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

Re: The Stoic Place website

Expand Messages
  • Jan Garrett
    Guillaume is right. A sense of time (historicality) makes a difference in the interpretation of texts. Most of the Stoicism Today essays at The Stoic Place
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Guillaume is right. A sense of time (historicality) makes a difference in the interpretation of texts. Most of the "Stoicism Today" essays at The Stoic Place site were written when I considered myself a Stoic, but the remarks in the interview to which he refers were written recently.  

      Let me take this opportunity to express my respect for The New Stoa Registry Report and my interviewer Scott Plummer for their willingness to respect reality and allow a former Stoic (who has not forgotten what Stoicism meant for him) to recount the story of his journey to and away from  (more or less orthodox) Stoicism in its pages. Not all isms appear to be capable of this.
    • TheophileEscargot
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 1, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Jan Garrett <jan.garrett@...> wrote:
        >
        > Guillaume is right. A sense of time (historicality) makes a difference
        > in the interpretation of texts. Most of the "Stoicism Today" essays at
        > The Stoic Place site were written when I considered myself a Stoic,
        > but the remarks in the interview to which he refers were written
        > recently.
        >
        > Let me take this opportunity to express my respect for The New Stoa
        > Registry Report and my interviewer Scott Plummer for their willingness
        > to respect reality and allow a former Stoic (who has not forgotten
        > what Stoicism meant for him) to recount the story of his journey to
        > and away from (more or less orthodox) Stoicism in its pages. Not all
        > isms appear to be capable of this.
        >
      • TheophileEscargot
        We often use the phrase orthodox stoicism here, but I don t think we ve ever discussed definitions in detail. So, a few questions for anyone interested: 1.
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 1, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          We often use the phrase "orthodox stoicism" here, but I don't think we've ever discussed definitions in detail.

          So, a few questions for anyone interested:

          1. What tenets of belief define "orthodox stoicism"?

          2. What beliefs differentiate "orthodox stoicism" from "non-orthodox stoicism"?

          3. Of the following, who are orthodox stoics and who are non-orthodox stoics?
          Zeno of Citium
          Cleanthes
          Chrysippus
          Seneca
          Musonius Rufus
          Epictetus
          Marcus Aurelieus
          Lawrence Becker
          William Irvine

          --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Jan Garrett <jan.garrett@...> wrote:
          >
          > Guillaume is right. A sense of time (historicality) makes a difference
          > in the interpretation of texts. Most of the "Stoicism Today" essays at
          > The Stoic Place site were written when I considered myself a Stoic,
          > but the remarks in the interview to which he refers were written
          > recently.
          >
          > Let me take this opportunity to express my respect for The New Stoa
          > Registry Report and my interviewer Scott Plummer for their willingness
          > to respect reality and allow a former Stoic (who has not forgotten
          > what Stoicism meant for him) to recount the story of his journey to
          > and away from (more or less orthodox) Stoicism in its pages. Not all
          > isms appear to be capable of this.
          >
        • Guillaume Andrieu
          Hi Theo. I d venture that orthodoxy is not really what you think, but rather how you think. If you believe that any set of the people you mentioned was right,
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 2, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Theo.

            I'd venture that orthodoxy is not really what you think, but rather how you think. 

            If you believe that any set of the people you mentioned was right, and that we should interpret correctly what they said to come closer to the truth, then you're orthodox, no matter the set of people you pick.

            If on the contrary, you believe that none of them is definitely right, but still a good guide on your own path to go beyond what they said to come to a truth more accurate than theirs, then you are not orthodox.

            With that distinction, I guess I'd put myself in the non-orthodox family, since I recognize no definite authority from any of the sources you listed, and I am willing to learn from any of them, as well as reject any part of their sayings.

            Cheers,
            Guillaume.

            On 1 October 2011 20:30, TheophileEscargot <snailman100@...> wrote:

            We often use the phrase "orthodox stoicism" here, but I don't think we've ever discussed definitions in detail.

            So, a few questions for anyone interested:

            1. What tenets of belief define "orthodox stoicism"?

            2. What beliefs differentiate "orthodox stoicism" from "non-orthodox stoicism"?

            3. Of the following, who are orthodox stoics and who are non-orthodox stoics?
            Zeno of Citium
            Cleanthes
            Chrysippus
            Seneca
            Musonius Rufus
            Epictetus
            Marcus Aurelieus
            Lawrence Becker
            William Irvine

            --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Jan Garrett <jan.garrett@...> wrote:
            >
            > Guillaume is right. A sense of time (historicality) makes a difference
            > in the interpretation of texts. Most of the "Stoicism Today" essays at
            > The Stoic Place site were written when I considered myself a Stoic,
            > but the remarks in the interview to which he refers were written
            > recently.
            >
            > Let me take this opportunity to express my respect for The New Stoa
            > Registry Report and my interviewer Scott Plummer for their willingness
            > to respect reality and allow a former Stoic (who has not forgotten
            > what Stoicism meant for him) to recount the story of his journey to
            > and away from (more or less orthodox) Stoicism in its pages. Not all
            > isms appear to be capable of this.
          • Stephen.
            My Dear Stoics, Jan Garrett contributions to Stoicism is worth the recognition, i don t know him personally, i only met him through his intellectual
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 4, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
               
               
              My Dear Stoics,
               
              Jan Garrett contributions to Stoicism is worth the recognition, i don't know him personally, i only met him through his intellectual contributions that i consider identical to the soul and spirit of Stoicism.
               
               
              Pax,
              Stephen.
              On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Jan Garrett <jan.garrett@...> wrote:
               

              Guillaume is right. A sense of time (historicality) makes a difference in the interpretation of texts. Most of the "Stoicism Today" essays at The Stoic Place site were written when I considered myself a Stoic, but the remarks in the interview to which he refers were written recently.  


              Let me take this opportunity to express my respect for The New Stoa Registry Report and my interviewer Scott Plummer for their willingness to respect reality and allow a former Stoic (who has not forgotten what Stoicism meant for him) to recount the story of his journey to and away from  (more or less orthodox) Stoicism in its pages. Not all isms appear to be capable of this.




              --
              Stephen,
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.