Another great talk! Thanks for including the q&a this time, I usually can’t make these events live, so the full session recording is appreciated! Can always learn a lot from other people’s questions…
I'm going to sound like a snarky, whiny, juvenile leftist here (tho in reality, I am very, very far removed from being a leftist, take my word for it), but seriously, if Seneca counsels people to put on a happy face at the murder of their children, motherfuck Seneca. I understand his point about those who routinely find themselves in the presence of 'kings' having to train themselves to endure all sorts of bullshit, but is there no point at which he is willing to draw the line? I would rather die than endure the kind of humiliation Seneca expects me to smile at. And if he's unwilling (or perhaps worse, unimaginative) enough to criticize the very system (kings, royals, nobility etc) that forces men from time to time to be humiliated in such manner, then he is the moral inferior of, roughly, every communist to have ever lived. (And I do not say that lightly.)
Yes, they seem to all work together. I first considered the virtue of wisdom as related to thought, and justice as related to behavior, for instance. But as I thought more, I saw that you can't have right behavior without right thought. Courage and temperance are both behavioral and how we think, and depend on the wisdom we bring to them.
36 min in and all they’ve done is to discuss whether stoicism is relevant to modern day life. I wanted to just learn more about it, not whether the elite think I should be learning about it or not.
19:15 I think the problem is that (outside of Stoic and/or positive psychology circles) we don't often use language to distinguish happiness from true-happiness. Most research asks how happy a person is, in one form or another, but it rarely invites them to reflect if they actually have good reasons to be happy. It makes sense that some forms of research would have to operationalize "happiness" to a simple mood/affective state - I'm not suggesting that such methods can't produce useful knowledge; however, I think we should have more self-respect and prioritize having good reasons to be happy rather than happiness itself.
I'm sympathetic to the question. I myself am a clinician so I habitually ask, "what's the evidence base for this?" Medicine has had many well-reasoned treatments/interventions that failed to produce real outcomes once subjected to rigorous study. But if we accept the premise that most people (ourselves included) are ignorant and/or confused about what is actually good much of the time, we shouldn't adopt behaviors simply because it makes most people happy.
It would be interesting if he had a conversation with Prof. B Rahula (Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula). He makes a convincing argument that Early Buddhism put significant emphasis on practicality in everyday people's life, but various historical factors have led to its relative neglect.
Very articulately explained!! Two thumbs up for the presenter. It would have been great to get the sources, both primary and secondary, in case any one wanted to delve deeper into it.
I agree it may take months or years to show progress externally ie until others notice. BUT: internally, Stoic wisdom works instantly. I guess Seneca himself says sth like "philosophy is the best of remedies because it works immediately and has no side effects".
As to the creation of the peacock in order to appreciate the beauty of the male's tail (and possibly the dance for a mate), I lean towards it being a visual way to instill awe in the observer. Using a visual method to instill a feeling is an easy way to give example of how being virtuous would instill awe in others who witness your virtuosity. The awe of one who witnesses someone courageously rescuing another, as an example. Not to be in awe of another which inflates the ego of the seen, but as a way to entice the witness to take on the building of their own virtues. The gods placing beauty within the world evokes awe, "a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder." -Oxford Dictionary
Brilliant.....many thanks for sharing this video....that man Epictetus is amazing..... I really appreciate that fundamental rule.....thanks for spreading the good word....
I completed all 52 weeks of exercises in Massimo's Handbook for a new Stoic, inspired by Ben Franklin who said in his autobiography that he had done something similar over a year period. I found the exercises an excellent way of examining myself and learning a new way to address thoughts, actions, judgements, working with others, my roles, etc. It was extremely helpful to get to know myself better, pick up new perspectives or ways of dealing with every day issues. Afterwards though, putting the weeks together and attempting to be more concise going forward was difficult. At the end of the book is advised to work on the exercises that most appealed or I felt I needed the most work. However, I enjoyed each of the exercises and was only able to boil them down to 30 or 40. Still a daunting task to use in a weekly period. Even Ben Franklin became overwhelmed by philosophy and why he developed his own 13 virtues to use weekly. Overall, though I still try to work on these daily or weekly. Understanding more about Stoicism from these exercises, I was compelled to go back and read through Epictetus Discourses, reading one discourse each night which I've also found helpful. Reading them again with this new understanding what he says is so much more clear now. I also journal nightly using similar questions discussed here, though I found Epictetus listed different questions to ask, although somewhat similar, has also been very helpful. After a while, the meaning of "what went well" or "what didn't go well" takes on a deeper reflection and definition, starting initially from what I did physically that day to reflecting on what I did in relation to my character (thoughts, perspective, reactions, judgements, desires/aversions, actions, intentions, etc). Aversion was a big one and internalizing that has been immensely helpful with reducing anxiety, anger and helpful to approach almost anything much more calmly. Nice discussion thanks for putting this out here!
For those speculating, Massimo does not appear to have changed his antipathy towards the Stoics. He gets this right: quoting Aistė Čelkytė: "So beauty was understood by the Stoics as symmetria, which means a combination of two things, harmony of parts with each other and functional integration of those parts within the whole." Primarily because he is quoting somebody else, then continues on a discussion of art, peacock tails, and the perceived elegance of scientific formula" However entirely ignores the understanding of this idea of beauty as the base, proportionate, measured, balanced, coherent structure from which living things arise, physically from the recombination of base minerals into more complex and intricate structures. It proceeds throughs from seed, through sexual reproduction, which he bizarrely places in contrast to the algorithmic methodical Nature of evolution and inexplicably drags the Christians into the discussion. "For the Stoics beauty is a property built into the world, as we said, from an emotional perspective. (for Massimo) It's not a property built into the world, and it's a property relative to a particular type of biological beings. " The first is false; it is not emotional; it is Pythagorean. The second is his Neo-Cartesian human exceptionalism (again). The Stoics would say the beauty, harmony, proportion, measure, balance, and coherence comes first, and we come to appreciate it. How he is going to square the virtue of a human being beautiful, proportionate, measured, balanced, and coherent in Stoic thinking, having chucked out the idea of beauty as guff, I cannot imagine. “For you yourself are neither flesh nor hair, but prohairesis and if you render that beautiful, then you yourself will be beautiful.” Discourse 3.1.40 Goodness and beauty are synonymous in Stoicism, pretty much. Oti monon to kalon agathon. ὅτι μόνον τὸ καλὸν ἀγαθόν Only what is beautiful is good. There are broadly four ideas of the good in Stoicism. 1) Cosmic harmony, order, and beauty; 2) Life in accordance with Nature, the cosmos, the whole. 3) Virtue as excellence of character, a soul in accord with itself and the right reason. 4) Acting unselfishly to the benefit of the common good, humanity as a single community, Cosmopolis They are all inter-entailing. .unified. They are all the same idea variously expressed precisely: wholeness, harmony, sympathy, and the intricate and intimate connection between all things and equilibrium between them. Going forward into a New Stoicism without referencing this fundamental aspect thinking of the Greeks, Socrates, Zeno, Chrysippus, Musonius, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus is going to be problematic
