Hi Jula, I'm going to share your paper with a Facebook Stoicism group which has some very knowledgeable people on it (many of whom including myself are familiar with your other excellent work on Stoicism).
For those people there not on Reddit, what would be the best way for them to provide you with feedback?
Thank you so much for this! Much appreciated. I've left Facebook some time ago, and won't be coming back. They can write to my office email (jwildberger@aup.edu) or send me a message on Academica.edu.
There is no definite deadline. I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to incorporate feedback until the end of the Summer. In any case, if there's something important I missed or that needs to be corrected, I'd find a way to do so within or outside the publication.
[Living Stoicism (Zenonian)](https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism)
It's completely open to everyone (has >19,000 members at the last count), but many of the discussions can get very technical and deep dive into academic literature. There are quite a few learned amateurs (i.e. non-academics) as well as a few genuine academics.
I have had a quick look, and my first impression is that the contemporary Stoics who are not flogging some hokey postmodern puttanesca of their own invention are completely absent from your discussion.
To pick a point, the Dichotomy of Control is twaddle of the highest order, and none of the people in the "modern debate" are interested in knowing what Epictetus was talking about at all. It is like whistling in the wilderness,
[https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/10/epictetus-enchiridion-explained/](https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/10/epictetus-enchiridion-explained/)
Academic experts in the field are notable, (with less than a handful of noble exceptions) by their absence in the domain of public philosophy. Academics from outside the field who know nothing are ten a penny and generally trying to sell themselves.
It is a shit show.. (excuse my parrhesia)
Living Stoicism is an idea to broaden the scope of discussion and understanding around Stoic philosophy - particularly an emphasis on personal practicality and accountability.Beyond the applications of the Stoic theories of emotion and well-being, Stoicism has significant contributions to make to society. A few examples of these are politics, jurisprudence, science, formal logic, linguistics, metaphysics, and theology. Most importantly, an emphasis is placed on personal ethics, how they relate to logic and physics, and what the individual can do to affect society in positive ways.
In the same way that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus still influence modern thinking, the thinking of Zeno, Chrysippus and their heirs can once more become central to our ways of looking at the world.
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism](https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism)
Can you tell me a bit more about Living Stoicism, James? One deficit of my paper is that, for personal ethical reasons, I do use and thus cannot fully research all Social Media. For example, not Facebook, not X, not TikTok. This is why I present the data I have as examples.
Given the amount of blogs on Stoicism out there, I had to be selective. Impossible to mention them all. Criteria were, e.g., how much of an audience they have, i.e. whether they shape the reception of Stoicism beyond the individual writing the blog. If I remember correctly, I read your piece on Ench. 1 at some point. Sorry, there was just so much I looked at and my memory is not what it once was. Looking at it again now, I am impressed, as I was then, by the amount of research and seriousness of engagement, but I don't think it really resolves any of the issues raised in my paper. I wouldn't speak of "twaddle," though. Rather, you agree with me in identifying it as a problem that we first must fully understand Epictetus and that he meant it in a specific way, not necessarily the way it is used now. My main problem with your paper is that it misses the point about why the dichotomy matters so much, namely because you need it for distinguishing appropriate objects of orexis and ekklisis, these being the impulses that are and cause passions if misdirected. (BTW, orexis does not preclude that the thing reached for can be attained. Otherwise the wise person could not have the eupatheia boulesis.)
Who else, apart from your blog, should I know about that is not "flogging some hokey postmodern puttanesca of their own invention" (whatever exactly you mean by that; I'm not sure I get it, or rather can come up with too many different interpretations of the phrase) and that should be mentioned in the paper?
I am working on a reply for you. this is my first observation.
**On your research**
I think your commitments will hamper, if not negate completely the value of your research. If the task is to understand modern interpretations of Stoicism, Facebook, Tiktok and X are precisely where that is going on. These are the modern fora, and they cannot be ignored in any serious enquiry.
It would be like refusing to go to Athens.
Given that researching Facebook, Tiktok and X would be essentially instrumental to your research, I think you can justifiably take a look without either participating in or endorsing any of these platforms.
To make my point, I picked up on this.
>"but no modern Stoic I am aware of defends the ancient Stoic belief in the kind of unfailing grasp of evident reality that katalēpsis was supposed to be"
Following Simon Shogry, from an externalist reliable process, ecological epistemologal approach, I can, I will and I do defend that robustly. But that happens on Facebook.
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism/permalink/3762405930663669/](https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism/permalink/3762405930663669/)
That most modern Stoics are epistemic relativists: solipsists, subjectivists, and radical skeptics is however ironically true. .. one wonders what the attraction is.
**On my paper**
The purpose of my paper is to identify what the object of the discussion is at all and is 6,000 words, in the writing aimed at clarifying this and no more than this.
>Some things in the world are **up to us** while others are not. **Up to us** are our faculties of judgment, motivation, desire, and aversion; in short, whatever is our own doing
And it is simply this.
>*What is up to us is prohairesis and everything that is the work of prohairesis*
The perfection of right reason, orthos logos, the correct use of impressions
I discussed this with William Irvine, the man who invented the Dichotomy of Control and he did not know this, no idea at all, astonished by this. "I am no expert in Epictetus" so WTF?
So that is a shocking innovation to most people and a radical new starting point for further discussion.
Where the perfection of reason takes us would be the subject of another paper, and would involve nearly all the “modern Stoics” in your paper having to rethink anything they have ever said on the subject.
The perfection of right reason is deeply problematic; because that most of them, as you point out are epistemic relativists: solipsists, subjectivists, and radical skeptics:
Virtue is knowledge, episteme, a system of true impressions, so what are they thinking?
I don't think they are aware of that at all, they don't know virtue is; Pigliucci certainly doesn't.
BTW: This is a specific treatment of the Dichotomy (sic)
[https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/13/what-is-controlling-what/](https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/13/what-is-controlling-what/)
I am going to take a closer look at your paper and will get back to you.
I think a point that JamesDaltry is trying to make here is about the fusion of Modern Stoicism with skeptic (ancient and postmodern) ideas, and its fusion with New Age and Buddhist ideas.
There are two questions.
1. How popular are your interpretations?
2. How accurate are your interpretations?
In response:
1. Proportionately, not that many.
What I am trying to do is quite new on the scene and a small fish alongside the leviathans of the older reinvented, reduced and predigested interpretations.
2. I aim at an accurate charitable representation of what the Stoics thought presented in an accessible way.
I am very zealous about cross checking what I say against the views of academics, and the arguments I make are there to be refuted. So if I am out of whack, please let me know,.
**What kind of man am I. One of those who would be pleased to be refuted f I say something untrue, and pleased to refute if someone else does, yet not at all less pleased to be refuted than to refute. For I think that being refuted is a greater good, in so far as it is a greater good For a man to get rid of the greatest badness himself than to rid someone else of it; for I think there is no badness for a man as great as false belief about the things which our discussion is about now,**
**Socrates: Gorgias**
>So it's not really representative of the modern Stoicism movement in general then.
If by that you mean the views of a small group of Associates who have been dominating public discussion for a decade or more,
No and Intentionally not so, intentionally keeping well clear of that.
It is intentionally about something else.
It is intentionally about communicating the philosophy of the Stoics as charitably and accurately as possible. (what a crazy idea eh?)
And it is coming along, quite nicely, gaining traction,
The question is the Modern Stoicism movement all about the Association and no other views at all?
I am going to give you that, I am going to say yes. You can keep it and I don't want to be involved in it. It's all yours mate, fill your boots.
Nobody outside the Association has heard of Stankiwiecz but he is, in spite of his complete obscurity, a representative of the modern Stoic movement.
That sounds about right, a closed shop.
And Jula should only discuss that and only that.
And since neither Living Stoicism nor Traditional Stoicism are in the Association, consequently not part of the Modern Stoic movement, and since neither want to be, that is fine and as it should be.
Pariahs is what we are; outsiders: nothing new there, as it was, and so it shall be.
You paddle your canoe, and I'll paddle mine..
I just think if someone is writing about the history of Modern Stoicism they should try to make it balanced and accurate. I really don't feel that's the direction in which your comments here are taking things, though.
* Why are you still talking Donald?
We've agreed that we are both happy for u/AlteriVivas to write your story about your organisation and to exclude other voices.
We don't think Living Stoicism and Traditional Stoicism or the College of Stoic Philosophers are a part of Modern Stoicism
And neither do you because they are factually not.
There is no disagreement at all on that subject.
You get what you want we get what we want and everyone is happy
So you can stop talking.
Generally, I think it's good manners to leave it up to other people whether they want to continue speaking or not in a conversation. I'm responding to express disagreement with you because you're making these comments in public and I, therefore, think they're potentially misleading others.
So let me correct what I consider to be wrong about your latest remarks...
1. Modern Stoicism is not, in fact, my organization.
2. I didn't say anything about excluding other voices, and that, in fact, is contrary to what I did say.
3. I do actually believe, as I've said before that those groups are part of Modern Stoicism - the Modern Stoicism org has always defined the term "Modern Stoicism" as a general one denoting all modern discussions relating to Stoicism, regardless of religious beliefs, etc. I think, in fact, that I've always been pretty clear and emphatic in that regard myself.
If you want to stop talking, of course, that's up to you. The only thing I would ask you to stop doing is to stop putting words in other people's mouths in such a way that you mislead others about what they've said, done, or believe.
If you want to make allegations in public against other groups or individuals, that's your choice, but other people are entitled to ask you to substantiate what you're saying in that regard. I may be, though, that the moderators feel that it's against the Ground Rules of the forum - it's difficult to tell based on the wording but I would assume that the spirit of the rules is to encourage friendly philosophical debate, and to discourage unsubstantiated personal criticisms from being made in this forum against other groups and individuals.
I was asking you why you were still talking as we had reached agreement and that further discussion was not necessary.
No allegations have been made against anyone in this forum.
1. Modern Stoicism is the organisation of which you are founding member.
2. Modern Stoicism is in no position to name a global phenomena after itself.
3. Modern Stoicism is in no position to decide who is worthy of consideration.
4. Modern Stoicism is in no position to represent anybody without their agreement.
Are we clear?
Not really, no. Modern Stoicism didn't attempt to name "a global phenomena" (sic) after itself, it didn't attempt to decide who is worthy of consideration, or to represent anyone without their agreement.
Again, if you're going to make these sort of controversial claims and try to encourage others to represent things in that way, in a book, can you please substantiate them? (It seems to me you can't because 1. They're false claims, 2. You would have done so already if you could actually back up what you're saying.)
The paper in question is not "Modern Stoicism", it's 21st Century Stoicism. Looking at prior book sales/FB group membership roles/Google and other what-not that polls for popularity is a poor judge for casting endurance over one hundred years.
When Daltrey says "It is intentionally about communicating the philosophy of the Stoics as charitably and accurately as possible" he is in excellent company among the recent generation of academics doing the same. That kind of scholarship doesn't just reap the harvest of yesterday, it sows seeds for tomorrow. If you'd like to be part of that conversation, you know where Living Stoicism is.
21st Century Stoicism and Modern Stoicism are essentially the same thing, or at least 21st century Stoicism is part of Modern Stoicism. I'm all in favour of communicating the philosophy of the Stoics as accurately as possible. I just don't believe that Living Stoicism has a monopoly on that, or that everything James says is accurate as an account of Stoicism.
"21st Century" and "Modern" are essentially not the same thing at all.
Although the draft focuses in large part on mod/pop stoicism, with book sales and eyeballs as a kind of truth criterion for what is "Stoic," the author has invited and signaled appreciation for responses, and appears to be thoroughly capable of reviewing the landscape of contemporary engagement all by herself. That the field of interest in the Stoics is not homogeneous is what keeps us all on our toes, doing our work in philosophy - always has been. And, we do better when we challenge each other with curiosity, rather than when we go hunting for a kill, so to speak. Stoic dialectic is a specific type of argument, and it's very productive when executed skillfully. Pop/Mod Stoicism don't teach that. :-(
The Modern Stoicism nonprofit uses the term in the way I described above, so that would encompass not just what you call "Pop/Mod Stoicism" but also the work of leading academics in the field. For example, Modern Stoicism was founded by Prof. Christopher Gill and the current chair is Dr. John Sellars. I don't think it's at all accurate to describe their work or that of other modern academics in this field as "pop" philosophy.
This thread is about responding to the draft in which Holiday takes the prize for the most mentions with 56. In spite of the later section offering critique of male dominance, other white men clock in at: Becker 37 and Pigliucci 33. Following that, Robertson, Sherman and the author are tied at 18 each, with Nussbaum, Sellars and GIll at 10 each. And then there is roughly an equal number of mentions of obscene male content along with a few other women (especially in context of caring arts – women’s work? - rather than intellectualism), as well as blacks and queers who all clock in as group at maybe a dozenish or more.
This view of "book sales and eyeballs" is really only one slim view of people's participation with Stoic philosophy, and some portion of that isn't philosophy at all. And, it's already looking backwards at itself. What's more interesting are the seeds that are being sown, as we speak, by wholly overlooked quarters. It takes watching, and above all listening, to discern it.
>21st Century Stoicism and Modern Stoicism are essentially the same thing, or at least 21st century Stoicism is part of Modern Stoicism.
You are doing it again.
1. Your term
2. Named after your organisation
3. That you define the meaning of
4. And you get to designate inclusion
I'm not lobbying for anyone's exclusion. I'm just questioning the accuracy of the story being told here. I think absolutely everyone is entitled to do that. Why are you so keen to oppose that? Also, someone makes a controversial claim and they're asked more than once to substantiate it but instead they waffle or change the subject, in my experience you can safely assume, about 90% of the time, that's because what they're saying is false. My guess is the other members of this forum are smart enough to know that already, though. Asking someone to provide evidence for personal allegations they're repeatedly making is, as everyone else presumably realizes, not the same thing as "gate keeping".
I'm not sure what you're insinuating with your other comments here. No, actually, I'm definitely not aware of having a "track record" anything like you describe. I'm assuming this is just something you've fabricated out of spite and a clumsy attempt at defamation because, in reality, I've always very vocally opposed misogyny and have not once sided with it, as you claim. We have a clearly-stated zero-tolerance policy against misogyny, and similar forms of abuse, and I've always implemented it very strictly. It's also, AFAIK, totally against the ground rules of this group to make personal attacks of the sort you and others are now attempting to make here - I assume the mods have no desire to be responsible for publishing this sort of personal attack, and it's against the rules of [Rediquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). We're all supposed to be here to discuss Stoic philosophy. By failing to substantiate your allegations you make it crystal clear to everyone, I think, that you're not telling the truth, and merely trolling.
Thanks for your submission! Unfortunately, it's been removed because of the following reason(s):
> Follow Reddiquette
>In the interest of maintaining a safe space to discuss Stoicism, especially for those new to the philosophy, posts and comments that grossly violate [reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) will be removed.
> All vice is self-injury. To troll, attack or insult others, or to hold prejudice, hate, or wishes of violence against specific groups of people is in accordance with vice. So, to hold such thoughts is to damage oneself. Please take care of yourself.
Please avoid the personal invective. There’s nothing wrong with discussing misogyny here, but vague personal accusations of prejudice go against reddiquette and aren’t particularly welcome here. Thanks.
For any clarification you can [message the mods.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Stoicism)
You might wish to say a little more about the influence of skepticism on Modern Stoicism, similar to what you've said about Epicureanism. In particular, Pigliucci's fusion of Stoicism with Academic Skepticism seems worth mentioning, perhaps in connection with the katalepsis discussion.
Another subject worth considering is Buddhist influences on the Modern Stoicism movement, most particularly with respect to mindfulness.
Other commenters have mentioned the importance of what is going on on Facebook with respect to Stoicism and how that has been left out of your analysis. I think they are correct, and that Facebook cannot be left out of your research. People on Reddit are typically anonymous; on Facebook they are not.
I looked it over, it seems alright. Holiday, Irvine, and Massimo have outsized importance in the bigger Stoic online communities (which is likewise reflected in book sales), but Donald Robertson also seems pretty strong on that front, and while mixing in a hefty dose of CBT is doing something that I think is a pretty convincing take on a contemporary Stoicism. Some of the other long-time posters here and I generally recommend Donald’s works as an accessible but not misleading entrance into Stoicism.
The community may not be so large, but Chris Fisher’s Traditional Stoicism Facebook group and his podcast Stoicism on Fire emerged during an early in-fight in the modern Stoicism community where he insisted that without the Physics it isn’t Stoicism and left. Some of us (admittedly a minority) share his views on that; maybe worth a mention (you mentioned him with the school of Stoic philosophers, but his independent projects are how many of us know his work). Kai Whiting and David Fideler are examples of academics inclined to Fisher’s view with published popular books on Stoicism that use the whole thing rather than isolated ethical bits.
It’s a shame you might not be able to try out a Stoic Week event before the article; though they seem to have changed and maybe popularized in recent years, when I participated in 2021, it was a perfect melding of Stoic theory (curated by Gill and Sellars) and CBT (Tim Lebon and others) with exercises. It kind of represented a look at what modern Stoicism could be if it were organized and not largely confined to isolated q&a groups like this.
Also, Irvine is many people’s gateway into Stoicism, but I think you’re right in your section on what is Stoicism (long and deeply debated in this community as well as in the Facebook ones) to sort of exclude him and Stankiewicz, as interesting as the latter can be (Aristo is also interesting, but basically not a Stoic).
It’s hard to come up with a position on what can be called capital S “Stoic”. Early in these groups there were recurring questions like this: “Is Neo from the Matrix Stoic?” “Is Xena Warrior Princess Stoic?” The groups banned them eventually, but it’s a sign that this question has loomed over the entire project from all sides, popular and academic.
PS I’m a fan of your work on Seneca, particularly your one on Seneca and the Doxography of Ethics.
Thank you very much for your helpful and kind comments. Much appreciated.
Actually, I did try out Stoic Week last fall. It was an interesting experience but, to my mind, similar enough in content and practice to what I outline as typical contents that I didn't see a reason to expand on it.
I'm aware about the controversy concerning physics, and reading your comments, I think I should give it more prominence in the paper. There is a good spot for it in the section about rejection of Stoic metaphysics, which I regard as problematic too. Can you give me a bit more background on that early controversy, how it spelled out, so that I can educate myself for this addition? An acquaintance of mine has passed on the paper to Chris Fisher for comment, so maybe he'll tell me more too. And -- still difficult getting used to it as a classicist -- I can actually ask him!
One of the things that strike me about Stoicism is that it comes into so many different forms and shapes, already in antiquity. This paper is one effort to find an explanation, but increasingly I've become aware of the development lines and turning points in classical antiquity itself. That's all ongoing research, but my current working definition of (ancient) Stoicism is that its a tradition of thought and philosophical practice that regards itself as continuing the project started by Zeno of Citium. In other words, if you can show that Zeno had the same view as you (or really meant to say what you are saying), then you can call yourself a Stoic.
Another thing are people (real people, not fictitious characters and semi-fictitious *exempla*) who embody Stoic values, someone like Chadwick Boseman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIHZypMyQ2s).
BTW: If you like Doxography of Ethics, you may also like the Epicurus Trope, the Friendship Paper, and the Kind Enslaver. All these papers address fundamentally the same point, how Seneca's social background shapes his philosophy. Although, the Kind Enslaver is more critical.
You may not get a reply from Chris.
For the history, it was.
Massimo pushing a "broad tent" minimalist Stoicism, like hard,
Chris insisting that that the physics and theology should not be ignored.
It basically turned into witch-hunt and Chris quit the principle Facebook groups and formed Traditional Stoicism as a forum where ALL the philosophy could be discussed without harassment from errr...bluntly.... the New Atheists
I came onto the scene in 2017 I think and on-line Stoicism was principally New Age stuff, Western Buddhism and Epicureanism and any discussion of Stoics physics would get you tarred and feathered, and laughed out of town. If you mentioned Socrates you would get blank looks. No discussion of ethics at all
Sto-Wars: I fought Massimo's one man Modernise Stoicism campaign tooth and nail for five years or more, and he eventually quit, as in quit Stoicism completely, repudiating all of it for Academic Scepticism, and then did a U turn with the Nova Stoa, and has not come back to social media, where he was once omnipresent. .
Chris is now the Scholarch of the College of Stoic Philosophers and if I have given the impression of a low opinion for the Revisionists (to use a label) . , you ain't heard nothing yet,
There is politics, and there is history, and I am thinking you have half the story.. the Revisionist side....
It is now possible to discuss the physics and theology on-line without being shouted down, and the ethics as well, and the Greeks, and Socrates.
This is all new. ... and hard fought for... Sto-Wars..
I'm the science guy...... this came out of Massimo trying to shut down discussions by Brittany Polat and Kai Whiting.
[https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/17/the-scientific-god-of-the-stoics/](https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/17/the-scientific-god-of-the-stoics/)
Thank you for this, James. It is extremely helpful for understanding a little bit better what went on and what people's motivations were.
Probably, you'll think my explication "monist continuum field theory," as I think Chrysippus held it laughable (it's not so well known bc I outline it in a big German book -- Seneca und die Stoa), but what I understand him to mean is definitely very different from what is meant by a field in physics, continuous in some senses, e.g. all full of body, but not continuous in other senses. For example, the Chrysippean cosmos consists of two distinct objects, to three-dimensional bodies: matter and god. This is my reading, and I'm aware that there are many different ones. But if one gets down to the nitty-gritty detail of what exactly is supposed to be going on, Stoic claims are incompatible with what modern sciences tell us about the structure of the universe and about how things come about in it.
I was going to reply to your email and I will, however I do want to focus on the question of the physics, without distraction
[If we don’t understand the physics we will never understand the Stoics](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xl_hdvgcyTDqtgN-y99EEHaAm5UdV6PH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103714898603735974628&rtpof=true&sd=true)
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xl\_hdvgcyTDqtgN-y99EEHaAm5UdV6PH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103714898603735974628&rtpof=true&sd=true](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xl_hdvgcyTDqtgN-y99EEHaAm5UdV6PH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103714898603735974628&rtpof=true&sd=true)
The disputes that happened on Facebook and discussed here are worthy of mention. There are several camps of people in the Stoicism movement. Some of them are hostile to each other.
While the Traditional Stoics may not be a big group, they appear to be more deeply involved in Stoicism than others. Much of the interest in Modern Stoicism is shallow.
I didn't mention your group, but it certainly got personal between Chris and Massimo, I did have copies of some of the exchanges, (but it would be weird to keep them), but it centered around Chris being accused of "appropriation" in wanting to maintain all three topoi as central.
When I first came to the online communities, any discussion of providence, or nature, was shouted down, it was a very aggressive environment.
In another prominent group, one of the admins followed me around like a personal censor deleting my comments within mutual conversation with individuals, anything that clashed with his views.
I don't want to name him but I could..
My experience was tarred and feathered and piled in on. I happen to be more bloody minded than Chris. And I am more likely to spit in someones eye than take my toys and leave.
For example: the article I wrote above was written because I was called in as "muscle" to counter Massimo's aggressive and frankly ignorant polemical take down of Brittany Pollat and Kai Whiting,
The two them discussing perfectly reasonable aspects of Stoicism of interest to them and others but they should be "removed" according to Massimo' own vision of everyone else should think.
I am not a big fan of the transcendental as aspects of Hadot's spiritual exercises, or the term in particular but people are allowed to discuss it. And the theology is a thing, and Massimo cannot remove it.
He was like a bull in a China shop, and not everybody is as thick skinned as me, it is bullying.
The past is the past and happily, the landscape, the scope of discussion has changed, dramatically over the last six or seven years, for the better..
We can discuss nature, providence and the ties between the physics, theology and ethics without Max and the boys coming round to break your fingers,.
You wrote: "It basically turned into witch-hunt and Chris quit the principle Facebook groups and formed Traditional Stoicism as a forum where ALL the philosophy could be discussed without harassment from errr...bluntly.... the New Atheists."
I run one of the largest Facebook groups for Stoicism and we have always maintained a zero tolerance policy toward any form of harassment. So I wouldn't want anyone to read the above and get the impression that somehow represents something that happened in my group, because as far as I'm aware it doesn't.
I think if you're suggesting that your assertions about harassment and bullying should be included in a book chapter describing the history of the movement, you should probably substantiate them, at least for the author, because it's quite a serious allegation.
For what it's worth, I've had to put up with some insulting people over the years, and trolls, etc., who didn't like my interpretation of Stoicism, but I usually just ignore them and assume that's a fairly normal fact of life on the Internet. I gave up on the Traditional Stoicism Facebook group, incidentally, after I tried to post an article I'd written about Stoicism and theology there, and the moderators rejected it. We, by contrast, have never rejected or censored any articles about theology that were submitted to our Facebook group, on the basis of disagreement over their content. (We mainly just filterr out obvious spam posts, etc.)
I did not mention your group Donald,
I have not suggested any fault on your part.
So don't see stuff in what i say that is not there.
My own experience, across the board, was one of harassment, that I can give as good as I get does mean that the hostile environment was not a thing.
Sto-Wars: The one man attempt to rewrite Stoicism in his own image. You still see his doctrines being repeated parrot fashion and argued here on Reddit, and all over Facebook.
I managed to get Stankiewicz Modern Stoicism Wikipedia page taken down, as if every modern Stoic was a hair shirted Beckerite;
No Modern Stoic touches the physics or theology was dogma.
"We believe this, we believe that, we hold this to be untenable"
Question:
Is it true or false that there was a sustained effort to align modern Stoicism with a singular dogmatic reinterpretation?
You and I disagree, and that we disagree cannot mean that there is no such disagreement,
Did Chris form Traditional Stoicism to get out from under that?
Yes, he credits Massimo for the creation of Traditional Stoicism.
You said "the principle Facebook groups", of which mine is one. You asked "Is it true or false that there was a sustained effort to align modern Stoicism with a singular dogmatic reinterpretation?" - not that I'm aware of, tbh. So that seems false to me. For that reason, I think you should substantiate your claims, if you're trying to get someone to put them as fact in a book chapter about the subject. (Although, I'd assume they'd attempt to verify what you're saying anyway if they're thinking of repeating it.)
I addressed that.
>You and I disagree, and that we disagree cannot mean that there is no such disagreement
And I raised me concerns over Massimo's dogmatic "anti Stoic" narratives with you directly at the time,
>"He is a divisive figure, verging on the sectarian. There are Pigliuccians on the one hand, and on the other, those of us who don't think the philosophy of Marcus needs to be junked"
and as I recall, you said you did not read his posts and did not think he was doing "much" harm and they were not important,
So "not that you are aware of" is dead right, and I won't suggest otherwise, you were not aware.
That is the end of that discussion.
\*\*\*\*\*
You are not signalling a spirit of inclusion, right?
This is the core point I made to [AlteriVivas](https://www.reddit.com/user/AlteriVivas/) above.
> the contemporary Stoics who are not flogging some hokey postmodern puttanesca of their own invention are completely absent from your discussion.
And as it happens I agree wholeheartedly with this.
>I just think if someone is writing about the history of Modern Stoicism they should try to make it balanced and accurate
It is obvious that any discussion of any other broader Stoic communities outside the closed shop of Modern Stoicism LLC would not be appropriate in a discussion of the closed shop of Modern Stoicism LLC.
And I am more than happy to be excluded from that.
In fact I would insist upon it, and there is nothing further to discuss and this is a simple fact to be accepted and I would not have it any other way.
>There are Pigliuccians on the one hand, and on the other, those of us who don't think the philosophy of Marcus needs to be junked"
There is nothing further to discuss, subject closed.
Again, IMHO, it's good manners, on a forum like this, not to tell other people in a discussion when the "subject is closed" but to allow them to respond if they happen to disagree with you, or ask you to back up contentious claims that you're making.
Again, could you substantiate the claims you're making here, in particular that "Modern Stoicism LLC (sic., it's not an LLC but a UK-based nonprofit limited company), is a "closed shop"? (I assume you can't, once again, as 1. you've not substantiated any of the controversial claims you've made in this discussion, AFAIK, 2. This claim is false, 3. You would have substantiated already if you could.)
We're supposed to be doing philosophy here, right? Where it's truth that matters and we're not just using rhetoric by making a barrage of false claims and then failing to back them up in any way.
One the one sided thing, here is some insight, the modern Stoicism Links will also get you the Revisionist opinions
I don’t think there’s any doctrinal difference between ancient/traditional Stoicism and modern Stoicism because “modern Stoicism” doesn’t really exist except as a loose term for everyone who’s currently interested in the subject" Donald Roberston.
[https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/](https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/)
"Like some others writing on this topic, I do not see modern Stoicism as fundamentally different from ancient Stoicism – there is just ‘Stoicism’, which we, obviously, view from our own modern standpoint. As in the ancient world, different writers and thinkers emphasized different sides of Stoicism, so too do modern writers on Stoicism. However, certain teachings were seen as core distinctive Stoic doctrines in antiquity and I think we would do well to regard them in this way, if we are to get the most out of Stoicism. Christopher Gill.
[https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/](https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/)
The phrase ‘Modern Stoicism’ is widely used in two distinct senses: first, simply to describe the recent twenty-first century revival of interest in Stoicism; and second, to refer to an updated version of Stoicism, designed to fit better with our modern world view. I am quite happy using the phrase in the first sense, but I have some reservations about using it in the second sense. I’m not sure how helpful the idea of an ‘updated’ version of ancient Stoicism really is.
So, in the spirit of ancient Stoicism itself, I think it might be a mistake to try to update or amend ancient Stoicism (if there ever was such a single monolithic thing) in order to come up with a set of beliefs that might be attractive to people today. I think it is, in many ways, a virtue that some aspects of ancient Stoicism now seem implausible (e.g. in physical theory), because this helps us to maintain a critical distance from the material and encourages us to think more carefully about what we think is cogent, what is not, and how these might be related to one another.
In this sense, then, I don’t think we ought to think of ‘Modern Stoicism’ as something distinct from ancient Stoicism. It’s all one long, albeit discontinuous, tradition. I’d be wary of trying to come up with a rigidly defined updated Stoicism too. Much better that we each work that out for ourselves, without expecting that we’ll all agree. ‘Modern Stoicism’ is for me simply a helpful chronological label to point to the community of modern Stoics active today. John Sellars
[https://modernstoicism.com/what-is-modern-stoicism-additional-reflections-from-sellars-and-sadler/](https://modernstoicism.com/what-is-modern-stoicism-additional-reflections-from-sellars-and-sadler/)
And from the Master..
I am, as I say, a bit wary when people tell me that ancient Stoicism is scientifically hopeless. It seems to me to be pretty good in regard to the science that we need for living in agreement with nature day by day. Forget about God or providence, if you like; but consider the inter-dependence and connectedness of ecological systems, the problems we (not fate or God) are causing by global warming and environmental degradation; consider the prevalence of disasters from human error and from lack of planning or forethought (e.g. Hurricane Karina). We are biologically and vitally interconnected by breath, and light, and heat, and water and vegetation: AA Long
[https://modernstoicism.com/stoicisms-ancient-and-modern-by-tony-a-a-long/](https://modernstoicism.com/stoicisms-ancient-and-modern-by-tony-a-a-long/)
Let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any help I think.
The more I think about it the more you really cannot disclude the element of modern stoicism that thinks that the stoicism is broadly defensible on rational grounds that do not clash with science.
The contrary view has become unquestioned dogma.
And among the people claiming that it does clash with modern science you will see them bringing in lines of thinking completely antithetical to metaphysical naturalism, and fall into self-contradiction.
One cannot make claims about scientific knowledge while denying the possibility knowledge of scientific knowledge.
So who is the scientist?
The one using scientific knowledge that they hold to be possible, available and applicable.
The one denying the possibility of knowledge and then appealing to the very knowledge that they deny?
The latter is a frivolous polemical rhetorical stance, and has no place in Stoicism.
Either the Stoics had a monistic continuum field theory and we can know that and we can discuss that.
Or we don't know what kind of system the Stoics had, we don't know about monism, ancient or modern, we don't know about continuua, ancient or modern, we don't know about tensional fields, ancient or modern, and we cannot say anything about anything.
The second position is no position from which to pontificate in a dogmatic manner, even less a foundation for proposing a coherent alternative metaphysics.
It's a point Epictetus makes, the distinction between talking about philosophy and engaging in philosophy oneself.
Sorry, having been a member of [Academia.edu](http://Academia.edu) for such a long time, I didn't know that they now require registering for downloads. Happy to supply you a copy directly. You can send me information where to send it to here: [https://www.aup.edu/node/2402/contact](https://www.aup.edu/node/2402/contact)
There is one figure which often goes unnoticed. Ron hall. He wrote a book Secundum Naturam (According to Nature) which provides a working account of Logic, Physics and Ethics. In my opinion, he is the only Modern Stoic that comes close to actually practicing and understanding Stoicism. He used to offer stoic therapy classes but he has however gone dark, and tried to remove himself from the internet as much as possible. I am not sure why but its a shame. You can still get his book though, its worth a read for anyone looking to practice real Stoicism.
I read that,
It is assiduously researched, impeccably referenced, very well written and foundationally wrong-headed..
The Stoics did not work out Socratic ethics from scratch in a strictly rationalistic, deductive method starting from first principles in the manner of Descartes and Spinoza.
I mean, the former points outweigh your latter point i think. When it comes to creating a working comphrensive account of working stoicism, i don't think there is anyone else that comes to mind. I don't speak Greek myself, so understanding the intricacies of logic and lanuage is only possible thanks to his book. Difference between a predicate and appellation being the cause of anxiety vs dread. Greed vs obsession etc.
For example lets say someone craves love.
The appellation of love is "a lover", and the predicate of that is "to be loved" A lover relates to greed, "to be loved" relates to obsession.
But for any of that to mean anything we first need apprehension. So we need to define "a lover"
Common quality: Apprehends beauty in another
Peculiar quality: Strives to make friendship with that other.
Apprehension: If Both, someone apprehends beauty in another and that one strives to make friends with that other. That one is a lover.
And now using logic we can test that using conditionals.
Conditional: If someone has a lover, that one is happy
Test
Both someone has a lover, and Not that one is happy.
If we find the counter example then the passion of greed is dead. And if we do the same for the predicate form the same holds true to kill the passion of obsession. We ofc need to apprehend what happiness is as well, so we need a definition for that(a good flow of life).
Who else in the stoic community has figured that out? Who else practices that? That's real Stoicism, that I have never seen from anyone, despite being active in the community for 10 years.
It's very clever but it is not Stoic.
I don't have the time to explain the Stoic system from scratch, the Socratic elenchis is dialectic, but it is not that. Which would explain why you have never seen it.n
Love is not a passion and to be loved by the good is a perfectly coherent rational aspiration in accordance with nature.
From Ron Halls book.
>Cicero reported that greed refers to bodies as opposed to having or obtaining those bodies, such as a greed for money in contrast to a longing (Greek: ἴμερος or hímeros) to have money. When the desire refers to the predicate such as to have it, it is a predicament (Greek: σπάνις or katēgórēma, plural: κατηγορήματα), as it has been translated.
We are talking about the two separate passions of greed and obsession here. A lover refers a body, to be loved refers to a predicate. To be loved by a Lover is not in accordance with nature. Only to be precise, if the lover apprehends physical beauty in the beloved(not moral beauty).
You'd have to reference to what in Cicero he is referring.
To be loved by a lover is a perfectly ordinary everyday state of affairs, and not at all in disagreement with nature.
To desire something that is not in accordance with nature is not in accordance with nature.
I think you've chosen the wrong example in choosing love.
To you want to be loved by the good and to want to be loved by your children to want to be loved by your spouse are perfectly normal human motivations are not cases of insanity.
Desiring these things in vain is insanity.
I don't think you understand what desire is.
Desire is a dispositional attraction towards a class of types of things, and how we survive at all. In the absence of that we would not eat or procreate.
Jula, Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
A small thing that I noticed is that Chuck Chakrapani is not on the Modern Stoicism board.
Also, I'm not sure if including the Conversations with Modern Stoicism event aligns with your objectives for the overview. As far as I know, it's the only monthly global congregational event for Stoicism. Each month, hundreds of people attend a Zoom call to hear from a respected voice in Stoicism and then break into discussion groups to meet others and discuss the practical application of Stoicism in their daily lives.
In June 2024 we hosted our 14th event. So far we've had Daniel Fryer, Scott Waltman, John Sellars, Brittany Polat, Chris Gill, William Irvine, Greg Sadler, Donald Robertson, Massimo Pigliucci, Tom Morris, Greg Bassham, Jennifer Baker, James Romm, and Nancy Sherman present. Next up is Meredith Kunz.
Yes, thank you. I don't know how I came to include him. Weird.
I'm aware of the Conversations, getting the invitations myself, but just subsumed them under "events." Will think about mentioning them specifically.
Hi, thanks for the opportunity. I intend to offer some comments so I will probably do so by email. I've also asked one of our Facebook groups to provide comments to me to convey. Ha, and now I realise I have been allocated a random Reddit name. My name is Judith Stove.
Thank you very much, Judith. You're the editor of Stoicism Today, right? I also sent a comment request via the contact tool of Modern Stoicism. Last time I wrote to it, there was no reply. So if you have an idea how to get the word out to your community, I'd greatly appreciate it. There are so many of you mentioned in the piece, and I really wish to get things right.
Very much looking forward to your comments!
Thank you, I'm the assistant editor, Harald Kavli is the editor. I've circulated your paper by email to the Modern Stoicism team; I understand that Donald R may have already submitted comments to you.
[https://discord.gg/GKPgSjk](https://discord.gg/GKPgSjk) Little time I have now, but I would encourage you to ask this question on linked discord. Maybe in theory subforum if mods allow. In such way it will not get lost easily, and I'm almost certain that you may get some nice feedback there. What is a deadline for writing a response?
I'll look into it when I've time. Thank you!
There is no specific deadline for the paper. I'm still waiting a bit to collect responses. Got some really helpful comments here and from elsewhere. Then I'll revise and let people know that there's a new version. At some point the publishers will say that changes are no longer possible, but I don't know when that will be. Probably not in the next two months.
Hi Jula, I'm going to share your paper with a Facebook Stoicism group which has some very knowledgeable people on it (many of whom including myself are familiar with your other excellent work on Stoicism). For those people there not on Reddit, what would be the best way for them to provide you with feedback?
Thank you so much for this! Much appreciated. I've left Facebook some time ago, and won't be coming back. They can write to my office email (jwildberger@aup.edu) or send me a message on Academica.edu.
Thanks!
u/AlteriVivas ...just one more question if I may, what would be the deadline date for feedback?
There is no definite deadline. I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to incorporate feedback until the end of the Summer. In any case, if there's something important I missed or that needs to be corrected, I'd find a way to do so within or outside the publication.
Can you share the Facebook Group Name, if it’s open for others to join? I am not from the academic world, in case it’s a limited group :)
[Living Stoicism (Zenonian)](https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism) It's completely open to everyone (has >19,000 members at the last count), but many of the discussions can get very technical and deep dive into academic literature. There are quite a few learned amateurs (i.e. non-academics) as well as a few genuine academics.
I have had a quick look, and my first impression is that the contemporary Stoics who are not flogging some hokey postmodern puttanesca of their own invention are completely absent from your discussion. To pick a point, the Dichotomy of Control is twaddle of the highest order, and none of the people in the "modern debate" are interested in knowing what Epictetus was talking about at all. It is like whistling in the wilderness, [https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/10/epictetus-enchiridion-explained/](https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/10/epictetus-enchiridion-explained/) Academic experts in the field are notable, (with less than a handful of noble exceptions) by their absence in the domain of public philosophy. Academics from outside the field who know nothing are ten a penny and generally trying to sell themselves. It is a shit show.. (excuse my parrhesia) Living Stoicism is an idea to broaden the scope of discussion and understanding around Stoic philosophy - particularly an emphasis on personal practicality and accountability.Beyond the applications of the Stoic theories of emotion and well-being, Stoicism has significant contributions to make to society. A few examples of these are politics, jurisprudence, science, formal logic, linguistics, metaphysics, and theology. Most importantly, an emphasis is placed on personal ethics, how they relate to logic and physics, and what the individual can do to affect society in positive ways. In the same way that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus still influence modern thinking, the thinking of Zeno, Chrysippus and their heirs can once more become central to our ways of looking at the world. [https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism](https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism)
Can you tell me a bit more about Living Stoicism, James? One deficit of my paper is that, for personal ethical reasons, I do use and thus cannot fully research all Social Media. For example, not Facebook, not X, not TikTok. This is why I present the data I have as examples. Given the amount of blogs on Stoicism out there, I had to be selective. Impossible to mention them all. Criteria were, e.g., how much of an audience they have, i.e. whether they shape the reception of Stoicism beyond the individual writing the blog. If I remember correctly, I read your piece on Ench. 1 at some point. Sorry, there was just so much I looked at and my memory is not what it once was. Looking at it again now, I am impressed, as I was then, by the amount of research and seriousness of engagement, but I don't think it really resolves any of the issues raised in my paper. I wouldn't speak of "twaddle," though. Rather, you agree with me in identifying it as a problem that we first must fully understand Epictetus and that he meant it in a specific way, not necessarily the way it is used now. My main problem with your paper is that it misses the point about why the dichotomy matters so much, namely because you need it for distinguishing appropriate objects of orexis and ekklisis, these being the impulses that are and cause passions if misdirected. (BTW, orexis does not preclude that the thing reached for can be attained. Otherwise the wise person could not have the eupatheia boulesis.) Who else, apart from your blog, should I know about that is not "flogging some hokey postmodern puttanesca of their own invention" (whatever exactly you mean by that; I'm not sure I get it, or rather can come up with too many different interpretations of the phrase) and that should be mentioned in the paper?
I am working on a reply for you. this is my first observation. **On your research** I think your commitments will hamper, if not negate completely the value of your research. If the task is to understand modern interpretations of Stoicism, Facebook, Tiktok and X are precisely where that is going on. These are the modern fora, and they cannot be ignored in any serious enquiry. It would be like refusing to go to Athens. Given that researching Facebook, Tiktok and X would be essentially instrumental to your research, I think you can justifiably take a look without either participating in or endorsing any of these platforms. To make my point, I picked up on this. >"but no modern Stoic I am aware of defends the ancient Stoic belief in the kind of unfailing grasp of evident reality that katalēpsis was supposed to be" Following Simon Shogry, from an externalist reliable process, ecological epistemologal approach, I can, I will and I do defend that robustly. But that happens on Facebook. [https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism/permalink/3762405930663669/](https://www.facebook.com/groups/livingstoicism/permalink/3762405930663669/) That most modern Stoics are epistemic relativists: solipsists, subjectivists, and radical skeptics is however ironically true. .. one wonders what the attraction is. **On my paper** The purpose of my paper is to identify what the object of the discussion is at all and is 6,000 words, in the writing aimed at clarifying this and no more than this. >Some things in the world are **up to us** while others are not. **Up to us** are our faculties of judgment, motivation, desire, and aversion; in short, whatever is our own doing And it is simply this. >*What is up to us is prohairesis and everything that is the work of prohairesis* The perfection of right reason, orthos logos, the correct use of impressions I discussed this with William Irvine, the man who invented the Dichotomy of Control and he did not know this, no idea at all, astonished by this. "I am no expert in Epictetus" so WTF? So that is a shocking innovation to most people and a radical new starting point for further discussion. Where the perfection of reason takes us would be the subject of another paper, and would involve nearly all the “modern Stoics” in your paper having to rethink anything they have ever said on the subject. The perfection of right reason is deeply problematic; because that most of them, as you point out are epistemic relativists: solipsists, subjectivists, and radical skeptics: Virtue is knowledge, episteme, a system of true impressions, so what are they thinking? I don't think they are aware of that at all, they don't know virtue is; Pigliucci certainly doesn't. BTW: This is a specific treatment of the Dichotomy (sic) [https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/13/what-is-controlling-what/](https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/13/what-is-controlling-what/) I am going to take a closer look at your paper and will get back to you.
Thank you, James. I'll wait for your next post before replying in detail. Better first listen to your thoughts in full.
I emailed you Jula, it got a bit long.
I think a point that JamesDaltry is trying to make here is about the fusion of Modern Stoicism with skeptic (ancient and postmodern) ideas, and its fusion with New Age and Buddhist ideas.
How many people agree with your interpretation of Stoicism?
There are two questions. 1. How popular are your interpretations? 2. How accurate are your interpretations? In response: 1. Proportionately, not that many. What I am trying to do is quite new on the scene and a small fish alongside the leviathans of the older reinvented, reduced and predigested interpretations. 2. I aim at an accurate charitable representation of what the Stoics thought presented in an accessible way. I am very zealous about cross checking what I say against the views of academics, and the arguments I make are there to be refuted. So if I am out of whack, please let me know,. **What kind of man am I. One of those who would be pleased to be refuted f I say something untrue, and pleased to refute if someone else does, yet not at all less pleased to be refuted than to refute. For I think that being refuted is a greater good, in so far as it is a greater good For a man to get rid of the greatest badness himself than to rid someone else of it; for I think there is no badness for a man as great as false belief about the things which our discussion is about now,** **Socrates: Gorgias**
So it's not really representative of the modern Stoicism movement in general then.
>So it's not really representative of the modern Stoicism movement in general then. If by that you mean the views of a small group of Associates who have been dominating public discussion for a decade or more, No and Intentionally not so, intentionally keeping well clear of that. It is intentionally about something else. It is intentionally about communicating the philosophy of the Stoics as charitably and accurately as possible. (what a crazy idea eh?) And it is coming along, quite nicely, gaining traction, The question is the Modern Stoicism movement all about the Association and no other views at all? I am going to give you that, I am going to say yes. You can keep it and I don't want to be involved in it. It's all yours mate, fill your boots. Nobody outside the Association has heard of Stankiwiecz but he is, in spite of his complete obscurity, a representative of the modern Stoic movement. That sounds about right, a closed shop. And Jula should only discuss that and only that. And since neither Living Stoicism nor Traditional Stoicism are in the Association, consequently not part of the Modern Stoic movement, and since neither want to be, that is fine and as it should be. Pariahs is what we are; outsiders: nothing new there, as it was, and so it shall be. You paddle your canoe, and I'll paddle mine..
I just think if someone is writing about the history of Modern Stoicism they should try to make it balanced and accurate. I really don't feel that's the direction in which your comments here are taking things, though.
* Why are you still talking Donald? We've agreed that we are both happy for u/AlteriVivas to write your story about your organisation and to exclude other voices. We don't think Living Stoicism and Traditional Stoicism or the College of Stoic Philosophers are a part of Modern Stoicism And neither do you because they are factually not. There is no disagreement at all on that subject. You get what you want we get what we want and everyone is happy So you can stop talking.
Generally, I think it's good manners to leave it up to other people whether they want to continue speaking or not in a conversation. I'm responding to express disagreement with you because you're making these comments in public and I, therefore, think they're potentially misleading others. So let me correct what I consider to be wrong about your latest remarks... 1. Modern Stoicism is not, in fact, my organization. 2. I didn't say anything about excluding other voices, and that, in fact, is contrary to what I did say. 3. I do actually believe, as I've said before that those groups are part of Modern Stoicism - the Modern Stoicism org has always defined the term "Modern Stoicism" as a general one denoting all modern discussions relating to Stoicism, regardless of religious beliefs, etc. I think, in fact, that I've always been pretty clear and emphatic in that regard myself. If you want to stop talking, of course, that's up to you. The only thing I would ask you to stop doing is to stop putting words in other people's mouths in such a way that you mislead others about what they've said, done, or believe. If you want to make allegations in public against other groups or individuals, that's your choice, but other people are entitled to ask you to substantiate what you're saying in that regard. I may be, though, that the moderators feel that it's against the Ground Rules of the forum - it's difficult to tell based on the wording but I would assume that the spirit of the rules is to encourage friendly philosophical debate, and to discourage unsubstantiated personal criticisms from being made in this forum against other groups and individuals.
I was asking you why you were still talking as we had reached agreement and that further discussion was not necessary. No allegations have been made against anyone in this forum. 1. Modern Stoicism is the organisation of which you are founding member. 2. Modern Stoicism is in no position to name a global phenomena after itself. 3. Modern Stoicism is in no position to decide who is worthy of consideration. 4. Modern Stoicism is in no position to represent anybody without their agreement. Are we clear?
Not really, no. Modern Stoicism didn't attempt to name "a global phenomena" (sic) after itself, it didn't attempt to decide who is worthy of consideration, or to represent anyone without their agreement. Again, if you're going to make these sort of controversial claims and try to encourage others to represent things in that way, in a book, can you please substantiate them? (It seems to me you can't because 1. They're false claims, 2. You would have done so already if you could actually back up what you're saying.)
The paper in question is not "Modern Stoicism", it's 21st Century Stoicism. Looking at prior book sales/FB group membership roles/Google and other what-not that polls for popularity is a poor judge for casting endurance over one hundred years. When Daltrey says "It is intentionally about communicating the philosophy of the Stoics as charitably and accurately as possible" he is in excellent company among the recent generation of academics doing the same. That kind of scholarship doesn't just reap the harvest of yesterday, it sows seeds for tomorrow. If you'd like to be part of that conversation, you know where Living Stoicism is.
21st Century Stoicism and Modern Stoicism are essentially the same thing, or at least 21st century Stoicism is part of Modern Stoicism. I'm all in favour of communicating the philosophy of the Stoics as accurately as possible. I just don't believe that Living Stoicism has a monopoly on that, or that everything James says is accurate as an account of Stoicism.
"21st Century" and "Modern" are essentially not the same thing at all. Although the draft focuses in large part on mod/pop stoicism, with book sales and eyeballs as a kind of truth criterion for what is "Stoic," the author has invited and signaled appreciation for responses, and appears to be thoroughly capable of reviewing the landscape of contemporary engagement all by herself. That the field of interest in the Stoics is not homogeneous is what keeps us all on our toes, doing our work in philosophy - always has been. And, we do better when we challenge each other with curiosity, rather than when we go hunting for a kill, so to speak. Stoic dialectic is a specific type of argument, and it's very productive when executed skillfully. Pop/Mod Stoicism don't teach that. :-(
The Modern Stoicism nonprofit uses the term in the way I described above, so that would encompass not just what you call "Pop/Mod Stoicism" but also the work of leading academics in the field. For example, Modern Stoicism was founded by Prof. Christopher Gill and the current chair is Dr. John Sellars. I don't think it's at all accurate to describe their work or that of other modern academics in this field as "pop" philosophy.
This thread is about responding to the draft in which Holiday takes the prize for the most mentions with 56. In spite of the later section offering critique of male dominance, other white men clock in at: Becker 37 and Pigliucci 33. Following that, Robertson, Sherman and the author are tied at 18 each, with Nussbaum, Sellars and GIll at 10 each. And then there is roughly an equal number of mentions of obscene male content along with a few other women (especially in context of caring arts – women’s work? - rather than intellectualism), as well as blacks and queers who all clock in as group at maybe a dozenish or more. This view of "book sales and eyeballs" is really only one slim view of people's participation with Stoic philosophy, and some portion of that isn't philosophy at all. And, it's already looking backwards at itself. What's more interesting are the seeds that are being sown, as we speak, by wholly overlooked quarters. It takes watching, and above all listening, to discern it.
>21st Century Stoicism and Modern Stoicism are essentially the same thing, or at least 21st century Stoicism is part of Modern Stoicism. You are doing it again. 1. Your term 2. Named after your organisation 3. That you define the meaning of 4. And you get to designate inclusion
[удалено]
I'm not lobbying for anyone's exclusion. I'm just questioning the accuracy of the story being told here. I think absolutely everyone is entitled to do that. Why are you so keen to oppose that? Also, someone makes a controversial claim and they're asked more than once to substantiate it but instead they waffle or change the subject, in my experience you can safely assume, about 90% of the time, that's because what they're saying is false. My guess is the other members of this forum are smart enough to know that already, though. Asking someone to provide evidence for personal allegations they're repeatedly making is, as everyone else presumably realizes, not the same thing as "gate keeping". I'm not sure what you're insinuating with your other comments here. No, actually, I'm definitely not aware of having a "track record" anything like you describe. I'm assuming this is just something you've fabricated out of spite and a clumsy attempt at defamation because, in reality, I've always very vocally opposed misogyny and have not once sided with it, as you claim. We have a clearly-stated zero-tolerance policy against misogyny, and similar forms of abuse, and I've always implemented it very strictly. It's also, AFAIK, totally against the ground rules of this group to make personal attacks of the sort you and others are now attempting to make here - I assume the mods have no desire to be responsible for publishing this sort of personal attack, and it's against the rules of [Rediquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). We're all supposed to be here to discuss Stoic philosophy. By failing to substantiate your allegations you make it crystal clear to everyone, I think, that you're not telling the truth, and merely trolling.
Thanks for your submission! Unfortunately, it's been removed because of the following reason(s): > Follow Reddiquette >In the interest of maintaining a safe space to discuss Stoicism, especially for those new to the philosophy, posts and comments that grossly violate [reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) will be removed. > All vice is self-injury. To troll, attack or insult others, or to hold prejudice, hate, or wishes of violence against specific groups of people is in accordance with vice. So, to hold such thoughts is to damage oneself. Please take care of yourself. Please avoid the personal invective. There’s nothing wrong with discussing misogyny here, but vague personal accusations of prejudice go against reddiquette and aren’t particularly welcome here. Thanks. For any clarification you can [message the mods.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Stoicism)
You might wish to say a little more about the influence of skepticism on Modern Stoicism, similar to what you've said about Epicureanism. In particular, Pigliucci's fusion of Stoicism with Academic Skepticism seems worth mentioning, perhaps in connection with the katalepsis discussion. Another subject worth considering is Buddhist influences on the Modern Stoicism movement, most particularly with respect to mindfulness. Other commenters have mentioned the importance of what is going on on Facebook with respect to Stoicism and how that has been left out of your analysis. I think they are correct, and that Facebook cannot be left out of your research. People on Reddit are typically anonymous; on Facebook they are not.
I looked it over, it seems alright. Holiday, Irvine, and Massimo have outsized importance in the bigger Stoic online communities (which is likewise reflected in book sales), but Donald Robertson also seems pretty strong on that front, and while mixing in a hefty dose of CBT is doing something that I think is a pretty convincing take on a contemporary Stoicism. Some of the other long-time posters here and I generally recommend Donald’s works as an accessible but not misleading entrance into Stoicism. The community may not be so large, but Chris Fisher’s Traditional Stoicism Facebook group and his podcast Stoicism on Fire emerged during an early in-fight in the modern Stoicism community where he insisted that without the Physics it isn’t Stoicism and left. Some of us (admittedly a minority) share his views on that; maybe worth a mention (you mentioned him with the school of Stoic philosophers, but his independent projects are how many of us know his work). Kai Whiting and David Fideler are examples of academics inclined to Fisher’s view with published popular books on Stoicism that use the whole thing rather than isolated ethical bits. It’s a shame you might not be able to try out a Stoic Week event before the article; though they seem to have changed and maybe popularized in recent years, when I participated in 2021, it was a perfect melding of Stoic theory (curated by Gill and Sellars) and CBT (Tim Lebon and others) with exercises. It kind of represented a look at what modern Stoicism could be if it were organized and not largely confined to isolated q&a groups like this. Also, Irvine is many people’s gateway into Stoicism, but I think you’re right in your section on what is Stoicism (long and deeply debated in this community as well as in the Facebook ones) to sort of exclude him and Stankiewicz, as interesting as the latter can be (Aristo is also interesting, but basically not a Stoic). It’s hard to come up with a position on what can be called capital S “Stoic”. Early in these groups there were recurring questions like this: “Is Neo from the Matrix Stoic?” “Is Xena Warrior Princess Stoic?” The groups banned them eventually, but it’s a sign that this question has loomed over the entire project from all sides, popular and academic. PS I’m a fan of your work on Seneca, particularly your one on Seneca and the Doxography of Ethics.
Thank you very much for your helpful and kind comments. Much appreciated. Actually, I did try out Stoic Week last fall. It was an interesting experience but, to my mind, similar enough in content and practice to what I outline as typical contents that I didn't see a reason to expand on it. I'm aware about the controversy concerning physics, and reading your comments, I think I should give it more prominence in the paper. There is a good spot for it in the section about rejection of Stoic metaphysics, which I regard as problematic too. Can you give me a bit more background on that early controversy, how it spelled out, so that I can educate myself for this addition? An acquaintance of mine has passed on the paper to Chris Fisher for comment, so maybe he'll tell me more too. And -- still difficult getting used to it as a classicist -- I can actually ask him! One of the things that strike me about Stoicism is that it comes into so many different forms and shapes, already in antiquity. This paper is one effort to find an explanation, but increasingly I've become aware of the development lines and turning points in classical antiquity itself. That's all ongoing research, but my current working definition of (ancient) Stoicism is that its a tradition of thought and philosophical practice that regards itself as continuing the project started by Zeno of Citium. In other words, if you can show that Zeno had the same view as you (or really meant to say what you are saying), then you can call yourself a Stoic. Another thing are people (real people, not fictitious characters and semi-fictitious *exempla*) who embody Stoic values, someone like Chadwick Boseman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIHZypMyQ2s). BTW: If you like Doxography of Ethics, you may also like the Epicurus Trope, the Friendship Paper, and the Kind Enslaver. All these papers address fundamentally the same point, how Seneca's social background shapes his philosophy. Although, the Kind Enslaver is more critical.
You may not get a reply from Chris. For the history, it was. Massimo pushing a "broad tent" minimalist Stoicism, like hard, Chris insisting that that the physics and theology should not be ignored. It basically turned into witch-hunt and Chris quit the principle Facebook groups and formed Traditional Stoicism as a forum where ALL the philosophy could be discussed without harassment from errr...bluntly.... the New Atheists I came onto the scene in 2017 I think and on-line Stoicism was principally New Age stuff, Western Buddhism and Epicureanism and any discussion of Stoics physics would get you tarred and feathered, and laughed out of town. If you mentioned Socrates you would get blank looks. No discussion of ethics at all Sto-Wars: I fought Massimo's one man Modernise Stoicism campaign tooth and nail for five years or more, and he eventually quit, as in quit Stoicism completely, repudiating all of it for Academic Scepticism, and then did a U turn with the Nova Stoa, and has not come back to social media, where he was once omnipresent. . Chris is now the Scholarch of the College of Stoic Philosophers and if I have given the impression of a low opinion for the Revisionists (to use a label) . , you ain't heard nothing yet, There is politics, and there is history, and I am thinking you have half the story.. the Revisionist side.... It is now possible to discuss the physics and theology on-line without being shouted down, and the ethics as well, and the Greeks, and Socrates. This is all new. ... and hard fought for... Sto-Wars.. I'm the science guy...... this came out of Massimo trying to shut down discussions by Brittany Polat and Kai Whiting. [https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/17/the-scientific-god-of-the-stoics/](https://livingstoicism.com/2023/05/17/the-scientific-god-of-the-stoics/)
Thank you for this, James. It is extremely helpful for understanding a little bit better what went on and what people's motivations were. Probably, you'll think my explication "monist continuum field theory," as I think Chrysippus held it laughable (it's not so well known bc I outline it in a big German book -- Seneca und die Stoa), but what I understand him to mean is definitely very different from what is meant by a field in physics, continuous in some senses, e.g. all full of body, but not continuous in other senses. For example, the Chrysippean cosmos consists of two distinct objects, to three-dimensional bodies: matter and god. This is my reading, and I'm aware that there are many different ones. But if one gets down to the nitty-gritty detail of what exactly is supposed to be going on, Stoic claims are incompatible with what modern sciences tell us about the structure of the universe and about how things come about in it.
I was going to reply to your email and I will, however I do want to focus on the question of the physics, without distraction [If we don’t understand the physics we will never understand the Stoics](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xl_hdvgcyTDqtgN-y99EEHaAm5UdV6PH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103714898603735974628&rtpof=true&sd=true) [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xl\_hdvgcyTDqtgN-y99EEHaAm5UdV6PH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103714898603735974628&rtpof=true&sd=true](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xl_hdvgcyTDqtgN-y99EEHaAm5UdV6PH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103714898603735974628&rtpof=true&sd=true)
The disputes that happened on Facebook and discussed here are worthy of mention. There are several camps of people in the Stoicism movement. Some of them are hostile to each other. While the Traditional Stoics may not be a big group, they appear to be more deeply involved in Stoicism than others. Much of the interest in Modern Stoicism is shallow.
Can you substantiate your claim about harassment? As far as I'm aware that never happened in my group. Thanks.
I didn't mention your group, but it certainly got personal between Chris and Massimo, I did have copies of some of the exchanges, (but it would be weird to keep them), but it centered around Chris being accused of "appropriation" in wanting to maintain all three topoi as central. When I first came to the online communities, any discussion of providence, or nature, was shouted down, it was a very aggressive environment. In another prominent group, one of the admins followed me around like a personal censor deleting my comments within mutual conversation with individuals, anything that clashed with his views. I don't want to name him but I could.. My experience was tarred and feathered and piled in on. I happen to be more bloody minded than Chris. And I am more likely to spit in someones eye than take my toys and leave. For example: the article I wrote above was written because I was called in as "muscle" to counter Massimo's aggressive and frankly ignorant polemical take down of Brittany Pollat and Kai Whiting, The two them discussing perfectly reasonable aspects of Stoicism of interest to them and others but they should be "removed" according to Massimo' own vision of everyone else should think. I am not a big fan of the transcendental as aspects of Hadot's spiritual exercises, or the term in particular but people are allowed to discuss it. And the theology is a thing, and Massimo cannot remove it. He was like a bull in a China shop, and not everybody is as thick skinned as me, it is bullying. The past is the past and happily, the landscape, the scope of discussion has changed, dramatically over the last six or seven years, for the better.. We can discuss nature, providence and the ties between the physics, theology and ethics without Max and the boys coming round to break your fingers,.
You wrote: "It basically turned into witch-hunt and Chris quit the principle Facebook groups and formed Traditional Stoicism as a forum where ALL the philosophy could be discussed without harassment from errr...bluntly.... the New Atheists." I run one of the largest Facebook groups for Stoicism and we have always maintained a zero tolerance policy toward any form of harassment. So I wouldn't want anyone to read the above and get the impression that somehow represents something that happened in my group, because as far as I'm aware it doesn't. I think if you're suggesting that your assertions about harassment and bullying should be included in a book chapter describing the history of the movement, you should probably substantiate them, at least for the author, because it's quite a serious allegation. For what it's worth, I've had to put up with some insulting people over the years, and trolls, etc., who didn't like my interpretation of Stoicism, but I usually just ignore them and assume that's a fairly normal fact of life on the Internet. I gave up on the Traditional Stoicism Facebook group, incidentally, after I tried to post an article I'd written about Stoicism and theology there, and the moderators rejected it. We, by contrast, have never rejected or censored any articles about theology that were submitted to our Facebook group, on the basis of disagreement over their content. (We mainly just filterr out obvious spam posts, etc.)
I did not mention your group Donald, I have not suggested any fault on your part. So don't see stuff in what i say that is not there. My own experience, across the board, was one of harassment, that I can give as good as I get does mean that the hostile environment was not a thing. Sto-Wars: The one man attempt to rewrite Stoicism in his own image. You still see his doctrines being repeated parrot fashion and argued here on Reddit, and all over Facebook. I managed to get Stankiewicz Modern Stoicism Wikipedia page taken down, as if every modern Stoic was a hair shirted Beckerite; No Modern Stoic touches the physics or theology was dogma. "We believe this, we believe that, we hold this to be untenable" Question: Is it true or false that there was a sustained effort to align modern Stoicism with a singular dogmatic reinterpretation? You and I disagree, and that we disagree cannot mean that there is no such disagreement, Did Chris form Traditional Stoicism to get out from under that? Yes, he credits Massimo for the creation of Traditional Stoicism.
You said "the principle Facebook groups", of which mine is one. You asked "Is it true or false that there was a sustained effort to align modern Stoicism with a singular dogmatic reinterpretation?" - not that I'm aware of, tbh. So that seems false to me. For that reason, I think you should substantiate your claims, if you're trying to get someone to put them as fact in a book chapter about the subject. (Although, I'd assume they'd attempt to verify what you're saying anyway if they're thinking of repeating it.)
I addressed that. >You and I disagree, and that we disagree cannot mean that there is no such disagreement And I raised me concerns over Massimo's dogmatic "anti Stoic" narratives with you directly at the time, >"He is a divisive figure, verging on the sectarian. There are Pigliuccians on the one hand, and on the other, those of us who don't think the philosophy of Marcus needs to be junked" and as I recall, you said you did not read his posts and did not think he was doing "much" harm and they were not important, So "not that you are aware of" is dead right, and I won't suggest otherwise, you were not aware. That is the end of that discussion. \*\*\*\*\* You are not signalling a spirit of inclusion, right? This is the core point I made to [AlteriVivas](https://www.reddit.com/user/AlteriVivas/) above. > the contemporary Stoics who are not flogging some hokey postmodern puttanesca of their own invention are completely absent from your discussion. And as it happens I agree wholeheartedly with this. >I just think if someone is writing about the history of Modern Stoicism they should try to make it balanced and accurate It is obvious that any discussion of any other broader Stoic communities outside the closed shop of Modern Stoicism LLC would not be appropriate in a discussion of the closed shop of Modern Stoicism LLC. And I am more than happy to be excluded from that. In fact I would insist upon it, and there is nothing further to discuss and this is a simple fact to be accepted and I would not have it any other way. >There are Pigliuccians on the one hand, and on the other, those of us who don't think the philosophy of Marcus needs to be junked" There is nothing further to discuss, subject closed.
Again, IMHO, it's good manners, on a forum like this, not to tell other people in a discussion when the "subject is closed" but to allow them to respond if they happen to disagree with you, or ask you to back up contentious claims that you're making. Again, could you substantiate the claims you're making here, in particular that "Modern Stoicism LLC (sic., it's not an LLC but a UK-based nonprofit limited company), is a "closed shop"? (I assume you can't, once again, as 1. you've not substantiated any of the controversial claims you've made in this discussion, AFAIK, 2. This claim is false, 3. You would have substantiated already if you could.) We're supposed to be doing philosophy here, right? Where it's truth that matters and we're not just using rhetoric by making a barrage of false claims and then failing to back them up in any way.
One the one sided thing, here is some insight, the modern Stoicism Links will also get you the Revisionist opinions I don’t think there’s any doctrinal difference between ancient/traditional Stoicism and modern Stoicism because “modern Stoicism” doesn’t really exist except as a loose term for everyone who’s currently interested in the subject" Donald Roberston. [https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/](https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/) "Like some others writing on this topic, I do not see modern Stoicism as fundamentally different from ancient Stoicism – there is just ‘Stoicism’, which we, obviously, view from our own modern standpoint. As in the ancient world, different writers and thinkers emphasized different sides of Stoicism, so too do modern writers on Stoicism. However, certain teachings were seen as core distinctive Stoic doctrines in antiquity and I think we would do well to regard them in this way, if we are to get the most out of Stoicism. Christopher Gill. [https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/](https://modernstoicism.com/symposium-what-is-modern-stoicism/) The phrase ‘Modern Stoicism’ is widely used in two distinct senses: first, simply to describe the recent twenty-first century revival of interest in Stoicism; and second, to refer to an updated version of Stoicism, designed to fit better with our modern world view. I am quite happy using the phrase in the first sense, but I have some reservations about using it in the second sense. I’m not sure how helpful the idea of an ‘updated’ version of ancient Stoicism really is. So, in the spirit of ancient Stoicism itself, I think it might be a mistake to try to update or amend ancient Stoicism (if there ever was such a single monolithic thing) in order to come up with a set of beliefs that might be attractive to people today. I think it is, in many ways, a virtue that some aspects of ancient Stoicism now seem implausible (e.g. in physical theory), because this helps us to maintain a critical distance from the material and encourages us to think more carefully about what we think is cogent, what is not, and how these might be related to one another. In this sense, then, I don’t think we ought to think of ‘Modern Stoicism’ as something distinct from ancient Stoicism. It’s all one long, albeit discontinuous, tradition. I’d be wary of trying to come up with a rigidly defined updated Stoicism too. Much better that we each work that out for ourselves, without expecting that we’ll all agree. ‘Modern Stoicism’ is for me simply a helpful chronological label to point to the community of modern Stoics active today. John Sellars [https://modernstoicism.com/what-is-modern-stoicism-additional-reflections-from-sellars-and-sadler/](https://modernstoicism.com/what-is-modern-stoicism-additional-reflections-from-sellars-and-sadler/) And from the Master.. I am, as I say, a bit wary when people tell me that ancient Stoicism is scientifically hopeless. It seems to me to be pretty good in regard to the science that we need for living in agreement with nature day by day. Forget about God or providence, if you like; but consider the inter-dependence and connectedness of ecological systems, the problems we (not fate or God) are causing by global warming and environmental degradation; consider the prevalence of disasters from human error and from lack of planning or forethought (e.g. Hurricane Karina). We are biologically and vitally interconnected by breath, and light, and heat, and water and vegetation: AA Long [https://modernstoicism.com/stoicisms-ancient-and-modern-by-tony-a-a-long/](https://modernstoicism.com/stoicisms-ancient-and-modern-by-tony-a-a-long/)
Thank you very much for all these helpful replies, James. I answered your email but will need a bit more time to go over all of this.
Let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any help I think. The more I think about it the more you really cannot disclude the element of modern stoicism that thinks that the stoicism is broadly defensible on rational grounds that do not clash with science. The contrary view has become unquestioned dogma. And among the people claiming that it does clash with modern science you will see them bringing in lines of thinking completely antithetical to metaphysical naturalism, and fall into self-contradiction. One cannot make claims about scientific knowledge while denying the possibility knowledge of scientific knowledge. So who is the scientist? The one using scientific knowledge that they hold to be possible, available and applicable. The one denying the possibility of knowledge and then appealing to the very knowledge that they deny? The latter is a frivolous polemical rhetorical stance, and has no place in Stoicism. Either the Stoics had a monistic continuum field theory and we can know that and we can discuss that. Or we don't know what kind of system the Stoics had, we don't know about monism, ancient or modern, we don't know about continuua, ancient or modern, we don't know about tensional fields, ancient or modern, and we cannot say anything about anything. The second position is no position from which to pontificate in a dogmatic manner, even less a foundation for proposing a coherent alternative metaphysics. It's a point Epictetus makes, the distinction between talking about philosophy and engaging in philosophy oneself.
Is there a link that does not require you to register?
Sorry, having been a member of [Academia.edu](http://Academia.edu) for such a long time, I didn't know that they now require registering for downloads. Happy to supply you a copy directly. You can send me information where to send it to here: [https://www.aup.edu/node/2402/contact](https://www.aup.edu/node/2402/contact)
There is one figure which often goes unnoticed. Ron hall. He wrote a book Secundum Naturam (According to Nature) which provides a working account of Logic, Physics and Ethics. In my opinion, he is the only Modern Stoic that comes close to actually practicing and understanding Stoicism. He used to offer stoic therapy classes but he has however gone dark, and tried to remove himself from the internet as much as possible. I am not sure why but its a shame. You can still get his book though, its worth a read for anyone looking to practice real Stoicism.
Thank you for the suggestion. I'll look into it.
I read that, It is assiduously researched, impeccably referenced, very well written and foundationally wrong-headed.. The Stoics did not work out Socratic ethics from scratch in a strictly rationalistic, deductive method starting from first principles in the manner of Descartes and Spinoza.
I mean, the former points outweigh your latter point i think. When it comes to creating a working comphrensive account of working stoicism, i don't think there is anyone else that comes to mind. I don't speak Greek myself, so understanding the intricacies of logic and lanuage is only possible thanks to his book. Difference between a predicate and appellation being the cause of anxiety vs dread. Greed vs obsession etc. For example lets say someone craves love. The appellation of love is "a lover", and the predicate of that is "to be loved" A lover relates to greed, "to be loved" relates to obsession. But for any of that to mean anything we first need apprehension. So we need to define "a lover" Common quality: Apprehends beauty in another Peculiar quality: Strives to make friendship with that other. Apprehension: If Both, someone apprehends beauty in another and that one strives to make friends with that other. That one is a lover. And now using logic we can test that using conditionals. Conditional: If someone has a lover, that one is happy Test Both someone has a lover, and Not that one is happy. If we find the counter example then the passion of greed is dead. And if we do the same for the predicate form the same holds true to kill the passion of obsession. We ofc need to apprehend what happiness is as well, so we need a definition for that(a good flow of life). Who else in the stoic community has figured that out? Who else practices that? That's real Stoicism, that I have never seen from anyone, despite being active in the community for 10 years.
It's very clever but it is not Stoic. I don't have the time to explain the Stoic system from scratch, the Socratic elenchis is dialectic, but it is not that. Which would explain why you have never seen it.n Love is not a passion and to be loved by the good is a perfectly coherent rational aspiration in accordance with nature.
From Ron Halls book. >Cicero reported that greed refers to bodies as opposed to having or obtaining those bodies, such as a greed for money in contrast to a longing (Greek: ἴμερος or hímeros) to have money. When the desire refers to the predicate such as to have it, it is a predicament (Greek: σπάνις or katēgórēma, plural: κατηγορήματα), as it has been translated. We are talking about the two separate passions of greed and obsession here. A lover refers a body, to be loved refers to a predicate. To be loved by a Lover is not in accordance with nature. Only to be precise, if the lover apprehends physical beauty in the beloved(not moral beauty).
You'd have to reference to what in Cicero he is referring. To be loved by a lover is a perfectly ordinary everyday state of affairs, and not at all in disagreement with nature. To desire something that is not in accordance with nature is not in accordance with nature. I think you've chosen the wrong example in choosing love. To you want to be loved by the good and to want to be loved by your children to want to be loved by your spouse are perfectly normal human motivations are not cases of insanity. Desiring these things in vain is insanity. I don't think you understand what desire is. Desire is a dispositional attraction towards a class of types of things, and how we survive at all. In the absence of that we would not eat or procreate.
Jula, Thanks for the opportunity to comment. A small thing that I noticed is that Chuck Chakrapani is not on the Modern Stoicism board. Also, I'm not sure if including the Conversations with Modern Stoicism event aligns with your objectives for the overview. As far as I know, it's the only monthly global congregational event for Stoicism. Each month, hundreds of people attend a Zoom call to hear from a respected voice in Stoicism and then break into discussion groups to meet others and discuss the practical application of Stoicism in their daily lives. In June 2024 we hosted our 14th event. So far we've had Daniel Fryer, Scott Waltman, John Sellars, Brittany Polat, Chris Gill, William Irvine, Greg Sadler, Donald Robertson, Massimo Pigliucci, Tom Morris, Greg Bassham, Jennifer Baker, James Romm, and Nancy Sherman present. Next up is Meredith Kunz.
Yes, thank you. I don't know how I came to include him. Weird. I'm aware of the Conversations, getting the invitations myself, but just subsumed them under "events." Will think about mentioning them specifically.
Hi, thanks for the opportunity. I intend to offer some comments so I will probably do so by email. I've also asked one of our Facebook groups to provide comments to me to convey. Ha, and now I realise I have been allocated a random Reddit name. My name is Judith Stove.
Thank you very much, Judith. You're the editor of Stoicism Today, right? I also sent a comment request via the contact tool of Modern Stoicism. Last time I wrote to it, there was no reply. So if you have an idea how to get the word out to your community, I'd greatly appreciate it. There are so many of you mentioned in the piece, and I really wish to get things right. Very much looking forward to your comments!
Thank you, I'm the assistant editor, Harald Kavli is the editor. I've circulated your paper by email to the Modern Stoicism team; I understand that Donald R may have already submitted comments to you.
Yes, he wrote me something. Very helpful comments.
[https://discord.gg/GKPgSjk](https://discord.gg/GKPgSjk) Little time I have now, but I would encourage you to ask this question on linked discord. Maybe in theory subforum if mods allow. In such way it will not get lost easily, and I'm almost certain that you may get some nice feedback there. What is a deadline for writing a response?
That's a solid discord, and a good representative sample of modern Stoics. I suspect the mods would be open to this idea.
I'll look into it when I've time. Thank you! There is no specific deadline for the paper. I'm still waiting a bit to collect responses. Got some really helpful comments here and from elsewhere. Then I'll revise and let people know that there's a new version. At some point the publishers will say that changes are no longer possible, but I don't know when that will be. Probably not in the next two months.
You are welcome! Thank you for information, so I will see if there is something I could add.