(I'm in for Morgan today so bear with me)
The word Vulcan comes from the ground-breaking show Star Trek. The Vulcans were a species who were in such control of their emotions that they appeared to have none. Essentially, they were Epictetus' dream come true. They valued logic above all else, always turning to it rather than emotions.
I really wanted to put a picture of Epictetus with pointy ears but Google didn't come up with one and I'm not handy with Photoshop so you all got this instead. I, personally, think this is better anyways.
*Did anyone notice the guy in the back holding up the "live long and prosper" sign?*
The Trollface Socrates group, at first, had a difficult time talking about Epictetus' philosophy of choosing logic over emotions. There wasn't really anything to disagree with there, until we started examining what being a stoic was. Was it being void of all emotion? Or was it re-thinking the bad events and moments? Well, on page 29 of LH Warburton writes: "They [Stoics] believed emotions clouded reasoning and damaged judgement. We should not just control them, but whenever possible remove them all together."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
If a Stoic such as Epictetus believed you should remove emotion all together, then what would he have classified passion as? If he weren't passionate about Philosophy why would he spend his life pondering it? Not to say that the philosophy of stoicism is completely false (after all there can be no universally acknowledged truths, right?) but it is to say that part of this stoic Philosophy was lacking. Logan brought up the question of whether or not all emotions can be controlled. Like love and passion? Can those even be categorized as emotions? Or, as Logan put it, are they super emotions?
See? He just can't control it.
What we also found about Epictetus' philosophical views was that we could relate it back to everything we discussed today. When we got to the topic of friendship we were faced with the ideas of Stoicism again. The bonds you have with friends are important to you so, in the instance you and your best friend live together, it may often be necessary to be in control of your emotions. We all know that even the best of friends can get a tad bit annoying at times. It's necessary for us to be in control of our emotions so that we don't lose a friend due to one sudden outburst of anger. In fact, we all probably employ stoicism in our everyday lives. You wouldn't want to flip out on your boss one day because you got angry. Then you might lose your job. While being in constant control of your emotions to the point where you are devoid of them isn't the ideal lifestyle, the ability to control is a great virtue.
Freebies of the Day
Something to Chew On: Are there certain emotions you can't control? Or do we have the ability to control every feeling we have? If there are certain emotions you can't control than can a person ever truly be a Stoic?
The Quizzler: Is Stoicism being in control of your emotions or devoid of them?
Answer: Stoicism is using logic above all else, essentially riding yourself of emotions.
*The Freebies of the Day, Something to Chew On, and The Quizzler trademarks are Morgan Hunlen's.
**Note to H1G1: Sorry about all the Star Trek, but that's what happens when you make me author for a day. The power goes to my head.
I agree that his philosophy was lacking in the emotions department. It seems as though he stopped thinking about emotions and just accepted what he thought about them and came to a conclusion. If there is one thing that I will get out of this class is that you always ask questions.
ReplyDeleteI loved the Star Trek! It makes it much more easy to read, and shows a higher-level thinking--application! :P
ReplyDeleteI want to address the idea of a "super emotion" in regards to love and passion. While I was floating, H1G2 was having a similar conversation, although it was focused more towards controlling emotion, and whether or not all people experience emotions in the same way.
I think that love and passion are super emotions because, at the root of it, they overpower all our other senses and make us go ridiculous in our evolutionary goal to find a mate. Most other emotions, in a well-balanced individual, are quite manageable.
"When love is not madness, it is not love. ~Pedro Calderon de la Barca"
DQ: How might stoicism feel about love? Should we deny it to ourselves--and is that forsaking our humanity to do so?
STAR TREK!!!!!!!!!!! Quinlan, what a brilliant summary, I really enjoyed reading it! I actually am really interested in Logan's idea of Love and Passion being categorized as super emotions. Everyone knows you can attempt to control anger by counting to ten, stress with yoga, fatigue with sleep. But have you ever heard of a cure for love and passion? Humans don't even know how to TRY to control these, and frankly most don't want to. Love and Passion can sting and hurt, but it's a bad idea to completely get rid of them, for their benefits far outweigh the pain one endures to get there. As the God of Love in the Romance of the Rose stated, the pain makes the reward more rewarding!
ReplyDeleteThat was a great post and I love the Star Trek references. Let the power go to the head!! MUHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
ReplyDeleteSorry.
I do love the post and you guys had a great topic. Ours was friendship in section 14 group 4. I connected the two because without emotion, how can we have friends? Emotion is bad and good like when Spock's mother died, I would have taken that very hard, but he remained still stoic about it. There are times when we need to be human and their are times when stoicism would be better. I feel like your discussion must have been fun!
Looks like we just have natural-born posters in our group! To address the issue of our conversation lacking for a while, I think it mirrors our topic, actually. We were talking about stoicism and we were bored. I bet that's probably what living a stoic lifestyle would feel like.
ReplyDeleteDQ: Do you think that these philosophers that we've been discussing really lived every day in the mindset that they preach, or do you think that some just coughed up various philosophies for the fame and didn't always practice what they preach?
FQ: What is the difference between a Stoic and a Pragmatist?
Haha, awesome post Quinlan! I liked your insight Logan, into how Stoics really self-contradicted themselves, for the pursuit of philosophy is a passion itself.
ReplyDeleteReflecting upon the idea of Stoicism, I think the distinction that needs to be made is that there is a difference between self-control and self-repression. One is healthy while the other is stifling.
I feel like the whole idea of a stoic is a little sad. They try to not let anything bother them and be indifferent toward all situations. It can be unhealthy, but maybe it’s a coping mechanism. It’s easier to be indifferent. I mean, maybe stoics just put up a front to stop from getting hurt. It reminds me of something we mentioned while I was floating in this group: if you try hard enough, you can make friends with people who really do not want to be your friend. Eventually the person will stop being stoic about the whole thing and actually start to care. I guess what I am trying to say is that everyone has emotions. Even if you try to repress them, they are still there.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Larissa. Seneca was all like, "Imma be emotionless and all stoic n' stuff", then had an "alleged" affair. But still, the concept of feeling nothing, to not feel fear or pain is ridiculous. A major point in The Romance of the Rose (yep, I am going there) is that to feel the joy of love, you have to feel the pain of love. So even if you are only blocking pain by being a stoic, you will not even feel the "good stuff" neither.
ReplyDeleteControl over emotions is important, but showing no emotion can be more of a hindrance in many situations than just letting it out. Expressing nothing can perpetuate a problem that could have been solved with a few words. Being overly harsh or too often expressing negative emotions can also tear people apart, so, like most things in life, there is a fine-line that one must walk.
ReplyDeleteMason Riley
Great job Quinlan. I don't think I could live up to the amazing authors in our group. On the subject of Stoicism, I find it hard to believe that these great philosophers completely removed emotion from their lives. In fact, I think even attempting to lead such a life would feel very empty. Perhaps certain situations require you to step back and try to remove emotion but I believe that most decisions should take into consideration both our emotions and the emotions of others. A life without emotion would be simply boring.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion Question: Is Stoicism even close realistic or possible?
*Discussion Question: Is Stoicism even close to realistic or possible?
DeleteI agree that self control is good, but repressing emotions all together seems to me like it would make the person extremely dull and annoying to be around. No one wants to be around someone who is indifferent about everything. I agree with Trevor about it leaving an emptiness in the person as well. I feel like the purpose of philosophy is to find purpose and happiness in life. How can you find that if you repress all emotion?
ReplyDeleteIt seems philosophy tries to say emotion should not be included when reaching the higher order of truth, but to me, it is almost as if that truth isn't repressing your emotions, but controlling and understanding them. Repressing your feelings isn't understanding the truth, it's hiding from it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems philosophy tries to say emotion should not be included when reaching the higher order of truth, but to me, it is almost as if that truth isn't repressing your emotions, but controlling and understanding them. Repressing your feelings isn't understanding the truth, it's hiding from it.
ReplyDelete