Category Archives: Uncategorized

“But isn’t Stoic Physics really *meta*-physics?”

Standard

Nope.  (;

The word “physics” can be confusing for modern English speakers when we’re discussing the tripartite divisions of philosophy, to wit:  logic, ethics, and physics.  Today, Physics requires electron microscopes, crazy-intense lasers, Large Hadron Colliders, and other assorted machines and instruments.  Yet, these are pretty thin on the ground.COSMOS: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY: 

(photo credit: FOX)

Most of us don’t have access to such tools, nor did the classical Stoics.  So why do we call their study ‘Physics’ also?  The operative word in the Koine is Physis ( φύσις), and is commonly translated by the English word ‘nature.’  It has philosophical, theological, and scientific connotations.  We use the same word in English, it’s derivative “physics,” because we’re talking about similar intents:  the desire to study nature, or reality.

The classical study of Physics incorporated things that we might categorize as theology, cosmology, psychology, anthropology, biology, chemistry, etc.  It’s quite the range of areas of investigation.  But the crucial point is that they are investigations into the nature of the cosmos: of reality.

metaphysics1-300x238Metaphysics is a newer term, and it’s often applied retroactively to thought-models which are deemed to be outdated or untestable.  The morpheme ‘meta-‘ in English has the meaning of “beyond” or “above.”  So metaphysics postulates about things which are beyond current conventional ability to test.  While it might be acceptable in some academic disciplines to refer to certain positions of the classical Stoics as metaphysical, we who consider ourselves studying in the school usually will make use of the word “physics” as it’s closer to the vocabulary which they themselves used.

So, how come the Stoics don’t lay out statements like “Here’s our metaphysical position on ‘X-thing,'” ?  The first reason being, the term is new, so we’re not going to see it per the above.  The second is that the Stoic worldview is interwoven into the entire system.  By the time the classical Stoics were current, philosophy had become a system of schools, which had held common positions amongst themselves.  Of course, there are those who make individual contributions to the discussions, and some of them are heterodox to the mainline dogma:  nothing surprising there.  Thirdly, using the word “physics” places the things we’re discussing in a chronological context.  To understand modern science in the best way, it is advisable to at least learn about the understandings of previous generations.  To really understand why quantum mechanics is such a trip, esp. in the 1905, a firm understanding at some level of Newtonian physics is useful.  Context matters.

The classical Stoics are variously called materialists, vitalists, monists, physicalists, and more.  What we’re discussing here is not a proclivity for shopping, but rather their understanding of the cosmic nature.  The classical Stoics believed (or at least espoused) that all of existence is made up of one stuff, that it’s ordered by a universal reason, and that virtue is the only good and equivalent to eudaimonia.

These are metaphysical positions generally, as we understand it.

However, the Stoic ethics are predicated on its physics.  While recently this position has been challenged by some, the academic literature and the classical sources themselves are (to me at least) clear on this issue.  As such, to relegate them to the realm of the “metaphysical” does a disservice to the unity of the system for the modern student.

This is precisely because the classical position gives us an avenue for the modern practitioner to approach life.  If it is possible to divine ethical precepts based on a rational understanding of the universe (assumption), then we still have work to do.  The School is in progress.  The case of ethics is not closed.  The understanding of virtue is not closed.  These are open classes, and it is our responsibility as philosophers to continue that work.

Whether you call a certain sub-set of classical postulates and beliefs “physics” or “metaphysics” isn’t really an important-per-se issue; nor is it of a moral nature (thus an indifferent).  Within some circles one might be more prevalent than the other, the entirety and the length of the discussion is still one of value, however.

You won’t be kicked out of the Stoic tent (so far as I’m concerned) if you do not believe that universe is all matter surrounded by a cosmic void, or that it forever expands and is consumed in a cosmic fire.  You don’t have to believe that the soul of the Sage lives on for a short time (but not past the Ekpyrosis).  But it is important to be familiar with the classical beliefs that came along with the ethical and moral precepts of our School if you are to call yourself a Stoic.

That the difference between virtue and vice is non-gradational.

Standard

One of the difficult positions in Stoic philosophy for new students is the idea that there are no successive steps between virtue and vice.  This means that we prokoptontes are not in any better state than the layman.  Vice is vice, 100%.  Virtue is virtue, 100%.  There is no material benefit to being “part way” between the two, and it may not even be possible to be part way between them.drowning

To take some liberties with Plutarch’s example, a man who drowns in the bath tub is no less drowned than the man who drowns fifty feet below the surface in the sea.  Both are the same amount of dead.  In this way, the amount of failing which constitutes our own vicious intent is no less severe.  All vices are equal to the Stoic philosopher.

This flies in the face of the common conception, but it’s important to remember here, that we’re talking about our own internal thought-models for aligning our moral intent with the universal perspective.  We’re not discussing laws, courts, and organizations.  We’re not saying what this person’s or that person’s punishment should be for an act prohibited by the civil law.  No, indeed we are only discussing our own internal state, the universal perspective, and the inclination towards virtuous intent.

With that in mind, the fact that our little failings are just as severe per se as our large ones is easier to grok.  The drowning analogy, again.  We’re just as drowned in the tub as the sea.  This means that there is a sense of urgency in our practice.  While we might, and others might see in us, progress as we practice, we’re still drowning.

The Sage is not drowning.  Her perspective is aligned with the universe, with God (as it were).  The Sage is free from the little failings of intent.  While she is by no means omniscient, her moral will is a sharp and incisive tool, and her disinterest in the common, worldly baggage allows her to share the divine perspective.

It is this state, this alignment which Stoic philosophers are practicing towards, and this is the light which calls us from the depths, whether we’re drowning in the tub or the sea.

The Philosopher’s Cloak, (MK-II)

Standard

This entry is a continuation of the previous:  The Philosopher’s Cloak.

““Socrates, I supposed that philosophy must add to one’s store of happiness. But the fruits you have reaped from philosophy are apparently very different. For example, you are living a life that would drive even a slave to desert his master. Your meat and drink are of the poorest: the cloak you wear is not only a poor thing, but is never changed summer or winter; and you never wear shoes or tunic.” ”

— Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.6.2

The philosopher’s cloak (pallium, or tribōn/τρίβων) continues to be of interest to me.  Since the writing of the first iteration of The Philosopher’s Cloak, I’ve done some more reading and some practical experimentation.  My core questions at the end of the last post (SPOILER ALERT!) was whether for a modern philosopher (specifically a Stoic) should a philosophical uniform be adopted, and if so, should it cause one stand out, or blend in

A version of a uniform which blends in might be like Steve Job’s outfit, of a black shirt and jeans.  He could, and did, wear this almost anywhere, and most folks unless they saw him often wouldn’t be aware of the intentionality of his practice.steve_jobs

This is what’s often called a capsule wardrobe, a term I learned from The Cynic TubCast co-host Telma Larman.  Telma sent me this link, to a site which argues for a capsule wardrobe of 33 total items.  Now, the motivations for Steve Jobs, and for many of the minimalist folks overlap in a part, but not in total, to those of a philosopher.  But, frankly, we’re not concerned about their motivations here, we’re concerned about our own, to which we will return shortly.

A person’s clothing is by definition an indifferent in Stoicism, no question.  But we as prokoptontes are training ourselves towards virtue:  we’re “making progress.”  We do this, in part, by manipulating externals/indifferents, and organizing our lives in a way which is conducive to the study and acquisition of virtue, whereby we seek to attain eudaimonia.  I don’t think any of the previous two sentences is overly controversial, but I do want to draw attention to, and explicitly state that,

“we [train for virtue], in part, by manipulating externals/indifferents.”

The philosopher’s cloak is argued for several times in Classical texts.  This tells me a few things.

1)  The tribōn was not common enough to escape notice.
2)  The wearing of the tribōn was distasteful enough that arguments had to be made to convince others to adopt it.
3)  The tribōn carried culturally dependent messages to those who viewed it.
4)  The tribōn carried specific messages to the wearers of it.
5)  The tribōn carries some (likely a different) message to modern viewers.

Tertullian was one who discarded the toga (a symbol of affluence, power, luxury, and wealth), in favor of the humble tribōn, and he explains his reasons in the above linked piece.  The philosopher’s cloak, then, is a symbol of poverty, and also of severity of manners.  In many ways, then, it bears striking similarities to the dress of monks, ascetics, holy men, and others of many traditions the world over.

It seems to me, then, that the tribōn had “negative social capital” at the time of the Classical Stoics.  It was a poor person’s last resort to modesty and protection.  It was the sign of those who were living in a very different way from the wider culture.  It made one stand out.  If we look at Buddhist monks, and the reasoning behind their wearing of the kasaya,we see a striking similarity in intention.  To take something of low social standing, to take something of minimum protection, to take the minimum required for modesty, and make use of it for more noble purposes.Portrait_statue_of_an_old_man_wearing_a_himation

It is a funny twist that now that we are approximately 2,500 years removed from those reasons, that they carry a very different message.  Monks are respected, and their robes are treated and reacted to as such by the laity.  We westerners dress up our near-modern figures in the tribōn as symbols of wisdom, democracy, and intellectual authority.  How interesting that these symbols of poverty and privation have instead become symbols of the highest human aspirations to reason and spiritual progress.

I mentioned my experiment in the opening of this piece, and as of the writing, I have been wearing a philosophical uniform daily for about six weeks.  I have learned some interesting things even in that short time.  My current chosen uniform is a sand-colored cotton shirt, woven, and in the Indian style often called a kurta.  It is collarless, has a few buttons to allow the head to pass through, and very little adorning.  It’s a very simple garment.  I wear either jeans or shorts (depending on work or at leisure), and sandals.

At first, when I thought about wearing my uniform, I thought people would notice, since it stands out just a little (but not much).  I even had a (vicious) impression that such attention might not be all bad:  a bit of rebel vanity, as it were.  No one mentioned it.  Some folks looked, and I suspect some of my co-workers noticed, but it was not a problem.  Those feelings passed quickly, and after two or three weeks, a new thing arose.

One day, I was getting ready for work, and I grabbed my uniform automatically, on auto-pilot as it were.  And I thought to myself, “Man, I’d really like to wear something else today.”  Ah ha!  The regular sort of vanity was cropping up.  While no one ever mentioned my uniform to me, it did occasionally garner me some sideways glances.  Now, the attention was a little uncomfortable.  I didn’t like it.  I wanted to be looked at a certain way, but not this one.

I was treating an indifferent, social feedback, as a good.  I desired it.

In realizing this, I pulled on my uniform and went to work per the usual.  At this point, wearing the uniform became (occasionally) an act of self-discipline.  My short-lived infatuation with it had passed, and it had become a spiritual exercise (read:  the original intent of it).

Which brings me to final point:  I’m sold on the idea of a philosophical uniform, and I think the somewhat negative social feedback is actually a useful tool whereby such exercise and progress is made.

The purpose of the tribōn was to provide minimal protection, adopt simplicity, and meet the expectations of modesty.

“Modesty is about a person, male or female, choosing to foster an inner spirit of humility and dignity, and communicating that in outward, culturally contextualized symbols of dress and behavior.’

—Toward a New Understanding of Modesty

While my current uniform half-way blends in:  I suspect there is some benefit to the classical garment.  The tribōn at the time was not a privileged garment, we today value it solely in art.  I suspect a person who adopted the tribōn  as his or her daily dress would be in a similar position of a classical philosopher.  If I could get away with wearing one, I would give it a shot.

Since the wearing of the tribōn is not a divine obligation:  it’s no sin for a Stoic not to wear one, I do not think we’re obliged to wear the actual article that Musonius, Epictetus, et al praise so highly.  We should be able to re-locate the message and the intent of the tribōn into a modern context, however.

How we do that is up for discussion, but I’ve come to a position that I’m willing to firmly state:

I think there is a value in Stoics and Stoic students devising and agreeing upon a philosophical uniform for daily wear: and they should wear it.

It would need to be motivated to several points:
– It needs to culturally relevant to west, (i.e. one shouldn’t expect to be fired for wearing it).
– It needs to meet the minimum protection from the weather.
– It needs to meet the minimum protection for modesty for both men and women. (we might choose two styles)
– It needs to be inexpensive, and either acquirable (or able to be made) in most western countries.
– It should be simple, and set the wearer apart as a Stoic philosopher.

I’d like to open up the discussion for what should be (a voluntary) uniform of the Stoic Philosopher.
What say you?

Did Stoics Meditate?

Standard

We have a few hints and suggestions for what might have passed for meditation in classical Stoicism.
Most of these come down as words from the Koine (Greek), and a little from Latin.

Melete, (Μελέτη):  The Muse of Meditation.
Premeditatio: Premeditation (e.g.:  Premediatio Malorum).
Askesis, (ἄσκησις):  Training.
Pneuma, (πνεῦμα):  Breath, (often used by the Stoics as Spirit).
Psyche, (ψυχή):  Breath of Life, Soul, Spirit.

Epictetus advises us many times to maintain a tranquil mind, a mind impenetrable to outside causes.  Marcus engages in several visualization and mind-calming exercises.  We have the Delphic Injunction to “Know Thyself.”  In looking at the above list of vocabulary words, we see a lot of similarity in other School’s meditation vocabulary, specifically from the Indian subcontinent.

There has been some speculation that the “gymnosophistai” which Alexander came across in his travels were either Jains or early Buddhists.  We have ended up with a bottle-necking of Stoic sources, and there are references and terms to things which suggest some sort of meditation practice.

Musonius also discusses two types of trainings for the philosopher, those which train the body, and those which train the mind/soul.  He doesn’t enumerate nor elaborate on these, but the hints from Epictetus and Musonius suggest to me something akin to meditation.

Whether this is sitting meditation as most folks understand it, or more intellectual exercise is up for debate.  Lately, I’ve been learning Vipassana mediation as a support for my Stoic practice.  At the danger of sounding like an eclectic, I think that there is a high degree of possibility for this helping my practice.

This, and following the Rule of Musonius (a set of seven rules extracted from his Lectures and Sayings), I think I’ve found an interesting vehicle for practice.  I’ll be publishing the seven rules in the next few weeks, and, Fate permitting, the full e-book not too long thereafter.

I discussed this issue in an Ask A Stoic video, as well:

The Cynic TubCast

Standard

The first episode of The Cynic Tubcast is up, of which I am a co-host.  If you’re interested in the history of Stoicism, and the school which gave it birth, swing on by!  Zeno spent some twenty years, if I recall correctly, as a student of Crates in the Cynic school before going on to found the Stoa.  Looking back to the Cynics for ideas to inform my Stoic practice is what brought me to have an appreciation for those philosophers like Diogenes, Crates, and Hipparchia.

I hope you enjoy the episode!  It’s been quite the adventure getting it out there!

The Cynic TubCast: S01E01.

On the transmigration of certain fowls across the public highways.

Standard

Stolen from Telma:

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Epictetus: And what concern is it to you what the chicken does or does not? Crossing the road is in your power, the fact that the chicken crosses the road is not.

Marcus Aurelius: Remember how so many brilliant chickens have crossed the road in the past and are now long forgotten.

Seneca: My dear Lucilius, I understand how much interest you find in the question of why the chicken may have crossed the road. Many chickens that we know have crossed the road for several reasons, and I will expose them to you. In the ancient times, we know that Xerces’ chickens have crossed the road to try to invade Greece; some chickens in Nero’s house have been spotted to cross the road in order to fornicate. [… snipping 15 pages …] But my own views on the topic may differ from that of our school. Be wary not to go too deep into theoretical questions: for what time have we left?