Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: New Here

Expand Messages
  • jason31270
    Thanks Erika for the welcome. The diversity here is already obvious and it s very welcome from my point of view. I love fact that Stoicism is so diverse. On
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 1, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Erika for the welcome.

      The diversity here is already obvious and it's very welcome from my point of view. I love
      fact that Stoicism is so diverse.

      On your view of 'obsolescence', well... it's clearly very sensible! But you're right, I'll be at
      home here I think. Whilst I was waiting for my membership approval I looked over some
      old threads and found the range of topics wide and standard of debate high. Like you, I've
      found a civilized name on a discussion group hasn't always meant civilized discussion, but
      this place does appear to be an exception.

      On one of those old threads I found someone giving the concept, "Mystics are empricists."
      - someone who himself was not a mystic, it seemed to me. If thinking of that clarity goes
      on around here then I will be very happy. My views are based on personal experience,
      which alas, has not been sensible. I don't expect everyone to share them, but I can show in
      the long term I hope that they're not completely devoid of sense, and also in the
      process, that I'm as committed to rationality, topicality and productivity as anyone else. :)

      J

      --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "cherokee_purple" <Bascilla@...> wrote:
      >
      > Both you and Michael should be very welcome here. There is
      > actually a good amount of diversity on this list, especially when
      > considering the relatively narrow discussion topic. (Not only is
      > there more diversity amongst the regular participants here than I was
      > used to seeing on Humanist and Atheism forums, but the moderators are
      > refreshingly insistent on things remaining civil when there is
      > disagreement. It's great, especially considering that the main reason
      > I all but stopped visiting the aforementioned forums was the rampant
      > incivility.) I'm not a super regular participant, but I do follow the
      > discussion that takes place here... from what both of you described,
      > you should feel right at home. So long as you are committed to the
      > keeping the discussion rational, productive, and at least mostly
      > topical you'll love it.
      > (Note to Malcolm about sporadic participation: sorry about cutting the
      > last conversation short. You had more to say than I did, and an
      > urgent situation involving my best friend arose.)
      > And Jason, as far as the more...outdated... aspects of Stoic
      > physics are concerned: I don't really find them embarrassing so much
      > as obsolete. There are many things about which it is difficult to
      > impossible to be certain, and so long as the fully honest, rational,
      > truth-seeking spirit of the intellectual endeavor is maintained
      > throughout, I see no shame in admitting both that some people who may
      > have had some good ideas also had ideas that don't sound so good
      > anymore and that some ideas that sounded good in another era simply
      > didn't stand up to centuries worth of further inquiry. There are many
      > ideas that currently seem to be true that will doubtlessly be
      > disproved in the years to come. Shrug... but then, I'm always willing
      > to admit here that I'm really no more of a Stoic than Cicero was. (To
      > be more exact, I'm a Humanist with heavy leanings toward virtue ethics
      > generally who finds many Stoic ethical ideas to be very useful even
      > though I think their physics has become obsolete and their theology
      > either overuses god-language or is unnecessarily anthropomorphic
      > ,sometimes both, depending on the author.)
      >
      > Erika
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "jason31270" <jason31270@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi there,
      > >
      > > I've just joined the group and my name is Jason. I've been
      > practicing a personal form of
      > > 'training philosophy' that is strongly Stoic for a while now, and I
      > consider myself in some
      > > measure a Stoic.
      > >
      > > I'm probably a little different from most of the people on this
      > board; I use Stoicism as a
      > > gateway into a non-religious spiritual practice that I suppose could
      > be called mystical. As
      > > a result, all the Stoic physics that some might potentially find
      > embarrassing I find
      > > interesting - including pneuma (=chi), personal daimons, a perfectly
      > providential fate, and
      > > even all those daimons looking after the race of humanity. But like
      > most I find Stoicism
      > > most useful as a framework for ethical advancement.
      > >
      > > I also have interests in Taoism which I find in some ways rather
      > similar to Stoicism, and
      > > much of my understanding of the non-physical is Platonic and
      > eclectic. I meditate a good
      > > deal and have various spiritual practices, but I also am trained in
      > logic so I'm happy to be
      > > involved in dialectical discussion. I'm not expecting too many other
      > "people like
      > > me" to appear out of the woodwork, but am very interested to meet
      > other Stoics of
      > > whatever stripe.
      > >
      > > Thanks for reading!
      > >
      > > Jason
      > >
      >
    • Michael Paris
      Speaking of immanence reminded me of a book on my inter-library loan request list: Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers--From Plato to the Present
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 2, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Speaking of immanence reminded me of a book on my inter-library loan
        request list:

        Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers--From Plato to the
        Present
        <http://www.amazon.com/Panentheism-Other-Philosophers-Plato-Present/dp/0801027241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225638342&sr=1-1>
        by John W. Cooper (Hardcover - Nov 1, 2006)

        There's a chapter on Stoicism.



        Curt Steinmetz wrote:
        > I almost put an asterisk next to (d). In fact, I think even from a
        > purely Stoic perspective "completely and only immanent" either goes too
        > far or is meaningless.



        [...]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.