The Stoic response to the Idle Argument is the conception of all events being co-fated, that is to say, certain conditions must be met in order for the fated outcome to occur. It is the idea that everything is fated within a given context. In order to recover from the illness it is necessary that the agent call the doctor for consultation, once this condition has been met, the fate of recovery will ensue. Conversely, if the agent refrains from going to the doctor it becomes equally fated that they will not recover, since they’ve failed to satisfy the required conditions to overcome the illness (203; Frede). The external cause (impression) in this case would be the illness; we assent to the impression by choosing whether or not we decide to go to the doctor to remedy the illness. This choice is dependent on our character, which would be the internal cause. If we go, we are fated to recover, if we don’t we are equally fated not to recover and consequently die sooner. In both cases a certain set of conditions are required for one of the two outcomes to occur. Responsibility for the Stoics is the very nature of the agents mind. Their mind is responsible for what it assents to- when the external causes are the same but the outcomes differ it is the result of the varying minds between agents. Responsible action is established by judgment between the two minds and the results of their assent (270, Bobzein). The agent that chooses to go to the doctor is considered responsible because they’ve chosen (on account of their character) to go to the doctor and remedy their illness. Alternatively, the other, by comparison, is deemed irresponsible for failing to meet the conditions to sustain their life. Moral responsibility functions in the same... ... middle of paper ... ... accepting themselves in order to lead a stress free life- what is the sense in being distressed over something that is beyond your control? The modern day notion of self-improvement implies changing one’s character to be a ‘better’ person. The issue of inconsistency is a result of the objectors’ misguided application of the modern day understanding of the terms. It is not an inconsistency that lies within Stoicism itself, but an inconsistent use of the definitions. The Stoics speak of one set of definitions and the charges speak of another. To prove inconsistency in their work it is necessary that the philosophy be challenged on it’s own terms. Therefore, the charges of inconsistency against Stoic determinism do not stand; they are misguided objections that do not coordinate with the Stoics established understanding of self-improvement and responsibility.
William Manchester, the author, wanted us to comprehend that it is goal-oriented people such as Desiderius Erasmus who doubtlessly have all the capacity to alter the world. As Erasmus once said, “There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are those who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other”. If people do not have faith in themselves and work hard towards their goals, then they will never reach said desired goals and continuously remorse the days that they did not take advantage of.
In “Luck Swallows Everything” and “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility” Galen Strawson and Susan Wolf’s explain the concept of responsibility in both a compatibilist and determinist view. Strawson argued that change was not possible at all when it comes to responsibility due to an individual’s mental nature, while Wolf argues that change is possible for an individual when it comes to responsibility. This essay will be focusing on the criticism of Wolf’s work.
In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that this problem can be dissolved by the clarification of language usage and the clarification of what freedom is in relationship to those things that oppose freedom or restrain it. In either case, what is at stake is the free will of an agent, and whether or not that agent is morally responsible. What is to be seen from a discussion of these arguments is the applicability and validity of these two philosophies to situations where one must make a choice, and whether or not that person is acting freely and is thus responsible given his current situation. In this vein, the case of Socrates’ imprisonment and whether or not he acted freely in respect to his decision to leave or stay in prison can be evaluated by the discussion of the arguments presented in respect to the nature of free will in its reconciliation with determinism in the compatibilist vein and its absence in the causality of hard determinism.
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Letters From a Stoic. Translation and Introduction by Robin Campbell. New York: Penguin, 1969.
...Epicureans and Stoics] offered a conception of the world and human nature which drew its support from empirical observations, reason and a recognition that all men have common needs” (6). Though both views opposed each other in various ways, they both provided man with a way to live and to care for oneself.
Responsibility was a big deal in the story Oedipus Rex. Even though the gods knew what he was going to do, he still had the free will to do so. This is quite similar to the beliefs of the Christian religion. Christians are accustomed to the idea that God is all knowing, yet we as humans have the gift of free will and that makes us responsible for our own actions. It seems to be similar in the tale of Oedipus Rex and in Greek mythology as a whole.
Stoicism is a philosophical school of thought that asserts virtue as the one true good that can produce eudemonia, the Stoic term for happiness or living well. This good is accessible to all, by means of using impressions properly and behaving in accordance with god and nature. Virtue is a good achieved through both internal and external sources. The Stoics associated virtue with the venerated status of sage, which can be achieved only when the soul is unwaveringly consistent with true human nature. But what is human nature? Unlike many philosophical theories that focus on the role of emotions in human nature, the Stoics thought human nature to be closely tied to rationality. The Stoics believed that it was human nature to seek out good and happiness, and that all wrong choices are made in the pursuit or avoidance of a wrongfully perceived value. These errors in rationale and perception contribute to the formation of false beliefs, which causes non-virtuous or vicious behavior. Determinism, or the acceptance of living in accord with events outside of our control is a key feature of Stoic theory. This strict determinism allows Stoics to distance themselves from encumbering emotional reactions that are often associated with negative or positive outcomes. A stoic would attempt to dissuade a non-sage from engaging in emotions because they lack the capacity of assenting strictly to kataleptic impressions because emotions negatively effect their beliefs. In order to behave in accordance with this logic it requires a rejection of common emotions. Ordinary emotions such as pleasure and fear are considered false impression, which contribute to a bad mental state. In order to avoid assenting to false impressions one must gain a rational und...
One of the main ideas which form part of the answer as to what it means to follow nature for the Stoics is the following of an intended trajectory. As the oak tree strives to achieve its natural form of the best oak tree that it can become, it is upon its natural trajectory of reaching its potential. So too, borrowing from Aristotle, humans have the potential of becoming excellent in their own right through...
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus is one such philosopher. In The Enchiridion he outlined how to live a good life as a stoic. Anything that is not one's own action is out of their control and should be ignored. He lists "Body, property, reputation, and command" as examples.1 He claims they are weak, and do not belong to us. Trying to control them will lead to unhappiness. On the other hand, he believes if you recognize that external things belonging to others, and internal things as yours you will be much better off.2 To Epictetus, proper way to live is to let things come to you, while being reserved. To illustrate this, he uses the example of a dinner party, where you should not reach across the table and take things. Instead you wait till they come to you.3
More specifically, Stoicism is a moral guide for humans. Though nature is absolute and perfect through God, the human thought is the one and only feature of life that is controlled and changed by people. Humans have the ability to reason and to know that everything in life is determined. For every event that they encounter, humans are able to acknowledge the fact that it is a part of their life plan. Therefore, a person can control whether he/she accepts that the action is unchangeable. Many humans think that they have a choice for all that they do and all that happens to them. But in Stoic reality, natures plan has one path with no possible differences. Thus, good is not defined by what a person does; but, by a per...
Oedipus also represents a flaw in classical thinking. By implying that we are powerless to change our fate, Sophocles eats away at some of the most core desires in our society. A poor man may think it is fate that he will never live a wealthy lifestyle, but the next day he may win the lottery. The core belief that is not present in Oedipus is to never give up. At l...
In The Odyssey life is one's own responsibility; instead of leaving all things up to fate, the characters had a significant influence upon his or her own existence.
Stoic principles can guide many toward a successful life. The few discussed previously – negative visualization, insults, and the dichotomy of control – serve as a good starting point for people like me who are just beginning to learn about Stoicism. Through negative visualization, we can grow to respect, appreciate, and acknowledge the fortunate circumstances that we each have been lucky to be placed in. Whether you are the richest or the poorest, it could always be worse. By following the Stoic teaching on insults, we develop immunity to “insults.” When they no longer have an effect on us, it is almost ridiculous to call them insults. We learn to either laugh at them or ignore them. We cannot control what others think so there is no use in letting it have a negative effect on something we can control – how we respond. This idea goes back to the dichotomy of control based around the things we can and cannot completely control. By concerning ourselves solely with deriving benefits from the things within our control, we can eliminate the typical strong effect that the things we cannot control have on
Words like destiny, fate, and predestination have a much meaning to people today, as countless people believe in it. On the other hand, the belief that a person controls his life has been established as an opposing belief. The book Oedipus the King, a Greek tragedy, written by Sophocles, examines this debate between fate and choice. Although some people argue that the tragedies that took place in Oedipus' life were destined to happen, the grim circumstances that surrounded Oedipus' life were the result of his own free will and the decisions he made about many of these circumstances.
One simple consideration that can change the course of how people think about their approach to life is, the examination of the influences that they have on other people’s lives. An individual could also look outwards and analyze the impact that other people have on that individual’s life. One should also self-reflect and search for how their thoughts and actions craft a pathway towards their own destiny. The statement by Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living,” is an interesting statement that requires a considerable amount of analysis.