Quote:
Originally Posted by shakespeare47
Mind sharing your source for these ideas about Stoicism???
I'm operating under the assumption that the basics of Stoicism are: The only good is moral good, and the only evil is moral evil. Living a life of moral good is a reward in and of itself. They also believed that man is capable of being rational, and of making objective judgments. It takes some practice, but the effort is worth it.
^^That's Stoicism for me. ^^
I do remind myself from time to time, that when people have a problem with me, it is sometimes their issue, not mine. If it's my issue, then I need to take care of it. If it's their issue, then I needn't worry about it. Unless I can help them see how they are harming themselves. But, not everyone is open to correction.
|
The first thing I think of when I think of Stoicism is emotional control. Extreme emotional control. Never allowing feelings to affect one's cognition. I see modern proponents of the philosophy talk about having "absolute control" over their minds, dismissing feelings as nothing but chemicals and therefore meaningless, or claiming that the inconstancy of emotions makes them worthless.
All of this is so contrary to my more romanticist nature I can hardly stand it. It's so empty, dull, and agonizingly painful to even think about. BUT, if it's the only way to be a good person, then I am a bad person simply for being me.
You describe stoicism as being about morality - what constitutes morality, though? What constitutes moral good (and, I'm not sure I can accept that that's the
only good)? Nor is it a reward by itself - nothing could be further from the truth, as I see it. But, clearly, many people feel differently, and that doesn't really bother me, until I start to consider that it means I'm a bad person for not being just like them. Then I panic.