0 Members and 169 Guests are viewing this topic.
For an ancient philosophy, Stoicism is doing extremely well in 2023. Quotes from the Stoic philosopher and Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius litter my Instagram feed; you can find expert advice from modern Stoic thinkers on leadership, relationships, and, well, just about anything.It is hard to imagine Zeno, the Athenian philosopher who founded Stoicism, or his Roman counterparts Seneca, Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus existing in today?s world. And yet here they are, quoted and debated on every corner.This is, in part, due to international authors such as Ryan Holiday and Massimo Pigliucci and Australia?s Brigid Delaney. Each of these has their own approach to Stoicism. Holiday, a former marketing executive for American Apparel, focuses on the four Stoic virtues: courage, temperance (or moderation), justice and wisdom. Pigliucci, an academic based in New York, is interested in Stoic practices. Journalist Delaney, author of Reasons not to worry: how to be stoic in chaotic times, is in search of a framework for navigating life.Holiday has probably been most influential in taking Stoicism to a wide audience. His new book Discipline is Destiny: the power of self control is a New York Times bestseller. He runs a very successful Instagram page called the dailystoic, and has opened a book store in his home state of Texas.It is incredible to see such public interest in ancient philosophy. As a philosopher myself, this is inspiring. There are many academic philosophers trying to break through to a public audience. We want to demonstrate the usefulness of philosophy to everyday life. Most philosophers and philosophies fail to do this. Yet if the success of these authors is anything to go by, millions of people are interested in the Stoic way of life.But there are problems with Stoicism, both in its modern and ancient forms. I am not a fan. Here are my three reasons to resist Stoicism, and also an alternative approach to the some of the same problems it addresses I have borrowed from Friedrich Nietzsche, the great 19th century German philosopher.
There is never any agreement on anything between philosophers. If two philosophers agree, one becomes redundant and loses his job. A bit like two artists painting exactly the same picture, except that art demands skill and gives pleasure.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-nietzsche-nihilism-and-reasons-to-be-cheerful-130378German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is sometimes dismissed as a malevolent figure, obsessed with the problem of nihilism and the ?death of God?.Understandably, these ideas are unsettling: few of us have the courage to confront the possibility our idols may be hollow and life has no inherent meaning.But Nietzsche sees not only the dangers these ideas pose, but also the positive opportunities they present.The beauty and severity of Nietzsche?s texts draw from his vision that we could move through nihilism to develop newly meaningful ways to be human.
They can agree on one thing while disagree on other things.
The important question is which hypothesis stands up to test. If an idea is not testable, it is of no consequence.
What on earth is a "newly meaningful way to be human?" The only meaningful way is to have human DNA.
In the next century, they will have completely different genes from current humans.
So they won't be humans.
The objection is that all living things modify their environment up to the point at which they poison themselves with their own excrement and detritus. Having screwed up one planet, what right do we have to design an animal to modify Mars?
Quote from: alancalverd on 13/05/2023 11:40:13So they won't be humans.Is that a problem? Why or why not?
We can learn from biological experiments in terrarium jars which can run for decades without material exchange across the glass walls.
Exporting an entire terrarium to Mars would be expensive and completely pointless, like going on a foreign holiday and never getting off the bus. All you have achieved is to add some diesel fumes (or in this case rocket exhaust) to someone else's planet..
The other alternative is to go extinct with the destruction of the earth.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/05/2023 02:24:10 The other alternative is to go extinct with the destruction of the earth.Best of all would be for humanity to extinguish and let the earth recover.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 15/05/2023 08:01:52Quote from: alancalverd on 13/05/2023 11:40:13So they won't be humans.Is that a problem? Why or why not?Because you wanted them to be!
This is an important paradox in moral philosophy, first introduced by Derek Parfit. To learn more, check out:1. Parfit's "Reasons and Persons," part 42. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the paradox:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/QuoteThe Repugnant ConclusionFirst published Thu Feb 16, 2006; substantive revision Mon Jan 16, 2017In Derek Parfit?s original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is stated as follows: ?For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living? (Parfit 1984). The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as ?Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?? and ?Is there a moral obligation to have children?? The main problem has been to find an adequate theory about the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives (or their life-time welfare or well-being?we shall use these terms interchangeably here), and their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of population ethics is of general import for moral theory. As the name indicates, Parfit finds the Repugnant Conclusion unacceptable and many philosophers agree. However, it has been surprisingly difficult to find a theory that avoids the Repugnant Conclusion without implying other equally counterintuitive conclusions. Thus, the question as to how the Repugnant Conclusion should be dealt with and, more generally, what it shows about the nature of ethics has turned the conclusion into one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics.
The Repugnant ConclusionFirst published Thu Feb 16, 2006; substantive revision Mon Jan 16, 2017In Derek Parfit?s original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is stated as follows: ?For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living? (Parfit 1984). The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as ?Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?? and ?Is there a moral obligation to have children?? The main problem has been to find an adequate theory about the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives (or their life-time welfare or well-being?we shall use these terms interchangeably here), and their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of population ethics is of general import for moral theory. As the name indicates, Parfit finds the Repugnant Conclusion unacceptable and many philosophers agree. However, it has been surprisingly difficult to find a theory that avoids the Repugnant Conclusion without implying other equally counterintuitive conclusions. Thus, the question as to how the Repugnant Conclusion should be dealt with and, more generally, what it shows about the nature of ethics has turned the conclusion into one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics.