- Robertson s corresponds nicely with Sellars . ... What does the stoic thought of living according to nature exactly mean? It has 3 parts. The first is, toMessage 1 of 10 , Jun 26, 2013View SourceRobertson's corresponds nicely with Sellars'.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Richard <pmsrxw@...> wrote:
> Dr. Robertson's FB Comments include
> «Zeno, in founding Stoicism, apparently described it as having a "smoothly-flowing" life, which means a state of serenity, free from unnecessary emotional suffering»
> «Folly and vice, therefore, involve living in conflict with and alienation from our own true nature, our reason and better wisdom;
What does the stoic thought of "living according to nature exactly"
mean? It has 3 parts. "The first is, to live harmoniously with one's
self, that is, of living consistently and free from emotional
conflict" (John Sellars).
Which is living in accord with oneself.
>with the rest of mankind, blaming, resenting, and misunderstanding them;
"The second is the idea of living according to one's own nature, of
living according to one's nature as a rational being and, in
particular of following this rather than passively reacting to
external forces" (John Sellars).
Which is living in accordance with human nature.
> and with the whole of Nature, cursing the gods for our fate.
"The third is the idea of bringing into harmony with nature as a
whole. As nature as a whole is organized by the active principle that
is god, and as our own nature is but a part of this, there will be no
conflict in living according to our own nature and living according to
nature as a whole" (John Sellars).
Which is living in accordance with common, or universal Nature.
> Chrysippus said the good man is alienated from nothing, whereas the fool is alienated from everything.»
> Resenting is what I termed "Resisting"
> Alienated from Nothing equates to "Accepting".
> Several modern "searches" rediscovered these principles, because they're apparently true and they work.
> Regards, Richard
It's not events that trouble us, but our judgments about events.
The universe is change; life is judgment.
- Dear Dave Kelly, Thanks for your elucidation. I appreciate it. Regards, Richard ... A vulgar man, in any ill that happens to him, blames others; a novice inMessage 2 of 10 , Jun 26, 2013View SourceDear Dave Kelly,
Thanks for your elucidation. I appreciate it.
A vulgar man, in any ill that happens to him, blames others; a novice in philosophy blames himself; and a philosopher blames neither the one nor the other.
- There s more! :) ... Don Robertson has also written about living in accordance with nature . Like Hadot, he writes of a system of coherence at three levelsMessage 3 of 10 , Jun 27, 2013View SourceThere's more! :)
--- In email@example.com, "Richard" <pmsrxw@...> wrote:
> Dear Dave Kelly,
> Thanks for your elucidation. I appreciate it.
Don Robertson has also written about "living in accordance with nature". Like Hadot, he writes of "a system of coherence at three levels of nature", which provides the basic structure for applying Epictetus' Three Disciplines.
"The name "Stoic" simply refers to the stoa poekile, the "painted porch" within which Zeno of Citium, the school's founder, delivered his lectures and training. However, Stoicism has a more descriptive name, it is also called the "Natural Life" or "Following Nature", and many variations of this phrase are used to describe the basic orientation of the system. The ancient historian of philosophy Diogenes Laertius writes, `the end [of Stoicism] turns out to be living in agreement with nature, taken as living in accordance both with one's own nature and with the nature of the whole [universe]' (Diogenes Laertius: 1964, VII: 88). In this, Diogenes is alluding to the central Stoic distinction between (internal) human nature, and the (external) Nature of the universe. In fact, this basic ideal was interpreted as applying at three levels, Diogenes could have added, `living in accord with the nature of all mankind,' because the Stoics believed that the individual self can only be understand as one part, or rather a `limb', of the community of all people. Hence, we have a system of coherence at three levels of `nature':
1. Self. Moral integrity, truthfulness, and personal authenticity
2. Mankind. Empathic understanding, social justice, philadelphia ("brotherly love")
3. Universe. Being at one with life, with the All, with the totality of Nature
"The Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, employs these three tiers of psychological relations in the therapy journal he kept, the famous Meditations, when he writes:
`Your own mind, the Mind of the universe, your neighbour's mind be prompt to explore them all. Your own, so that you may shape it to justice [and authenticity]; the universe's, that you may recollect what it is you are a part of; your neighbour's, that you may understand whether it is informed by ignorance or knowledge, and also may recognise that it is kin to your own. (Marcus Aurelius: 1964, 9:22)'
"Stoicism, therefore, is essentially a philosophy of being at one (homologoumenos), or in harmony with, the totality of life. As psychotherapy, it equates mental and emotional health with integration or a sense of "oneness" at these three levels of existence. This simple and intuitive threefold classification also provides the basic structure for applying Stoic psychotherapy, the `Threefold Rule of Life.' "
> Regards, Richard