Cicero's conceit was the same as the modern academics - you aren't part of our club so what you say has no value. Whereas it is what is said, not who said it, that is the real matter; that tends to make one think her riposte was not easily answered.
Possibly. It is more likely however that an academic's focus on intra-club competition (for both career and personality-driven relevance) means they do not even notice what goes on outside the club. Such that what you say has no import rather than no value. It is also likely should they come across writing from outside the _noyau_ of their attention (see https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/robert-ardreys-the-territorial-imperative or more directly https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/figuring-out-the-grounds-beneath ) that they may smile and grin in a relaxed manner. Interesting they may say, before heading back into the grove of their delight.
As some context I am Australian and working men's clubs have upturned what is meant by club in other more hierarchical parts of the world.
The highest virtue is not virtue, and therefore really is virtue, but inferior virtue cannot let go of being virtuous and therefore is not virtue. - Lao Tzu
This is very interesting though some theses are controversial like your psychologistic treatment of the concept of virtue. But, more importantly, I am a bit scared that it is stoicism you've decided to criticize. I think there is a huge field of more modern "philosophies of life" that can and should be criticized. I would be happy to see various schools of "La sapienza greca" to be more supportive to each other while confronting the fundamental lack of wisdom characteristic for our times.
Today I read letter 99 from Seneca to Lucilius and it reminds me of this post, the beginning:
„I enclose a copy of the letter which I wrote to Marullus at the time when he had lost his little son and was reported to be rather womanish in his grief – a letter in which I have not observed the usual form of condolence: for I did not believe that he should be handled gently, since in my opinion he deserved criticism rather than consolation. When a man is stricken and is finding it most difficult to endure a grievous wound, one must humour him for a while; let him satisfy his grief or at any rate work off the first shock; . but those who have assumed an indulgence in grief should be rebuked forthwith, and should learn that there are certain follies even in tears. "Is it solace that you look for? Let me give you a scolding instead! You are like a woman in the way you take your son's death; what would you do if you had lost an intimate friend? A son, a little child of unknown promise, is dead; a fragment of time has been lost. We hunt out excuses for grief; we would even utter unfair complaints about Fortune, as if Fortune would never give us just reason for complaining! But I had really thought that you possessed spirit enough to deal with concrete troubles, to say nothing of the shadowy troubles over which men make moan through force of habit. Had you lost a friend (which is the greatest blow of all), you would have had to endeavour rather to rejoice because you had possessed him than to mourn because you had lost him….“
It's an interesting bit of synchronicity that you should post this comment about Senca's letter #99 to Lucilius, with the Stoic view on grieving for the dead. At approximately the same time you made your comment I was learning that my uncle, Sam, had just passed away. Not really just an uncle, though. After my father was killed when I was 2, Sam took on the role of part-time surrogate father. We were really close and spent lots of time together. I was the son he never had.
It's stuff like the contents of letter 99 that makes me think Stoicism is a philosophy for psychopaths. Quoting Senaca from that letter:
"There are countless cases of men who have without tears buried sons in the prime of manhood—men who have returned from the funeral pyre to the Senate chamber, or to any other official duties, and have straightway busied themselves with something else. And rightly; for in the first place it is idle to grieve...."
I don't give a damn that Stoics think my grief is womanish, and deserves rebuke and a scolding. I think they suffer from an induced loss of feeling that needs to be cured, not congratulated.
Is this just the meta ethical argument from disagreement? If so, you have to demonstrate that neither you nor Cicero have special access to the first-order moral properties of the virtues in question. A moral realist could easily respond to this argument, in other words.
Cicero's conceit was the same as the modern academics - you aren't part of our club so what you say has no value. Whereas it is what is said, not who said it, that is the real matter; that tends to make one think her riposte was not easily answered.
Possibly. It is more likely however that an academic's focus on intra-club competition (for both career and personality-driven relevance) means they do not even notice what goes on outside the club. Such that what you say has no import rather than no value. It is also likely should they come across writing from outside the _noyau_ of their attention (see https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/robert-ardreys-the-territorial-imperative or more directly https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/figuring-out-the-grounds-beneath ) that they may smile and grin in a relaxed manner. Interesting they may say, before heading back into the grove of their delight.
As some context I am Australian and working men's clubs have upturned what is meant by club in other more hierarchical parts of the world.
Se also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1sn0ZSfnMo
The highest virtue is not virtue, and therefore really is virtue, but inferior virtue cannot let go of being virtuous and therefore is not virtue. - Lao Tzu
This is very interesting though some theses are controversial like your psychologistic treatment of the concept of virtue. But, more importantly, I am a bit scared that it is stoicism you've decided to criticize. I think there is a huge field of more modern "philosophies of life" that can and should be criticized. I would be happy to see various schools of "La sapienza greca" to be more supportive to each other while confronting the fundamental lack of wisdom characteristic for our times.
Thank you and best regards
JKiii
Today I read letter 99 from Seneca to Lucilius and it reminds me of this post, the beginning:
„I enclose a copy of the letter which I wrote to Marullus at the time when he had lost his little son and was reported to be rather womanish in his grief – a letter in which I have not observed the usual form of condolence: for I did not believe that he should be handled gently, since in my opinion he deserved criticism rather than consolation. When a man is stricken and is finding it most difficult to endure a grievous wound, one must humour him for a while; let him satisfy his grief or at any rate work off the first shock; . but those who have assumed an indulgence in grief should be rebuked forthwith, and should learn that there are certain follies even in tears. "Is it solace that you look for? Let me give you a scolding instead! You are like a woman in the way you take your son's death; what would you do if you had lost an intimate friend? A son, a little child of unknown promise, is dead; a fragment of time has been lost. We hunt out excuses for grief; we would even utter unfair complaints about Fortune, as if Fortune would never give us just reason for complaining! But I had really thought that you possessed spirit enough to deal with concrete troubles, to say nothing of the shadowy troubles over which men make moan through force of habit. Had you lost a friend (which is the greatest blow of all), you would have had to endeavour rather to rejoice because you had possessed him than to mourn because you had lost him….“
It's an interesting bit of synchronicity that you should post this comment about Senca's letter #99 to Lucilius, with the Stoic view on grieving for the dead. At approximately the same time you made your comment I was learning that my uncle, Sam, had just passed away. Not really just an uncle, though. After my father was killed when I was 2, Sam took on the role of part-time surrogate father. We were really close and spent lots of time together. I was the son he never had.
It's stuff like the contents of letter 99 that makes me think Stoicism is a philosophy for psychopaths. Quoting Senaca from that letter:
"There are countless cases of men who have without tears buried sons in the prime of manhood—men who have returned from the funeral pyre to the Senate chamber, or to any other official duties, and have straightway busied themselves with something else. And rightly; for in the first place it is idle to grieve...."
I don't give a damn that Stoics think my grief is womanish, and deserves rebuke and a scolding. I think they suffer from an induced loss of feeling that needs to be cured, not congratulated.
Oh I‘m sorry for that, I hope you get time for grieve and for remembering the time you had with him.
I agree ...Noone is that perfect.....
"To have can be taken from you, but to have had never "
Virtue is its own prize. Truth is historical-logical. Both are dynamic.
Is this just the meta ethical argument from disagreement? If so, you have to demonstrate that neither you nor Cicero have special access to the first-order moral properties of the virtues in question. A moral realist could easily respond to this argument, in other words.