Yes, and I am puzzled when the chatbot equivocates over what preferred indifferents are. In what way do they matter? That’s still not clear to me. The chatbot says ‘they’re nice to have but they don’t make you more or less happy.’ OK that IS what people say. You have a preference for them. But when it comes to your good, you are indifferent to them. Many people tend to find that implausible because of the social nature of human beings and the intensity of our need for other human beings. If we have a nature, we may not be constituted to handle solitude. Solitude can cause everything from profound sorrow to insanity. It cannot be good for us. So I am just not getting how the chatbot shows what you say in the above sentence where this is the life we should strive for. Why should we strive for it? What work is this ‘preferred indifferents’ idea doing here if we need people so much?
Its interesting the idea that family, friends and community are preferred indifferents when the way we get to really hone in on whether or not we are virtuous is often through interactions with these people. It's easy to be virtuous in writing and pondering. It is much harder to really show up in the world as a Stoic when you have to interact with people. Especially, often your family, who know how to push your buttons. I think the trained stoic would find a way to be virtuous and therefore happy, even in solitary confinement, but the ideal stoic would be a person of the world.
I like that you said it is the wisdom in pursuing these things (family, friends, and community) in life that can lead to happiness. Though I would argue that it is also the challenges that come with pursuing these things in life that can be the kindling to ignite virtue.
I don't think you were making that claim, the AI was. I just find it interesting and quite unlikely the thought that, someone could be virtuous without being consistently tested by those around her.
The Stoics would probably actually say that it is, in principle, possible for a solitary individual to become wise. But they would probably also say that it is so difficult to reach wisdom under those conditions that it is de facto impossible.
You're correct that - ultimately - they don't matter for our happiness but that is because - ultimately - it is enough for our happiness to strive for a life with friends, family and a peaceful community even if we don't get any if those things. Even so, that is the life we should strive for. Stoicism is a deeply social philosophy.
Its interesting the idea that family, friends and community are preferred indifferents when the way we get to really hone in on whether or not we are virtuous is often through interactions with these people. It's easy to be virtuous in writing and pondering. It is much harder to really show up in the world as a Stoic when you have to interact with people. Especially, often your family, who know how to push your buttons. I think the trained stoic would find a way to be virtuous and therefore happy, even in solitary confinement, but the ideal stoic would be a person of the world.
I like that you said it is the wisdom in pursuing these things (family, friends, and community) in life that can lead to happiness. Though I would argue that it is also the challenges that come with pursuing these things in life that can be the kindling to ignite virtue.
I thought they don't matter. They neither add to nor subtract from your good.
Did you read the post? 😎
Yes, and I am puzzled when the chatbot equivocates over what preferred indifferents are. In what way do they matter? That’s still not clear to me. The chatbot says ‘they’re nice to have but they don’t make you more or less happy.’ OK that IS what people say. You have a preference for them. But when it comes to your good, you are indifferent to them. Many people tend to find that implausible because of the social nature of human beings and the intensity of our need for other human beings. If we have a nature, we may not be constituted to handle solitude. Solitude can cause everything from profound sorrow to insanity. It cannot be good for us. So I am just not getting how the chatbot shows what you say in the above sentence where this is the life we should strive for. Why should we strive for it? What work is this ‘preferred indifferents’ idea doing here if we need people so much?
I have a post ready for tomorrow that answers some of your questions. The short answer is that friends, family and community are not indifferents.
Great! I will look for it!
Here you go:
https://janniklindquist.substack.com/p/friends-family-and-community-are?sd=pf
Its interesting the idea that family, friends and community are preferred indifferents when the way we get to really hone in on whether or not we are virtuous is often through interactions with these people. It's easy to be virtuous in writing and pondering. It is much harder to really show up in the world as a Stoic when you have to interact with people. Especially, often your family, who know how to push your buttons. I think the trained stoic would find a way to be virtuous and therefore happy, even in solitary confinement, but the ideal stoic would be a person of the world.
I like that you said it is the wisdom in pursuing these things (family, friends, and community) in life that can lead to happiness. Though I would argue that it is also the challenges that come with pursuing these things in life that can be the kindling to ignite virtue.
Family, friends and community are not preferred indifferents. I realize that this post could have been more precise. This one adresses this issue:
https://janniklindquist.substack.com/p/friends-family-and-community-are
Yes I just started reading this new essay last night. I like that you get more into this topic.
I don't think you were making that claim, the AI was. I just find it interesting and quite unlikely the thought that, someone could be virtuous without being consistently tested by those around her.
The Stoics would probably actually say that it is, in principle, possible for a solitary individual to become wise. But they would probably also say that it is so difficult to reach wisdom under those conditions that it is de facto impossible.
You're correct that - ultimately - they don't matter for our happiness but that is because - ultimately - it is enough for our happiness to strive for a life with friends, family and a peaceful community even if we don't get any if those things. Even so, that is the life we should strive for. Stoicism is a deeply social philosophy.
Beautiful! "...virtue is the sole good and is sufficient for happiness". Thanks for sharing, dear Jannik!
Its interesting the idea that family, friends and community are preferred indifferents when the way we get to really hone in on whether or not we are virtuous is often through interactions with these people. It's easy to be virtuous in writing and pondering. It is much harder to really show up in the world as a Stoic when you have to interact with people. Especially, often your family, who know how to push your buttons. I think the trained stoic would find a way to be virtuous and therefore happy, even in solitary confinement, but the ideal stoic would be a person of the world.
I like that you said it is the wisdom in pursuing these things (family, friends, and community) in life that can lead to happiness. Though I would argue that it is also the challenges that come with pursuing these things in life that can be the kindling to ignite virtue.