I've not posted anything in quite some time. My life has taken a few twists and turns, nothing major, just a little hectic.
I've been spending a significant amount of time reading some historical information on the Ancient Cynics. As a Stoic, I figure I should delve into the lives of the men and women who set the stage for my philosophical forefathers. The Cynics, as I've noted in other posts, were very interesting people. A little crazy, but a lot of guts, courage and wiliness.
I believe that I've realized what primarily attracts me to the Stoic and Cynic lives in particular and the Ancient Greek culture in general. It's one word: Courage. The one virtue that is elevated to highest importance throughout the Greek noosphere and praxis is fortitude and its attendant acts. Just read any Greek work of literature, from Homer to Marcus Aurelius, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Courage, in all its manifestations, is a common thread through all Ancient Greek culture.
Once I realized this, I was almost immediately reminded of my love for Nietzsche. What is it about Nietzsche that drew and still draws me to him? It's his love of Courage.
That's not quite all though. Those of you who don't know me well or haven't been around me much wouldn't know that I have a very deep love for people with disabilities, whether physical or mental. To some people, this is simply a matter of 'feeling bad' for them or showing them pity. I think it's deeper than that.
Nietzsche derides the act of pitying someone. Why? According to him, it steals something from the person. It takes from them their dignity and automatically lowers them and the pitier as human beings. That's why for him Christianity is the lowest of religions: it's the religion of pity of the less fortunate and it lowers the bar for human virtue (I don't hold this view, by the way, at least not to this extreme). Nietzsche believes that we should elevate Strength and Courage and not Pity and Weakness. (this is a VERY simple analysis, leaving our his notion of the Last Man, Amor Fati, etc).
What about weakness, however? Is weakness necessarily weak? This is the gist of what I've been considering. It is my assertion that the thing that draws me to Nietzsche, Stoicism, Cynicism and Homer is the very same thing that draws me to people with disabilities: the Courage to BE in the face of the twists and turns of fate.
You see, it's easy to be courageous when you're physically and mentally strong, when you have an army backing you up, when you have a large savings account or a rich family. None of that takes real courage. You are simply, in the former situations, assuaging your fears with the security of these things. No, real Courage is standing firm, moving forward, etc when all the safety nets are gone. It's having no fear in the face of total destruction. It's NOT having the natural ability, talent or resources and yet STILL holding your head up high.
I've known many people with disabilities and what strikes me is the amount of courage they show in the face of circumstances that people without disabilities dread the loss of on a daily basis. Find a 'normal' person who won't admit dread of being in a wheelchair and I'll find you a WallStreet banker devoid of greed. Good luck. I would go so far as to say that even the Cynics didn't have as much courage as most of these folks. To give up something of free will is totally different than having it taken away. Fate is sweeter when it's self-fate, and harder to swallow when it's imposed.
Anyway, I guess I say all this to simply state that: Courage can be most evident in the absence of natural strength. Look for those moments in life when you have no reason to be Courageous and muster all you have to stretch yourself. Don't provide excuses. Don't blame others. Don't bitch and moan about not having enough money, natural talent, or whatever else you're convinced you need. No, step up, hold your head up, stick our your chest, and simple BE courage.
Take care,
brett
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Foiled again....
I'm in love with Greek philosophy, specifically the Socratics. The last few weeks, I've been reading a book on the Cynics, the ancient ascetic philosophers that considered themselves the heir of the Socratic dynasty.
The Cynics were fairly close to the Stoics in a lot of ways.
In addition to magnifying the similarities, Cynics have some unique, interesting traits of their own.
The one I like the most is their sense of humor. A quote attributed to the Cynic Menippus is perfectly representative of this:
They are the folks who take the 'whims of Fate' and laugh at them. When you have no attachments and no worldly concerns, then laughing at the vicissitudes of life only seems the natural response. This sense of humor informed much of what they did: masturbating in public, calling themselves 'dogs', ridiculing Emporers, farting, and the list goes on and on.
Another trait that stands out is their ridicule of the wealthy, rich, and powerful. Self-sufficiency, in their eyes, is the hallmark of living 'in accord with nature'. The rich, the Cynics argued, depended on others: slaves, artisans, cooks, etc for every aspect of their lives. This was a disgrace to being human and made them weak, lazy, and worthy of the most acerbic wit the Cynics could muster.
Lastly, the Cynics lived in some pretty interesting circumstances. They wore thin, ugly cloaks, carried sticks, no shoes, long beards and hair, stunk, farted a lot, and were generally gross to look at (let along smell!). They had no homes and ate a simple diet of beans, lentils, and other stuff they came across in their wanderings. They had no qualms about begging for food and would simultaneously beg and make fun of their benefactors at the same time. They believed that life any other way was a bastardization of 'natural' living and would limit their freedom to be who they should be.
Now, I have a hard time imagining a viable philosophy of life where one has to give up all comfort, relationships, etc in favor of a mendicant life of hardship, hunger, homelessness, and social exile. To me, a 'philosophy of life' helps you live better in the world, be more productive, and have a greater degree of tranquility.
That led me to consider that perhaps the difference between the Stoics and the Cynics is that the latter were not trying to provide a philosophy of life so much as to act as Foils for society. Their crazy actions, weird clothes and grooming habits, homelessness, ridicule of the rich, etc might have been a way to provide a counter-argument for the laziness, self-importance, indulgence, and fakeness that they saw around them. A way to show us that there's another way to live.
Either way, I think it is important to take seriously what they did/said and not just dismiss it as a set of weirdos who were mentally unstable. As a matter of fact, their way of living was not unique to them alone. Many other groups in other cultures served the same purpose and went about life in similar ways. We can learn a lot from their criticisms. Here are just a few things that stand out:
Take care,
Brett
The Cynics were fairly close to the Stoics in a lot of ways.
- The locus of value should be internal and not external
- The way we estimate external things determines how happy or tranquil we will be. The more we esteem that which is outside our control the less happy and more subject to the whims of Fate, Fortune, Chance, etc we will be
- The goal of humans was to live 'according to nature'. In most cases, they would have agreed that this meant a life close to nature, although this took on other meanings
- Lastly, virtue was the highest achievement of humans. At the end of the day, our virtue is all we have
In addition to magnifying the similarities, Cynics have some unique, interesting traits of their own.
The one I like the most is their sense of humor. A quote attributed to the Cynic Menippus is perfectly representative of this:
...seek out this one single thing before all else: arrange the present well and run along, laughing a lot and taking nothing seriously.
They are the folks who take the 'whims of Fate' and laugh at them. When you have no attachments and no worldly concerns, then laughing at the vicissitudes of life only seems the natural response. This sense of humor informed much of what they did: masturbating in public, calling themselves 'dogs', ridiculing Emporers, farting, and the list goes on and on.
Another trait that stands out is their ridicule of the wealthy, rich, and powerful. Self-sufficiency, in their eyes, is the hallmark of living 'in accord with nature'. The rich, the Cynics argued, depended on others: slaves, artisans, cooks, etc for every aspect of their lives. This was a disgrace to being human and made them weak, lazy, and worthy of the most acerbic wit the Cynics could muster.
Lastly, the Cynics lived in some pretty interesting circumstances. They wore thin, ugly cloaks, carried sticks, no shoes, long beards and hair, stunk, farted a lot, and were generally gross to look at (let along smell!). They had no homes and ate a simple diet of beans, lentils, and other stuff they came across in their wanderings. They had no qualms about begging for food and would simultaneously beg and make fun of their benefactors at the same time. They believed that life any other way was a bastardization of 'natural' living and would limit their freedom to be who they should be.
Now, I have a hard time imagining a viable philosophy of life where one has to give up all comfort, relationships, etc in favor of a mendicant life of hardship, hunger, homelessness, and social exile. To me, a 'philosophy of life' helps you live better in the world, be more productive, and have a greater degree of tranquility.
That led me to consider that perhaps the difference between the Stoics and the Cynics is that the latter were not trying to provide a philosophy of life so much as to act as Foils for society. Their crazy actions, weird clothes and grooming habits, homelessness, ridicule of the rich, etc might have been a way to provide a counter-argument for the laziness, self-importance, indulgence, and fakeness that they saw around them. A way to show us that there's another way to live.
Either way, I think it is important to take seriously what they did/said and not just dismiss it as a set of weirdos who were mentally unstable. As a matter of fact, their way of living was not unique to them alone. Many other groups in other cultures served the same purpose and went about life in similar ways. We can learn a lot from their criticisms. Here are just a few things that stand out:
- A life that is focused on externals alone is empty and vapid
- Depending on others exclusively erodes that aspect of us that makes us most human: our freedom
- Respect is earned through our virtue not our status
- We are meant to be close to nature, not removed completely as so many of us are
- We are defined not by what we HAVE, but by what we ARE
- Social customs change and we should never be slaves to them
Take care,
Brett
Friday, March 19, 2010
Maintaining Focus.
hey all,
I haven't written anything in a while. Seems my inspiration has waned a bit...:)
Work has been busy, but slowing down just a bit due to the time of year. My traveling schedule is also slowing and that's good. I'm sure that's temporary...:)
I guess the one thing that has been on my mind a lot has been how my tranquility waxes and wanes with the intensity of focus on my practice.
For whatever reason, I have a hard time focusing on several things at once. More accurately, I am the kind of person who must constantly focus on my personal philosophy or I get distracted and begin to drift away. I wonder if this is the reason why priests, modern and ancient, pagan, Christian, Buddhist, etc, speak frequently of maintaining focus? They use different phrases, 'practicing the presence of God', 'Living the Dharma' and others, but the principle seems to be that in order to maintain that certain mind-frame that we must constantly focus on our practice.
It's most noticeable for me when I begin to let the little things in life annoy me and irritate me. I'll be sitting in traffic and the slow-poke ahead of me has me cussing and grumping because they are going 5 miles too slow. Or, material items that usually don't interest me suddenly become necessary to my happiness. The scenario plays itself out in myriad ways, but the underlying issue remains the same.
The only way I know to regain my 'composure' is to pick up where I left off, dust myself off and return to what I know best.
"When force of circumstance upsets your equanimity, lose to time in recovering your self-control, and do not remain out of tune longer than you can help. Habitual recurrence to the harmony will increase your mastery of it."
enough said.
Brett
I haven't written anything in a while. Seems my inspiration has waned a bit...:)
Work has been busy, but slowing down just a bit due to the time of year. My traveling schedule is also slowing and that's good. I'm sure that's temporary...:)
I guess the one thing that has been on my mind a lot has been how my tranquility waxes and wanes with the intensity of focus on my practice.
For whatever reason, I have a hard time focusing on several things at once. More accurately, I am the kind of person who must constantly focus on my personal philosophy or I get distracted and begin to drift away. I wonder if this is the reason why priests, modern and ancient, pagan, Christian, Buddhist, etc, speak frequently of maintaining focus? They use different phrases, 'practicing the presence of God', 'Living the Dharma' and others, but the principle seems to be that in order to maintain that certain mind-frame that we must constantly focus on our practice.
It's most noticeable for me when I begin to let the little things in life annoy me and irritate me. I'll be sitting in traffic and the slow-poke ahead of me has me cussing and grumping because they are going 5 miles too slow. Or, material items that usually don't interest me suddenly become necessary to my happiness. The scenario plays itself out in myriad ways, but the underlying issue remains the same.
The only way I know to regain my 'composure' is to pick up where I left off, dust myself off and return to what I know best.
"When force of circumstance upsets your equanimity, lose to time in recovering your self-control, and do not remain out of tune longer than you can help. Habitual recurrence to the harmony will increase your mastery of it."
enough said.
Brett
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Democracy....a failed experiment?
Politics and our national cultural landscape have been on my mind a lot lately.
I think it's time that Americans revolt. I'm not talking about some neo-con, freakish Tea Party circus. I'm talking about real, serious change. Poor Obama. He used that word way too much without realizing that he's still part of the very cause of the problem: the market-centric, two party system.
What do I mean by that? I think it's fairly clear. Politicians on either side of the 'aisle' are worried about the exact same thing: themselves. We have a system of government, at least currently, that rewards the jackasses that are able to win the most financial support from corporations, who in turn basically buy people's votes through dumb advertising and smear campaigns (which will only become worse with the STUPID recent Supreme Court decision--dumbasses!). Those very same people stand before us and pretend that there are real, tangible differences between them and the folks in the other party. What they fail to reveal is that those differences are mostly posturing and positioning to ensure that they appeal to a certain base; a base large enough to keep their butts in their 'seats' for as long as they want.
This system is tearing apart our country. It's a direct departure from a government of the people, for the people and by the people. It's become a government of the market, for the market and by the market. Not exactly what our founding fathers/mothers intended when they left tyrannical England.
This political bullshit is only matched by the banal, inane, tepid and utterly stupid cultural atmosphere in which we live. We live in a culture that dares to even CARE that Howard Stern called that girl fat, etc. We live in a culture where more people watch American Idol than vote in local elections. It's FREAKING ridiculous that we allow ourselves to be distracted from the real problems of our time only to be lulled to sleep each night with all these morally vapid, corrupting influences, all under the guise of entertainment. Take a look at what we watch: survivor, american idol, the bachelor, and the list goes on. The premise of all these shows is that the world is dog-eat-dog and that you should use any means whatsoever to get ahead. The only time acting virtuously is promoted is when it will get you votes on the jury. We're no longer given examples of people who do the right thing for its own sake and who sacrifice their lives, energy and comfort for the greater good. Nope, that's moralistic naiveté reserved for preachers and children.
These two things together have created a perfect storm of cultural and political decline (perhaps one caused the other, but I'm not sure about that) that will lead to the fall of the American Empire. Mark my words: If we don't do something about this, we will go the way of Rome. And, furthermore, we deserve it. Period.
We've been given the most wonderful gift in being American. Guaranteed Rights (well, not any more), opportunity to prosper (nope, not so much any longer), and strong, moral values (scratch that). Those who know me know I'm no lover of religion or authoritarianism. However, I'd almost prefer Plato's Republic to what we have now.
Bottom line folks, we MUST do something. I don't advocate violence, coups, etc. What I advocate is twofold:
1. Let's overthrow the two party system. Let's foster hatred for their vapidity, and engender a desire for more, real choices. In states where Independent is not allowed on ballots, let's CHANGE that and then elect people who are neither Republican nor Democrate, but AMERICAN.
2. Let's boycott all the dumb TV shows that hold us captive. Turn off the damn TV and go outside and enjoy our world. Get off your asses and be human again, not just a conduit for advertising leverage on an electric box.
I vow to do my part. Henceforth, I will NEVER vote again for a Demo-crap or a Republi-cant. I'll put my vote where my values are and will vote for those who really have our Country's best interest in mind. That might mean that there's no one to vote for. I hope not. If so, I'll work my best to help build up people who do. I'll also work in my home state, Oklahoma, to bring real ballot change and expand our choices. Lastly, I promise to watch less crap TV and to put my time where it matters. This doesn't mean I'll NEVER watch it, but that I'll pay much attention to it.
We MUST act. We MUST do something. Let's prove that Democracy is NOT a failed experiment and that people can RISE up to new heights and not just SINK to new lows. We've done enough of the latter in our current culture and political system. Let's turn the tide and start anew.
Let's save America from the Americans.
Brett
I think it's time that Americans revolt. I'm not talking about some neo-con, freakish Tea Party circus. I'm talking about real, serious change. Poor Obama. He used that word way too much without realizing that he's still part of the very cause of the problem: the market-centric, two party system.
What do I mean by that? I think it's fairly clear. Politicians on either side of the 'aisle' are worried about the exact same thing: themselves. We have a system of government, at least currently, that rewards the jackasses that are able to win the most financial support from corporations, who in turn basically buy people's votes through dumb advertising and smear campaigns (which will only become worse with the STUPID recent Supreme Court decision--dumbasses!). Those very same people stand before us and pretend that there are real, tangible differences between them and the folks in the other party. What they fail to reveal is that those differences are mostly posturing and positioning to ensure that they appeal to a certain base; a base large enough to keep their butts in their 'seats' for as long as they want.
This system is tearing apart our country. It's a direct departure from a government of the people, for the people and by the people. It's become a government of the market, for the market and by the market. Not exactly what our founding fathers/mothers intended when they left tyrannical England.
This political bullshit is only matched by the banal, inane, tepid and utterly stupid cultural atmosphere in which we live. We live in a culture that dares to even CARE that Howard Stern called that girl fat, etc. We live in a culture where more people watch American Idol than vote in local elections. It's FREAKING ridiculous that we allow ourselves to be distracted from the real problems of our time only to be lulled to sleep each night with all these morally vapid, corrupting influences, all under the guise of entertainment. Take a look at what we watch: survivor, american idol, the bachelor, and the list goes on. The premise of all these shows is that the world is dog-eat-dog and that you should use any means whatsoever to get ahead. The only time acting virtuously is promoted is when it will get you votes on the jury. We're no longer given examples of people who do the right thing for its own sake and who sacrifice their lives, energy and comfort for the greater good. Nope, that's moralistic naiveté reserved for preachers and children.
These two things together have created a perfect storm of cultural and political decline (perhaps one caused the other, but I'm not sure about that) that will lead to the fall of the American Empire. Mark my words: If we don't do something about this, we will go the way of Rome. And, furthermore, we deserve it. Period.
We've been given the most wonderful gift in being American. Guaranteed Rights (well, not any more), opportunity to prosper (nope, not so much any longer), and strong, moral values (scratch that). Those who know me know I'm no lover of religion or authoritarianism. However, I'd almost prefer Plato's Republic to what we have now.
Bottom line folks, we MUST do something. I don't advocate violence, coups, etc. What I advocate is twofold:
1. Let's overthrow the two party system. Let's foster hatred for their vapidity, and engender a desire for more, real choices. In states where Independent is not allowed on ballots, let's CHANGE that and then elect people who are neither Republican nor Democrate, but AMERICAN.
2. Let's boycott all the dumb TV shows that hold us captive. Turn off the damn TV and go outside and enjoy our world. Get off your asses and be human again, not just a conduit for advertising leverage on an electric box.
I vow to do my part. Henceforth, I will NEVER vote again for a Demo-crap or a Republi-cant. I'll put my vote where my values are and will vote for those who really have our Country's best interest in mind. That might mean that there's no one to vote for. I hope not. If so, I'll work my best to help build up people who do. I'll also work in my home state, Oklahoma, to bring real ballot change and expand our choices. Lastly, I promise to watch less crap TV and to put my time where it matters. This doesn't mean I'll NEVER watch it, but that I'll pay much attention to it.
We MUST act. We MUST do something. Let's prove that Democracy is NOT a failed experiment and that people can RISE up to new heights and not just SINK to new lows. We've done enough of the latter in our current culture and political system. Let's turn the tide and start anew.
Let's save America from the Americans.
Brett
Monday, March 8, 2010
Boo hoo...Emotions, Schmemotions....
Ok, again, a caveat. I'm still sick. So, take what I say with a grain of salt.
I was driving to Wichita, Ks this morning for work and popped on my radio, turned on my mp3 player and ended up listening to Rascal Flatts. I happen to really love their music, so thought it would wake me up from my sickness and lack-of-sleep induced stupor.
The song 'Sara' came on. If you haven't heard this song, you're missing out. Of all the songs I know, it's the perfect one to bring just about anyone to tears in a matter of 3.5 minutes. I have a funny story about my wife and this song, but I digress....
This song is about a girl who gets cancer and all she wants is to live a normal life, go to the prom, etc. On the day of the prom, she wakes up to find the last of her hair gone as a result of the radiation/chemo treatments. Well, her prom date comes to the door to pick her up, and he takes off his cap to reveal a freshly shaved head. They go to the prom and she dances round and roung....a FREAKING tear jerker for sure.
Anyway, this song comes on and I'm listening along, when I got this image of me lying in bed with Amanda, holding her and stroking her bald head. In this brief flash, we were together dealing with her cancer and just being together. Well, you can only guess that I started to well up with emotion at the thought of the love of my life dying before her time. It was an uncomfortable feeling.
Being a committed Stoic, I had to stop and think about my reaction. Sure, it was a silly song, on a lonely 2.5 hour drive, with me hopped up on medicine and lack of sleep. But I couldn't help but think about the implications of my feelings.
Does being a Stoic mean I have to 'man up', repress this type of reaction, and learn to not care about externals?
In short, I don't think so. I honestly don't believe such a response is in accord with the spirit or letter of Stoicism. However, I do think that being a Stoic makes me see those responses in a different way and shapes how I respond to them.
As a person who practices Stoicism, I've come to believe that HOW we react and respond to emotions, feelings, instincts, is FAR more important that whether or not we have them. What we do with them is of critical importance.
I think, furthermore, that to assume that humans are even CAPABLE of living without emotions is a huge mistake. Folks who live without emotions are usually called serial killers, pyscho/sociopaths...:)
So, how should a Stoic respond to emotions?
First, we must realize that not all emotions are real, valid, or even healthy. We are shaped by our culture to feel things and we're not even aware of it. When a commercial comes on for a certain mp3 player company, they WANT us to have certain emotions: elation, pride, desire, etc. To say that these emotions are good, proper, etc is a bit of a stretch. A Stoic will most definitely have emotions, but they will be about things that REALLY MATTER. TV's, mp3 players, cars, even our own health, are not things that deserve our utmost concern. That concern should be reserved for our duty, integrity, virtue, loved ones, and friends.
Second, emotions must be of a proper intensity. If my dog gets run over by a car, it's completely ok for me to be upset, distressed, or even cry. But, is it appropriate for me to quit my job, move out of my house, and live on the streets because of my diceased dog? Probably not.
I'd go further than that. In the example above, it would be inhuman of me not to be upset at my wife's illness. However, along with the emotional side of my relationship there is also a very strong duty I have to her. Indeed, to really be a 'good' person, I must carry out my duties, even when I don't feel like it. Even though I'm devastated, I have a duty to be a support to Amanda and to continue to be strong for her. To spiral into depression in this circumstance is neither helpful nor appropriate.
Third, in the end, we have to have perspective on our emotions and their ultimate futility. Ok, sounds like a turnaround, huh? Not really. While emotions are proper and necessary as humans, the Stoic will have a certain perspective on them. She will realize that the very thing we 'feel' for is ULTIMATELY not in our control.
We have little to no control over externals and to focus on them exclusively is to make the most fundamental of existential mistakes. Rather than making the Stoic cold and unfeeling, this deep realization makes her hold onto less tightly and appreciate more deeply the things that matter. It provides a certain 'space' or 'perspective' inside of which she can really see and then act accordingly to the object of emotion.
I'm sure all this is a bit vague and perhaps confusing. In the end, I refuse to give up my emotions. I WANT to feel a twinge of pain when I think about my wife with a horrendous illness. But I want to also know that I will be there for her and will ultimately survive a stronger man after it's over, regardless the outcome. Being a Stoic means, at least to me, that my virtue is enough to carry me through whatever I come across, even if the pain of life remains real.
Take care,
Brett
I was driving to Wichita, Ks this morning for work and popped on my radio, turned on my mp3 player and ended up listening to Rascal Flatts. I happen to really love their music, so thought it would wake me up from my sickness and lack-of-sleep induced stupor.
The song 'Sara' came on. If you haven't heard this song, you're missing out. Of all the songs I know, it's the perfect one to bring just about anyone to tears in a matter of 3.5 minutes. I have a funny story about my wife and this song, but I digress....
This song is about a girl who gets cancer and all she wants is to live a normal life, go to the prom, etc. On the day of the prom, she wakes up to find the last of her hair gone as a result of the radiation/chemo treatments. Well, her prom date comes to the door to pick her up, and he takes off his cap to reveal a freshly shaved head. They go to the prom and she dances round and roung....a FREAKING tear jerker for sure.
Anyway, this song comes on and I'm listening along, when I got this image of me lying in bed with Amanda, holding her and stroking her bald head. In this brief flash, we were together dealing with her cancer and just being together. Well, you can only guess that I started to well up with emotion at the thought of the love of my life dying before her time. It was an uncomfortable feeling.
Being a committed Stoic, I had to stop and think about my reaction. Sure, it was a silly song, on a lonely 2.5 hour drive, with me hopped up on medicine and lack of sleep. But I couldn't help but think about the implications of my feelings.
Does being a Stoic mean I have to 'man up', repress this type of reaction, and learn to not care about externals?
In short, I don't think so. I honestly don't believe such a response is in accord with the spirit or letter of Stoicism. However, I do think that being a Stoic makes me see those responses in a different way and shapes how I respond to them.
As a person who practices Stoicism, I've come to believe that HOW we react and respond to emotions, feelings, instincts, is FAR more important that whether or not we have them. What we do with them is of critical importance.
I think, furthermore, that to assume that humans are even CAPABLE of living without emotions is a huge mistake. Folks who live without emotions are usually called serial killers, pyscho/sociopaths...:)
So, how should a Stoic respond to emotions?
First, we must realize that not all emotions are real, valid, or even healthy. We are shaped by our culture to feel things and we're not even aware of it. When a commercial comes on for a certain mp3 player company, they WANT us to have certain emotions: elation, pride, desire, etc. To say that these emotions are good, proper, etc is a bit of a stretch. A Stoic will most definitely have emotions, but they will be about things that REALLY MATTER. TV's, mp3 players, cars, even our own health, are not things that deserve our utmost concern. That concern should be reserved for our duty, integrity, virtue, loved ones, and friends.
Second, emotions must be of a proper intensity. If my dog gets run over by a car, it's completely ok for me to be upset, distressed, or even cry. But, is it appropriate for me to quit my job, move out of my house, and live on the streets because of my diceased dog? Probably not.
I'd go further than that. In the example above, it would be inhuman of me not to be upset at my wife's illness. However, along with the emotional side of my relationship there is also a very strong duty I have to her. Indeed, to really be a 'good' person, I must carry out my duties, even when I don't feel like it. Even though I'm devastated, I have a duty to be a support to Amanda and to continue to be strong for her. To spiral into depression in this circumstance is neither helpful nor appropriate.
Third, in the end, we have to have perspective on our emotions and their ultimate futility. Ok, sounds like a turnaround, huh? Not really. While emotions are proper and necessary as humans, the Stoic will have a certain perspective on them. She will realize that the very thing we 'feel' for is ULTIMATELY not in our control.
We have little to no control over externals and to focus on them exclusively is to make the most fundamental of existential mistakes. Rather than making the Stoic cold and unfeeling, this deep realization makes her hold onto less tightly and appreciate more deeply the things that matter. It provides a certain 'space' or 'perspective' inside of which she can really see and then act accordingly to the object of emotion.
I'm sure all this is a bit vague and perhaps confusing. In the end, I refuse to give up my emotions. I WANT to feel a twinge of pain when I think about my wife with a horrendous illness. But I want to also know that I will be there for her and will ultimately survive a stronger man after it's over, regardless the outcome. Being a Stoic means, at least to me, that my virtue is enough to carry me through whatever I come across, even if the pain of life remains real.
Take care,
Brett
Sunday, March 7, 2010
God, Meaning, and Stoicism
First a caveat: I've been fairly sick the last few days, so please pardon me if this doesn't make a lot of sense.
I've been thinking quite a bit about god, meaning, and Stoicism lately. Truth be told, it's something I've thought about for about as long as I've considered myself a Stoic, and probably before that.
Does Stoicism require that 1. we believe something specific about the existence of god (pantheism, theism, deism, atheism, agnosticism, etc) and 2. we believe there is an intrinsic, true 'M'eaning to life (the capital 'M' is critical here)?
These are pretty difficult questions, not the least of the reasons being that they've been talked about for ages with no incontrovertible answers. I certainly am not smarter than those before me, nor do I pretend to have come across or been given any special insight.
In the end, I believe the answer to BOTH questions is....NO. I do NOT believe that we need to have any specific belief about god nor do we have to believe there's an intrinsic, verifiable 'M'eaning to life.
As a matter of fact, I don't even believe that we need believe the ancient Stoics were saying anything 'T'rue about life.
What I DO believe Stoicism does is say a lot of things that are 't'rue about human beings, our psychological make-up, and creating a well-rounded 'm'eaning of life.
First, I think it's absolutely true that most, if not all, human suffering comes from our false beliefs about our control over external things. So many of our 'woes' come from believing that this or that external thing is a. under our control and b. necessary for our tranquility.
Upon investigation, neither of those are usually true. Except for our own choices, actions, and beliefs, we have little control over what goes on around us. Additionally, those things are rarely critical for our happiness. Ever seen someone with a disability or someone in difficult circumstances who nonetheless was tranquil and happy? I sure have. That PROVES to me that it's not the circumstances themselves but our response to them that defines our happiness.
Second, Stoicism in it's many forms provides some pretty amazing pieces of advice for living a good life. From our duty to the human community to the focus on the really important things (family, friends, internal things), the Stoics understood that living the good life required both internal and external virtues. Not only must we understand that externals are not the arbiters of our happiness, but we must also recognize that we can not achieve our internal virtues without acting in a certain way toward those things outside of us. Epictetus talks about how to approach the things outside us: with care and consistency. There MUST be an outside manifestation of our internal virtues.
All of this comes together to create a unique way of living that engenders a deep and lasting happiness: a happiness not dependent upon what happens around us and which issues forth in productive social actions. Sure, we may not be able to pin these beliefs/practices to what's 'R'eal, but we can certainly see that they definitely create 'm'eaning (notice the lower case m). Meaning doesn't need to be 'R'eal in order to be 'r'eal. The act of living the Stoic life will create a 'r'eal, 'm'eaningful life, even if it doesn't mimic a 'R'eal 'M'eaning.
God. This is a tricky subject. It certainly appears that the Ancient Stoics believed in a pantheistic metaphysic. My contention is that it's pure infancy to believe we have to mimic and parrot the beliefs of any group or person. This is especially true of the Ancient philosophers.
While the Stoics had a lot of right things to say about internal 'reality', they appear to have said a lot of uninformed, ignorant things about external reality. Sure, you can twist, turn, reinterpret, etc ANYTHING to mesh with modern knowledge, but that is usually a disingenuous attempt at revisionist philosophy. Let's just admit up front that the Stoics had cultural/intellectual biases that showed up in their philosophy. So what? It doesn't change one bit the power of their psychological and social beliefs.
In the end, what I'm proposing appears to be a post-modern version of Stoicism. In some ways, it probably looks that way and might even be a fair assessment. However, in the end, I'm more inclined to call it a 'Modern Stoicism': a Stoicism that takes what makes sense for us Moderns, and leaves behind commitments that appear to be idiosyncratic and cultural from Ancient times. Unfortunately, it's impossible to escape our cultural trappings and surely my version of Stoicism will smack of American Pragmatism, Modern Scientific Positivism, and European Post-Modernism. So be it.
I intend to continue this Stoic path and to see where it goes. I'll leave behind what doesn't work toward the goal of human happiness--true lasting happiness--and keep what does achieve the goal.
Even without God and 'M'eaning, I'm completely satisfied with the power and genuine happiness/tranquility that embracing the core of Stoic philosophy brings. Frankly, that's enough for me.
take care,
brett
I've been thinking quite a bit about god, meaning, and Stoicism lately. Truth be told, it's something I've thought about for about as long as I've considered myself a Stoic, and probably before that.
Does Stoicism require that 1. we believe something specific about the existence of god (pantheism, theism, deism, atheism, agnosticism, etc) and 2. we believe there is an intrinsic, true 'M'eaning to life (the capital 'M' is critical here)?
These are pretty difficult questions, not the least of the reasons being that they've been talked about for ages with no incontrovertible answers. I certainly am not smarter than those before me, nor do I pretend to have come across or been given any special insight.
In the end, I believe the answer to BOTH questions is....NO. I do NOT believe that we need to have any specific belief about god nor do we have to believe there's an intrinsic, verifiable 'M'eaning to life.
As a matter of fact, I don't even believe that we need believe the ancient Stoics were saying anything 'T'rue about life.
What I DO believe Stoicism does is say a lot of things that are 't'rue about human beings, our psychological make-up, and creating a well-rounded 'm'eaning of life.
First, I think it's absolutely true that most, if not all, human suffering comes from our false beliefs about our control over external things. So many of our 'woes' come from believing that this or that external thing is a. under our control and b. necessary for our tranquility.
Upon investigation, neither of those are usually true. Except for our own choices, actions, and beliefs, we have little control over what goes on around us. Additionally, those things are rarely critical for our happiness. Ever seen someone with a disability or someone in difficult circumstances who nonetheless was tranquil and happy? I sure have. That PROVES to me that it's not the circumstances themselves but our response to them that defines our happiness.
Second, Stoicism in it's many forms provides some pretty amazing pieces of advice for living a good life. From our duty to the human community to the focus on the really important things (family, friends, internal things), the Stoics understood that living the good life required both internal and external virtues. Not only must we understand that externals are not the arbiters of our happiness, but we must also recognize that we can not achieve our internal virtues without acting in a certain way toward those things outside of us. Epictetus talks about how to approach the things outside us: with care and consistency. There MUST be an outside manifestation of our internal virtues.
All of this comes together to create a unique way of living that engenders a deep and lasting happiness: a happiness not dependent upon what happens around us and which issues forth in productive social actions. Sure, we may not be able to pin these beliefs/practices to what's 'R'eal, but we can certainly see that they definitely create 'm'eaning (notice the lower case m). Meaning doesn't need to be 'R'eal in order to be 'r'eal. The act of living the Stoic life will create a 'r'eal, 'm'eaningful life, even if it doesn't mimic a 'R'eal 'M'eaning.
God. This is a tricky subject. It certainly appears that the Ancient Stoics believed in a pantheistic metaphysic. My contention is that it's pure infancy to believe we have to mimic and parrot the beliefs of any group or person. This is especially true of the Ancient philosophers.
While the Stoics had a lot of right things to say about internal 'reality', they appear to have said a lot of uninformed, ignorant things about external reality. Sure, you can twist, turn, reinterpret, etc ANYTHING to mesh with modern knowledge, but that is usually a disingenuous attempt at revisionist philosophy. Let's just admit up front that the Stoics had cultural/intellectual biases that showed up in their philosophy. So what? It doesn't change one bit the power of their psychological and social beliefs.
In the end, what I'm proposing appears to be a post-modern version of Stoicism. In some ways, it probably looks that way and might even be a fair assessment. However, in the end, I'm more inclined to call it a 'Modern Stoicism': a Stoicism that takes what makes sense for us Moderns, and leaves behind commitments that appear to be idiosyncratic and cultural from Ancient times. Unfortunately, it's impossible to escape our cultural trappings and surely my version of Stoicism will smack of American Pragmatism, Modern Scientific Positivism, and European Post-Modernism. So be it.
I intend to continue this Stoic path and to see where it goes. I'll leave behind what doesn't work toward the goal of human happiness--true lasting happiness--and keep what does achieve the goal.
Even without God and 'M'eaning, I'm completely satisfied with the power and genuine happiness/tranquility that embracing the core of Stoic philosophy brings. Frankly, that's enough for me.
take care,
brett
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
All the King's Horses and All the King's Men
I've been thinking a lot about something I try NOT to think about on a regular basis: Our Economy and Government.
Now, those of you who have read the Ancient Stoic literature are very aware that Politics and Government were not topics that Stoics shy away from. Heck, two of the most prominent Stoics, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, were deeply entrenched in the working of their government, the latter of the two men having been Emperor of Rome from 161-180 C.E.
However, I'm a bit of a recluse when it comes to politics. Except for some half-hearted Iraq war protests in my Grad School Days (me captured on the front page of the O'Colly of Ok. State University with a banner that read 'Bombing for Peace is like F%&King for Virginity--not the most mature choice I admit), I've stayed away from politics for a number of reasons.
Well, as I was sitting in my hotel room last night, I pondered the same question I do every night I sit in a hotel room, which is quite often: what do I do now? I flipped on the T.V. and in this hotel they have the Pay Per View movies on the tube. I scrolled through the selections, past the usual Girls Gone Wild and Cartoons, and happened across the Documentary by Michael Moore 'Capitalism'. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Mr. Moore, not because I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but rather because I'm not always convinced of the cogency and validity of the methods he uses to prove his points. But, I thought, 'What the hell', and hit the 'ORDER' button.
The next two hours were filled with all-too-familiar scenes of the run up to, devastation of, and subsequent fallout from the Financial Meltdown of the past few years. Michael did a great job of painting a picture of greed, corruption, and self-serving interest that has been around in our government for as long as it's been around. The trending from the days of Reagan until now is astounding: insidious inclusion of Wall Street barons in top gov't positions, warping of tax laws to benefit the rich, and the list goes on.
Seeing good, hard-working people thrown from their homes because of predatory lending, bad choices, and greedy banks made me angry. I am the first to say that many folks got into the situation they were in due to bad choices, but does that exculpate banks, the government and regulators from the fact that so much of the bedrock of those bad choices was the intense greed of the institutions, banks, gov't agencies that made every effort to provide money to people to buy things they couldn't afford? Me thinks no.
In the wake of this financial crises, the taxpayers, the very people duped into 'buying into', literally, this pipe dream of capitalism were the same ones asked to bailout these institutions. Apparently, capitalism is good enough for the masses, but not sufficient to cull the ranks of these predatory institutions. Simply put, these institutions weren't able to take the very same medicine they've been pushing down our throats for 50 years: let the chips fall where they may,this is CAPITALISM. In the end, these bloated, greedy, unscrupulous institutions survived not because of their strength or resolve, but because they have so many damn corrupt politicians in washington that getting a bailout was about as difficult as Anna Nicole Smith getting another dose of ephedra. Not too difficult. Period.
So, as a Stoic, what should be my stance toward Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc?
The answer to this question, I propose, is not an easy one. It's not easy for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that none of these systems of government were present in Ancient Greece and Rome.
However, if you ask me, from a Stoic point of view the problems that underly Capitalism are the very same ones that underly them all: vice. Now, I say 'vice' not meaning that they are all evil. As a matter of fact, I would contend that they are neither good nor bad, but are in fact indifferent. This is a very common Stoic distinction, and one could say the very bedrock on which the Stoic theory of reality, psychology, etc are built. To know the difference between what is good/bad and indifferent is the key to tranquility.
So what? Ok, neither governmental form is good, neither is bad. Where does that leave the Stoic? To put it one way: the problem with these systems is not the systems themselves, but rather the people running them and using them. Until we are able, as a race, culture or people, to step away from material goods and see them as 'indifferent' we'll continue to run into the very same problems we see here.
Take ANY form of government to EVER have existed and you'll find that greed and human vice ultimately are its downfall. In the end, communities and countries rarely die because they are wiped out. Their demise typically comes from within. Communism, Stalinism, Feudalism, Capitalism all share the same fate: they become untenable under the weight of human vice.
Unfortunately, this means that until individually and collectively we are able to see 'things', money, power for what they are, we will continue this cycle. Until we can realize that none of these externals are really what makes us happy or truly human will we be free from their grip. Sure, we can topple this form of government, but what will rise up to take it's place? Most likely, the next form will have the initial appearance of being benign. But in a very short span of time, the same issues will arise. Folks who have it want more and those who don't will hate those who do.
My assertion is that we don't NECESSARILY need a governmental revolution; rather, we need a personal one. We need to realize that:
1. We ultimately can only control our own choices, aversions, and desires
2. That outside things do NOT provide real, lasting happiness
3. That being human has far less to do with things than with each other
4. That fairness is a human quality that sets us apart and we'd do well to embrace it
5. Only when we are able to see the above, will we have a fair system of governance
In the absence of the above, I promise that we'll continue to see what we've always seen. And, the likelihood of having a wholesale, complete personal revolution is not highly likely.
With that in mind, I contend that changes must be made to our government if it is to live up to any form of virtuous and benevolent government, and if we are to move past this current crises.
We must enact laws that reign in human greed and avarice, at least in financial terms.
We must provide basic services to our citizens so that our children can grow up and work toward the betterment of our society.
We must fix the disparity created by unchecked greed or face the peril of a nation so divided that human progress will be untenable
We must govern in such a way that 'fairness' returns to how we allocate money, exact taxes, and expect contribution from all sectors of our society
My fear, my friends, is that we are way past any rectifying the unjustness done in the name of greed and corruption. I can foresee that the damage is just too great. However, until that time when we are too far gone, it is my Duty as a Stoic to work toward the betterment of my fellow humans. Like Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus, my Duty overrides my sense of resignation and I must find ways to help improve our social environment.
How might I do that? I'm not sure. But it is my Duty to find out...
Thanks,
Brett
Now, those of you who have read the Ancient Stoic literature are very aware that Politics and Government were not topics that Stoics shy away from. Heck, two of the most prominent Stoics, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, were deeply entrenched in the working of their government, the latter of the two men having been Emperor of Rome from 161-180 C.E.
However, I'm a bit of a recluse when it comes to politics. Except for some half-hearted Iraq war protests in my Grad School Days (me captured on the front page of the O'Colly of Ok. State University with a banner that read 'Bombing for Peace is like F%&King for Virginity--not the most mature choice I admit), I've stayed away from politics for a number of reasons.
Well, as I was sitting in my hotel room last night, I pondered the same question I do every night I sit in a hotel room, which is quite often: what do I do now? I flipped on the T.V. and in this hotel they have the Pay Per View movies on the tube. I scrolled through the selections, past the usual Girls Gone Wild and Cartoons, and happened across the Documentary by Michael Moore 'Capitalism'. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Mr. Moore, not because I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but rather because I'm not always convinced of the cogency and validity of the methods he uses to prove his points. But, I thought, 'What the hell', and hit the 'ORDER' button.
The next two hours were filled with all-too-familiar scenes of the run up to, devastation of, and subsequent fallout from the Financial Meltdown of the past few years. Michael did a great job of painting a picture of greed, corruption, and self-serving interest that has been around in our government for as long as it's been around. The trending from the days of Reagan until now is astounding: insidious inclusion of Wall Street barons in top gov't positions, warping of tax laws to benefit the rich, and the list goes on.
Seeing good, hard-working people thrown from their homes because of predatory lending, bad choices, and greedy banks made me angry. I am the first to say that many folks got into the situation they were in due to bad choices, but does that exculpate banks, the government and regulators from the fact that so much of the bedrock of those bad choices was the intense greed of the institutions, banks, gov't agencies that made every effort to provide money to people to buy things they couldn't afford? Me thinks no.
In the wake of this financial crises, the taxpayers, the very people duped into 'buying into', literally, this pipe dream of capitalism were the same ones asked to bailout these institutions. Apparently, capitalism is good enough for the masses, but not sufficient to cull the ranks of these predatory institutions. Simply put, these institutions weren't able to take the very same medicine they've been pushing down our throats for 50 years: let the chips fall where they may,this is CAPITALISM. In the end, these bloated, greedy, unscrupulous institutions survived not because of their strength or resolve, but because they have so many damn corrupt politicians in washington that getting a bailout was about as difficult as Anna Nicole Smith getting another dose of ephedra. Not too difficult. Period.
So, as a Stoic, what should be my stance toward Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc?
The answer to this question, I propose, is not an easy one. It's not easy for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that none of these systems of government were present in Ancient Greece and Rome.
However, if you ask me, from a Stoic point of view the problems that underly Capitalism are the very same ones that underly them all: vice. Now, I say 'vice' not meaning that they are all evil. As a matter of fact, I would contend that they are neither good nor bad, but are in fact indifferent. This is a very common Stoic distinction, and one could say the very bedrock on which the Stoic theory of reality, psychology, etc are built. To know the difference between what is good/bad and indifferent is the key to tranquility.
So what? Ok, neither governmental form is good, neither is bad. Where does that leave the Stoic? To put it one way: the problem with these systems is not the systems themselves, but rather the people running them and using them. Until we are able, as a race, culture or people, to step away from material goods and see them as 'indifferent' we'll continue to run into the very same problems we see here.
Take ANY form of government to EVER have existed and you'll find that greed and human vice ultimately are its downfall. In the end, communities and countries rarely die because they are wiped out. Their demise typically comes from within. Communism, Stalinism, Feudalism, Capitalism all share the same fate: they become untenable under the weight of human vice.
Unfortunately, this means that until individually and collectively we are able to see 'things', money, power for what they are, we will continue this cycle. Until we can realize that none of these externals are really what makes us happy or truly human will we be free from their grip. Sure, we can topple this form of government, but what will rise up to take it's place? Most likely, the next form will have the initial appearance of being benign. But in a very short span of time, the same issues will arise. Folks who have it want more and those who don't will hate those who do.
My assertion is that we don't NECESSARILY need a governmental revolution; rather, we need a personal one. We need to realize that:
1. We ultimately can only control our own choices, aversions, and desires
2. That outside things do NOT provide real, lasting happiness
3. That being human has far less to do with things than with each other
4. That fairness is a human quality that sets us apart and we'd do well to embrace it
5. Only when we are able to see the above, will we have a fair system of governance
In the absence of the above, I promise that we'll continue to see what we've always seen. And, the likelihood of having a wholesale, complete personal revolution is not highly likely.
With that in mind, I contend that changes must be made to our government if it is to live up to any form of virtuous and benevolent government, and if we are to move past this current crises.
We must enact laws that reign in human greed and avarice, at least in financial terms.
We must provide basic services to our citizens so that our children can grow up and work toward the betterment of our society.
We must fix the disparity created by unchecked greed or face the peril of a nation so divided that human progress will be untenable
We must govern in such a way that 'fairness' returns to how we allocate money, exact taxes, and expect contribution from all sectors of our society
My fear, my friends, is that we are way past any rectifying the unjustness done in the name of greed and corruption. I can foresee that the damage is just too great. However, until that time when we are too far gone, it is my Duty as a Stoic to work toward the betterment of my fellow humans. Like Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus, my Duty overrides my sense of resignation and I must find ways to help improve our social environment.
How might I do that? I'm not sure. But it is my Duty to find out...
Thanks,
Brett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
