I have truly been enjoying my Stoicism reader, by Sellars. Returning to my favorite philosophy is very stimulating, and I have already almost finished the book. Only two chapters remain. Surely more stoic writing is on the way.
Tonight's chapter was on Stoic ontology - that is, existence. It is worth noting that many of the less fundamental concepts of Stoicism were not agreed upon by all, even at one point in history.
The fundamental base of Stoic ontology is materialism. Unlike Plato, and it seems in direct refutation of him, there are no ideals or essences. There are only bodies - that is, only substance 'exists'. Stoics also identified four incorporeal, but 'real' things - time, void, place, and 'sayables', sayables being the meanings of our sentences and expressions. I am not sure I even believe in the reality of those four things. I think the materialism outlook is quite true. Although, I do have trouble fitting in 'universals', which the Stoics largely dismissed. I do not go so far as to believe in Platonic ideals, such as beauty or justice, but take for instance the color red. Everything that is red surely shares something universal in common - but ontologically, what does this mean? Does red 'exist'? It plainly cannot exist apart from substance. There is then a separation of qualities into generic and specific, but I don't believe the limited treatment Sellars gave to it aids in my understanding.
Much of Stoic ontology deals with, unfortunately, the decidedly ancient separation of the world into four elements. Air, fire, water, and earth. The Stoics added pneuma, a fifth element (substance!) which breathes life into things. Actually, not even life - rocks and all matter have the most basic form of pneuma, which increases in increasingly complex life forms until we get to humans, which have four types of pneuma. I find the discussion of their reasoning fascinating, but modern science has ruined this part of ontology. It would be an enormous struggle to embrace this simplistic chemistry - I do not believe it to be true, so I will simply move on.
I was somewhat surprised to find theology in Stoicism. As far as I knew the two were separate. As it turns out Stoicism defines all of nature, all of the cosmos, as a completely conscious being. Aka, G-d. All of nature is a sentient deity, which organizes and administrates the universe. Stoics believed in determinism, as I do (to a limited extent, more of which must be fleshed out later). They, to my confusion, declare strict determinism but also that G-d can alter events at will. I am still unsure as to how these conflicting views can be reconciled. I once heard an explanation of fate and determinism that I have found no replacement for - all the world can be pre-determined and yet we can still keep our free will! (G-d's free will, as well). Think of this. We know exactly what happened to ourselves yesterday. However, that does not make the us of yesterday any less free to act! I will have to read more on chaos theory before I can declare that I completely embrace determinism, but I like the Stoic interpretation.
Finally, Stoics had some spot-on scientific views. For one, they figured out the Earth was round in 300 BC! Not only that but also that the cosmos was round. Beyond the cosmos was an infinite void, of course. They believed (with notable dissent) that every so often the universe would be consumed by fire and start over. G-d would direct all of this, and him being supremely rational, the universe is thus the best and most rational it can be. This raises interesting contradictions, what with all the human suffering and imperfection, but perhaps the two views can be reconciled.
Tomorrow I hit Stoic ethics - the (arguably) most important part of Stoicism.
Tonight's chapter was on Stoic ontology - that is, existence. It is worth noting that many of the less fundamental concepts of Stoicism were not agreed upon by all, even at one point in history.
The fundamental base of Stoic ontology is materialism. Unlike Plato, and it seems in direct refutation of him, there are no ideals or essences. There are only bodies - that is, only substance 'exists'. Stoics also identified four incorporeal, but 'real' things - time, void, place, and 'sayables', sayables being the meanings of our sentences and expressions. I am not sure I even believe in the reality of those four things. I think the materialism outlook is quite true. Although, I do have trouble fitting in 'universals', which the Stoics largely dismissed. I do not go so far as to believe in Platonic ideals, such as beauty or justice, but take for instance the color red. Everything that is red surely shares something universal in common - but ontologically, what does this mean? Does red 'exist'? It plainly cannot exist apart from substance. There is then a separation of qualities into generic and specific, but I don't believe the limited treatment Sellars gave to it aids in my understanding.
Much of Stoic ontology deals with, unfortunately, the decidedly ancient separation of the world into four elements. Air, fire, water, and earth. The Stoics added pneuma, a fifth element (substance!) which breathes life into things. Actually, not even life - rocks and all matter have the most basic form of pneuma, which increases in increasingly complex life forms until we get to humans, which have four types of pneuma. I find the discussion of their reasoning fascinating, but modern science has ruined this part of ontology. It would be an enormous struggle to embrace this simplistic chemistry - I do not believe it to be true, so I will simply move on.
I was somewhat surprised to find theology in Stoicism. As far as I knew the two were separate. As it turns out Stoicism defines all of nature, all of the cosmos, as a completely conscious being. Aka, G-d. All of nature is a sentient deity, which organizes and administrates the universe. Stoics believed in determinism, as I do (to a limited extent, more of which must be fleshed out later). They, to my confusion, declare strict determinism but also that G-d can alter events at will. I am still unsure as to how these conflicting views can be reconciled. I once heard an explanation of fate and determinism that I have found no replacement for - all the world can be pre-determined and yet we can still keep our free will! (G-d's free will, as well). Think of this. We know exactly what happened to ourselves yesterday. However, that does not make the us of yesterday any less free to act! I will have to read more on chaos theory before I can declare that I completely embrace determinism, but I like the Stoic interpretation.
Finally, Stoics had some spot-on scientific views. For one, they figured out the Earth was round in 300 BC! Not only that but also that the cosmos was round. Beyond the cosmos was an infinite void, of course. They believed (with notable dissent) that every so often the universe would be consumed by fire and start over. G-d would direct all of this, and him being supremely rational, the universe is thus the best and most rational it can be. This raises interesting contradictions, what with all the human suffering and imperfection, but perhaps the two views can be reconciled.
Tomorrow I hit Stoic ethics - the (arguably) most important part of Stoicism.
No comments:
Post a Comment