have reason dictate the
verdict.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
and
which can lead us in the direction of happiness, but I do not think
that reason will do the trick alone.

Not alone, but in command of the passions. Which would you rather have, reason
alone or passions alone. I can see existing without passions, on reason alone,
but on passions alone? I think there would be utter chaos in the world.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Consider that reason is fallible. Now the Stoics of course claim that
it is not your fallible reason that you should follow, but rather
"right reason"--that is, reason when it is operating properly and not
making mistakes. But then I would simply reply that one should also
follow "right passions"--that is, passions when they are operating
properly and not wrongly.

Is it not "right reason" which determines whether the passions are operating
properly? How else am I to determine if a passion was excessive or not
responded to properly if not by evaluating it through reason?

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
I have a view of human nature in which the right and proper function
of reasons *and* the passions is such to lead us to happiness and
right action, and I believe that our reason *and* our passions are
both corrupted and thus fallible and sometimes misleading guides.

I have a similar view. Only in my view reason presides over the passions.

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
But
the situation between the two is, I believe, the same.

At this point I hold differently for reasons mentioned above. I'm not even
sure if it's viable to use reason to say that reason should NOT be the guiding
force behind our actions.

Gary

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Thomas

[tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Post by Gary Childress
All W are N = All Wars are Needless destructions
No N are H = No Needless destructions are Highest forms of
expression
Therefore No W are H = therefore, No Wars are Highest forms of expression

What is the argument for the second premise here?

What is your argument for *anything* being, or not being, the highest
form of expression?

So far the only argument you've given is that "X isn't rational, so it
must not be the highest form of expression". When you combine that
with "reason is good because it's the highest form of expression", we
end up with:

Reason is good because it's the highest form of expression, and it's
the highest form of expression because it's rational.

And *that's* circular.

Post by Gary Childress
Again I fail to see the circularity. And considering the examples I gave I
would hardly call it mere assertion. Perhaps counter examples on your part
would be appropriate?

I gave two: war, and sophisticated human emotions. You've given no
reason why I should not think those are not actually the highest form
of expressing humanity (or whatever "highest" language you want).
They are just as apparently unique to humans as reason, and they are
equally distinctive of us. (Though one wonders why the "highest" part
of our humanity must be something we don't share with other animals:
is this a lingering chauvanism?)

In both cases, the only thing you can say about why they are not the
highest whatever is that they are irrational. But this simply begs
the question.

Post by Gary Childress
And is it not their reason which tells them "if only I had followed
my passions about that thing?" Is it not reason that tells a man
that this or that passion should have been responded to in this or
that way?

It might be their passion that tells them that! And for some people,
it might bet that their reason is defective and their passions are
not!

Post by Gary Childress
Is reason not THE "tool" by which we judge best behavior?

Why? I know people who almost unfailingly act correctly when they
follow their passions, and they get all messed up when they try to
reason it out.

Post by Gary Childress
But is reason not the highest among them? If I go into a court of
law, should I expect the emotions of the judge and jury to preside
over my case or would I rather have their reason dictate a verdict?
I'd rather have reason dictate the verdict.

Yes, in a court I want reason to be used. This means that reason is
sometimes important, it does not prove that it is always important or
that it is some kind of "master control" which ought to govern all
behavior.

Post by Gary Childress
Not alone, but in command of the passions. Which would you rather
have, reason alone or passions alone. I can see existing without
passions, on reason alone, but on passions alone? I think there
would be utter chaos in the world.

If I had to pick whether I would either eat only rice or only lobster
for the rest of my life, I should sadly pick rice. But this does not
mean that I prefer rice to lobster under ordinary circumstances.

Your question is a false dichotomy. It proves which I would choose if
I had to choose only one, but I do not have to choose only one:
indeed, whether I like it or not, I have both. Even if I were to
choose to have reason alone, or passions alone, I would be unable to
give effect to my choice.

Post by Gary Childress
Is it not "right reason" which determines whether the passions are operating
properly? How else am I to determine if a passion was excessive or not
responded to properly if not by evaluating it through reason?

What about a person whose reason is very defective, and when they try
to do this procedure, they get it wrong?

Post by Gary Childress
I have a similar view. Only in my view reason presides over the passions.

Does preside, or ought to preside?

Thomas

[Gary Childress]

Post by tb+ (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)

Post by Gary Childress
All W are N = All Wars are Needless destructions
No N are H = No Needless destructions are Highest forms of
expression
Therefore No W are H = therefore, No Wars are Highest forms of expression

What is the argument for the second premise here?
What is your argument for *anything* being, or not being, the highest
form of expression?
So far the only argument you've given is that "X isn't rational, so it
must not be the highest form of expression". When you combine that
with "reason is good because it's the highest form of expression", we
Reason is good because it's the highest form of expression, and it's
the highest form of expression because it's rational.
And *that's* circular.

Post by Gary Childress
Again I fail to see the circularity. And considering the examples I gave I
would hardly call it mere assertion. Perhaps counter examples on your part
would be appropriate?

I gave two: war, and sophisticated human emotions. You've given no
reason why I should not think those are not actually the highest form
of expressing humanity (or whatever "highest" language you want).
They are just as apparently unique to humans as reason, and they are
equally distinctive of us. (Though one wonders why the "highest" part
is this a lingering chauvanism?)
In both cases, the only thing you can say about why they are not the
highest whatever is that they are irrational. But this simply begs
the question.

Post by Gary Childress
And is it not their reason which tells them "if only I had followed
my passions about that thing?" Is it not reason that tells a man
that this or that passion should have been responded to in this or
that way?

It might be their passion that tells them that! And for some people,
it might bet that their reason is defective and their passions are
not!

Post by Gary Childress
Is reason not THE "tool" by which we judge best behavior?

Why? I know people who almost unfailingly act correctly when they
follow their passions, and they get all messed up when they try to
reason it out.

Post by Gary Childress
But is reason not the highest among them? If I go into a court of
law, should I expect the emotions of the judge and jury to preside
over my case or would I rather have their reason dictate a verdict?
I'd rather have reason dictate the verdict.

Yes, in a court I want reason to be used. This means that reason is
sometimes important, it does not prove that it is always important or
that it is some kind of "master control" which ought to govern all
behavior.

Post by Gary Childress
Not alone, but in command of the passions. Which would you rather
have, reason alone or passions alone. I can see existing without
passions, on reason alone, but on passions alone? I think there
would be utter chaos in the world.

If I had to pick whether I would either eat only rice or only lobster
for the rest of my life, I should sadly pick rice. But this does not
mean that I prefer rice to lobster under ordinary circumstances.
Your question is a false dichotomy. It proves which I would choose if
indeed, whether I like it or not, I have both. Even if I were to
choose to have reason alone, or passions alone, I would be unable to
give effect to my choice.

Post by Gary Childress
Is it not "right reason" which determines whether the passions are

operating

Post by Gary Childress
properly? How else am I to determine if a passion was excessive or not
responded to properly if not by evaluating it through reason?

What about a person whose reason is very defective, and when they try
to do this procedure, they get it wrong?

Post by Gary Childress
I have a similar view. Only in my view reason presides over the passions.

Does preside, or ought to preside?
Thomas

Hey, maybe you're right. Perhaps reason is just a tool, part of a complete
human package which includes many facets working together or even
antagonistically at times, sometimes better off with one in command, sometimes
with the other, sometimes no better with one or the other. Perhaps reason has
its places, in courtrooms for instance, but extending it too far, to every
activity of life may be extremism--irrational itself.

And I had mean't "ought to preside", not "does preside". Thank you for
catching that.


Gary the Philologizer

Single, white, male, receptionist, 37 years old, former university philosophy
major, no degree, hedonist, addicted to computer games, mentally ill but stable
on meds, living with parents in Florida USA.

[Ed Cryer]

I feel that old Stoicism has a lot in common with Buddhism. It's noticeable
that Socrates and Gautama were roughly contemporaries.
Stoicism aims at "ataraxia" (Greek meaning "untroubledness" (maybe "cool"));
Buddhism at nirvana.
Although they look similar in practice, they have different metaphysics.
Buddhism claims to get beyond the self through meditation; Stoicism to get
beyond the passions by the application of reason.

Ed

[Dudley Yo Right]

I would imagine that when one is in the bath house that one should be
of the nature of the bath house. I neither want to be above the
people and stoicly tolerate them, nor be the vilest instigator of
trouble. The internet affords me the oppurtunity to find like minded,
or maybe thought provoking eople, that sometimes we laugh or cry, or
maybe take ourselves a little too seriously. We can all learn how our
actions affect others, and they us. I believe that at any given time
I am just as easily pissing off some people, while others are laughing
(laughing at whom?) and others are learning, suprisingly some may even
be in agreement, partial or full. The harmony of chaos.