Really methodical review of how Stoics arrived at a social ethical system. It does take some 'leaps' in terms of connections (there is a bit of 'faith' and 'trust' in believing we are connected ... your daimon is a fragment of the greater part of the divine cosmos), "organized, planned and controlled system of cause and effect" in which we live. There is no room whatsoever for the Epicurean 'swerve' (sorry, Friendo).
p. 38 - is a fig tree 'bad' if it doesn't produce figs? or was it the will of the cosmos that a fig tree doesn't produce figs?
some thoughts at the end of chapter 2:
- Stoics claim there is a connection of my divine fragment to the Whole, yet *no one* and *no thing* has access to my mind.
- Socrates mentions his daimon, but *no one* had access to Socrates' mind
- Is there an "ought" or duty to listen to my daimon or other peoples' daimon?
- Who's divine fragment has priority if there a dispute of action?
Other questions and notes:
p. 67 - "no change is harmful in Stoicism. Is all change the universal's rational, harmless, systematic processes in motion?" ... Can humans cause harm to God / the Cosmos?
p. 68 - the universe does no harm to itself, "does not infer that every human will always act in accordance with the whole though." The parts can be out of harmony, but God is still unharmed.
p. 75 - "built into our rational thoughts and actions are instead the ends of our fellow rational beings and the Whole." ... Prisoner's Dilemma --> coordination. If I act virtuously (morally), then I am cooperating and coordinating with the common good.
p. 78 - the universe created hierarchy, yet Willcock pushes against this argument.
p. 102 - it is a struggle to accept one's duties, while watching many others deny their own. a challenge is: what to do when others fail in duty to you? p. 104 provides a possible answer? "how we make ourselves available as the objects of moral actions for others" ... it takes effort to 'open up' and be involved in others' lives.
For example ... p. 112 ... in 2020 global pandemic, some argued our duty was to stay 'locked down' and inject experimental vaccines for the common good. Now, four years later, it is more widely accepted that the lockdowns caused far more harm, and long-lasting harm to the common good. Many made the argument *against* lock downs and forced vaccine mandates, yet were vilified. Both sides of the debate were based on doing what is best for the common good. This is one of many, many examples of how Stoicism does not provide a clear, objective moral compass. As long as a Stoic argument is in support of taking action and supporting duties for the common good, then it is accepted. Stoicism does not settle debates about the best course of action for the common good, hence war is the father of us all (Heraclitus).
p. 116, "the primary way in which we can live in accordance with our rational nature for the Stoics is to think and act with the consciousness that we are universally and communally interconnected beings." fine, we are connected, but are we good about understanding cause and effect predictions? no.
p. 140, "we have at our disposal the capacity to live an emotionally stable life." Is mental illness due to lack of training?
"Developing a mental resilience to external threats requires a similar developmental process for Epictetus. Just as people can learn to be resilient to 'heat and cold,' likewise we can develop our mind to be indifferent to external activations of our emotions." You still care about your duties, but are not emotionally tied to them.
p. 141, God defined (what is good): "well-ordered, just, holy, pious, self-controlled, useful, honorable."
p. 155, "Seneca's advice concerns how she can avoid similar kinds of grief. This does not mean viewing the present world from a position of hopelessness and with the mindset that all will be inevitably lost. Seneca advocates rather the importance of premeditating how quickly things can change, in order to hope for outcomes that are best, while being 'prepared' for what can happen that would be the 'worst.'" ... Why not? Even existential angst can teach greater resiliency!
p. 158, "We might ask here whether everyone has to be individually living rationally for the universe to be perfectly rational at any point in time. This is a difficult question to answer, given that in one regard everything in the world is perfectly rationally ordered, in that the world's causal structure rolls on whether we are individuals want it to or not." Do all need to be rational - live according to Nature - for God to be happy? Nope!
p. 161, "we see here that when we do anything, if while doing that we are aware of what we share with others, then our happiness and well-being is ordered in tandem with the happiness and well-being of others." But we still disagree about 'doing something for the common good.' 'You do your worst, I'll do my best' seems to be the attitude to take, and to remain indifferent to the outcome. Just because you argue for action for the common good, does not mean it is the best course of action for the common good. Therefore, do some propose an action 'for the common good' in bad faith? Is it really self-interest disguised as common good? Perhaps! And what are we to make of 'my tribe' against 'your tribe'? Again, there is no objective moral compass in Stoicism.
In sum, really good book, but quite often it is R-E-P-E-T-I-T-I-V-E, to the point it could have been a fourth to third shorter if the book had better editing.
No comments:
Post a Comment