The Stoic Worldview.

[Cato]

Just a couple of observations on comments from the above article:

"The Stoics taught materialism, in which everything - including God and words - is material."

Not quite true, as matter is of the profane and purer kind, the former being mundane matter and the purer being pneuma. The profane matter proceeds from the purer matter, which is the true essence of Zeus, and it's the profane matter which is destroyed during the conflagration, reabsorbed into Zeus to be remade. Thus, Zeus is not the world per se, but the world is the visible portion of him, his immanent aspect; Zeus still has transcendent qualities. The human body is the best example that I can give- the outer shell is the apparent, visible aspect of the person, yet his or her true self is much more deeply-seated, being in the heart, mind, and soul. These qualities are sparks of Zeus' pneuma, just as wisps of flame licking off of a bonfire.

"The Stoics held a cyclical view of history, in which the world was once fire and would become fire again. The cycle of conflagration will then be repeated. Since this is the best of all possible worlds, each world cycle is exactly the same - Socrates will teach again, you will read this web page again."

This is the conflagration or ekpyrosis. The only eternal form of existence is fire, or active energy, which is Zeus and Mind. This cosmic, spiritual fire (or light) permeates all of existence, hence Stoicism can be called pantheistic, and gives rise to the other elements of air, earth, and water. At some point in time, Zeus will withdraw all of his fiery energy once more into a single point, reabsorbing his essence and causing the ekpyrosis- and, again, he'll cause it to explode outward again in an endless cycle of creation, destruction, and reabsorption.

[Cato]

I should say that the lack of a centralized dogma and the open-ended nature of the question-and-answer method of ancient philosophy made sure that not every Stoic had exactly the same ideas. Cicero was a bit of an eclectic, and Marcus seems to have been influenced by the atomist ideas of the main rivals of the Stoics, the Epicureans. The important part of Stoicism wasn't its metaphysical doctrines but its practical doctrines of teaching people how to cope with life and to live well.

[Cato]

Bump.

[Belenus]

I'm a practicing Stoic myself. I haven't delved as deeply into it or conditioned my thinking to the level I would like to, but I do use Stoicism on an almost daily basis, in many respects without conscious thought. And it is surely wise to not worry about that which is outside of one's control.

What I want to know about Stoicism, though, is how its careless attitude toward death could be reconciled with a theology that posits some sort of life after death, which pretty much all Western spirituality agrees on.

[Cato]

What I want to know about Stoicism, though, is how its careless attitude toward death could be reconciled with a theology that posits some sort of life after death, which pretty much all Western spirituality agrees on.

The position of classical Stoicism amounts to something like this: the human soul is a portion of the cosmic fire (that is Zeus, or the Logos, or God). This is why the Stoics spoke of the God within (i.e. Marcus Aurelius alludes to it in To Myself) and also of a wholly transcendent God. Basically, the Stoics taught that human beings are God in microcosm.

Stoic cosmology amounts to an endless cycle of creation and destruction; the only true existence is Zeus ("the father of gods and men"), who suffuses all of of existence. Zeus creates, expands outward, filling the cosmos with his fiery nature, but, at some point, with draw it all back in in the ekpyrosis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrosis

Basically, think of Big Bang and Big Crunch.

Zeus expands out, creates gods and men, but'll eventualy draw himself back in, destroying all (even the gods, who are merely aspects of Zeus). All returns to a single point of origin, or your cosmic singularity. However, all still exists, all potential, matter, energy. It exists in Zeus, who will throw it all back out again. There's some thoughts in my mind if the constant creation/destruction serves some overall purpose, such as Zeus wanting to experience the fullness of his infinite potential until some cosmic omega point is reached (i.e. Zeus truly becomes Zeus).

Stoics don't posit the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God. Terms like "almighty" and "everlasting" are used for Zeus, but this is relative to our own human understanding. Perhaps this ekpyrotic cycle is so that a truly omnipotent and omniscient God can be born.

It's actually a very sublime theory.

[Cato]

It's actually a very sublime theory.

And let me add that gives one a sense of peace and fulfillment, if understood properly. Basically it amounts to "From Zeus we come, to Zeus we return, for Zeus is our most essential nature."

A portion of the Hymn to Zeus by Empimenides:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, o Zeus.
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead; thou livest and abidest forever;
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

He's referring to, and rejecting, the mythological beliefs of Zeus (i.e. that there were to be seen on Crete supposed tombs and the supposed birthplace of Zeus), and instead stating the fundamental point of existence:

For in thee we live and move and have our being.

[Piparskeggr]

Though I give my Worship to the Gods and Goddesses of the North, I too have a belief that there is some Unknown and Unknowable (by the mind of man) Source of All...

In some ways, I am a bit of a natural Stoic, accepting things as they happen with as good a heart and manner as possible.

[Cato]

Though I give my Worship to the Gods and Goddesses of the North, I too have a belief that there is some Unknown and Unknowable (by the mind of man) Source of All...

In some ways, I am a bit of a natural Stoic, accepting things as they happen with as good a heart and manner as possible.

Well, seen from a Stoic viewpoint the Aesir and the Vanir, as well as the other divine entities of the north, are merely aspects or parts of Zeus.

Here's a hymn supposedly by Plato to the Creator, but many of its points can easily belong to the Stoic as well as the Platonic schools, given that both are more or less derived from Socrates.

http://www.openbuddha.com/2005/10/09...o-the-creator/

Just a couple of passages to illustrate what I mean:

Thou art One and likewise Many, Thou art First and Last, Thou art at once the Center and the Survivor of the universe.

Thou art the whole race of gods, Thou the cause and strength of all things, Thou art all nature, one god innumerable, in Thee are both male and female, to Thee was once born this god, this universe, the home of both men and gods, gleaming and sparkling with the sublime flower of youth.

This Creator, spoken variously as Zeus or Jove or Theos, etc. by the Stoics (and other schools), the One who is also Many (and vice-versa). Yes, this gets into Platonism/Neoplatonism, but this was a common belief in the classical world, inherited I'd say from the Egyptians.

It's really hard to say what Stoicism is. It's definitely adaptable. I can name at least four, probably five, distinct periods of the Stoa.

The early, middle, and late Stoa. Early from the time that Zeno began to teach his version of Cynicism, through the middle period of the school and such teachers as Posidonius, to late, best exemplified by Marcus Aurelius.

Then there's neostoicism, which came about during the Renaissance as an attempt to reconcile Stoicism from the classical period with Christianity.

And now, what I guess you can call the "new" Stoicism, when people become attached to the philosophy, in part (as is usually the case) or in full (as I seem to have done, since I'm probably best described as a follower of the sort of Stoicism of the late classical, i.e. Roman-era, school when the philosophy reached its zenith of development). But, if understood properly, that there is a single ground of being (Zeus, God, etc.), one can easily believe in a multiplicity of gods and goddesses as well as Zeus alone. So, one can easily be, say, a practicing Asatruar in terms of religious devotion and a practicing Stoic in terms of private, philosophical beliefs. It might sound odd for a heathen to be heard uttering prayers of thanks to "Zeus and the Aesir," but one can easily substitute a more generic term like "The Unknown God and the Aesir" or somesuch.

The Stoics et al. merely called the Unknown God Zeus, Jove, etc. as a courtesy. Many ancient prayers from from Greco-Roman times begin with a formula that goes something like "Hail Zeus, or by whatever name you desire to be called (so I will call you by this name)..."

[Odin]

[sean]

Stoicism is all about controlling your desires/indulgences and shaping expectations so you don't become overwhelmed by your emotions. It's also about assessing what you let affect you and having a realistic outlook on things like the eventuality of death.

Stoics posited that there is no real point to anything aside from duty and virtue, which were their own rewards. It prioritises reason over passion, which makes for a safe, albeit blander life. In principle, stoicism appreciates this balance. In practice, it lacks the ability to promote this balance, always favouring logic.

It is not a tool to circumvent dealing with reality, and is only relevant to those who with the means can separate themselves from commoners. It's a good base to build a deeper understanding of things and human character but beyond that it's the retarded caveman of philosophies.