The First Step In Becoming A Philosopher

I have no idea if this is true, but it's the route I've decided to take. Epictetus tells us to start with God:

"The philosophers say that the first thing that needs to be learned is the following, that there is a God, and a God who exercises providential care for the universe, and that it is impossible to conceal from him not only our actions, but even our thoughts and intentions. The next thing to be considered is what the gods are like; for whatever they’re discovered to be, one who wishes to please and obey them must try to resemble them as far as possible." (Discourses 2.14.11)

Christopher Fisher uses this as evidence for Stoic theism in his "The Religious Nature of Stoicism."

I'm in, God.

Is This Strange Man On To Something? Your Lord And Savior

"God's love is... creative, it's not reductive. It brings things forth; it doesn't take them apart."

"Love God. I mean, you can't see God. You can't define God. It's not widely agreed on whether or not God even exists. And that's the thing. That's what makes it a good practice. Because that's like the love of God. God's got to love stuff entirely before it exists. You see? If you don't know that something exists you're practicing loving like God: creative love."

He describes himself from God's perspective as "that loony guy who plays me" on Youtube.

Hmm... well, if you ran into Crates of Thebes in downtown Anywhere, USA you might think he was odd too.

Interesting, anyway. I don't have the cognitive horsepower to keep up with him, but when I play things back and follow what he says... he might be brilliant. Here's a video (he uses profanity):

God's Love: FAQ

Marvel as he cuts and parries with a video by TJ from The Amazing Atheist, as God, while smoking a cigar and eating a bunch of broccoli with ranch. Again, he uses profanity. So does TJ. Especially TJ:

In the above video he says "Your friends and family are components of God. God is a synthesis of minds of creatures such as ourselves, not exactly like ourselves, so they're a part of God. So are you."

That's knocking on the door of Stoicism [Edit: I mean classical Stoicism here... they were theists]. In this next quote he knocks the door down:

"Right now you just have your perspective; your singular, limited perspective. And from that things are important to you. But when you become part of a much greater mind you have a much greater perspective, because the perspectives of all of the minds that constitute that greater mind, well, they add up. They broaden that perspective, by the very nature of the process. And so yeah, all the things that seem really important you realize... not really worth getting worked up over. Just another part of the beauty of the whole thing, really." 

I don't really know if he plays God, or if he thinks that he IS God, or if he thinks that he is God's mouthpiece, or maybe if he is a troll. I won't be selling my possessions and following him as a disciple, I know that... Peruse his videos and you'll question his sanity. Still, as Seneca says, all good ideas are public property.

Who Is The Establishment?

Who is the establishment? I grew up a Reagan Republican, but when I went to college I was indoctrinated with the 1960's era view that business fat cats were running things and that the Democrats were a sort of watchdog holding them in check, just barely.

Now I don't know. When the pendulum swings too far to the right you get authoritarianism, but then again if it swings too far to the left you get... authoritarianism.

There is that oft-used quote by Voltaire: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

There's wisdom in that, but then again we live in an age where we have accepted that some people really are disadvantaged by circumstance, and it has become unfashionable to pile on. And it should be unfashionable.

But as I grow older I begin to see that anything can be taken too far.

In a perfect Stoic utopia, in Zeno's utopia, people would regulate themselves. If everyone truly pursued virtue then so much of what complicates modern life wouldn't find nourishment.

But that's not going to happen, not until the far future, maybe not ever. This is what we have.

With that in mind, all public policy should serve these ends: people should not be held back because of the circumstance of their birth, people should be allowed to make maximum use of their potential, and we should all have some concern for each other's well being. We need to abide by some common sense laws and we need a culture that teaches us to be decent to each other. Questions of sexuality, identity and religion are for the individual to work out. Do what you like, just don't do it to me.

And if I could snap my fingers and turn all of us blue I would.

A Musical Theory Lesson

I'm not even going to try to connect this to Stoicism. I just thought it was cool.

Mel Gibson: Not A Nazi

Allison Hope Weiner has penned a very brave essay about a man she "vilified" in the pages of The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly: Mel Gibson.

Weiner, an observant Jew, actually befriended Gibson. It's a real friendship. She met his family. He attended religious services with hers. They speak regularly. She likes him.

He doesn't publicly defend himself; he just explains. He doesn't think it would help. He just "shrugs his shoulders." Weiner wishes that he WOULD hit back. She says he's made himself into the perfect punching bag. Has he? I don't know, but he does sound as if he's become a bit of a Stoic.

After the incidents which led to his exile he vowed to meet with Jewish leaders and he did, but he refused to publicize the fact. He attempted to make a film about the Maccabee rebellion but the script wasn't good (which is a pity, because good LORD would that have been a good movie). He's shown every sign of penitence but he hasn't told anybody about it.

Weiner thinks he's suffered too much, that he's been treated unfairly and that he should get another shot.

Now, what astonishes me is that this piece was written at all. Who does this? Who bothers, in this day and age, to take a real look at the target of one's loathing and, having gained perspective, reconsider? Weiner shows real courage, and Gibson plays his end exactly as I hope I would given his circumstances.

Well done to both of them. This is virtue, friends.

In related news, watch Mr. Gibson's shrug in action here (profanity... NSFW):

I think that he acquited himself very well.

Disturbed and The River Styx

I keep thinking of this. It's sort of my memento mori. Is this the River Styx?

Judgement Time

Meditatio mortis:

Honor, Dignity and Victimhood

The Art Of Manliness recently published a podcast about our society's move to a victim culture. It's worth a look if you're interested in this sort of thing. 

In Episode 153 Brett talks to two sociologists about honor and dignity. Honor in this context means having a reputation for physical courage and a willingness to retaliate. Honor cultures tend to form where the rule of law is thin on the ground. The Southern United States, for example, has a higher per capita incidence of violence than the North and it also (I think) has fewer police officers per capita. As a consequence honor is more a cultural feature in the South than in the North.

One might also point out that honor is more a feature of life in the West. Aggrieved ranchers in rural Oregon, for example, might see percieved abuses of power by the federal government as a matter of honor and in response stage an armed revolution. Not much law enforcement activity out in the vast open spaces of the West... I don't know how true that is, but there does seem to me to be something to it.

A dignity culture can develop where there is strong state authority. In a dignity culture serious insults or abuses are referred to the state, and minor slights and insults are ignored. The difference is that in an honor culture ignoring insults signals weakness and brings more abuse, while in contrast in a dignity culture ignoring minor slights is a sign of self-control and maturity. Responding in kind is undignified; it means lowering oneself to "their" level.

Most of us would much rather live in a dignity culture. In an honor culture things can get out of hand quickly. If a member of one group insults the member of another there will be violence. Then there will be an endless chain of revenge killings. Feuding, in other words. This broadly describes the behavior of street gangs and genocidal tribal conflicts. That's no good.

Much better to live under the rule of law. Stoicism developed under the rule of law, yes? Is Stoicism the product of civilization? Can people living in an honor culture be Stoic?

I think so, but there may be consequences. On the other hand perhaps a Stoic would recognize the need to function in an honor culture for the good of the tribe or clan. Stoics did soldier for their country, after all. Marcus Aurelius slaughtered a generation of Germans for Rome.

Brett brings up an interesting point in view of this; nation states function in an honor culture, not a dignity culture, even though within the state the citizens are expected to maintain a dignity culture.

On to victim cultures... the idea here is that words actually damage people. It's as if we all have a mental health score and people can reduce that score with things like micro agressions.

Micro aggressions are hidden aggressions against minorities and people of color. They range from genuinely rude behavior (such as asking a Caucasian woman if her darker skinned child is "really hers") to using terms like "politically correct." Political correctness is no longer politically correct. Being male and taking up too much space on a bus is a micro aggression. Stating that one is for meritocracy is a micro aggression. Wearing a kimono is a micro aggression. 

A victim culture combines honor and dignity cultures. Minor slights are dealt with harshly and instantly, as in an honor culture, but the retaliatory violence is done by the state rather than by the individual, as in a dignity culture. 

Claiming victimhood in victim cultures, then, actually brings status and power. Claims of victimhood are incentivized. Victims have the power to do violence to people without having to display physical courage. Violence for free!

Lying is also incentivized in victim cultures. Micro aggressions are given serious consideration when there aren't macro agressions to fight, but macro aggressions are preferable. Sometimes people make up macro aggressions. People lie and claim victimhood even when they haven't been victimized. Even when these hoaxes are made public the response from the victim culture is "yes, it was a hoax, but it raises a serious point."  

Brett's sociologist guests seem to assert that we generally live in a dignity culture, but that college campuses are often full-blown victim subcultures. 

Worth a look.

On The Stoicism Of Henry Rollins

Henry Rollins does not dodge responsibility for his choices. When he says something he means it. He risks. I admire that.

Take for example his 2014 rant against suicide, in which he paints people who kill themselves as selfish. He took a lot of heat for that. He considered the criticism, agreed, and published a full apology. He writes: "To those I offended, I believe you and I apologize. If what I wrote causes you to toss me out of your boat, it is to my great regret, but I understand and thank you for your thoughts."

In the minds of people I don't want to be like this could be seen as weakness, but of course it's strength*. It's Stoic. 

I have always been very impressed with Henry Rollins. If you aren't familiar with his work he began his public life as the lead singer of a punk band called "Black Flag." He went on to form his own band and from there branched out into print, screen and stage. He's a sort of rennaisance man of the 21st century.

He is a charismatic figure to be sure; he has an intensity about him that you don't find very often. He's also eccentric for a man in his position. He lifts weights as a philosophical exercise (there's no hint of vanity about him) and he refuses to drink, smoke or take drugs. That must make him something of an oddball in the entertainment industry.

He spends his life traveling the world and bringing stories of other lands back to the West. He tells us these stories at "spoken word" shows. His performances have a lot in common with standup comedy but comedy is not the goal; comedy is the vehicle he uses to transmit his message.

And what is his message? He wants us to open our eyes to the rest of the world and love our fellow human beings.

If you take in enough of Rollins' work you will begin to notice something; he's never ironic. He is the anti-hipster. He is aboslutely, completely sincere. Watch this interview and you'll see what I mean:

Nardwar is a character. Rollins clearly thinks that playing such a character is at the least a waste of time, but he contains himself. To each his own.

Compare this to an earlier interview with Nardwar:

What we see here is a man who has learned to step outside of himself and evaluate his own thoughts. Does this make him a Stoic? No, I don't think so, but he certainly has found some Stoic techniques. He feels intensely; he values emotion. He sees anger as a tramsformational force. If we all get angry enough we'll change the world. Maybe he's right. It's not the Stoic way, but I like it. I prefer my way, but it's interesting.

Here is an encounter between Rollins and some New York hipsters which illustrates his sincerity:

Is his response Stoic? I'd say it is in the sense that he doesn't fear his antagonists and in that he stands up for what he believes. There is an aggressiveness there, though, that probably isn't Stoic. On the other hand Zeno is recorded as having launched some verbal barbs at the young and beautiful of his day. Here's a famous one from Diogenes:

"A young man was talking a great deal of nonsense, and he said to him, 'This is the reason why we have two ears and only one mouth, that we may hear more and speak less."

So I would argue that Rollins is not a natural Stoic, but that he embodies certain Stoic ideals, and that emulating him might be useful to a Stoic. As Seneca says of Epicurus, the founder of a rival philosophy: "Epicurus is worth listening to, and his wise sayings should be regarded not as Epicurus' alone but as common and public property."

* * *

*If you write for an audience you are going to get feedback, and sometimes that will lead you to change your mind. Sometimes it won't. Admitting the fact when it does is strength. Apologizing simply because people complain is not. Rollins shows strength in his apology.

Best Of Enemies

Best Of Enemies, available on Netflix, is a fascinating look at the debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. during the 1968 Republican Convention.

I'll leave you to it. Let me just say that for me the most interesting bit is the end. Buckley, the patrician libertarian, regrets something unnamed and says that he is tired of life. The film implies that what he regrets is losing his temper on national television and calling Vidal a "queer" after Vidal called him a "crypto-fascist." Mr. Buckley died in 2008.

Before Vidal, the patrician progressive, died in 2012 he told the ghost of William F. Buckley to "RIP... in Hell." An associate of Vidal's tells us that he loved the fact that he got the last word.

I really like Vidal's work, and in terms of both cognitive ability and talent for writing he eclipses me (as does Buckley, by a wide margin). His Julian is fantastic. Still, if I have my choice I'd rather go out like Buckley. I'd rather know that I should have done better than glory in the fact that I died last.

Either way both men were brilliant and both were principled. I admire Buckley's belief in personal responsibility and I admire Vidal's willingness question received wisdom.

The moral of the film, though, is that our toxic modern politics originates with these two.

Maybe...