Tuesday presenters, post your summaries in the comments space here or in a new author post.
1. Stoics say we most need to question what?
2. What do Buddhists and Stoics imply about our animal nature?
3. What did Aristotle say about money, success, fame, and relationships?
4. What view of mind and self do most psychologists and neuroscientists now support?
5. Buddhism and Stoicism both have what at their core?
6. Who kept a virtue "scorecard"?
7. What did Hierocles say about circles?
8. The most distinctive intersection of Buddhist and Stoic ethics is what?
Discussion Questions:
- Does "choosing a school" bring a risk of dogmatism? 91
- Is choosing to prioritize your "animal or divine nature" necessary or advisable? 94
- Are you comfortable thinking of yourself as a human animal?
- Do you think it's possible to pursue and enjoy wealth without becoming attached to materialistic values? 95
- Do you share the "modern sensibility" about death? 101
- Do you think you've achieved a healthy attitude towards "worldly goods"? 102
- COMMENT? "A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the chance to take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called ‘meaningless’ except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one’s everyday life as if this were so. Whereas if one sought to define meaninglessness and futility, the idea that a human life should be expended in the guilty, fearful, self-obsessed propitiation of supernatural nonentities… but there, there. Enough.”--Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22: A Memoir
- Do you think humans are "predisposed to act ethically"? 109 Is reason our "essential nature"? 110
- Do you prefer virtue ethics, rule-based ethics, both, neither...? 114
• Does "choosing a school" bring a risk of dogmatism? 91
ReplyDeleteI do, “Choosing a school” brings dogmatism in the same way that having one professor for all your philosophy courses does. It is only natural to exclude points of view when you only have one. The first time I heard this piece of knowledge was from a philosophy professor at a small private university in east Tennessee. I was thinking about attending there and scheduled a conversation with him to see if I’d be interested. He was a charming man probably in his late 40s who had a library in his office that any philosophy professor would envy. I remember thinking that if I could take classes from him, I’d be well on my way to grad school fully prepared for anything that got in my way. However, one of the first things he told me, while I was sitting in his office marveling at all of his books, was about all of the other professors in the department. It occurred to me to ask why we were spending so much time speaking about other professors and what classes they offer only by the second meeting. It was at this time he dropped the knowledge I mentioned at the beginning of this answer. He said he had no wish to “create clones” of himself and that the university needed more staff on the subject. At this moment it made a lot of sense, no matter how much this man knew he was only one person, and all one person can give is their perspective. It doesn’t matter how great that person is or might seem or how knowledgeable. Most schools of thought originate from one person or a very small group. Who of which I am sure moved people similarly to how this professor appeared to me.
4. What view of mind and self do most psychologists and neuroscientists now support?
ReplyDeleteOur evolutionary history leads us to continue to adopt a “fight or flight” response causing us to feel stressed and anxious when no threat really exists. We also have a tendency toward a parenting response which can calm and sooth our fears which when balanced with our fight or flight response can lead to a less anxious existence and a more contented and satisfying life.
7. What did Hierocles say about circles?
ReplyDeleteHe suggested that we imagine concentric circles spreading out from our mind. The first circle would encompass our own body. Subsequent circles would include people according to the degree of closeness and concern we feel toward them, so first family, friends, neighbors, our community members, and finally “the whole of humanity”. (Macaro, p. 95, Kindle Edition)
8. The most distinctive intersection of Buddhist and Stoic ethics is what?
ReplyDeleteThey intersect most distinctively in their “ideal of sympathetic detachment” (Macaro, p. 101, Kindle Edition), the ability to engage with life without becoming overly attached to people or things and while avoiding disruptive emotions. We should be able to have empathy and show compassion for others without becoming co-dependent on others.
• Do you think it's possible to pursue and enjoy wealth without becoming attached to materialistic values? 95
ReplyDeleteSeneca, born into wealth concludes that a “wise person ‘does not love wealth, but he does prefer it’.” He considers wealth an “indifferent” which we may have without being attached to it. There are examples of fabulously wealthy people who seem to have not become attached to wealth like Sam Walton and Billy Graham.
Wealthy people have the luxury of saying they are "indifferent" towards their wealth. If you ask me it doesn't really matter what a wealthy person says about the money. Point is they have it and they aren't giving it up anytime soon. When you grow up knowing that what stands between you and food, clothing, medicine, and shelter is money it is impossible to be indifferent. In fact, to ignore this is to ignore the struggles of everyone that isn't wealthy.
Delete• Do you share the "modern sensibility" about death? 101
ReplyDeleteNo, rather I think a flourishing and well lived life lessons the pain of death. I have met many highly active and actualized people who have come to a point of satisfaction with their life where they can honestly say that they are ready to die and unafraid of death.
Death is the end of all that one cares about in one form or another. Nobody can be truly ready for death. At least not form the perspective of an anthist with a full understanding of what it means to die. It is the same reason a person is sad when a movie ends. We know that all movies must end and if they went on any longer it wouldn't be for the best. In fact, we might even wish that we couldn't rewatch the movie for the first time. All of this creates a sadness, one that just doesn't go away. Who wants to forget everything and stop caring completely? Unless a person doesn't see a point in any of it.
Delete• Do you think humans are "predisposed to act ethically"? 109 Is reason our "essential nature"? 110
ReplyDeleteThis is an extreme error in Stoic thinking. Clearly, every person is different, and while some may be “predisposed to act ethically”, many others are not. I would put a Stoic among the inmates of a maximum-security juvenile prison to hear the stories of those young peoples lives so far and then ask what they think those kids are predisposed toward…
• Do you prefer virtue ethics, rule-based ethics, both, neither...? 114
ReplyDeleteI would choose virtue ethics of the two. Rule-based ethics or legalism (in my mind) has never succeeded in rendering consistent ethical behavior from any human population. In fact, the attitude of many people seems to be that “rules are made to be broken”. In practice I choose neither and have developed my own “Gary” way of making ethical decisions.
Do you think it's possible to pursue and enjoy wealth without becoming attached to materialistic values?
ReplyDeleteI think to enjoy wealth, and even more so enjoy the pursuit of wealth, without becoming attached to materialistic values. I think in a situation that you are pursuing wealth as a means of stability or increased security for yourself or your family, there is no legitimate attachment to the materialistic values themselves, just an attachment to the well-being and livelihood of yourself and your family. (which I, unlike some Buddhist philosophers, don’t think is a bad thing)
In contrast, I think the Seneca quote the author uses shines light on what I think is the biggest problem of pursing wealth and fortune. It reads, “ Money never made anyone rich: all it does is infect everyone who touches it with a lust for more of itself.” The biggest “risk” in pursing wealth is the pursuit itself. There is a vicious cycle that comes with making money. The more you make, the more you want.
Are you comfortable thinking of yourself as a human animal?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem referring to myself as a human animal. I would say I use this same explanation process, usually in different terms, to justify a lot of human behaviors. I am a firm believer that human beings are inherently selfish beings. At every moment, somewhere in the back of our minds, sometimes even subconsciously, we are thinking about how we will benefit or what we will gain. That is what I think of when I think of referring to myself as a human animal. I think the most important point made in the book when referring to us as human animals, is the emphasis put on focusing on taking care of the mind most.
Where I disagree with the idea of being a “human animal”, is where Epictetus says we should be “…treating the body as unimportant.” The idea of separating my physical and mental health is almost impossible for me. In my experience, my physical well-being almost always reflects, and even more so, reflects my mental health and well-being. I couldn’t imagine possibly benefitting from neglecting my physical well-being in order to benefit my mental well-being.
Do you think you've achieved a healthy attitude towards "worldly goods"? 102
ReplyDeleteI think I have a decent relationship and attitude with “worldly goods.” I think I have an adequate level of separation from material goods, but I do find myself having a strong sense of attachment to pursing wealth. I think I allow my finical status to hold too much bearing over my feelings of security and my overall view of my livelihood and well-being. I am not a person that holds much value in material things in a legitimate physical sense, but I do feel that I could use improvement in my fixation on constantly needing more money to feel okay and secure.
Tomorrow, I will be discussing Christian Hedonism. My reasoning directly comes from John Piper's book, "Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist." Ultimately, I hope to offer the Christian perspective of happiness and what that means for each and every one of us.
ReplyDeleteA continuation...
ReplyDeleteToday, I will present to the class what it means to be a Christian Hedonist, or in other words, a happy Christian. In our culture, it’s not uncommon for believers in Christ to be called “joyless” or “stuck up,” but I want to offer a different perspective, a biblical one. Jesus, the founder of the Christian movement, taught repeatedly over joy and happiness in Him. He said things like, “The Lord makes me happy; all that I am rejoices in God.” Christians have been given the ultimate source of happiness: God Himself. This is the aim of Christian Hedonism, to recognize the duty of the Christian, which is to glorify God, while maintaining that we are to enjoy Him forever. In this relationship, one can experience lasting happiness, an eternal spring of delight. This presentation is a reminder to the Christian that God is to be enjoyed, and as a result, we can be truly filled with happiness. I also aim to reach out to the seeker and septic and offer what I believe to be true. With these two aims, I hope the class can rethink what a Christian is, and hopefully, start the path to lasting satisfaction. After all, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.”
Two questions and prompts to ponder/discuss after the presentation:
I. Compare and contrast Christian Hedonism from Hedonism in general.
II. What do you think Piper means when he says, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him?”
Sources:
1. Desiring God – The Website
2. Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist by John Piper
3. Merriam-Webster
4. Focus On the Family
5. ESV and NCV
I thing generally a virtue based ethic is superior to a rule based one simply do to the wide rage of scenarios where it may be applied. By constantly meditating on what is true or what is just or beautiful you have primed your mind to acting ethically regardless of what the situation may hold because you'll be constantly looking for options that hold to those values.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a degree of value to be had when you prioritize your divine nature over your purely animal one but at the same time there are significant obvious drawbacks to excluding our animal nature from our consideration. For example both aspects of humanity have their own strengths and limitations and the exclusion of either leads to forgetting those limitations exist. Although I would argue that focusing on the divine aspect might make one more capable of overcoming physical limitations while the reverse it seems to me is impossible to overcome by physical means
ReplyDelete