[Moya Anomalous]

Are there any practitioners of stoicism here? I imagine stoicism might come natural to a true INTJ; what with all the reasoning and dissecting of the world around them. At least it has for me...

[alt lit]

The ideas in the writings of Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus appealed to me when I was younger, but I haven’t read them in a while. I may have to reread them soon. I recall Stoicism appealing to me more than the other major Greek philosophies (Skeptics, Epicureans, etc.).

	Originally Posted by Moya Anomalous To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I imagine stoicism might come natural to a true INTJ; what with all the reasoning and dissecting of the world around them.

Interesting observation. I recall the major takeaway (for me) of Stoicism being a general emotional neutrality to events (and their outcomes) in our lives that are out of our control. Although all philosophies are by nature analytical, I would (from what I remember) attribute the fiercest dissection of the world to the Skeptics. From what I recall, I’d say Skepticism may be the most natural for INTJs, although I can definitely see how you are equating reasoning with Stoic emotional neutrality. At any rate, it’s been a while since I’ve read these ancient philosophies. May be time to reread.

[Kmal]

	Stoicism being a general emotional neutrality to events (and their outcomes) in our lives that are out of our control

Oh man, I live by that. Why worry about it if you can't control it?

[PontifexAvis]

It has been a long day, and I am a bit lacking words. Considering alt lit's definition of being emotionally neutral to events out of our control, I always assumed the neutrality was applied to any emotion deemed negative. Whether the result of something we had control in or not.

Either meaning, I think it has its places but is ultimately not preferable. As I described in my post of anger, I really go through periods of stoicism. In which I have trouble getting upset about things. There is a sort of calmness to it, but what is calm often has elements of being tired, and out of energy. I often feel like I do not have the energy for anger, which could also mean the passion for anything to get angry about.

It has its place in mild amounts, but overall stoicism is rock in the stream of life that which we all drink. At times the water is nasty, but its in the bitterness that we find appreciation for it on its better days. Ultimately the water builds up, and breaks out in a mess of chaos. The emotional neutrality makes me think of the suppressing of emotions, which are a part of life and help balance it, so should be accepted. It has its places in moderate amounts, we cannot drink too much from the stream or we will get sick, but I would not want it all the time.

[Synchronicity]

I've been an adherent of Stoicism for a few years, though lately I haven't given it much attention. Yes, it does seem like it would come naturally to an INTJ, and in my case it definitely has.

[Moya Anomalous]

Forgive me, everyone... I must admit that I am quite confused by what everyone considers to be stoicism. The second poster was correct, but I must admit that those who have followed seems to be at a... disadvantage, in my opinion. Perhaps I am reading it wrong...

Allow me to provide a link...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Again, please forgive me for predicating this decision based on what seems to be conjecture...

Though emotions can be effected by stoic principles, they are not the principles...

[Kmal]

I certainly don't adhere to stoicism, just the line I put in my previous post. Why would you consider it a disadvantage?

[Moya Anomalous]

The very practice of stoicism is breaking down the reason things are the way they are. Emotions and things you might consider offensive become simple psychological understandings...

Epictetus:

* "Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire." (iv.1.175)
* "Where is the good? In the will. Where is the evil? In the will. Where is neither of them? In those things that are independent of the will." (ii.16.1)
* "Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them." (Ench. 5)
* "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone." (iii.24.2)
* "I am formed by nature for my own good: I am not formed for my own evil." (iii.24.83)
* "Permit nothing to cleave to you that is not your own; nothing to grow to you that may give you agony when it is torn away." (iv.1.112)

Marcus Aurelius:

* "Get rid of the judgment, get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt itself." (viii.40)
* "Everything is right for me, which is right for you, O Universe. Nothing for me is too early or too late, which comes in due time for you. Everything is fruit to me which your seasons bring, O Nature. From you are all things, in you are all things, to you all things return." (iv.23)
* "If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping your divine part pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting nothing, but satisfied to live now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every word which you utter, you will live happy. And there is no man able to prevent this." (iii.12)
* "How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life!" (xii.13)
* "Outward things cannot touch the soul, not in the least degree; nor have they admission to the soul, nor can they turn or move the soul; but the soul turns and moves itself alone." (iv.3)
* "Because your own strength is unequal to the task, do not assume that it is beyond the powers of man; but if anything is within the powers and province of man, believe that it is within your own compass also" (vi.19)
* "Or is it your reputation that's bothering you? But look at how soon we're all forgotten. The abyss of endless time that swallows it all. The emptiness of those applauding hands." (iv.3)

Seneca the Younger:

* "The point is, not how long you live, but how nobly you live." (Ep. 101.15)
* "That which Fortune has not given, she cannot take away." (Ep. 59.18)
* "Let Nature deal with matter, which is her own, as she pleases; let us be cheerful and brave in the face of everything, reflecting that it is nothing of our own that perishes." (De Provid.)
* "Virtue is nothing else than right reason." (Ep. 66.32)

[RBM]

I've nor read any of those particular authors, but upon reading the excerpts, see I have 'naturally' gravitated to many of the ideals they, as a group, delineate.

[elizabeth lover]

yes, i call it keeping my game face on.

[MrDoom]

I align more with the Cynics, particularly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

"I am Diogenes the Dog; I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy, and bite scoundrels."

[Mushroomcup]

I love the following quote from Jonathan Swift, so I just have to share:

"The stoical scheme of supplying our wants by lopping off our desires, is like cutting off our feet when we want shoes."

I'm all for applying logic to every aspect of life. However, at the end of the day, emotions are of great importance as well. I think it is best to account for emotions within a reasoned/logical approach. Totally dismissing or suppressing them seems unwise to me.

[Thrawn]

Originally Posted by Mushroomcup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I love the following quote from Jonathan Swift, so I just have to share: "The stoical scheme of supplying our wants by lopping off our desires, is like cutting off our feet when we want shoes." I'm all for applying logic to every aspect of life. However, at the end of the day, emotions are of great importance as well. I think it is best to account for emotions within a reasoned/logical approach. Totally dismissing or suppressing them seems unwise to me.

I have to agree with this and go deeper. I used to try to be logical and stoic in most situations if just for the benefits of appearing to be so. But since then I have realized many things, one of which is part of my view of human existence in general. Basically my theory is something like this:

Humans have a dual nature of their mind, an emotive self and a rational self. The rational self is the primary thought aspect of our mind and the one that we can actively use and control. The emotive self is the undercurrents, the subconscious and the part that is more connected to the rest of our bodies. We feel emotion, while we just realize or think about things we think about (ideas and the like). Try as we might, we can never fully reason our way through emotion, we can certainly gain insights into what makes us feel how we do, we can ascribe rational reasons for our emotions, but like it or not the nature of emotion will always elude your rational self. If we could be purely rational and leave emotion behind there would be immense benefits but also it would make us less of a person. We need negative emotions and positive emotions to grow and to exist and to be effective as humans. Also the very concept of positive and negative emotions is merely a rational one, after-all we classify emotions based on our reaction to them (feelings like pain, anger, happiness etc) and while we certainly feel great when we succeed on a test or get that promotion at work, happiness may be derived from very negative stimuli (other's misfortune for instance), likewise a negative emotion say fear may be a very positive force in certain situations as it can keep you alert and ready (think during a natural disaster). All emotion is just another aspect of our self and thus we ought to embrace it and use our rational self to find ways in which we can effectively channel emotion for our goals, as opposed to cutting ourselves off from it.

[Moya Anomalous]

Again, Stoicism is not the absence of emotion, but the application of reason without emotional influence. I really wish people would not mix the two.

Anyone who claims they are Stoic but feel they must have no emotion is nothing more then an imitator. They have not learned the Stoic principles and have failed to master that which the true Stoic has mastered... the self.

To experience Joy, Sadness, Love... these are normal. To let them control your actions, this is not normal. To be a Stoic, you must learn to master your mind and emotions. Stoicism is the application of reason to thought. Once reason has been introduced and is firmly within the mind, emotions do not effect your decisions.

[Feral]

Oooh.
It's basically Taoism in Greek.



... which means I'll be adding Zeno, Epictatus, Seneca etc to my studies.

[areyaaradi]

'Geeta' a Hindu holy book states the same.

"Whatever happened, it happened for good.
Whatever is happening, is happening for good.
Whatever that will happen, it will be for good.
What have you lost for which you cry?
What did you bring with you, which you have lost?
What did you produce, which has destroyed?
You did not bring anything when you were born.
Whatever you have, you have received from Him.
Whatever you will give, you will give to Him.
You came empty handed and
you will go the same way.
Whatever is yours today was somebody else’s yesterday and will be somebody else’s tomorrow.
Change is the law of the universe."

[Mushroomcup]

To me, not allowing emotions to dictate any of your actions is equivalent to dismissing them. Obviously you can't just suppress all feelings... that wasn't what I was suggesting stoicism is. What I was trying to say was while it's important not to let emotions carry you away into never-never land, some decisions are necessarily emotion-based (and logic can account for this). I suppose I should have been more clear. I'm okay with emotions dictating some of my actions. So, by whichever definition you choose, I am not for applying stoicism to my life. I'm not fundamentally anti-stoicism though. Whatever floats your boat.

[zibber]

I read a lot of Seneca's stuff in Latin as a kid; I was very much influenced by him. Now, I find that Pyrrhonic skepticism suits me much better.

Moya, try sources outside of Wikipedia.

[Thrawn]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oooh. It's basically Taoism in Greek. ... which means I'll be adding Zeno, Epictatus, Seneca etc to my studies.

They have a few similarities, but the emphasis is completely different. Daoism emphasizes going with the flow, it savors the current moment, existence, whereas Stoicism deals with changing self, becoming something bigger and better. The philosophies come to a few of the same conclusions but with important and distinct differences.

[Moya Anomalous]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I read a lot of Seneca's stuff in Latin as a kid; I was very much influenced by him. Now, I find that Pyrrhonic skepticism suits me much better. Moya, try sources outside of Wikipedia.

It's readily available, thank you very much. I do not feel like typing quotes from a text book....

[zibber]

No, but try them, though.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... which means I'll be adding Zeno, Epictatus, Seneca etc to my studies.

I think Seneca was actually more of an Eclectic. In the book of his that I read, he kept mooching things from the Epicureans, who I thought were supposed to be the philosophical rivals of the Stoics. But his opinion was, "Hey, if it's a good idea, go with it." ...Which seems pretty "INTJ-ish," actually.

	Originally Posted by Mushroomcup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What I was trying to say was while it's important not to let emotions carry you away into never-never land, some decisions are necessarily emotion-based (and logic can account for this).

I heard about somebody who didn't have emotions. It took him 12 hours to decide which shirt to wear, and another six to decide whether to use a pen with blue or black ink.

I think you could make a case that, when you really get down to it, every decision, at its absolute core, is an emotional decision. Even the decision to reject emotions can be seen as an emotional decision-- "I like logic more than I like emotions."

As a second idea, I don't see much of a gulf between the two to begin with. Logic is making decisions based on the available input factors, such as time, cost, efficiency. Couldn't "how will I feel" be a perfectly valid and logical input?

[Feral]

	Originally Posted by Thrawn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They have a few similarities, but the emphasis is completely different. Daoism emphasizes going with the flow, it savors the current moment, existence, whereas Stoicism deals with changing self, becoming something bigger and better. The philosophies come to a few of the same conclusions but with important and distinct differences.

There are obvious differences, but a main point draws them pretty close. Basically, to find harmony, let go of the emotions that drive you to do things, let go of the 'self'.

-------------------------------------
Both praise and blame cause concern,
For they bring people hope and fear.
The object of hope and fear is the self

For, without self, to whom may fortune and disaster occur?

Therefore,
Who distinguishes himself from the world may be given the world,
But who regards himself as the world may accept the world.
-------------------------------------

I haven't come to any of the texts of Stoicism yet that is trying to make someone bigger or better than anything (I'm still reading though). As of yet, it seems like striving for bigger or better would be against the point. To want bigger, or better, you would first have to see yourself as lower and wanting.
Stoicism is obviously a bit more complicated to get to it's main points and tenets, than the Tao's 81 little poems, and there is a very obvious cultural difference in the original philosophers.

---------- Post added 11-01-2010 at 08:42 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Moya Anomalous To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's readily available, thank you very much. I do not feel like typing quotes from a text book....

You don't have to type anything, you could still copy/paste all you want from the texts that I'm reading from at
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm addicted to this damn site...

Here are the discourses of Epictetus for starters.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Can find damn near everything on there...

[Thrawn]

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are obvious differences, but a main point draws them pretty close. Basically, to find harmony, let go of the emotions that drive you to do things, let go of the 'self'.

I would say letting go of self is a stoic idea, but Daoism would be better phrased as revel in the self at the moment.

[Moya Anomalous]

Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You don't have to type anything, you could still copy/paste all you want from the texts that I'm reading from at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I'm addicted to this damn site... Here are the discourses of Epictetus for starters. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Can find damn near everything on there...

...I'm speechless...

Where has this site been all my life? I wonder if they have a British dictionary from the late 1800's. Listen to the poor English of this era is befuddling.

I think it's important to realize that the significance of stoicism is based of sheer reason. Admittedly, I know next to nothing about Taoism, though a person I once listened to claimed Jesus the Christ was a Taoist...

Note: Saint Issa

Perhaps Stoicism is the pinnacle of pessimist thinking, while Taoism is the optimistic approach. I am speculating of coarse, as I know only what most of you have said about Taoism.