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

Re: [stoics] Re: All rational minds DO NOT work the same way!

Expand Messages
  • brunians@brunians.org
    Because he s hardly the only Stoic, Gich. .
    Message 1 of 23 , Apr 1 5:49 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Because he's hardly the only Stoic, Gich.

      .


      >>>>Sometimes I think that this forum exists for Grant.<<<
      >
      > Well it does!
      > I thought you knew that.
      >
      > That seems to have become (almost) it's sole purpose; and as a result of
      > the never-ending Grantian barracking, investigative discussions between
      > other people are impossible.
      >
      >
      > Gich
      >
      >
    • Stoic Stoic
      The new issue of The Philosophers Magazine has a cover story called Practical Wisdom: Philosophy for children, business, therapy and more , and includes a
      Message 2 of 23 , Apr 1 5:57 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        The new issue of The Philosophers' Magazine has a cover story called 'Practical Wisdom: Philosophy for children, business, therapy and more', and includes a feature called What Can The Stoics Do For Us. 

        It includes an interview with Keith Seddon, and mentions us: 'there seems to be a thriving Stoic community to be found online, with groups like the New Stoa and the International Stoic Forum'. 

        Also includes interviews with Richard Sorabji and Christopher Gill. 

        Not a bad piece. Concludes that the best approach to the Stoics is a 'pick n' mix' approach, which is ironic, considering the magazine's editor, Julian Baggini, condemned CBT recently for taking a 'pick n mix' approach to Stoicism: 

        http://www.politicsofwellbeing.com/2010/01/is-cbt-looting-ancient-philosophy.html

        All best

        Jules

      • TheophileEscargot
        Interesting! I ll look out for the magazine. There doesn t seem to be a free online edition. If you subscribe, you can get access to an online edition. There
        Message 3 of 23 , Apr 1 6:34 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment

          Interesting! I'll look out for the magazine.

          There doesn't seem to be a free online edition.

          If you subscribe, you can get access to an online edition. There are little thumbnails of the pages here:

          http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/394/431/6765/1/82?dps=

          I suppose it wouldn't be virtuous to subscribe, read the articles, then cancel it for the full refund.

          --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Stoic Stoic <londonstoic@...> wrote:
          >
          > The new issue of The Philosophers' Magazine has a cover story called 'Practical Wisdom: Philosophy for children, business, therapy and more', and includes a feature called What Can The Stoics Do For Us. 
          > It includes an interview with Keith Seddon, and mentions us: 'there seems to be a thriving Stoic community to be found online, with groups like the New Stoa and the International Stoic Forum'. 
          > Also includes interviews with Richard Sorabji and Christopher Gill. 
          > Not a bad piece. Concludes that the best approach to the Stoics is a 'pick n' mix' approach, which is ironic, considering the magazine's editor, Julian Baggini, condemned CBT recently for taking a 'pick n mix' approach to Stoicism: 
          > http://www.politicsofwellbeing.com/2010/01/is-cbt-looting-ancient-philosophy.html
          > All best
          > Jules
          >

        • Kevin
          Jan, I assume you wrote this, in this way, to practice your technique. I ll add a couple of comments which may be helpful   Jan:   Not all the partisans of
          Message 4 of 23 , Apr 1 9:17 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Jan, I assume you wrote this, in this way, to practice your technique. I 'll add a couple of comments which may be helpful
             
            Jan:
             
            "Not all the partisans of the American Tea Party crowd are nuts. "
             
            Kevin:
             
            This seems to me to be too close to being reasonable. It is true the appearance of reason can be a great attractant, but too much can send people off in dangerous directions.
             
            Jan:
             
            "they seem to be encouraging violence against mainstream figures like Obama (or less well protected local figures)."
             
            Kevin:
             
            You should drop the word "seem" and I would recommend that phrases like "mainstream figures" be change to something more personal, do any of these people have children? Bring them in. "Less protected" was a nice touch though.
             
            Besides these and a few other similar points I would give the work, overall, a B
             
            Kevin

            --- On Wed, 3/31/10, jan.garrett@... <jan.garrett@...> wrote:

            From: jan.garrett@... <jan.garrett@...>
            Subject: [stoics] Re: All rational minds DO NOT work the same way!
            To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 12:12 PM

             
            There is increasing evidence that not all (broadly speaking) rational minds work the same way. The politically conservative mindset (pure type, so far as possible) reasons differently from the liberal or progressive mindset. Not all the partisans of the American Tea Party crowd are nuts. Their actions are often provocative; they seem to be encouraging violence against mainstream figures like Obama (or less well protected local figures). But they relish conflict and the climate of fear, b/c in that climate their world view, which is, on the whole, quite Manichean, sounds more attractive; they feel engaged and they tend to recruit followers. There is a method, a rationality, in their "madness."

            I would be the first to say that there is a superior rationality to this, but it is rationality in a difference sense; a rationality with the right values, with what I consider virtues. I don't expect the Tea Party crowd (not even those who are not, strictly speaking, nuts) to have the same "virtues."

            Steve seems to think that there is a level of rationality above the fray, which is rationality simpliciter (in an unqualified sense). This is, of course, what the philosophical mainstream has long claimed. But what good does that notion do anybody if it is only instantiated in the regulative idea, that rare as the Ethiopian Phoenix bird, the Stoic sage? In fact, this notion of rationality simpliciter, above the fray, has long served, in a backhanded and "cultured way," to rationalize the Dominationist status quo.

            --- In stoics@yahoogroups. com, "stevemarquis@ ..." <stevemarquis@ ...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Gich writes:
            > ____________
            >
            > Could it be that a thirty year old illiterate family man (with 2 children), a Mandarin language monoglot, who'd spent his whole life in rural China, might evaluate a particular situation differently to a thirty year old very-literate family man (with 2 children), an English language monoglot, who'd spent his whole life in central New York?
            >
            > Let's assume they're both rational people.
            >
            > Can we be sure that their minds will work in the same way when grappling some particular real-life problem?
            >
            > Couldn't it be that their history alters the way their minds work so that they would come to different (rational) conclusions concerning problems they face in their day-to-day lives?
            > ____________
            >
            > Method and content are different. Like your example if a city dweller visits a friend who has lived in the country all his life the person from the city won't notice the squirrel in the brush even though both are perfectly rational people and have good eyesight. Why not? A difference in experience.
            >
            > To see if an argument is rational or true requires a check of both the form and the content. If the argument is valid (the form is correct) _AND_ the starting premises are true then the conclusion is true (my reference here is formal deductive logic just to keep it simple). So, if two people experiencing the same situation and have the same exact background in their life and are both pathos free then they should come to the exact same correct conclusion in the exact same situation. There would be no difference.
            >
            > Same correct input + correct logic = the exact same correct output for both.
            >
            > However . . . that is a very rigid and limited hypothetical. Even if we find ourselves two Sages they won't have the same life background. So they could have different outputs and both be rational. But that is because they each have different inputs. They are using two different data sets both of which are correct. These data sets will not contradict each other for they are both true. They may overlap, and where they do they will agree. Or, they be entirely mutually exclusive. Give one the data set of the other and again there is only _ONE_ possible correct and rational answer.
            >
            > Rationality is equated with absolute objective truth Gich, at least for the ancients. There is only one version of those right?
            >
            > Take algebra. The letters in equations are place holders just like letters in formal logic. If two persons start with different values of x, y, and z they will get different results even if they perform the calculation correctly. However, if two people start with the same values of x, y, and z they must both get the same answer unless we are to consider some very strange mathematics.
            >
            > A simple `if this then that' would be `if I step in front a very large vey fast moving object (like a train going 120 mph) then I will be killed'. This is simply the causal nexus formulated in terms of biology and physics. Anyone who formulates this particular situation differently and puts it to the test will not even last long enough to know they were irrational no matter their background. There is one right answer only. This is a case of same input plus correct logic yields _ONE SINGLE_ correct output.
            >
            > Rationality is not relative. People coming up with correct but different answers in similar situations have different input that's all. But for themselves as individuals they cannot have any more than one correct answer that is rational given any particular starting data set.
            > The modern view of rationality is a little different and allows for some relativism. Take Lakoff's metaphorical reason for example. I am not quite sure what it means to be fully rational or even rational in this case but rational does not refer to objective truth that's for sure. The best it can refer to is `fact' which is ever contingent on possible new relevant data that is not known about yet.
            >
            > Leaving these two views of reason aside practically quite a bit of our choice making is going on under cover in the unconscious. That is a nod to a modern current view of how the mind works but I think we can use the `disposition' of the ancients as a stand in without altering any theory. What this means is that everything we think we consciously freely decide is colored significantly by past experience and most of these associations we are not even aware of. Given the complexity of associations made with one single decision how many of our choices do we think are rational? So the Stoics were right In the assumption that almost no one is. In this scenario we will most assuredly have different people coming up with different solutions but it is not different rational solutions it is different _IRRATIONAL_ solutions. And we can have an infinity of those without any problem.
            >
            > Live well,
            > Steve
            >


          • jan.garrett@insightbb.com
            Thanks, Kevin, it will lift my GPA.
            Message 5 of 23 , Apr 1 2:51 PM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Kevin, it will lift my GPA.

              --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:
              >
              > Jan, I assume you wrote this, in this way, to practice your technique. I 'll add a couple of comments which may be helpful
              >  
              > Jan:
              >  
              > "Not all the partisans of the American Tea Party crowd are nuts. "
              >  
              > Kevin:
              >  
              > This seems to me to be too close to being reasonable. It is true the appearance of reason can be a great attractant, but too much can send people off in dangerous directions.
              >  
              > Jan:
              >  
              > "they seem to be encouraging violence against mainstream figures like Obama (or less well protected local figures)."
              >  
              > Kevin:
              >  
              > You should drop the word "seem" and I would recommend that phrases like "mainstream figures" be change to something more personal, do any of these people have children? Bring them in. "Less protected" was a nice touch though.
              >  
              > Besides these and a few other similar points I would give the work, overall, a B
              >  
              > Kevin
              >
              > --- On Wed, 3/31/10, jan.garrett@... <jan.garrett@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > From: jan.garrett@... <jan.garrett@...>
              > Subject: [stoics] Re: All rational minds DO NOT work the same way!
              > To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 12:12 PM
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              > There is increasing evidence that not all (broadly speaking) rational minds work the same way. The politically conservative mindset (pure type, so far as possible) reasons differently from the liberal or progressive mindset. Not all the partisans of the American Tea Party crowd are nuts. Their actions are often provocative; they seem to be encouraging violence against mainstream figures like Obama (or less well protected local figures). But they relish conflict and the climate of fear, b/c in that climate their world view, which is, on the whole, quite Manichean, sounds more attractive; they feel engaged and they tend to recruit followers. There is a method, a rationality, in their "madness."
              >
              > I would be the first to say that there is a superior rationality to this, but it is rationality in a difference sense; a rationality with the right values, with what I consider virtues. I don't expect the Tea Party crowd (not even those who are not, strictly speaking, nuts) to have the same "virtues."
              >
              > Steve seems to think that there is a level of rationality above the fray, which is rationality simpliciter (in an unqualified sense). This is, of course, what the philosophical mainstream has long claimed. But what good does that notion do anybody if it is only instantiated in the regulative idea, that rare as the Ethiopian Phoenix bird, the Stoic sage? In fact, this notion of rationality simpliciter, above the fray, has long served, in a backhanded and "cultured way," to rationalize the Dominationist status quo.
              >
              > --- In stoics@yahoogroups. com, "stevemarquis@ ..." <stevemarquis@ ...> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Gich writes:
              > > ____________
              > >
              > > Could it be that a thirty year old illiterate family man (with 2 children), a Mandarin language monoglot, who'd spent his whole life in rural China, might evaluate a particular situation differently to a thirty year old very-literate family man (with 2 children), an English language monoglot, who'd spent his whole life in central New York?
              > >
              > > Let's assume they're both rational people.
              > >
              > > Can we be sure that their minds will work in the same way when grappling some particular real-life problem?
              > >
              > > Couldn't it be that their history alters the way their minds work so that they would come to different (rational) conclusions concerning problems they face in their day-to-day lives?
              > > ____________
              > >
              > > Method and content are different. Like your example if a city dweller visits a friend who has lived in the country all his life the person from the city won't notice the squirrel in the brush even though both are perfectly rational people and have good eyesight. Why not? A difference in experience.
              > >
              > > To see if an argument is rational or true requires a check of both the form and the content. If the argument is valid (the form is correct) _AND_ the starting premises are true then the conclusion is true (my reference here is formal deductive logic just to keep it simple). So, if two people experiencing the same situation and have the same exact background in their life and are both pathos free then they should come to the exact same correct conclusion in the exact same situation. There would be no difference.
              > >
              > > Same correct input + correct logic = the exact same correct output for both.
              > >
              > > However . . . that is a very rigid and limited hypothetical. Even if we find ourselves two Sages they won't have the same life background. So they could have different outputs and both be rational. But that is because they each have different inputs. They are using two different data sets both of which are correct. These data sets will not contradict each other for they are both true. They may overlap, and where they do they will agree. Or, they be entirely mutually exclusive. Give one the data set of the other and again there is only _ONE_ possible correct and rational answer.
              > >
              > > Rationality is equated with absolute objective truth Gich, at least for the ancients. There is only one version of those right?
              > >
              > > Take algebra. The letters in equations are place holders just like letters in formal logic. If two persons start with different values of x, y, and z they will get different results even if they perform the calculation correctly. However, if two people start with the same values of x, y, and z they must both get the same answer unless we are to consider some very strange mathematics.
              > >
              > > A simple `if this then that' would be `if I step in front a very large vey fast moving object (like a train going 120 mph) then I will be killed'. This is simply the causal nexus formulated in terms of biology and physics. Anyone who formulates this particular situation differently and puts it to the test will not even last long enough to know they were irrational no matter their background. There is one right answer only. This is a case of same input plus correct logic yields _ONE SINGLE_ correct output.
              > >
              > > Rationality is not relative. People coming up with correct but different answers in similar situations have different input that's all. But for themselves as individuals they cannot have any more than one correct answer that is rational given any particular starting data set.
              > > The modern view of rationality is a little different and allows for some relativism. Take Lakoff's metaphorical reason for example. I am not quite sure what it means to be fully rational or even rational in this case but rational does not refer to objective truth that's for sure. The best it can refer to is `fact' which is ever contingent on possible new relevant data that is not known about yet.
              > >
              > > Leaving these two views of reason aside practically quite a bit of our choice making is going on under cover in the unconscious. That is a nod to a modern current view of how the mind works but I think we can use the `disposition' of the ancients as a stand in without altering any theory. What this means is that everything we think we consciously freely decide is colored significantly by past experience and most of these associations we are not even aware of. Given the complexity of associations made with one single decision how many of our choices do we think are rational? So the Stoics were right In the assumption that almost no one is. In this scenario we will most assuredly have different people coming up with different solutions but it is not different rational solutions it is different _IRRATIONAL_ solutions. And we can have an infinity of those without any problem.
              > >
              > > Live well,
              > > Steve
              > >
              >
            • TheophileEscargot
              This article What Can The Stoics Do For Us in the printed The Philosophers Magazine now seems to have made its way into the free online version:
              Message 6 of 23 , Jun 16, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment

                This article "What Can The Stoics Do For Us" in the printed "The Philosophers' Magazine" now seems to have made its way into the free online version:

                http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1209

                The Stoics are not short of fans these days. Their ideas frequently pop up in self-help and popular psychology books, as well as in all sorts of mainstream publications, such as the Guardian, Prospect and Psychologies. This is not too surprising: especially the later texts by Roman Stoics – Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius – burst with wonderfully apt advice about how to live. Far from the abstractions of some moral philosophy, which often give little assistance on how to lead a good life, Stoic authors wrote perceptively about daily concerns, and this is how they gained lasting relevance...

                ...Given all this, could anybody nowadays really accept Stoicism as a whole system? Actually, yes. Keith Seddon, director of the Stoic Foundation and author of Stoic Serenity, is a practising Stoic. Nor is he the only one: there seems to be a thriving Stoic community to be found online, with groups like the New Stoa and the International Stoic Forum.


                --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Stoic Stoic <londonstoic@...> wrote:
                >
                > The new issue of The Philosophers' Magazine has a cover story called 'Practical Wisdom: Philosophy for children, business, therapy and more', and includes a feature called What Can The Stoics Do For Us. 
                > It includes an interview with Keith Seddon, and mentions us: 'there seems to be a thriving Stoic community to be found online, with groups like the New Stoa and the International Stoic Forum'. 
                > Also includes interviews with Richard Sorabji and Christopher Gill. 
                > Not a bad piece. Concludes that the best approach to the Stoics is a 'pick n' mix' approach, which is ironic, considering the magazine's editor, Julian Baggini, condemned CBT recently for taking a 'pick n mix' approach to Stoicism: 
                > http://www.politicsofwellbeing.com/2010/01/is-cbt-looting-ancient-philosophy.html
                > All best
                > Jules
                >

              • brunians@brunians.org
                Keith built a pond so he can be the biggest fish in it. .
                Message 7 of 23 , Jun 16, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Keith built a pond so he can be the biggest fish in it.

                  .


                  >
                  > This article "What Can The Stoics Do For Us" in the printed "The
                  > Philosophers' Magazine" now seems to have made its way into the free
                  > online version:
                  >
                  > http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1209
                  > <http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1209>
                  >
                  > The Stoics are not short of fans these days. Their ideas frequently pop
                  > up in self-help and popular psychology books, as well as in all sorts of
                  > mainstream publications, such as the Guardian, Prospect and
                  > Psychologies. This is not too surprising: especially the later texts by
                  > Roman Stoics – Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius – burst
                  > with wonderfully apt advice about how to live. Far from the abstractions
                  > of some moral philosophy, which often give little assistance on how to
                  > lead a good life, Stoic authors wrote perceptively about daily concerns,
                  > and this is how they gained lasting relevance...
                  >
                  > ...Given all this, could anybody nowadays really accept Stoicism as a
                  > whole system? Actually, yes. Keith Seddon, director of the Stoic
                  > Foundation and author of Stoic Serenity, is a practising Stoic. Nor is
                  > he the only one: there seems to be a thriving Stoic community to be
                  > found online, with groups like the New Stoa and the International Stoic
                  > Forum.
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Stoic Stoic <londonstoic@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> The new issue of The Philosophers' Magazine has a cover story called
                  > 'Practical Wisdom: Philosophy for children, business, therapy and more',
                  > and includes a feature called What Can The Stoics Do For Us.
                  >> It includes an interview with Keith Seddon, and mentions us: 'there
                  > seems to be a thriving Stoic community to be found online, with groups
                  > like the New Stoa and the International Stoic Forum'.
                  >> Also includes interviews with Richard Sorabji and Christopher Gill.
                  >> Not a bad piece. Concludes that the best approach to the Stoics is a
                  > 'pick n' mix' approach, which is ironic, considering the magazine's
                  > editor, Julian Baggini, condemned CBT recently for taking a 'pick n mix'
                  > approach to Stoicism:
                  >>
                  > http://www.politicsofwellbeing.com/2010/01/is-cbt-looting-ancient-philos\
                  > ophy.html
                  >> All best
                  >> Jules
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Scott Rhodes
                  ... You may consider this self expression but it is actaully reprojection. How can a mise en abym know thyself ?
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jun 16, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment

                    On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:37 AM, brunians@... wrote:

                    Keith built a pond so he can be the biggest fish in it.

                    You may consider this "self expression" but it is actaully reprojection.

                    How can a mise en abym "know thyself"?
                  • Keith Seddon
                    ... OTHER CONTRIBUTORS FIRST: As Josh [brunians@brunians.org] has no interest in contributing to the forum in a constructive way, I will remove him once three
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jun 17, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      brunians@... wrote:
                      > Keith built a pond so he can be the biggest fish in it.
                      >
                      OTHER CONTRIBUTORS FIRST:
                      As Josh [brunians@...] has no interest in contributing to the
                      forum in a constructive way, I will remove him once three other
                      contributors express their wish that I do so. Other contributors, please
                      email me at stoics-owner@yahoogroups.com

                      NOW JOSH:
                      Actually, Josh, Antonia built the pond, and she was gracious enough to
                      bring it round with her so that we could get in it together and swim
                      around for a bit. Or to throw away the silly metaphor, she informed me
                      of her interest to write an article, and she asked whether she could
                      come to interview me. (Beyond that, I have no knowledge of her, or the
                      magazine she has written for.) Ever endeavouring to be the gentleman, I
                      thought it would be discourteous to refuse, so round she came.

                      As for my being the biggest fish, well, it's obvious that you are a much
                      bigger fish than me in all sorts of ways, and I have known for some time
                      that it is no use pretending that I can compete with you. You have
                      out-fished me for a very long time now.

                      Keith
                      Co-Moderator
                    • brunians@brunians.org
                      Keith, thank you so much for demonstrating what I am talking about. .
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jun 17, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Keith, thank you so much for demonstrating what I am talking about.

                        .


                        > brunians@... wrote:
                        >> Keith built a pond so he can be the biggest fish in it.
                        >>
                        > OTHER CONTRIBUTORS FIRST:
                        > As Josh [brunians@...] has no interest in contributing to the
                        > forum in a constructive way, I will remove him once three other
                        > contributors express their wish that I do so. Other contributors, please
                        > email me at stoics-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > NOW JOSH:
                        > Actually, Josh, Antonia built the pond, and she was gracious enough to
                        > bring it round with her so that we could get in it together and swim
                        > around for a bit. Or to throw away the silly metaphor, she informed me
                        > of her interest to write an article, and she asked whether she could
                        > come to interview me. (Beyond that, I have no knowledge of her, or the
                        > magazine she has written for.) Ever endeavouring to be the gentleman, I
                        > thought it would be discourteous to refuse, so round she came.
                        >
                        > As for my being the biggest fish, well, it's obvious that you are a much
                        > bigger fish than me in all sorts of ways, and I have known for some time
                        > that it is no use pretending that I can compete with you. You have
                        > out-fished me for a very long time now.
                        >
                        > Keith
                        > Co-Moderator
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.