/lit/ - Literature

>>19468356
Marcus was a pantheist so his definition of god was trivial.

>>19468364
Elaborate, please? What difference does it make, whether he believed in one or more gods?

>>19468379
If god is defined as everything then proving he exists is trivially easy. Stoic theology is empty.

>>19468391
>If god is defined as everything then proving he exists is trivially easy
Retard here, how?

>SOURCE!?!? CAN YOU PLEASE POST A SOURCE??? I NEED A SOURCE PLEASE!!

>>19468418
What wrong in trying to understand how someone reached a conclusion?

>>19468424
dont mind that retard, hes from /pol/

>>19468412
Because the world exists, unless you're a solipsist that is. That's what pantheism means. The stoic god is literally just a definition.

>>19468454
Interesting, what did the stoics think of morality? Were morals something they had to think of, on their own, individually? Or were there any clearly defined rules?

>>19468478
Their morality was a form of virtue ethics centered around bringing oneself in accord with the "Logos", the rational order of the universe. They were determinists who believed morality consists of using reason to figure out what is fated to be, then coming to terms with it. Aligning yourself to the logos brings happiness, regardless of whether your fate is good or bad. Happiness is a choice in this sense, accepting or denying what must be.

>>19468593
Thanks. What if there was disagreement between the stoics on what was right?

>>19468356
He was sure there had to be a God by a logical regression method, such is the contemplative nature of greco-roman philosophy, which had deduced, among other marvels, basic steam engines, astronomy that'd go without a rival for 1000+ years, the idea of the atom as a basic universal unit of everything, the complex optical calculations, extraordinary art and the foundations of western philosophy and institutions that we use to this day. Except just like we abandoned the greco-roman art in exchange of all that is ugly, we also abandoned the God that they so much knew was there.

If you want to know the results of such abandonment, look around.

>>19468607
Supposedly reason would eventually prove one of them right if they're really serious in their ideals. They thought morality was fully explicable using reason. I imagine this scenario is one of the things the ancient Skeptics like Carneades or Sextus Empiricus used to poke fun at them with.

>>19468356
Basically what >>19468641 says. He just logics himself into believing there must be a god. Similar to a lot of the religitards on /lit/. The main difference though is that whether or not the gods exist isn't really relevant to his philosophy. You don't have to believe in zeus to follow the ways of Marcus Aurelius and the stoics. Here's a passage I really like about the gods from meditations:

“ If the gods have made decisions about me and the things that happen to me, then they were good decisions. (It’s hard to picture a god who makes bad ones.) And why would they expend their energies on causing me harm? What good would it do them—or the world, which is their primary concern?
And if they haven’t made decisions about me as an individual, they certainly have about the general welfare. And anything that follows from that is something I have to welcome and embrace And if they make no decisions, about anything—and it’s blasphemous even to think so (because if so, then let’s stop sacrificing, praying, swearing oaths, and doing all the other things we do, believing the whole time that the gods are right here with us)—if they decide nothing about our lives . . . well, I can still make decisions. Can still consider what it’s to my benefit to do. And what benefits anyone is to do what his own nature requires. And mine is rational. Rational and civic.
My city and state are Rome—as Antoninus. But as a human being? The world. So for me, “good” can only mean what’s good for both communities.”

I like how he offers the possibility that the gods don't interact with us at all (meaning they might as well not exist), but still ends it with the fact that you should follow the idea of being a good person. Marcus doesn't think you should be a good person for the gods, he thinks you should be a good person for yourself and in turn, your community or the Logos

>>19468356
for stoics Logos = God = Reason
reason exists so...

>>19468356
Did you even read his meditations? He says his duty is to Rome, Rome believes in the gods, therefore he does too

>>19468752
He also states that whether or not there is a god doesn't matter for stoicism that it shouldn't matter and one should perform there duties for their benefits anyways including religious institutions

>>19468412
Let me explain the argument.

God is everything. There is something before me. It exists. Therefore God exists since God is everything including the thing before me

The argument rests on the pantheistic definition of God and faith in my senses (namely that they accurately perceive reality or at the very least provide no false perceptions of it e.g. I may be blind and my experience thus limited but I can use my sense of touch smell etc. to confirm the existence of an object before me)

>>19468685
Exactly.

God was for the greeks and romans not very unlike Pythagoras's theorem. Even Epicureanism acknowledged some form of logos, the rather abomination that we are some flesh creatures stranded in a rock somewhere without any originator of the events is a much recent invention, sponsored by mediocre individuals of average intellect propelled to assume elite positions in societies due to mere massification of the ruling classes. Such individuals we regard as atheists today would have never stood on their own two feet back in the times of Aurelius's, requesting empirical proof to a dogma, failing medieval logic that had been adressed by Aquinas 700 years ago and amassing a followship instead of amassing knowledge. Hypocrites.

I am not surprised the atheists have their own gods, except theirs are abstract, prone to decide whatever men of flesh and power decide, and are not benevolent, but rather pernicious and willing to fool others through demagoguery. Such gods are democracy and all it entangles, the same democracy that killed Socrates and Jesus Christ.

We live in a doomed time.

>>19468454
No it's not you dumb american. The stoics were deeply religious writing up new prayers observing the sacrifices etc.
Aurelius popularised the Sol cult.

>>19468700
Just stop.

>>19468641
>>19468995
>Even Epicureanism acknowledged some form of logos, the rather abomination that we are some flesh creatures stranded in a rock somewhere without any originator of the events is a much recent invention, sponsored by mediocre individuals of average intellect propelled to assume elite positions in societies due to mere massification of the ruling classes. Such individuals we regard as atheists today would have never stood on their own two feet back in the times of Aurelius's, requesting empirical proof to a dogma, failing medieval logic that had been adressed by Aquinas 700 years ago and amassing a followship instead of amassing knowledge. Hypocrites.
Start with the Greeks (particularly Xenophanes) and continue with the Romans

>On this question, the pronouncements of highly learned men are so varied and so much at odds with each other that inevitably they strongly suggest that the explanation is human ignorance, and that the Academics have been wise to withhold assent on matters of such uncertainty; for what can be more degrading than rash judgement, and what can be so rash and unworthy of the serious and sustained attention of a philosopher, as either to hold a false opinion or to defend without hesitation propositions inadequately examined and grasped?
—Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, 1.1

>Diagoras, whom they call the Atheist, visited Samothrace, where a friend remarked to him: “You believe that the gods are indifferent to human affairs, but all these tablets with their portraits surely reveal to you the great number of those whose vows enabled them to escape the violence of a storm, so that they reached harbour safe and sound.” “That is the case”, rejoined Diagoras, “but there are no portraits in evidence of those who were shipwrecked and drowned at sea.” This same Diagoras was once aboard ship when a storm blew up. The crew were fearful, and in their panic they told him that it served them right for allowing him to embark. He then pointed out to them several other vessels on the same route which were similarly in trouble, and he asked them whether they thought that there was a Diagoras aboard them as well. The fact is that one’s character, and the kind of life which one has lived, has no bearing on one’s good or evil fortune.
—Cicero, Nature of the Gods, 3.89

>>19468356
His point was that denying God exists leads to a shitty, self refuting worldview, therefore God does exist. In order to act rationally one must first acknowledge the existence of a higher principle which is God. Denial of God results in denial of rationality.

>>19469540
Cicero was a traitor and a fool.

>>19469551
Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe refuted this argument in the 40s

>>19469565
That anon has selected quotes from him out of context, there are other statements which come from his favorite "actor" and ancestor Scipio Africanus where he fully acknowledges the primacy of Jupiter and other divine questions. On the Nature of the Gods is a dialogue where Cicero himself does not actively participate, it is a dialogue between different ancient schools (Stoics, Epicureans and Platonists). Cicero is definitely worth reading. If you read De Re Publica and De Legibus you'll find his views on theology are most strongly related to Plato, and he never stops praising him throughout the dialogues when he is himself involved.

>>19468356
No one owes you shit. Shut up and quit reading other people's journals. It's personal.

>>19469591
>it is a dialogue between different ancient schools (Stoics, Epicureans and Platonists)
You mean Stoics, Epicureans and Academic Sceptics. It was Plato’s Academy but it wasn’t Platonist at that time.
>On the Nature of the Gods is a dialogue where Cicero himself does not actively participate
Cicero’s views align with the sceptic speaker Cotta though. The first quote is from the introduction written in Cicero’s own pen

>>19469613
There is no hard distinction between members of Plato's Academy and "Platonists." It always depends on the person.
>Cicero’s views align with the sceptic speaker Cotta though.
Cotta in the same dialogue refutes Velleius (the Epicurean) and goes on to argue the role of the gods in active creation. And if you go on to read Cicero's other works like I said you'll notice he repeatedly comes back in defense of Plato's cosmology and theology.

>>19469452
>I just wrote an epic comment r*ddit

>>19469604
Marcus, you should've hid it better if you didn't want anyone to read it.

Did Stoics consider morality to be subjective or objective?

Bump.

>>19468356
If someone is giving evidence for a claim, then give your estimation of its validity, but don't be a midwit and start demanding evidence explicitly for yourself to understand a belief.

>>19471917
>If someone is giving evidence for a claim, then give your estimation
What?