Messi is beautiful with the ball, which is a joy to watch as a sum of everything that happened up to that moment. Natural talent, hard work, chance of circumstances for his development, and not being afraid of the moment.
In sports there seems to be a kind of providence, that I think comes from the inability to measure willpower and luck (sum of everyone’s action).
What of potential for beauty? Is there such a thing?
I think that moral actions can lead to physical representations of the beautiful.
I still think you're wrong about what Beauty is. But we argued about that before. I do appreciate that the Stoic notion of an intelligent design was wrong. I love reading your philosophical essays. But I wouldn't want to learn art or music in your class.
Ciao, Massimo. I agree that there is no link between physical and moral beauty, but wouldn't be Stoic to understand that if our actions are beauty we are also (not-physically) beauty? If our action are according to our nature, therefore we are beauty.
Hi Massimo! I'm going to play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate:
1. Did the Stoics actually equate ethical and aesthetic value? Is there a passage to that effect?
2. Regarding the "attractiveness halo effect," I think the Stoics do incorporate such a thing. Both Chrysippus and Epictetus talk about the so-called "persuasiveness of things" (αἱ τῶν πραγμάτων πιθανότητες), a persuasiveness which can lure us astray. Since the lure of pleasure falls in there, I wouldn't be surprised if physical beauty fell under that category, too. See the passages collected together in Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF) III.228–236. E.g. the temptations presented by an beautifiul man or woman in Epictetus, Discourse, II.18.15-18. Likewise, gold is beautiful (καλόν, Epictetus, Discourse, I.1.5) but we should not be seduced by the "persuasiveness of things" into concluding that physical beauty is a genuine good.
Hej Massimo, Thank you so much for this. As so often, you put order and sense into the ideas that are whirling round in my head. To be honest, I couldn't face joining Stoicon this year because the theme seemed too whacky. I know! I know! I should not have been prejudiced and should instead have been open minded, but it seemed to me to be a contrived diversion from what is really important in practicing Stoicism and the time I have left of life is precious.
Messi is beautiful with the ball, which is a joy to watch as a sum of everything that happened up to that moment. Natural talent, hard work, chance of circumstances for his development, and not being afraid of the moment.
In sports there seems to be a kind of providence, that I think comes from the inability to measure willpower and luck (sum of everyone’s action).
What of potential for beauty? Is there such a thing?
I think that moral actions can lead to physical representations of the beautiful.
I still think you're wrong about what Beauty is. But we argued about that before. I do appreciate that the Stoic notion of an intelligent design was wrong. I love reading your philosophical essays. But I wouldn't want to learn art or music in your class.
Ciao, Massimo. I agree that there is no link between physical and moral beauty, but wouldn't be Stoic to understand that if our actions are beauty we are also (not-physically) beauty? If our action are according to our nature, therefore we are beauty.
Hi Massimo! I'm going to play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate:
1. Did the Stoics actually equate ethical and aesthetic value? Is there a passage to that effect?
2. Regarding the "attractiveness halo effect," I think the Stoics do incorporate such a thing. Both Chrysippus and Epictetus talk about the so-called "persuasiveness of things" (αἱ τῶν πραγμάτων πιθανότητες), a persuasiveness which can lure us astray. Since the lure of pleasure falls in there, I wouldn't be surprised if physical beauty fell under that category, too. See the passages collected together in Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF) III.228–236. E.g. the temptations presented by an beautifiul man or woman in Epictetus, Discourse, II.18.15-18. Likewise, gold is beautiful (καλόν, Epictetus, Discourse, I.1.5) but we should not be seduced by the "persuasiveness of things" into concluding that physical beauty is a genuine good.
Brian J.
Hej Massimo, Thank you so much for this. As so often, you put order and sense into the ideas that are whirling round in my head. To be honest, I couldn't face joining Stoicon this year because the theme seemed too whacky. I know! I know! I should not have been prejudiced and should instead have been open minded, but it seemed to me to be a contrived diversion from what is really important in practicing Stoicism and the time I have left of life is precious.
I do feel a bit less daft when I read your work. Thank you for your thoughtful and inspiring views.
G’day
“But the modern scientific worldview does not appear to be compatible with the Stoic notion of a living cosmos.”
So you think Iain McGilchrist (The Matter With Things) has got it wrongly? As well as parts of Buddhism?
To add to the confusion: I see myself as a Buddhist / Taoist / Stoic (not always in that order) 😀.