Hi Massimo, thanks for this! I like a lot how you manage to update Stoicism for our changed world view, while keeping the effects on its ethics minimal.
As a side note though, I was surprised to learn about the ancient Stoics’ denial of akrasia. (can you point me to some quote?) I wonder how they would then explain the need for Marcus to write his meditations. Why would he have to admonish himself to get out of bed? Because he “forgot” about virtue? The line between talking to your emotions and overcoming akrasia seems pretty blurry here. Or is it that only sages would be free of akrasia?
A very clear conceptual map. I do agree that we have to disregard the notion that the universe itself is a sentient organism. And that it operates on cause and effect only. Some causes and effects are seemingly random and have been attributed to gods and divine providence, adequate study and scientific reflection show a rational course of causes and effects. Even miracles (things that are apparently outside the realm of natural laws and observations) have to have a cause.
However, until physics can adequately explain the "Uncaused First Cause" of Greek philosophy that set it all in motion (I.E. "the Big Bang"), I am not ready to discard the possibility that there is a supreme intelligence behind it all.
You did concede that the fine tuning of the universe to support life is a "Problem".
Thank you Massimo for your clear arguments showing how the three fields of study: physics, logic and ethics can be updated to achieve a modern Stoicism which honours the original, especially because it has inspired humans for two and a half millennia. May Seneca’s immortal words continue to provide you with inspiration. Who knows, they may also have inspired Newton to say: “If I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." We all need guides and role models to invigorate our practice of applying philosophy to everyday life.
I appreciated your thoughts about human exceptionalism providing a rationale for reducing the suffering of animals and being stewards of the environment precisely because we are the only animals that can reflect on the consequences of our actions. I look forward to how you’ll expand on this. I also found the table at the end of your article a valuable summary for your suggested updates.
Im trying to say that I think having it somehow takes away from self reliance all in effort to try reason more about the importance of proper use and achieving of non preferred indifference such as social status.
I feel pretty lucky, really I cant complain Im confident in some ‘innate’ ability and my circumstances have allowed me to live a fairly fruitful life so far. Been taught, as most I think, to always TRY to treat others as you expect to be treated, what goes around comes around - pretty well that somehow good behaviour is noticed by at least something and a possibility of rewards will follow.
So if above is valid, in a way what I trying to say, then there is alot of background conditioning that lead to patter creation to maximize rewards. Then when experiencing some initial benefit from this idea, function of providence appears more true and benefits which can be retained, to me, seem only have the ability to reinforce the validity for established patterns in judgment.
So what works for me is that when something unexpectedly pleasant happens, thank ‘god’ is often the thought, and in difficultly maintain goodwill with it so grace will follow. This perceived benefit of consideration is less religious as I experience more, but this patter of judgment is hard to get away from.
Hello Massimo, if you so fancy could you do more on providence? Somehow it feels like the idea of providence conditions and takes away from self reliance for proper reasoning about interactions of internal and external desires, and besides the habit of the mind to work less through pattern creation it is always less resistant to blame the external. Not sure about the coherence, but having such thoughts on it I am still reluctant to discard the notion.
Interesting, as always. Just finished listening into the Zoom discussion, 8-10 on 9DEC. Agree it would be nice to have Arrian’s biography on Epictetus; recently re-read his on Alexander, and Cyrus…a real loss not to have it. :) Arrian, and Xenophon are “underrated”, imo.
"The Stoics were determinists, meaning that they believed that everything is the result of cause and effect. They were also naturalists: not supernatural stuff, no miracles. Again, exactly right, on both counts. "
There is a notion in Quantum Mechanics of Quantum Indeterminancy:
"Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics. Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that
(a.) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and
(b) conversely, the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable."
If the universe is inherently random when it comes to quantum processes, then this complicates a simple, straight-forward deterministic cause-and-effect. Now, the Stoic physics (both ancient and modern) may just be saying that there are no supernatural causes at work but there could be a stochastic component to this determinism: the cause "probably" results in effect A or it could be effect B. Or, you could go the route that Bohm did which put all of the "randomness" into the initial state of the universe and the indeterminancy we observe is mostly due to ignorance of the initial conditions.
So, in light of Quantum Mechanics, how do you define "determinism" and "cause-and-effect"?
Well done. May I make a few (almost trivial) comments
The universe certainly contains consciousness, doesn't it? Or we wouldn't be discussing these things.
Is there a civilisation that has explained itself with propositional logic. Seems to me narrative comes more often (Thanks Plato and Homer)
Determinism confuses me. There seems to be too many variables to ever know what comes next. Every morning I read science fiction. Some call it a weather prediction.
Massimo, you raise the point about our relationship with other living things and the environment at large; should we be considering ourselves as stewards of the environment?
I have recently been mulling over a different approach based on self interest.
There are three three ideas that I am trying to weave together. 1. From an evolutionary perspective the "purpose" of every living things is to live long enough to pass on their genes. 2. the cradle argument and oikeiosis are reasonable descriptions of an individual's development and 3. We are social animals and have responsibilities to others. However, we also have a responsibility to ourselves and if I don't look after myself, then I am not going to be of use to others.
These seem to me to be sound naturalistic arguments for why we should take very good care of the complex ecosystems that support life on earth. Self interest is not selfish or utilitarian, it is common sense!
This is an impressive foundation for modern Stoicism. I think you are entirely correct. My only suggestion for future consideration would be to include a more thorough treatment of Stoic providence, especially the modern take on Fate. Fate is an essential part of Stoic thought, even though it has changed from "that which the gods have given" to "that which happened and now we have to deal with it." "Fate willing" still means something to me and helps me to give up the idea that I can control the outcomes of whatever I may be attempting.
Hi Massimo, thanks for this! I like a lot how you manage to update Stoicism for our changed world view, while keeping the effects on its ethics minimal.
As a side note though, I was surprised to learn about the ancient Stoics’ denial of akrasia. (can you point me to some quote?) I wonder how they would then explain the need for Marcus to write his meditations. Why would he have to admonish himself to get out of bed? Because he “forgot” about virtue? The line between talking to your emotions and overcoming akrasia seems pretty blurry here. Or is it that only sages would be free of akrasia?
An updated Stoicism for the 21st century and beyond. Very convincing. Excellent. What more can I say?
Massimo,
A very clear conceptual map. I do agree that we have to disregard the notion that the universe itself is a sentient organism. And that it operates on cause and effect only. Some causes and effects are seemingly random and have been attributed to gods and divine providence, adequate study and scientific reflection show a rational course of causes and effects. Even miracles (things that are apparently outside the realm of natural laws and observations) have to have a cause.
However, until physics can adequately explain the "Uncaused First Cause" of Greek philosophy that set it all in motion (I.E. "the Big Bang"), I am not ready to discard the possibility that there is a supreme intelligence behind it all.
You did concede that the fine tuning of the universe to support life is a "Problem".
Thank you Massimo for your clear arguments showing how the three fields of study: physics, logic and ethics can be updated to achieve a modern Stoicism which honours the original, especially because it has inspired humans for two and a half millennia. May Seneca’s immortal words continue to provide you with inspiration. Who knows, they may also have inspired Newton to say: “If I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." We all need guides and role models to invigorate our practice of applying philosophy to everyday life.
I appreciated your thoughts about human exceptionalism providing a rationale for reducing the suffering of animals and being stewards of the environment precisely because we are the only animals that can reflect on the consequences of our actions. I look forward to how you’ll expand on this. I also found the table at the end of your article a valuable summary for your suggested updates.
Im trying to say that I think having it somehow takes away from self reliance all in effort to try reason more about the importance of proper use and achieving of non preferred indifference such as social status.
I feel pretty lucky, really I cant complain Im confident in some ‘innate’ ability and my circumstances have allowed me to live a fairly fruitful life so far. Been taught, as most I think, to always TRY to treat others as you expect to be treated, what goes around comes around - pretty well that somehow good behaviour is noticed by at least something and a possibility of rewards will follow.
So if above is valid, in a way what I trying to say, then there is alot of background conditioning that lead to patter creation to maximize rewards. Then when experiencing some initial benefit from this idea, function of providence appears more true and benefits which can be retained, to me, seem only have the ability to reinforce the validity for established patterns in judgment.
So what works for me is that when something unexpectedly pleasant happens, thank ‘god’ is often the thought, and in difficultly maintain goodwill with it so grace will follow. This perceived benefit of consideration is less religious as I experience more, but this patter of judgment is hard to get away from.
It think right now best I can explain. Thank you
Hello Massimo, if you so fancy could you do more on providence? Somehow it feels like the idea of providence conditions and takes away from self reliance for proper reasoning about interactions of internal and external desires, and besides the habit of the mind to work less through pattern creation it is always less resistant to blame the external. Not sure about the coherence, but having such thoughts on it I am still reluctant to discard the notion.
Interesting, as always. Just finished listening into the Zoom discussion, 8-10 on 9DEC. Agree it would be nice to have Arrian’s biography on Epictetus; recently re-read his on Alexander, and Cyrus…a real loss not to have it. :) Arrian, and Xenophon are “underrated”, imo.
A clarification, please. You write:
"The Stoics were determinists, meaning that they believed that everything is the result of cause and effect. They were also naturalists: not supernatural stuff, no miracles. Again, exactly right, on both counts. "
There is a notion in Quantum Mechanics of Quantum Indeterminancy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
"Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics. Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that
(a.) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and
(b) conversely, the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable."
If the universe is inherently random when it comes to quantum processes, then this complicates a simple, straight-forward deterministic cause-and-effect. Now, the Stoic physics (both ancient and modern) may just be saying that there are no supernatural causes at work but there could be a stochastic component to this determinism: the cause "probably" results in effect A or it could be effect B. Or, you could go the route that Bohm did which put all of the "randomness" into the initial state of the universe and the indeterminancy we observe is mostly due to ignorance of the initial conditions.
So, in light of Quantum Mechanics, how do you define "determinism" and "cause-and-effect"?
Well done. May I make a few (almost trivial) comments
The universe certainly contains consciousness, doesn't it? Or we wouldn't be discussing these things.
Is there a civilisation that has explained itself with propositional logic. Seems to me narrative comes more often (Thanks Plato and Homer)
Determinism confuses me. There seems to be too many variables to ever know what comes next. Every morning I read science fiction. Some call it a weather prediction.
Massimo, you raise the point about our relationship with other living things and the environment at large; should we be considering ourselves as stewards of the environment?
I have recently been mulling over a different approach based on self interest.
There are three three ideas that I am trying to weave together. 1. From an evolutionary perspective the "purpose" of every living things is to live long enough to pass on their genes. 2. the cradle argument and oikeiosis are reasonable descriptions of an individual's development and 3. We are social animals and have responsibilities to others. However, we also have a responsibility to ourselves and if I don't look after myself, then I am not going to be of use to others.
These seem to me to be sound naturalistic arguments for why we should take very good care of the complex ecosystems that support life on earth. Self interest is not selfish or utilitarian, it is common sense!
Predecessor footsteps worth retracing--and a retracer worth reading. Thanks, massimo.
This is an impressive foundation for modern Stoicism. I think you are entirely correct. My only suggestion for future consideration would be to include a more thorough treatment of Stoic providence, especially the modern take on Fate. Fate is an essential part of Stoic thought, even though it has changed from "that which the gods have given" to "that which happened and now we have to deal with it." "Fate willing" still means something to me and helps me to give up the idea that I can control the outcomes of whatever I may be attempting.