Existentialism vs. Stoicism | Daniel Kaufman, Massimo Pigliucci, & Skye Cleary [Sophia]

4:27 Fundamentals of Stoicism…
8:45 …and existentialism
12:43 The roles we play
21:00 Seasickness and other things we can’t control
26:02 Contributions to psychotherapy from Stoics and existentialists
32:33 Suicide, “the only serious philosophical problem”
41:46 Stoicism as a philosophy of love
62:46 When being virtuous is close to impossible
Daniel Kaufman (Missouri State University, The Electric Agora), Massimo Pigliucci (CUNY Graduate Center), Skye Cleary (skyecleary.com, Existentialism and Romantic Love)
Watch this video on MeaningofLife.tv: meaningoflife.tv/videos/38474
Recorded on March 21, 2017
Subscribe to the MeaningofLife.tv CZcams channel: goo.gl/J9BHA4
Follow us on Twitter: / meaninglifetv
Like us on Facebook: / meaningoflife.tv

[@PiliSmasher]

Great talk. Thanks for sharing

[@notexactlyrocketscience]

1:20:30 maybe shouldn't have so easily accepted the argument that it's a "dry humping" grey theory practice that fails or doesn't work when you need it, therefore forsaking the entire foundation.

[@andydavis6497]

The question of pleasure within virtue ethics is interesting to me. Aquinas wrote that the ends of sex are for procreation and relationship enhancement in marriage. Might also an end of sex be a kind of playful pleasure? What might a modern stoic or virtue ethicists say about pleasure being an end? Might the pursuit of pleasure be akin to the target that the archer aims her arrow towards? That is, she may not attain pleasure, yet, the pursuit of pleasure might be a kind of virtuous activity (in the same way that the pursuit of justice or truth is virtuous).

[@afanasymarinov2236]

62:46 Not all people were reduced to animality in WWII concentration camps. Daniel should read Viktor Frankl's man's search for meaning, there Frankl clearly describes that while some inmates did degenerate until nothing but animal instincts were left, others showed virtue, kindness, altruism, humanity. Thus, Frankl concludes that man has under all circumstances a positive vertical vector, the freedom to choose between succumbing to bestiality or orienting oneself towards virtuousness.

[@squatch545]

I thought all philosophers from Australia were named Bruce?

[@bradmodd7856]

ughh...ok...it is a joke, well constructed and sharp...doesn't quite land though. There is no field of thought quite as pythonesque as philosophy. It is like the Ministry of silly talks.... anything goes...

[@stavros1568]

Stoicism crushes existentialism

[@josh124c]

I had to look this up just to see if existentialism held any merit.
From what I can tell, it's just trying to water down stoicism to later break it down

[@danielaiello6461]

I wish she was a bit more knowledgeable 😕 this had the potential to be a great conversation.

[@abathur205]

3rd person question finish him. He start to go around to much, give no answer. Human nature > stoicism. Many people react stoic sometimes. It is natural something but mostly very unpractical and idealistic

[@stavros1568]

Idealism is the whole point

[@EclecticSceptic]

Stoicism (the philosophy) is different to stoicism (tough, unemotional). The ancient Stoic philosophers recognised very well that people often react with fear, anger, sadness, etc, to their circumstances and that being wise isn't innate. That is why much of Stoic philosophy consists in ways of training ourselves, by doing psychological exercises, by reflecting upon what a good life is, by testing ourselves in the laboratory of daily action.
Stoicism doesn't reject what we would call 'emotion' in modern times. Rather, it is more about bringing reason and emotion into harmony with one another, and not being ruined by irrational or damaging feelings. The 'sage' would experience a particular kind of joy, love, and so forth. There's a pretty nuanced approach.

[@BNK2442]

The atheist/skeptic community went from Christopher Hitchens to whatever the name of this girl is. I'm glad I'm not part of it.