Philosophy Exam #2
While the Stoics emphasized human freedom in their conception of the "faculty of choice (or judgement)," they were determinists where nature was concerned. The Skeptic is quite critical of Stoicism on this point. Explain and assess the criticism the Skeptic is making on the bottom of p. 349 and onto the top of p. 350.
"All the difference between the conditions of life depends upon the mind, nor is there any one situation of affairs in itself preferable to another. Good and ill, both natural and moral, are entirely relative to human sentiment and affection. No man would ever be unhappy, could he alter his feelings." "The fabric and constitution of our mind no more depends on our choice than that of our body" Nature has an influence in the mind "Men may well be sensible to the value of virtue, and may desire to attain it, but it is not always certain that they will be successful in their wishes" "It will be easy, by one glance of the eye, to find one or other of these defects in most of those philosophical reflections so much celebrated both in ancient and modern times. 'Let not the injuries or violence of men,' say the philosophers, 'ever discompose you by anger or hatred. Would you be angry at the ape for its malice, or the tiger for its ferocity?' This reflection leads us into a bad opinion of human nature and must extinguish the social affections. It tends also to prevent all remorse for a man's own crimes when he considers that vice is a natural to mankind as the particular instincts to brute creatures. 'All ills arise from the order of the universe, which is absolutely perfect. Would you wish to disturb so divine an order for the sake our your own particular interest?' What if the ills I suffer arise from malice or oppression. 'But the vices and imperfections of men are also comprehended in the order of the universe.' 'You should always have before your eyes death, disease, poverty, blindness, exile, calumny, and infamy, as ills which are incident to human nature. If any one of these ills fall to your lot, you will bear it the better when you have reckoned upon it.' I answer, if we confine ourselves to a general and distant reflection on the ills of human life, that can have no effect to prepare us for them. If by close and intense mediation we render them present and intimate to us, that is the true secret for poisoning all our pleasures and rendering us perpetually miserable.
What is the Skeptic's theory of value (including beauty and moral worth)? Where does value come from? To what observations does the Skeptic appeal in order to justify this view? How does this theory of value relate to the Skeptic's idea that life is a game? How do you assess these ideas?
"If we can depend upon any principle which we learn from philosophy, this, I think, may be considered as certain and undoubted: that there is nothing in itself valuable or despicable, desirable or hateful, beautiful or deformed; but that these attributes arise from the particular constitution and fabric of human sentiment and affection" "The mind is not content with merely surveying its objects, as they stand in themselves" "This sentiment determines it to affix the epithet beautiful or deformed, desirable or odious"
What does the life of virtue look like according to the Skeptic? How is the life of virtue related to happiness according to the Skeptic?
"The happiest disposition of mind is the virtuous, or in other words, that which leads to action and employment, renders us sensible to the social passions, steels the heart against the assaults of fortune, reduces the affections to just a moderation, makes our own thoughts an entertainment to us, and inclines us rather to the pleasures of society and conversation than to those of the senses" "Men may well be sensible of the value of virtue, and may desire to attain it, but it is not always certain that they will be successful in their wishes" How to live so that you are likely to be happy, but there is no guarantee, unlike the Stoic who guarantees happiness. pg. 344-345 Theory of virtue offered by Humes is different that what we normally think of, as we think of a theory of virtue is that there are things that are morally right and morally wrong, and we should do the good things and not the bad things. This won't work the Skeptic philosophy because there is no such thing as good and bad things. If you don't have any objective good or bad, right or wrong, what does a theory of virtue have to offer you? - What can make you happy in life, as you want to live a life that you enjoy. There are no rules in life, you're not on a mission. So what's left is you want to live the most enjoyable life you can. Life is like a game, so you want to have a great game. Based on psychological and empirical judgements about what is likely to work. (1) What kind of passions do you want to have, and (2) what would be good objects of your passions. This differs from the Stoics, who dissuade passions, as they are linked to Externals. An element of this is in the theory of virtue - it's a good idea to have a passion for the things that you are more likely to get. Like Stoicism ideals, just less extreme. ~ pg. 344 ~ Want moderate passions - not too violent or remiss (weak) (want to play the game of life with gusto and energy, because it's not fun if you don't care), should be benign and social (not benign = robbing banks, gossiping, starting bar fights). Happiness is the satisfaction of our passions. There are a lot of things that aren't realistic in life, so choose one that is good, like reading, because we have access to the library here in Omaha. Learning is a great passion to have, better than one for riches. Hume thinks that we are social creatures, and these are the passions that make us happy. Our passions should make us cheerful and gay - make us to be glass half full kind of person. Humes think a pessimistic person won't be as happy. ~ pg. 345 ~ Strength of mind - very Stoic, just not as extreme as with the Stoics. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and try something else. This strength of mind is good.
Other notes:
#5 - Judgement - Others may call you names, but you have to make a judgement on this. They can call you names, but you have to decide that it's a bad thing. This is where we are radically free. What kind of judgement is #8, want to have happen what does happen.
Identify, explain, and discuss four main criticisms that the Skeptic makes of Epictetus and Stoic philosophy.
(1) Stoics see us as part of nature (2) No one isn't going to feel anything (3) We do not have enough control to will to happen what will happen (4) When someone dies we feel emotion (5) The mind is not completely under our control, and thus Epictetus was wrong (6) If we were indifferent to all externals we have no discernment in life - we're being guided by caring about externals all the time - personal health, lock car; we couldn't live if we were indifferent (7) All bodies (human, vegetable) are subject to nature - we cannot act without our body, in stoicism there is no room for action, can't speak or listen without a body
What is so troubling to Augustine about Academic Skepticism? Consider the points made on the second half of p. 86. Is Academic Skepticism, like a snipe hunt, a joke?
Augustine considers Skepticism to be a joke because we're supposed to wake up in the morning and we're supposed to know the truth, yet the Skeptic believes that we will never know the truth, and they think that everyday is the same; they believe that you will never find the truth, but you have to keep searching Augustine thinks this isn't a joke because it will turn people away from philosophy, and we need philosophy; instead, people should turn to philosophy. Thus, Academic Skepticism is a dangerous philosophy because it tends to lead people to give up on philosophy, which is not a good thing, as philosophy offers us good guidance in life. "The Academicians say that in their actions they follow only the plausible, and they are searching mighty for the truth, although it's plausible to them that it can't be found. Now doesn't everyone laugh at this? What a wonderful monstrosity!" "If the reasoning of the Academicians is plausible, a person may commit any atrocity whenever it seems plausible to him that it ought to be done, as long as he doesn't assent to anything as a truth, and he may do so not only without being blamed for a crime but also without being blamed for error."
Explain the point of this sentence "Stoic training, then, is at odds with the projective character of human existence" (10).
Human life is about action, about acting in the world. Stoicism denies that our bodies are ours making no room for action. Our mind has been so radically split off from the world, so how are we going to act in the world? Stoics want us to think of human actions as part of human nature, like a boulder. They think this way because they don't leave enough room for action in the world. Humans are not outside of nature and the world.
How does paying attention to human action (pp. 6ff) raise basic questions about Stoicism?
Human life is about action, about acting in the world. Stoicism denies that our bodies are ours making no room for action. Our mind has been so radically split off from the world, so how are we going to act in the world? Stoics want us to think of human actions as part of human nature, like a boulder. They think this way because they don't leave enough room for action in the world. Humans are not outside of nature and the world.
What is Epictetus' conception of the self? How is it related to the "faculty of choice" (see #9, p. 14) and to the body? How do you assess this conception of the self?
Illness doesn't impact the person, because the body isn't not in our control, it's an external. The faculty of choice allows us to make decisions that impact our life. "Illness interferes with the body, not with one's faculty of choice, unless that faculty of choice wishes it to. Lameness interferes with the limb, not with one's faculty of choice. Say this at each thing that happens to you, since you will find that it interferes with something else, not with you." The faculty of choice is our free will. Epicteus believes that we only have control over our Internals, and not our Externals, so that we only have free will to control our Internals, but our Externals cannot be impacted by our free will.
Comment on point 27 in the Handbook: "Just as the target is not set up to be missed, in the same way nothing bad by nature happens in the world" (p. 19). In your view what counts in favor of this claim and what against it? Consider what Epictetus has to say regarding piety and our attitude toward the gods in #31.
Nature cannot be controlled, it's spontaneous and random. Thus, this acts in favor against this claim. The target is not always precisely hit, sometimes it is missed. ... This philosophy to Stoicism will be the only thing to lead to piety. We only blame the gods when something bad happens, we cannot control this. "This piety is impossible unless you detach the good and the bad from what is not up to us and attach it exclusively to what is up to us is good or bad, then when you fail to get what you want and fall into what you do not want, you will be bound to blame and hate those who cause this." "There is no way for a person who thinks he is harming him, just as it is impossible to enjoy the harm itself." "Wherever someone's advantage lies, there he also shows piety. So whoever takes care to have desires and aversions as one should also in the same instance takes care about being pious."
Present and discuss the main points Trygetius and Licentius make in their debate in Book 1 of Against the Academicians (AA) over knowledge and happiness. How does Licentius counter Trygetius's claim that humans desire truth so much that they cannot be happy without processing it (p. 11)? Trygetius's reasons "that anyone in error neither lives according to reason nor is happy at all. Someone who is always searching and not finding anything is in error. Accordingly, you need to show one of two things: either (a) someone in error can be happy; or (b) anyone who is searching for what he never finds isn't in error." How does Licentious use the ideas of the Academic Skeptics to try and reply?
Points of Agreement: We ought to know the truth, we want to be happy Academic Skeptics: the best we can do in this life is to search for the truth, but we won't find it; if you don't find the truth, nature won't let you find it Anti-Skeptics: to live happy is to live what is best in us - our capacity to reason; wise person guided by what is best in us - our reasoning; not perfect/wise to be searching for the truth; searching for the truth means you haven't reached the goal Trygetius (opposes Academic Skepticism): "We hold the happy man to be the wise man, perfect in all matters. Anyone who is still searching isn't perfect. Therefore, I don't see at all how you can assert that he is happy" Licentius: "If the wise man assented to uncertain matters then, even if they perhaps were to be true, he couldn't be free from error, and this is the greatest fault in a wise man. Consequently, if we believe that the wise man is necessarily happy and that the perfect employment of wisdom is the mere search for the truth, why do we hesitate to believe that the happy life can itself be achieved as such by the very search for the truth?" Licentius: "I admit that someone who hasn't gotten all the way to his goal isn't perfect. I think that God alone, or maybe the human soul once it has abandoned the dark prison that is the body, knows the truth! Man's goal, though, is to search perfectly for the truth. We're searching for someone who is perfect but still a man" Licentius: "This is human happiness, to search for the truth perfectly! This is to get to a goal we can't go beyond. Therefore, anyone who searches for the truth less insistently than he should doesn't get to the goal of man. Anyone who takes pains to find the truth, to the extent that a man can and should, is happy - even if he were not to find it. He's doing everything he can do, as he is fit by nature. If he fails to find the truth, it's because nature didn't equip him to find it. Finally, since man must be either happy or unhappy, isn't it sheer madness to say that someone is unhappy who spends his days and nights, as far as he can, searching for the truth? Thus, he'll be happy." "The happy man can't be in error. Well, a man isn't in error when he's searching, because he's searching so as not to be in error." (pg. 12) After a night's rest, he comes up with a reply, "Error seems to me to be the approval or a falsehood as a truth. Now anyone who believes that the truth is always to be sought doesn't fall afoul or this in any way. After all, someone who doesn't approve anything can't approve a falsehood, and so he can't be in error. Yet he can easily be happy" ... the Skeptic can avoid all error by suspending belief
The Stoics, including Epictetus, regarded Socrates as their forerunner, and the final line of the Handbook is a quote from Socrates in the Apology: "Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they can't harm me." How does Epictetus' Stoic philosophy try to show how this can be true? Since the charges of Anytus and Meletus led to Socrates' execution, in answering this question take up the Stoic approach to death. What, if anything, is dreadful about death? Why does Epictetus urge us, while sympathizing with a grieving friend, to "be careful not to moan inwardly"?
Socrates could not be harmed because his body was not his, therefore he couldn't be harmed. His mind was his greatest asset, and since that was only his own, he couldn't be harmed. Epictetus urges Stoics to not be too upset by death. By caring up those who can die, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment and hurt. To make yourself impermeable to harm, remember that our bodies are not ours. When you flog or imprison me, you're not harming me because that's not me. You can free yourself from being harmed by only caring about the things that you control. You can always win if it's a contest in which you have full control. And you have full control over your internals. If you think death is a bad thing, if that's your judgement, then that would be bad, because that's your judgement. You can't control dying. The only thing dreadful about death is thinking tht it is harmful. Death is the loss of life, and life isn't good. It is an external, something that we have control over. So the loss of life shouldn't be dreadful. The death of someone else is not a bad thing. You should "grieve" with your friend who has lost a love one, but fake it. This way, they feel comforted, but you don't have to give up your Externals. Your friend is wrong, but this is not the time to give you're friend a lesson on Stoicism. Same thing with the break up of a friend - console your friend, but internally think how you're friend isn't too bright and doesn't understand the message of Stoicism. Any kind of disappointment, in regard to Externals, if you're a real Stoic you're saying to yourself the same kind of thing. Being told to present yourself in a way that is false. If you'd been smart and followed the Stoic philosophy, then this pain could be avoided.
The Skeptic emphasizes the power of our natural disposition, but still allows that philosophy and the liberal arts and sciences can be conducive to virtue, as long as one's character is not too defective. How?
The Stoic is saying that we have the power over our aversions and our passions. The Skeptic is saying that our natural dispositions are very powerful. We do not have complete control over our mind. However, we don't have no control. We can work on our natural dispositions in a number of ways - habit, model ourselves after some example, education. Habit - training of ourselves to try and transform our emotions. If we find ourselves to be thoughtless, we can find practices that will help us become more thoughtful Model ourselves after some example - religious (Jesus, Buddha), philosophical (Socrates). This personal example can made a difference. Education - especially a liberal education. Strawman = informal fallacy and try to avoid this - in a paper, justly describe both sides. Allow yourself to be transformed is part of a liberal education. We cannot be controlled as much as the Stoics think, but enough.
Contrast the views of the Stoic and the Skeptic on the subject of social life and social recognition (reputation, etc.), Consider what the Skeptic writes in the first paragraph on p. 350.
The Stoic says not to worry about your reputation, because this is something that you cannot control. The Stoic claims that we, as humans, are social creatures. ...
Academic Skepticism offers a theory of who is the wise person. How, in Book 3, does Augustine try to argue that the Skeptical philosophy is incompatible with there being any wise person?
The answers yes and no both don't work: yes is contradictory because Zeno says they don't know the truth so they must not have wisdom, and with no, why follow someone who isn't wise? Our person does know wisdom, but wisdom is nothing, so it's not contradictory The Skeptic has no good answer because yes violates the basic principle, and no because how is someone wise if they don't know what wisdom is? Yes, they know wisdom, but wisdom is really nothing, so the effort of Academic Skeptics is wasted, and thus the Skeptics have been cornered. If the wise person does not know wisdom, why call the person wise? If the wise person does know wisdom, then Academic Skepticism's premise that we can know nothing must be abandoned. There is one another, absurd, possibility - wisdom is nothing.
What imaginary story does Augustine tell to try to make the Skeptical idea of guiding one's life by the "truthlike" a laughing matter?
The story of a person saying a son looks like his father, without ever actually meeting the father How can you say something is truth-like if you've never known the truth? - you can't "If a man unacquainted with your father were to see your brother and assert that he is like your father, won't he seem to you crazy or simple-minded?" (pg. 41) This is a story against the truth-like - if you don't know the truth, then you don't know the truth-like either.
In the opening paragraph of the Handbook, Epictetus divides things into two types. What are the two types? Give several examples of each. How does Epictetus characterize each type? What lessons for how to lead our life does Epictetus draw from this distinction? How does this distinction relate to his judgement regarding what our attitude toward nature should be? What criticism(s) does the Skeptic make of this basic distinction? How do you evaluate the distinction?
Things up to us and things not up to us Things up to us: our opinions, our impulses, desires, aversions - whatever is our own doing; by nature free, unhindered, and unimpeded. These are our Internals. What's really ours is our opinions, impulses, desires, aversions, choices, and judgements. Things not up to us: our bodies, our possessions, our reputations, our public offices - whatever is not our own doing; by nature weak, enslaved, hindered, not our own. These are our Externals. Something is ours if it is up to us, and to be in control is to be in complete and absolutes. We can be kept from using our bodies, and thus we have no control over. We are our choices and our judgements. And if we stick to what is ours good things will happen to you. People are unhappy when things the can't control happen. Therefore, we should want things to happen as they do happen, so that we won't be disappointed. We have to learn detachment. The world of nature is totally undetermined and we have no control over it. Thus we should want to happen what will happen and be okay with it. You must dissociate judgement from what's being judged because your judgement is all that matters. The Skeptic says that this disjunction, this split between Internals and Externals isn't possible. People feel too much to completely control their minds, and we do have a certain level of control over our bodies.
Point 8 in Epictetus' Handbook seems to offer a foolproof prescription for happiness: "Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well" (p. 13). How do you assess this piece of advice: Is it foolproof or foolhardy?
This is foolhardy, because we cannot predict what will happen. By wishing for something to happen, we will have anticipated events that we cannot control, and this is not the stoic way. Therefore, it's contradictory. It's foolish to want to have happen what does happen. It sounds ridiculous. Thing of the things that happen, do you really want them to happen? At the root is a radical sense of the indifference of the world.
What do Murray and Schuler mean by charging that Stoicism is involved in "reinventing humanity"?
Two types of things: things that we can control and things that we cannot control. This is a radical split between our minds and our worlds. This split doesn't not exist. Splitting mind and world is a false move, a mistake. #8 in the Handbook - we should want to have happen everything that does happen. When do we want what happens to happen? In the moment? The problem with this is that wanting is projective. You're not wanting something in the immediate present, but rather into the future, because this is how humans are. But this won't work with Stoicism. This misses the future-looking character of wanting. Human life is about action, about acting in the world. Stoicism denies that our bodies are ours making no room for action. Our mind has been so radically split off from the world, so how are we going to act in the world? Stoics want us to think of human actions as part of human nature, like a boulder. They think this way because they don't leave enough room for action in the world. Humans are not outside of nature and the world.
On pp. 36-38 Augustine gives a brief account of Academic Skepticism. According to that presentation, what are the main ideas of Academic Skepticism? How did the Academic Skeptics respond to Zeno the Stoic's assertion that there are (true) perceptions? What is the "Academic" conception of the wise person?
We should avoid error by: (1) knowing and following the truth, and (2) suspending belief; our actions, according to the Skeptics, are motivated by our beliefs, which leads to a suspension of beliefs to avoid error, and reliance on the plausible (truth-like) as a guide in life, which is arbitrary, since we cannot suspend our beliefs ... we can't get the truth, so we settle for the truth-like (Academic) Skepticism rejects the claim of Zeno the Stoic that we have "perceptions", that is perceptions that are true and that we can know to be true. Skepticism denies that we have access to the truth. Secondly, Skepticism insists that that the wise person avoids error. So, Skepticism concludes that the wise person must suspend all belief, that is, must not assent to the truth of any claim. In the face of the objection that the suspension of all belief would immobilize us, would leave us totally inactive, the Skeptic Carneades developed the idea of the plausible or truthlike, as a guide in life. Zeno = founder of Stoicism: "we do know truth and have the power of perceiving" - we have are capable of knowing truths; Arcesilaus responds by saying that we can be fooled, as philosophers disagree throughout the ages and our senses systematically lead us "The wise man isn't at all derelict in his duties since he has something to follow [as a guide to action]. The truth lies hidden, however, since it is buried or indistinct, either by reason of some natural obscurities or because of resemblances among things. At the same time, they maintained that withholding or (so to speak) 'suspension' of assent is precisely the great action performed by the wise man" We're never going to find the truth, which rejects Zeno's quote (pg. 38) - to recognize something as true, there is no hint of falsity about it. It is perceived as true with no doubts about it. Arcesalius disagrees with Zeno. - We're searching for the truth and not finding it. Our constitution, of being human beings living in the world, is not up for discovering the truth like Zeno says. We're going to look for the truth, and in looking for and searching for the truth, by being wise. We know for sure that wise people avoid error. The best way to avoid error is to know what is true, but unfortunately we don't get this. So the fall-back position is to suspend belief. ~pg. 37 ~ Objection, because if we suspend belief than we have no guidance in life. This is where the plausible comes in to say this is true, and they respond by saying that they will be guided by what they find as plausible. Which then leads to a problem because the plausible is like the truth-like, and if you don't know the truth, then how could you know the truth-life? Here comes the story of the father and the son, and we can't defend the truth-like. Another problem with the plausible is that if you break the link between the plausible (truth-like) and truth, then the plausible is left being the arbitrary, and this makes a mess out of the philosophy. The only defense that it is plausible is that you find it plausible, which isn't strong enough. The wise person is someone who is guided by the plausible, because you recognize that you don't know the truth, suspend belief, and are guided by the plausible. The Academic Skeptic thinks that the adulterous man is wise. Augustine follows up that this allows you to justify any action. This is one point that deeply disturbs Augustine because you could justify any atrocity. Zeno is wrong, we won't ever know the truth. To avoid error, suspend belief. We can't live with suspended beliefs, so turn to the plausible/truth-like.
How do Murray and Schular use the distinction between logical necessity and phenomenological necessity (p. 3) to criticize Stoicism?
Whale vision - can see on the sides, but not straight ahead. Humans see ahead, we lock our cars, because we think we have control of our possessions. Phenomenological point - in our experience, there are a whole lot of things, over which we have more or less control. This whole category is missing from Stoicism. There is a whole range of things. Stoics are saying that we have no control over our bodies, and who really thinks that? Logical thing - look at the word control and say that you either have control or you don't. The idea that you have more or less control gets lost. Phenomenological - we have more of less control over things viewed by the Stoics.
In Book 3 Augustine further opposes the Academics and supports Zeno's proposition by identifying several sorts of truths with which we are familiar. What are they? Please give a couple of examples of the different sorts. Do you think Augustine is right about this?
pg. 68 - 71, 73 He gives the example that we know that Zeno's claim itself is either true or false. That is, we know at least one disjunctive (error/or) truth. Turning to the field of "physics" Augustine points out that we know many disjunctive truths, eg, there is either one world or many. If there is one world it is either finite or infinite. Mathematical truths such as three times three is nine are also known. Then there are what we might call "appearance truths", such as "I feel warm now". In ethics there is the truth that the ultimate human good is either nothing or it is in the body or the mind or both. There are dialectical truths, which include the truths of logic, eg, if A implies B and if A is true, then B is true (modus ponens). Physics (the world had a beginning or it didn,t the is one world or many, either the world will end or it will go on forever), ethics (either there is no good for human beings, or the good of the mind, or the good of the body, or both; disjunction), dialectic (logic; deductive argument forms, if I have two feet then I don't have three feet), appearance (this tastes good to me now, could be under physics) These are all truths, to prove that Zeno was right. This is a move that calls out the Skeptics as wrong and supports Zeno. There are certain things that we know.