Thank you for the interview. I am not a Scholar but am someone who incorporates Stoic practices into my life. I would like to respond to this interview and the recent conversation you had with Caleb Ontiveros.
I don’t think anyone really argues that Stoicism does not have psychological benefits. CBT/REBT, some the most effective psychotherapies utilized today, were directly inspired by Stoicism, which can help make the case that Stoic practices have validity. In addition to gaining popularity during the Empirical Period, Stoicism was developed (the early Stoa) during the Hellenistic Period (Macedonian Empire) which saw the decline of the city-state and local political power. You don't sound like you dispute this but could you clarify why this "disproves" Stoicism? Also, can there not by practicing Buddhist who are also engaged in the world? (See Thich Naht Hanh's "engaged Buddhism")
Stoicism is more than accepting outcomes, it is about moral character. I disagree that accepting outcomes (after giving a good faith effort) and morality are only for the "weak" or those with a "slave mentality." I have not studied Nietzsche, but that sounds like Thrasymachus (The Republic, Book 1) arguing that justice is only what the strong say it is. Stoicism emphasizes doing the right thing, even if it is materially disadvantages, which takes courage. There is also a duty aspect of Stoicism (to yourself, family, community, humanity) that I’m glad your guest brought up. I came to Stoicism as a coping mechanism, but it has also spurred me to give my best effort, to contribute to more my community, to be a better partner, to be better at my job, etc.
Cato lacked moderation and prudence (was uncompromising). We can learn much from Cato, but I would not consider him a Stoic sage. Stoicism is aspirational. There may have never been or will be a truly wise person.
This is an excellent rebuttal that defines Stoicism accurately, addressing common misunderstandings. I’ve only seen the introduction so far and plan to watch the rest, but the video’s misleading title needed to be reprimanded.
"So the archer, in this scenario, is not going to be upset if he didn’t hit the target through no fault of his own, because he did his best to do it. So his virtue consists in doing the best to hit the target. It does not consist in succeeding. So this, in a nutshell, is Stoic ethics."
Reminded me of कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन । मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भुर्मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥
Thank you for the interview. I am not a Scholar but am someone who incorporates Stoic practices into my life. I would like to respond to this interview and the recent conversation you had with Caleb Ontiveros.
I don’t think anyone really argues that Stoicism does not have psychological benefits. CBT/REBT, some the most effective psychotherapies utilized today, were directly inspired by Stoicism, which can help make the case that Stoic practices have validity. In addition to gaining popularity during the Empirical Period, Stoicism was developed (the early Stoa) during the Hellenistic Period (Macedonian Empire) which saw the decline of the city-state and local political power. You don't sound like you dispute this but could you clarify why this "disproves" Stoicism? Also, can there not by practicing Buddhist who are also engaged in the world? (See Thich Naht Hanh's "engaged Buddhism")
Stoicism is more than accepting outcomes, it is about moral character. I disagree that accepting outcomes (after giving a good faith effort) and morality are only for the "weak" or those with a "slave mentality." I have not studied Nietzsche, but that sounds like Thrasymachus (The Republic, Book 1) arguing that justice is only what the strong say it is. Stoicism emphasizes doing the right thing, even if it is materially disadvantages, which takes courage. There is also a duty aspect of Stoicism (to yourself, family, community, humanity) that I’m glad your guest brought up. I came to Stoicism as a coping mechanism, but it has also spurred me to give my best effort, to contribute to more my community, to be a better partner, to be better at my job, etc.
Cato lacked moderation and prudence (was uncompromising). We can learn much from Cato, but I would not consider him a Stoic sage. Stoicism is aspirational. There may have never been or will be a truly wise person.
This is an excellent rebuttal that defines Stoicism accurately, addressing common misunderstandings. I’ve only seen the introduction so far and plan to watch the rest, but the video’s misleading title needed to be reprimanded.
"So the archer, in this scenario, is not going to be upset if he didn’t hit the target through no fault of his own, because he did his best to do it. So his virtue consists in doing the best to hit the target. It does not consist in succeeding. So this, in a nutshell, is Stoic ethics."
Reminded me of कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन । मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भुर्मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥
Bhaghavat Gita - https://medium.com/envigblogs/karamanaye-vadhikaraste-2b778f7493c3