Topic: Stoic Thought of the Day (28th September)
Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk started this discussion 8 years ago #66,548
A doctor doesn't get angry when a psychotic person is rude to them, and in the same manner of thinking, a horse trainer doesn't take it as an evil act when the horse gets frightened at something harmless.
Just so should a stoic treat all of mankind; not as performing evil acts but as being sick or uninformed.
Just so should a stoic treat all of mankind; not as performing evil acts but as being sick or uninformed.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #817,726
disagree
malicious behaviour can absolutely be intentional, the analogies of mental illness and a scared horse don't work
that isn't to say one should fly off the handle about it, but it is reductionist to write off all evil acts as driven by mental illness or naivety
a true stoic would, in fact, strive to see the world in unbiased terms
malicious behaviour can absolutely be intentional, the analogies of mental illness and a scared horse don't work
that isn't to say one should fly off the handle about it, but it is reductionist to write off all evil acts as driven by mental illness or naivety
a true stoic would, in fact, strive to see the world in unbiased terms
Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #817,728
@previous (B)
Is the horse not intentionally reacting to its perception of a threat? Is the sick man not intentionally fighting against his perception of injustice?
People are animals, performing acts according to their own personal nature. There is as little sense in blaming an uninformed person for their evil actions as there is in blaming a spider for killing a fly. It's just what spiders do, and it's just what people do.
Is the horse not intentionally reacting to its perception of a threat? Is the sick man not intentionally fighting against his perception of injustice?
People are animals, performing acts according to their own personal nature. There is as little sense in blaming an uninformed person for their evil actions as there is in blaming a spider for killing a fly. It's just what spiders do, and it's just what people do.
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,729
@previous (Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk)
disagree. humans and animals are not a fair comparison. even the smartest species of animal at best struggle to grasp simple abstract concepts such as numeracy, creative tool usage, and language. humans meanwhile do all of those easily and can even understand nuanced moral codes.
the psychotic man, meanwhile, has an altered perception of reality. while his actions may seem rational to him, they may not reflect the shared reality of others.
a sane and rational human, doing evil despite understanding human morality, can indeed said to be commiting an evil act. a burglar can burgle and likely be fully aware of the general stance on burglary.
no, it is an oversimplification to say that humans cannot knowingly commit evil. as humans can define and recognise evil, so should we be able to commit it.
disagree. humans and animals are not a fair comparison. even the smartest species of animal at best struggle to grasp simple abstract concepts such as numeracy, creative tool usage, and language. humans meanwhile do all of those easily and can even understand nuanced moral codes.
the psychotic man, meanwhile, has an altered perception of reality. while his actions may seem rational to him, they may not reflect the shared reality of others.
a sane and rational human, doing evil despite understanding human morality, can indeed said to be commiting an evil act. a burglar can burgle and likely be fully aware of the general stance on burglary.
no, it is an oversimplification to say that humans cannot knowingly commit evil. as humans can define and recognise evil, so should we be able to commit it.
(Edited 57 seconds later.)
Meta joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,746
This is basically how Stoic Sam makes me feel.Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,750
@previous (Meta)
You are letting Stoics Sam's Stoic Thoughts affect you too much. Ideally, that picture should be a man peeking over a grey wall to see a grey background.
You are letting Stoics Sam's Stoic Thoughts affect you too much. Ideally, that picture should be a man peeking over a grey wall to see a grey background.
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,753
@previous (B)
If your world has no color, it is for the best. Color might cause people to get passionate about things or have feelings. If you do have a feeling, set it aside as you would a thorn in your sandal.
If your world has no color, it is for the best. Color might cause people to get passionate about things or have feelings. If you do have a feeling, set it aside as you would a thorn in your sandal.
Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,754
@817,729 (B)
> the psychotic man, meanwhile, has an altered perception of reality. while his actions may seem rational to him, they may not reflect the shared reality of others.
And in the same way, the ignorant do not reflect the true nature of the world.
The burglar may be cogently aware that burglary is frowned upon, but in his ignorance he burgles. Through bad upbringing and bad education, he learned false values, false beliefs about how he ought to act. He learned that for him, burglary is a good thing to do.
This is a failure of intelligence, a dangerous "disease" of the soul. I use the English word ignorance, but the proper term is amathia, "bad-knowledge".
> the psychotic man, meanwhile, has an altered perception of reality. while his actions may seem rational to him, they may not reflect the shared reality of others.
And in the same way, the ignorant do not reflect the true nature of the world.
The burglar may be cogently aware that burglary is frowned upon, but in his ignorance he burgles. Through bad upbringing and bad education, he learned false values, false beliefs about how he ought to act. He learned that for him, burglary is a good thing to do.
This is a failure of intelligence, a dangerous "disease" of the soul. I use the English word ignorance, but the proper term is amathia, "bad-knowledge".
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,756
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,759
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,760
Anonymous D double-posted this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,762
Stoicism seems to be decidedly a tool of libtardialism.
Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,769
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,771
@817,753 (Meta)
While I don't always agree with Sam's reasoning, I will say that he and the parodies of him are some of the most entertaining stuff to come out of Minichan in a while. And I mean that in a "sensible chuckle" way.
@817,754 (Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk)
Okay... Now this conversation is getting pretty interesting! I'm actually reconsidering my line of reasoning a bit.
I agree that a person's outlook and behaviours are shaped a lot by factors beyond their control and often beneath their perception. To give some quick examples, this is stuff like misattribution of arousal, genes, and upbringing. So I think you're pretty much correct when you say that the burglar was probably put into the mindset by factors beyond his control.
I think my initial disagreement was spurred by your comparisons to animals and mentally unwell persons. While I still think those aren't accurate comparisons to mentally healthy humans, I now see what you were getting at.
I guess it all comes down to your stance on free will, on whether "we" (that is, our ego) truly direct all of our thoughts and actions moment by moment. I've tended to come down mostly on the "free will doesn't exist as such" side of the debate. So I can agree with your reasoning about the burglar ultimately being a victim of his circumstances.
That said, I think there's a lot to be said for maintaining the illusion of personal responsibility. Of course, our legal systems simply would not function as well if we downplayed or ejected that concept. And likewise, giving a person a sense of responsibility and obligation can be a powerful tool. Most people do feel inclined to act a certain way if they think they're under a strong set of responsibilities. If that was replaced with a mindset of "we're all automatons driven by other powers", then that sense of responsibility would be eroded and could encourage an uptick in immoral acts.
So- while I think your line of reasoning is philosophically and scientifically accurate, I'm doubtful that it's practical as an everyday mindset.
While I don't always agree with Sam's reasoning, I will say that he and the parodies of him are some of the most entertaining stuff to come out of Minichan in a while. And I mean that in a "sensible chuckle" way.
@817,754 (Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk)
Okay... Now this conversation is getting pretty interesting! I'm actually reconsidering my line of reasoning a bit.
I agree that a person's outlook and behaviours are shaped a lot by factors beyond their control and often beneath their perception. To give some quick examples, this is stuff like misattribution of arousal, genes, and upbringing. So I think you're pretty much correct when you say that the burglar was probably put into the mindset by factors beyond his control.
I think my initial disagreement was spurred by your comparisons to animals and mentally unwell persons. While I still think those aren't accurate comparisons to mentally healthy humans, I now see what you were getting at.
I guess it all comes down to your stance on free will, on whether "we" (that is, our ego) truly direct all of our thoughts and actions moment by moment. I've tended to come down mostly on the "free will doesn't exist as such" side of the debate. So I can agree with your reasoning about the burglar ultimately being a victim of his circumstances.
That said, I think there's a lot to be said for maintaining the illusion of personal responsibility. Of course, our legal systems simply would not function as well if we downplayed or ejected that concept. And likewise, giving a person a sense of responsibility and obligation can be a powerful tool. Most people do feel inclined to act a certain way if they think they're under a strong set of responsibilities. If that was replaced with a mindset of "we're all automatons driven by other powers", then that sense of responsibility would be eroded and could encourage an uptick in immoral acts.
So- while I think your line of reasoning is philosophically and scientifically accurate, I'm doubtful that it's practical as an everyday mindset.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,773
Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 18 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,776
@817,771 (B)
I think that how you're thinking is that when your burglar realizes he burgles not because he is intrinsically evil but rather because of events largely outside his control, he says to himself "well, clearly it's not my fault so theres no problem with me continuing to do it", but thats just his original "bad-knowledge" in action.
He is using his reasoning not to learn, but to justify what he already thinks he understands about right and wrong.
This is what I mean when I say that the ignorant are to the wise as the psychotic is to the doctor, or the horse is to the trainer.
It's like if you're forced to go on a large journey to an unfamiliar place, but due to another's error you're given incorrect directions. Is it fair to blame you when you go the wrong way?
But when you are furnished with proper directions but neglect to take a map and lose your bearings, should not the blame be laid at your feet?
I think that how you're thinking is that when your burglar realizes he burgles not because he is intrinsically evil but rather because of events largely outside his control, he says to himself "well, clearly it's not my fault so theres no problem with me continuing to do it", but thats just his original "bad-knowledge" in action.
He is using his reasoning not to learn, but to justify what he already thinks he understands about right and wrong.
This is what I mean when I say that the ignorant are to the wise as the psychotic is to the doctor, or the horse is to the trainer.
It's like if you're forced to go on a large journey to an unfamiliar place, but due to another's error you're given incorrect directions. Is it fair to blame you when you go the wrong way?
But when you are furnished with proper directions but neglect to take a map and lose your bearings, should not the blame be laid at your feet?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kettle replied with this 8 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,783
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #817,785
Good shit, man! You're starting to get more and more popular!