Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rob (c137)'s avatar

Can you go into Epicureanism?

I find it more grounded and bottom up than stoicism.

Reading about Epictetus leg break story (where he didn't stop his master from breaking his leg, but calmly explained it?!) kind of makes me wonder if stoicism would be called a slave philosophy by Nietzsche.

Here's some good comparisons of the two philosophies.

https://dailystoic.com/stoicism-vs-epicureanism/

https://dailystoic.com/epicureanism-stoicism/

Expand full comment
Jennifer's avatar

Thanks for another great article.

I have always been a "dabbler" in philosophy... only reading a little here and there and never getting the bird's eye view- you help fill in the gaps :)

I am embarrassed to say I had not really engaged with the idea of "natural law" until I caught a Mark Passio video last year. I got hooked by the simple common sense therein and wondered how we'd (as a species) gotten so far away from such sturdy foundations.

The main problem I see for folks calling for a natural law Renaissance is that the technocrats think they are following natural law. They believe they are aiming toward the fulfillment of the blueprint. Many people assume that industry and forever "upgraded" technology IS "natural".

I hope I'm not going too far into the weeds. But I have heard a handful of people make this argument to defend our frenzied technological striving.

Perhaps more simply expressed; It is easy for us to see what an acorn will be. Each tree is unique yet the blueprint is basically the same for all acorns. When we take a human embryo the blueprint is harder to decipher. For the technocrats, the cultivation of industry and technology toward the pursuit of immortality is a "naturally human" pursuit.

While I do not share this view, I think for many years I made myself feel better about all the destruction around me through the unexamined assumption that humans move toward "progress" which meant ever expanding industry and technology. If war and destruction followed, it was because "progress" is a messy business.

Now (after my 2020 wake up call) I see industry (the kind in which "the ends justify the means") and transhumanism as a major departure from "the blueprint".

Yet I'm still left with the question of what is contained in the acorn seed called human? How much "innovation" and "progress" is inherent/natural? At what point does it become "unnatural"?

To be too stoic would destroy the thrill of discovery, which does seem to be within the blueprint of the human embryo (as anyone with kids can see).

I suppose this is where the necessity of cultivating wisdom comes in... and clearly our wells of wisdom are largely running dry (at least in the buzzing confusion of our "culture").

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts