Stoicism and "In Accordance With Nature" | A Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship Lecture

[@thelastpatrioticglobalist3738]

What a gem of a video you have created.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks

[@alloycipher4528]

This was my largest thing when reading Stoic works. The "In accordance to nature" was always so vague that I didn't know whether it meant just logic, how animals act as a pure expression of nature, or common sense. Thanks for this video!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@erkandegilerkam]

My favorite lecture of yours. Thanks for uploading!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@jeffreyericsonallen2634]

Thank you for this discussion of a topic about which there has been much confusion. I will look forward to reading your book on the subject.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It will be a while in coming at this rate

[@jeffsullivan4182]

Somehow I missed this one, a great little refresher on a previous state of the fb group and a central tenant of Stoicism overall. I think Arius Didymus is one of the most important and underrated sources; reading through the passages you can imagine parts of it being an entire book or books boiled down into single sentences. Thanks as always. Hope you’re still going on the book.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep, still working on it - though very slowly. And, yes, Arius Didymus is an important non-Stoic source on Stoicism, who ought to be more often read. You can say the same of Diogenes Laertes, Cicero, Plutarch, and Galen as well

[@heavymetalphilosophy]

This was very useful. Thank you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to read it

[@9999adham]

thank u for the upload as always :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@anthonydimichele837]

Human Nature like all nature is essentially the "life force" ~ ala Schopenhauer... that is what I think we have in common with all other living beings. It is the drive to survive. Once we are secure in that regard, we can think about Ethics and Morality... which are subordinate to the drive to survive... or at least that is how it seems to me.

[@wcropp1]

Anthony DiMichele I think someone would be hard pressed to argue that we don’t have a universal, biological survival instinct. I see the stoic ideal as a potential we all possess, something to aspire to. You can live a good life and be happy, or at least achieve some degree of equanimity, even in circumstances that are less than ideal re: your survival needs and instincts, etc. The extent to which this is possible is debatable, however. People do tend to fall apart when deprived of basic necessities beyond a certain point.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, that's nice, that it's how it seems to you. I'm interested here primarily in the Stoic views on nature.

[@anthonydimichele837]

You're right! Sorry for head fart!

[@RobertF-]

So what does Stoic philosophy say about violence? Like if someone shoves you or starts throwing punches at you, or if you see someone attacking someone else, etc. etc, what does Stoic philosophy say about that in general? I think Seneca said something about how to go to war the right way? So did Stoic philosophy say there was a time for war and violence, just that someone shouldn't get angry or enraged while they are physically fighting someone? That they should stay calm while they are being physically violent and aggressive? Or does Stoic philosophy teach physical non-aggressiveness and pacifism by all means?

[@GregoryBSadler]

You might start by taking a look at Cicero's On Duties. . .

[@RobertF-]

OK, I'll take a look at that. I appreciate it. Thanks.

[@JoeDoeOutdoors]

Hii I really enjoy your page ☺ Keep it up!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Will do - thanks!

[@camzito1316]

Is depression in accordance with nature? Also is depression a good thing or a bad thing? Or is it just a thing? Can I control depression? 🤔 Or can I control how I perceive depression? Maybe a link to what the stoics say about to depression?

[@GregoryBSadler]

No. Bad. Yes, to some degree.

[@camzito1316]

@@GregoryBSadler is happiness a good thing?

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@camzito1316 Yep

[@camzito1316]

@@GregoryBSadler thanks for the response. I came across a youtuber. My reason for asking. A self proclaimed stoic. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6OqkpV5pdKroLM this is not stoicism?

[@camzito1316]

He also has lots of ideas on capitalism/consumerism, how it has created a false reality and how when looked at rationally we can escape and in some ways create our own reality. I'm not a philosopher but I think this is somewhat connected to the ideas of Jean baulilard.

[@Tommy2685]

Thank you for the video. It is always a pleasure to hear another’s perspective, and to see the philosophy introduced to young and eager minds. I was, however, a little disappointed with your dismissal of the idea of the divine and providential cosmic nature as it is integral to the works of Seneca, Marcus, and Epictetus etc. Discussion of the ‘nature’ we are to live in accordance with is much limited by its absence, and without this concept I fear the current Stoic revival will unfortunately birth nothing more than another ‘Secular Buddhism’; cognitive behavioural therapy, in the form of quotations, for atheists and marketeers grasping for some modicum of historically intellectual legitimacy. I think it a great thing that many may find comfort in applying some of the lessons to be learnt from the texts, and their use should be encouraged in psychotherapy, self-help, and the like, but it would be most disappointing were such applications to redefine the character of the philosophy itself. Although it is a revision for which many of the ‘New Stoicist’ communities appear to thirst, in doing so they seek to pour out the water from the cup before they drink. I am very much interested in your forthcoming publication on the topic, and sincerely hope that you are able to give a more fair hearing to the concept therein.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I didn't "dismiss" the idea of a providential nature. I pointed out that for many modern Stoics, it's no longer part of the picture. Sounds like you've got some axes to grind with many of them. I can tell you as someone who works with many in the "current Stoic revival" that your fears are already clearly ungrounded, since there's some great substantive work being done.

[@anthonypeltier4039]

You should grow out the full beard, for the sake of living in accordance with nature. I am also

[@GregoryBSadler]

Nah. That's petty, cosmetic stuff

[@anthonypeltier4039]

@@GregoryBSadler yeah you're correct . But arent beards part of the uniform for a philosopher?

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@anthonypeltier4039 A few people at a few times thought so.

[@jakopic]

Hi. It has come to my mind that the best stoics could have schizoid personality disorders. This would mean that it is not a virtue but more of a defect for some practicing stoicism. But it is clear that the goal of stoicism is not to become schizoid, although the similarities are very much alike.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I think you're probably drawing this from some very selective glosses on Stoicism, rather than actual Stoic thought, or there's no way you'd think those are closely connected

[@Kwintessential2]

Good afternoon

[@GregoryBSadler]

And to you as well

[@carlweeks539]

Living in accordance with nature, I am surprised I did not hear anyone mention the more scientific aspects of nature. With nature there is a beginning and an end in all things. Which loosely could be shown as the four separate seasons. Just an idea

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, as I pointed out in the talk, modern scientific conceptions of "nature" aren't the same as the Stoic one. So, you did hear someone mention it - namely me But, even if there was overlap, there's no connection I can see between talking about modern scientific conceptions of nature, and then using some schema about the four seasons

[@carlweeks539]

Must have missed it. (what I get for listening while doing other stuff) Thank you for the answer and the video. As always thank you for going into philosophy in depth for those of us who love philosophy yet did not major in philosophy. I find the further I get from college the more I am drawn back to philosophy which I believe was its original intent as a life long practice. Best regards

[@GregoryBSadler]

No problem. Yes - that "modern science" says "nature" is X, and Stoicism means "living in accordance with nature", so Stoics must be committed to X - that's a confusion a lot of contemporary Stoics fall into. One main reason I'm writing the book . . . .

[@carlweeks539]

Well please tell us when it is released. I will pick one up. Stoicism from my college courses was the most what I could relate to the most out of classical philosophy. Thanks

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'll definitely announce it in my social media, and quite likely with a video. I also, by the way, share sneak peeks of upcoming content with my Patreon supporters. Here's the site -www.patreon.com/sadler - if that's of interest to you

[@MrMarktrumble]

Nature described as "how a thing behaves". To speak in a barbarous way: trees tree their treeness, whereas humans human their humanness. Our observable activities and properties are used to distinguish us from other entities and allow us to be positively identified as human. This has the assumption of a species specific essence....that cannot change unless trees can become humans and still be trees. If each of all essences are apriori in harmony with each of all others then one would have a harmonious order in accordance with nature. ( a cosmos...a beautiful order....hopefully more than just cosmetic) The nature of deer is to run from wolves, and the nature of wolves is to chase deer. One could perhaps train a wolf to run from deer, but that would be unnatural. But wolves and deer being what they are have their own essences that interact and depend upon each other. A deer to be a deer has to be able to run fast....as do wolves.And I have run out of time. Not all natural things are either predator or prey, Much more would need to be said, and I have not completed the video. BYE!

[@CurtisV0llmar]

I just commented in the stoic reddit page. I love stoicism! Ive however come to the conclusion that you CANT be stoic and NOT be vegan. This "In Accordance With Nature" title hits home. Humans are not obligate carnivores/omnivores and share ZERO characteristics with them. Features such as fangs, claws, walking on all fours, short intestinal tract etc. We also have zero instinct to hunt and kill animals. Humans are born devoid of racism, classism, homophobia etc. Speciesism, the root form of discrimination, is forcefed on us.. literally by society. Speciesism is the assumption of human superiority which leads to the exploitation of animals. Here is my post in the reddit forum: www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/7hnnef/stoicism_and_veganism/

[@GregoryBSadler]

There's nothing like a recent convert. Good luck with your conclusions. You'd written in the other comment - which I removed, since you put it on a Hegel video - that you were hoping to talk with me. Sounds like what you have in mind would best be handled through a tutorial session, since my time is always in short supply, and you're looking for substantive discussion. If you're interested in that, you can go here - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/

[@CurtisV0llmar]

Longer more thought out reply in the reddit thread

[@GregoryBSadler]

I rarely go on Reddit

[@CurtisV0llmar]

Gregory B. Sadler www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/7hnnef/stoicism_and_veganism/ Living in accordance with natures achieves the cosmopolitan Earth and removes society and all of its fake bullshit social structures. We get the copies of cities with a unified consciousness. Read it, dont read it... up to you!