Australian poet, musician, philosopher and co-founder of The Walled Garden Philosophical Society, now residing in Orange County in California, USA.
Personal Website: simonjedrew.com The Walled Garden Philosophical Society: thewalledgarden.com Get mentored by Simon: thewalledgarden.com/mentoring Visit Simon's Grove in The Walled Garden: thewalledgarden.com/thesanctuary
I don't know how I'm one of the only comments on this, but thank you for this. Rob is one of my heroes, and this was really insightful. All the best, dude.
Indiana jones was looking for the Ark of the Covenant that contained manna which appeared every morning in the desert and tasted like anything you wanted.
Dr. Ammon Hillman is your guy. Expert in all things drugs in Ancient Greece, 1st century, Jesus ect... If you're not already familiar with his work, hes a must guest and would amaze you're audience. Dr. Ammon Hillman
It seems like the atheist Stoic perspective is a bit like some folks - particularly in the West - watering down Buddhism to a "one-fold path". No "right speech". No "right action". No "right livelihood". We just want the parts (mindfulness") that gives us less stress and lowers our blood pressure. It is very much a consumerist approach. There is so much great metaphysic work out there that might help Stoicism reframe "logos" in the (post) modern world. Think Philip Goff's Cosmopsychism or John Leslie's pantheism or any number of process-relational philosophies - all of which claim like Stoicism that Heraclitus is their ancestor. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Thanks for this video Simon. I have just started Seneca’s “Morals of a Happy Life”, and a few chapters in I felt that having some information and background on the life that Seneca had lead would be beneficial. This was perfect.
Have been a student of Professor Joe's since the mid 70s and no one does international affairs better by far Australian has been lessed he came and stayed
Great talk. Loved it. Just an argument to put forward. If the position is women and men are the same. Therefore we want to see more women as philosophers. If women and men are the same then why would it matter if the philosophers were male. Since they are the same. But if they are not the same only then do we need specific female philosophers. And if they are different then it’s plausible that men are better equipped at it. You can’t be exactly the same and say that the male philosopher doesn’t represent the female.
Thanks for your comment! I think there is certainly a way in which we trap ourselves when thinking about all men and women as "the same" or "different". Of course, the truth is more nuanced. We're all incredibly alike and incredibly different in certain areas. I personally believe that the whole conversation around gender gets a little tedious. If you're a philosopher and you have something to say, the question of whether or not you should say it, or where you should say it, or to whom you should say it, or the value of what you say, will not be determined or discerned by way of your gender.
Dirk mentioned that we need to understand the physic from which the dichotomy of control arises, but doesn't explain the physic. He then goes on to talk about trichotomy of control. Then he compares that Aristotle thinks we need good looks to be happy, and the Stoics called it the preferred indifferent, how is that the same direction? Stoics emphasize that true happiness comes from cultivating virtues and maintaining inner harmony, irrespective of external circumstances. And the analogy about driving a car is the same as virtue, is a big joke, it oversimplifies the concept of virtue. Virtue involves a continuous and reflective engagement with ethical principles, personal growth, and a commitment to moral excellence that goes beyond the mechanical adherence to rules.
I am afraid that in this video you became totally UN-STOIC here. This is not the Stoic stance of acceptance and resilience. Youth is often foolish and impulsive. Now, impulse is not a stoic virtue. Also, since you ask, here is my answer: yes, when I was young I had my own "zest for life" as you say. But then I broke my face many times again and again. I made mistakes and I tried to correct them and again I tried to reach my goals. I did succeed in some of them. I did fail in others. However Stoicism has taught me to accept life, to conform and to compromise. What you suggest now, is totally different and un-stoic. No, the difference between the "pure" zest of youth and the "tamed" life-stance of mature people is that the latter THINK much more before acting. And I know that Seneca and Epictetus would agree with me on that.
And I would agree with you, too, friend. Certainly, as life goes on, we tame our more foolish desires and behaviours in favour of a more steadfast and rational approach. In my younger years (though, I did record this episode perhaps 5 years ago), I was less capable of sharing these ideas with clarity and adherence to the philosophy's tenants. Nevertheless, I believe that Seneca's point is that we should not let life beat the unique and powerful life-force out of us. We each have a unique spark and a personhood that makes us who we are. We should not lose sight of this. Energy and unique personality traits shone wisely out into the world is good for all, as far as I can tell, so far as it doesn't go to excess, and thus vice.
Papal bull 1492,1493, 1452,1453 authorized the colonial powers to CONQUER, CONVERT and ENSLAVE the world. Every Christian is a slave . Same with every abrahamic religion, the believers.
Oh Yes! We are enslaved by the power of even our most trivial habits such as texting on f/b during our trip in the subway. Some of these habits are indifferent some are really bad and we have to keep an eye on them.
Another GREAT and so much helpful video ! Choose the right thing and "Become addicted to the right feeling" ... (become a "slave" of the right "passions" ). And above all I love the example with your podcast ! Thank you one more time for this... Here, I think, is one big difference between the two Schools: the Stoics and the Epicureans. The latter would probably suggest, generally, to have some discipline so that we can enjoy better our lives. But since their goal is not "virtue" but satisfaction rather) they have not analyzed this matter in so much depth as the Stoics have done. And therefore they have no practical advice to offer besides this general rule : "IF IT PLEASES ME IT IS GOOD IF NOT, IT IS BAD. Well, this is not what I am looking for. Well, that's what I think for the moment ... would do you think?
I think you're right, friend, though I'm no expert on Epicureanism. I know it's a more subtle difference. The Stoic philosophy, however, is an excellent catalyst for a life of meaning aimed at virtue.
Interesting point. I've studied Laozi, but not Shankara. I will say, the commonalities between Western and Eastern philosophies are stunning. Wisdom is not locational.
