2 added 209 characters in body
source | link

Stoicism seems unique to me. It is a speculative philosophy with no metaphysical underpinning so is 'Western' or 'Rational in this sense, yet assumes the Unity of All so has much in common with the Perennial doctrine, mostly in the realm of ethics. I cannot think of a similar ideological position.

Thus some modern Stoics are materialists, some idealists, since no commitment is required to any particular metaphysical position. I know of no other doctrine that adopts this strange and ambiguous approach to philosophy.

I see it as a convenient refuge for those who reject theistic religion and don't want anything to do with mysticism but do not want to live in a world with no moral laws or ethical values.

It may be the worst of all worlds. It explains nothing, is no help in metaphysics and is grounded in speculation. It claims neither to be grounded in knowledge or Divine inspiration and might as well be a matter of opinion or a fashion statement. I'm told it is becoming increasingly popular in Silicon Valley, for it suits those who seek an ethical compass but do not wish to alter their philosophical views in any way.

I'm slightly baffled why those who are attracted to Stoicism do not go the whole hog and study Buddhism, Taoism or another better-developed and more firmly-grounded teaching, but put this down to Stoicism's unique property of allowing us to enjoy some of the benefits of the Perennial teachings on Reality, ethics and self without having to endorse any particular philosophical doctrine or world-view. Thus it thought by modern Stoics to be possible to endorse an ethical doctrine, Materialism and Scientism all at the some time, and some folks do. I know of no other ethical teaching or philosophical system that that would allow this kind of post-modernism.

Perhaps it's most unique property is that it asserts the Unity of All but rejects the metaphysical scheme required for this to be the case. Thus the only way to justify Stoic ethics is to refer to Buddhist metaphysics and Nagarjuna.

This is a harsh view, (although not a criticsm of Stoic ethics), but I cannot grasp the purpose of Stoicism and see it just as a refuge for those who have no interest in philsophyphilosophy or religion but want some ethical values in their life. At any rate, this exactly describes the well-known Stoic with whom I have discussed this most extensively. That it offers us this possibility seeemsseems to make it unique.

Perhaps Humanism is close, but Humanism offers us no metaphysical view and assumes an ignorance of metaphysics where Stoicism makes metaphysical claims and assumptions thus is a different kind of animal.

Stoicism seems unique to me. It is a speculative philosophy with no metaphysical underpinning so is 'Western' or 'Rational in this sense, yet assumes the Unity of All so has much in common with the Perennial doctrine, mostly in the realm of ethics. I cannot think of a similar ideological position.

Thus some modern Stoics are materialists, some idealists, since no commitment is required to any particular metaphysical position. I know of no other doctrine that adopts this strange and ambiguous approach to philosophy.

I see it as a convenient refuge for those who reject theistic religion and don't want anything to do with mysticism but do not want to live in a world with no moral laws or ethical values.

It may be the worst of all worlds. It explains nothing, is no help in metaphysics and is grounded in speculation. It claims neither to be grounded in knowledge or Divine inspiration and might as well be a matter of opinion or a fashion statement. I'm told it is becoming increasingly popular in Silicon Valley, for it suits those who seek an ethical compass but do not wish to alter their philosophical views in any way.

I'm slightly baffled why those who are attracted to Stoicism do not go the whole hog and study Buddhism, Taoism or another better-developed and more firmly-grounded teaching, but put this down to Stoicism's unique property of allowing us to enjoy some of the benefits of the Perennial teachings on Reality, ethics and self without having to endorse any particular philosophical doctrine or world-view. Thus it thought by modern Stoics to be possible to endorse an ethical doctrine, Materialism and Scientism all at the some time, and some folks do. I know of no other ethical teaching or philosophical system that that would allow this kind of post-modernism.

Perhaps it's most unique property is that it asserts the Unity of All but rejects the metaphysical scheme required for this to be the case. Thus the only way to justify Stoic ethics is to refer to Buddhist metaphysics and Nagarjuna.

This is a harsh view, (although not a criticsm of Stoic ethics), but I cannot grasp the purpose of Stoicism and see it just as a refuge for those who have no interest in philsophy or religion but want some ethical values in their life. At any rate, this exactly describes the well-known Stoic with whom I have discussed this most extensively. That it offers us this possibility seeems to make it unique.

Stoicism seems unique to me. It is a speculative philosophy with no metaphysical underpinning so is 'Western' or 'Rational in this sense, yet assumes the Unity of All so has much in common with the Perennial doctrine, mostly in the realm of ethics. I cannot think of a similar ideological position.

Thus some modern Stoics are materialists, some idealists, since no commitment is required to any particular metaphysical position. I know of no other doctrine that adopts this strange and ambiguous approach to philosophy.

I see it as a convenient refuge for those who reject theistic religion and don't want anything to do with mysticism but do not want to live in a world with no moral laws or ethical values.

It may be the worst of all worlds. It explains nothing, is no help in metaphysics and is grounded in speculation. It claims neither to be grounded in knowledge or Divine inspiration and might as well be a matter of opinion or a fashion statement. I'm told it is becoming increasingly popular in Silicon Valley, for it suits those who seek an ethical compass but do not wish to alter their philosophical views in any way.

I'm slightly baffled why those who are attracted to Stoicism do not go the whole hog and study Buddhism, Taoism or another better-developed and more firmly-grounded teaching, but put this down to Stoicism's unique property of allowing us to enjoy some of the benefits of the Perennial teachings on Reality, ethics and self without having to endorse any particular philosophical doctrine or world-view. Thus it thought by modern Stoics to be possible to endorse an ethical doctrine, Materialism and Scientism all at the some time, and some folks do. I know of no other ethical teaching or philosophical system that that would allow this kind of post-modernism.

Perhaps it's most unique property is that it asserts the Unity of All but rejects the metaphysical scheme required for this to be the case. Thus the only way to justify Stoic ethics is to refer to Buddhist metaphysics and Nagarjuna.

This is a harsh view, (although not a criticsm of Stoic ethics), but I cannot grasp the purpose of Stoicism and see it just as a refuge for those who have no interest in philosophy or religion but want some ethical values in their life. At any rate, this exactly describes the well-known Stoic with whom I have discussed this most extensively. That it offers us this possibility seems to make it unique.

Perhaps Humanism is close, but Humanism offers us no metaphysical view and assumes an ignorance of metaphysics where Stoicism makes metaphysical claims and assumptions thus is a different kind of animal.

1
source | link

Stoicism seems unique to me. It is a speculative philosophy with no metaphysical underpinning so is 'Western' or 'Rational in this sense, yet assumes the Unity of All so has much in common with the Perennial doctrine, mostly in the realm of ethics. I cannot think of a similar ideological position.

Thus some modern Stoics are materialists, some idealists, since no commitment is required to any particular metaphysical position. I know of no other doctrine that adopts this strange and ambiguous approach to philosophy.

I see it as a convenient refuge for those who reject theistic religion and don't want anything to do with mysticism but do not want to live in a world with no moral laws or ethical values.

It may be the worst of all worlds. It explains nothing, is no help in metaphysics and is grounded in speculation. It claims neither to be grounded in knowledge or Divine inspiration and might as well be a matter of opinion or a fashion statement. I'm told it is becoming increasingly popular in Silicon Valley, for it suits those who seek an ethical compass but do not wish to alter their philosophical views in any way.

I'm slightly baffled why those who are attracted to Stoicism do not go the whole hog and study Buddhism, Taoism or another better-developed and more firmly-grounded teaching, but put this down to Stoicism's unique property of allowing us to enjoy some of the benefits of the Perennial teachings on Reality, ethics and self without having to endorse any particular philosophical doctrine or world-view. Thus it thought by modern Stoics to be possible to endorse an ethical doctrine, Materialism and Scientism all at the some time, and some folks do. I know of no other ethical teaching or philosophical system that that would allow this kind of post-modernism.

Perhaps it's most unique property is that it asserts the Unity of All but rejects the metaphysical scheme required for this to be the case. Thus the only way to justify Stoic ethics is to refer to Buddhist metaphysics and Nagarjuna.

This is a harsh view, (although not a criticsm of Stoic ethics), but I cannot grasp the purpose of Stoicism and see it just as a refuge for those who have no interest in philsophy or religion but want some ethical values in their life. At any rate, this exactly describes the well-known Stoic with whom I have discussed this most extensively. That it offers us this possibility seeems to make it unique.