Hiya- hope this finds you well. This curriculum is well timed for me- not only am I going to follow it, but my niece, about to start her first year of university, has recently proclaimed that Stoicism is “her thing”. I have gifted her your How To Be A Stoic book, and will follow that up with this curriculum.
Also, just read Chuck’s article and your response. Chuck made a strong case, but I agree with you. That said, for me I think it’s more-so that you need reasoning (logic) and worldly knowledge (physics) in order to implement Stoic ethical principles correctly rather than Stoic ethics necessarily being based on logic and physics (though everything is based on logic, so maybe I’ll focus on physics).
Of course, reasoning skills are necessary to behave ethically. That seems rather obvious to both of us. I think worldly knowledge is necessary or at least helpful as well. I need to know a bit about economics and m environmental science (among other things) to know how to vote. It would also be helpful to understand psychology as well (I’ll be less annoyed with someone if I know they’re behaving irrationally due to hunger or lack of sleep).
But I’m not as sure I’d say Stoic ethics is based on physics per se, at least depending on our meaning. I’m not sure that scientific and other such facts are what make things like “the dichotomy of control” true? That seems more based on our experience than science, unless we’re including our experience in “physics”. At the same time, if I were an immortal god that could control nature, perhaps it wouldn’t be true that anything is outside of my control! So at the very least I think it depends on what we mean when we say Stoic ethics is based on physics.
I also think Stoic ethics could still work even if we had an immortal nonphysical soul and if libertarian freewill were true. We’re still clearly limited by our bodies, so much is still outside of our control. The Stoics also seemed agnostic on the question of whether we survived death in any capacity, right? So I do think Stoic ethics seems rather robust to any realistic metaphysical/scientific viewpoints.
Matthew, good points. Let me clarify my thinking a bit.
First, both "ethics" and "physics" (as well as "logic") are to be understood in the broadest possible way. Ethics concerns everything we do as human beings, how we conduct our lives. Physics concerns everything to do with understanding how the world works. And logic concerns everything that has to do with good reasoning.
That said, then, yes, the dichotomy of control very much stems from Stoic physic, as Hadot points out in The Inner Citadel. If the universe worked differently, say like in the infamous "The Secret" stuff, then there would be no dichotomy of control.
You are correct that Stoic metaphysics and ethics are not bound in a tight one-to-one relationship, but I'm not sure how much ethics would survive if we were immortal gods. I'd have to think about it.
As for life after death, the only semi-agnostic Stoic was Seneca. Otherwise it was standard Stoic teaching that the soul dies with the body, because everything that has causal powers is made of matter. Another connection between physics and ethics.
Hi Massimo, thank you for the detailed reply! On further reflection, I think you’re correct. I was perhaps being too narrow in defining “physics”. If punching someone gave them pleasure and restored health, our ethics would probably be rather different! So Stoic ethics must be based on “physics”, or perhaps I’d say “the nature of the world” or something of that sort.
And thank you for the clarification regarding Stoic doctrine! You see the problem is I’ve been reading Seneca’s Letters for the past month or so, so I was confusing his ideas with the Stoics’ ideas in general!!
In the science column, I'd add "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett, and almost any of Richard Dawkins' works on evolution, but I think "The Ancestor's Tale" is especially good.
oh, ti voglio bene Massimo. thank you!
Hiya- hope this finds you well. This curriculum is well timed for me- not only am I going to follow it, but my niece, about to start her first year of university, has recently proclaimed that Stoicism is “her thing”. I have gifted her your How To Be A Stoic book, and will follow that up with this curriculum.
Chris, glad to hear it. Please communicate by sincerest encouragement to your niece.
Also, just read Chuck’s article and your response. Chuck made a strong case, but I agree with you. That said, for me I think it’s more-so that you need reasoning (logic) and worldly knowledge (physics) in order to implement Stoic ethical principles correctly rather than Stoic ethics necessarily being based on logic and physics (though everything is based on logic, so maybe I’ll focus on physics).
Of course, reasoning skills are necessary to behave ethically. That seems rather obvious to both of us. I think worldly knowledge is necessary or at least helpful as well. I need to know a bit about economics and m environmental science (among other things) to know how to vote. It would also be helpful to understand psychology as well (I’ll be less annoyed with someone if I know they’re behaving irrationally due to hunger or lack of sleep).
But I’m not as sure I’d say Stoic ethics is based on physics per se, at least depending on our meaning. I’m not sure that scientific and other such facts are what make things like “the dichotomy of control” true? That seems more based on our experience than science, unless we’re including our experience in “physics”. At the same time, if I were an immortal god that could control nature, perhaps it wouldn’t be true that anything is outside of my control! So at the very least I think it depends on what we mean when we say Stoic ethics is based on physics.
I also think Stoic ethics could still work even if we had an immortal nonphysical soul and if libertarian freewill were true. We’re still clearly limited by our bodies, so much is still outside of our control. The Stoics also seemed agnostic on the question of whether we survived death in any capacity, right? So I do think Stoic ethics seems rather robust to any realistic metaphysical/scientific viewpoints.
Matthew, good points. Let me clarify my thinking a bit.
First, both "ethics" and "physics" (as well as "logic") are to be understood in the broadest possible way. Ethics concerns everything we do as human beings, how we conduct our lives. Physics concerns everything to do with understanding how the world works. And logic concerns everything that has to do with good reasoning.
That said, then, yes, the dichotomy of control very much stems from Stoic physic, as Hadot points out in The Inner Citadel. If the universe worked differently, say like in the infamous "The Secret" stuff, then there would be no dichotomy of control.
You are correct that Stoic metaphysics and ethics are not bound in a tight one-to-one relationship, but I'm not sure how much ethics would survive if we were immortal gods. I'd have to think about it.
As for life after death, the only semi-agnostic Stoic was Seneca. Otherwise it was standard Stoic teaching that the soul dies with the body, because everything that has causal powers is made of matter. Another connection between physics and ethics.
Hi Massimo, thank you for the detailed reply! On further reflection, I think you’re correct. I was perhaps being too narrow in defining “physics”. If punching someone gave them pleasure and restored health, our ethics would probably be rather different! So Stoic ethics must be based on “physics”, or perhaps I’d say “the nature of the world” or something of that sort.
And thank you for the clarification regarding Stoic doctrine! You see the problem is I’ve been reading Seneca’s Letters for the past month or so, so I was confusing his ideas with the Stoics’ ideas in general!!
Matthew, glad you found my comment useful! Happy reading of Seneca, he's most definitely worth it!
Good list! I have read six of these, and some of the others I have read in other translations.
Ah, I love a good curriculum to follow!!!! Thanks for the recs, Professor!! 😃
In the science column, I'd add "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett, and almost any of Richard Dawkins' works on evolution, but I think "The Ancestor's Tale" is especially good.