I always viewed my apathy to be a symptom of some deep rooted depression. Little did I know I have been a Master Stoic all this time. Now of course I could be wrong about this new found interpretation of apathy. Either way I am indifferent towards it.
24:20 Importance of definition of virtue as action by means of which one attains values contrasting it with duty 30:50 grand canyon argument 31:00 wise man tranquily accept everything 31:30 enemy passion 33:00 epicurius vs stoics 34:00 action advocated 34:30 part whole 35:15 body foot analogy 38:00 critics on stoics are egoist 40:00 typical in duty approach of morality 41:00 non duty approach 42:00 emition allowed 42:20 politics 46:00 mystic defence of rights 48:00 hard soft determinism 51:00 causality free will 54:00 stoics answer to problem of evil
Passion, especially anger is the enemy of reason. All emotions must be tempered by reason. Humans are social animals. Stoicism seeks a balance between individualism , the needs of the one and the needs of the many.
I would also add that one of the things from a Stoic perspective is that humans have the falcuty of choice. There are thing in your control and things not in your control. External things like the weather and what other assholes think are not in your control. However there are things you can prepare for or try to influence.
Pre-scientific era-that is to say the understanding of natural causality-are very tricky to deploy in a modern world. They were seeking ways to cope with a world in which they literally had little or no control of their external world and indeed believed in supernatural causes for natural phenomenon so their agency was minute compared to ours. Life was brutal short and you had VERY little control over the conditions of your life, so it makes perfect sense to devise a philosophy around their very real existential situation. Our is VERY different, thus such philosophies-and I include 'Eastern' ones as well-are in the main inappropriate to contemporary life and skew FAR too passive. But it's a trendy sell....everyone wants a way to just zone out and feel nothing.
Interesting lecture, I would love to see the names of the people hes getting these concepts from. I have spent some time studying several Philosophies and much of this is totally new to me. Some of it is in such a clear contrast to Epictetus, Seneca, And Aurelius taught I have my doubts about what hes saying without some link to the source. If hes working from fragments of the early stoics the point is pointless, the later form is the evolution of imperfect ideas being worked out.
Mr. Poetic grossly misrepresents the Stoic perspective on emotions. He does not understand the difference between apathy and indifference. I am a Stoic. It is not essential for me to believe in providence. It doesn't matter to me if god exists. I would also add that modern Stocks can be and are Atheist.
@@PraniGopu Indifference can be compared to apathy, which means "lack of concern," though apathy is a little stronger: Apathy means you don't care whether your friends call you; indifference means you don't care what movie you end up seeing - you don't have a strong preference for any of the choices. You may care whether your friends don't call you but there is nothing you can do to make them call you. Apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια; from a- "without" and pathos "suffering" or "passion"), in Stoicism, refers to a state of mind in which one is not disturbed by the passions. It might better be translated by the word equanimity than the word indifference.
@@owlnyc666 I see. So, indifference is not caring, while apathy is not losing your serenity even when you do care? I'm curious now, because as you said, the meaning of apathy in stoicism is akin to equanimity, so why not use "equanimity" rather than "apathy" (which is synonymous to "indifference" for most people)? Do some stoics seek indifference while others seek equanimity?
@@PraniGopu Not quite. Indifference is caring but knowing that there are some things that are external and beyond your control. Indifference is not letting things disturb your serenity. Apathy is not even caring about serenity.
@@owlnyc666 Oh I see, I got the terms mixed up in my mind when reading your first reply 🤦 Thanks for clarifying. So, as a stoic, do you seek indifference or apathy? Because, based on your explanations of the terms, indifference seems like the healthier option...
Virtue can't be a goal in itself. You have to specify the nature of the virtues to follow them. If you don't think apathy is a virtue the stoics would agree to what are some virtues they would agree with?
@Prefect Epictetus Oxus Those are the ones just recognized by Marcus Aurelius. But I want to state for the record. I followed stoicism so hard. I wanted so badly to follow them. And I became anhedonic. Apathetic to life. I'm literally going to a psychologist for this reason.
You're probably following the 'modern' Stoicism as I did. Look, this lecture, as well as others, show why Stoicism taken from its old principles is wrong. So you should realise the modern version is a toad with a bow-tie. It's nice and dressed up, but see it for what it is, a toad.
@@booni5114 I think of stoicism pragmatically, i realized in this video that I don't follow virtue as my goal. Anyways i think stoicism as practically useful to achieve goals in my life.
@@DEJUNHODE-SAOCARLOS some parts of stoicism are really good, and I use them in my life. The tips and tricks. But the fundamental principles are wrong. And have caused a lot of harm tk my life for following them.
The Objectivist credo: Teach and learn about anything non-Objectivist with contempt and misrepresentation (see Massimo Pigliucci's response to Aaron Smith). What could go wrong? Also, if true, Epictetus was not just a brilliant man, but also a bad-ass.
You have got it backwards. Non-objectivists act like they know what objectivism stands for and why it is wrong but every "argument" they have is either an insult or strawman. And everytime someone mentions objectivism they often make a snarky comment with a condescending tone. The few actual arguments made are horrible. Leonard Peikoff and the objectivists however accurately portray other views. Leonard Peikoff's lectures have introduced me to so much more philosophy. And the arguments made are very well portrayed. Massimo's reply to Smith was pathetic and proves my point. He says that objectivism is against causality. Anyone who thinks that doesn't know what he is talking about. I have not read what Smith said but what I have seen in the article from him still stands true. Massimo seems to think virtue is value but that is not true. Stoicism tells you to be virtueus but it is opposed to value. He also says that Smith is right that stoics are indifferent to things that fate may take away and then contradicts himself by saying stoics value them. This doctrine of stoicism is especially stupid because it says that things that are provided by nature are not to be valued although many things that are provided by nature actually do give you a choice in how you interact with them. Family for example is provided by external factors but family is still something you have control over. I can distance myself from my family or embrace them. The choice to embrace family is what makes the joy you get from family yours. That some people don't get that opportunity doesnt mean you can't use that opportunity. You and Massimo should instead of declaring what we mean from a desire to strawman us or from plain lazyness of searching what we mean should actually search what objectivism says. For example: when you think "does Smith, who is an objectivist, reject causality" you search objectivism on causality. Then you will see that objectivism is very strongly behind causality. It rejects many conclusions people make about quantum mechanics like Massimo does in his article. Free will is causally necessitated in objectivism. By which we mean that a consciousness in a string of cause and effect is required to make a decision and cannot escape this. A human's nature requires him to choose in the process of conscious awareness as a ball is required to roll in the process of being pushed.
@@gch5559 Contempt: Check! (Stoicism is stupid, stupid stupid!) Misrepresentation: Check! (I didn't even read Smith's article. Sound's like Rand's ignorance of original philosophical sources.) I spent a decade neck-deep in Objectivist non-fiction. The problem was that most Objectivists I met were over-zealous d-bags (Exhibit A: your comment, to a lesser degree on the d-bag part). So, I've earned my snark. A philosophy for living on Earth needs much more psychology than metaphysical theory. Hence, Stoicism>Objectivism. At least, in practice. But don't let that stop you from another rambling, tangent-filled reply.
@@darkpatches If you spent a decade in objectivist non-fiction you would know that Massimo was wrong in his article. I don't say you didn't but you have to see he was doing the misportraying. I am against stoicism and that is not a problem. But I don't portray an argument of stoicism with contempt. The best way to discover the truth or debunk something wrong is to steelman. I think some arguments presented by stoicism that you see in this video are very convincing under the right premisses. For example that god is a naturalistic entity and that his relation to the universe is the same as man and his consciousness. But the idea that things that are given through causality are not to be valued I find very unconvincing. But if you find it convincing then explain why. If you give a good answer I will take back what I said. I did not misrepresent anything. I have not read Smith but the points he made that were shown in Massimo's article still stand. How is this misrepresentation? Also, Ayn Rand was knowledgeable on philosophy. Her knowledge of Aristotelian ideas and modern philosophical premisses show that. And even if she wasn't knowledgeable, if she was correct then she was correct. Interesting that you call objectists douchebags and me in particular too. Was I wrong to say that you should look up our ideas? Would you accept it if people attack you for something you don't actually believe? Also, objectivists have to deal with people who misrepresent them, lie and insult them all the time. I saw comment sections where people said we are psychopaths and wished terrible things upon us. If you see them standing up against that as being a douchebag then I vehemently disagree. But maybe you have met objectivists who are douchebags and then I agree that is wrong. But you have not earned your snark if you are seriously discussing philosophy which many do. I also don't think objectivists are douchebags or that the philosophy deserves the hate so I don't think you deserve it either. Psychology is not part of philosophy. It is part of science. Psychology can help inform but the fundamental values of life are acquired through ethics. A philosopher cannot do the work of a psychologist as a psychologist cannot do the work of a philosopher. There is ofcourse psycho-epistomology and some things can be assumed about psychology via philosophy and some psychological discoveries can have philosophical value. Hope this didn't come across as a hate filled comment otherwise people might think poorly of objectivists... oh wait.
NOT, NOT, NOT apathy. Objectivity are apathetic towards eveyone, except themselves of course. Even towards other objectivist. Stoicism is NOT, NOT, NOT a religion. Zero etc were not prophets. The don't regard any of their philosophers with the same degree of reverace, secular divinity ascribed to Ayn Rand!
I always viewed my apathy to be a symptom of some deep rooted depression. Little did I know I have been a Master Stoic all this time. Now of course I could be wrong about this new found interpretation of apathy. Either way I am indifferent towards it.
I love this comment haha
24:20 Importance of definition of virtue as action by means of which one attains values contrasting it with duty
30:50 grand canyon argument
31:00 wise man tranquily accept everything
31:30 enemy passion
33:00 epicurius vs stoics
34:00 action advocated
34:30 part whole
35:15 body foot analogy
38:00 critics on stoics are egoist
40:00 typical in duty approach of morality
41:00 non duty approach
42:00 emition allowed
42:20 politics
46:00 mystic defence of rights
48:00 hard soft determinism
51:00 causality free will
54:00 stoics answer to problem of evil
Passion, especially anger is the enemy of reason. All emotions must be tempered by reason. Humans are social animals. Stoicism seeks a balance between individualism , the needs of the one and the needs of the many.
Stoicism is like the best possible things you can get from a terrible base of ideas
Lot of commonalities with Hindu thought here. Probably some of it emerged around the same time.
I would also add that one of the things from a Stoic perspective is that humans have the falcuty of choice. There are thing in your control and things not in your control. External things like the weather and what other assholes think are not in your control. However there are things you can prepare for or try to influence.
Pre-scientific era-that is to say the understanding of natural causality-are very tricky to deploy in a modern world. They were seeking ways to cope with a world in which they literally had little or no control of their external world and indeed believed in supernatural causes for natural phenomenon so their agency was minute compared to ours. Life was brutal short and you had VERY little control over the conditions of your life, so it makes perfect sense to devise a philosophy around their very real existential situation. Our is VERY different, thus such philosophies-and I include 'Eastern' ones as well-are in the main inappropriate to contemporary life and skew FAR too passive. But it's a trendy sell....everyone wants a way to just zone out and feel nothing.
59:11 and Murray Rothbard, who actually discovered the correct theory of rights, where Rand fell short.
Interesting lecture, I would love to see the names of the people hes getting these concepts from. I have spent some time studying several Philosophies and much of this is totally new to me. Some of it is in such a clear contrast to Epictetus, Seneca, And Aurelius taught I have my doubts about what hes saying without some link to the source. If hes working from fragments of the early stoics the point is pointless, the later form is the evolution of imperfect ideas being worked out.
Look at the series first lecture question period. He gives the sources he is going by.
I don’t know why, but I sense a feeling of distaste by lecturer for stoicism. 😆
Mr. Poetic grossly misrepresents the Stoic perspective on emotions. He does not understand the difference between apathy and indifference. I am a Stoic. It is not essential for me to believe in providence. It doesn't matter to me if god exists. I would also add that modern Stocks can be and are Atheist.
How do apathy and indifference differ?
@@PraniGopu Indifference can be compared to apathy, which means "lack of concern," though apathy is a little stronger: Apathy means you don't care whether your friends call you; indifference means you don't care what movie you end up seeing - you don't have a strong preference for any of the choices. You may care whether your friends don't call you but there is nothing you can do to make them call you. Apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια; from a- "without" and pathos "suffering" or "passion"), in Stoicism, refers to a state of mind in which one is not disturbed by the passions. It might better be translated by the word equanimity than the word indifference.
@@owlnyc666 I see. So, indifference is not caring, while apathy is not losing your serenity even when you do care?
I'm curious now, because as you said, the meaning of apathy in stoicism is akin to equanimity, so why not use "equanimity" rather than "apathy" (which is synonymous to "indifference" for most people)? Do some stoics seek indifference while others seek equanimity?
@@PraniGopu Not quite. Indifference is caring but knowing that there are some things that are external and beyond your control. Indifference is not letting things disturb your serenity. Apathy is not even caring about serenity.
@@owlnyc666 Oh I see, I got the terms mixed up in my mind when reading your first reply 🤦 Thanks for clarifying.
So, as a stoic, do you seek indifference or apathy? Because, based on your explanations of the terms, indifference seems like the healthier option...
Quite the misrepresentation of Stoicism with the title alone. The goal isn’t apathy, but virtue.
Virtue can't be a goal in itself. You have to specify the nature of the virtues to follow them. If you don't think apathy is a virtue the stoics would agree to what are some virtues they would agree with?
@Prefect Epictetus Oxus Those are the ones just recognized by Marcus Aurelius. But I want to state for the record. I followed stoicism so hard. I wanted so badly to follow them. And I became anhedonic. Apathetic to life. I'm literally going to a psychologist for this reason.
You're probably following the 'modern' Stoicism as I did. Look, this lecture, as well as others, show why Stoicism taken from its old principles is wrong. So you should realise the modern version is a toad with a bow-tie. It's nice and dressed up, but see it for what it is, a toad.
@@booni5114 I think of stoicism pragmatically, i realized in this video that I don't follow virtue as my goal. Anyways i think stoicism as practically useful to achieve goals in my life.
@@DEJUNHODE-SAOCARLOS some parts of stoicism are really good, and I use them in my life. The tips and tricks. But the fundamental principles are wrong. And have caused a lot of harm tk my life for following them.
The Objectivist credo: Teach and learn about anything non-Objectivist with contempt and misrepresentation (see Massimo Pigliucci's response to Aaron Smith). What could go wrong?
Also, if true, Epictetus was not just a brilliant man, but also a bad-ass.
You have got it backwards. Non-objectivists act like they know what objectivism stands for and why it is wrong but every "argument" they have is either an insult or strawman. And everytime someone mentions objectivism they often make a snarky comment with a condescending tone. The few actual arguments made are horrible. Leonard Peikoff and the objectivists however accurately portray other views. Leonard Peikoff's lectures have introduced me to so much more philosophy. And the arguments made are very well portrayed. Massimo's reply to Smith was pathetic and proves my point. He says that objectivism is against causality. Anyone who thinks that doesn't know what he is talking about. I have not read what Smith said but what I have seen in the article from him still stands true. Massimo seems to think virtue is value but that is not true. Stoicism tells you to be virtueus but it is opposed to value. He also says that Smith is right that stoics are indifferent to things that fate may take away and then contradicts himself by saying stoics value them. This doctrine of stoicism is especially stupid because it says that things that are provided by nature are not to be valued although many things that are provided by nature actually do give you a choice in how you interact with them. Family for example is provided by external factors but family is still something you have control over. I can distance myself from my family or embrace them. The choice to embrace family is what makes the joy you get from family yours. That some people don't get that opportunity doesnt mean you can't use that opportunity. You and Massimo should instead of declaring what we mean from a desire to strawman us or from plain lazyness of searching what we mean should actually search what objectivism says. For example: when you think "does Smith, who is an objectivist, reject causality" you search objectivism on causality. Then you will see that objectivism is very strongly behind causality. It rejects many conclusions people make about quantum mechanics like Massimo does in his article. Free will is causally necessitated in objectivism. By which we mean that a consciousness in a string of cause and effect is required to make a decision and cannot escape this. A human's nature requires him to choose in the process of conscious awareness as a ball is required to roll in the process of being pushed.
@@gch5559
Contempt: Check! (Stoicism is stupid, stupid stupid!)
Misrepresentation: Check! (I didn't even read Smith's article. Sound's like Rand's ignorance of original philosophical sources.)
I spent a decade neck-deep in Objectivist non-fiction. The problem was that most Objectivists I met were over-zealous d-bags (Exhibit A: your comment, to a lesser degree on the d-bag part). So, I've earned my snark. A philosophy for living on Earth needs much more psychology than metaphysical theory. Hence, Stoicism>Objectivism. At least, in practice.
But don't let that stop you from another rambling, tangent-filled reply.
@@darkpatches If you spent a decade in objectivist non-fiction you would know that Massimo was wrong in his article. I don't say you didn't but you have to see he was doing the misportraying.
I am against stoicism and that is not a problem. But I don't portray an argument of stoicism with contempt. The best way to discover the truth or debunk something wrong is to steelman. I think some arguments presented by stoicism that you see in this video are very convincing under the right premisses. For example that god is a naturalistic entity and that his relation to the universe is the same as man and his consciousness. But the idea that things that are given through causality are not to be valued I find very unconvincing. But if you find it convincing then explain why. If you give a good answer I will take back what I said.
I did not misrepresent anything. I have not read Smith but the points he made that were shown in Massimo's article still stand. How is this misrepresentation? Also, Ayn Rand was knowledgeable on philosophy. Her knowledge of Aristotelian ideas and modern philosophical premisses show that. And even if she wasn't knowledgeable, if she was correct then she was correct.
Interesting that you call objectists douchebags and me in particular too. Was I wrong to say that you should look up our ideas? Would you accept it if people attack you for something you don't actually believe? Also, objectivists have to deal with people who misrepresent them, lie and insult them all the time. I saw comment sections where people said we are psychopaths and wished terrible things upon us. If you see them standing up against that as being a douchebag then I vehemently disagree. But maybe you have met objectivists who are douchebags and then I agree that is wrong. But you have not earned your snark if you are seriously discussing philosophy which many do. I also don't think objectivists are douchebags or that the philosophy deserves the hate so I don't think you deserve it either.
Psychology is not part of philosophy. It is part of science. Psychology can help inform but the fundamental values of life are acquired through ethics. A philosopher cannot do the work of a psychologist as a psychologist cannot do the work of a philosopher. There is ofcourse psycho-epistomology and some things can be assumed about psychology via philosophy and some psychological discoveries can have philosophical value.
Hope this didn't come across as a hate filled comment otherwise people might think poorly of objectivists... oh wait.
its crazy to me that we live in a world where this video gets 5k views in 2 years.. thats why im not reproducing lol
NOT, NOT, NOT apathy.
Objectivity are apathetic towards eveyone, except themselves of course. Even towards other objectivist. Stoicism is NOT, NOT, NOT a religion. Zero etc were not prophets. The don't regard any of their philosophers with the same degree of reverace, secular divinity ascribed to Ayn Rand!