Brilliant, indeed! Could akrasia simply be a rudimentary form of intellectualism? In other words, it isn’t a condition, but a “not-so-well-thought” evaluation of what one should do? We know there are more sophisticated (and to an extent better and easier) ways of analyzing a situation, and better--or even the best--ways to act on such. You fixing your car engine versus a mechanic, for instance. Perhaps, the Stoics are asking one to seek more of themselves in terms of reason and knowledge, so they can see the benefit to come and therefore compel action. It is not a condition, but simply less sharp reasoning and use of one’s intellect. Akrasia can be an excuse to explain why people don’t do.
I noticed your disagreement with the “living cosmos.” I don’t know the Greek words used, but perhaps it refers to animate rather than living? All things do move. If it means some singular, or collective controlling interest, then I understand your disagreement.
Mike, yes, I like the idea of thinking of akrasia as the result of incorrect or not-good-enough thinking. After all, if someone thinks that not going to the gym is not a big deal, say, then he is obviously underestimating the long term deleterious health effects of being a couch potato.
As for the living cosmos thing, the Stoics were clear that they thought of the universe as a living organism endowed with reason, the creative force behind everything, and the source of providence. That doesn't agree, in my mind, with the contemporary scientific worldview, and needs, therefore, to be rejected.
Interesting. I find myself more in sync with Anya L/she of ‘Classical Wisdom’, an eclectic “picker and chooser” from the Philosophy ‘menu’... tho if I had to pick one it would probably be that as expressed by Cicero...and really he doesn’t espouse a pure “school.”
I think a moderate syncretism is the right way to go. But one needs to be careful with going a la carte, as one risks picking and choosing things in order to rationalize one's preferences, or ending up with an incoherent jumble of mutually contradictory precepts.
Aristotle is just too linear to me, sorry Aristotle!
However, I think the Aristotlean ethics make really good text books, which is perhaps why they've been recorded and re-recorded throughout the years.
But we all know real life is hardly a clear cut between black and white. There are usually multiple inputs at play and the out come is a synthesised results of them all, but not combined linearly.
As a result, I believe that Stoicism is a more practive philosophy. However, I've not read anything Aristotle wrote and I've got problems with some of the Stoic ways of dealing with emotions haha 😂. So please Massimo point out the things I said wrong so I may sound less of an idiot the next time. 🙂
Victoria, you most certainly don't sound like an idiot! I think Aristotle is a necessary reference point because he basically articulated, in the Nicomachean Ethics, the theoretical foundations of the broader notion of virtue ethics, of which Stoicism is an instantiation.
That said, I agree that the Stoic system is more beautiful, internally coherent, and--most importantly--practical. We'll talk more about their treatment of emotions...
I read many books about Stoicism and emotions, maybe I'm reading them wong but the idea of we can rationalise ourselves out of all bad emotions didn't work all that well for me in life. I think I'm interpreting things wrong so would love to be further enlightened. 🙂
Victoria, the idea is not to rationalize, which would be to justify to ourselves regardless of whether we have good reasons or not. Rather, we should rationally engage with our emotions, on the ground that emotions have a cognitive component. We know this works because of the amount of empirical data coming out of modern research on cognitive behavioral therapy.
Nice! 👏 no I've not read your essay! I will read it tonight! 🙂
I think I've read some parts of Robertson's book but I got busy after.
I think my biggest problem was that I couldn't stick to the training. But I've just realised that sticking to the training isn't the greatest challenge either, but being able to do the training when life is good so we can start with simple things and when the troubled days come, we can be better prepared. I started getting into Stoicism when things were got really tough for me, which left little time to train!!
Victoria, yes, we should train when life is calm and easier to handle. To train in the middle of a challenge is like been thrown into a boxing ring with just the minimum instructions and told "do your best." We may not get pummeled, but we won't do too well either.
Sticking to training is, of course, challenging. Think of it as going to the gym. You need to do it properly and regularly, or you won't improve your aerobic capacity and muscle very much.
Massimo, I just read your essay. It's good, thanks!
I think I've been somewhat familiar with most of the points mentioned in the essay and I remember spending a year's train rides reading "Stoicism and emotions" haha 😂 and other books, then thinking that I knew everything about how to deal with emotional difficulties.
I will just have to go to the mental gym more!!!! 🙂
I love the table Massimo! I agree with your analysis on courage because by the somewhat linear Aristotelian definition of courage, many Nazis would be called "courageous". I like the synergy of virtues by the Stoic definition, it's a much robust system.
Victoria, glad you found the table useful! Yes, Aristotle would have to admit that there is such a thing as a courageous Nazi, which strikes my intuition, at least, as just not right. The Stoic notion of the unity of virtues makes far more sense to me.
Thanks, Massimo, for putting together this illuminating comparison! I learned particularly much from the subtleties you pointed out, e.g. regarding the different views about virtue (separate vs. unified). Not such subtle differences after all!
Brilliant, indeed! Could akrasia simply be a rudimentary form of intellectualism? In other words, it isn’t a condition, but a “not-so-well-thought” evaluation of what one should do? We know there are more sophisticated (and to an extent better and easier) ways of analyzing a situation, and better--or even the best--ways to act on such. You fixing your car engine versus a mechanic, for instance. Perhaps, the Stoics are asking one to seek more of themselves in terms of reason and knowledge, so they can see the benefit to come and therefore compel action. It is not a condition, but simply less sharp reasoning and use of one’s intellect. Akrasia can be an excuse to explain why people don’t do.
I noticed your disagreement with the “living cosmos.” I don’t know the Greek words used, but perhaps it refers to animate rather than living? All things do move. If it means some singular, or collective controlling interest, then I understand your disagreement.
Mike, yes, I like the idea of thinking of akrasia as the result of incorrect or not-good-enough thinking. After all, if someone thinks that not going to the gym is not a big deal, say, then he is obviously underestimating the long term deleterious health effects of being a couch potato.
As for the living cosmos thing, the Stoics were clear that they thought of the universe as a living organism endowed with reason, the creative force behind everything, and the source of providence. That doesn't agree, in my mind, with the contemporary scientific worldview, and needs, therefore, to be rejected.
Interesting. I find myself more in sync with Anya L/she of ‘Classical Wisdom’, an eclectic “picker and chooser” from the Philosophy ‘menu’... tho if I had to pick one it would probably be that as expressed by Cicero...and really he doesn’t espouse a pure “school.”
I think a moderate syncretism is the right way to go. But one needs to be careful with going a la carte, as one risks picking and choosing things in order to rationalize one's preferences, or ending up with an incoherent jumble of mutually contradictory precepts.
A fair point…tho for me an unlikely outcome-I like to think, anyway. :)
Aristotle is just too linear to me, sorry Aristotle!
However, I think the Aristotlean ethics make really good text books, which is perhaps why they've been recorded and re-recorded throughout the years.
But we all know real life is hardly a clear cut between black and white. There are usually multiple inputs at play and the out come is a synthesised results of them all, but not combined linearly.
As a result, I believe that Stoicism is a more practive philosophy. However, I've not read anything Aristotle wrote and I've got problems with some of the Stoic ways of dealing with emotions haha 😂. So please Massimo point out the things I said wrong so I may sound less of an idiot the next time. 🙂
Victoria, you most certainly don't sound like an idiot! I think Aristotle is a necessary reference point because he basically articulated, in the Nicomachean Ethics, the theoretical foundations of the broader notion of virtue ethics, of which Stoicism is an instantiation.
That said, I agree that the Stoic system is more beautiful, internally coherent, and--most importantly--practical. We'll talk more about their treatment of emotions...
Yay! 🙂
I read many books about Stoicism and emotions, maybe I'm reading them wong but the idea of we can rationalise ourselves out of all bad emotions didn't work all that well for me in life. I think I'm interpreting things wrong so would love to be further enlightened. 🙂
Victoria, the idea is not to rationalize, which would be to justify to ourselves regardless of whether we have good reasons or not. Rather, we should rationally engage with our emotions, on the ground that emotions have a cognitive component. We know this works because of the amount of empirical data coming out of modern research on cognitive behavioral therapy.
But of course it takes time and training for it to work, and it will always work up to a point. You may recall an essay I published here on this topic: https://figsinwinter.substack.com/p/how-to-talk-to-your-emotions.
The best book about this is: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10140570-the-philosophy-of-cognitive-behavioural-therapy
Nice! 👏 no I've not read your essay! I will read it tonight! 🙂
I think I've read some parts of Robertson's book but I got busy after.
I think my biggest problem was that I couldn't stick to the training. But I've just realised that sticking to the training isn't the greatest challenge either, but being able to do the training when life is good so we can start with simple things and when the troubled days come, we can be better prepared. I started getting into Stoicism when things were got really tough for me, which left little time to train!!
Victoria, yes, we should train when life is calm and easier to handle. To train in the middle of a challenge is like been thrown into a boxing ring with just the minimum instructions and told "do your best." We may not get pummeled, but we won't do too well either.
Sticking to training is, of course, challenging. Think of it as going to the gym. You need to do it properly and regularly, or you won't improve your aerobic capacity and muscle very much.
Massimo, I just read your essay. It's good, thanks!
I think I've been somewhat familiar with most of the points mentioned in the essay and I remember spending a year's train rides reading "Stoicism and emotions" haha 😂 and other books, then thinking that I knew everything about how to deal with emotional difficulties.
I will just have to go to the mental gym more!!!! 🙂
I love the table Massimo! I agree with your analysis on courage because by the somewhat linear Aristotelian definition of courage, many Nazis would be called "courageous". I like the synergy of virtues by the Stoic definition, it's a much robust system.
Victoria, glad you found the table useful! Yes, Aristotle would have to admit that there is such a thing as a courageous Nazi, which strikes my intuition, at least, as just not right. The Stoic notion of the unity of virtues makes far more sense to me.
Interesting--and not JUST because I didn’t happen to know the ancient Greeks had Major League Baseball!
😆
Thanks, Massimo, for putting together this illuminating comparison! I learned particularly much from the subtleties you pointed out, e.g. regarding the different views about virtue (separate vs. unified). Not such subtle differences after all!
Daniel, you are welcome! Yes, those "subtleties" aren't that subtle after all!
Brilliant!
Thank you!