This is one of the Stoic psychological techniques that has been most helpful to me. When I find myself getting down or thinking about negative things that happened to me, I rephrase it in terms that are more objective/value-neutral and then think about how the only thing that matters is my reaction.
I’m not sure I’m completely effective in changing my own mind, but it does especially help me insofar as it is an instance of cognitive distancing—thinking about the thoughts themselves and taking a step back rather than being drowned by the emotions/thoughts themselves and not considering them as impressions that should be analyzed.
The ranking of value preferences has been looked at for a long time by some economists and they have determined that such rankings are ordinal, not cardinal, meaning that one values things relative to how one values other things, but one cannot really say how much more one prefers, say, one's relationship to his daughter versus owning an orange Lamborghini. I'd guess the gap is much wider than is implied by A to B. Value preferences also vary between individuals, and they vary over time to an individual, sometimes wildly.
This means that something in an A-set (my daughter) is incommensurably more valuable than something in the B-set (a Lamborghini). Things that fall into the same set (e.g., Lamborghini and money), however, can be exchanged for each other, or ranked quantitatively (as opposed to the qualitative ranking between sets).
Yes, preferences do vary among individuals, but Stoicism says they should not. It's a prescriptive philosophy, not a descriptive science. The A-set ought to only include virtue, while B- and lower sets can include so-called "indifferents."
I wonder how you as a Professor of Philosophy handle a situation which is not correct. Say if one has to bend rules to help a patient with a treatment which is not legally allowed unless the patient pays for it. Given the patients age & income the medication is not affordable. How does this fit with the 4 pillars? This has always vexed me since I started taking Stoic Philosophy seriously.
Naresh, good question. By "four pillars" you mean the four cardinal virtues? I would think justice and courage would be the most relevant ones here. As usual there is no universal answer in virtue ethics, it depends on the specifics. But I'd say that, within limits (temperance) the doctor is virtue-bound to help the patient even if it is not strictly legal. "Legal" is in accordance with positive (human) law, which is superseded by natural law (what is right to do in general). A health system that denies necessary care if one cannot afford it is, in my mind, unethical, so it is okay to circumvent it when possible and do the right thing nevertheless.
This is one of the Stoic psychological techniques that has been most helpful to me. When I find myself getting down or thinking about negative things that happened to me, I rephrase it in terms that are more objective/value-neutral and then think about how the only thing that matters is my reaction.
I’m not sure I’m completely effective in changing my own mind, but it does especially help me insofar as it is an instance of cognitive distancing—thinking about the thoughts themselves and taking a step back rather than being drowned by the emotions/thoughts themselves and not considering them as impressions that should be analyzed.
Matthew, it becomes completely effective only when you get to the stage of sagehood... Meanwhile, it's all about making progress!
The ranking of value preferences has been looked at for a long time by some economists and they have determined that such rankings are ordinal, not cardinal, meaning that one values things relative to how one values other things, but one cannot really say how much more one prefers, say, one's relationship to his daughter versus owning an orange Lamborghini. I'd guess the gap is much wider than is implied by A to B. Value preferences also vary between individuals, and they vary over time to an individual, sometimes wildly.
My understanding is that many economists agree on the concept of lexicographic preferences (here is the Wiki link, but the book has original references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographic_preferences).
This means that something in an A-set (my daughter) is incommensurably more valuable than something in the B-set (a Lamborghini). Things that fall into the same set (e.g., Lamborghini and money), however, can be exchanged for each other, or ranked quantitatively (as opposed to the qualitative ranking between sets).
Yes, preferences do vary among individuals, but Stoicism says they should not. It's a prescriptive philosophy, not a descriptive science. The A-set ought to only include virtue, while B- and lower sets can include so-called "indifferents."
Thank you, Massimo. I fully agree that Stoicism is a prescriptive philosophy, one that we must always struggle to achieve, and that is the only good.
I wonder how you as a Professor of Philosophy handle a situation which is not correct. Say if one has to bend rules to help a patient with a treatment which is not legally allowed unless the patient pays for it. Given the patients age & income the medication is not affordable. How does this fit with the 4 pillars? This has always vexed me since I started taking Stoic Philosophy seriously.
Naresh, good question. By "four pillars" you mean the four cardinal virtues? I would think justice and courage would be the most relevant ones here. As usual there is no universal answer in virtue ethics, it depends on the specifics. But I'd say that, within limits (temperance) the doctor is virtue-bound to help the patient even if it is not strictly legal. "Legal" is in accordance with positive (human) law, which is superseded by natural law (what is right to do in general). A health system that denies necessary care if one cannot afford it is, in my mind, unethical, so it is okay to circumvent it when possible and do the right thing nevertheless.