Video

Another great talk! Thanks for including the q&a this time, I usually can’t make these events live, so the full session recording is appreciated! Can always learn a lot from other people’s questions…

such a great talk thanks

💪

Fantastic! Thanks for posting this, I missed it live…

I'm going to sound like a snarky, whiny, juvenile leftist here (tho in reality, I am very, very far removed from being a leftist, take my word for it), but seriously, if Seneca counsels people to put on a happy face at the murder of their children, motherfuck Seneca. I understand his point about those who routinely find themselves in the presence of 'kings' having to train themselves to endure all sorts of bullshit, but is there no point at which he is willing to draw the line? I would rather die than endure the kind of humiliation Seneca expects me to smile at. And if he's unwilling (or perhaps worse, unimaginative) enough to criticize the very system (kings, royals, nobility etc) that forces men from time to time to be humiliated in such manner, then he is the moral inferior of, roughly, every communist to have ever lived. (And I do not say that lightly.)

Love these Zooms! Thank you for what you do.

Just finished the Seneca book, on Audible - Enjoyed it!

Yes, they seem to all work together. I first considered the virtue of wisdom as related to thought, and justice as related to behavior, for instance. But as I thought more, I saw that you can't have right behavior without right thought. Courage and temperance are both behavioral and how we think, and depend on the wisdom we bring to them.

He is dead. He would mock women rights too.

36 min in and all they’ve done is to discuss whether stoicism is relevant to modern day life. I wanted to just learn more about it, not whether the elite think I should be learning about it or not.

Very well spoken. Especially with regards to desire and aversion.

I hope they publish an audiobook version.

Great session.

Useful and accessible presentation by 2 people who really know what they're talking about. Thank you both.

🧠💡🏛🏞🌅🙏🏿

19:15 I think the problem is that (outside of Stoic and/or positive psychology circles) we don't often use language to distinguish happiness from true-happiness. Most research asks how happy a person is, in one form or another, but it rarely invites them to reflect if they actually have good reasons to be happy. It makes sense that some forms of research would have to operationalize "happiness" to a simple mood/affective state - I'm not suggesting that such methods can't produce useful knowledge; however, I think we should have more self-respect and prioritize having good reasons to be happy rather than happiness itself.

It would be interesting if he had a conversation with Prof. B Rahula (Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula). He makes a convincing argument that Early Buddhism put significant emphasis on practicality in everyday people's life, but various historical factors have led to its relative neglect.

Thank you! I had the chance to listen to Jennifer live! It was amazing. Looking forward to the next meet in March!❤❤❤

I have listened to this several times and it is really good and helpful!

horrible presentation

Great conversation. Thanks!

Whats wring with being oneself. Every religion is constant self criticism to reach some impossible goal of what they think is perfection

Very articulately explained!! Two thumbs up for the presenter. It would have been great to get the sources, both primary and secondary, in case any one wanted to delve deeper into it.

Thanks so much! Learned so much!

We chose entertainment and ease over education and hardship a long time ago. That error is beautifully becoming evident

Great ✨️ lecture ✨️

we owe it to stoicism to reject totalitarianism and fascist politicians pushing injections on us

I agree it may take months or years to show progress externally ie until others notice. BUT: internally, Stoic wisdom works instantly. I guess Seneca himself says sth like "philosophy is the best of remedies because it works immediately and has no side effects".

Marcus Aurelius: "Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking."

As to the creation of the peacock in order to appreciate the beauty of the male's tail (and possibly the dance for a mate), I lean towards it being a visual way to instill awe in the observer. Using a visual method to instill a feeling is an easy way to give example of how being virtuous would instill awe in others who witness your virtuosity. The awe of one who witnesses someone courageously rescuing another, as an example. Not to be in awe of another which inflates the ego of the seen, but as a way to entice the witness to take on the building of their own virtues. The gods placing beauty within the world evokes awe, "a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder." -Oxford Dictionary

Brilliant.....many thanks for sharing this video....that man Epictetus is amazing..... I really appreciate that fundamental rule.....thanks for spreading the good word....

This was an amazing event. Stoicism is alive and well.

Excellent discussion I would also take a look at Quintus Curtis’s recent translation of Cicero’s on duties

Excellent talk! Thanks

I completed all 52 weeks of exercises in Massimo's Handbook for a new Stoic, inspired by Ben Franklin who said in his autobiography that he had done something similar over a year period. I found the exercises an excellent way of examining myself and learning a new way to address thoughts, actions, judgements, working with others, my roles, etc. It was extremely helpful to get to know myself better, pick up new perspectives or ways of dealing with every day issues. Afterwards though, putting the weeks together and attempting to be more concise going forward was difficult. At the end of the book is advised to work on the exercises that most appealed or I felt I needed the most work. However, I enjoyed each of the exercises and was only able to boil them down to 30 or 40. Still a daunting task to use in a weekly period. Even Ben Franklin became overwhelmed by philosophy and why he developed his own 13 virtues to use weekly. Overall, though I still try to work on these daily or weekly. Understanding more about Stoicism from these exercises, I was compelled to go back and read through Epictetus Discourses, reading one discourse each night which I've also found helpful. Reading them again with this new understanding what he says is so much more clear now. I also journal nightly using similar questions discussed here, though I found Epictetus listed different questions to ask, although somewhat similar, has also been very helpful. After a while, the meaning of "what went well" or "what didn't go well" takes on a deeper reflection and definition, starting initially from what I did physically that day to reflecting on what I did in relation to my character (thoughts, perspective, reactions, judgements, desires/aversions, actions, intentions, etc). Aversion was a big one and internalizing that has been immensely helpful with reducing anxiety, anger and helpful to approach almost anything much more calmly. Nice discussion thanks for putting this out here!

such a great event! thanks.

As above, so below.

Wonderfully read

Wow thank you!

Fantastic. As Dostoyevsky said “Beauty will save the world”.

I need translate to spanish all this información

Thank you for this! Listening to it on my commute

nicely done

LOVE IT

Great content!❤

Crummy audio

For those speculating, Massimo does not appear to have changed his antipathy towards the Stoics. He gets this right: quoting Aistė Čelkytė: "So beauty was understood by the Stoics as symmetria, which means a combination of two things, harmony of parts with each other and functional integration of those parts within the whole." Primarily because he is quoting somebody else, then continues on a discussion of art, peacock tails, and the perceived elegance of scientific formula" However entirely ignores the understanding of this idea of beauty as the base, proportionate, measured, balanced, coherent structure from which living things arise, physically from the recombination of base minerals into more complex and intricate structures. It proceeds throughs from seed, through sexual reproduction, which he bizarrely places in contrast to the algorithmic methodical Nature of evolution and inexplicably drags the Christians into the discussion. "For the Stoics beauty is a property built into the world, as we said, from an emotional perspective. (for Massimo) It's not a property built into the world, and it's a property relative to a particular type of biological beings. " The first is false; it is not emotional; it is Pythagorean. The second is his Neo-Cartesian human exceptionalism (again). The Stoics would say the beauty, harmony, proportion, measure, balance, and coherence comes first, and we come to appreciate it. How he is going to square the virtue of a human being beautiful, proportionate, measured, balanced, and coherent in Stoic thinking, having chucked out the idea of beauty as guff, I cannot imagine. “For you yourself are neither flesh nor hair, but prohairesis and if you render that beautiful, then you yourself will be beautiful.” Discourse 3.1.40 Goodness and beauty are synonymous in Stoicism, pretty much. Oti monon to kalon agathon. ὅτι μόνον τὸ καλὸν ἀγαθόν Only what is beautiful is good. There are broadly four ideas of the good in Stoicism. 1) Cosmic harmony, order, and beauty; 2) Life in accordance with Nature, the cosmos, the whole. 3) Virtue as excellence of character, a soul in accord with itself and the right reason. 4) Acting unselfishly to the benefit of the common good, humanity as a single community, Cosmopolis They are all inter-entailing. .unified. They are all the same idea variously expressed precisely: wholeness, harmony, sympathy, and the intricate and intimate connection between all things and equilibrium between them. Going forward into a New Stoicism without referencing this fundamental aspect thinking of the Greeks, Socrates, Zeno, Chrysippus, Musonius, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus is going to be problematic

Excellent! Vervaeke articulates very well some deep and complex ideas.