Excellent article, Massimo! One question: In the description of feelings vs emotions, by emotions being “scientifically public”, do you mean that emotions can be measured as neural/chemical changes in the brain, while feelings are the cognitive part happening in my thoughts, which is not so straightforwardly measurable (i.e. “private”)?
What a fantastic text! Am I wrong, or Marcus Aurelius commits this mistake in Meditations? I don't remember when, but I think I have this in my memory.
I'm a bit confused: "the heart is supposed to pump blood when it works in accordance with Nature. But of course from time to time the heart malfunctions and one gets a heart attack. Heart attacks are natural, but not in accordance with Nature." - This would make death an event that is not in accordance with Nature, no? Isn't the heart suppose to malfunction, in accordance with Nature?
Les, good question. Death is natural in the sense that it is an inevitable result of the second principle of thermodynamics. It may happen in a variety of ways, of course, including through a heart attack. But what makes it natural is its inevitability resulting from the laws of nature. Even if hearts always worked well we would still die. Of something.
But one can still reasonably say that a heart that is having a fatal attack is malfunctioning with respect to what hearts are "supposed" (by natural selection) to do.
Maybe, a distinction between the two expressions could be that "Something natural" is what happens habitually and spontaneously, while "Something in accordance with Nature" is what happens just as it is supposed to happen. The part that would deserve further elaboration is "supposed": by whom? based on what?
Marc, by natural selection, on the basis of survival and reproduction. The idea is that reason and prosociality are the "weapons" selection / Nature has given us to succeed in life, and so to live according to Nature means to use those tools as Nature "intended." I put the latter word in scare quotes because, in modern terms, there is no actual, conscious intention. It's just the way natural selection as a mechanistic process works.
This is a bit off topic but i would like to ask your opinion on how propaganda or psychological manipulation of people fits into this Stoic approach Would a Stoic deal with deliberate attempts to influence emotions and therefore feelings by just being more mindful of their emotions and careful about making judgements?
Nicholas, right. Propaganda and any other kind of psychological manipulation should be resisted by a Stoic. But we deliberately attempt to influence our own emotions so that they align as much as possible with reason. And yes, very careful about making judgments!
"In reality to live in accordance with Nature just means to understand and respect the way a living organism of the Homo sapiens type functions and thrives".
This requires homework. Or as Socrates would say, “γνῶθι σεαυτόν” or “know yourself.” This cuts right through the noise down to the core of what it means to be human.
Interesting, thank you. The way the Stoic's defined/used Nature reminds me of how the Tao is described in the Tao Te Ching. When reading Meditations I often get the feeling Marcus and Lao Tzu would have gotten along.
Andrew, yes, I've also noticed some congruence between Marcus and Daoism. His famous "the obstacle becomes the way" passage sounds eminently Daoist to me (Meditations V.20).
Excellent article, Massimo! One question: In the description of feelings vs emotions, by emotions being “scientifically public”, do you mean that emotions can be measured as neural/chemical changes in the brain, while feelings are the cognitive part happening in my thoughts, which is not so straightforwardly measurable (i.e. “private”)?
Daniel, exactly!
What a fantastic text! Am I wrong, or Marcus Aurelius commits this mistake in Meditations? I don't remember when, but I think I have this in my memory.
🙏
I'm a bit confused: "the heart is supposed to pump blood when it works in accordance with Nature. But of course from time to time the heart malfunctions and one gets a heart attack. Heart attacks are natural, but not in accordance with Nature." - This would make death an event that is not in accordance with Nature, no? Isn't the heart suppose to malfunction, in accordance with Nature?
Les, good question. Death is natural in the sense that it is an inevitable result of the second principle of thermodynamics. It may happen in a variety of ways, of course, including through a heart attack. But what makes it natural is its inevitability resulting from the laws of nature. Even if hearts always worked well we would still die. Of something.
But one can still reasonably say that a heart that is having a fatal attack is malfunctioning with respect to what hearts are "supposed" (by natural selection) to do.
Maybe, a distinction between the two expressions could be that "Something natural" is what happens habitually and spontaneously, while "Something in accordance with Nature" is what happens just as it is supposed to happen. The part that would deserve further elaboration is "supposed": by whom? based on what?
Marc, by natural selection, on the basis of survival and reproduction. The idea is that reason and prosociality are the "weapons" selection / Nature has given us to succeed in life, and so to live according to Nature means to use those tools as Nature "intended." I put the latter word in scare quotes because, in modern terms, there is no actual, conscious intention. It's just the way natural selection as a mechanistic process works.
This is a bit off topic but i would like to ask your opinion on how propaganda or psychological manipulation of people fits into this Stoic approach Would a Stoic deal with deliberate attempts to influence emotions and therefore feelings by just being more mindful of their emotions and careful about making judgements?
Nicholas, right. Propaganda and any other kind of psychological manipulation should be resisted by a Stoic. But we deliberately attempt to influence our own emotions so that they align as much as possible with reason. And yes, very careful about making judgments!
"In reality to live in accordance with Nature just means to understand and respect the way a living organism of the Homo sapiens type functions and thrives".
This requires homework. Or as Socrates would say, “γνῶθι σεαυτόν” or “know yourself.” This cuts right through the noise down to the core of what it means to be human.
Great post.
thank you!
Interesting, thank you. The way the Stoic's defined/used Nature reminds me of how the Tao is described in the Tao Te Ching. When reading Meditations I often get the feeling Marcus and Lao Tzu would have gotten along.
Andrew, yes, I've also noticed some congruence between Marcus and Daoism. His famous "the obstacle becomes the way" passage sounds eminently Daoist to me (Meditations V.20).