>>Gosh, JFreddy, none of these philosophies is making a convert of me! What's next?
Epicureanism, founded by Epicurus, of all people. Like the Stoics, the Epicureans were fond of science and positive knowledge (unlike those vile Sceptics, who didn't believe anyone could know anything).
But how could you not want to stay with the Stoics? Zeno argued that no actions are wrong in themselves, but it is rather the intent that makes an action either good or bad. So when he admitted that neither incest nor cannibalism are wrong in themselves he was merely hewing to the Stoa party line, he wasn't endorsing the practices.
And Maurice ought to find the Stoics to his liking. Here is some of what Frederick Copleston has to say:
"Since the Stoics held that everything necessarily obeys the laws of nature, the objection was bound to be raised: 'What is the good in telling man to obey the laws of nature, if he cannot help doing so in any case?' The Stoics answered that man is rational and so, though he will follow the laws of nature in any case, he has the privilege of knowing these laws and of assenting to them consciously. Hence there is a purpose in moral exhortation: man is free to change his interior attitude. (This involves, of course, a modification of the determinist position, to say the least of it--but then no determinists are or can be consistent, and the Stoics are no exception to the rule.)"
Ooops.
And no, penni, I'm for free will. Maurice is the billiard ball. |
