The invulnerable mind

The Stoics seem to think that the mind is invulnerable, in contrast to the body.  The body can be harmed, but it is not a problem because you retain your ability to reason, and to act correctly.  From what I've read, Stoics seem to set the mind apart from the body.

Stoicism is an early philosophy, and so can't really be faulted for not knowing what we in modern times know: there is no mind that is distinct from the body.  Brain trauma can alter our memories and even our personality (sometimes in a good way).  Our mind is more important than the body, sure.  But it's also likely to have problems, and then Stoic wisdom will not come in handy, because we have lost our ability to think rationally.

Marcus Aurelius writes:

You are a little soul, bearing about a corpse.

But actually, it's more like we're just a corpse.

Imagination

Marcus Aurelius writes:

Wipe away all imagination.

It's actually there in his Meditations three times.  Maybe this is a mistranslation.  But, wipe away all imagination?  I don't really understand with what imagination has to do with Stoic philosophy.    I think I agree more with Einstein, who wrote:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. 

Imagination is one of those creative forces that is really useful to us.  It's how knowledge expands, it's how we can solve unique problems.  Imagination is a tool, just like any of the other natural gifts we humans have.  How we use this tool is the real test, but by itself it's just a tool.  And of all the tools we have, imagination is one of my favorites.

So I have no idea what's up with this idea of wiping away imagination.  Hopefully one day a Stoic expert will come along this blog and enlighten me.

Thanksgiving

I wonder how a Stoic would feel about Thanksgiving.  Giving thanks for all the nice stuff we have is very pleasant, and certainly helps us appreciate the things we have.  But wouldn't a Stoic say that these things we are thankful are not ours?  Today I'm thankful to be in good health, for instance, but tomorrow that could be taken away from me.  To be thankful is to acknowledge that we desire something, and to desire something that is outside of our power to affect will only bring us misery later on.

Still, this seems to me to be taking things too far.  Giving thanks may not lead to desire.  We can appreciate things that are ultimately unimportant.  We have to, and the Stoics at least in some circumstances seem to agree.  Epictetus writes:

But, Epicurus knew that, if once a child is born, it is no longer in our power not to love and be solicitous for it.  

Some things, like children, are just inherently lovable.  We can't not have them because doing so will force us to value something outside of our own actions.  It's natural for us to be appreciative of our family, our health, and everything good in our life.  I think the key is to value them in the moment, and not to value them in the future.  That's where the moral danger comes in, because desire is based on future valuations.

I'm happy now with the things I enjoy, but I will try not to value that which should not be valued.

The Edge

There's a great movie written by David Mamet called The Edge.  One of the interesting things about the movie is just how impressive the protagonist, played by Anthony Hopkins, is.  He's extremely knowledgable about a vast array of topics, he's a genuinely nice guy, and he's very wise.  In the movie, he ends up lost in the Alaskan wilderness after an airplane crash with a younger, handsomer, but fundamentally weaker companion.

The Anthony Hopkins character, who has many of the qualities of a master Stoic, has a great saying: "What one man can do, another can do".  I've also felt this was a very powerful statement of the possibilities of accomplishing both the large tasks in life, as well as the little things.  I was interested to see that Marcus Aurelius has a similar quote:

If a thing be hard for thee to do, think not that it is beyond man's power.  Rather, consider that whatever is possible to man, and conformable to his nature, is attainable by thee also.

On reflection, this tends to be true but is not universally true.  The hand of fate and opportunity is not the same for all.  You might want to be as rich as Bill Gates, but he was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, with the right ideas.  There's no guarantee that opportunities like that constantly exist.  Still, for most things, I think the advice is sound.  What one man can do, another can do.

Conservatives love Stoics, Part 3: Religion

The notion that conservatives are religious while liberals are not is a stereotype, and an over-simplification.  The truth is, most Americans are religious.  It seems to me that most atheists are liberals (citation needed), but atheism isn't a huge fraction of the American population.

The Stoics seem to be a pretty religious bunch.  Almost every page of their writings have references to their gods.  Of course, these are what Christians would call Pagan gods.  Christians, in fact, seemed to have both respect for Seneca's philosophy and scorn for his Pagan status.  John F. Hurst, in an introduction to Seneca's writing, states:

[...] his philosophy is the final and hopeless exhibition of the inability of the pagan mind, after its long but futile attempt, both to solve the mysteries of our being and to establish safe rules of conduct

Ouch.  Reading this is amusing, because Christianity certainly doesn't do much to solve the mysteries of our being.  Science does that.  As far as safe rules of conduct, Stoicism seems to do pretty well (although the advice seems to be general to a fault).  I don't really think that any philosophy or religions is particularly good on that question.  And science is a long way from tackling these kinds of questions, although it is starting with research into game theory and similar subjects.

At any rate, for their time, the Stoics were religious, no doubt.  But I can't say that they were religious in a way that is more like a James Dobson (of Focus on the Family) than a Martin Luther King.  Therefore, I don't think their religion is particularly relevant to a discussion on whether the Stoics were closer to modern-day conservatives or liberals.

Reading news, or not

News should inform, educate, and spur us into action.  Not all news is equal, though.  I see many articles that seem to have no purpose.  As Thoreau writes in Walden:

Hardly a man takes a half hour's nap after dinner, but when he wakes he holds up his head and asks, "What's the news?" as if the rest of mankind had stood his sentinels [...] After a night's sleep the news is as indispensable as the breakfast.  "Pray tell me anything new that has happened to a man anywhere on this globe," — and he reads it over his coffee and rolls, that a man has had his eyes gouged out this morning on the Wachito River; never dreaming the while that he lives in the dark unfathomed mammoth cave of this world, and has but the rudiment of an eye himself.

Most of us crave news, but the news we seem to crave the most is the worst for us.  Hearing about a local fire, some senseless tragedy, or some sports incident gives us the feeling we are learning.  But we aren't learning anything.  These things are all constants.  Every day there will be a local fire in some place.  Tragedy is universal, and you can count every year to have at least one or two major international tragedies.  Sports news happens constantly, but the games go on unchanging year after year.

Some news isn't even news.  How often do I hear news that the government is considering doing this, or the opposition may respond with that.  This isn't even news!  It's mere speculation about future news.  It is wise to ignore these kinds of stories whenever you see them.

Daily news seems to be not worth it.  Better to pay attention to the long-term trends, and educate yourself on them.  If you do that, you'll be more educated than most everyone else, and you'll have a better chance of acting correctly in matters of politics.

Walden

I finished reading Walden lately:



Thoreau seems to be a natural Stoic, or at the least a Cynic.  A true Cynic.  Cynicism, like Stoicism, has come to mean something quite different.  Today it signifies a distrust of everything, a certain sourness and a relentless pessimism.  Modern cynicism is an easy stance, requiring no thought and not involving any mental risk.  It's impossible to be pleased with modern cynicism, but also impossible to be hurt.  I don't recommend it.

But the classic Cynicism wasn't like that.  Epictetus writes:

Suppose we sent you as a scout to Rome.  But no one ever sends a timorous scout who, when he hears a noise, or sees a shadow, runs back frightened, and says "The enemy is at hand."  So now, if you should come and tell us, "Things are in a fearful way in Rome; death is terrible, calumny terrible, poverty terrible; run, good people, the enemy is at hand;" we will answer, Get you gone, and prophesy for yourself; our only fault is that we have sent such a scout.  Diogenes was sent as a scout before you, but he told us other tidings.  He says that death is no evil, for it is nothing base; that calumny is only the noise of madmen.  And what account did this spy give us of pain, of pleasure, of poverty?  He says that to be naked is better than a purple robe; to sleep upon the bare ground, the softest bed; and gives a proof of all he says by his own courage, tranquility, and freedom, and, moreover, by a healthy and robust body.  "There is no enemy near," he says; "all is profound peace."  How so, Diogenes?  "Look upon me," he says, "Am I hurt?  Am I wounded?  Have I run away from any one?"  This is a scout worth having.  But you come, and tell us one tale after another.  Go back and look more carefully, and without fear.

The description of Diogenes seems much like Thoreau.  In Walden, he lives a life that to most would be abject poverty, but turns it into a glorious experience, recording his experience with Walden Pond and the surrounding areas throughout the seasons, along with friends who visit, his bean field, animals that he sees, and other recollections.   He writes:

I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of.  Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in.

Thoreau seems to be a natural Cynic.  The very opposite of a modern-day cynic.  Someone who says that you can be happy with nothing.  The book is a beautiful meditation on life, philosophy, and nature.  When reading it, keep in mind that to read it you don't need to possess it: it is free to all and not under any copyright.  Also keep in mind Thoreaus's advice:

To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will task the reader more than any exercise which the custom of the day esteem.  It requires a training such as the athletes underwent, the steady intention almost of the whole life to this object.  Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written.