One of the things Marcus discusses today is a term which we inherit from Diogenes of Sinope, cosmopolitanism. During his lifetime, citizenship in a city was a defining characteristic for Hellenes, in much the same way as nation-states are today. When asked where his allegiance lay, he responded that he was a citizen of the world. A bold assertion then and now.
The Stoics inherited this doctrine from the Cynics, and Marcus uses it to remind himself that all rational creatures share in the logos. That men do evil not of their own accord but through ignorance, and that he must work with his fellows without regard for honor or reputation.
He gives himself reminders that he can, at any time, retreat into himself, and take shelter from the world should he need it. That he doesn’t need to actually flee from this problems of life. He notes that if his ruling faculty is in accord with nature, even these problems become of the fodder for progress.
A group I recently was exposed to by a follower of the blog and Patron is Stoics In Action. They are trying to apply Stoicism to modern problems, there is even a recent post on cosmopolitanism. I noted earlier this week, that it is a non-trivial problem to apply Stoicism in a way which doesn’t simply use it to prop up preexisting political commitments. I hope they’re successful.
One of the models we get from the classics comes from Hierocles, and deals with the doctrine of Affinity/Familiarity, or in the Greek οἰκείωσις. This process involves imagining that there are concentric circles of affinity, with each individual at the center. We have self, then family, then townsfolk, then countrymen, then foreigners, then all rational beings. The process of οἰκείωσις is to treat each of these groups as if they are at least one circle closer to us. So the benefit of the family is treated as our own benefit, and at the far end, all people are treated as if they are our fellow citizens and countrymen. It’s a useful, quick-and-dirty model for helping to shape and think about ethical behavior. You can see that the Stoics In Action folks have used this for their logo, which seems to me to be appropriate.
If this kind of project interests you, swing by and see what they’re doing.
* * *
If you’ve found some value in the posts here, I humbly request you consider supporting the blog on Patreon. Thank you for your readership.
This post is part of Michel Daw’s Reading Plan of Marcus’Meditations.
I’m reminded of this for two reasons, one being that the Stoics denied intermediary states between virtue and vice, thus the depth of the water to the man is in irrelevant: he’s drowning regardless. But also in a way I don’t think I’ve seen anyone express before.
As a kid, and if I’m honest often as an adult, we’d play a game to see who could hold their breath for the entirety of the tunnel as passengers in the car. The mind knows it can breath at any time, you just have to give up and lose. You also know that you’re not really in any danger. Nevertheless, about 2/3 of the way through, an existential panic creeps in. The muscles around the ribs burn with the effort of stillness. A pressure builds in the head. You can trick this a little by exhaling slightly, in little controlled puffs and not inhaling. Tricking the system into thinking it’s breathing again. But this only buys you an extra couple of seconds. If you’re here, you’re already close to your breaking point. If you can’t make out features at the end of the tunnel, and you’re puffing out, you’re not going to make it.
In these, one of the things discussed is some new work in the field of Epictetus. We have many folks working on Stoicism, and a few novel inventions, but this seems to me to be the most in line with the classical texts while making some valuable movement in it. Franco breaks down the ruling faculty of the mind into three functions, or judges: The Diairesis, the Antidiairesis, and the Counterdiairesis. Franco does an excellent job translating into English, and he has chosen to leave a handful of words in the Greek which may cause confusion in translation. Do not get hung up in the new terminology, the Dialogue makes it clear what’s being discussed. This brings us to the meat of the issue: the ruling faculty, or prohairesis.
We have two topics today, both dealing with speculation and the color of our thoughts. In the first, Marcus lists some of the paragons of the mind on classical antiquity: Hippocrates, Heraclitus, et al. Despite how these contributed to the social weal, they passed away. There’s a tinge of irony here, in some of these deaths as well: the manner or context of their dying contrasted with the focus of their study, or speculation. Marcus is using this a meditation on death and on meaning. We might spend a significant portion of our time speculating on (for his concern and ours) virtue, yet the sand continues to trickle through the hour glass, and we have no idea how much is left.
One of the traits (we may go even so far as to say virtues) of the Cynic is shamelessness or ἀναίδεια in the Greek. Although Diogenes was held in relatively high esteem by the early Christian church, they drew a line here, generally, and didn’t think overly well of the practice. Diogenes’ line of reasoning is, that anything which is in accordance with nature cannot be evil (the Stoics would agree), and anything which isn’t evil has no need to be hidden. Ah, we see here the seeds of Marcus’ reasoning then, too!
We can take the Cynic ἀναίδεια in a Stoic fashion. We can change or remove those behaviors and thoughts that would lead to a rightful feeling of shame, correct them before they work their way out into speech and deed. Which of our thoughts would rightfully feel shameful about? These are the things to work on.
He is speaking of the cracks in bread or fruit, laugh lines in the faces of the elderly, etc. I’m reminded of Kintsugi, or ‘golden joinery.’ It’s a method of repairing damaged or broken ceramics with gold, the result is a piece more beautiful, at least to my eye, than the original was.
Mountain Stoic 
You must be logged in to post a comment.