"To be concerned with happiness as an end, the Stoics argue, is
to be concerned with virtue in the sense of what a person can
bring about through his own powers and rational agency. Accordingly,
they will argue, happiness is not a virtuous action...Rather, happiness
is virtuous activity in the leaner sense of skill and effort...whether or
not one successfully achieves the objectives."
[Nancy Sherman, STOIC WARRIORS: THE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
BEHIND THE MILITARY MIND, Oxford University Press, 2005, p.33.]
Comment: This is an interesting statement, because it addresses
the subject of happiness. Probably one of the most misconceived
considerations about Stoicism circulates around this issue of
happiness. Lots of people imagine stoics wearing a "sour and dour"
countenance. This misunderstanding stands right up there with the
perceived "stiff upper lip" of stoics.
Now I cannot attest that each and every stoic, whether ancient or
modern, goes around wearing a "happy button," but probably most
were/are not adverse to happiness. If we can truly attain it, we might
discover happiness to be a natural human expression. The smile
has long been with us down through the ages.
But what Sherman is discussing in the quoted paragraph, I believe,
is significant for all of us. Yes, sometimes happiness just lights upon
our shoulders; but, more than often, happiness is a result of right
behavior. And even before behavior, there need be an under-
standing of this virtuous activity.
Just guessing, but I'm willing to bet that many of us *wait* for
happiness to drop in. And while we are waiting, there's this pall
of waiting. And within this pall there's "want." We wait for that
special person in our life. We want a great job. We want our life
to somehow be significant. This waiting and wanting is intimately
connected with a hoped-for happiness.
Somehow, when I think about the subject of happiness, Epictetus'
prayer comes to mind--that we need come to understand what
we can or cannot control in our life. As Sherman attests, happiness
is linked with what we "can bring about through his own powers"
and reason. This doesn't mean that we have to sell ourself short;
rather, it is about maturity.
So often I hear some poor soul hoping to win the Lottery, because
that situation will bring the idealized happiness they seek. It's
usually about money. Of course money isn't everything, but it does
loom *big* when it comes to living a happy existence. It's just that
there need be a practical approach, if you will. Waiting for the
Lottery just might not cut it. Making good money usually depends
on "skill and effort." The better qualified, the better job = usually
equals more money, and perhaps happiness.
Of course what we are discussing here is what I might call
"surface happiness." That's okay, it's a start. On the other hand,
some persons--as they grow older--start feeling a strange sense
of emptiness. They have begun to realize that money can't buy
everything, I guess.
So what might this portend, this strange emptiness? Usually it is
an ontological condition. In both philosophy and theology
Ontology is about the nature of being. Who are we, how do we
fit in our world, what are we supposed to become? According to
human development theorists, this ontological condition is
something that clicks on at mid-life.
Now I know people who were gripped by this ontological condition.
Sometimes it becomes an "angst" and really can cause problems.
Other of us might grasp at straws, imagining great callings, being
tapped on the shoulder to do this or that. And there's no denying
that occasionally we can "run" with our fantasies, perhaps even
making something concrete out of them.
However, finally, at the cusp of elderhood some of us finally realize
that we can "manage" happiness up-to-a-point. And that's when
a more stoic approach might become a better compass. Happiness
might end simply being a daily routine, a more composed
acceptance of Life, a deeper appreciation for our surroundings.
And, above all, maybe in the end happiness might not need be
chained to an objective.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
(21) Seeds of Virtue
"I do not need to be told that all virtues are fragile in the beginning
and acquire toughness and stability in time."
[Moses Hadas, Translator, THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY OF SENECA:
ESSAYS AND LETTERS, W.W. Norton & Company, 1958, p. 76.]
Comment: Upon reading the little sentence above, by the great
Roman Stoic, I immediately thought about human development in
modern terms. I also thought about the philosophical concept of
*apriori,* the assumption that proceeds from deduction--or perhaps
knowledge which we bring into the world, already intuitively aware
from the very beginning of our wee consciousness.
Our memories really have to be jarred, if we can go back to our
first couple of years. Did we sit at our parents' knees and listen,
comprehending the nuances of Virtue--or did we simply respond
to Yes and No, sometimes emphatically expressed?
Still I can relate to some early experience, when not yet five years
old. It was about facing a "justice" issue, and somehow deciding
by my action upon what I considered a good and right course to
take. Over the years I have wondered about this event, wondered
how in the world I knew correctly what to do. Was this action on my
part something inborn? I knew that my father subscribed to a system
that caused a certain injustice to others, and by my small action I
took issue.
So was I perhaps acting out some sort of disagreement (or even
antagonism) against my father? Later, when I was lots older, yes
I disagreed with my father on this justice issue. But by that time I
was far more consciously aware about the history and concerns of
this issue. I truthfully cannot say that was the case when I took
action when still a very small child.
Now very much more mature in age, I have been long exposed to
my environment and its impact upon what is deemed Virtue.
Just me, but I'm inclined to wonder where our idea(s) of Virtue
come from. I believe that the "seeds" of Virtue are imbued in us,
already imbued as we are born into this world--thus, *apriori."
Many of us seem to know that certain high values are written in
our heart.
But like any form of talent or potential, it is left to our evolving
human development to hone our sense of Virtue and according
conduct. Hence Education is significant.
With this there is an abiding question: why is Virtue important?
I suspect it is strongly connected with Survival. As we humans
slowly developed socially, developed communities, unto cultures
and civilizations, we had to learn to live effectively with one
another. Our behavior toward the "other" had to be carefully
constructed, so as to produce a livable environment wherein
we did not harm (or even destroy) the other. Like tennis, what
we lob across the court can come back at us. The "Golden
Rule" is basic, so to speak.
Yet the wise Seneca noted we need stay strong when it comes
to Virtue. If we let such slip, we can quickly begin to see the
sad ramifications. Virtue need *stay* written in our heart, mainly
accomplished by continual testing of our individual and societal
behavior towards one another. As for Stability, well it surely is
helped along when we successfully practice Virtue.
It would seem that we need constantly to nourish the Seeds of
Virtue, lest we fail.
and acquire toughness and stability in time."
[Moses Hadas, Translator, THE STOIC PHILOSOPHY OF SENECA:
ESSAYS AND LETTERS, W.W. Norton & Company, 1958, p. 76.]
Comment: Upon reading the little sentence above, by the great
Roman Stoic, I immediately thought about human development in
modern terms. I also thought about the philosophical concept of
*apriori,* the assumption that proceeds from deduction--or perhaps
knowledge which we bring into the world, already intuitively aware
from the very beginning of our wee consciousness.
Our memories really have to be jarred, if we can go back to our
first couple of years. Did we sit at our parents' knees and listen,
comprehending the nuances of Virtue--or did we simply respond
to Yes and No, sometimes emphatically expressed?
Still I can relate to some early experience, when not yet five years
old. It was about facing a "justice" issue, and somehow deciding
by my action upon what I considered a good and right course to
take. Over the years I have wondered about this event, wondered
how in the world I knew correctly what to do. Was this action on my
part something inborn? I knew that my father subscribed to a system
that caused a certain injustice to others, and by my small action I
took issue.
So was I perhaps acting out some sort of disagreement (or even
antagonism) against my father? Later, when I was lots older, yes
I disagreed with my father on this justice issue. But by that time I
was far more consciously aware about the history and concerns of
this issue. I truthfully cannot say that was the case when I took
action when still a very small child.
Now very much more mature in age, I have been long exposed to
my environment and its impact upon what is deemed Virtue.
Just me, but I'm inclined to wonder where our idea(s) of Virtue
come from. I believe that the "seeds" of Virtue are imbued in us,
already imbued as we are born into this world--thus, *apriori."
Many of us seem to know that certain high values are written in
our heart.
But like any form of talent or potential, it is left to our evolving
human development to hone our sense of Virtue and according
conduct. Hence Education is significant.
With this there is an abiding question: why is Virtue important?
I suspect it is strongly connected with Survival. As we humans
slowly developed socially, developed communities, unto cultures
and civilizations, we had to learn to live effectively with one
another. Our behavior toward the "other" had to be carefully
constructed, so as to produce a livable environment wherein
we did not harm (or even destroy) the other. Like tennis, what
we lob across the court can come back at us. The "Golden
Rule" is basic, so to speak.
Yet the wise Seneca noted we need stay strong when it comes
to Virtue. If we let such slip, we can quickly begin to see the
sad ramifications. Virtue need *stay* written in our heart, mainly
accomplished by continual testing of our individual and societal
behavior towards one another. As for Stability, well it surely is
helped along when we successfully practice Virtue.
It would seem that we need constantly to nourish the Seeds of
Virtue, lest we fail.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
(20) Kinship
"More significant was the emphasis the Stoics placed on the
essential kinship of all men through their participation in divine
reason, or logos. They spoke of a universal society, a kind of
brotherhood of mankind, transcending the state. They refused
to attach any significance to noble birth and showed concern
about the position of the slave."
[Encyclopedia Americana, "Stoicism," p. 735.]
Comment: The above quote represents an on-going idealism
that has followed us down through the ages. This "kinship" is
like a dream that won't go away, no matter how we decry such
a possibility through our actions.
Unfortunately "positions of power," usually no longer attached
to nobility (whether inherited or instilled), still rule our world.
As for "slaves," maybe no longer chattel or serfs, there still
remain far too many enslaved peoples--whether to dictators,
to religious authorities, to unfair economic systems. Also,
enslavement is made possible through ignorance that--in turn--
is propagated by a lack of education or at least a lack of
information. These days much of the flow of information we
receive can be manipulated by those in a position of power,
employed for their own purpose.
Sounds negative, but that wonderful dream of kinship still dwells
in quiet corners. The question is about the "how" of it. How can
we humans ever reach a stage of development wherein this
kinship can ever hope to become a reality?
The Stoics talked of "divine reason," the Logos, as the path to
such a kinship. Their teachers talked of the "City of Zeus," which
indeed transcended governments, states, nations. This grand
City was cosmic, universal in nature. Even the Christians took
up the banner, talking about the "City of God." Alas, even after
such undertakings as the League of Nations and, later, the
United Nations, we are splintered. Why?
If I had any precise, correct answers, well I would be a sage. I'm
not, however. I can only guess that our connection with "God"
isn't all that tight. We have even splintered God. Indeed it is a
long on-going habit. The ancients had their pantheon of gods,
and we moderns have our ever splitting denominations! And
too many of us declare that we *know* what God thinks and does.
This kind of mindset always makes trouble for the rest of us who
aren't sure.
As for "divine reason," well some religious traditions do inject
Reason into their repositories as somewhat of a necessity when
it comes to an understanding of God. Just as much, alas, some
religious groups seem to forgo Reason altogether. We are a far
cry from the ideal kinship the Stoics stressed.
How can we even begin to approach such a possibility nowadays?
Maybe scientific discoveries might begin to point the way. The
Human Genome project tackled our human DNA. Beyond this,
we have come to understand that no matter Religion, Color, Gender,
Nationality, or any other kind of separation can deny that we humans
share a common DNA. Gads! We even have discovered that our
common DNA doesn't differ much from our cousin, the Chimp.
This discovery--disturbing, surely, for some--links us with the
Natural World. Hateful a discovery it might be, there it is!
Our DNA declares our human kinship. It's universal. Our DNA even
connects us with other species, linking us to that natural Web of
Relationship that is declared by both scientists and philosophers of
"Deep Ecology." Perhaps we need attend "divine reason" from far
different perspectives as we come more informed. If we look at
Creation and all the discoveries we are making therein, we just
might get a glimpse of "divine reason" long at work, seeing how
we are all strung together under its aegis.
essential kinship of all men through their participation in divine
reason, or logos. They spoke of a universal society, a kind of
brotherhood of mankind, transcending the state. They refused
to attach any significance to noble birth and showed concern
about the position of the slave."
[Encyclopedia Americana, "Stoicism," p. 735.]
Comment: The above quote represents an on-going idealism
that has followed us down through the ages. This "kinship" is
like a dream that won't go away, no matter how we decry such
a possibility through our actions.
Unfortunately "positions of power," usually no longer attached
to nobility (whether inherited or instilled), still rule our world.
As for "slaves," maybe no longer chattel or serfs, there still
remain far too many enslaved peoples--whether to dictators,
to religious authorities, to unfair economic systems. Also,
enslavement is made possible through ignorance that--in turn--
is propagated by a lack of education or at least a lack of
information. These days much of the flow of information we
receive can be manipulated by those in a position of power,
employed for their own purpose.
Sounds negative, but that wonderful dream of kinship still dwells
in quiet corners. The question is about the "how" of it. How can
we humans ever reach a stage of development wherein this
kinship can ever hope to become a reality?
The Stoics talked of "divine reason," the Logos, as the path to
such a kinship. Their teachers talked of the "City of Zeus," which
indeed transcended governments, states, nations. This grand
City was cosmic, universal in nature. Even the Christians took
up the banner, talking about the "City of God." Alas, even after
such undertakings as the League of Nations and, later, the
United Nations, we are splintered. Why?
If I had any precise, correct answers, well I would be a sage. I'm
not, however. I can only guess that our connection with "God"
isn't all that tight. We have even splintered God. Indeed it is a
long on-going habit. The ancients had their pantheon of gods,
and we moderns have our ever splitting denominations! And
too many of us declare that we *know* what God thinks and does.
This kind of mindset always makes trouble for the rest of us who
aren't sure.
As for "divine reason," well some religious traditions do inject
Reason into their repositories as somewhat of a necessity when
it comes to an understanding of God. Just as much, alas, some
religious groups seem to forgo Reason altogether. We are a far
cry from the ideal kinship the Stoics stressed.
How can we even begin to approach such a possibility nowadays?
Maybe scientific discoveries might begin to point the way. The
Human Genome project tackled our human DNA. Beyond this,
we have come to understand that no matter Religion, Color, Gender,
Nationality, or any other kind of separation can deny that we humans
share a common DNA. Gads! We even have discovered that our
common DNA doesn't differ much from our cousin, the Chimp.
This discovery--disturbing, surely, for some--links us with the
Natural World. Hateful a discovery it might be, there it is!
Our DNA declares our human kinship. It's universal. Our DNA even
connects us with other species, linking us to that natural Web of
Relationship that is declared by both scientists and philosophers of
"Deep Ecology." Perhaps we need attend "divine reason" from far
different perspectives as we come more informed. If we look at
Creation and all the discoveries we are making therein, we just
might get a glimpse of "divine reason" long at work, seeing how
we are all strung together under its aegis.
Monday, February 4, 2008
(19) Happiness
"We hold that happiness as understood by mature and fit
agents is a property of whole lives, not of transient mental
states. We hold that is is achievable only through a proper
balance of stability and control..."
[Lawrence C. Becker, A NEW STOICISM, Princeton University
Press, 1998, p. 138.]
Comment: I agree generally, but slightly disagree specifically.
There are some moments of happiness that can happen to
us unexpectedly. These moments perhaps should be seen
as gifts of Fortune, if you will. And just because we didn't
generate these special moments does not mean that we need
deny such.
But generally I do believe happiness is a state-of-mind that
spreads out into our life, stays sweetly, calm and content.
It's a matter of outlook, perhaps. And reaching towards this
condition is not a matter of specific happenings. As Becker
puts, this more steady form of happiness is not something
that is transient--that comes and goes.
However, this more general form of happiness is easier said
than done. I believe, as Becker does, that it's a result of
"stability and control." But these are attributes that take time
and effort, when it comes to developing them.
Stability? What does that really mean? In the monastic world,
stability is an essential that revolves around "staying put" in a
specific location; i.e., a monastery. But this idea can be expanded
in lots of different ways. There's long been talk that the *person*
is the living monastery, instead of some geographic spot behind
walls. But evolving personhood does depend on developing
personal stability. And with this, we are right back with the Stoics!
The next question is how does one develop stability? Surely
the answer depends on the person's personality. How you might
become stable might differ from the way I might evolve stability.
Perhaps I can only speak for myself in this matter. Mainly, I think
the big (or biggest) step is coming "To Know Thyself." I believe
the ancients had it right in this case.
More questions arise. Is knowing one's self a much more
complex issue today? Do we now live not only in a more
complicated outer world, but also a more complicated inner
world? Are ancient quotations really applicable for moderns?
In general terms, probably so. But, specifically, nowadays we
face far more variables!
Depth Psychology has made some headway into the complexities
of our mind. There's also Cognitive Science and Consciousness
Studies that also point towards a more challenging situation when
it comes to personhood. To be honest, it's obvious we probably
face a more hefty self-encounter than the ancients.
Nonetheless, "stability and control" remain essential. "Knowing
Thyself" involves self-acceptance. It's at this point where we reach
a kind of quiet, just knowing who we are. It's at this point that we
have garnered together all the different elements that compose
our personhood. If we can do this, then we have stabilized our
self. To use common parlance, we have "got it together" and then
it is a matter of "following our flow."
As for control, well that's like being the helmsman of our soul.
Steering through the sea of Life involves constant encounter(s)
that engage the stability of our ship, so to speak. We now *know*
who we are, but we may not always know what Life might be
throwing at us in the next moment. And it's at this point where
we need take control of our self and remain stable. If we can do
this, I guess you could call us a successful person--and that
can translate into happiness.
agents is a property of whole lives, not of transient mental
states. We hold that is is achievable only through a proper
balance of stability and control..."
[Lawrence C. Becker, A NEW STOICISM, Princeton University
Press, 1998, p. 138.]
Comment: I agree generally, but slightly disagree specifically.
There are some moments of happiness that can happen to
us unexpectedly. These moments perhaps should be seen
as gifts of Fortune, if you will. And just because we didn't
generate these special moments does not mean that we need
deny such.
But generally I do believe happiness is a state-of-mind that
spreads out into our life, stays sweetly, calm and content.
It's a matter of outlook, perhaps. And reaching towards this
condition is not a matter of specific happenings. As Becker
puts, this more steady form of happiness is not something
that is transient--that comes and goes.
However, this more general form of happiness is easier said
than done. I believe, as Becker does, that it's a result of
"stability and control." But these are attributes that take time
and effort, when it comes to developing them.
Stability? What does that really mean? In the monastic world,
stability is an essential that revolves around "staying put" in a
specific location; i.e., a monastery. But this idea can be expanded
in lots of different ways. There's long been talk that the *person*
is the living monastery, instead of some geographic spot behind
walls. But evolving personhood does depend on developing
personal stability. And with this, we are right back with the Stoics!
The next question is how does one develop stability? Surely
the answer depends on the person's personality. How you might
become stable might differ from the way I might evolve stability.
Perhaps I can only speak for myself in this matter. Mainly, I think
the big (or biggest) step is coming "To Know Thyself." I believe
the ancients had it right in this case.
More questions arise. Is knowing one's self a much more
complex issue today? Do we now live not only in a more
complicated outer world, but also a more complicated inner
world? Are ancient quotations really applicable for moderns?
In general terms, probably so. But, specifically, nowadays we
face far more variables!
Depth Psychology has made some headway into the complexities
of our mind. There's also Cognitive Science and Consciousness
Studies that also point towards a more challenging situation when
it comes to personhood. To be honest, it's obvious we probably
face a more hefty self-encounter than the ancients.
Nonetheless, "stability and control" remain essential. "Knowing
Thyself" involves self-acceptance. It's at this point where we reach
a kind of quiet, just knowing who we are. It's at this point that we
have garnered together all the different elements that compose
our personhood. If we can do this, then we have stabilized our
self. To use common parlance, we have "got it together" and then
it is a matter of "following our flow."
As for control, well that's like being the helmsman of our soul.
Steering through the sea of Life involves constant encounter(s)
that engage the stability of our ship, so to speak. We now *know*
who we are, but we may not always know what Life might be
throwing at us in the next moment. And it's at this point where
we need take control of our self and remain stable. If we can do
this, I guess you could call us a successful person--and that
can translate into happiness.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
(18) Duty
"Do not act unwillingly, nor selfishly nor without self-examination,
nor with divergent motives. Let no affectation veneer your thinking...
Moreover let the God within be the guardian of a real man...You
should stand upright, not be held upright."
[Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, Alfred Knopf, Everyman's Library,
1946, p.14.]
Comment: Marcus Aurelius was an Emperor of the Roman Empire,
wherein no man below him would be allowed to hold him upright.
At the top of his society, the ruler, his only true recourse was to rely
upon his own cognizance. That is not to say that he did not have
counselors, but in the end all his decisions and the actions that
ensued from such were ultimately traceable back to him.
Marcus Aurelius was deemed a "good" emperor by historians,
albeit the list of most Roman Caesars before him would make
nearly any decent man look good. Still, Marcus had the good
fortune to have a good family and also an adoptive family that
tutored him in the craft of statesmanship. Included in this, he
embarked upon the study of Stoic philosophy--and became a
proponent of the Stoa.
Now this isn't to say that Marcus Aurelius was a pious do-gooder.
He felt obliged to carry out his duty as Emperor. And this sometimes
meant standing in judgement, making harsh decisions, and also
waging war to protect his Empire from so-called barbarians. The
Stoic idea of doing one's duty is not necessarily as we might see
it today, especially from a religious perspective. Marcus Aurelius'
duty was to protect the Imperium from perceived destructive forces
from both within and without.
Interestingly, at the other end of the social spectrum was a freed
Roman slave--Epictetus, who also became a leading Stoic during
the time of the Empire. He was a teacher of the Stoa, concentrating
on virtue and morality.
Perhaps it would seem that Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are
extreme examples of the Stoa. Curious, but both truly suffered.
The Emperor surely was melancholy, as it seeps through in his
Meditations. It could be he was not all that comfortable in his role.
As Emperor he had oft to make personally harsh decisions that
likely roiled in his mind. On the other hand Epictetus was mistreated
as a boy, actually crippled by a cruel master. But Fate ultimately
provided him a master who saw to his education and eventually
gave him his freedom.
These two famous Stoics had different duties in life, and the only
thing they held in common was to follow their duty as they saw it.
One's outlook on duty must somehow impact on their accomplishment
of such. "Duty" as the Stoa presents it is not necessarily full of a list
of "do's and dont's," such as you might find in religious prescriptions.
Rather, the Stoa only asked that one try to be virtuous and act
naturally towards one's duty. The Stoa saw few issues when it came
to serving one's State or Nation or even Empire. For the Stoics these
societal constructs were systems necessary for the benefit and
protection of humanity.
Today we might be more inclined towards Epictetus' role and the
duty involved as a teacher. It perhaps seems more gentle. Still,
there are other duties, rough duties that are necessary in this world,
that seem less attractive. Fate thrusts us in these categories of duty.
The concern, always, is that we face our duty steadfastly, doing such
as virtuously as we can.
nor with divergent motives. Let no affectation veneer your thinking...
Moreover let the God within be the guardian of a real man...You
should stand upright, not be held upright."
[Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, Alfred Knopf, Everyman's Library,
1946, p.14.]
Comment: Marcus Aurelius was an Emperor of the Roman Empire,
wherein no man below him would be allowed to hold him upright.
At the top of his society, the ruler, his only true recourse was to rely
upon his own cognizance. That is not to say that he did not have
counselors, but in the end all his decisions and the actions that
ensued from such were ultimately traceable back to him.
Marcus Aurelius was deemed a "good" emperor by historians,
albeit the list of most Roman Caesars before him would make
nearly any decent man look good. Still, Marcus had the good
fortune to have a good family and also an adoptive family that
tutored him in the craft of statesmanship. Included in this, he
embarked upon the study of Stoic philosophy--and became a
proponent of the Stoa.
Now this isn't to say that Marcus Aurelius was a pious do-gooder.
He felt obliged to carry out his duty as Emperor. And this sometimes
meant standing in judgement, making harsh decisions, and also
waging war to protect his Empire from so-called barbarians. The
Stoic idea of doing one's duty is not necessarily as we might see
it today, especially from a religious perspective. Marcus Aurelius'
duty was to protect the Imperium from perceived destructive forces
from both within and without.
Interestingly, at the other end of the social spectrum was a freed
Roman slave--Epictetus, who also became a leading Stoic during
the time of the Empire. He was a teacher of the Stoa, concentrating
on virtue and morality.
Perhaps it would seem that Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are
extreme examples of the Stoa. Curious, but both truly suffered.
The Emperor surely was melancholy, as it seeps through in his
Meditations. It could be he was not all that comfortable in his role.
As Emperor he had oft to make personally harsh decisions that
likely roiled in his mind. On the other hand Epictetus was mistreated
as a boy, actually crippled by a cruel master. But Fate ultimately
provided him a master who saw to his education and eventually
gave him his freedom.
These two famous Stoics had different duties in life, and the only
thing they held in common was to follow their duty as they saw it.
One's outlook on duty must somehow impact on their accomplishment
of such. "Duty" as the Stoa presents it is not necessarily full of a list
of "do's and dont's," such as you might find in religious prescriptions.
Rather, the Stoa only asked that one try to be virtuous and act
naturally towards one's duty. The Stoa saw few issues when it came
to serving one's State or Nation or even Empire. For the Stoics these
societal constructs were systems necessary for the benefit and
protection of humanity.
Today we might be more inclined towards Epictetus' role and the
duty involved as a teacher. It perhaps seems more gentle. Still,
there are other duties, rough duties that are necessary in this world,
that seem less attractive. Fate thrusts us in these categories of duty.
The concern, always, is that we face our duty steadfastly, doing such
as virtuously as we can.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
(17) The Will of Nature
"Learn the will of nature. Study it, pay attention to it, and then
make it your own. The will of nature is revealed to us through
everyday experiences common to all people...Carry this
understanding over to matters of greater emotional import
and worldly consequence...Learn to accept events, even death,
with intelligence."
[Sharon Lebell , THE ART OF LIVING: EPICTETUS, a New
Interpretation of the Classic Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and
Effectiveness, Harper, 1994, p.35.]
Comment: Even if we are not familiar with Stoicism, much less
one of its leading proponents, Epictetus, most of us are familiar
with that old adage about "death and taxes." We can't escape
them, at least seemingly so.
There are tax evaders, especially so at the higher income brackets.
Occasionally such evaders are brought to justice, but that's
probably mostly a small dip in a deep pan. As for death, well
at the physical level it seems a pretty sure thing.
As for "events," well that depends on what we can or cannot
change. Epictetus hoped that we had the wisdom to understand
this. Some events are simply beyond our control--and we would
be better off to work through them and try to put them behind us,
if we can.
However, what about those situations or events that we can
alter or control? I suspect a lot of these kind of events, if we so
choose, can actually be deterred, prevented. In our own day we
perhaps have better opportunities to do this. Technology can
serve as a preventative or as a warning system; i.e., nature's
storms for example. Forewarned, we can move out of the path
of a hurricane--if we choose to do so.
We also can thwart medical disasters upon occasion. Our
health systems are focusing more and more on Preventative
Medicine. Today, too, we have Insurance whether it's for
fire or flood or accident or even to replace us, in that it provides
a certain financial security for family left behind.
So it would seem we are becoming more savvy when it comes to
circumventing the "will of nature." We still need intelligently to
accept certain events that are simply unavoidable; but, we are
also more intelligently learning to negate some events as well.
Nonetheless, we are only on the cusp of coping with nature. There's
no need to crow over our successes. Still, we have to consider that
we no longer have to assume a blank passive acceptance of events.
Such passiviity is now our enemy, if you will. If we are to make this
world a better place in which to live, we need come to grips with
seemingly impossible events.
For example, even death may take a turn for us. We now discover
that there have been thousands upon thousands of Near Death
Experience (NDE) reports coming down to us through the centuries.
We no longer consider the NDE as an "old wives' tale," but rather
now we have psychologists and medical personnel actually
examining this reported death event.
We still have to accept death on the physical level. A friend, a
family member, who has died is gone to us. Physically gone, but
maybe not spiritually. Do we really have to accept the "dead and
gone"? Many of us intuit that there is more to this phenomenon.
The challenge is *not* to be overwhelmed by death, but rather
cherish our hope and love for those seemingly lost.
In the end, we are learning to cope with nature in more productive
ways. We are learning to forewarn, learning to protect ourselves
better. And no matter our adversities, we are learning not to stew
in them; but, rather, we are evolving better coping mechanisms.
By using our intelligence, employing our ingenuity, we no longer
are totally enslaved to the will of nature. Most importantly, perhaps
the next step in our relationship, we are carefully beginning to
*respect* nature, learning how to work with her, letting her teach us!
make it your own. The will of nature is revealed to us through
everyday experiences common to all people...Carry this
understanding over to matters of greater emotional import
and worldly consequence...Learn to accept events, even death,
with intelligence."
[Sharon Lebell , THE ART OF LIVING: EPICTETUS, a New
Interpretation of the Classic Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and
Effectiveness, Harper, 1994, p.35.]
Comment: Even if we are not familiar with Stoicism, much less
one of its leading proponents, Epictetus, most of us are familiar
with that old adage about "death and taxes." We can't escape
them, at least seemingly so.
There are tax evaders, especially so at the higher income brackets.
Occasionally such evaders are brought to justice, but that's
probably mostly a small dip in a deep pan. As for death, well
at the physical level it seems a pretty sure thing.
As for "events," well that depends on what we can or cannot
change. Epictetus hoped that we had the wisdom to understand
this. Some events are simply beyond our control--and we would
be better off to work through them and try to put them behind us,
if we can.
However, what about those situations or events that we can
alter or control? I suspect a lot of these kind of events, if we so
choose, can actually be deterred, prevented. In our own day we
perhaps have better opportunities to do this. Technology can
serve as a preventative or as a warning system; i.e., nature's
storms for example. Forewarned, we can move out of the path
of a hurricane--if we choose to do so.
We also can thwart medical disasters upon occasion. Our
health systems are focusing more and more on Preventative
Medicine. Today, too, we have Insurance whether it's for
fire or flood or accident or even to replace us, in that it provides
a certain financial security for family left behind.
So it would seem we are becoming more savvy when it comes to
circumventing the "will of nature." We still need intelligently to
accept certain events that are simply unavoidable; but, we are
also more intelligently learning to negate some events as well.
Nonetheless, we are only on the cusp of coping with nature. There's
no need to crow over our successes. Still, we have to consider that
we no longer have to assume a blank passive acceptance of events.
Such passiviity is now our enemy, if you will. If we are to make this
world a better place in which to live, we need come to grips with
seemingly impossible events.
For example, even death may take a turn for us. We now discover
that there have been thousands upon thousands of Near Death
Experience (NDE) reports coming down to us through the centuries.
We no longer consider the NDE as an "old wives' tale," but rather
now we have psychologists and medical personnel actually
examining this reported death event.
We still have to accept death on the physical level. A friend, a
family member, who has died is gone to us. Physically gone, but
maybe not spiritually. Do we really have to accept the "dead and
gone"? Many of us intuit that there is more to this phenomenon.
The challenge is *not* to be overwhelmed by death, but rather
cherish our hope and love for those seemingly lost.
In the end, we are learning to cope with nature in more productive
ways. We are learning to forewarn, learning to protect ourselves
better. And no matter our adversities, we are learning not to stew
in them; but, rather, we are evolving better coping mechanisms.
By using our intelligence, employing our ingenuity, we no longer
are totally enslaved to the will of nature. Most importantly, perhaps
the next step in our relationship, we are carefully beginning to
*respect* nature, learning how to work with her, letting her teach us!
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
(16) Reason's Cousins
As Virgil asked: "Is this the way to the heavens?" In turn,
the Stoic philosopher Seneca responded. "For this is what
philosophy has promised me--that she will make me God's
equal. That's the invitation and that's what I've come for..."
[Seneca, LETTERS FROM A STOIC, Translator (Robin
Campbell), Penguin Books, 1969, p. 99.]
The ancient Stoa taught that we are as a microcosm to the
Macrocosm. And the Macrocosm was that Vital Force, the
great Reason that stood as the Plenum of the Universe.
And it is within this context, I believe, that the early Stoics
were talking in these terms as an equal to God.
*Reason* was the big outcropping discovery for the early
Greeks. It was a new human tool, very shiny and exciting.
Reason was that discovered capacity that seemingly made
the human rise above all the other life forms on the planet.
Albeit, however, even in this context only a few humans actually
were well honed in this new capacity wherein one could feel a
true son of God, or God's equal. The route towards living a
virtuous life under the aegis of Reason was that of philosophy.
And the Stoics felt that they had it right, were on the correct
course, if you will.
In today's world, some of these kind of ideas seem rather naive.
Over the course of more than two millennia, Reason isn't
worshipped as it once was. Perhaps the European Enlightenment
was the sunset of Reason as the one and only important human
capacity. Perhaps putting too much emphasis on Logic dimmed
our worship of Reason. More likely the evolution of learning, the
compiling of an ever increasing knowledge-base, put Reason
into a less comfortable place.
Today we look at ourselves, at our world, far more holistically.
We have come to understand that we humans are far more
diverse in our capacities, in our abilities, that now disallow
pigeon-holing ourselves into one specific category--Reason or
otherwise. Today modern psychologists realize that our mind
is altogether Emotion, Feeling, as well as Reason. And by
stressing just one category, there had been the tendency to
ignore these other useful capacities. What we modern humans
are learning is that holistically all our capacities must interplay
with one another, must work in tandem in order to be more
effective in this Game of Life.
I still believe that sentient forms of be-ing in this world are as a
microcosm to the Macrocosm; because it is our hope that in
some not yet fully understandable way the Universe, itself, is
the epitome of Sentience. But, again, Sentience cannot be boxed
in, just as a sentient being should not. Evolving, unfolding in this
world, is not about just one capacity over all the others in which
we have been endowed. Instead, it would seem we are meant
to discover over and over more capacities as we evolve towards
a greater maturity.
One of the major new fields rising in our own time is Consciousness
Studies. Scholars representing many disciplines are involved in
this new field. Indeed there are international forums sponsoring
this work more and more. Nowadays it is far from just Reason.
It is even beyond the more general categories of Emotion and
Feeling. Scientists now study Consciousness in relation to Quantum
Physics or within the more general context of the New Cosmology.
Scholars no longer are reticent about such human capacities as
telepathy or even subtle energies--hence we have Psi, Parapsychology.
Thus it would seem Reason has its cousins, so to speak. Reason
need not be rejected as we place our other human capacities in
their rightful place. After all, if not for Reason we would never have
discovered or come to comprehend these other aspects of the human
mind. And Reason, too, has come to be tolerant, more open in its
estimation of these other human capacities. Reason has allowed
itself to become a pioneer wandering in mental fields of which the
ancient Stoic could not even imagine.
the Stoic philosopher Seneca responded. "For this is what
philosophy has promised me--that she will make me God's
equal. That's the invitation and that's what I've come for..."
[Seneca, LETTERS FROM A STOIC, Translator (Robin
Campbell), Penguin Books, 1969, p. 99.]
The ancient Stoa taught that we are as a microcosm to the
Macrocosm. And the Macrocosm was that Vital Force, the
great Reason that stood as the Plenum of the Universe.
And it is within this context, I believe, that the early Stoics
were talking in these terms as an equal to God.
*Reason* was the big outcropping discovery for the early
Greeks. It was a new human tool, very shiny and exciting.
Reason was that discovered capacity that seemingly made
the human rise above all the other life forms on the planet.
Albeit, however, even in this context only a few humans actually
were well honed in this new capacity wherein one could feel a
true son of God, or God's equal. The route towards living a
virtuous life under the aegis of Reason was that of philosophy.
And the Stoics felt that they had it right, were on the correct
course, if you will.
In today's world, some of these kind of ideas seem rather naive.
Over the course of more than two millennia, Reason isn't
worshipped as it once was. Perhaps the European Enlightenment
was the sunset of Reason as the one and only important human
capacity. Perhaps putting too much emphasis on Logic dimmed
our worship of Reason. More likely the evolution of learning, the
compiling of an ever increasing knowledge-base, put Reason
into a less comfortable place.
Today we look at ourselves, at our world, far more holistically.
We have come to understand that we humans are far more
diverse in our capacities, in our abilities, that now disallow
pigeon-holing ourselves into one specific category--Reason or
otherwise. Today modern psychologists realize that our mind
is altogether Emotion, Feeling, as well as Reason. And by
stressing just one category, there had been the tendency to
ignore these other useful capacities. What we modern humans
are learning is that holistically all our capacities must interplay
with one another, must work in tandem in order to be more
effective in this Game of Life.
I still believe that sentient forms of be-ing in this world are as a
microcosm to the Macrocosm; because it is our hope that in
some not yet fully understandable way the Universe, itself, is
the epitome of Sentience. But, again, Sentience cannot be boxed
in, just as a sentient being should not. Evolving, unfolding in this
world, is not about just one capacity over all the others in which
we have been endowed. Instead, it would seem we are meant
to discover over and over more capacities as we evolve towards
a greater maturity.
One of the major new fields rising in our own time is Consciousness
Studies. Scholars representing many disciplines are involved in
this new field. Indeed there are international forums sponsoring
this work more and more. Nowadays it is far from just Reason.
It is even beyond the more general categories of Emotion and
Feeling. Scientists now study Consciousness in relation to Quantum
Physics or within the more general context of the New Cosmology.
Scholars no longer are reticent about such human capacities as
telepathy or even subtle energies--hence we have Psi, Parapsychology.
Thus it would seem Reason has its cousins, so to speak. Reason
need not be rejected as we place our other human capacities in
their rightful place. After all, if not for Reason we would never have
discovered or come to comprehend these other aspects of the human
mind. And Reason, too, has come to be tolerant, more open in its
estimation of these other human capacities. Reason has allowed
itself to become a pioneer wandering in mental fields of which the
ancient Stoic could not even imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
