Football, Stoicism and the Battle of Maldon Again
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004 11:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinturnerOver in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
philosophy I made a few contributions to a thread on Stoicism, and criticised the popular view that Stoicism implies indifference to all emotions. I think this is at least partly the result of translating adiaphora as "things indifferent" and patheia as "emotions", neither of which are exactly right, though they're close. Adiaphora refers to the realm of things which are pleasant or unpleasant, and are thus erroneously (in the Stoic view) considered good or bad. However, even though they have no moral significance, they are still to be chosen (lepton) or avoided (alepton). In fact, what is good (agathon) is related to the ability to choose rationally between these supposedly indifferent things.
Watching Fenerbahçe play Manchester United today, I was reminded of this, not least because one of Fenerbahçe's players is a Brazilian called Marco Aurelio. I was supporting Fener, having recently defected from the other leading Turkish team, Galatasaray (who I only chose in the first place to annoy my old boss). Since Manchester won 6-2, I should have been pretty pissed off. Indeed, I was, but it did not destroy my enjoyment of the match. This is adiaphora, right? It is of no ulitmate importance who wins the match, but in order to have a good match, someone must win, and it is important to care who wins - but not too much. That's the tricky bit.
One reason why it was still a good match to watch (and I never watch a bad match, since I'm no football fanatic) was that Fener refused to let the invincible Rooney demoralise them, and kept struggling to the end. Once again I was reminded of "The Battle of Maldon":
philosophy I made a few contributions to a thread on Stoicism, and criticised the popular view that Stoicism implies indifference to all emotions. I think this is at least partly the result of translating adiaphora as "things indifferent" and patheia as "emotions", neither of which are exactly right, though they're close. Adiaphora refers to the realm of things which are pleasant or unpleasant, and are thus erroneously (in the Stoic view) considered good or bad. However, even though they have no moral significance, they are still to be chosen (lepton) or avoided (alepton). In fact, what is good (agathon) is related to the ability to choose rationally between these supposedly indifferent things.Watching Fenerbahçe play Manchester United today, I was reminded of this, not least because one of Fenerbahçe's players is a Brazilian called Marco Aurelio. I was supporting Fener, having recently defected from the other leading Turkish team, Galatasaray (who I only chose in the first place to annoy my old boss). Since Manchester won 6-2, I should have been pretty pissed off. Indeed, I was, but it did not destroy my enjoyment of the match. This is adiaphora, right? It is of no ulitmate importance who wins the match, but in order to have a good match, someone must win, and it is important to care who wins - but not too much. That's the tricky bit.
One reason why it was still a good match to watch (and I never watch a bad match, since I'm no football fanatic) was that Fener refused to let the invincible Rooney demoralise them, and kept struggling to the end. Once again I was reminded of "The Battle of Maldon":
Warriors fell,
weary with wounds. The slain fell on earth.
Oswold and Eadwold all the while,
both those brothers, strengthened the men,
with words bade their kin-friends
that they should endure at need,
unweakly use weapons.
Byrhtwold spoke, raised his shield--
he was an old retainer--shook his ash-spear;
full boldly he taught warriors:
"Thought must be the harder, heart be the keener,
mind must be the greater, while our strength lessens.
Here lies our prince all hewn,
good one on grit. He may always mourn
who from this war-play thinks now to turn.
My life is old: I will not away;
but I myself beside my lord,
by so loved a man, think to lie."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 02:14 pm (UTC)Bravo! The same unfortunate confound arises concerning Buddhist "detachment", as though deadening ourselves is somehow virtuous ... 'sup with that?!
"[...] refers to the realm of things which are pleasant or unpleasant, and are thus erroneously (in the Stoic view) considered good or bad."
Mother lode; using such arisings to confirm our preferences / prejudices is the root of all suffering.
"However, even though they have no moral significance, they are still to be chosen (lepton) or avoided (alepton)."
When one considers one's interest calmly this logic reveals itself ... and so profound relaxation arises as an entailment of intelligent (aesthetic) discrimination, i.e. prajna.
Even the largest lake is filled one drop at a time.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 11:20 am (UTC)BTW: today on CPAC there were the proceedings of a conference on religious pluralism and the humanist on the panel made his point neatly: "Believe as you will, but please please behave as though its up to us to actually work out our problems." and then expanded using my classic about how experiences feed into activity: I really and truly to see the mirage, but I do not go walking out into the desert with the intention of collecting water, i.e. the mirage is more real than the water.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 11:38 am (UTC)For some modern psychology inspired in part by Stoicism, check out Albert Ellis' A New Guide to Rational Living. This is one of the very few psychology self-help books that I have found useful.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 02:23 pm (UTC)traitor!
Date: 2004-10-04 07:38 am (UTC)you are a traitor to galatasaray!
;)
Re: traitor!
Date: 2004-10-04 09:34 am (UTC)