"Mortality and Meaning" (from "Everything Has Two Handles")

I apologize for the long delay in my posts . . . life has a way of intervening even when you set yourself a blogging schedule . . .

From Pies' Everything Has Two Handles:

"Chapter Two: Mortality and Meaning

'Since it is possible that you may depart from this life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly'
~ Marcus Aurelius (Long, 25)

'[T}he one who lives longest and the one who will die soonest lose just the same.'
~ Marcus Aurelius (Long, 29)"

     The chapter begins with the observation that "[o]ur American culture does not deal very well with the issue of death" - the fact that our culture is permeated with the "denial of death" (even to the point of euphemisms like "passed on" or "passed away" to avoid saying that someone has died. The ancient Stoics, on the other hand, "recognized that a keen awareness of death gives us the opportunity to create meaning in our lives."

     The need to "create" meaning in life has only grown as Western society has grown more secular, leaving behind medieval Judaeo-Christian thought in order to return to more a more classical understanding of our place in the cosmos, which does not reassure that there is a meaning to life, and that meaning is the service of the Judaeo-Christian god. Some see this as a negative thing, while others see it as a return to a better understanding of the true nature of the universe. Either way, it has left a bit of a void in Western thought, even among those who remain devout Judaeo-Christians. Stoicism offers a system of thought upon what to create to fill that void. Anyway . . .

     Pies observes that "although it often strikes us as 'cruel' when a young and promising life is cut short, the Stoics remind us that - in the larger scheme of eternity - there is little difference between 'the one who lives longest' and 'the one who will die the soonest.' This is a hard concept for many of us to accept, since we are conditioned to think in terms of longevity rather than depth and quality of life. But a hundred or thousand years from now, it will make little difference whether you or I lived to an age of 35 or 95. On the other hand, it might make a considerable difference if, in our lives, we performed many acts of kindness, or left behind a cure for cancer, or a book of poems that comforts generations to follow." I have heard people object to this line of thought that "in a thousand years, it won't matter whether I was a good or bad person any more than it will matter whether I lived to be 35 or 95". But that is manifestly untrue - the repercussions of good and evil deeds live on infinitely after in linear time, and besides, think of how the achievements of great people live on, regardless of the length of their life. One of my favorite poets, Gaius Valerius Catullus, only lived to be about 30, yet his collection of poems can still be found in bookstores more than 2000 years later . . .

"'A life is never incomplete if it is an honorable one. At whatever point you leave life, if you leave it in the right way, it is a whole.
~ Seneca (Letter LXXVII; Campbell, 125)"

     There is a lot of good analysis in this chapter on the roots of human suffering in attachment and demanding that the nature of things be other than what it is, noting this idea is not unique to Stoicism, but is also found in Buddhist, Hindu, and Judaic traditions, as well as in modern psychology.

Today's Stoic Reading - "Reflections about Stoic Ethics at Work"

     My Stoic reading for today was an article in "The Stoic Philosopher: A Quarterly EJournal Published by the Marcus Aurelius School of the College of Stoic Philosophers." The article was entitled "Some Reflections about Stoic Ethics at Work." The title could potentially be misleading, by "at work," the author did not mean "in practice" (since every Stoic should be a practical rather than merely theoretical philosopher), but rather "in the workplace." Here is the link to the article by Manolo Trueba:

http://stoicscollege.com/PDF/eJournal07.pdf

     I found the article very interesting, especially in its emphasis on the Stoic as a part of multiple communities, including a work community. I tend to find that modern Stoics spend much more time thinking about themselves, their own emotional states, their own practice, and so forth, and not as much time thinking about this communal aspect of philosophical living. I think it's definitely worth thinking about!

Emotions and Feelings

     From Margaret R. Graver's Stoicism and Emotion, on the topic of emotions and feelings:

     " . . . [H]aving an emotion is not quite the same as having a feeling. The feeling is our subjective awareness of a physical change in the psychic material; it is something that happens when one has an emotion, but the possibility is left open that it may also occur at other times and for other reasons . . .
     This is a point that proves to be crucially important when we seek to understand the norm laid down in Stoic ethics for the optimization of our affective experience. For among the best-attested and most generally known claims of this ethical system is that the genuinely wise person exhibits apatheia or impassivity; that is, the absence of the pathē. Realizing the fullest of human potential means, for Stoics, not only that one becomes able to control or channel the emotions but that one actually ceases to experience emotions as we known them. The distinction between emotions and feelings therefore serves to open up an interpretive space around a central dictum  of Stoic ethics. If the psychic sensations we experience in emotion are not simply identical with the pathē, then the norm of apatheia does not have to be cashed out as an injunction against every human feeling. One might be impassive in the Stoic sense and still remain subject to other categories of affective experience.
     . . . The capacity to undergo a wide range of feelings is . . . 'hard-wired,' as we would say, into the human psyche. Thus to deny any role for feeling in the life of the wise would be to claim that human beings are endowed by nature with psychic equipment for which we have no legitimate use. As the endowment of nature plays a role in Stoicism analogous to that played by the evolutionary endowment in our own science, this would be the equivalent of saying in a modern context that a creature has evolved capacities which do not promote its effective functioning in its environment. People would have something like a foot in the middle of their foreheads."

     Most of this is quite well put, but I feel the analogy with modern evolutionary science runs up against some misconceptions at the end. The misconception is that "evolution" is some magical thing that improves creatures to be better able to deal with their environments. A foot in the forehead is silly, so it couldn't happen. Except that such is exactly how evolution works according to science - random mutations (like a foot in the forehead) that either prove beneficial (and thus evolve into a standard feature), are neutral (and thus survive or fail somewhat randomly), or are maladaptive (and thus cause the extinction of all who share the mutation, thus preventing it from becoming a standard feature). The step that Graver leaves out is that standard Stoicism contains something like "intelligent design" - the idea that the gods, that Nature, is guiding the development of all things. So useless capacity for affective response, like a foot in the forehead, is not possible . . . because the gods or Nature would not allow such a thing to happen.

Distress and Delight

     An ancient summary of "distress" and "delight" found in Margaret R. Graver's Stoicism and Emotion:
     "Distress is a contraction of the psyche which is disobedient to reason, and its cause is a fresh believing that some evil is present toward which it is appropriate to be contracted [systole]. Delight is an elevation of the psyche which is disobedient to reason, and its cause is a fresh believing that some good is present towards which it is appropriate to be elevated [eparsis]."

More on the notion of "assent"

      From Margaret R. Graver's Stoicism and Emotion: "One particularly important class of assents is those called hormai, impulses or action tendencies. From a psychological and moral perspective what matters about action is the mental event that initiates it, and this event can be described as a special form of assent; that is, assent to a proposition of a particular 'impulsory' kind."

      "A further Stoic definition of impulse makes it 'a motion of psyche toward something,' namely, toward the predicate contained in the endorsed proposition."

     "Emotions are defined by Zeno as 'excessive impulses,' that is, as action tendencies of a certain powerful kind. Since every impulse involves assenting to some impulsory impression, the definition implies that emotions, too, depend on our formulating and ratifying certain propositions about ourselves and our surroundings."

The Concept of "Assent"

The Concept of "Assent"

     In Margaret R. Graver's Stoicism and Emotion, she addresses the essential concept of "assenting" to our impressions:
     "An impression is what one might call a mere thought, a linguistically formulable notion that one entertains without necessarily being committed to it. What converts thought into belief is a further mental event which is termed variously 'assent' (sunkatathesis), 'judgment' (krisis), or 'forming an opinion' (doxazein). Assent is defined in intentional terms: it is that event in which one either accepts an impression as true or rejects it as false. That assent also has a physical description comes across most clearly in those texts which treat the conditioning factors for assent, whether or not it occurs in any given instance. For those conditioning factors are described both in intentional terms, e.g. as the extend to which the person recognizes valid inferences, and in physical terms as a certain level of tension in the mind material. Thus several sources claim that the assent in the person of perfect understanding [the sage] is characterized by 'strength' or 'good tension,' while the less reliable assents of ordinary persons are 'weak.' The ordinary mind is, as it were, a pushover, yielding easily to impressions which the wise person would resist."

     It is of particular importance to note that Stoicism holds that (other than a brief reflexive reaction to incoming impressions that is quickly mastered in reasonable beings) we are in control of whether or not we assent to our impressions. The world tries to impress us, to act upon our minds in various ways. The Stoic knows that nothing can act upon his or her mind without his or her assent.

Spirit - Stoic Terminology

     Needleman and Piazza use the words "Spirit" or "Divine Spirit" to translate the Greek daimon in Marcus Aurelius. As they note, "This is the origin of the English word 'demon,' but here it does not have a purely negative association. For the Greeks, a daimon is a lower class of deity, which could enter (or possess) a person. The most famous daimon of Greek philosophy is that of Socrates. In the Apology, Socrates says that his daimon is a sort of inner guide, which tells him only when he is not doing what he ought to. For the Stoics, it also serves as an internal guide, to whom we refuse to listen at our peril. In the Symposium, Plato describes Eros, the god of love, as a daimon because he is an intermediary between humans and gods. The Christian concept of spirit (especially the Holy Spirit) comes from a different Greek term, pneuma, which is associated with breath."

Soul - Stoic Terminology

     Needleman and Piazza translate Marcus Aurelius' psyche as "soul," commenting "In Greek thought, the psuchē [sic] is generally thought to be what animates all living creatures ('animate' is from Latin, meaning 'things which have an anima, or soul'). This higher part is all that remains of our essential humanity."

Coming Soon: Thoughts on Margaret R. Graver's Stoicism and Emotion . . .

Reason - Stoic Terminology

     In Marcus Aurelius (and other Stoic authors in Greek), the word logos is of prime importance. Needleman and Piazza translate this word as "Reason," and explain, "While logos can mean reason, cause, discourse, or conversation, in the Meditations it often refers to the principle which orders all things in the COSMOS [q.v.], and will sometimes be translated with a capital 'R.' In the context of philosophical discourse, it is used to signify both the form and the content of what is being said. In an individual, reason is what INTELLIGENCE [q.v.] uses in order to make a right decision."

Principle (Dogma) - Stoic Terminology

     The Greek word dogma, which Needleman and Piazza translate as "principle," "guiding-principle," "life-principle," or "rules of living" rather than using the English loanword "dogma," has a clearly different connotation in the Greek of Marcus Aurelius from that in modern English. They comment: "For the Greeks (and many Christians) however, [dogma] is not a rigid law to be accepted and followed blindly. Rather, a dogma is a concept which is meant to be meditated upon and realized or actualized in one's life, the value of which is learned through experience and adherence."

Nature - Stoic Terminology

     Needleman and Piazza use the English word "nature" where Marcus Aurelius uses the Greek phusis (and where, undoubtedly, Stoic authors in Latin would have used natura). They note that the multiple senses of the English word can mislead us: "Nature as in 'the beauty of nature,' meaning the outdoors, and nature as in 'it is his nature to do that' or 'he's a natural.' The former notion gets its name from being a product of the latter, which also refers to the innermost being of a thing, or 'what it is,' and also its function. Nature with a capital N is the force behind all things that grow, and this is apparent from the origin of the Greek verb phuein, which means 'to grow.' It is also referred to by Marcus as Universal Nature."

Leisure - Stoic Terminology

     It seems appropriate, as I return from a long hiatus, that the next Stoic term for discussion is "leisure," translating the Greek scholē. Needleman and Piazza comment: "This is the source of the English word 'school,' and so we must assume it is not the same as idleness. On the contrary, for the Greek and Roman philosophers, it is idleness which motivates people to be busybodies and workaholics. Leisure, on the other hand, is the environment and state of mind in which one is relatively free from manual labor and concerns of survival, which only then allows time for study and meditation."

Justice - Stoic Terminology

     In translating Marcus Aurelius, Needleman and Piazza use the term "Justice" to translate the Greek words dikē or dikaiosynē, noting that while others have translated such terms as "morality," that gives an incomplete picture of the meaning of the term. They note: "'Justice' remains the best English word, for it is a concept which has its roots in legal terminology but applies to every aspect of our behavior toward others and ourselves. Plato, in The Republic, defines justice internally as a right ordering of the parts of the SOUL [q.v.] and externally as the right ordering of the parts of a society."

Judgement - Stoic Terminology

To the Greek word hypolēpsis in Marcus Aurelius, Needleman and Piazza regularly give the English equivalent "Judgment," or also "Grasp," "Decision," or "Choice." They comment: "This is the faculty by which we perceive and assess the IMPRESSIONS [q.v.] which affect the SOUL [q.v.]."

Intelligence - Stoic Terminology

The Greek word nous in Marcus Aurelius is normally translated as "Intelligence" or "Mind"  by Needleman and Piazza. They comment: "This is the highest and most rational part of the SOUL [q.v.] and is the faculty by which we can perceive and understand the world at its most real and most good."

Independence - Stoic Terminology

In Needleman and Piazza's translation of Marcus Aurelius, the word "Independence" is usually the translation of the Greek word eleutheria. They comment: "For Marcus Aurelius, the word refers primarily to a state of inner freedom, rather than freedom from external constraints, which are often beyond one's control."

Impression, Imagining - Stoic Terminology

     Needleman and Piazza translate the Greek word phantasia in Marcus Aurelius as "impression," "imagining," "thought," or even "conception." Here is their commentary on this usage: "An impression is anything which is 'impressed' on our minds, either from external sense phenomena or internally from EMOTIONS [q.v.], thoughts, or internal sensations. For the Stoics, this is the necessary first step in the cognitive process, and right living lies not in the character of these impressions but in our reactions to them. The task of philosophy, then, is to master one's reactions to such impressions through study and meditation."

Guiding Part or Governing Part - Stoic Terminology

Piazza and Needleman use the terms "guiding part" and "governing part" to translate the Greek term hēgēmonikon in Marcus Aurelius. Their commentary follows: "The Greek and Roman philosophers viewed the human soul as composed of parts, or aspects, which can be either in harmony or in conflict with each other. Right ordering consists in allowing the naturally rational part to control the lower appetitive parts, with the result being a harmonia of the entire person. Vice and unhappiness result from a kind of inner mutiny, in which the lower appetitive parts rule over the rational, and the latter works in the service of the former."

Godlike: Stoic Terminology

     Needleman and Piazza's The Essential Marcus Aurelius distinguishes the Stoic conception of God from the Christian God (although there are perhaps more similarities in conception than are shared with a pagan god or gods). In the end, it is important to remember that the ancient Stoics were pagans, and believed in many gods, although they had a strong Unitarian streak, declaring all divine things to share in a single divine nature, so that the gods and even the divine "sparks" within us are all of a single kind. They go on to examine the term "godlike" (translating the Greek term theoeidēs), saying that "the Stoic ideal is to live a life that is closer to that of the gods. This notion is based on the idea that we all have a divine 'spark' inside us, which gives us all superhuman, or divine potential. To be merely human is to deny the divine part of ourselves, whereas to tend and cultivate the divine element of ourselves is to be truly human. This theory is most likely influenced by Plato, who says in his dialogue Theaetetus that the best way of like is to be as godlike as possible."

Excellence: The Terminology of Stoicism

     As Needleman and Piazza note in their book The Essential Marcus Aurelius,  the word "excellence" is used to translate the Greek word aretē, and "[m]ost translators have carried over the Latin equivalent virtus into the English 'virtue.' But that word has too much of a strictly moral connotation. We must remember that even well into the philosophical age, the Greek word retained its original functional meaning. A chair possesses aretē when it is well built, thus performing its function well. This word applies to human beings in the same manner. Therefore, we possess aretē when we are living up to our human and moral potential, for which we were made."