There is nature and there is nature
A conversation with Bing Chat and ChatGPT about human nature
For this post I give you two version of the same conversation - one with Bing Chat and one with ChatGPT. The topic is a very common - and very old - critique of Stoicism: what does it mean to live according to human nature if human nature is deeply flawed?
I can’t remember why I asked both Bing Chat and ChatGPT about this - but I think they both give very good answers but with interesting differences.
Let me know what you think.
Bing Chat
Jannik: The Stoics wanted us to live "according to nature". Some people think that this doesn't say much as human beings are capable of doing horrible things to each other and that human beings treating each other badly are acting in accordance with nature just as much as human beings who are kind and loving.
I think one answer to this critique could be something like this:
To the Stoics, everything happens according the laws of nature including humans treating other humans badly - but human beings has the option to not act badly. In all situations we have a choice between acting on the first impulse or letting reason be "the craftsman of impulse". Since we are unique in having that choice, acting in accordance with reason is to act in accordance with our specific nature - and acting on the basis of raw impulse is not.
What do you think?
Bing Chat (Creative mode): That's an interesting question. I think you have a good point about the Stoic idea of living according to nature. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Stoics believed that human beings have a rational and social nature, which distinguishes them from other animals. Therefore, living according to nature means living according to reason and virtue, which are the qualities that make us human. The Stoics also believed that nature is governed by a divine logos or rational principle, which is the source of wisdom and justice. Living according to nature means aligning ourselves with this cosmic order and accepting everything that happens as part of the divine plan.
So, when the Stoics say that we should live according to nature, they do not mean that we should follow our raw impulses or instincts, which are often irrational and harmful. They mean that we should use our reason to guide our actions and emotions, and to cultivate virtues such as wisdom, courage, justice and self-control. They also mean that we should live in harmony with other rational beings, respecting their dignity and rights, and contributing to the common good. And they mean that we should accept our fate with equanimity, recognizing that everything that happens is part of a larger purpose that we may not fully understand.
Jannik: A critic could say according to the stoics themselves human beings always act on the basis of their conviction of what is good for them and that this means that they always act according to reason and, thus, always act in accordance with nature - even when they eat too many cakes or treat another human being badly.
Bing Chat: That is a possible objection, but I think the Stoics would reply that not all convictions of what is good are equally valid or reasonable. The Stoics would distinguish between true goods and apparent goods. True goods are those that are in accordance with virtue and nature, such as wisdom, justice, courage and self-control. Apparent goods are those that are in accordance with pleasure, pain, or external circumstances, such as wealth, fame, power and health. The Stoics would argue that only true goods can make us happy and free, while apparent goods can make us miserable and enslaved.
The Stoics would also distinguish between right reason and false reason. Right reason is the faculty that enables us to judge what is truly good and act accordingly. False reason is the faculty that leads us to judge what is only apparently good and act accordingly. The Stoics would argue that only right reason can guide us to virtue and happiness, while false reason can mislead us to vice and misery.
So, the Stoics would say that human beings always act on the basis of their conviction of what is good for them, but not always on the basis of right reason. When they act on the basis of false reason, they choose apparent goods over true goods, and thus act contrary to nature and virtue. When they act on the basis of right reason, they choose true goods over apparent goods, and thus act in accordance with nature and virtue.
Therefore, the Stoics would not agree that eating too many cakes or treating another human being badly are examples of acting according to nature or reason. They would say that these are examples of acting according to false reason or ignorance, which are contrary to nature and reason.
Jannik: I agree wholeheartedly. To truly act in accordance with reason and, thus, with nature means acting in accordance with what we would want if we were fully rational and informed of all facts and consequences.
Bing Chat: I'm glad you agree. I think that is a good way of putting it. The Stoics would say that we should act in accordance with what is truly good for us, not what is seemingly good for us. And what is truly good for us is to live virtuously, rationally, and harmoniously with nature and other rational beings. That is the way to achieve happiness and freedom, which are the ultimate goals of human life.
ChatGPT
Jannik: The Stoics wanted us to live "according to nature". Some people think that this doesn't say much as human beings are capable of doing horrible things to each other and that human beings treating each other badly are acting in accordance with nature just as much as human beings who are kind and loving.
I think one answer to this critique could be something like this:
To the Stoics, everything happens according the laws of nature including humans treating other humans badly - but human beings has the option to not act badly. In all situations we have a choice between acting on the first impulse or letting reason be "the craftsman of impulse". Since we are unique in having that choice, acting in accordance with reason is to act in accordance with our specific nature - and acting on the basis of raw impulse is not.
What do you think?
ChatGPT 4.0: Your interpretation is quite accurate. The Stoic philosophy indeed emphasizes living "according to nature," and this has specific meanings within the context of their philosophy.
First, living according to nature for Stoics implies living in agreement with the natural order of the universe. This is not merely a passive acceptance of whatever happens, but rather a cognitive understanding and acceptance of the causal interdependence of all things, the impermanence of all things, and the natural flow of change and transformation that characterizes the cosmos.
Second, living according to nature involves recognizing the unique capabilities that we, as human beings, have been given by nature, namely reason and the capacity for virtuous action. In Stoic ethics, virtues like wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance are considered the highest good. These virtues guide us to live in harmony with our rational nature and to act appropriately in different situations.
Your statement that "In all situations we have a choice between acting on the first impulse or letting reason be 'the craftsman of impulse'" captures this Stoic teaching quite well. The Stoics believed that we should strive to be rational and virtuous, regardless of the external circumstances.
To the Stoics, acting on raw impulses without consideration and rational judgment would be contrary to our nature as rational beings. So while it is indeed part of the natural order that humans can act badly, it's not in accordance with our rational and social nature to do so. Therefore, the Stoic admonition to live "according to nature" can be seen as a call to live in accordance with reason and virtue.
Jannik: A critic could say according to the stoics themselves human beings always act on the basis of their conviction of what is good for them and that this means that they always act according to reason and, thus, always act in accordance with their nature as rational beings - even when they eat too many cakes or treat another human being badly.
ChatGTP: Yes, this is a significant critique that deserves attention. It is important to understand that, for the Stoics, the concept of 'reason' is not equivalent to 'thinking' or 'having a reason for'. Stoic philosophy considers 'reason' as acting in alignment with wisdom, virtue, and a correct understanding of what is truly good or bad. When the Stoics speak of living according to nature and using reason, they mean acting in accordance with a rational, virtuous understanding of the world.
If a person treats others badly or overindulges in cakes, it might be because they believe, at that moment, that it's the right thing to do for them. However, from a Stoic perspective, these actions could indicate a mistaken judgment about what is truly good or beneficial. This 'misuse' of reason is what Stoics strive to correct through philosophy, arguing that true happiness comes from virtue and a proper understanding of what's within our control and what's not.
Hence, a person can act according to what they perceive to be beneficial (which might be a product of incorrect judgments or passions), but this isn't the same as acting according to 'reason' in the Stoic sense. The Stoics would argue that such actions represent a deviation from our true nature as rational and social beings, and this is where Stoic ethical teachings and practices come into play, which are designed to guide us towards living in alignment with our true nature.
So, while this critique is valuable in the sense that it compels us to clarify the Stoic view of reason and nature, it doesn't necessarily undermine the Stoic framework. Instead, it brings to light the importance of the Stoic practice of scrutinizing our judgments and refining our understanding of what is truly good and bad.
.
Awesome! "...these are examples of acting according to false reason or ignorance, which are contrary to nature and reason." Thanks for sharing and the mention, dear Jannick! What a wonderful time to be alive!