Stoicism

[robinturner]

(From my diary for my "Happiness" course)

Reading all this Stoicism is having an effect on me (actually, I used to be a pretty heavy Stoic some years age, but that's another story). I was determined to at least not let little things bother me. The first little thing was an itch in my left nipple. The problem with itching there is that if you try to scratch it, you look like Tarkan ("Aaaay, ay unutuldum ..."). It's difficult to concentrate on Thomas Hobbes with an itchy nipple - as Confucius said, "a brave man can withstand torture, but no one can withstand an itch" - but I kind of managed it.

After classes finished I went to the bank to get some sterling out of my account. I had to wait in a queue for half an hour, which meant I missed the ring service, then when I finally got to the front of the queue, it turned out that although tey had put aside the cash as I had requested on Friday, they's made a mistake and given it to someone else. The girl at the desk looked like she thought I was going to bite her, but I reminded myself tat anger is a sign of stupidity, and accepted her apology with a smile. Lots of Stoic points for Robin!

Then I started to get diarrhea. I went to the library to find some books on Stoicism etc. and found that none of the toilets in B block had any toilet paper. So I grabbed my books quickly and went back to A block, to find that all the toilets there had signs on saying "Out of order: please use the toilets in B block." "Ay ay" indeed, plus "Of", "Oy" and other things I can't type here. Anyway, I thought, "Come on Robin, here you are reading all this Stoicism and disturbing your soul with a little thing like not being able to find a toilet. As Epictetus might have put it, "Diarrhea is a hindrance to the bottom, but not to your ability to choose." To my surprise, this worked, and I was able to avoid both pain in the body and trouble in the soul (as Epicurus defined pleasure, though to call this pleasure would be a bit of an exaggeration).

My iron Stoic Will collapsed recently, though, as I'm supposed to be doing hapkido this evening. Given the state of my bowels, I decided to stop being a Stoic and be an Epicurean for the night. I'm sure Marcus Aurelius would have gone and done his martial exercises whatever state his body was in. That's probably why he died at the age of fifty-eight.

Comments

[chippiex.livejournal.com]

Are you sure that anger is a sign of stupidity? Which one of your philosophers said this? I would say I'm generally more of an Epicurean.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Most, if not all the Stoics were against anger, which they classified as pathos (disturbance of the soul). Marcus aurelius, in particular, sees anger as a form of stupidity, since it comes from a demand that the world be other than it is:

Art thou angry with him whose armpits stink? Art thou angry with him
whose mouth smells foul? What good will this danger do thee? He has
such a mouth, he has such arm-pits: it is necessary that such an emanation
must come from such things.
...
Consider how much more pain is brought on us by the anger and vexation caused by such acts than by the acts themselves, at which we are angry and vexed.
...
And let this truth be present to thee in the excitement of anger, that to be moved by passion is not manly, but that mildness and gentleness, as they are more agreeable to human nature, so also are they more manly; and he who possesses these qualities possesses strength, nerves and courage, and not the man who is subject to fits of passion and discontent.

Epicureans were generally more equivocal, often making a distinction between natural anger, which is momentary, inevitable and someimtes a useful dterrent to aggressors, and "empty" anger, which is unnecessary, harmful and the result of wrong thinking.

Putting the two together, I'd say that there's a basic "Grrr" response which is part of our biological nature - the kind of thing which happens unthinkingly (in fact, before you even have time to think) if, for example, someone treads on your toe. Even many Stoics would argue that this is essentially a physical reaction and not under the control of reason (and therefore not blameworthy). Most anger, though, is the result of thinking - we make ourselves angry by ruminating (usually half-consciously) about how awful the person or event in question is, and how it shouldn't have happened and so on (this is more-or-less the view proposed in Rational Emotive Therapy, which was influenced heavily by both Stoicism and Epicureanism). In other words, most anger is stupid.


I would say I'm generally more of an Epicurean.
I'm a Stoicurean!

Re:

[chippiex.livejournal.com]

This is quite interesting. I would like to share this with friends if that's OK with you.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Sure. Consider it GPLed!

Re:

[chippiex.livejournal.com]

What on earth is GPLed?

[solri.livejournal.com]

GPL = GNU Public Licence, also known as copyleft. The standard Free Software agreement; basically "do what the hell you like with it, so long as you don't copyright it".

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

Most anger, though, is the result of thinking - we make ourselves angry by ruminating (usually half-consciously) about how awful the person or event in question is, and how it shouldn't have happened and so on (this is more-or-less the view proposed in Rational Emotive Therapy, which was influenced heavily by both Stoicism and Epicureanism). In other words, most anger is stupid.

That is SO TRUE though!!! I wish I could figure out how to stop doing that. It really screws me up sometimes. Bleh.

[kristian.livejournal.com]

Marcus aurelius, in particular, sees anger as a form of stupidity, since it comes from a demand that the world be other than it is

Hahaha. Typical rich white boy attitude.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Which is rich white boy, Marcus Aurelius or the attitude that the world be other than it is?

Actually, as a rich white boy, you can't get much better than Marcus Aurelius - I mean some kids get a Porsche when they graduate, he got an Empire.

[kristian.livejournal.com]

Both, but specifically the attitude.

sees anger as a form of stupidity, since it comes from a demand that the world be other than it is

I'm with Germaine Greer on this "Its time to get angry again". Without anger there is no motivation to affect change.
Marcus wouldn't benefit from the anger of those who do not share in his imperalist ways!

[solri.livejournal.com]

What about being angry at inanimate objects (like a milk carton that won't open properly and spurts all over you). Wouldn't that be stupid? Then imagine that there was no social/political/economic injustice in the world (think of a hunting-gathering society) but we still got angry with people who behaved badly, or had stinky armpits or whatever. Wouldn't that also be just a little bit stupid? So why should social injustice be a special case? OK, I get angry at social injustice too, but I don't value that emotion (in a Gary Watson sense) - I think it would be far better if I were to acknowledge that such a state was undesirable, and take whatever action was in my power to remedy it, without getting too upset if I couldn't.

[kristian.livejournal.com]

OK, I get angry at social injustice too, but I don't value that emotion (in a Gary Watson sense) - I think it would be far better if I were to acknowledge that such a state was undesirable, and take whatever action was in my power to remedy it, without getting too upset if I couldn't.

I don't know who Gary Watson is. Isn't it anger that tells you that the situation is undersirable? You have to be unhappy with a situation to want to change it.

Then imagine that there was no social/political/economic injustice in the world (think of a hunting-gathering society) but we still got angry with people who behaved badly, or had stinky armpits or whatever. Wouldn't that also be just a little bit stupid?

Imagine that all milk cartons open perfectly each time thus removing all reason to be angry at non opening cartons. Of course it would be silly to get angry at non opening cartons. But that doesn't really help. And neither does imagining a world where no injustices exist. All that can shown from introducing an imaginary world different from this one is that in an imaginary world different from this one the point would be valid. But we are not in an imaginery world.

People behaving badly would indicate some kind of injustice is being committed. If I can't get angry in order to recognise that this is a badly behaved chap, then what? ...

Oh! I see now, through that all knowing "reason" I come to know...

Maybe this is why I failed philosophy, is this the point in contention:

It is stupid to have anger at a situation/object which cannot be changed and it is also stupid to have anger at a situation/object which can be changed?

[solri.livejournal.com]

I don't know who Gary Watson is.
He came up with a theory of value according to which

We might say that an agent's values consist in those principles and ends which he -- in a cool and non-self-deceptive moment -- articulates as definitive of the good, fulfilling, and defensible life

Isn't it anger that tells you that the situation is undersirable? You have to be unhappy with a situation to want to change it.
I think there is more to anger than that - what tells you a situation is undesirable is displeasure.

People behaving badly would indicate some kind of injustice is being committed. If I can't get angry in order to recognise that this is a badly behaved chap, then what? ...

Surely I can dislike someone's behaviour without becoming angry. Maybe I'm using "angry" to mean something more extreme than what you had in mind.

Stoic Meals.

[oblomova.livejournal.com]

One of my friends thought McDonald's ought to market Stoic Meals for kids,instead of Happy Meals. "It's just a plain hamburger, small fries, and a small soda. No games. No puzzles. Nothing else. But it is sufficient unto my needs."