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

Re: [stoics] Re: The Guardian article on @Stoicweek

Expand Messages
  • Steve Marquis
    Hi Scott- Like psychology is a subset of empirical inquiry which is a subset of rational inquiry metaphorical reason is but one thread amongst a tapestry with
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Scott-
       

      Like psychology is a subset of empirical inquiry which is a subset of rational inquiry metaphorical reason is but one thread amongst a tapestry with a common metaphysical underpinning.  That is what I am referring to here.

       

      What is ironic is this underpinning is kind of hush hush because metaphysics in general is rejected as well as not fitting in.

       

      With philosophy now we can deal with metaphysics of all sorts.  No problem.

       

      What would help in all of this Scott is general education in the philosophy of science.  It should be required at the high school level.  But so should several other subjects J.

       

      Live well,

      Steve
      From: Scott Rhodes <flinch@...>
      To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tue, December 4, 2012 3:06:10 PM
      Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: The Guardian article on @Stoicweek




      Ah, Lakoff. Gotcha. 

      Is this the same thing you are refering to as

      physical metaphysics of rational empiricism

      ?


      On Dec 4, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:

       


      Scott-

       

      Jan can explain metaphorical reason in detail.   As I understand it our complex ideas expressed in language are built up packages of simpler ideas referred to metaphorically.  This is multilayered but finally is grounded on concepts very close to and derived from simple sensation.

       

      What I am trying to say is that this is an example of an approach that assumes our powers of cognition are ultimately dependent and derive from sensation without exception.  This, in my opinion now, is the empirical tail wagging the rational dog.  If we go down this route we have said more or less that reason cannot find any truth beyond the empirical box because reason is always dependent on and grounded in sensation.  In the metaphorical reason view on things any abstract reasoning must, by definition, be removed from reality at least more if not much more than reasoning dealing with immediate experience.

       

      If we do that we have cut philosophy off at the knees.  Rather I can accept we learn to reason based on our initial experiences of sensation but that once learned right reason has access to more of reality than is accessible via empirical methods alone.  The chief amongst these for our purposes would be noramtive ethics, moral agency, and the like.

       

      Not getting into the much repeated argument over this general topic I think we can at least see how a pure blood empiricist without the well read background of most here could view a _philosophical_ Wisdom Tradition like Stoicism.  This is a partial explanation as I see it of the attitude in this article and is not surprising quite frankly.

       

      From the empirical standpoint Stoicism can only be viewed as initial incomplete steps towards modern empiricism and psychology.  From a traditional philosophical viewpoint however it can offer something no amount of description can – right values and the best way to live.  The article takes even a more minimalist view on the contributions of Stoicism than almost everyone here is used to seeing (on something that was supposed to be partially about Stoicism anyway)  and that grabbed our attention.  We have overturned a rock and exposed what’s under.

       

      Live well,

      Steve


      From: Scott Rhodes <flinch@...>
      To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tue, December 4, 2012 9:52:04 AM
      Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: The Guardian article on @Stoicweek

      Thanks Don and Steve. Good food for thought. But Steve you are going to have to unpack this one for me:

      > If one wishes to subordinate the inquiry into all things rational under the inquiry into all thing empirical like with the idea of metaphorical reason then I do believe one has to give up the advantage of what philosophy can do.

      What mean you "metaphorical reason"?

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

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com
          stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



    • Dave
      To it s credit, CBT trains people to actually free themselves of emotions. It can serve as a model of practice even for Stoics who think it appropriate and of
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        To it's credit, CBT trains people to actually free themselves of emotions. It can serve as a model of practice even for Stoics who think it appropriate and of benefit to hold orthodox ethical beliefs.

        Best wishes,
        Dave

        http://philosophyforlife.org/in-defence-of-stoic-week/

        "There have always been philosophers who criticise the modern use of Stoicism as a form of practical therapy. When I published an interview with Albert Ellis (the pioneer of CBT) back in 2007, Mark Vernon criticised my article for mistakenly conflating Stoicism with CBT, and ignoring the differences between the two. CBT was, at best, `Stoicism lite', he wrote. I disagreed at the time, but now I think he makes a fair point – CBT does leave out a lot of Stoicism, not least its cosmology, its theism, and its ethical value system. It instrumentalises it, turning it into a set of techniques rather than a comprehensive moral system.

        "You can understand why CBT did that. To become a scientifically credible therapy, it had to drop any talk of God or providence, or even of the meaning of life. It teaches people how to transform their emotions, how to steer the self, without telling them where to steer the self to. It leaves people to decide for themselves what the meaning or goal of life is. You could develop a Marxist CBT, or an Islamic, Buddhist, Epicurean, capitalist or Aristotelian CBT. All it teaches you is how to transform the self and its emotions, not what the ideal self looks like."


        --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "TheophileEscargot" <snailman100@...> wrote:
        >
        > Some mixed responses to Stoic Week, from Jules Evans:
        > http://philosophyforlife.org/the-revival-of-stoicism/
        > <http://philosophyforlife.org/the-revival-of-stoicism/>
        > And Julian Baggini:
        > http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with-\
        > therapy-8372420.html
        > <http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with\
        > -therapy-8372420.html>
        > Philosophy is an even clearer example. The only good reason to embrace a
        > philosophical position is that you are convinced it is true or at least
        > makes sense of the world better than the alternatives. I'm not a
        > stoic because I do not agree that we are all fragments of an
        > all-pervading divine rationality which is providentially organising the
        > world, or that Epictetus was right to say you should not be disturbed if
        > your wife or child dies or that "my father is nothing to me, only
        > the good". To become a stoic is to endorse the truthfulness of its
        > world view and accept its prescription for how you ought to live, not
        > just to like how it makes you feel.
        >
        >
        > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Robertson" <don.robertson@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > There are loads of comments on Stoicism already (over 70 people) on
        > this
        > > new article in The Guardian about @Stoicweek
        > >
        > >
        > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/stoic-week-stiff-upp\
        > \
        > > er-lip
        > >
        > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/stoic-week-stiff-up\
        > \
        > > per-lip>
        > >
        > > Donald Robertson
        > >
        >
      • Moe Johnson
        I don t understand. How can one develop an Islamic CBT if one must drop any talk of God or providence? This excerpt seems contradictory to me. -- Moe
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 11, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          I don't understand. How can one develop an Islamic CBT if one must "drop any talk of God or providence?" This excerpt seems contradictory to me.

          -- Moe



          From: Dave <ptypes@...>
          To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:42 PM
          Subject: [stoics] Re: The Guardian article on @Stoicweek

          To it's credit, CBT trains people to actually free themselves of emotions. It can serve as a model of practice even for Stoics who think it appropriate and of benefit to hold orthodox ethical beliefs.

          Best wishes,
          Dave

          http://philosophyforlife.org/in-defence-of-stoic-week/

          "There have always been philosophers who criticise the modern use of Stoicism as a form of practical therapy. When I published an interview with Albert Ellis (the pioneer of CBT) back in 2007, Mark Vernon criticised my article for mistakenly conflating Stoicism with CBT, and ignoring the differences between the two. CBT was, at best, `Stoicism lite', he wrote. I disagreed at the time, but now I think he makes a fair point – CBT does leave out a lot of Stoicism, not least its cosmology, its theism, and its ethical value system. It instrumentalises it, turning it into a set of techniques rather than a comprehensive moral system.

          "You can understand why CBT did that. To become a scientifically credible therapy, it had to drop any talk of God or providence, or even of the meaning of life. It teaches people how to transform their emotions, how to steer the self, without telling them where to steer the self to. It leaves people to decide for themselves what the meaning or goal of life is. You could develop a Marxist CBT, or an Islamic, Buddhist, Epicurean, capitalist or Aristotelian CBT. All it teaches you is how to transform the self and its emotions, not what the ideal self looks like."


          --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "TheophileEscargot" <snailman100@...> wrote:
          >
          > Some mixed responses to Stoic Week, from Jules Evans:
          > http://philosophyforlife.org/the-revival-of-stoicism/
          > <http://philosophyforlife.org/the-revival-of-stoicism/>
          > And Julian Baggini:
          > http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with-\
          > therapy-8372420.html
          > <http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with\
          > -therapy-8372420.html>
          > Philosophy is an even clearer example. The only good reason to embrace a
          > philosophical position is that you are convinced it is true or at least
          > makes sense of the world better than the alternatives. I'm not a
          > stoic because I do not agree that we are all fragments of an
          > all-pervading divine rationality which is providentially organising the
          > world, or that Epictetus was right to say you should not be disturbed if
          > your wife or child dies or that "my father is nothing to me, only
          > the good". To become a stoic is to endorse the truthfulness of its
          > world view and accept its prescription for how you ought to live, not
          > just to like how it makes you feel.
          >
          >
          > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Robertson" <don.robertson@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > There are loads of comments on Stoicism already (over 70 people) on
          > this
          > > new article in The Guardian about @Stoicweek
          > >
          > >
          > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/stoic-week-stiff-upp\
          > \
          > > er-lip
          > >
          > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/stoic-week-stiff-up\
          > \
          > > per-lip>
          > >
          > > Donald Robertson
          > >
          >




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

          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/

          <*> Your email settings:
              Individual Email | Traditional

          <*> To change settings online go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join
              (Yahoo! ID required)

          <*> To change settings via email:
              stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com
              stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



        • Donald Robertson
          I don t think it s actually a contradiction. (I m a CBT practitioner and a student of Stoicism.) CBT doesn t prescribe a value system (of this sort) to
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't think it's actually a contradiction. (I'm a CBT practitioner and a student of Stoicism.) CBT doesn't prescribe a value system (of this sort) to clients. It wouldn't really be viable for it to try to do so. Clients in CBT are, in fact, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc., of all political persuasions.

            Clients' religious or political views aren't usually a focus of therapy (although they might be). In some cases, they will use the techniques to help themselves achieve goals consistent with their religious or political values. The therapeutic model itself is basically neutral with regard to these values but it can be used to serve them.

            If I were being a bit pedantic, I'd say that arguably some religious or political views are inherently irrational and therefore a system that values reason will clash with them ultimately. However, clearly many people manage to think fairly rationally in the context of religious or political views that other people think are deluded. That's perhaps no more of a problem for CBT than it would be for the study of logic, though.

            Best,

            Donald Robertson


            --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Moe Johnson <creakyhallway@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > I don't understand. How can one develop an Islamic CBT if one must "drop any talk of God or providence?" This excerpt seems contradictory to me.
            >
            > -- Moe
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: Dave <ptypes@...>
            > To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:42 PM
            > Subject: [stoics] Re: The Guardian article on @Stoicweek
            >
            > To it's credit, CBT trains people to actually free themselves of emotions. It can serve as a model of practice even for Stoics who think it appropriate and of benefit to hold orthodox ethical beliefs.
            >
            > Best wishes,
            > Dave
            >
            > http://philosophyforlife.org/in-defence-of-stoic-week/
            >
            > "There have always been philosophers who criticise the modern use of Stoicism as a form of practical therapy. When I published an interview with Albert Ellis (the pioneer of CBT) back in 2007, Mark Vernon criticised my article for mistakenly conflating Stoicism with CBT, and ignoring the differences between the two. CBT was, at best, `Stoicism lite', he wrote. I disagreed at the time, but now I think he makes a fair point â€" CBT does leave out a lot of Stoicism, not least its cosmology, its theism, and its ethical value system. It instrumentalises it, turning it into a set of techniques rather than a comprehensive moral system.
            >
            > "You can understand why CBT did that. To become a scientifically credible therapy, it had to drop any talk of God or providence, or even of the meaning of life. It teaches people how to transform their emotions, how to steer the self, without telling them where to steer the self to. It leaves people to decide for themselves what the meaning or goal of life is. You could develop a Marxist CBT, or an Islamic, Buddhist, Epicurean, capitalist or Aristotelian CBT. All it teaches you is how to transform the self and its emotions, not what the ideal self looks like."
            >
            >
            > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "TheophileEscargot" <snailman100@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Some mixed responses to Stoic Week, from Jules Evans:
            > > http://philosophyforlife.org/the-revival-of-stoicism/
            > > <http://philosophyforlife.org/the-revival-of-stoicism/>
            > > And Julian Baggini:
            > > http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with-\
            > > therapy-8372420.html
            > > <http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with\
            > > -therapy-8372420.html>
            > > Philosophy is an even clearer example. The only good reason to embrace a
            > > philosophical position is that you are convinced it is true or at least
            > > makes sense of the world better than the alternatives. I'm not a
            > > stoic because I do not agree that we are all fragments of an
            > > all-pervading divine rationality which is providentially organising the
            > > world, or that Epictetus was right to say you should not be disturbed if
            > > your wife or child dies or that "my father is nothing to me, only
            > > the good". To become a stoic is to endorse the truthfulness of its
            > > world view and accept its prescription for how you ought to live, not
            > > just to like how it makes you feel.
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Robertson" <don.robertson@>
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > There are loads of comments on Stoicism already (over 70 people) on
            > > this
            > > > new article in The Guardian about @Stoicweek
            > > >
            > > >
            > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/stoic-week-stiff-upp\
            > > \
            > > > er-lip
            > > >
            > > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/stoic-week-stiff-up\
            > > \
            > > > per-lip>
            > > >
            > > > Donald Robertson
            > > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
          • creakyhallway
            Okay, that makes sense. Thanks!
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Okay, that makes sense. Thanks!



              --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Robertson" <don.robertson@...> wrote:
              >
              > I don't think it's actually a contradiction. (I'm a CBT practitioner and a student of Stoicism.) CBT doesn't prescribe a value system (of this sort) to clients. It wouldn't really be viable for it to try to do so. Clients in CBT are, in fact, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc., of all political persuasions.
              >
              > Clients' religious or political views aren't usually a focus of therapy (although they might be). In some cases, they will use the techniques to help themselves achieve goals consistent with their religious or political values. The therapeutic model itself is basically neutral with regard to these values but it can be used to serve them.
              >
              > If I were being a bit pedantic, I'd say that arguably some religious or political views are inherently irrational and therefore a system that values reason will clash with them ultimately. However, clearly many people manage to think fairly rationally in the context of religious or political views that other people think are deluded. That's perhaps no more of a problem for CBT than it would be for the study of logic, though.
              >
              > Best,
              >
              > Donald Robertson
              >
              >
              > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Moe Johnson <creakyhallway@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > I don't understand. How can one develop an Islamic CBT if one must "drop any talk of God or providence?" This excerpt seems contradictory to me.
              > >
              > > -- Moe
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ________________________________
              > > From: Dave <ptypes@>
              > > To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
              > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:42 PM
              > > Subject: [stoics] Re: The Guardian article on @Stoicweek
              > >
              > > To it's credit, CBT trains people to actually free themselves of emotions. It can serve as a model of practice even for Stoics who think it appropriate and of benefit to hold orthodox ethical beliefs.
              > >
              > > Best wishes,
              > > Dave
              > >
              > > http://philosophyforlife.org/in-defence-of-stoic-week/
              > >
              > > "There have always been philosophers who criticise the modern use of Stoicism as a form of practical therapy. When I published an interview with Albert Ellis (the pioneer of CBT) back in 2007, Mark Vernon criticised my article for mistakenly conflating Stoicism with CBT, and ignoring the differences between the two. CBT was, at best, `Stoicism lite', he wrote. I disagreed at the time, but now I think he makes a fair point â€" CBT does leave out a lot of Stoicism, not least its cosmology, its theism, and its ethical value system. It instrumentalises it, turning it into a set of techniques rather than a comprehensive moral system.
              > >
              > > "You can understand why CBT did that. To become a scientifically credible therapy, it had to drop any talk of God or providence, or even of the meaning of life. It teaches people how to transform their emotions, how to steer the self, without telling them where to steer the self to. It leaves people to decide for themselves what the meaning or goal of life is. You could develop a Marxist CBT, or an Islamic, Buddhist, Epicurean, capitalist or Aristotelian CBT. All it teaches you is how to transform the self and its emotions, not what the ideal self looks like."
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "TheophileEscargot" <snailman100@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Some mixed responses to Stoic Week, from Jules Evans:
              > > > http://philosophyforlife.org/the-revival-of-stoicism/
              > > > <http://philosophyforlife.org/the-revival-of-stoicism/>
              > > > And Julian Baggini:
              > > > http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with-\
              > > > therapy-8372420.html
              > > > <http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-are-we-so-obsessed-with\
              > > > -therapy-8372420.html>
              > > > Philosophy is an even clearer example. The only good reason to embrace a
              > > > philosophical position is that you are convinced it is true or at least
              > > > makes sense of the world better than the alternatives. I'm not a
              > > > stoic because I do not agree that we are all fragments of an
              > > > all-pervading divine rationality which is providentially organising the
              > > > world, or that Epictetus was right to say you should not be disturbed if
              > > > your wife or child dies or that "my father is nothing to me, only
              > > > the good". To become a stoic is to endorse the truthfulness of its
              > > > world view and accept its prescription for how you ought to live, not
              > > > just to like how it makes you feel.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Robertson" <don.robertson@>
              > > > wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > There are loads of comments on Stoicism already (over 70 people) on
              > > > this
              > > > > new article in The Guardian about @Stoicweek
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/stoic-week-stiff-upp\
              > > > \
              > > > > er-lip
              > > > >
              > > > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/stoic-week-stiff-up\
              > > > \
              > > > > per-lip>
              > > > >
              > > > > Donald Robertson
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.