Novices and Veterans: Divergent Conclusions Regarding the Applicability of Stoic Principles

It was through dabbling in stoicism that I gained a better understanding of how I, like so many others, have a hard time excusing other people's bad behavior. Another thing, that I will later in this post relate to this understanding of my tendency, that became apparent to me after joining a stoicism study group was the pattern of divergence in the conclusions formed by novice versus veteran practitioners of this branch of philosophy. I think that while both the approaches of the novice and the veteran help preserve one's tranquility, only the veteran’s approach leads to practical wisdom beyond mere inner peace.

Now, for purposes of only this post, allow me to make, and use as a basis for further reasoning, the grossly oversimplified claim that stoicism teaches extending the benefit of the doubt to other people. For example, if someone has broken a previously-made promise or commitment, stoicism would advocate contemplating the possibility of unforeseen circumstances outside of one's counterpart’s calculation and control that would have made it untenably difficult, if not impossible, for them to uphold their promise or commitment. This empathetic, albeit contrived, approach is certainly, and without question, a better alternative to anger. This contrivance would not only allow one to retain their tranquility but it would also allow one the possibility to subsequently interact and deal with their counterpart in a manner that would be productive, wise, and just.

With respect to this extension of the benefit of the doubt, I have noticed the pattern amongst novices to favor an overextension of the benefit of the doubt. For example, they are generally amenable to extending their counterpart the benefit of the doubt even in the event of multiple infractions. Veterans, on the other hand, are generally not amenable to extending their counterpart the benefit of the doubt in the event of multiple infractions. Similar to novices, veterans do not lose their composure. However, unlike novices, their recommendations are suggestive that they are at peace in recognizing the flaws of their counterpart, the challenges that their counterpart’s flaws introduce to the dynamic of dealing with them, and how the dynamic ought to be shaped (or completely forgone) in order to maximize one's utility, while simultaneously minimizing one's agitation or disappointment, from dealing with their counterpart.

Though the novice’s way may help one maintain their tranquility—at least for the short, if not the long, term—I do not believe it is done so in a healthy way. I believe that they espouse a misguided approach due to an incomplete philosophical understanding that would ultimately do them a disservice. Their philosophy renders them too readily acceptable of ill treatment because they inadvertently encourage their counterpart’s bad behavior such that their counterpart will lose respect for them. In my opinion, there is no doubt that it is the veteran’s way that, by excluding the element of denial and/or delusion from one’s thought process, allows one to chart a course for oneself that allows one to deal with the unprincipled and inconsiderate in a manner that is virtuous, wise, and just.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Refuting the Mystical In Favor of the Empirical: One Avenue of Escape From The Twilight Zone

“[The Twilight Zone] is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge.” –Rod Serling Rod Serling’s crowning achievement, The Twilight Zone, a Kafkaesque anthology show that frequently traversed through the realms of the supernatural, paranormal, and science fiction, is widely regarded as one of the greatest television shows of all time. Having premiered in the late 1950s, when filmic technology and special effects were nowhere near where they are today, the show relied on the brilliance of storytelling, dialogue, and thematic structure to captivate audiences. These are indeed timeless, transcendent, and permanent cinematic qualities, demonstrated by the fact that more than 50 years later The Twilight Zone has still not lost its charm. When in my early 30s I finally came around to exploring The Twilight Zone, I was immediately gripped by Serling’s penetrating opening voiceover...
Read more

Deconstructing the Subjective Conception of Complexity

Questions such as what is complexity and what contributes to the complexity of something are of interest to philosophers in general and to epistemologists in particular. I came across a fascinating array of answers to questions about the nature and function of complexity at a recent meeting of my philosophy discussion group. The subject was approached from several different angles and many of the propositions shared during the collaborative inquiry can be reconciled and synthesized. Also shared were a number of fascinating propositions that despite being germane and, to a lesser or greater degree, meritorious cannot be reconciled with those that were the most relevant to the topic because they were based on sufficiently different premises. Specifically, the irreconcilable propositions concerned themselves primarily with either the relativity, or the subjective perceptions, of complexity.   Again, though I’m not particularly amendable to this position for reasons I will touch upon...
Read more

Postmodernity’s Misplaced Sense of Humility

Disclaimer: References to postmodernists herein should be construed to mean laypersons whose thinking is influenced by postmodernism, not postmodernists in the strict sense. One of the basic tenets of good thinking is that one must base their reasoning on how things are rather than how one wishes things to be. The greatest challenge that postmodernity has hurled at us is that the conception of how things are has been so thoroughly blended with how one wishes things to be that the two constructs have been rendered inextricable. Postmodernism’s consistent messaging about the purely subjective nature of truth and the impossibility of objective truths can have the undesirable effect of orienting one to believe that how one wishes things to be is actually how those things are. This misguided understanding can then be used as the basis for further misguided reasoning. I encounter my fair share of truth relativists (often very obstinate ones) at my weekly philosophy club meetings. Despit...
Read more