1 post tagged “stoic”

At one of the many chats and discussions that take place at Philosophy House, someone asked me about my own philosophy (perhaps that's why it's called Philosophy House -- wow! What a concept!). I was pretty much thrown for a loop by it, too. Not so much because I don't know what I believe, but because I wasn't sure of a label that I could attach to the whole shebang that would make sense to anyone other than me. I don't have any single overriding set of beliefs, and would have to call myself an "eclectic" since I do tend to draw from several fields of thought.

I suppose that ethically I'm pretty much a Stoic in the classical sense of the word. In today's language the term has come to mean someone who's "stiff upper lip" and that sort of thing; kind of a cold-hearted, unfeeling bastard in some usages. However, that's not what the Greeks and Romans meant by the term. A Stoic is one who tries to be rational by controlling their emotions. The Greeks used the term "apathos" (my Greek is almost non-existent, so please don't hold me to that), which we now call "apathetic". In our usage, it means one who really doesn't care about much of anything. To the Greeks, though, it means not driven by their passions ("a", meaning "without", and "pathos", meaning "passion", but probably closer to "suffering" or "pain"). The idea is that emotion, especially strong emotion, leads to false perceptions and interferes with rational thought. Therefore, by keeping a tight rein on one's emotions, one can approach life rationally and logically.

In the Stoic belief system, the self is the only thing which is truly within our power to control. Thus, there is the self and everything else is information, which we may choose to act upon or not, as reason may dictate under the circumstances. In the search for any capital-T truth, there are certainly flaws within this system. But since its beliefs are centered around control of the self rather than around control of the surroundings, its ultimate end would be a harmonious relationship with the world at large by adapting ourselves to the world as we perceive it to be rather than trying to change the world to suit our desires. Perhaps "happiness" might be an accurate term, but it's more more along the lines of eudaimonia ("the virtuous exercise of rationality") than anything else. Keep in mind that "virtue" to the Greeks was something closer to "habitual excellence" than to any sort of cheerfulness. In other words, whatever you're going to do, do it well.

Because the self is the root of everything, this would logically imply the existence of a self. Which more or less leads into a second foundational belief. In order for this to work well, I must accept two concepts: existence and identity. In simpler terms, "I am" and "I am me". Existence is a constant (otherwise I wouldn't be here writing this - of course I could be a figment of your tormented imagination, in which case I would suggest that you are in serious need of therapy because you should be able to come up with a better imaginary friend); identity is not. If we are shaped and molded by our experiences (well, those experiences which we allow to shape and mold us, anyway), then our identify must change to a certain extent. In many ways, I am the same person that I was when I was 10, but in many other ways I am a completely different person than I was when I was 10. I am also a different person than I was when I woke up this morning. It's probably not a noticable difference, but that difference must exist or I would stagnate.

Somone asked if this was a Cartesian view. I suppose that at its core it is ("cogito ergo sum" and all that), but it really isn't. Descartes' next leap was something to the effect that God would not try to deceive him. I can't make that leap. So instead of relying on some divinely given version of reality, I have to rely on what I can perceive. But I must also concede the possibility that my perception might not be an accurate rendering of reality. However, to make that concession, there must also be some degree of probability that it is accurate. Being rather confident of my own perceptive ability (self-centered SOB that I am), I assign it a higher probability of accuracy than its probability of inaccuracy. So, using the example of rain in Dallas that I mentioned in my previous post, if I walk outside and get wet, it is highly probable that it is, indeed, raining. But there is some chance that I am not perceiving the event correctly, so I cannot say with certainty that it is raining, merely that it is highly probable. Sounds a bit Bayesian, but I don't have the head for math to be able to calculate it precisely. Instead, I believe that it is raining, but concede the remote possiblity that I could be wrong.

So, in short, I am certain of my own existence. My identity is somewhat malleable, but I am certain that I have one. All else is probabilities.