Re: New Here
- 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. :)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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outdated...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.)
> --- In email@example.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
- Speaking of immanence reminded me of a book on my inter-library loan
Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers--From Plato to the
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.