commentsSept12

Be respectful, kind, appropriate. Jacques 8/31
Jacques will come empty this document out once in a while, likely right at the start of class. 8/31
As I continue to read the class materials, it is growing evident that the Stoics carry some very passive tendencies. Epictetus stresses that we must surrender control to uncontrollable forces. In doing so, however, Epictetus’ stoic principles take on a reactive – not proactive – approach to sculpting one's life. I cannot align myself with this as so much in life is within our hands: opportunities can be created, favorable situations can be made more likely with proper preparation, etc. Charlie W 9/7

This reactive nature is something I think Epictetus would agree with, but question whether or not those favorable situations are desires that might lead to disappointment rather than happiness. If you don’t ask for much (or anything), “getting what you want” is trivial. Therein may be some of why people think stoicism is robotic: they can’t imagine not wanting things or asking for them. Hunter A. 9/7

I liked the part of The Enchiridion that spoke about how we should digest theorems rather than talking about them with other people just like how a sheep should digest grass and make it into wool instead of vomiting it up for the farmers to show that they ate it. Sometimes I get too attached to making others listen to me talk about theorems rather than digesting and putting them into practice myself. Juliana T 9/7

I agree with Juliana. I think it is very valuable to work things out within yourself before you bring other people into the equation. I often find that the more I talk about things sometimes the less I understand them. I am making noise to show some type of understanding. However, when I take time to cultivate ideas within me, I tend to have a much better understanding of the concept in general. Will 9/7
I appreciate the through-line of focus on the self. Some of the texts we have read express how stoics should not be concerned with reputation or proving themselves to others. So much of our modern times is broiled in trying to look good, from professional interactions to first dates. Cayden 9/9

This is my first post here, I have been unable to get the UVM wifi until today. I would like to briefly discuss objectivity. In my opinion certain things are just better than others, for example being in jail is worse than being enrolled at UVM. Maybe this is just my preference, but I don’t think happiness entirely mental like the stoics do? I think there are decisions that can lead you to be happy, like enrolling in school, and to have a purpose to learn every day, versus murdering someone and ending up in jail. I personally would be unable to say that both options are equally indifferent, and that I could be happy either way. I have a problem where I spiral, I’ll make a mistake or get a result I dislike, and for hours, I will think about everything I could have done better. To quote the terms I used in class today, my gut reaction, is to criticize myself, maybe if I employed stoic rationality, I would be able to justify to myself that everything is fate, or fortune, but I don’t think that is true. I believe that I am in control of my life, and every decision I make changes my life for better or for worse. This can be a heavy burden to carry but I crave meaning, purpose and agency, if I believed everything was fate and the same, how would I get out of bed In the morning, and would I be any worse if I didn’t? Nick 9/7

Animals are befitting.

Humans are different from animals because humans are rational, and animals are not rational.

Humans should act in a way that is befitting.

Therefore, humans should neglect their ration.

This is where I was getting stuck in class today. My conclusion is wrong, according to the Stoic. I think my mistake is assuming that the natural world, that humans should align themselves with, is not rational, when really it is. But wouldn’t this mean that animals are rational? I remember this getting more cleared up in class, but now I can’t remember how. -Jack 9/7

It definitely is hard to sort out the meaning when the text uses subjective words like 'befitting', and then defines them even more vaguely. I also wasn't sure whether it meant that all actions animals/plants do are befitting, or just that they are capable of befitting actions.
Either way, the animals' lack of rationality is what makes their actions befitting; but humans do have rationality which means we have a choice, so to neglect rationality and act like an animal would not be befitting. Raphael 9/7
I think that makes sense to me. Thanks! Jack 9/8

I wrote my letter to a classmate today. I was thinking of a few different topics to write about, because in class on Tuesday, we had a lot of good and interesting conversations. One topic that stood out to me the most was the idea that stoicism means living life through the world. But to me, this idea is neglecting the fact of morals and ethics, which is very important in the idea of stoicism. I was writing my letter explaining that definition of stoicism and altering to fit what stoicism means to me. Emily S. 9/8
After class I find myself struggling to grapple with this idea of befitting ations. I don’t understand how all animals and plants do is befitting actions but that doesn’t make them stoic sages. It seems like, based on what I understand about stoicism, being able to explain why you did an action shouldn’t be as important as if an action is virtuous/befitting. I would be more inclined to agree with this idea if it were not for the fact that a stoic sage doesn’t even need to be able to rationalize their action in the moment. If a sage doesn’t know why their action is right and an animal doesn't, how can we say that one is better than the other? Eamon 9/8
I think maybe an aspect of this conversation that has been missing is the concept of non-duality. Non-duality or non-dualism is the idea that there is a single infinite and indivisible reality whose nature is total consciousness. Nonduality seems to explain the stoics indifference to things like murder, rape, or other environmental atrocities because nonduality means that there is no “Good” or “Evil” and no “self” and “other.” These terms arise from a perceived separation of things into distinct entities, separate from one another. So, what I’m saying is, there isn’t really such a thing as “evil.” People who do “bad things” that we label as evil, act in this way out of ignorance, fear, and lack of consciousness. This means that in their minds they believe they are making a good or worthy decision by harming another person, most likely because they believe that that person is either not human (for instance racial “othering”) or because they believe that the person they are attacking is attacking or threatening to them in some way and therefore deserves to be attacked. If we recognize that these people we name “murders, rapists, terrorists...etc.” are just human beings who believe they are doing the “right thing” but in fact lack the awareness to know that their actions are “wrong” we can then realize that these people are not different from us. Everyone, even you and me, act out of fear, ignorance, and unconsciousness, and we have no choice in the matter (for the most part). We all have limitations in our ability to see Truth. What do I mean by Truth. I mean the ability to see that there is no distinction between ourselves and others. I believe a true Stoic Sage treats everyone as they would themselves. If we saw everyone and everything as ourselves there would be no violence. Afterall why would someone knowingly hurt themself. The point is, everyone who isn’t a stoic sage does harm even though they wholly believe we are doing good. By recognizing this, we can see that there is no real difference among human beings. We are all just different sides of the same coin. When we see that everyone and everything is essentially the same being, we realize that nothing exists at all. So in reality when people commit violent acts, no one is really being harmed. That is why, I think, Stoics are indifferent to things like rape, and murder, and why it is simultaneously true that there are no befitting acts, and all acts are befitting. Juliana 9/8

While I do think that non-dualism criticizes a “good/evil” morality and that seems to be a critical part of stoic ethics, I’m less convinced by the pan-psychism part of this claim, as well as by the purity of the indifference claim. People hurt themselves and others intentionally all the time: there doesn’t seem to be any basis for saying that violence would stop if we were all one in that way, which seems to be something epictetus observes in talking about the “Price of tranquility” in 12. A person could work themselves to death rather than be happy, and nobody else seems to be making them do it, but rather it is their own choices that seem to be leading them to do it. Likewise, when someone injures the stoic, “the price of tranquility” is allowing the injury without complaint because conflict would lead to unhappiness. To add to this, though, there is more I think to stoicism than indifference to injury or death. Enchiridion 10 says “with every accident, ask yourself what abilities you have for making a proper use of it,” and then lays out some ways in which to respond to various things. In seeking wisdom to avoid unhappiness, it does seem to me as though the teaching of stoicism

Last class we talked a lot about what it means to be performing “befitting” actions and the stoic sage. A stoic sage is described as perfectly virtuous as well as only ever performing befitting actions. Stoics define a "befitting" action as an action which, once done, is capable of having a well-reasoned justification. I can’t wrap my head around that because anyone is able to justify anything and everything, but at the same time can’t be considered stoic. I also can’t wrap my head around the fact that stoics just act without reason and that whatever the result (good or bad) it does not matter which is what defines them, yet how can they say they live with no motivations behind actions while also being able to justify those actions. Everything contradicts itself and stoicism makes my brain spin : ) Emily M. 9/8

I agree that there are many confusing aspects of stoicism, it's easier for me to think about how befitting actions are rational. It's true that anyone can justify anything they choose to do but this justification may not be rational. What I really don’t understand is how anything a sage does is virtuous rational or not, but anything you and I do is viscous no matter what. I get that the sage is like God and we cannot become closer to being like them but what is the point of stoicism then if everything that I do is vicious? Sofia 9/9

Enchiridion by Epictetus-in my opinion, after reading number one, I honestly don’t think that anyone could live by these demands on the human experience-in other words, these guys are capping. He/she (I’m not sure which, or either) says “If you suppose that only to be your own which is your own and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you”, but what if your dog goes missing, and you see another person walking it down the street, are you really supposed to just not say anything?? Like that’s your dog! You can’t just walk by. I would say that person is restraining you in terms of happiness! I’m definitely a little skeptical, but I did just enter class last Friday so let me know if I’m tripping. I guess I’m just wondering what you would do in that situation, or in any situation of thievery? As a stoic, are you allowed to step into the inevitable, I.e. saying something to the dog thief, or what! Julia G. 9/8

Hi Julia, I kinda agree with your idea on the first part of the Enchiridion when they talk about this idea of not making your problems other people's problems. It seems that those stoics were more involved in the individual self-help and not the collective community aspect of it. While reading on with the Enchiridion I noticed specific themes and topics that were referenced with each number. Reading on, the beginning text seemed to be very “Ten Commandmenty”. There was a passage about lamenting, not being jealous of neighbors, stuff like that. Obviously, it's an ancient text and it was probably in its time a great mindset, however now in modern times some passages don’t make sense now and its tough to relate to Evan R9/9

After finishing up the letters by Seneca and Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations for the week one of my biggest questions surrounding the Stoic “ideal” is the gendered notion that surrounds it. The biggest question I have going into this next class is could you be a practicing Stoic if you were a woman within greco-roman society? The primary reason I ask this is initially brought up in Marcus Aurelius’ Mediations when he states that women generally are more led by their desires than men, leading to any offence done by a man uncontrolled of his desire to appear “womanish” to him. Running actions by your emotions is chosen to be a more blamable offence than anger, a realm generally connotated to men. So even in Stoic philosophy the stratification of gender remains the same, at least in quotations such as this. Cal 9/9
Cal, I think that Stoicism is not gendered. While it may have been at the time, I think the self control and detachment required has nothing to do with gender or identity. It is something within the mind. While I can’t speak for their thoughts at the time, the modern lens I view Stoicism through right now makes me believe that there is nothing that would make Stoicism gender dependent. While maybe they wouldn’t have been accepted as leading Stoic philosophers, I don’t know why the philosophy would care about gender at all. In fact, I think that would contradict the basic beliefs of Stoicism. Will 9/9
I had a small break way after class thinking about the Epictetus quote. Targets don’t exist for you to hit or miss, they exist for you to shoot at them. Good and Evil don't exist for you to clear fit into one category, Evil exists so you can shoot for good, as a stoic, the results don’t matter. Nick Nestro 9/9/21
In class on Thursday, we were talking about evil, and what classifies something as evil or not. My first thought was if something was done with intention or not, being that purpose matters when defining an action as evil. But then I got to thinking, are there ever justified acts of evil? That being if something is done for someone as a punishment for their actions, such as them being evil, would the person in charge of the punishment be evil in turn? This is an interesting thought I had, because it seems as if it is a cycle of questioning what is evil and if someone is evil for doing something to someone that possibly did an evil action. I am going to keep thinking about what evil means and entails. Emily S. 9/12
After diving into more of Seneca’s Epistles, one thing that had clearly stuck with me is the distinction between perception and reality, and their role in Stoicism. I’ve realized that many people unknowingly describe problems that are not truly problems. They are perceived issues that have yet to happen. These perceptions are not reality, and only prepares us for the worst, rather than believing in what we prefer to happen. Instead of worrying about what may or may not happen in the future, the Stoic embraces the obstacle that lies in the present. Luke J 9/13
Throughout my readings over the new material for this week, it has become apparent that impressions, or feelings a Stoic may have about the world and actions around themselves come in a multitude of form, including those that seem right and are to those who seem wrong but are right. Further, I find it interesting that this is seen to be an individualistic activity, as proposed initially by Seneca. That at least for me brings back up a question I had asked myself a few weeks ago in regards to what is defined explicitly a good impression and how is this checked by your own ideas and those of other Stoics that may be more sage-like than you? Is there a universal preference among Stoics or is it entirely based on the individual’s impression of their own philosophy? And if it is based on this individual impression, how can anything a sage does be considered the best option?

From the reading I’ve done about impressions, it seems to me like the stoics say that our impressions of the world are like our soul revealing itself. To me this means that when we experience an impression, it’s involuntary, but it’s our soul actually revealing something to us about itself. So, through our impressions we actually learn about ourselves, not the world. I think that this also makes sense considering that our senses can’t give us an accurate depiction of what the real world looks like. It’s just a representation. So essentially, everything we perceive is created in our own minds. For instance, if someone were to see two people having a heated discussion, they may have the impression, wow, they’re really passionate about that topic. But someone else might have the impression, wow they must really hate each other. And what’s the difference between the two impressions? The difference is the individual who experiences the impression. Maybe the person who thought that the people were very passionately talking about something they love, also communicates in a similar way him or herself. Basically, my theory is that people’s impressions about the world reflect who they are as people. Juliana 9/14

The definition of “befitting” that makes sense to me is aligning oneself perfectly with the natural world. Marcus Aurelius writes that as non-sages, we have souls that are like tumors on the natural world. Any desire in the soul that is not in perfect accordance with nature adds to this tumor. What is native to the soul, and does not obstruct the natural world, is rationality. Therefore, to be befitting is to be rational. Marcus Aurelius refers to rationality as “the deity which is planted in thee” (III, 6). However, I like how he writes that if you find something more befitting to the natural world, then you should pursue that with your full soul. I think this shows just how internal the philosophy is. Rationality is God-given according to the Stoics, and should be pursued for the fact that it is God-given and befitting, not for any other external value that it holds. Jack 9/14
I find it fascinating the illustrations of the human composition L&S present. I was just rereading Lucretius 3.136. The concept of spirit and mind being linked shows up a lot in media I’ve seen. Assigning the mind to be in the approximate area of the heart is contrastive to the more contemporary image of the mind being synonymous with intellect and the brain. The claim that the spirit controls much of the body, yet the mind controls the spirit, evokes a sense of us being foreign entities in our own bodies. Cayden 9/14
To me the basic concept of stoicsm is like the example talked about in class where it does matter where the arrow lands or if it comes close to target, it only matters that the stoic took the shot because that action is considered befitting in itself but it is the outcome that is meaningless to them. If everyone/anyone were able to completely live like that where the result of something you do doesn’t affect you at all I think the world would be very dull. Emily 9/14
How do stoics go about choosing their diet? Julia 9/14
Question for the class! How would a stoic think about grades, on the one hand, it is difficult for me to say that the difference between an A and a C is indifferent, cetris paribus, I’d rather have the A. On the other hand, they are not entirely in your control, and they cause considerable stress for me. Nick 9/14