Think not so much of what though hast not as of what thou hast.

Be thankful for what you have. Merry Christmas!

Today’s quote is an old jazz standard. It’s a single sentence that sums up the whole of the Stoicism pretty damn well.

It is on our power to have no opinion about a thing, and not to be disturbed in our soul; for things themselves have no natural power to form our judgements.

(Unrelated)

I know some people don’t feel that The Final Cut is a real Pink Floyd album but I think it’s a genuine, brilliant album. Roger Waters was anti-war and anti-nuclear and this song does an incredible job splaying his thoughts on the matter out for all to hear. My favorite line, when describing the moments right after a nuclear detonation is “could be the human race is run.” Just give it a listen.

Short is life. There is only one fruit of this terrene life, a pious disposition and social acts.

This quote sounds very Christian to me. It seems to frame life on this Earth as just temporary waypoint. It also places an emphasis on doing right by others. Stoic philosophy was influencial on early Christian writers so I shouldn’t be surprised.

I appreciate this snippet because so far, most of the quotes I’ve posted have focused on “how one ought to feel” and not on “what one ought to do.” Though vague, there’s an absolute focus on being virtous and doing things for the benefits of others.

This reveals the main problem I have with Stoicism though. The Philosophy has a strong focus on how to feel but not on what one should do. Obviously that’s more in the vein ethics but I would still appreciate more focus on ethics from Stoic POV. I mention this because I believe that (and the science is pretty clear here) we are driven by emotion first and then apply ration after the fact. Our decisions are based on a ton of unconscious bias and instinctual thinking. On one hand, we manage to get through the day without every little thing becoming a pondering session but on the other hand, we are apt to make bad decisions based on bad information and then “stick to our guns” as it were. I know I do this and I see it in a lot of my family too, especially men and especially as they’ve gotten older.

If you also believe that we’re driven by emotion and that we’re not cursed, wretched, and evil then you’ve got to believe that emotion is not necessarily a bad thing. Even emotions that we generally try to suppress and minimize can, at times, be helpful. Things like angry, sadness, dread, fear are all emotions that people generally try to avoid but these can be saviors even in modern day society. On the other hand, emotions we choose to maximize like happiness can backfire or lead us astray as well. I mention this because Stoicism is, to me, the act of controlling and even pausing your wavering emotional state. If you believe that we’re driven by emotion then what drives you without emotion? What’s moving you towards or away from various things? What is truly wrong and unjust and should be stopped if you don’t feel that it’s wrong? What tells you it IS wrong? Again, these questions are answered (and surely posed better) by ethical philosophers.

Imagine you witness a mugging. You probably feel a flash or anger or frustration. This needs to be stopped. It’s not right, it’s not okay. That anger, to me, is appropriate. Your emotional system is behaving normally and this signals you to jump into action. Even if you do not jump into action you’ve still surmised from your emotions that something is wrong. This is not correct behavior. To this, humans have build complex systems of courts and laws to deal with this behavior. Humans have surely taken a basic instinct and converted it into specific language that defines it’s wrongness and the punishment for committing this act.

I can recognize that our emotional systems can be as wrong as they can be right and they’re not the core basis of how we ought to behave but I still wonder in the wisdom of suppressing your emotional state. Does it mar ones ability to surmise right from wrong? If you choose not to feel a particular way about a particular thing, how can you still determine whether or not something is okay or ought to be done?

As someone who was raised without religion and continues to abstain, I can see why religion is such a compelling package. It provides people with how they ought to feel, how they ought to conduct themselves, and assurance that life beyond death exists which probably dampens the blow of injustice, our finite existence, and just plain bad luck. It provides concrete answers to al ot of things which are otherwise nebulous. It provides absolute dos and don’ts and a mechanism to enforce (though it is fear based). Finally, it provides community, rituals for dealing with major life events, and private social safety net.

I’ve have wanted to write about this topic for awhile. I feel like this area of moral uncertainty should be more concerning to the non-religious and anyone subscribes to Stocism and/or mindfulness. I see the same core issue in both: They teach you how to cope with the troubles that come your way but do nothing to help determine the rightness of factors/thinking that lead to that a clear understanding of right and wrong nor how to improve those issues overall. Coping and reducing the need to have to cope need an intersection that appears missing in these two traditions but is clear in religion.

Death is the cessation of the impressions through the senses, and of the pulling of the strings which move the appetites, and of the discursive movements of the thoughts, and of the service to the flesh. It is a shame for the soul to be first to give way in this life when thy body does not give way.

 

If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.

I think this quote is complimented well by I and VII (go back and review those if you have a moment). Seeking the truth while understanding that you might yet know the whole truth leaves you open to new experiences, new viewpoints, new understanding. Still, this is not to condone moral relativism. Right and wrong still exist but your understanding of whether something is or is not right may be based on incomplete truths.

We ought not, like children who learn from their parents, simply to act and speak as we have been taught.

It is important that we keep learning and perfecting ourselves. There is no person that is so perfect or complete that no improvements or refinements can be made.

I’d like to thank that my constant uncertainty in everything is also a strength. Once I know something, I still try to be flexible in the thinking. I make a real effort to understand another persons view point. If they’re right, my mind will change. If they’re not, I may still gain some perspective. So many things are not as concrete as we like to believe. So many things have shades of gray (thank you shitty sex fiction for ruining that metaphor). There are often very fundamental concepts that underpin peoples viewpoints. I find it’s important to try to drill down to that bedrock.

Equally important is to remember that human society is changing. The world is changing. Our relationship to the world, society, our neighbors is changing. Possibly too fast. What was true and worked for people even a few years ago may be unthinkable now. At the same time, someone who was taught something that has since been refuted might have a hard time adjusting to that change, so be gentle with them.

Thou art a little soul bearing about a corpse.

Be cheerful also, and seek not external help nor the tranquility which others give. A man then must stand erect, not be kept erect by others.

One needs to be self-sustaining and their happiness ought not reside in others. Also… don’t worry, be happy.

Every man’s life is sufficient.

Looking at this quote now, it feels dramatic and dire but I think in the context of Stocism, it’s not really. Well, maybe a little but Marcus Aurelius wrote Meditations on his deathbed and I don’t know that he ever intended for it to be published for the world to see and ponder over nearly 2000 years later.

There is no bar that one must meet or surpass in order for one to be complete or justified in this life. Life justifies itself, so there are no minimum requirements on what one much accomplish in order for the gift of life to be repaid.

Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial.

You know people with these tendencies exist. You know you encounter them on a regular basis. You know you sometimes suffer the same flaws. It is important to recognize that interacting with these people is not just inevitable but in many cases essential for getting through your day. Recognize that people have these flaws and be cordial with them. Also know that because you will encounter these people, allowing the interaction to own your emotions causes unnecessary suffering in your life.

This quote also sums up Stocism pretty well through the lens of interaction with others. Things that are not within your power to control should not be within the power to control you. Set yourself up for success each day by recognizing the world as it is and navigate through it.