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

Re: [stoics] ‘Prohairesis’, ‘Prohaire tic’ and ‘Aprohairetic’ [was: Democra cy v. the Libyan Intervention

Expand Messages
  • Dr Jim Byrne
    Thanks Gich, I ll chew through that very interesting presentation. Food for my thought. Jim Dr Jim Byrne ABC Coaching & Counselling Services 01422 843 629
    Message 1 of 78 , Apr 1 5:47 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Gich, I'll chew through that very interesting presentation.  Food for my thought.
       
      Jim

      Dr Jim Byrne
      ABC Coaching & Counselling Services
      01422 843 629
       
      Website: abc-counselling.com


      -----Original Message-----
      From: gich7 <gich7@...>
      To: stoics <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 10:19 am
      Subject: Re: [stoics] ‘Prohairesis’, ‘Prohairetic’ and ‘Aprohairetic’ [was: Democracy v. the Libyan Intervention

       
      JIM B: It seems to me that a 'good Stoic' is one who has trained him/herself to
      be good, over and over and over again, until goodness become a
      "stimulus>response>no choice" output for them. And not just goodness, of
      course, but a particular type of detachment from wanting, desiring; a particular
      type of surrender to 'providence', or accepting the things that cannot be
      changed.

      GICH: Yes. But the other KEY driver of our decisions in Stoicism, as Epictetus
      presents it, is that we must endeavour to CHOOSE the dominant role-duty that
      ought to guide us towards the appropriate in-the-moment-of-action decision.

      As we go thorough life we should always keep in the forefront of our thinking
      the fundamental role-duties as husband, father, citizen, etc. These duties
      should be part of our nature, guiding and influencing us BEFORE we make any
      particular decision concerning what to do in any particular situation.

      The main thrust of Epictetus' writings revolves around fulfilling one's
      designated roles and, with these roles in mind, determining what to do in
      real-life-situations. He gives advice concerning "how" we should behave in our
      dealings with others, and "how" we go about determining, from moment to moment,
      the choices that might be available to us at the time in question.

      But, we have multiple duties, and multiple relationships; and nothing in
      Epictetus suggests that a role-duty as a husband or father should, necessarily,
      take precedence over other duties; but also, there's nothing in Epictetus to
      suggest these role-duties should not take precedence. The Philosopher has to
      decide for himself which role-duty takes precedence in any particular situation.
      Some may decide husband/father comes first, others may decide differently; and
      neither is more correct than the other.

      The philosopher should focus his life on:
      [1] determining what is in his control and what is not,
      [2] determining what he ought to do and what he ought not.
      [3] never losing sight of his overarching role-duty of 'good citizen', and never
      doing anything that might adversely effect his community.

      Gich

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Dr Jim Byrne" <abc4rebt@...>
      To: <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 7:57 AM
      Subject: Re: [stoics] ‘Prohairesis’, ‘Prohairetic’ and ‘Aprohairetic’ [was:
      Democracy v. the Libyan Intervention

      Hi Keith, I found your explanation of prohairesis very helpful, as it triggered
      off some questions about this 'pre-choice' idea that are linked to my
      'philosophy of psychology' considerations.

      I think it was Jim G who said that I (Jim B) "always have a choice" as to
      whether or not to be drawn into a discussion about contentious political issues.

      Reflecting on this point, I realized that it was truer to say that, once Jim G
      had pointed this choice out to me, I now had that choice - as a conscious
      possibility.

      Before Jim G pointed that out to me, I was subject to what the behaviourists
      called "stimulus > response > no choice". Because of the political experiences
      of my youth, "I" - or this organism sitting here typing - normally come up with
      a knee-jerk reaction to particular political statements, which show up for me as
      red rags to a bull.

      How I have dealt with these knee-jerk reactions for the past thirty years or so
      is to see myself as being something like an alcoholic - a politico-holic -
      addicted to a particular kind of 'political passion' - and so I have dealt with
      this by 'staying out of the (political) pub'.

      When I joined this list, I did not realize I would arrive in a political bar
      room, in which several contributors would be waving red rags at me, and so I had
      no choice but to respond as I did.

      I was - to link this back to your statement - in a "pre-choice" state. The
      "something inside me" which could decide not to respond to these provocations
      was not switched on. When Jim G pointed out that option to me - of staying in
      this 'bar room' and not responding to the (occasional) red rags, I now had that
      choice, as a theoretical possibility - but I would (realistically) have to train
      myself over and over again if that was to become an automatic response.

      Human beings seem to operate mainly tacitly - non-consciously. (Gladwell,
      'Blink'; Gray, 'Straw Dogs'; Bargh and Chartrand, 'The unbearable automaticity
      of being').

      It seems to me that a 'good Stoic' is one who has trained him/herself to be
      good, over and over and over again, until goodness become a
      "stimulus>response>no choice" output for them. And not just goodness, of
      course, but a particular type of detachment from wanting, desiring; a particular
      type of surrender to 'providence', or accepting the things that cannot be
      changed.

      That is to say, the something inside of them that makes the "right choice"
      inevitable, is the "pre-choice" of deciding to wire him/herself up to produce
      just that automatic, tacit, non-conscious response.

      But, in my view, he or she will continue to carry within them, the root of evil,
      the Bad Wolf, which can grow back again given the 'right' (meaning wrong) set of
      circumstances - or, as Epictetus says near the end of the Enchiridion, if he or
      she ceases to "watch himself like (s/he were a bandit) and lying in wait".

      Some food for thought! :-)

      Sincerely,
      Jim

      Dr Jim Byrne
      ABC Coaching & Counselling Services
      01422 843 629

      Website: abc-counselling.com

    • Michel Daw
      Section 33 of the Handbook. On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:30 PM, JIM GODDARD ... -- Cheers, Michel If one accomplishes some good though with toil, the toil
      Message 78 of 78 , Apr 11 12:32 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Section 33 of the Handbook.

        On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:30 PM, JIM GODDARD <jim.goddard1@...> wrote:
         

        It is, indeed, in the Handbook. About three-quarters of the way in.

        Regards,

        Jim

        --- On Mon, 11/4/11, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

        From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>

        Subject: Re: [stoics] Reputation [was: Prohairesis, Prohairetic and Aprohairetic]
        To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, 11 April, 2011, 20:14


         

        Its in the Handbook I think

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: gich7 <gich7@...>
        To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 3:08:33 PM
        Subject: Re: [stoics] Reputation [was: Prohairesis, Prohairetic and
        Aprohairetic]

        This Epictetus quote is very well known but I can't find it in the Discourses.

        Can you help?

        Gich

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Michel Daw" <michel.daw@...>
        To: <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:36 PM
        Subject: Re: [stoics] Reputation [was: Prohairesis, Prohairetic and
        Aprohairetic]

        As Epictetus said: “If you hear that someone is speaking ill of you, instead
        of trying to defend yourself you should say: "He obviously does not know me
        very well, since there are so many other faults he could have mentioned"”

        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links




        --
        Cheers,

        Michel

        "If one accomplishes some good
        though with toil,
        the toil passes,
        but the good remains;

        if one does something dishonorable
        with pleasure,
        the pleasure passes,
        but the dishonor remains."

        Musonius Rufus
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.