Some thoughts on "modelling" ourselves and "living according to nature" - part two
A conversation with ChatGPT about core concepts in the Socratic tradition
Jannik: So far we have agreed that the idea of "living according to nature" and the idea of "living according to reason" are both present in the philosophy of Plato and the Stoics. But what do you think of the relationship between those two expressions? There seems to be a tendency among modern followers of Stocism to try to downplay the reference to nature and focus on reason instead - probably because many modern people who are interested in Stocism find it difficult to accept the ancient Stoics' understanding of the natural world. In my opinion, though, it is not just unnecessary but impossible to avoid reference to nature when we try to decide what is reasonable to do for a human being trying to thrive. What do you think?
ChatGPT 4.0: You raise an interesting point regarding the relationship between "living according to nature" and "living according to reason" in both Plato's and the Stoics' philosophies. It's true that some modern followers of Stoicism may downplay the reference to nature and focus on reason, possibly due to the differences in the understanding of the natural world between the ancient and modern perspectives.
However, as you have pointed out, the concept of nature is integral to understanding what is reasonable for a human being trying to thrive. In both Plato's and the Stoics' philosophies, nature is not just about the physical world but also encompasses the principles, laws, and patterns that govern the universe and human life.
The Stoics, in particular, believed that the universe is governed by the Logos, a rational and divine principle. They held that human reason is a reflection of this divine rationality, and therefore, living according to reason is equivalent to living in harmony with nature.
Moreover, understanding human nature and our place in the world is essential for determining what is reasonable and virtuous behavior. For example, the Stoic emphasis on social virtues, such as justice and compassion, arises from the understanding that human beings are inherently social creatures who thrive in communities. This understanding is rooted in the Stoics' conception of nature.
In summary, while it might be tempting for modern followers of Stoicism to downplay the reference to nature in favor of reason, doing so would overlook the interconnectedness of these concepts in both Plato's and the Stoics' philosophies. A comprehensive understanding of what is reasonable for human beings to thrive necessarily involves considering our nature and our place in the world.
Jannik: Obviously, all of this raises the question of the naturalistic fallacy - that is: trying to deduce values from facts. According to this line of critique, the external perspective we were talking about earlier (the natural world outside ourselves) is devoid of values which makes it absurd to use it as a reference for how to live. Obviously, though, to Plato and Stoics the outside natural world is exactly the root of values - because it is good and all we really know about goodness comes from the natural world.
ChatGPT: The naturalistic fallacy, as you pointed out, refers to the idea that one cannot derive values or moral prescriptions from mere facts or descriptions of the natural world. This critique, mainly associated with the British philosopher G.E. Moore, argues that it is fallacious to infer what we ought to do based solely on what is the case in nature.
However, for both Plato and the Stoics, the natural world is not devoid of values. They believed that the natural world is infused with a divine order and rationality that can be used as a reference for how to live. In their view, the natural world is not just a collection of facts, but rather a manifestation of a higher, more perfect reality that is the source of moral values and virtues.
Plato's theory of Forms, for example, posits that the natural world is an imperfect reflection of a higher, non-material reality where the perfect Forms or Ideas of all things exist, including moral values such as justice and goodness. The philosopher's task is to apprehend these eternal and unchanging Forms, and by doing so, gain knowledge of the true nature of reality and the moral values that guide human life.
Similarly, the Stoics believed that the universe is governed by a divine and rational principle, the Logos. They held that human reason is a part of this universal rationality, and by using reason, we can understand the natural order and discern the appropriate way to live. In this view, living in accordance with nature is tantamount to living in accordance with reason and the universal principles that govern the cosmos.
In conclusion, while the naturalistic fallacy highlights the potential danger of deriving values from facts, both Plato and the Stoics maintained that the natural world is not merely a collection of facts but a manifestation of a divine and rational order that provides a foundation for moral values and prescriptions. Their philosophical systems aimed to reveal this order and provide a basis for understanding how human beings can live in harmony with it, thus integrating the external perspective with the internal one in a coherent and meaningful way.
Jannik: I was not correct when I said that - to a Stoic - all we really know about goodness comes from the natural world. Have a look at this quote from Seneca. Seneca seem to think that even if the natural world is perfectly good we have to figure out most of what goodness means for ourselves. What do you think?
"Now I return to the point you want me to discuss, how we first acquired a conception of the good and the honorable. Nature could not teach us this: what nature has given us is not knowledge but only seeds of knowledge"
- Seneca, Letters 120.3-4
ChatGPT: You are correct that Seneca's quote suggests that nature does not directly provide us with complete knowledge of goodness but rather the seeds of knowledge. This distinction is important for understanding the Stoic perspective on virtue and moral values.
Stoics believed that human beings are born with certain innate tendencies and faculties that can be developed into virtues through proper education, practice, and reflection. In this sense, the "seeds of knowledge" that Seneca refers to can be seen as our natural predispositions to rationality, sociability, and other aspects that constitute our human nature.
However, it is up to each individual to cultivate these seeds, refine their understanding of moral values, and apply them to their lives. This process requires active engagement with our rational faculties, learning from wise individuals, and reflecting on our own experiences and actions.
In this context, the natural world provides us with a general framework and a set of predispositions that can guide us towards virtue and goodness. Nonetheless, it is our responsibility to develop these predispositions into a coherent and well-founded understanding of what is truly good and honorable. This process of cultivation is central to the Stoic idea of personal growth and self-improvement.
In conclusion, Seneca's quote emphasizes the role of human agency and active cultivation in acquiring a deeper understanding of goodness and virtue, while acknowledging that nature provides us with the initial seeds of knowledge. This view is consistent with the Stoic perspective on the importance of reason and personal development in achieving a virtuous life.
Jannik: The implication seems to be that the only thing we can really model ourselves after is our own interpretation of the natural world.
ChatGPT: Yes, that is a reasonable interpretation. Both Plato and the Stoics believed that the natural world embodies a divine order, but they also acknowledged that human beings must actively engage with and interpret the natural world to understand its implications for how to live a good life.
For Plato, this engagement takes the form of contemplating the eternal Forms or Ideas, which are more real than the material world and are the source of values and virtues. Philosophers strive to grasp these Forms and apply their insights to shape their own lives and the society they live in.
In the case of the Stoics, they viewed human reason as a part of the universal rationality that governs the cosmos, the Logos. Through reason, we can interpret the natural world and discern the moral principles that underlie it. By developing our understanding of these principles and aligning our actions with them, we can live in harmony with nature and achieve a virtuous life.
In both cases, the process of modeling ourselves after the natural world is not a passive one but rather requires active engagement, interpretation, and cultivation of our understanding of the natural world and its implications for human life. The natural world provides a general framework and direction, but it is up to each individual to develop their own understanding of it and apply that understanding to their actions and choices.
Jannik: Does is still make sense to distinguish between an internal and an external perspective, then?
ChatGPT: Yes, it still makes sense to distinguish between an internal and an external perspective, even though they are closely related and often influence one another. Here's a brief overview of the two perspectives:
Internal Perspective: This perspective focuses on one's subjective experience, thoughts, feelings, and personal development. It is concerned with cultivating virtues, aligning one's desires and actions with reason, and achieving internal consistency in one's beliefs and values. This internal work is essential for personal growth and understanding oneself in relation to the world.
External Perspective: This perspective deals with understanding the world outside ourselves, including the natural world, the structure of the cosmos, and the broader context in which human beings exist. It involves studying and interpreting the external world to gain insight into the underlying principles and rational order that govern it. This understanding can inform and guide our internal development, helping us align our actions and beliefs with the natural order.
While these two perspectives are distinct, they are interconnected and complementary. Our internal growth and self-understanding are informed by our interpretation of the external world, and our actions in the world are guided by the beliefs and values we cultivate internally.
In both Plato's and the Stoics' philosophies, the process of personal growth involves engaging with both the internal and external perspectives. For instance, contemplating the eternal Forms in Plato's philosophy involves both introspection (the internal perspective) and the study of the external world (the external perspective). Similarly, in Stoicism, cultivating virtues and living in harmony with nature require understanding oneself and the broader context of the cosmos.
In summary, the distinction between the internal and external perspectives is useful for understanding the different aspects of personal growth and moral development. However, it's important to recognize that these perspectives are closely related and mutually reinforcing in the pursuit of a virtuous life.
Jannik: Brilliant answer! Thank you.
ChatGPT: You're welcome! I'm glad you found the answer helpful. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, please don't hesitate to ask. I'm here to help!
I enjoyed that.
I have read the most of your dialogues with ChatGPT. You are the best of the two interlocutors, in the sense of asking the right questions (and also of having the entire insight on an issue).
It is wonderful to notice that this machine, considered as the doorstep to a new era of human intelligence, is based on dialogue. I think this could be the real revolution. Our return to dialogue.