Marcus Aurelius Stoicism Lecture

[adrift]

Helloooo I saw this lecture and found it really interesting so I thought I would share it. I'm still new so hopefully this is in the right section.

 

[adrift]

Also if anyone wanted to try and type the lecturer, that would be cool.

 

[Lark]

Going to watch this later, thanks for the share, I have an interest in Stoicism among other topics.

 

[Coriolis]

Going to watch this later, thanks for the share, I have an interest in Stoicism among other topics.

Same here - will watch later when not at work. Thanks for posting, [MENTION=37816]adrift[/MENTION].

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[Video]

Helloooo I saw this lecture and found it really interesting so I thought I would share it. I'm still new so hopefully this is in the right section.

Yes, you posted in the right section. Welcome!

I watched the video. I guess I'll comment. I'm not much of a philosopher. I just dabble in philosophical concepts at the layman/amateur level. Anyway:

The problem I always have with Stoicism is that one has to live a virtuous life in order to avoid reproach and to earn honor, but no one really spells out how "virtue" is to be defined.

That wasn't a problem back in old Roman times, of course. In Rome, the class and caste system was fairly rigid, and everyone knew their station in life. "Virtue" consisted of living in accordance with your station in life. Emperors were supposed to act like emperors, slaves were supposed to act like slaves, etc.

But what is the nature of "virtue" in modern life? Is it "virtuous" to be a good corporate drone, earn a big salary, pay lots of taxes to the government, and avoid making waves? Or is it "virtuous" to question authority and raise hell when you see injustice? Or is it "virtuous" to go off the grid and refuse to be part of a corrupt system? Eat organic? Give away all your money to charity? Keep your money and build financial security for yourself and your family? Be a good liberal? Be a good conservative?

As the lecturer points out toward the very end, in modern life Stoicism probably applies best in places like the military, where "virtue" is spelled out in the form of ranks and rules and codes of conduct. There, the military provides the framework for defining "virtue," much as the Roman class system did back in history.

As for me, I'm probably more of an Epicurean (mentioned briefly by the lecturer at the beginning as one of the two other offshoots of Socratic philosophy). Epicureanism is kind of like "rational hedonism": Figure out for yourself what makes life pleasurable or enjoyable or meaningful for you personally, and practice it to the extent that it benefits you and others but not to the extent that you overindulge and cause harm by it. Epicureanism doesn't concern itself with "virtue" per se. As I see it, Epicureanism probably comes closer to Libertarianism: You do you, but only to the extent that it doesn't harm you and others.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

The problem I always have with Stoicism is that one has to live a virtuous life in order to avoid reproach and to earn honor, but no one really spells out how "virtue" is to be defined.

I was thinking some more about Stoicism as presented in the video and decided (contrary to what I said above) that Stoicism is useful and even necessary in a certain context. First, let me generalize a bit some ideas about how we interact with the world. Then I'll show where Stoicism fits in, IMO.

In interacting with the world, I see four rough stages. (I even kind of model them off the four Jungian functions.)

Stage 1: Do a self-inventory and decide what your values are. This is the idea that I was talking about in my previous post. Your values boil down to the idea of "you do you," but first you have to figure out who "you" is. You have to reach inside for that; the world can't really tell you that by simply assigning you a job or a social class.

Stage 2: After you've decided what your values are, you still need to decide how you're going to manifest yourself/your values in the world and choose an appropriate persona or "personal narrative" to guide your actions and behavior. After all, what good are my personal values if I don't manifest them in some fashion in my daily interactions with others? In other words, if I've decided that my values correspond to traditional macho values, then I still have to figure out how to manifest those values in the world around me: Dirty Harry? The Marlboro Man? The strong, silent type? A leader of men? A seducer of women?

Stage 2 would be where Stoicism would come in handy. After all, it takes a bit of self-denial to maintain a persona or a personal narrative. If I want to be the strong, silent type, then I can't be whining or complaining about every little bump in the road. IOW, I can't be the strong, silent type in my head and a whiny little crybaby in real life; that's cognitive dissonance.*

Naturally, a persona or narrative isn't a straitjacket. One experiments with various personas and narratives throughout one's life and finds that different ones work better at different phases in life. Or one can compartmentalize and have one persona in the workplace and another at home. But still, at any given time in life we all want some control over how we present ourselves in the world. And this is where Stoicism and self-denial come in. It's like the dude in the video said: If you're an emperor, then be the best emperor you can possibly be. If you're a slave, then be the best slave you can possibly be. If you're the strong, silent type, then strive to do that to the best of your ability.

To sum up:
--At Stage 1, you decide whether you're an emperor or a slave (what your values are). Personally, I use Epicureanism as my way of determining my own values.
--At Stage 2, you decide how to manifest your values in the world around you in terms of behavior and actions (your persona or narrative). Stage 2 is going to require some Stoicism or self-denial if you want to do it right and really have your outer actions be a good reflection of your inner (Stage 1) values.

Further on down the road, Stage 3 and 4 get into the actual mechanics of how you deal with the world: What systems you set up in your daily interactions, how emotionally close or distant you are with others, etc. Boundaries, attachment styles, negotiation styles. It's a further refinement of your persona and how you manifest your values: Rules for your actual, concrete interactions with others. I won't go into the latter two stages here; I'm just illustrating how I see this stuff.

Anyway, this essay is just a brain dump. I'm not a fan of Stoicism, but I can see where self-denial fits into the process of creation and manifestation of an outer persona (Stage 2). So I figured I would amend my previous post accordingly.

* [ETA:] It's cognitive dissonance to be overly changeable and arbitrary in your actions unless of course your persona is specifically built on the concept of changeability itself. Example: The Diva persona. In that case, be as changeable and whacko as you want to be.

 

[Point148]

Yes, yes, don't feel and do exactly what you want to do. Perfect philosophy to follow if you want to be ruled by innate desires.

 

[Coriolis]

The problem I always have with Stoicism is that one has to live a virtuous life in order to avoid reproach and to earn honor, but no one really spells out how "virtue" is to be defined.

That wasn't a problem back in old Roman times, of course. In Rome, the class and caste system was fairly rigid, and everyone knew their station in life. "Virtue" consisted of living in accordance with your station in life. Emperors were supposed to act like emperors, slaves were supposed to act like slaves, etc.

But what is the nature of "virtue" in modern life? Is it "virtuous" to be a good corporate drone, earn a big salary, pay lots of taxes to the government, and avoid making waves? Or is it "virtuous" to question authority and raise hell when you see injustice? Or is it "virtuous" to go off the grid and refuse to be part of a corrupt system? Eat organic? Give away all your money to charity? Keep your money and build financial security for yourself and your family? Be a good liberal? Be a good conservative?

Toward the end of the video, the speaker mentions that a rational person would not want to harm himself, or those around him. I see this as the essence of virtue in the stoic sense. It is just as applicable today as in old Roman times.

As the lecturer points out toward the very end, in modern life Stoicism probably applies best in places like the military, where "virtue" is spelled out in the form of ranks and rules and codes of conduct. There, the military provides the framework for defining "virtue," much as the Roman class system did back in history.

A main point of the lecture and its focus on Marcus Aurelius seems to be just the opposite, namely that virtue comes from within rather than from external constraints like rules and codes of conduct. As presented here, stoicism seems applicable to anyone, as at root it is nothing more than a recognition and acceptance of reality. I see in it echoes of the serenity prayer, and even the idea of locus of control: controlling what you can (i.e. yourself), and letting go of the rest.

Stage 2 would be where Stoicism would come in handy. After all, it takes a bit of self-denial to maintain a persona or a personal narrative. If I want to be the strong, silent type, then I can't be whining or complaining about every little bump in the road. IOW, I can't be the strong, silent type in my head and a whiny little crybaby in real life; that's cognitive dissonance.*

Or hypocrisy. Integrity and internal consistency does seem to be a significant aspect of stoicism, one I think more people should attempt to display.

 

[Yuurei]

It’s strange, as a young teenager to my early twenties I was the picture of stocism. After becoming an adult I thought
“ fuck it. Ima do what I want.”
TBH, I hate myself for it but I can’t seem to get back to where I was no matter what.

 

[Lib]

I couldn't see it all because of my slow connection but the lecturer gives me some INT vibes, cannot decide whether is Ti or Ni what I see:
- follows a mental list of important points, uninterested in his public
- messes up his words at times as if he knows what he is going to say well ahead and can't wait to get through the boring details
- audience distracts him so he looks downwards and keeps his hands in the pockets, walking to keep his thought rhythm
- when he reaches a point of example he gets more confident (in his ability to follow the logical thread) and makes a contact with the audience
INTJ normally talk much slower and heavier but I dunno...

I must first see the whole lecture before joining the on-going discussion... yet, I notice that stoicism is often confused with 'slavery' to external (or internal?) factors, while it's simply the attempt to dig all the way down to the root of the problem before acting upon it; instead of being dependent on the limitations of the situation you prefer to rise above it - it's a god-like freedom since stoics aim to control what no one dares - the nature, even if it's only the human nature (but their interests normally go far beyond it). Stoics are not depriving themselves from pleasure but rather their pleasure lies in the full understanding of nature and staying connected with it. But, seriously, why would you act upon something you have no clue about? That'd be completely stupid, animalistic. You might very well be killing yourself, destroying everything you cherish without knowing it.

And as far as I am aware, stoics treat everybody as equals, even the slaves, they have no regard for societal norms but only for how the world works.

 

[Tater]

 

[Lib]

...

Presented in such a way, stoicism sounds contradictory - what's more natural to a human being than the desire to preserve their life, to have security and avoid pain, and to leave someone with part of their DNA and a memory of them?

Stoicism is not to give relief to short-sighted and spoiled people in adversity, it's actually more about forecasting and preventing adversity than just enduring it. And when something bad happens to you, a stoic would suggest that you should have seen it coming, not that what happens don't matter. It's just that the video focuses mostly on how stupid people feel post factum, doesn't say anything about how stoics are rolling their eyes in such situations.

 

[Lib]

Now, that I've seen the whole video, I think that the lecturer is either ENTP or INTP, or may be something in the middle.

Even though I support Aurelius's stoicism on many levels, the concept of duty for itself could be justified only by a higher judgement, i.e. the existence of a god, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. In either case, it's as irrational as being governed by feelings and emotions. For example, if we follow the natural order, we are supposed to be afraid because being alive requires that you're afraid - it's due to the natural order that we possess an instinct for survival. In other words, it would be irrational not to listen to your instinct for survival at all. And it's actually impossible not to fear - even Aurelius is afraid to go against his virtue... The same applies to preferring not to be a slave. Basically, everything truly beneficial (maximizing the utility) in this world have come from people that didn't just comply with their social role but saw it in a new, more rational way. Everything is changing physically according to the second law of thermodynamics, never to be the same again, so in order to be adequate, we must be supporting change not status quo, or the duty that has been assigned to us. Yes, Aurelius was certainly not in a different position than a slave, a prisoner.

(I am aware the above deviates from the statements in my first post but it's because I didn't know much about Aurelius' stoicism and mostly was referring to determinism because stoics are determinists... Many stoics feel duty to serve their social role (which I wasn't aware of) even though they are not interested in social acceptance per se. There are plenty of causal determinists, though, that were going against their assigned social roles.)

The concept of duty is important for survival of the human kind as long as we don't justify it with nonsensical idea about god or traditions or anything else other than the ultimate goal of society - to increase and secure our chances for survival. Natura naturans. There is no one to judge us, only the consequences.