Stoicism
July 30, 2010 11:18 AM Subscribe
Has the philosophy of the Stoics been discredited by later philosophy?
I am not knowledgeable about philosophy but have been exposed to a bit of the Stoics and would like to know how to contextualize their ideas.
In particular, I read the Meditations of Marcus Aurelias and the ideas seem interesting and elegant. To be effective, you'd need to believe in the basic premise whole-heartedly: believe that there can be nothing bad in the world aside from your own choices. So, if everything hinges on accepting the premise, the premise seems to call for evaluation. I don't feel capable of doing my own evaluation, but am interested in what smart people have thought of the ideas of Stoicism in the interval since.
More recently, I've read a bit of Byron Katie, a contemporary self-help author, and the ideas seemed the same, a sort-of perennial philosophy re-appearing. Again, it all hinges on accepting the premise. Maybe it seems to me too pat to correspond to living reality?
....I guess I'm just looking for some context from the history of philosphy, thanks.
I am not knowledgeable about philosophy but have been exposed to a bit of the Stoics and would like to know how to contextualize their ideas.
In particular, I read the Meditations of Marcus Aurelias and the ideas seem interesting and elegant. To be effective, you'd need to believe in the basic premise whole-heartedly: believe that there can be nothing bad in the world aside from your own choices. So, if everything hinges on accepting the premise, the premise seems to call for evaluation. I don't feel capable of doing my own evaluation, but am interested in what smart people have thought of the ideas of Stoicism in the interval since.
More recently, I've read a bit of Byron Katie, a contemporary self-help author, and the ideas seemed the same, a sort-of perennial philosophy re-appearing. Again, it all hinges on accepting the premise. Maybe it seems to me too pat to correspond to living reality?
....I guess I'm just looking for some context from the history of philosphy, thanks.
Martha Nussbaum is a contemporary philosopher who uses the Stoics as a starting point (not that she completely subscribes to Stoicism or would agree with the proposition you mentioned).
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:38 AM on July 30, 2010
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:38 AM on July 30, 2010
I would just like to comment on the idea that there can be nothing bad in the world aside from your own choices. In principle we are all free to decide what we consider to be good, bad, or indifferent. In practice we are biological organisms with certain built-in characteristics which predispose us to consider some things to be good and other things to be bad. So, stoicism only gets you so far. It works in certain situations but not in all. It should be noted that during the Inquisition, when people were elaborately tortured in order to force them to confess to being witches, EVERYONE eventually confessed. And everyone will, if sufficiently tortured.
posted by grizzled at 11:39 AM on July 30, 2010
posted by grizzled at 11:39 AM on July 30, 2010
And everyone will, if sufficiently tortured.
There are plenty of cases of people put under torture, even unto death, who do not crack.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:52 AM on July 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
There are plenty of cases of people put under torture, even unto death, who do not crack.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:52 AM on July 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Once you boil away the some of the lamentable historical contingencies--Aristotle on slavery, Descartes on animals, nearly everybody on women until Wollstonecraft--there are not many ethical views in the philosophical canon that are totally 'discredited', in the way that there are discredited scientific theories.
What you get instead are interpretations and revisions of what later thinkers regard as the key insights of their predecessors. Jaltcoh mentions Martha Nussbaum on the Stoics--the theory she proposes in the book he linked to is what she calls a "neo-Stoic" theory of the emotions. So in that sense, no, Stoicism isn't discredited.
A great online resource on philosophy which is both rigorous and accessible is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here are some links; there are bibliographies of secondary criticism at the end of each entry.
Stoicism
Seneca
posted by Beardman at 12:06 PM on July 30, 2010 [3 favorites]
What you get instead are interpretations and revisions of what later thinkers regard as the key insights of their predecessors. Jaltcoh mentions Martha Nussbaum on the Stoics--the theory she proposes in the book he linked to is what she calls a "neo-Stoic" theory of the emotions. So in that sense, no, Stoicism isn't discredited.
A great online resource on philosophy which is both rigorous and accessible is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here are some links; there are bibliographies of secondary criticism at the end of each entry.
Stoicism
Seneca
posted by Beardman at 12:06 PM on July 30, 2010 [3 favorites]
Philosophies don't necessarily become discredited the way outdated scientific theories do.
posted by hermitosis at 12:08 PM on July 30, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by hermitosis at 12:08 PM on July 30, 2010 [4 favorites]
Another way into this would be to check out the research on cognitive therapy, which is in large part a somewhat scientific operationalization of the principles of Stoicism — that how you think about things determines how you feel about them and thus whether they appear as good or bad. In many senses, it is a bridge between Stoicism and the ideas of the modern self-help movement typified by Byron Katie.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 12:09 PM on July 30, 2010
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 12:09 PM on July 30, 2010
The arguments depends on believing that there is an order to the universe (like karma) such that happiness is guaranteed if we live in harmony with it. One common critique is that this blames the victim: if you're unhappy or suffering, it's your own fault, you've brought it on yourself somehow.
posted by AlsoMike at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2010
posted by AlsoMike at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2010
Best answer: Paquda: “In particular, I read the Meditations of Marcus Aurelias and the ideas seem interesting and elegant. To be effective, you'd need to believe in the basic premise whole-heartedly: believe that there can be nothing bad in the world aside from your own choices. So, if everything hinges on accepting the premise, the premise seems to call for evaluation. I don't feel capable of doing my own evaluation, but am interested in what smart people have thought of the ideas of Stoicism in the interval since.”
Well, to start off with, I don't think you should simply take Marcus Aurelius as characteristic of the Stoics. They were, of course, a broad and varied group, and considering that it was a school of thought that flourished for about eight hundred years, it's often hard to pin down the very heart of Stoicism. However, even in the small group of writings that can probably be properly called classical Stoicism, I don't think Marcus Aurelius is really typical. He was in part a Stoic; but he read and found worth in various currents such as Platonism and neo-Platonism, and was familiar with all the many different streams of thought in the Greek and Roman tradition, as well as those outside of it (he was, for example, said to be a close friend of the most prominent Talmudic scholar, Rabbi Judah.)
More to the point: I don't know that you're reading Stoicism or Marcus Aurelius correctly if you're taking from them the notion that they take as premise the idea that "there can be nothing bad in the world aside from your own choices." The Meditations speaks constantly about terrible things in the world, all kinds of terrible and horrible things, and does not ignore or varnish or explain away these terrible things. I have a feeling I don't exactly know what you mean. I sense that perhaps what you're trying to say is that the premise is that nothing bad can be done to us without our own choosing – but even then, this is not a premise to be accepted in order to ascribe to Stoicism; it's one of the main arguments of Stoicism. You are not asked to accept this; Stoicism claims to prove it rationally. Finally, there is no sense in which you must accept this argument in order to find other true things in Stoicism.
To answer your next question: no, I don't think Stoicism has been "discredited" by later philosophy. On the contrary, I think Stoicism remains a noble framework; I have a feeling there are limits in the degree to which I ascribe to it myself, but I don't know of any thoroughgoing attempt to disprove it. It was generally displaced when Christianity came into ascendancy, but the Christians always had much more sympathy for the agnostic-tending Stoics than they did for more traditional pagans, so it was a gentle displacement, I think. Honestly, if you're wondering about the legacy of Stoicism, I would encourage you to read what is generally accepted as the closest thing to a standard text of Stoicism, Epictetus' beautiful Discourses. There are several very readable modern translations, and if you like Marcus Aurelius, you will find a lot there to enjoy. I highly recommend it.
Regarding Byron Katie: no. No, she is nothing like Marcus Aurelius. Please don't fall into the trap of feeling as though different ideas that seem compelling must on some level be in agreement. From what I've read of her books, Byron Katie is generally in the business of telling people that they don't have to believe in their thoughts and that they can experience 'turnaround,' a radical change of opinion or belief (which is something I don't think is quite coherent) whilst not actually showing people the difficult work involved in actually being objective. I don't know what precisely you mean when you say they're similar, but on the whole Byron Katie's stuff is very much at odds with Stoicism.
posted by koeselitz at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2010 [3 favorites]
Well, to start off with, I don't think you should simply take Marcus Aurelius as characteristic of the Stoics. They were, of course, a broad and varied group, and considering that it was a school of thought that flourished for about eight hundred years, it's often hard to pin down the very heart of Stoicism. However, even in the small group of writings that can probably be properly called classical Stoicism, I don't think Marcus Aurelius is really typical. He was in part a Stoic; but he read and found worth in various currents such as Platonism and neo-Platonism, and was familiar with all the many different streams of thought in the Greek and Roman tradition, as well as those outside of it (he was, for example, said to be a close friend of the most prominent Talmudic scholar, Rabbi Judah.)
More to the point: I don't know that you're reading Stoicism or Marcus Aurelius correctly if you're taking from them the notion that they take as premise the idea that "there can be nothing bad in the world aside from your own choices." The Meditations speaks constantly about terrible things in the world, all kinds of terrible and horrible things, and does not ignore or varnish or explain away these terrible things. I have a feeling I don't exactly know what you mean. I sense that perhaps what you're trying to say is that the premise is that nothing bad can be done to us without our own choosing – but even then, this is not a premise to be accepted in order to ascribe to Stoicism; it's one of the main arguments of Stoicism. You are not asked to accept this; Stoicism claims to prove it rationally. Finally, there is no sense in which you must accept this argument in order to find other true things in Stoicism.
To answer your next question: no, I don't think Stoicism has been "discredited" by later philosophy. On the contrary, I think Stoicism remains a noble framework; I have a feeling there are limits in the degree to which I ascribe to it myself, but I don't know of any thoroughgoing attempt to disprove it. It was generally displaced when Christianity came into ascendancy, but the Christians always had much more sympathy for the agnostic-tending Stoics than they did for more traditional pagans, so it was a gentle displacement, I think. Honestly, if you're wondering about the legacy of Stoicism, I would encourage you to read what is generally accepted as the closest thing to a standard text of Stoicism, Epictetus' beautiful Discourses. There are several very readable modern translations, and if you like Marcus Aurelius, you will find a lot there to enjoy. I highly recommend it.
Regarding Byron Katie: no. No, she is nothing like Marcus Aurelius. Please don't fall into the trap of feeling as though different ideas that seem compelling must on some level be in agreement. From what I've read of her books, Byron Katie is generally in the business of telling people that they don't have to believe in their thoughts and that they can experience 'turnaround,' a radical change of opinion or belief (which is something I don't think is quite coherent) whilst not actually showing people the difficult work involved in actually being objective. I don't know what precisely you mean when you say they're similar, but on the whole Byron Katie's stuff is very much at odds with Stoicism.
posted by koeselitz at 12:26 PM on July 30, 2010 [3 favorites]
Best answer: One thing to add, though, is that Nussbaum's neo-Stoicism about emotions is actually a radical departure from what the Stoics are most famous for, which is the abnegation of emotional life. What Nussbaum does is adapt the Stoics' (especially Chrysippus') idea of what emotions are; but unlike the Stoics, she concludes that emotions are fundamental to human well-being.
The broader point to make about this is that the anti-emotions stance of the original Stoics is out of fashion in philosophy. One contemporary philosopher of emotions, Karen Jones, calls the new trend "the pro-emotion consensus", which is fairly apt: basically, instead of thinking that emotions are irrational and therefore bad, philosophers largely agree that emotions are necessary to practical rationality and therefore good. As well as being a response to some famous books on the subject, this can be seen as a reaction against the neglect of/hostility towards emotions that dominated philosophy until quite recently.
posted by Beardman at 12:30 PM on July 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
The broader point to make about this is that the anti-emotions stance of the original Stoics is out of fashion in philosophy. One contemporary philosopher of emotions, Karen Jones, calls the new trend "the pro-emotion consensus", which is fairly apt: basically, instead of thinking that emotions are irrational and therefore bad, philosophers largely agree that emotions are necessary to practical rationality and therefore good. As well as being a response to some famous books on the subject, this can be seen as a reaction against the neglect of/hostility towards emotions that dominated philosophy until quite recently.
posted by Beardman at 12:30 PM on July 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
From what I've studied in my surveys of philosophy, mostly Western, the process seems to be that later philosophers and philosophical schools build upon previous ones. They embrace some previous ideas, reject some out of hand, and modify others. Almost always in a cross-generational conversation of ideas.
Every once in a while, like in the Enlightenment, large shifts happen in philosophy and a lot gets thrown out, starting a new era. Classicism (including the Stoics) gave way to Modernism, and recently Modernism has more or less given way to Post-Modernism. (And we're even starting to hear about "Post-post-modernism" now.)
IMO these shifts and trends do not "discredit" previous ideas as much as add voices to the conversation. It is a the result of aggregate judgement that make some philosophers "foundational" and some mere crackpots. It is your judgement that decides how to apply which ideas to what you do. And such judgement must come from a ground of some sort of value system. So where does such a value system come from?
That's a philosophical question too. :)
posted by cross_impact at 12:44 PM on July 30, 2010
Every once in a while, like in the Enlightenment, large shifts happen in philosophy and a lot gets thrown out, starting a new era. Classicism (including the Stoics) gave way to Modernism, and recently Modernism has more or less given way to Post-Modernism. (And we're even starting to hear about "Post-post-modernism" now.)
IMO these shifts and trends do not "discredit" previous ideas as much as add voices to the conversation. It is a the result of aggregate judgement that make some philosophers "foundational" and some mere crackpots. It is your judgement that decides how to apply which ideas to what you do. And such judgement must come from a ground of some sort of value system. So where does such a value system come from?
That's a philosophical question too. :)
posted by cross_impact at 12:44 PM on July 30, 2010
Stoicism has always appeared to me a partial manifestation of the teachings of the Buddha
Life is suffering
Desire (for things to be other than they are) is the cause of that suffering
There is a way out of that suffering...
The above statements could apply to either set of teachings. But Stoicism stops there, without offering an eightfold path.
The difference seems to be that Stoicism failed to take the realization that expecting life to be other than it is (namely transient, ephemeral, & contingent) and convert that into a style of living that could actually be realized. It's one thing to compare your child to a broken cup, another entirely to live that way. What they were missing, it seems, was the mindfulness component of Buddhism that allows one to actually escape from the cycle of craving and embrace (even if fleetingly) life-as-it-is.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:03 PM on July 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Life is suffering
Desire (for things to be other than they are) is the cause of that suffering
There is a way out of that suffering...
The above statements could apply to either set of teachings. But Stoicism stops there, without offering an eightfold path.
The difference seems to be that Stoicism failed to take the realization that expecting life to be other than it is (namely transient, ephemeral, & contingent) and convert that into a style of living that could actually be realized. It's one thing to compare your child to a broken cup, another entirely to live that way. What they were missing, it seems, was the mindfulness component of Buddhism that allows one to actually escape from the cycle of craving and embrace (even if fleetingly) life-as-it-is.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:03 PM on July 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
edit: ...take the realization that expecting life to be other than it is is the root of suffering
posted by leotrotsky at 1:05 PM on July 30, 2010
posted by leotrotsky at 1:05 PM on July 30, 2010
That may be a too-quick dismissal of Stoicism, leotrotsky. In the Hadot text I linked to above, the majority of his analysis deals precisely with spiritual exercises and their import, not just for the Stoics, but for Epicureans and others. I do not mean to proselytize or anything but it sounds to me like you would enjoy reading it, too.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:24 PM on July 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by joe lisboa at 1:24 PM on July 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
Stoicism has always appeared to me a partial manifestation of the teachings of the Buddha ... But Stoicism stops there, without offering an eightfold path.
Seconding this comment.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:29 PM on July 30, 2010
Seconding this comment.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:29 PM on July 30, 2010
> Classicism (including the Stoics) gave way to Modernism
The Classical period (which I wouldn't call 'classicism') gave way to the rise of Chistianity. If the OP is asking why Stoicism never caught on in a mainstream way, or isn't a major factor in contemporary society, I would say that some of the insights of Stoicism were subsumed into the early Medieval Christianity of Augustine, but subsequently overshadowed by other intellectual developments over the next 1500 years.
posted by goethean at 1:31 PM on July 30, 2010
The Classical period (which I wouldn't call 'classicism') gave way to the rise of Chistianity. If the OP is asking why Stoicism never caught on in a mainstream way, or isn't a major factor in contemporary society, I would say that some of the insights of Stoicism were subsumed into the early Medieval Christianity of Augustine, but subsequently overshadowed by other intellectual developments over the next 1500 years.
posted by goethean at 1:31 PM on July 30, 2010
leotrotsky: Stoicism has always appeared to me a partial manifestation of the teachings of the Buddha
There's a reason for that.
posted by richyoung at 1:39 PM on July 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
There's a reason for that.
posted by richyoung at 1:39 PM on July 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
koeselitz: I don't know what precisely you mean when you say they're similar, but on the whole Byron Katie's stuff is very much at odds with Stoicism.
I've got no ax to grind for Byron Katie here, but there is a massive, fundamental thematic connection between Stoicism, Buddhism, cognitive behavioral therapy, the guiding ethos of modern self help, and much of what gets called the New Age. That doesn't mean they're all as rigorous as each other; in many ways they represent a process of getting lazier and lazier with the principles in question, and removing the nuances. But the focus on thought, and the interpretative actions of the human mind, as an intermediary step between circumstances/events and emotional life is the crucial aspect that underlies them all. The self-help focus on the idea that you choose every aspect of your inner life is a gross simplification of subtler philosophies, but I think it's odd to describe that as being "at odds".
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 2:00 PM on July 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
I've got no ax to grind for Byron Katie here, but there is a massive, fundamental thematic connection between Stoicism, Buddhism, cognitive behavioral therapy, the guiding ethos of modern self help, and much of what gets called the New Age. That doesn't mean they're all as rigorous as each other; in many ways they represent a process of getting lazier and lazier with the principles in question, and removing the nuances. But the focus on thought, and the interpretative actions of the human mind, as an intermediary step between circumstances/events and emotional life is the crucial aspect that underlies them all. The self-help focus on the idea that you choose every aspect of your inner life is a gross simplification of subtler philosophies, but I think it's odd to describe that as being "at odds".
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 2:00 PM on July 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Thank you--there's a lot here to think about and all the answers are interesting and appreciated. I will keep the book recommendations in mind, though reading philosophical writing does not come naturally to me, so I don't know how much, realistically, I'll get to; there is so much to read. I apologize for the part in my original post where I casually tried to summarize Stoicism in one line--not a good idea--though it's hard to get started without putting something out there, however crude.
posted by Paquda at 3:02 PM on July 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Paquda at 3:02 PM on July 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
game warden to the events rhino: “I've got no ax to grind for Byron Katie here, but there is a massive, fundamental thematic connection between Stoicism, Buddhism, cognitive behavioral therapy, the guiding ethos of modern self help, and much of what gets called the New Age.”
Yes. And there are thematic connections between Spinoza and Maimonides. This doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally at odds. I can explain why.
Byron Katie's writings represent a radical denial of virtue – what she calls "should" and "shouldn't" –
I can categorically say that a Stoic of the classical era would react with abject horror on encountering the work of Byron Katie; she or he would see there an attempt to rationalize away all responsibility as ephemeral, an annihilation of all notions of virtue, goodness, and moral thinking about he world. Now, you may agree with Byron Katie that those notions are truly illusory; but if you do, you're rejecting what might be the most important of the two or three tenets that can be said to be central to Stoicism, I think.
That's what I meant when I said that they're "fundamentally at odds."
When reading old books, the very first thing we have to do is be careful that we have a precise idea of what exactly they're saying; it's often very, very hard to know. There may well be some parallels and connections between Byron Katie and Stoicism on some level; but on the most immediate level, there are not. Moreover, it's pretty dangerous to start drawing connections in broad strokes – Buddhism, CBT, etc – before understanding exactly what we're talking about here. Those are all huge things, and assuming blithely that what seem to be vague general connections are actually real connections puts at grave risk of completely misunderstanding all of them.
posted by koeselitz at 3:05 PM on July 30, 2010 [4 favorites]
Yes. And there are thematic connections between Spinoza and Maimonides. This doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally at odds. I can explain why.
Byron Katie's writings represent a radical denial of virtue – what she calls "should" and "shouldn't" –
In reality, there is no such thing as a “should” or a “shouldn‟t.” These are only thoughts that we impose onto reality. Without the “should” and “shouldn‟t,” we can see reality as it is, and this leaves us free to act efficiently, clearly, and sanely... to my amazement, when I listened within myself, I saw that the world is what it is—nothing more, nothing less. Where reality is concerned, there is no “what should be.” There is only “what is,” just the way it is, right now. [- "The Little Book"]Lest the deep conflict here not be clear, let me point out: virtuousness is central to the practice taught by the Stoics, and the cultivation and practice of virtue was the primary aim of every major work of Stoic thought that I can think of. Marcus Aurelius may be an edge case for Stoicism, but he is no exception in this respect. (This is why I also have to say that I disagree firmly with leotrotsky's thesis that Stoicism failed to present itself as "a style of living that could actually be realized" – Stoicism in fact saw itself as nothing but the realization of a style of living, a way of approaching life with the goal of cultivating virtue, goodness, and self-control.
I can categorically say that a Stoic of the classical era would react with abject horror on encountering the work of Byron Katie; she or he would see there an attempt to rationalize away all responsibility as ephemeral, an annihilation of all notions of virtue, goodness, and moral thinking about he world. Now, you may agree with Byron Katie that those notions are truly illusory; but if you do, you're rejecting what might be the most important of the two or three tenets that can be said to be central to Stoicism, I think.
That's what I meant when I said that they're "fundamentally at odds."
When reading old books, the very first thing we have to do is be careful that we have a precise idea of what exactly they're saying; it's often very, very hard to know. There may well be some parallels and connections between Byron Katie and Stoicism on some level; but on the most immediate level, there are not. Moreover, it's pretty dangerous to start drawing connections in broad strokes – Buddhism, CBT, etc – before understanding exactly what we're talking about here. Those are all huge things, and assuming blithely that what seem to be vague general connections are actually real connections puts at grave risk of completely misunderstanding all of them.
posted by koeselitz at 3:05 PM on July 30, 2010 [4 favorites]
Paquda: “I will keep the book recommendations in mind, though reading philosophical writing does not come naturally to me, so I don't know how much, realistically, I'll get to; there is so much to read...”
I understand – it can be crazy, weird stuff. I just wanted to mention this: Epictetus' Discourses actually reads a lot like Marcus Aurelius. The Stoics themselves weren't generally given to a lot of abstraction and airy speculation; they were pretty practical folks, and as such their own writings are a bit easier to read, I think. So maybe you might actually like Epictetus... I don't know.
Either way, I hope some of this was helpful and interesting! Thanks for a great question.
posted by koeselitz at 3:08 PM on July 30, 2010
I understand – it can be crazy, weird stuff. I just wanted to mention this: Epictetus' Discourses actually reads a lot like Marcus Aurelius. The Stoics themselves weren't generally given to a lot of abstraction and airy speculation; they were pretty practical folks, and as such their own writings are a bit easier to read, I think. So maybe you might actually like Epictetus... I don't know.
Either way, I hope some of this was helpful and interesting! Thanks for a great question.
posted by koeselitz at 3:08 PM on July 30, 2010
Wonderful discourse here, a great saturday morning read. Thanks to all.
My own take on it would be the question 'Does Mondarin's 'Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red' discredit Rembrandt's 'Night Watch'?'
Meaning the whole thing hinges on the word 'discredit.' One could argue that the two pieces, separated by so much history, illustrate two very different things about the human experience, and appear to be seeking two different artistic ends.
There are deep strands tying Stoicism, Buddhism and CBT together- but they are certainly not equivalent.
The remark above about increasing intellectual laziness as one migrates from Stoicism to Buddhism to CBT seemed rather apropos, to me.
posted by mrdaneri at 8:09 AM on July 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
My own take on it would be the question 'Does Mondarin's 'Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red' discredit Rembrandt's 'Night Watch'?'
Meaning the whole thing hinges on the word 'discredit.' One could argue that the two pieces, separated by so much history, illustrate two very different things about the human experience, and appear to be seeking two different artistic ends.
There are deep strands tying Stoicism, Buddhism and CBT together- but they are certainly not equivalent.
The remark above about increasing intellectual laziness as one migrates from Stoicism to Buddhism to CBT seemed rather apropos, to me.
posted by mrdaneri at 8:09 AM on July 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
The first answer was to read 'Philosophy as a Way of Life'. This is good advice. I'm surprised Pierre Hadot wasn't mentioned more frequently, especially since he also wrote a commentary on the 'Meditations', 'The Inner Citadel'. This is the guy to go to here.
posted by BigSky at 2:57 PM on August 17, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by BigSky at 2:57 PM on August 17, 2010 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by joe lisboa at 11:28 AM on July 30, 2010 [5 favorites]