OFF-THE-CUFF remarks regarding the next PRES.

doniston said:
I wonder what the average poster here thinks the president should be about, and what would constitute a good Pres. the following is my Ideal:


1. I use Ronald Reagon (first term, and state offices) as an example, at least IMHO--- he was more chairman of the Board than authoritarian.:

2. To me, the ability to chose the right people (experts in their particular field) to fill his cabinet is far more important than to have "Personal" hands on experience in that issue. Therefore: He (or she) would bring the necessary factors together to bring about the appropriate result.

COMMENT? Anti-or Pro???
Click to expand...

sounds good to me.

Bush did the exact opposite by trying to put his friend on the supreme court. That lady, Harriet Myers. I'm sure she's a fine lawyer, but this is supreme court justice. Come on now, Jr.:rolleyes:
 
Watermark said:
I really like Bloomberg's rationalists by the issue approach to things.

Unfortunately, everytime someone mentions him, one of the immigration loons pops up and spits out 'HE SUPPORT ILLGELA IMMIGRANT INVASION AND HE TTO TAKE MY GUNS SO I CAN'T FIHGT TEH INVASIN!'

There's little room in the world for people who think things through rationally instead of making some bland, fallacious, emotional remark on every issue. My favorite philosophy for governance would probably be the classical stoic one... where people judge things rationally instead of by thought-interrupting passion. Of course, the modern meaning of the word "Stoic" is someone who's apathetic to everything, and that wasn't the classical philosophy at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, well the problem with stoicism as a classical philosophy is that it's very narrow and, like Cato the Younger, tends to bread the ulitimate fanatic. A classical stoic is just as capable of emotional and irrational behavior as anyone else is.
 
Mottleydude said:
Yes, well the problem with stoicism as a classical philosophy is that it's very narrow and, like Cato the Younger, tends to bread the ulitimate fanatic. A classical stoic is just as capable of emotional and irrational behavior as anyone else is.
Click to expand...

This is just one of many listed definitions (all being very similar),
------------

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source sto·ic (stō'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.
---------------
and to me, are diametricly opposed to your statement. To me. a stoic person is very much "stick-in-the-mudish"--- certainly NOT excitable
 
Mottleydude said:
Yes, well the problem with stoicism as a classical philosophy is that it's very narrow and, like Cato the Younger, tends to bread the ulitimate fanatic. A classical stoic is just as capable of emotional and irrational behavior as anyone else is.
Click to expand...

Cato wasn't a fanatic. I dunno, maybe "Rome" portrayed him as a fanatic. But Ceaser was far crazier, he was just more charismatic.

A classical stoic doing something emotional and irrational really wouldn't be following stoicism.
 
doniston said:
This is just one of many listed definitions (all being very similar),
------------

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source sto·ic (stō'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.
---------------
and to me, are diametricly opposed to your statement. To me. a stoic person is very much "stick-in-the-mudish"--- certainly NOT excitable
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the modern definition, Don. But the "modern definitions" of classical Greek philosophies almost never really represent the philosophy. The modern definition of Epicuran, for instance, is almost a ridiculous caricature of the philosophy.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, that's the modern definition, Don. But the "modern definitions" of classical Greek philosophies almost never really represent the philosophy. The modern definition of Epicuran, for instance, is almost a ridiculous caricature of the philosophy.
Click to expand...
You seem to have an abnormal fixation on philisophies rather than definitions. and frankly, bringing epicarian into the issue is a strawman.
 
doniston said:
You seem to have an abnormal fixation on philisophies rather than definitions. and frankly, bringing epicarian into the issue is a strawman.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

I wasn't using the word "Stoic" in the way you were using, Don. There's a different definition there, and it can sometimes be used to describe the philosophy itself, rather than the caricature of the philosophy that is the meaning in the words common usage. Surely you understand that?

How is bringing Epircurian into it a strawman? I stated: Classical greek philosophies aren't often well represented by their usage in vernacular. Epicurian philosophy is completely off the wall whenever people talk about it in modern sense. Stoicism in modern vernacular isn't completely different from the actual philosophy. But it seems to be derived by old scholars reading a Greek word that can mean apathy as modern apathy, rather than it's other meaning, which is to think freely from illogical passions.
 
Watermark said:
What are you talking about?

I wasn't using the word "Stoic" in the way you were using, Don. There's a different definition there, and it can sometimes be used to describe the philosophy itself, rather than the caricature of the philosophy that is the meaning in the words common usage. Surely you understand that?

How is bringing Epircurian into it a strawman? I stated: Classical greek philosophies aren't often well represented by their usage in vernacular. Epicurian philosophy is completely off the wall whenever people talk about it in modern sense. Stoicism in modern vernacular isn't completely different from the actual philosophy. But it seems to be derived by old scholars reading a Greek word that can mean apathy as modern apathy, rather than it's other meaning, which is to think freely from illogical passions.
Click to expand...

Being dispassionate is very similar to apathy, in a lot of ways. The dispassion that occurs in today's universities encourages a lack of conclusions, and is, in effect, an intentional ruse to cause intelligents minds to nullify themselves.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Being dispassionate is very similar to apathy, in a lot of ways. The dispassion that occurs in today's universities encourages a lack of conclusions, and is, in effect, an intentional ruse to cause intelligents minds to nullify themselves.
Click to expand...

Passion is a rather extreme apathy towards one subject combined with caring a hell of a lot to much about another.
 
We need to have passions in for the sake of the common man - for passions make decisions. And decisions are good. Making decisions is something I agree with.
 
Watermark said:
What are you talking about?

I wasn't using the word "Stoic" in the way you were using, Don. There's a different definition there, and it can sometimes be used to describe the philosophy itself, rather than the caricature of the philosophy that is the meaning in the words common usage. Surely you understand that?

How is bringing Epircurian into it a strawman? I stated: Classical greek philosophies aren't often well represented by their usage in vernacular. Epicurian philosophy is completely off the wall whenever people talk about it in modern sense. Stoicism in modern vernacular isn't completely different from the actual philosophy. But it seems to be derived by old scholars reading a Greek word that can mean apathy as modern apathy, rather than it's other meaning, which is to think freely from illogical passions.
Click to expand...

1. show me a different definition of stoic. I dare you. (without spin)

2. we were talking about a word, not a philosophy. thus bringing in a alternative philosophy is a strawman.

Sorry about that.
 
doniston said:
1. show me a different dfinition of stoic. I dare you. (without spin)

2. we were talking about a word, not a philosophy. thus bringing in a alternative philosophy is a strawman.

Sorry about that.
Click to expand...



1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word stoic has come to mean unemotional or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from passion by following reason. But the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles by developing clear judgment and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration.

Borrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of passion was "anguish" or "suffering"[1], that is, "passively" reacting to external events—somewhat different to the modern use of the word. A distinction was made between pathos (plural patheia) which is normally translated as "passion", propathos or instinctive reaction (e.g. turning pale and trembling when confronted by physical danger) and eupathos, which is the mark of the Stoic sage (sophos). The eupatheia are feelings resulting from correct judgment in the same way as the passions result from incorrect judgment.

The idea was to be free of suffering (which the Stoics called passion) through apatheia (απαθεια) (Greek) or apathy, where apathy was understood in the ancient sense—being objective or having "clear judgment"—rather than simple indifference, as apathy implies today. The Stoic concepts of passion and apatheia may be considered as analogous to the Buddhist noble truths; All life has suffering (Dukkha), suffering is rooted in passion and desire (Samudaya), meditation and virtue can free one from suffering (Nirodha and Marga). It is also analogous to the concepts in Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu scripture, which stresses rising above the dualities such as pleasure-pain, win-lose, to perform one's duties.

For the Stoics, reason meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature—the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people. The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne), a classification derived from the teachings of Plato.

Following Socrates, the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason. Likewise, if they are unhappy, it is because they have forgotten how nature actually functions. The solution to evil and unhappiness then, is the practice of Stoic philosophy—to examine one's own judgements and behaviour and determine where they have diverged from the universal reason of nature.




2. Don, I started the debate. I think I know whether or not we're talking about the word, which may either mean the "stoic" philosophy, or a person who's indifferent to the world. You may have jumped into the debate halway through, and attacked some other irrelevant persons thread, but I introduced the debate, and I was saying that I believed that the "stoic" philosophy of the ancient greeks is the best for leaders to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top