After another day of thought, I believe I have found a suitable resolution to the stoics reaction to the earthquake in Haiti. As I've stated in the last blogs, the stoics hold us accountable to that which is within our capabilities. Meaning, it is not within my capability to volunteer in Haiti, so I should not have intentions to do so. So what is within my capabilities? Donation, which I have already addressed. But also, the stoics would hold me accountable for generating awareness (this may seem unnecessary because of the nature of such a catastrophe, but I mean the continued awareness after the novelty of the tragedy has worn off to vicious people). I am held responsible for calling others out when they display callousness at the suffering of other humans (such as Rush Limbaugh).
The stoic action we can engage in is the continuation of the conversation. We can make it our responsibility to call this tragedy to people's attention in months time when students are concerned with papers and parties and the suffering of humanity has subsided in our college's consciousness.
I am thrilled that after the confusion of the two blog entries previous, I have reached a conclusion that I am comfortable with and think the stoics would endorse.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
What Do the Stoics Have to Offer?
A fundamentally crucial point in the application of stoic understanding to the Earthquake in Haiti: we are "not to waste energy on a process of mourning, but to quickly react and decide what assistance we could offer". The question I have for the stoics is, what assistance do we have to offer? certainly money is the easiest, and in class we addresses that we are meant to take on projects that are reasonably attainable by us. Donations seems to be an appropriate answer. But now what?
It seems this particular case provides a problem for me because of the notion or corrective punishment. This is the strongest case, I think, the stoics have for eliminating anger and following action for the appropriate intention. But this natural disaster has no one to punish. There is no reason to draw courage and find the individual who needs a lesson in moral intention; that simply does not apply.
So I am left bereft. What happens after I complete the task within my capabilities? Without emotion, I don't know how to continue contemplating the event. I literally don't know how the stoics would have me carry on. I eliminate anger, fulfill capable contribution and then....? Sympathy? Empathy? I know I am to feel/think something at the suffering of other human beings but I am not sure what. I am not even sure anger applies in the situation at all, who is there to be angry with? Nature? There is a futile mission. One must be quite delusional to begin with to allow such anger to consume them. So I am meant to empathize...what does this mean? I am at a loss.... It seems I have no new conclusions from yesterday. Maybe our discussion on Medea will shed some light on the matter.
It seems this particular case provides a problem for me because of the notion or corrective punishment. This is the strongest case, I think, the stoics have for eliminating anger and following action for the appropriate intention. But this natural disaster has no one to punish. There is no reason to draw courage and find the individual who needs a lesson in moral intention; that simply does not apply.
So I am left bereft. What happens after I complete the task within my capabilities? Without emotion, I don't know how to continue contemplating the event. I literally don't know how the stoics would have me carry on. I eliminate anger, fulfill capable contribution and then....? Sympathy? Empathy? I know I am to feel/think something at the suffering of other human beings but I am not sure what. I am not even sure anger applies in the situation at all, who is there to be angry with? Nature? There is a futile mission. One must be quite delusional to begin with to allow such anger to consume them. So I am meant to empathize...what does this mean? I am at a loss.... It seems I have no new conclusions from yesterday. Maybe our discussion on Medea will shed some light on the matter.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Facing Tragedy
The stoics would have us forgo anger; they ask us to rid it from our person and continue through life a more rational person because of its loss. However, when tragedy strikes as it has in Haiti, when hundreds of thousands have perished, our instincts would drive us to shock, tears and ultimately anger. It seems unnatural not to react with outrage and seek to blame someone. As humans we have been programmed (either socially or biologically, it does not matter to make the distinction at this point) to react when harm is done needlessly to other human being. To stand and "think", to stand and "not feel" impresses upon others one's lack of concern and even lack of humanity.
However, the stoics want us to do just that: stand and not feel; stand and reason. Reason ourselves to where? I am not sure and perhaps this is the question this blog will answer. As an amateur stoic, I am meant to extract the anger from my being and face this tragedy with cool contemplation and acceptance. It is out of my control. What remains in my control is my intention to donate, my intention help others, my intention to offer support to those who are struggling with the events. The earthquake in Haiti has resulted in massive deaths and continued suffering for the survivors. I hear about rescuers finding children trapped in collapsed debris and of being able to see a foot or hand of a corpse protruding from the remains of a home.
And I have to now accept the challenge of reacting to this situation without anger. What is left? How am I, a young stoic, meant to react? I am trapped in Wisconsin and stone cold broke. Not only was the earthquake out of my control, but assisting also remains out of my control. I am inclined to think that the stoics wish to eliminate anger so as to produce more effective action. And in this case, for those who are able, this would hold ground. Stop being angry and do something about it. However, the stoics do not give a lick about execution; they love good intentions. Riddle me this: What is a good intention in the case of a Hellenistic philosopher without means to help? Seneca wants me to strengthen my reason and develop only good intentions without caring about the outcome because it is out of my control.
I am not drawing this blog to a proper close for two reasons. first, I am too tired to think of better constructed conclusion. But more so second, there is no conclusion. It will be my job to discover the conclusion over the coming week and hope that it is attainable.
However, the stoics want us to do just that: stand and not feel; stand and reason. Reason ourselves to where? I am not sure and perhaps this is the question this blog will answer. As an amateur stoic, I am meant to extract the anger from my being and face this tragedy with cool contemplation and acceptance. It is out of my control. What remains in my control is my intention to donate, my intention help others, my intention to offer support to those who are struggling with the events. The earthquake in Haiti has resulted in massive deaths and continued suffering for the survivors. I hear about rescuers finding children trapped in collapsed debris and of being able to see a foot or hand of a corpse protruding from the remains of a home.
And I have to now accept the challenge of reacting to this situation without anger. What is left? How am I, a young stoic, meant to react? I am trapped in Wisconsin and stone cold broke. Not only was the earthquake out of my control, but assisting also remains out of my control. I am inclined to think that the stoics wish to eliminate anger so as to produce more effective action. And in this case, for those who are able, this would hold ground. Stop being angry and do something about it. However, the stoics do not give a lick about execution; they love good intentions. Riddle me this: What is a good intention in the case of a Hellenistic philosopher without means to help? Seneca wants me to strengthen my reason and develop only good intentions without caring about the outcome because it is out of my control.
I am not drawing this blog to a proper close for two reasons. first, I am too tired to think of better constructed conclusion. But more so second, there is no conclusion. It will be my job to discover the conclusion over the coming week and hope that it is attainable.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Reporting My Computer
It is difficult to methodologically doubt everything I assume to know. My inclination is to begin with what matters: my notion of God, Truth, virtue, love friendship. But, then it occurs to me, the sceptics were not an exclusive group. And so, in order to better understand this methodology, I will start with something unimportant.
I perceive my computer in front of me: black, warm, bright. I am aware of the sense data my sense organs have gathered. From here, I think, I can either believe (that the laptop is really there, external and independent of me with real truths about it) or I can report....what, I am not sure...That I see it, perhaps? For the sake of this blog, I will report my perception of the computer, or to stay true to the sceptics, I will report the appearance of my computer. I suspend judgment that there is truth here, even as I continue to type on the key board and produce the appropriate letters to construct my thoughts into written language. This writing process is something more that appears and that I report, a simple extension of the first appearance.
The problem I see here is there is no quantitative difference. We behave the same and base decisions upon the same things or the same impressions. I am still typing at this computer regardless of it being a belief or a report. The difference seems to lie only in the understanding of the thing; one that it has truth-value and one that we cannot determine whether or not it has truth-value.
There is an emphasis placed upon this thought process applying towards the unclear and investigated in a dogmatic fashion, which would be something like church and science. Both are unclear and dogmatic. And in this way, perhaps it would not be out of the question of forgo the computer experience and approach the issues of God and Nature immediately. Well, by immediate I mean tomorrow. Tonight I am finished.
I perceive my computer in front of me: black, warm, bright. I am aware of the sense data my sense organs have gathered. From here, I think, I can either believe (that the laptop is really there, external and independent of me with real truths about it) or I can report....what, I am not sure...That I see it, perhaps? For the sake of this blog, I will report my perception of the computer, or to stay true to the sceptics, I will report the appearance of my computer. I suspend judgment that there is truth here, even as I continue to type on the key board and produce the appropriate letters to construct my thoughts into written language. This writing process is something more that appears and that I report, a simple extension of the first appearance.
The problem I see here is there is no quantitative difference. We behave the same and base decisions upon the same things or the same impressions. I am still typing at this computer regardless of it being a belief or a report. The difference seems to lie only in the understanding of the thing; one that it has truth-value and one that we cannot determine whether or not it has truth-value.
There is an emphasis placed upon this thought process applying towards the unclear and investigated in a dogmatic fashion, which would be something like church and science. Both are unclear and dogmatic. And in this way, perhaps it would not be out of the question of forgo the computer experience and approach the issues of God and Nature immediately. Well, by immediate I mean tomorrow. Tonight I am finished.
Over Coming Love and Death
Over the last week I have formulated that Lucretius did not fully develop his argument against love for one person. He argues that the reason it is irrational is because sex is the manifestation of the desire to wholly posses the other. But one cannot do this and so it is irrational to attempt to fulfill this desire. However, I argue that it is irrational to attempt to attain peace of mind (meaning one no longer pines for the other, or no longer loves them) unless one can completely extract them from your life. So for Epicurus/Lucretius, if one of his followers fell in love with another, I argue that they could never eliminate from themselves the desire for that person (either through free-love or intellectual preoccupation) unless one them left the "garden". For me, it means transferring schools (or waiting for graduation). My point is, Lucretious' solution to love is just as unattainable as his argument against it.
Further considerations on death according to the Epicureans: I was watching an episode of the Office tonight where Ed Truck, previous Scranton Branch Manager (Micheal Scott's position) died in a car crash. It took Micheal Scott a bit to emotionally react to the news but when he did, he touched on something I think the Epicureans did not. I will, at minimum, grant that we cannot know anything about death, being that we are dead and no longer existing when we get there (not really sure what "there" means but I trust you understand what I am saying) but what we do know about death is the affects it has on the living. Micheal Scott gropes with the loss of another human being and is baffled by the lack of reaction in the other employees. I understand why Micheal Scott reacted the way he did. One of the ways we can fear death is the death of others, feeling left behind. This grief is intense and therefore funnels into our understanding and fear of our death. I suffer from the pain of others and then I fear the pain that others will suffer from my own death.
Further considerations on death according to the Epicureans: I was watching an episode of the Office tonight where Ed Truck, previous Scranton Branch Manager (Micheal Scott's position) died in a car crash. It took Micheal Scott a bit to emotionally react to the news but when he did, he touched on something I think the Epicureans did not. I will, at minimum, grant that we cannot know anything about death, being that we are dead and no longer existing when we get there (not really sure what "there" means but I trust you understand what I am saying) but what we do know about death is the affects it has on the living. Micheal Scott gropes with the loss of another human being and is baffled by the lack of reaction in the other employees. I understand why Micheal Scott reacted the way he did. One of the ways we can fear death is the death of others, feeling left behind. This grief is intense and therefore funnels into our understanding and fear of our death. I suffer from the pain of others and then I fear the pain that others will suffer from my own death.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Cave of My Hidden Beliefs
Honestly, diverting my desire into another channel is not only difficult, but rather painful. It feels like giving up, which is tragic and to some extent resembles what Nussbaum explained about premature death; that I've ceased before completion. I will continue to recite my creed and channel my desire, but I don't want to. The process of changing my focus is more painful than sustaining the continued frustration with unfulfilled desire. We shall see what tomorrow brings.
On other Epicurean considerations: my fear of death perpetuates my empty desire to leave behind a legacy. I have this intense drive to write a great novel, discover some new (or re-imagined) philosophical truth, save the president's life, anything that might write my name on bathroom stall walls of history (please no call-for-a-good-time jokes). Remembrance seems to be an undeniable element to my understanding of the value of this life, meaning that should I die without a legacy, no one would recall me and therefore what would have been the point of living (this particular train of thought strikes me in my more morbid moments).
I intellectually comprehend that when I die, I cease to exist and therefore making what happens after that point irrelevant to me (because I am not). When Epicurus states, "When death is there, we are not, and when we are there, death is not" he nails a truth to the floor. Why should I concern myself with the life I won't live and the world I won't live in? My own legacy will be irrelevant to me, which of course, seems contrary to its purpose because the only person that cares about the existence of my legacy is me and I won't be around to appreciate its presence.
Further, focusing on the development of some scheme towards a lesser form of immortality is a complete waist of my one life. Again, I intellectually understand this. And it bothers me when a person thinks in one direction but whose behavior is about-face. This is where I should work to become consistent. I do not want to indulge my desire for a legacy but to squelch it. However, attaining this consistency will be tricky because Epicurus, Lucretius and Nussbaum all argue that our actual beliefs come out in those moments of real or perceived life-threatening danger. I haven't experienced that and, as much I love this course, I do not intend to throw myself in any precarious situations that may result in my premature demise for its sake. But I think if I did, the cave of my hidden beliefs would be illuminated; the true nature of my apprehension towards death revealed to be....Well, that's just it; I don't know what true nature of my apprehension towards death is. And it is an encounter with death that I require in order to understand it.
Tomorrow's Plan: Wake up one half hour early (I will be utterly impressed if this happens). Assemble one cup of coffee with a splash of milk. Attend class; further the intellectual conversation on Lucretius and Nussbaum. Recite personally constructed Epicurean creed. Contemplate death. Write one film review. Sleep.
On other Epicurean considerations: my fear of death perpetuates my empty desire to leave behind a legacy. I have this intense drive to write a great novel, discover some new (or re-imagined) philosophical truth, save the president's life, anything that might write my name on bathroom stall walls of history (please no call-for-a-good-time jokes). Remembrance seems to be an undeniable element to my understanding of the value of this life, meaning that should I die without a legacy, no one would recall me and therefore what would have been the point of living (this particular train of thought strikes me in my more morbid moments).
I intellectually comprehend that when I die, I cease to exist and therefore making what happens after that point irrelevant to me (because I am not). When Epicurus states, "When death is there, we are not, and when we are there, death is not" he nails a truth to the floor. Why should I concern myself with the life I won't live and the world I won't live in? My own legacy will be irrelevant to me, which of course, seems contrary to its purpose because the only person that cares about the existence of my legacy is me and I won't be around to appreciate its presence.
Further, focusing on the development of some scheme towards a lesser form of immortality is a complete waist of my one life. Again, I intellectually understand this. And it bothers me when a person thinks in one direction but whose behavior is about-face. This is where I should work to become consistent. I do not want to indulge my desire for a legacy but to squelch it. However, attaining this consistency will be tricky because Epicurus, Lucretius and Nussbaum all argue that our actual beliefs come out in those moments of real or perceived life-threatening danger. I haven't experienced that and, as much I love this course, I do not intend to throw myself in any precarious situations that may result in my premature demise for its sake. But I think if I did, the cave of my hidden beliefs would be illuminated; the true nature of my apprehension towards death revealed to be....Well, that's just it; I don't know what true nature of my apprehension towards death is. And it is an encounter with death that I require in order to understand it.
Tomorrow's Plan: Wake up one half hour early (I will be utterly impressed if this happens). Assemble one cup of coffee with a splash of milk. Attend class; further the intellectual conversation on Lucretius and Nussbaum. Recite personally constructed Epicurean creed. Contemplate death. Write one film review. Sleep.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
A Little More On Love, Sex and Promiscuous Hippies
I am sorry to report that I have not yet today seen the person of my desire and so could not recite my Epicurean creed created below.
However, as an inferior substitute, I have decided to imagine his face (or maybe invest some time in facebook stocking) and recite those words here in the privacy of my room.
Further, I think in order for this process of eliminating the consuming effects of love, I should also select a task, project of craft to cultivate in order to divert the excess desire into another channel.
On a bright note, I already have such a craft I wish to cultivate: Film reviews! So my goal is to, by Monday, have three new complete reviews posted on my primary blog. Let's hope this sublimation produces cleverness.
However, as an inferior substitute, I have decided to imagine his face (or maybe invest some time in facebook stocking) and recite those words here in the privacy of my room.
Further, I think in order for this process of eliminating the consuming effects of love, I should also select a task, project of craft to cultivate in order to divert the excess desire into another channel.
On a bright note, I already have such a craft I wish to cultivate: Film reviews! So my goal is to, by Monday, have three new complete reviews posted on my primary blog. Let's hope this sublimation produces cleverness.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Love, Sex and Promiscuous Hippies
Fact: two cups of coffee before the consumption of a full meal is not necessary for comfort.
Lucretius’ notions of love threw me for loop today. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that “friends with benefits” would be the best course of action. I would never advise sleeping around when one already identifies themselves as in love with another. I am no psycho-therapist, but I am pretty sure having sex with one person while in love with or desiring another is psychologically detrimental and casual sex has proven to result in terrifying physical health (thank you promiscuous hippies). And further, anyone who has felt love or an intense desire for another, I think, would testify that sex with others does not dull that need. And this, the release of the need, is why Lucretius advises us to seek sexual fulfillment not with that person with whom we want it most.
Aside from physical disease and mental health issues that arise from casual intercourse, I simply do not want to sleep around. Perhaps this is a tainted lesson I have learned from my sick culture, but I want to love one person, in both senses that Lucretius utilizes the term, both the sexual desire and the emotional attachment. My desire to possess another wholly will not be quenched by taking others in my bed.
Regardless of what I want, I will attempt at least until next Monday to conceptualize love as harmful and weakening. I will make a valiant effort to, when I see the person of my desire, think of the harm that an emotional connection with said person would follow. I will envision myself as the starving child clasping in my hands a cheeseburger encased in glass. I will recite in repetition, as the Epicureans did, “I cannot wholly possess him. Sex with him will cause more anguish that pleasure. Sex with others…. not so bad.” Keeping this notion in mind, I might arrive at the end of the weekend with an appreciation for what Lucretius argues.
Lucretius’ notions of love threw me for loop today. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that “friends with benefits” would be the best course of action. I would never advise sleeping around when one already identifies themselves as in love with another. I am no psycho-therapist, but I am pretty sure having sex with one person while in love with or desiring another is psychologically detrimental and casual sex has proven to result in terrifying physical health (thank you promiscuous hippies). And further, anyone who has felt love or an intense desire for another, I think, would testify that sex with others does not dull that need. And this, the release of the need, is why Lucretius advises us to seek sexual fulfillment not with that person with whom we want it most.
Aside from physical disease and mental health issues that arise from casual intercourse, I simply do not want to sleep around. Perhaps this is a tainted lesson I have learned from my sick culture, but I want to love one person, in both senses that Lucretius utilizes the term, both the sexual desire and the emotional attachment. My desire to possess another wholly will not be quenched by taking others in my bed.
Regardless of what I want, I will attempt at least until next Monday to conceptualize love as harmful and weakening. I will make a valiant effort to, when I see the person of my desire, think of the harm that an emotional connection with said person would follow. I will envision myself as the starving child clasping in my hands a cheeseburger encased in glass. I will recite in repetition, as the Epicureans did, “I cannot wholly possess him. Sex with him will cause more anguish that pleasure. Sex with others…. not so bad.” Keeping this notion in mind, I might arrive at the end of the weekend with an appreciation for what Lucretius argues.
The Necessary Desire for Coffee
What kinds of things fulfill our necessary desires? Those necessary for survival are obvious and so I will not address them here. However, those necessary for comfort and flourishing pose a potential problem. Epicurus does not supply a definition of comfort, or a list of the kinds of things that are comfortable, he simply states, " some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness" (Letter to Menoeceus). This seems purely subjective when there are no other qualifies placed upon it. Flourishing, while equally as ambiguous, at least has a notion to it that alludes clear direction. For the Epicureans, flourishing would entail a healthy soul, which we know can be achieved through therapy and the deconstruction of socially implanted empty desires.
In my daily life, I will attempt to weed out that which can fulfill my necessary desire for comfort. I hypothesize that it will be discovered on a spectrum. I will know a thing is comfortable only if I am able to recognize the point at which it becomes excessive and therefore harmful. Today, as an example, I had one cup of coffee. I felt alert, perky, engaged...comfortable. Tomorrow I will have two cups of coffee and monitor the difference. If I develop the shakes, chills, and an inclination towards ADHD behavior I will know two cups of coffee eclipses my necessary desire for comfort.
I hope to have a better understanding of the kinds of things which would fulfill my necessary desire for flourishing for the obvious reason that I want to flourish. I have feeling coffee is not one of these things, that humans, myself in particular, would flourish more freely with a morning alternative. However, this brings me to an interesting point. Can there be things that fulfill one necessary desire but actually degenerate progress of another, such as coffee. Each day it fulfill my necessary desire for comfort, but my inclination towards coffee hinders my necessary desire for flourishing. However, could I ever achieve flourishing without first achieving comfort? If I can than it implies that desires for comforts are not really necessary. If I cannot than I am perpetually trapped because of coffee.
mmm...coffee. One benefit to being a night owl: an intensifying affect on my enjoyment of caffeine.
In my daily life, I will attempt to weed out that which can fulfill my necessary desire for comfort. I hypothesize that it will be discovered on a spectrum. I will know a thing is comfortable only if I am able to recognize the point at which it becomes excessive and therefore harmful. Today, as an example, I had one cup of coffee. I felt alert, perky, engaged...comfortable. Tomorrow I will have two cups of coffee and monitor the difference. If I develop the shakes, chills, and an inclination towards ADHD behavior I will know two cups of coffee eclipses my necessary desire for comfort.
I hope to have a better understanding of the kinds of things which would fulfill my necessary desire for flourishing for the obvious reason that I want to flourish. I have feeling coffee is not one of these things, that humans, myself in particular, would flourish more freely with a morning alternative. However, this brings me to an interesting point. Can there be things that fulfill one necessary desire but actually degenerate progress of another, such as coffee. Each day it fulfill my necessary desire for comfort, but my inclination towards coffee hinders my necessary desire for flourishing. However, could I ever achieve flourishing without first achieving comfort? If I can than it implies that desires for comforts are not really necessary. If I cannot than I am perpetually trapped because of coffee.
mmm...coffee. One benefit to being a night owl: an intensifying affect on my enjoyment of caffeine.
Monday, January 4, 2010
I have enrolled in The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics for the January term course at my college. The professor has asked us, the students, to practically apply the concepts we study to our lives over the next three weeks. This means, while we read Epicurus we apply Epicurean philosophies to our decision making process, we let the pursuit of pleasure (insofar and pleasure is the absence of pain) guide our choices. While we study the sceptics, we must methodologically doubt what we assume to know. And when we approach the Stoics, we must pass those seven day detached from out emotions.
I think this is going to be an intense three weeks, full of fumbles and missteps as I attempt to follow the hariesis of the Ancients.
I think this is going to be an intense three weeks, full of fumbles and missteps as I attempt to follow the hariesis of the Ancients.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)