Instigator / Pro
7
1439
rating
9
debates
27.78%
won
Topic
#4191
To Use Stoicism as a Tool vs Stoicism as According to their Virtues
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
AleutianTexan
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1500
rating
4
debates
87.5%
won
Description
"Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. It is a philosophy of personal virtue ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia (happiness, lit. 'good spiritedness'): one flourishes by living an ethical life. The Stoics identified the path to eudaimonia with a life spent practicing virtue and living in accordance with nature.
Alongside Aristotelian ethics, the Stoic tradition forms one of the major founding approaches to virtue ethics.[1] The Stoics are especially known for teaching that "virtue is the only good" for human beings, and that external things, such as health, wealth, and pleasure, are not good or bad in themselves (adiaphora) but have value as "material for virtue to act upon". Many Stoics—such as Seneca and Epictetus—emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient for happiness", a sage would be emotionally resilient to misfortune. The Stoics also held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and they believed people should aim to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is "in accordance with nature". Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how a person behaved.[2] To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they thought everything was rooted in nature."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
If a purpose of Stoicism be to achieve happiness, to flourish,
By virtue of good character and action.
Then I argue as a tool, it fits finely into place.
Dominate one's business rivals,
Pick up romantic partners,
Play the crypto market,
Drop bombs in war.
People have different values, ideals,
Stoicism itself changed early on,
"Early Stoics differed significantly from late Stoics in their views of sexuality, romantic love and sexual relationships."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
Are Stoic view of living in tune with nature to be held on 'exactly,
So often one hears fallacy, fallacy, about that in debates,
So then let Stoicism be flexible.
I argue at it's core is contained,
Self control,
Objective thinking,
Distance from 'pure passion ruling oneself.
Then I argue it works well as a control, a tool,
And let the individuals virtues be as they reason, not dogma,
Is happiness, good spiritedness not 'felt, not passion?
Round 1
Hm,
I've debated here so little, I assumed my description 'was my argument.
Well, I suppose I'll maintain my description as my argument,
With the addition of this arguement.
I suppose an example could be an Atheist using and following much of the Bible,
To gain advantage.
I imagine many might say they are not a Christian,
And/Or not using Christianity.
I suppose I 'might agree with the not a Christian,
But that there 'are Atheistic Christian,
The Jefferson Bible pops to mind, as something in that direction.
Direction though,
People aren't certain on Jefferson's beliefs I think.
. . .
I argue one can truly make use or be identified by Stoicism,
Even without a number of it's features.
Take business people reading the Art or War or Machiavelli for example,
One is as their voice states,
Their actions identify.
Preamble
As the Con, I will engage with my opponent’s case and then create any external arguments. Also, thanks for the debate Lemming, it seems really cool and I love how you format your forum posts and your speeches (I promise that’s not sarcastic), so I really hope that I can have a good engagement with you.
Pro’s case
1. My opponent shows what Stoicism is through the Wikipedia article in the description, however, I want to pull out key arguments I find important and add to the definition where necessary. I’m using the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,so I will link the article here, and reference the sections I get them from for the important points.
A. The Stoics only support the existence of the body, saying the soul and intellect come from here as well. (2.1)
B. God is directing the entire universe intentionally and the universe is a living thing. (2.7)
C. Stoics are determinists or believe that all actions are predetermined to happen or not. (2.8)
D. Stoics believe in an objective truth that can be derived from reason, and that once truth is discovered, it shouldn’t be doubted if the truth can continue to be verified. (3.7)
E. Ethically, stoics hope to live in agreement with both nature and oneself. (4.1)
F. This ethical obligation happens by achieving virtue or the perfected human reason. (4.2)
G. All humans are deserving of this ethical process. (4.5)
H. Living things try their best to survive, regardless of if it is painful or not. (4.6)
I.Stoics believe in a passion free life, seeing passions are a lack of virtue. (4.7)
J. The only thing that I really want to pull out from my opponent’s argument is that happiness is fully achieved from virtue alone.
2. Dominate one’s business rivals,
A. Stoicism doesn’t give the tools to accomplish this at all because this isn’t true happiness. This is a passion fueled by ignorance, so while it may satisfy ignorant passions, it fails to achieve true happiness for three reasons.
I. Either this is simply a step to virtue, meaning there is more that needs to be done, or the business is the end goal, and doesn’t achieve happiness. We see that a lot of business successes leave people empty because we see the goal as the end step, but it circumvents what would actually make us happy, which is virtue.
II. You are not treating everyone as deserving of ethical consideration, so this leaves you unable to achieve happiness.
III. Business inherently is antithetical to living with nature as it is the construction of a social system that seeks to exploit nature for profit.
3. Pick up romantic partners
Unless this is proven to be incompatible with a certain part of stoic theory, then this completely compatible with stoicism writ large. This means this isn't a reason to evaluate that you can cherry-pick parts of stoicism.
4. Play the crypto market,
A. Stoicism doesn’t give the tools for this skill either because it’s not true happiness.
I. Wealth doesn’t translate into happiness without virtue. We see that wealthy people are unhappy if they stop being generous and social.
II. Crypto doesn’t allow one to be in agreement with nature as crypto mining produces the equivalent of CO2 emissions that Argentine or the Netherlands does.
5.Drop bombs in a war,
War can be virtuous, so once again, unless this is proven to be against stoic values,then this completely works within the stoic framework.
6.Even if the stoics have changed in regard to sexuality and romance, this doesn’t mean that stoicism should be flexible on nature. What was the change for sexuality and romance and what is the proposed change for nature so there can be an apt comparison?
A. Also, evolution in a school of thought is different than cherry-picking the parts of a framework you want.
B. Also, also, living in agreement with nature is important for every other part of the stoic philosophy. It is crucial to ethics as understanding nature is a part of virtue. It also is important in preserving God's designed universe. Lastly, if only the corporeal exists with no spiritual component, then we should respect the world it takes place in.
7. Self control, objective thinking, and distance from pure passion as tools only work if you have a stoic framework to construct them from.
A.Self control is a stoic tool because they value virtue above all else, meaning that they control their actions to best rationally understand the world. If you divorce that reasoning from the tool, then the tool is no longer “self control”, you are simply being more rigid in your consumption of passions.
B.Objective thinking is a stoic tool because they understand the world is only the corporeal. If you divorce that reasoning from the tool, then you no longer have objective thinking because you are pursuing non-existent souls.
C.Distance from passion is the same as self control.
Con’s Case
1. Obligatory rules kritik
A. Pro used the entire description as the portion of their first argument. This is abusive as it puts the Con on the back pedal from the beginning because of the existence of character counts. We only have so much room to say things and Pro inherently skews the Con out of a fair amount of characters in each debate. Finally, even if Pro wouldn’t have gone over the character count if they copied and pasted the description into the first speech, you should still vote them down so that actions that could potentially lead to unfair debates that make being the contender impossible don’t get continued as people see they will be called out for it.
2.Values are good
A. People should engage in adopting ideologies and frameworks for themselves and not cherry-picking the parts they like. Three reasons:
I. It’s morally bankrupt to pick the ethical principles you agree with from one framework without engaging in the underlying assumptions, and then apply them whenever you want. This is the equivalent of finding a justification for your actions, instead of having a true ethical framework to hold yourself too. This act of cherry-picking and calling it good leads to the justification of every act as you cherry-pick the parts that allow you to engage in murder, rape, adultery, etc. when you want.
II. It’s socially bankrupt as it prevents you from fostering communities with like-minded people. Political parties and movements, philosophical schools of thought (especially when they were literal meetings in they times of Greece), and churches are all examples of how we construct communities with people who share similar values as us. Cross apply my article from earlier that said loneliness leads to less happiness.
III. It’s intellectually bankrupt as it doesn’t force you to reckon with other ideas, but lets you skirt out of having to defend your actions. For example, if I told Pro, under their framework, that stoicism was bad and gave philosophical critique, they are incentivized to not defend stoicism, especially the parts that they agree with and personally defend, but circumvent the question because “they are not a stoic”. This prevents further discourse and dialogue which is at the root of educational value.
3. Stoicism is interconnected.
A. I somewhat discussed this already, so cross apply point 7 from Pro’s case.
B. Looking at point 1 from Pro’s case, all of these issues are interconnected and you can’t simply ignore one without the entire system crumbling in on itself. I disproved the individual examples my opponent gave. I ask that Pro define exactly what tools of stoicism they hope to keep and which they hope to castaway, as this will then help facilitate a more in depth conversation.
I. This is one example, but this will hopefully prove the point going forward, but if you cast out that there is only the body with no distinct soul or mind, then this destroys how we produce knowledge as there would be knowledge about things outside of the body. This destroys the determinism, as it questions how the soul and mind is affected by external factors and if they can house free will. It also destroys that ethics are about virtue as we no longer only need to rationally understand the world as there is a soul to comprehend and follow. This example translates to each of the axioms I use to define stoicism.
Round 2
Thank you for accepting the debate,
I look forward to hearing from you and having to research a bit myself, that my ignorance of Stoicism is lessened.
Also helps towards the new qualifications, in recent DART update.
If I don't address every point, well this is what 5 rounds are for,
If I say something stupid, well one reason for debate is to improve oneself.
(A's) A general response.
(A1) Virtue 'over Happiness?
"D. Stoics believe in an objective truth that can be derived from reason, and that once truth is discovered, it shouldn’t be doubted if the truth can continue to be verified. (3.7)"
AleutianTexan, Round 1
This I argue,
Allows for various 'truths of Stoicism to be redefined.
The 'true 'virtues, for instance.
"Stoic ethics is eudaimonist in structure, in the sense that it posits happiness (eudaimonia) – a well-lived, flourishing life – as the rational agent’s ultimate practical goal or end (telos). Thus the Stoics characterize happiness as “the end, for the sake of which everything is done, but which is not itself done for the sake of anything” else"
If stoicism is practiced for 'this sake,
Then stoicism cannot be practiced for the sake of 'virtues,
Virtues instead become 'means.
(A2) Mind over Body?
"A. The Stoics only support the existence of the body, saying the soul and intellect come from here as well. (2.1)
J. The only thing that I really want to pull out from my opponent’s argument is that happiness is fully achieved from virtue alone."
AleutianTexan, Round 1
But being that the body exists,
It can be acted upon,
By a rail spike,
By torture.
Torture need not even be in a dungeon, but circumstance,
Surely it is good to be able to exert control over oneself,
To limit negative influence upon oneself,
But human is as human does,
And humans. . Have limits.
By this I argue that the doctrines of
"(1) human happiness is fully in our power
(2) virtue is the only good"
For after all,
"C. Stoics are determinists or believe that all actions are predetermined to happen or not. (2.8)"
AleutianTexan, Round 1
Human happiness is within our 'human perspective,
Within our human limits.
The mind is as a muscle,
Where practiced or fed, it is able to exert itself stronger,
By this do 'other Virtues appear, according to the nature of the individual.
"Ambition. That can be a virtue when it drives us to excel." - Sourced from ?
"Devotion, to my family" - Sourced from ?
Not all people are equal,
But by actions of both inner and outer experiences,
People may grow.
(A3) Happiness, To dominate one's business partners.
People have different drives,
An introvert, an extrovert,
Nature, nature, fallacy, fallacy,
People like to cry,
I mention this to say, natural good,
Is as we define it.
Our body is naturally tended to exercise, some may say,
Our body is naturally tended to rest and atrophy some may say.
I am a nihilist,
Good for an individual, is as they define it.
Does this not jive with Stoicism,
Our situation is as we perceive it?
Wolves eat one another,
Though more often 'other animals,
Societies, 'especially for the social, often possess hierarchy.
"In the study, which was a collaboration among scientists at Duke University, Emory University and the University of Montreal, researchers organized 45 adult female macaques into social hierarchies and measured the animals’ immune functions. They found that high-status monkeys have more immune cells needed to combat viral attacks, whereas low-status monkeys have heightened activity in cells that respond to bacterial invaders. Moreover, when the researchers artificially manipulated the monkeys’ social ranks, their immune functions changed accordingly. The findings suggest a causal relationship between social rank and immune function that is reversible based on changing social conditions."
This is not to say the power of one's mind, can not trim one towards acceptance, or indifference of hierarchy,
But, as I said in an earlier argument,
humans. . Have limits.
(A4) Virtues and the External
"Prudence, Justice, Courage, Moderation"
Can these be learned in a vacuum, or doth education, 'external situation play a role,
In them gained, easier, harder?
(B's) Replies to Cons Case
(B1) Obligatory rules kritik
The acceptor or a debate get's the last word,
Little harm it does if the starter 'speaks a bit more in the start,
Which even then, I've not.
(B2) Values are good
Logic is not bound to one school of thought or ethics,
I see no logical contradiction in a murderer, rapist, adulterer using 'pieces of a school of thought or ethics.
. . .
Suppose there were two individuals,
A Christian and an Atheist,
Suppose the Christian believed in God,
Yet sinned in all ways, broke the commandments, followed not the teachings of Jesus.
Suppose the Atheist did not believe in God,
Yet was adverse from sins, broke not the commandments, followed the teachings of Jesus.
Is it the 'beliefs that matter,
Or the actions that define the individual into his niche?
Perhaps both, or just one, I'd argue,
Thought it is for just 'one, that in this debate I argue.
(B3) Stoicism is interconnected.
Very well, I speak on.
Though above I say virtues are not the 'goal of Stoicism,
This does not mean they are not valuable tools,
Not oft expected to be used,
Not a part of Stoicisms history and teachings.
Wisdom, courage, and moderation,
Valuable.
The idea of one's control over one's self,
Valuable.
It's entire history of logic,
Examples of this leading to that,
Valuable.
Pro’s Case
1. Virtue ‘over Happiness
Stoics do hope to find eudaimonia/happiness, however they believe this is only possible through virtue. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy specifically says “To bring our mind into this state of agreement and achieve the telos, the Stoics argue that only one thing is needed: virtue.” (4.2) Lemming can attempt to say that Stoics only hope to achieve happiness, but what this is and how they do it is all interconnected. Happiness is achieving virtue. Virtue is rationally understanding the world. This is because the world is only corporeal and can therefore be fully understood. This means that cherry-picking this single piece of the puzzle ignores how the picture comes together.
2.Mind over Body
A. Rationally understanding the world is the only virtue because everything else should utilized in moderation and reason helps us determine how to best accurately utilize this moderation. Everything else is passions, which are desires not influenced by reason. Using stoic tools to achieve anything else leads to endless pursuit to the extreme of something.
I. Pro brings up ambition, but too much ambition leads to unethically pursing success creating guilt or hyperfocusing on professional success at a tradeoff with everything else. Not enough ambition leads to apathy and a feeling of not affecting the world. Reason is what lets us figure out how much or how little ambition we should have in certain situations.
II. Pro brings up loyalty, but too much loyalty leads to you staying in situations where you are being abused or where you help someone engage in unethical behavior creating guilt. Not enough loyalty means you don’t help others or create interpersonal relationships. Reason is what lets us figure out how much or how little loyalty we should have in certain situations.
3.Happiness, To dominate one’s business partners
A. I showed business success leads to people feeling unhappy. This was dropped. This means there is universal happiness and not happiness. Cross apply that the wealthy are unhappy when they’re not generous or social as this shows general happiness trends.
B. “Does this not jive with Stoicism, Our situation is as we perceive it?”
I. I’m going to let you answer this, Pro. Does choosing your virtue/happiness jive with stoicism, or does stoicism prescribe what the virtue/happiness is?
4. Virtues and the External
All of the virtues described are bad in extremes, either too much or too little. Only through moderation that is determined by reason can these be good on their own. This means that only true virtue is reason.
Con’s Case
1. Rule kritik
Pro is right. They didn’t read any offense on this sheet, so I’m just not going for it. This isn’t a reason to vote Con down, but simply was making sure this debate was a fair and accessible space.
2. Values are good
Pro has two answers here, but neither answer the root of the argument.
A. They say logic is not bound to on school, but my argument isn’t that it is bound to one school. My argument is that not picking the school of thought that makes sense on an axiomatic/logical level and sticking to it is morally, academically, and socially bankrupt. There is no answer to this, as Pro doesn’t engage in picking a school of thought, any school of thought, is better than cherry-picking parts of different schools.
B. The analogy of the Christian and the Atheist is irrelevant. People of all schools of thought may fail to live up to the ideas that they say they agree with, but imperfect application of a committed school of thought doesn’t disprove that sticking to a school of thought is good.
C.Extend that not picking a school of thought and sticking to it is ethically, academically, and socially bankrupt.
3. Stoicism is interconnected
From what I understand, this was never answered. There is no argumentation that every part of stoicism is built on another part, meaning you can’t look at any part in a vacuum and use that part. This means attempting to do so will lead to ideological failure.
Round 3
(C's) A general response.
(C1) Knowledge and Happiness
Grand Knowledge isn't 'needed for happiness,
Higher understanding perhaps,
But not happiness,
A 'dullard can be happy,
A dullard can by simple knowledge of his job and environment live well.
Knowledge 'can lead to an ability to solve problems,
But not everyone has or will encounter those problems.
That Higher Knowledge is not 'necessary, leads to the conclusion,
That it is a means,
A 'very useful means, but a means none the less.
. . .
"the world is only corporeal and can therefore be fully understood."
AleutianTexan, Round 2
A camel may be felt by three blind men, but that is not to say they understand.
(C2) Rationality is a Lie, Only Passion
Though I overspeak myself in saying lie,
'But,
Passion is the spark within us, lighting a flame to our highest values.
Rationality, knowledge, are but bellows to heighten and breathe greater life to our fires.
Moderation is as a person desires of an outcome,
Moderation is the answer to a question of what must be done to 'reach our passion.
Moderate is determined by circumstance, and discovered by logic,
Hence the 'value of knowledge.
. . .
If knowledge were 'all that were needed,
Why do anything?
I answer,
We do anything, because knowledge is not enough,
Knowledge is instead a tool to endure,
A tool to ensure,
Ensure we live in accordance with nature, as the Stoics say,
Though this is vague,
It is well enough to say ourselves and environment, grant us our necessities.
Reason 'is a wonderful tool, I agree,
But it has a requirement, Passion providing an object.
(C3) Dropped?
I disagree the point was dropped,
But rather that it is addressed in
"Wolves eat one another,
Though more often 'other animals,
Societies, 'especially for the social, often possess hierarchy.
"In the study, which was a collaboration among scientists at Duke University, Emory University and the University of Montreal, researchers organized 45 adult female macaques into social hierarchies and measured the animals’ immune functions. They found that high-status monkeys have more immune cells needed to combat viral attacks, whereas low-status monkeys have heightened activity in cells that respond to bacterial invaders. Moreover, when the researchers artificially manipulated the monkeys’ social ranks, their immune functions changed accordingly. The findings suggest a causal relationship between social rank and immune function that is reversible based on changing social conditions."
This is not to say the power of one's mind, can not trim one towards acceptance, or indifference of hierarchy,
But, as I said in an earlier argument,
humans. . Have limits."
Lemming, Round 2
Business success, money, fame,
Can fulfill much of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
One can argue, all you need is knowledge and self,
But we are part of this world,
Influenced by it.
Why live in accordance with nature, if all one needs is their mind?
(C4) Jive
I would say Stoicism is capable of And/Or,
Stoicism 'can be a dogma and a means,
Or it can be a means,
For I argue it speaks extensively on both.
(C5) Reason may realize where the moderation lay, but Passion is whom 'placed the moderation in that spot, for that individual or question.
(D1) School of Thought
“Research your own experience; absorb what is useful, reject what is useless and add what is essentially your own.”
- Bruce Lee, Wisdom for the Way
I argue an individual often belongs to many schools of thought,
And within themself whether clearly or vaguely, founds their 'own school of thought.
A person can be a Capitalist, and a Socialist, A Christian, and a deist.
Rather than 'purely of one school, their life experiences, environment, selects for what is useful.
Like an MMA fighter learning many techniques depending on occasion.
Ought a Communist never use a Capitalist technique?
Ought a Capitalist never use a Communist technique?
I'd say one can be frightfully strong in a specialty,
But so too can hinder,
Leave one unable to bend like a reed,
Leave one 'lacking in flexibility,
Is human adaptation not a great strength, in our travels in all this worlds clime?
(D2) Interconnected
There is connectivity where to pull apart breaks a solid piece,
And there is connectivity where is is like a Lego set.
I’m willing to waive the last two rounds if Lemming is. So we’re not running out the clock with forfeits, I’m willing to wager the grammar point in voting that I can tell the better two jokes (one for each round) than Lemming. Up to you, comrade. If you see this round and feel like we need to keep going, that works for me as well. We both agreed in the comments (assuming Lemming doesn’t change after reading this), so this publishment is just putting it in the speech for voter understanding and binding accountability for the two of us.
Pro’s Case
1. Knowledge and Happiness
A. The argument that a dullard “can” be happy ignores that they are much less likely to. Statistically, we see a correlation between intelligence and happiness, so we should probably trust that over the guesses of Pro.
B. Also, even if they are right, being short-term happy because you fulfill ignorant passions does not mean that a being is achieving eudaimonia/happiness by achieving virtue/reason.
2. Rationality is a Lie, Only Passion
A. The argument that passion creates the energy to do things is only towards ignorant urges. “Passions” are the wants that are not derived through reason, but through ignorance. This means that even if passions give energy but their into bad things like all the examples we talk about, then they are probably bad.
B. Pro tries to argue that reason cannot compel action, but this is simply not true. If someone reasons that it is ethical/good/virtuous to act, they then act. This means knowledge is enough because it determines when to act.
3.Dropped?
A. I showed that business success doesn’t translate into happiness. You showed that natural hierarchies affect immune systems in monkeys (macaques are monkeys, right?). You need to make that connection much more clear or I prove that regardless of how resistant to the common cold, you still aren’t happy because you aren’t in agreement with nature or ethical.
B. Why live in accordance with nature, if all one needs is their mind?
I. Nature is the vessel by which we can rationally understand the world. This is the best way to achieve virtue/reason.
II. Nature is a living thing constructed by God himself (God not being the Christian God, a lot of the original stoics believed in Zeus. You can substitute any theological being) and being in accordance with it helps you best live virtuously as you can understand how God directs nature. This is an extension of one of the original definitions of what stoicism is.
C. If natural hierarchies make us unhappy, then we should work to deconstruct them and be better than them. Humans are ordained with reason to be better than their base primal desires. We wear clothes because we find that better than being naked. This can apply to natural hierarchies as well.
4.Jive
This is the question of if there is a debate. This whole point here is just to ask if stoicism has to be accepted in totality or if it is better to use pieces.
5. No, passions are base urges that must be purged from a person. To be virtuous is not just to moderate the passions, but to stop having them, using reason to motivate our action so these actions are virtuous.
Con’s Case
1.School of Thought
A. Being in multiple schools of thought isn’t an answer. Being a capitalist and a Christian does not mean that having these labels for oneself is bad. My opponent isn’t defending that they can be a stoic and a Rastafarian, but that they should cherry-pick pieces of stoicism without committing to being a stoic. I say this is a bad way to engage in frameworks/schools of thought and that it is much better to commit to a framework.
B. The argument about communists and capitalists using techniques of one another confuses forms of praxis (and the ideological commitment to that) with ideologies in themselves.
I. For example, a communist can be an accelerationist by believing that endorsing capital will bring about a collapse and this will allow for communism to rise from the ashes. A communist can also be a reformist, voting for a communist party and trying to win through the election process, like the Communist Party of Japan. A communist can also be a revolutionary, hoping to overthrow the capitalist government, like revolutions in Russia and China did.
II. A capitalist can be an accelerationist by assuming that endorsing regulatory frameworks until they fail the economy and the free market ideology brews in the failure. They may be reformists, voting Libertarian or libertarian leaning Republicans in the United States. They may be revolutionaries, hoping to overthrow and abolish governments.
III.This argument does not call out any of the six (accelerationist communists, reformist communists, revolutionary communists, accelerationist capitalists, reformist capitalists, and revolutionary capitalists), it calls out those who do not commit to a framework. For example, a communist who endorse accelerationism when they want to profit off of crypto but endorse reformism when they vote is self-defeating (the reforms stop accelerationism and the accelerationism combats their reforms) and is ethically bankrupt because they don’t care about fulfilling communist ethics (once again, not an endorsement of communism, as this example can translate to anyone who doesn’t commit to a framework) but personally benefiting when possible.
IV. It’s academically bankrupt because internal communist discourse about the best form of praxis gets avoided because our hypothetical communist simply doesn’t engag ein this conversation, avoiding the confrontational discourse and stopping educational development for them personally and those speaking around them.
V. It’s socially bankrupt because it stops them from engaging with other accelerationists, revolutionaries, or party members that would give them community and help them develop into the best version of themselves.
C. The arguments about being adaptable and flexibility is irrelevant. Do not be so open-minded you throw away a good framework and so close-minded you hold onto a bad one. You are able to transition frameworks. I personally went from being a Christian to an Atheist, a believer of free will to a determinist, and an anarcho-capitalist to an anarcho-syndicalist within the last half-decade. These transitions show flexibility, but I am still committed to a framework in the sense that I’m working within the bounds of ideology. I still question my ideology all the time (I took a pro-gun control position in a debate against Sir.Lancelot despite the fact I am very pro-gun and gun rights), but I commit to an ideology and work within it until I feel like it is important/rational/good to change.
D. As a conclusion to this argument since it’s long, Pro’s interaction with stoicism is a form cherry-picking which is bad for how we engage with ideologies/frameworks, regardless of if it’s stoicism or anything else. This is bad socially, ethically, and academically.
2.Interconnected
You are breaking a solid piece. I used an example to show how all the ideas were connected and can’t be dismantled from one another in my first speech. If you don’t engage with the example at all, then you don’t get to dismiss the argument. This means that it is connected like a solid piece and NOT like a Lego set.
Round 4
Two people, One a Stoic, the other a Hedonist, walk into a bar,
Bartender: "What'll you have?
Hedonist: "Been a bad week, Beer me."
Bartender passes the Hedonist a beer.
Stoic says, "I already had a couple drinks earlier, and preferring moderation, do not plan on drinking more today."
Hedonist: "Beer me."
Bartender passes the Hedonist a beer.
Bartender says to the Stoic. "That so, well we only accept 'paying customers here fellow."
Throws the Stoic out, just as the Stoic was about to say something more.
Hedonist: "Beer me."
Bartender passes the Hedonist a beer.
At the end of the night bartender asks for his payment for the beers passed,
Hedonist sloshes, "Hic, well, I lost my job this week, and all my savings,
Drunk at work you see, my friend said he'd pay for whatever I wanted for a night,
Say where'd he go?"
Person A: Knock, knock
Person B: Who's there?
A: 9/11
B: 9/11 who?
A: *angrily* You said you'd never forget!
Round 5
A man walks into a bar.
Bartender says,
"Keep away from the old lamp at the window, don't want to wake The 'Jinn up."
Gives a chuckle as he finishes saying this.
The man has a few drinks, becomes curious of the lamp by the window, clicks it one, off on off,
Some minutes later the door to the bar opens in a flash of smoke, in walks a man without a shirt, wearing only pants.
"POOF!"
"Another hand touches the lamp, what are your wishes stranger?"
Surprised the drinker blurts,
"Eh, be nice if I had a bottomless mug."
"POOF!"
The shirtless man walks out the door.
Some minutes later,
"POOF!"
A flash of smoke, and he returns,
"See for yourself a 'KLEIN BOTTLE, it 'has not bottom."
The drinker examines the bottle, which curved in upon itself.
"Ah, well," Still doubtful,
"How about a money producing machine?"
"POOF!"
Some minutes later,
"Your machine sir."
The drinker examines it, a dollar appearing every time he cranked the wheel 10 times.
Thought a moment,
"Uh, twenty women?"
"POOF!"
The drinker turns the crank to the money machine, nothing comes out.
"POOF!"
"A deck of dirty playing cards!" Speaks the Jinn
"Bartender what the heck 'IS all this"
Spoke the drinker gesturing to the shirtless man.
Speaks the bartender,
"That's Eugene, owns a magic shop right across the street, sleeps in it's second story, room and window right across from the lamp."
"That will be $15.99 sir", spoke Eugene,
"And it's 'The 'Gene, bartender, I told you, trying to make the name catchy, sell worthy."
There is a zoo that is struggling to keep people coming in. Most visitors say that the zoo is boring and they won't return, so the board of directors gets together to attract more visits to the zoo and hatches a plan. They make the head zookeeper tell a very hard working diligent zookeeper the plan. "Hey buddy, you know how the zoo hasn't been doing to great, right?"
"Yeah."
"Well, we have a plan to get more revenue. For $10,000, we want you to go into the gorilla enclosure while Titan is in heat. He's going to brutally rape you while an entire crowd watches. Would you be willing to do it?"
The zookeeper stops, thinks, takes a sigh, and says "I'll do it but I need to a couple weeks to get the money together."
Ah, I recognize that guys face,(Jreg)
After I just looked him up on YouTube,
Does a 'lot of videos on various ideologies,
Ran for mayor in a city.
The Youtuber (Jreg) talks about how we should commit to frameworks. One of his direct quotes is "if it's the one you die with is irrelevant", which leads me to believe it's less about any specific framework, but simply saying people should commit to a "way of being" instead of passively accepting the status quo. It was more interesting to reinterpret their work as a critique of the concept of cherry-picking pieces of frameworks as opposed to being passively nihilist.
Yeah, any philosophy that says their internal salvation is more important than external good is probably not a good idea. Like, I want to live humbly and all that jazz, but if I'm suffering, I'll be up in arms, you know? Too materialistic for my own good, maybe.
I think the poetics are less that it's a formal poem that rhymes or anything like that, but when I read it, you seem to be conversing in an "abnormal" way, which makes me reconsider this as a medium. For example, you are much more willing to engage in grammatical "errors" and weird spacing, but reading your arguments is easier (for me at least) than traditional writing. I think, and maybe I'm reading way too much into it, you force me to question what makes "good" communication, and if the norms we've developed in this community and writing habits writ large are natural or imposed.
I did notice it was a theme in the debate.
Does the Youtuber speak of a specific framework being cherrypicked,
Or framework pieces in general, being picked and chosen?
Of 'true Stoicism, I don't know much,
But could argue they were concerned with not being enslaved by their own mind,
Rather than their outer condition.
Of thought, typing, I'm uncertain.
. . .
Those three dots, well,
Were in my mind,
A pause, a moment thinking,
I 'think it's more typing out, than thought though.
I like separating out points or places, where a breath of air would feel appropriate in life.
Easier to read, I'd imagine.
I've heard it pointed out before, but what 'exactly is poetic in my speech, misses me a bit.
If the words all rhymed I'd get it,
Or perhaps I'm alliterative in parts,
But I don't much consciously see it.
No, thank you! This was really interesting because, I don't know if you could tell, but my argumentation about cherry-picking parts of a framework is really interesting to me. I do feel like it's a bit of a copout since it wasn't dealing with stoicism directly, but my favorite Youtuber talks about it a lot, so it's on my mind.
I find stoicism kinda goofy, personally, but that's because I find self-suffering philosophies "slave morality" as Nietzsche would call it. The comic you sent made me laugh out loud in class today when I finally looked at it in the mini description, which made me then have to pretend to laugh at something in class.
I love how you type out things. It's like poetry, which makes it really interesting to debate. If you don't mind me asking, and please don't take offense, do you do it intentionally, or is this just how thoughts come into your mind?
Thanks,
And thanks for accepting the debate,
I enjoyed it,
Let me air my thoughts,
Let me hear another's views,
Learn more about Stoicism.
Backstory,
I forgot to put in description, on 'reason for debate,
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/484 - Modern Stoic Philosophy, and the authors comments right below the webcomic.
Debate,
Hm, from my view I lack fine details and organization, in debates.
Still, I like a number of my examples, myself,
And don't think my logic is all in the wrong direction.
For you, I think you did a good job laying out what a Stoic historically is, their beliefs and what.
Connecting their ideas to one another,
Arguing against passion/self interest,
And kept on any points you previously made, asking they be specifically addressed, than generally handwaved.
Of debaters claiming points during a debate,
Such as saying they successfully refuted an opponents argument,
Or that an opponent failed to do this or that,
I'm unsure, such 'can be true,
'Can be useful in making a point,
But I think of it like boxing a bit,
The boxers don't call out their own points and score, the judges do, at the end.
A person can always 'claim such, even if they didn't,
Such can create an illusion of they 'did.
I'm so happy our jokes will be deliberated for six months. I loved your second one.
Wanna wager the grammar point on who can tell the best two jokes, one in each round?
Yes, I'd be up for that.
Let me read your third round and I'll say yay or nay in my third round post so it's official. Wanna wager the grammar point on who can tell the best two jokes, one in each round?
Well, I've pretty much said my piece,
And beginning to feel a 'bit repeated.
If you're inclined, we can waive rounds 4 and 5,
Which is my preference,
Or we can keep going in rounds 4 and 5,
Which 'might be your preference,
Which if so, I don't mind continuing in 4 and 5.
I like having max rounds,
As debates can develop unexpectedly,
More space if needed, but can always be finished early.
More it would be on Con to argue that using Stoicism without adhering strongly to it's ideology is bad.
While Pro would argue that much of the ideology can be thrown out if convenient, yet still be classified as Stoicism, if many of it's methods and ideas are used.
. . .
I suppose an example could be an Atheist using and following much of the Bible,
To gain advantage.
I imagine many might say they are not a Christian,
And/Or not using Christianity.
I suppose I 'might agree with the not a Christian,
But that there 'are Atheistic Christian,
The Jefferson Bible pops to mind, as something in that direction.
Direction though,
People aren't certain on Jefferson's beliefs I think.
I'm really interested in this debate, but I want to understand it a bit better. Just to clarify, you're defending that stoicism as a tool is good, but stoicism as an ideology in itself is bad?
And if that is correct, is the Con's burden to prove it is good as an ideology in itself or is proving it as a bad tool also sufficient of the Con's burden?