The Stoic God | Kai Whiting & Leonidas Konstantakos
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 07. 2024
- Kai Whiting, Leonidas Konstantakos, and Simon Drew discuss the Stoic God, followed by a conversation/Q&A with members of Simon’s Patreon community.
About Kai Whiting: Kai Whiting is a researcher and lecturer in sustainability and Stoicism based at UCLouvain, Belgium. He Tweets @kaiwhiting and blogs over at StoicKai.com.
About Leonidas Konstantakos: Leonidas Konstantakos is a PhD candidate working on Stoicism and International Relations, especially Stoic just war theory. He, along with Kai Whiting, is the co-author of “Being Better, Stoicism for a World Worth Living in”.
To listen to the entire conversation (about 60 minutes extra) you can go to patreon.com/simonjedrew/ and sign up for any tier level.
To register to attend any of the next conversations with Kai and Leo you can visit simonjedrew.com/patreon/
To buy Being Better - Stoicism for a World Worth Living in please visit: www.amazon.com/Being-Better-S...
Love the devotion of Leonidas
Host asked several times what is logos and both go on some tangents and evade explaining it.
It's such a complex thing to explain. I've had many answers to the same question.
To me there is a need for a distinction between two types of God in this discussion that are convoluted still after half the episode:
1. The "logic of the universe" god of Stoicism. Non-personal, all encompassing, the way that there even is logic, that rhymes with Logos.
2. The personal Christian God which answers prayers and so on.
As an Atheist, I have not taken the Christian step of starting to believe in the second of the two. The first, however, is merely semantic. The logic of the universe is self evident. It's the basis for mathematics and physics. It is useful as basis for ethics in the form of "Logos". The first is utterly natural where the second requires a large dose of supernatural things.
Thank you Mikael, we will try to be more concise as early as possible.. Where did you think we did better in the episode?
The logic of the universe is self evident. It's the basis for mathematics and physics. It is useful as basis for ethics in the form of "Logos"
I wouldn't count on some of universes architecture as basis of ethics but definitely physics.
I would be interested to hear your positions regarding Aristo of Chios. He was a contemporary of Zeno's, and had serious debates regarding the limits of our capacity to observe and understand the cosmos. He rejected the idea of providence and of the Stoic God, basing his argument on the position that we could not perceive the Logos/Stoic God.
Aristo asserted that because the Logos could not be perceived, it should not be integrated into Stoic metaphysics. His argument essentially boiled down to "the idea of a providential Logos is both unnecessary and imperceptible." Because of his (and many early Stoics') fixation on katalepsis, he asserted that Stoics ought to instead focus on what they could themselves observe and rationally understand. His competing version of early Stoicism gave Zeno a run for his money, though ultimately the ancients chose Zeno's over Aristo's. To me, it's unclear why.
From a historical perspective, I can fully accept that ancient Stoicism was a naturalistic, pantheistic philosophy. I can also recognize that Stoicism very nearly became essentially an agnostic, secular philosophy--had Aristo won the debate on the Stoa all those centuries ago.
From a practical and logical perspective, I am unconvinced of the proofs asserted by Chrysippus and the arguments posed by Rufus. We know so much more about the natural order of the universe now that we can immediately dispel aspects of ancient Stoic Physics as little more than mysticism that crept into a philosophy based on reason. However, I would like to think that Aristo and Zeno alike would cherish the wealth of information we have now about the nature of the cosmos. It would be fascinating to watch them debate the Logos under present circumstances.
All that said, I think it's unfair to say that no Stoic ever asserted there was no need for God in the philosophy. That's not to say that we can ever know for certain that God exists in some way (like I said, agnostic), but it is to say that we can appreciate Nature for what it is without needing to dress it up in the finery of the divine.
Very good question @john, sounds like we could debate that inside the walls of the Walled Garden community, as I cannot give my full view here as it would come out in the Socratic dialectic we would engage in :)
Pleased to listen to your insights!
What if we change the question? Instead of trying to undertsand philosophers who believed in God, trying to understand religious people who believed in rationality?
That might be the originality of Stoics. In many ways they are similar to a good deal of religions. A virtuous behavior as the priority is not new I think. When the Jains avoid vilolence and Jesus speaks of love those are similar ideas. And I would say this is everywhere.Just non relevant semantic differences I think. What might be original is the accent in rationality. Not the exeistence of God, but the logical feature of God. And the way we connect to God. Because the spark of God within is a shared rationalism, not a shared love.( as in Christianity) I think that is beacuse of Socrates. Greeks were in the business of rationalism already, but then there was this man who brought new dimensions of that. Moral and cosmic dimensions. Stoics were these people who thought they could see God out of a logical approach of life.Not about logical reasonings that would prove you his existence. Perhaps about a tranqulity that would come to you, as a a result of a proper behavior, based on Logic.
Very good point @joão Leite. I can tell you are an excellent student of Prof Aldo Dinucci.