Personally, I find the stoic view on life to be extremely appealing. A view, as Dr. J made sure to clarify, that aims not necessarily at increasing pleasure, but at decreasing pain.
How good does that sound?!
Imagine never having to having to worry about your parents dying, your siblings, or your loved ones.
Imagine never having to feel loneliness, hatred, or sadness.
Imagine never entering in a conflict needing resolution, because … well simply because there would be no need to, for all things happen for a reason, and we should let them proceed as they are destined to. How great would it be then huh, life without pain?
But … is that truly all that happiness requires? No pain? What else does stoicism offer? Truth is, it offers nothing else.
Stoics learn to live life without any pain, but this has some side effects. Quoting a fellow classmate, stoicism in a way turns individuals into sociopaths (Thomas Cull). This means that they act contrary to social norms, and social expectations. In short, they become anti-social. This makes them outcasts and separates them from the rest of the community. Does anything pop out to you here? If not, we will return to this question in a little while.
From our discussion in class, we expanded on the fact that Stoics are living a life that abides by nature. This led us into a discussion about what a homeless man would do were he a Stoic. Taking this, (the fact that Stoics live lives according to laws of nature), and knowing what we know about humans forming communities (humans, like most every other mammals, form communities in which they live. It is a survival technique. It is natural.), let us then go back to the question above. How would a Stoic reconcile the idea of living according to nature with the fact that doing will lead them into the exact opposite?
The entire theory seems contradictory, down to its very core. Stoics believe in free will, while believing in destiny and faith? How exactly is this suppose to work. Taking the example of train heading towards the five children playing on the track (let us take out the adults on the other side, for I do not believe it will change a Stoic’s response … If you disagree please let me know how you think it might change). We agreed in class that the Stoic would probably say that these children are destined to die, and that we should let nature take its course. Well, where is the free will in this scenario? And if it was destined to have that train come down on the children, couldn’t we also argue that the fact that he/she was there at scene was also destined, because he/she was supposed to do something? How do you think stoics would respond to this?
I believe the stoic's take on living in accordance with nature means to accept all that nature brings us. Death comes very naturally, and making ourselves numb to its affects will make our lives easier. It does seem contradictory if we look at our emotions as something that we cannot help but feel. Stoics, however, believe that we should use reason to overcome these feelings, so that through reason we can find happiness.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that I agree with this! Humans, in my opinion, are capable of having emotion because they are meant to be sympathetic. Our intelligence allows us to decide what is right and good, but our emotions motivate us to act on our thoughts.
Stoics use the theory of natural law to reflect on human behavior, as many philosophers have done in the past. This concept of natural law seems to equate universal nature with universal reason. Therefore, to command people to live in accordance with nature, they were commanding them to live in accordance with reason. Stoics believe there is an inherent order in the world which is available to humanity through the use of reason. From here, it can be argued that any reflection on natural law is merely a variation of this concept. Therefore, there is an order to nature which mandates our methods of existence.
ReplyDeleteThus, the distinction between free will and mandated action seems to parallel the religious theories of free will and predestination. Where Calvinism dealt with the question of the control G-d exercises of the world, Stoics deal with the control Nature exercises.
Therefore, though the amount of life would be increased by flipping a switch - in doing so, you are distorting the natural order of events that would occur had you not been present.
Your question regarding happiness (is that all it requires, no pain?) is intriguing. It's hard to argue that we would be unhappy beings without pain, as it seems reasonable (keyword) to think that without pain, we are not unhappy. But are we happy as a default? I personally do not think so, for without passions how are we supposed to take advantage of the mental capacities we have developed?
ReplyDeleteI can argue all day that passions make me a happier person, however I cannot argue that they also cause pain as well. As such, I believe that living a passionate life is a gamble--one that can deliver enormous pain. Living life alternately can give us assured painlessness, but at the expense of passions and pleasures. Pick your poison.
Thanks Jade,
ReplyDeleteI found your last paragraph very interesting.
Victoria,
Thank you for your reply. I wanted to touch on this statement: "Therefore, though the amount of life would be increased by flipping a switch - in doing so, you are distorting the natural order of events that would occur had you not been present." Having gone through the symposium, i understand exactly what you are trying to say here. But tell me, if we believe that Nature has a certain order to it, and that destiny should happen as it is suppose to, then could we not argue that if those children on the train were meant to die, that you in fact would not be present. Doesn't the fact that you "were" present and "could" change the circumstance mean in a way that you were meant to be there, to do exactly that? This question is beginning to lean a little too much on the religious side, so i feel it is important to mention that the only topic on the table here is not religion, but the power Stoics give to Nature.
Rush,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment!
"It's hard to argue that we would be unhappy beings without pain, as it seems reasonable (keyword) to think that without pain, we are not unhappy. But are we happy as a default?" obviously from my post I completely share your concern. and I also wanted to push this discussion a bit further.
Given that Stoics' primary aim is not really pleasure, it might be easier for them to argue that the absence of pain in their lives might be enough for a happy life, but maybe not a pleasurable one (if you disagree please feel free to comment as to how you see things). In that case, my next comment would mostly apply to Epicureans, whose sole purpose to reduce pain is to increase pleasure. How can they fully comprehend the pleasure in "love" for example, if they have never felt "hatred"? or "friendship" when you have never experienced "animosity"?
Which is why I wonder if indeed you CAN "pick your poison". is there really choice in it? in order to have one and to fully understand it, must you not also have the other?
Living life as a stoic would be boring to me. It seems as if likfe as a stoic would be passionless. I wouldn’t like to go through life without developing strong feelings for something or someone. Loneliness, hatred, and sadness seem terrible but experiencing those feelings are the risks one takes when trying to achieve companionship, love, and happiness. If I had a wife and she died, I would mourn because I had passion for that person. I would not treat her death as if I lost my watch or spilt milk without expressing any strong feelings. Life without pain may sound nice but you would be sacrificing the passions you have for what you do, things you have, and the people you know so that you wouldn’t feel that pain.
ReplyDeleteIn the train scenario I believe that the stoic would not involve themselves whatsoever. They would probably make the conscious decision to do nothing realizing that it separates them from the most amount of pain in that situation. Not because it leads to a better result but just because it would make a stoic feel as if they weren’t involved.