Well, as a Stoic, I’ll still say good read! I’ll say three things in response (not necessarily disagreements):
1. When Epictetus speaks of the body as not being under our control, I tend to think more-so in terms of things like physical health. As you said, I don’t think Epictetus means to draw a sharp dualist distinction between mind and body, but is more-so pointing out that there are many bodily conditions we may have that have nothing to do with the mind.
Of course, we (moderns) may say that things like OCD, schizophrenia, etc. are sort of like bodily conditions that impact the mind.
2. I’m not entirely sure Epictetus meant to endorse choosing death over amputation as literally the more virtuous thing. I think he was more-so giving an analogy for being willing to die for your principles/values. That said, even if he did mean it, I think Modern Stoics can simply disagree with Epictetus on that particular example.
3. More important, and sort of related to the point I made at the end of (1), I do think you’re right (well I think you implied this at least) that it’s not really the case that our mind is “in our control” depending on how you define it. It wouldn’t be my fault if I have OCD, and much of my desires, aversions, etc aren’t truly up to me.
Stoics may distinguish between an impression and an assent (maybe I’m initially grossed out by jumping into ocean water to save a child but then my rational brain takes over and knows it’s the right thing to do!).
But all that being said, as a determinist, I don’t really think “who we are” and “what we choose” is truly up to us. Others will say Stoics are compatibalists, but I’m not sure how keen I am on compatibalism over hard determinism. At the same time, I do think Stoic (or Buddhist) strategies can lead to better happiness and being a more pro-social person, but whether we adopt those strategies is (ironically) not entirely up to us in a sense!
"can lead to better happiness and being a more pro-social person" just a reminder (perhaps to myself) that prosocial outcomes do not necessitate persons being pro-social (consciously), merely that their behaviour has those outcomes
That is true, although if the person is specifically employing Stoic or Buddhist strategies they are likely conscious of it I would think (but I also agree that if humans are evolutionarily “designed” to be pro-social that there may be pro-social behaviors we do without truly realizing!).
And even if we can agree that being pro-social is good and leads to eudaimonia, it would seem that we can't agree on the details of what being pro-social is (see politics).
Doug, I have just been reading Tim Whitmarsh's Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015).
I was wondering about your reaction to Whitmarsh's claims about Stoics (if you have read it or as I paraphrase it...) that in avoiding accusationsof atheism when dismissing more popular and local forms of polytheistic belief (as indeed Epicureans sort to avoid as well) Stoics actually provided the inspiration for a (divine) order which underpins everything mundane and with which the Stoic should first apprehend (in being stoical I guess)(following Platonist's Plato.. in a religous practice)
And that this was later co-opted by the Imperial cult of Christianity when developing a Catholic universalist approach to Empire and compulsory state religion).
He is quite good on Sextus E. but not so clear on Pyrrho versus the later sceptics, but this maybe an editorial avoidance of explaining the technical difference between BetaMax & VHS tapes.
Well, as a Stoic, I’ll still say good read! I’ll say three things in response (not necessarily disagreements):
1. When Epictetus speaks of the body as not being under our control, I tend to think more-so in terms of things like physical health. As you said, I don’t think Epictetus means to draw a sharp dualist distinction between mind and body, but is more-so pointing out that there are many bodily conditions we may have that have nothing to do with the mind.
Of course, we (moderns) may say that things like OCD, schizophrenia, etc. are sort of like bodily conditions that impact the mind.
2. I’m not entirely sure Epictetus meant to endorse choosing death over amputation as literally the more virtuous thing. I think he was more-so giving an analogy for being willing to die for your principles/values. That said, even if he did mean it, I think Modern Stoics can simply disagree with Epictetus on that particular example.
3. More important, and sort of related to the point I made at the end of (1), I do think you’re right (well I think you implied this at least) that it’s not really the case that our mind is “in our control” depending on how you define it. It wouldn’t be my fault if I have OCD, and much of my desires, aversions, etc aren’t truly up to me.
Stoics may distinguish between an impression and an assent (maybe I’m initially grossed out by jumping into ocean water to save a child but then my rational brain takes over and knows it’s the right thing to do!).
But all that being said, as a determinist, I don’t really think “who we are” and “what we choose” is truly up to us. Others will say Stoics are compatibalists, but I’m not sure how keen I am on compatibalism over hard determinism. At the same time, I do think Stoic (or Buddhist) strategies can lead to better happiness and being a more pro-social person, but whether we adopt those strategies is (ironically) not entirely up to us in a sense!
"can lead to better happiness and being a more pro-social person" just a reminder (perhaps to myself) that prosocial outcomes do not necessitate persons being pro-social (consciously), merely that their behaviour has those outcomes
That is true, although if the person is specifically employing Stoic or Buddhist strategies they are likely conscious of it I would think (but I also agree that if humans are evolutionarily “designed” to be pro-social that there may be pro-social behaviors we do without truly realizing!).
And even if we can agree that being pro-social is good and leads to eudaimonia, it would seem that we can't agree on the details of what being pro-social is (see politics).
Doug, I have just been reading Tim Whitmarsh's Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015).
I was wondering about your reaction to Whitmarsh's claims about Stoics (if you have read it or as I paraphrase it...) that in avoiding accusationsof atheism when dismissing more popular and local forms of polytheistic belief (as indeed Epicureans sort to avoid as well) Stoics actually provided the inspiration for a (divine) order which underpins everything mundane and with which the Stoic should first apprehend (in being stoical I guess)(following Platonist's Plato.. in a religous practice)
And that this was later co-opted by the Imperial cult of Christianity when developing a Catholic universalist approach to Empire and compulsory state religion).
I've not read it, but a bunch of Christian ideas do seem to be borrowed from Stoicism, such as this one.
He is quite good on Sextus E. but not so clear on Pyrrho versus the later sceptics, but this maybe an editorial avoidance of explaining the technical difference between BetaMax & VHS tapes.