This article dives deep into the reactor core where the mysteries of the universe are harnessed to allow us to flourish on the surface of this beautiful Blue Marble. Chock Full O’Nuts, once again, Massimo. ☕️😊
The universe, whether “living” or “conscious,” or divine or providential, or fated by reason by way of cause and effect, “is” and therefore rational (if the meaning of the word rational can explain reality). However, did the universe endow us to be virtuous, or did it endow us the capability to be virtuous? I am ignorant as to exactly what the Stoics say, but it seems it would be redundant if it is both.
This article can stand as an introduction to a full year course. I cannot ask or comment about every sentence written in it, but I mainly agree, or follow, with most, if not all, of it. When it comes to human nature and the agricultural revolution and subsequent rise of civilization, it must have posed problems for our instincts. However, were our instincts always rational, reasonable and virtuous? If the ancestors of Homo sapiens weren’t risk averse, which can be said to lean on the side of irrational, or unreasonable, especially when it comes to actual life and death circumstances, would we have arrived in the now on this train of evolution? I suppose my point is that humans may not always act rationally. It’s difficult for them. And it might be in our genes to do so. Let’s forget for a moment nurturing and corrective behavior in rearing. We can go back and forth on that and cite the studies. But maybe somewhere in our genome risky and irrational behavior is ready to turn on? This then could fall under the domain of scientific. However, I believe in the power of intelligence and that our minds can overcome almost all adversity—most certainly if we apply our judgements. I believe the simple logic of Stoicism is a sublime guide. I don’t disagree with your premises, I just want to know more. I need to in order to share what I learn with others. 😊
Mike, you raise a number of interesting issues. I do think Nature (meaning evolution by natural selection) endowed us with a strong instinct for cooperation, as well as with the ability to think in order to solve problems. That's what the Stoics would call the beginnings of virtue.
Full fledged virtue, however, requires our reason to build on Nature's basic provisions, in order to overcome our (equally natural, but not virtuous) tendencies toward violence, anger, xenophobia, and the like.
You are a treasure Massimo. I so enjoy reading your postings. Truly there are no mistakes. I keep coming back to simply three words, “is it necessary?”.
Excellent article again Massimo. I love how you address these issues with such frankness and clarity. This is a question I have wondered about and so read Foot’s Natural Goodness and Fran’s de Wall’s Are we smart enough to know how smart Animals are? I agree with your assessment. We’re like cats chasing a laser. Our instincts are so strong it sometimes feels like we can’t help ourselves but jump at the red dot of self destructive action even when we’re inwardly telling ourselves not to.
Nice one. I agree. I still enjoyed Philip Goff’s book: “Why? The Purpose of the Universe” very much, even though I disagree with his principal thesis therein. He writes fascinating prose, explains and argues well - almost to your high standards!
This article goes to show that you can't simply just strive to be certain way, we also have to understand the various way these virtues can be applied, and the common misconceptions people are susceptible to.
All around us are people who have various ways of practicing the same virtue. It wouldn't make sense to pin most, like pleasure or pain, as the ultimate good or bad because both can be observed in beneficial and detrimental cases. There's no raising pleasure as the ultimate good because some ideas of pleasure lead people to dark, chaotic paths. And even though there exists positive pleasure, it's accompanied by far too many components that play into whatever experience produces it.
We have to pay careful attention to what we champion, and ensure that it makes sense within the context of the whole, or else we might find ourselves preaching false pretenses.
Thanks, Massimo! I’ve observed that the instincts, which evolved for a hunter gathering setting, often lead people to attribute malicious motives to the most mundane inconveniences and set backs. Perhaps conspiratorial thinking that has become widespread, despite the abundance of contrary facts, is due to these instincts being exploited by social media algorithms, cable news, demagogues, etc. It’s like a flaw in the system, which has been exploited to override the capacity for pro social tendencies and reason.
Jonathan, human instincts evolved in a very different social and physical environment from the modern one (and by "modern" I mean post-agricultural / neolithic revolution). So it makes sense that they would backfire.
Even Cicero and the Stoics clearly stated that Nature gives us the beginning of wisdom, and that it is up to us, and our (also natural!) ability to reason to expand and adapt them.
Excellent article. I wonder if any efforts are being made to revive natural law thought based on this Stoic notion of prosocial behavior. I also wonder if some of the "universal" virtues researchers have found across cultures (and that I believe you have written about) can be connected to these values.
Christopher, the concept of natural law is very much alive today. Outside of religious contexts, the UN Declaration of Human Rights implicitly assumes something like it, and so does the US Bill of Rights.
And yes, the empirically backed notion that the concept of virtue, and even a number of specific virtues, are human universals certainly strengthens the concept of natural law, though I find the evidence form comparative primatology most persuasive of all.
This article dives deep into the reactor core where the mysteries of the universe are harnessed to allow us to flourish on the surface of this beautiful Blue Marble. Chock Full O’Nuts, once again, Massimo. ☕️😊
The universe, whether “living” or “conscious,” or divine or providential, or fated by reason by way of cause and effect, “is” and therefore rational (if the meaning of the word rational can explain reality). However, did the universe endow us to be virtuous, or did it endow us the capability to be virtuous? I am ignorant as to exactly what the Stoics say, but it seems it would be redundant if it is both.
This article can stand as an introduction to a full year course. I cannot ask or comment about every sentence written in it, but I mainly agree, or follow, with most, if not all, of it. When it comes to human nature and the agricultural revolution and subsequent rise of civilization, it must have posed problems for our instincts. However, were our instincts always rational, reasonable and virtuous? If the ancestors of Homo sapiens weren’t risk averse, which can be said to lean on the side of irrational, or unreasonable, especially when it comes to actual life and death circumstances, would we have arrived in the now on this train of evolution? I suppose my point is that humans may not always act rationally. It’s difficult for them. And it might be in our genes to do so. Let’s forget for a moment nurturing and corrective behavior in rearing. We can go back and forth on that and cite the studies. But maybe somewhere in our genome risky and irrational behavior is ready to turn on? This then could fall under the domain of scientific. However, I believe in the power of intelligence and that our minds can overcome almost all adversity—most certainly if we apply our judgements. I believe the simple logic of Stoicism is a sublime guide. I don’t disagree with your premises, I just want to know more. I need to in order to share what I learn with others. 😊
Mike, you raise a number of interesting issues. I do think Nature (meaning evolution by natural selection) endowed us with a strong instinct for cooperation, as well as with the ability to think in order to solve problems. That's what the Stoics would call the beginnings of virtue.
Full fledged virtue, however, requires our reason to build on Nature's basic provisions, in order to overcome our (equally natural, but not virtuous) tendencies toward violence, anger, xenophobia, and the like.
Morning,
You are a treasure Massimo. I so enjoy reading your postings. Truly there are no mistakes. I keep coming back to simply three words, “is it necessary?”.
Namaste 🙏🏻
Excellent article again Massimo. I love how you address these issues with such frankness and clarity. This is a question I have wondered about and so read Foot’s Natural Goodness and Fran’s de Wall’s Are we smart enough to know how smart Animals are? I agree with your assessment. We’re like cats chasing a laser. Our instincts are so strong it sometimes feels like we can’t help ourselves but jump at the red dot of self destructive action even when we’re inwardly telling ourselves not to.
Jesse, we are working on understanding how other animals think and act. Like everything in science, it's a process...
Nice one. I agree. I still enjoyed Philip Goff’s book: “Why? The Purpose of the Universe” very much, even though I disagree with his principal thesis therein. He writes fascinating prose, explains and argues well - almost to your high standards!
John, thanks very much for the compliment! I do think Goff is completely off in terms of how he sees the universe, but yes, he does write very well!
This article goes to show that you can't simply just strive to be certain way, we also have to understand the various way these virtues can be applied, and the common misconceptions people are susceptible to.
All around us are people who have various ways of practicing the same virtue. It wouldn't make sense to pin most, like pleasure or pain, as the ultimate good or bad because both can be observed in beneficial and detrimental cases. There's no raising pleasure as the ultimate good because some ideas of pleasure lead people to dark, chaotic paths. And even though there exists positive pleasure, it's accompanied by far too many components that play into whatever experience produces it.
We have to pay careful attention to what we champion, and ensure that it makes sense within the context of the whole, or else we might find ourselves preaching false pretenses.
Ibra, indeed. On the notion that pleasure and pain cannot be the ultimate goods see my recent article on Epicureanism and Utilitarianism: https://figsinwinter.substack.com/p/why-epicureans-and-utilitarians-are
Thanks, Massimo! I’ve observed that the instincts, which evolved for a hunter gathering setting, often lead people to attribute malicious motives to the most mundane inconveniences and set backs. Perhaps conspiratorial thinking that has become widespread, despite the abundance of contrary facts, is due to these instincts being exploited by social media algorithms, cable news, demagogues, etc. It’s like a flaw in the system, which has been exploited to override the capacity for pro social tendencies and reason.
Jonathan, human instincts evolved in a very different social and physical environment from the modern one (and by "modern" I mean post-agricultural / neolithic revolution). So it makes sense that they would backfire.
Even Cicero and the Stoics clearly stated that Nature gives us the beginning of wisdom, and that it is up to us, and our (also natural!) ability to reason to expand and adapt them.
Excellent article. I wonder if any efforts are being made to revive natural law thought based on this Stoic notion of prosocial behavior. I also wonder if some of the "universal" virtues researchers have found across cultures (and that I believe you have written about) can be connected to these values.
Christopher, the concept of natural law is very much alive today. Outside of religious contexts, the UN Declaration of Human Rights implicitly assumes something like it, and so does the US Bill of Rights.
And yes, the empirically backed notion that the concept of virtue, and even a number of specific virtues, are human universals certainly strengthens the concept of natural law, though I find the evidence form comparative primatology most persuasive of all.