Talk:Stoicism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

See also Logotherapy

Would it be appropriate to add a link to Logotherapy? Although Logotherapy is nothing to do with Greek philosophy, it is about bearing up to suffering or misfortune in a similar way. 92.15.29.194 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a documented connection between Stoicism and Logotherapy, I don't see why such a wikilink would be desirable. Anarchangel23 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotations and recent template addition

I notice that the quotations section has been given a Copy to Wikiquote template. Other examples of pages with this template are List_of_political_catch_phrases and Quotations_by_Pablo_Picasso, which appear to be articles purely for the purpose of gathering quotations under a given theme.
But the quotations in this article serve a very different and specific purpose, namely to illustrate the subject of the article without having to paraphrase and reference each and every tenet within these quotations. That this list has survived and been improved several times for over three years should be some indication that it is valuable. Indeed, the current short and select list is infinitely better than what would become many dense paragraphs of paraphrased and expanded text stating (hopefully) the same beliefs. Why use the words of a wiki editor when, invariably, the philosophers' original words are both concise and (by definition) accurate? I have thus removed the template from this page. I will this evening link the references for each quotation to WikiSource, however. Feel free to disagree with this solution below :) 188.126.85.47 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Some new stoics? maybe some of their lifestyle not only theory?

sorry for my bad english but my reading or stoics are more like a lifestyle choice so should you not add some new people that are close too stoic thinker about live your life (on your own?)Paul Rabinow ,Michel Foucault, some of the post anarchist thinkers ? maybe some modern examples of stoics today ? survivalists? digital nomads( folks who only have a backpack a wifi pda and ebooks and have a credit card and a travel guide) ? hobos/voluntary homeless ? 82.147.33.187 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)murakami

Very big problem with the article's lead

Someone stuck massive quotes from Seneca in the lead for no apparent reason. I'm not a regular editor at all so I hesitate to do a full revert to an earlier version but this is obviousely not of good article quality if someone does not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.142.249 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In "The stoics believed..." I would not use "believed" it is too close to religion. "Taught," "thought," or "propounded" I think would be closer to the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.0.70 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've replaced it with "propounded". - M0rphzone (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Stoicism Navigation Template

Someone has created a navigation box template for Stoicism but I notice this article doesn't include it. IMHO, it could really use a navbox, though. Template talk:Stoicism

Isn't it good enough to incorporate? I'd be happy to do a bit more work on it, if that helps. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! Realise now the navbar is in use but at the bottom of the page. Wouldn't it be better to have one of the ones that appear at the top, so that it's more visible?HypnoSynthesis (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you'd like you can create a template that displays topics and links as a sidebar. If you do create one, try to add/incorporate topics/links not covered by the multiple navbars on the bottom. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

TURN AROUND ITS A SNAKE HABITAT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.157.79 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on External Linking to "Tao of Dirt" site

It is always disheartening to see two editors completely ignore the rules here against edit warring, and the three revert rule. Because an editor happens to be right (or believes themself to be right) is no excuse for edit warring. For reference, see WP:3RR

That said, although I find the link in question to be interesting, it does not appear to me to be of the quality required for external linking here (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID)

These "letters"... I counted the occurrences of the word "stoic" or "stoicism" on all the available letters, and the word appeared three times in 26 letters. The letters provide the author's ruminations, but are they a uniquer resource? One of the standards for external linking is that it provides a "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID.

They may be writings by a Stoic, and I enjoyed reading them, but is this Stoic in some way notable beyond his one book? Is the link (the "letters") somehow a unique resource as required? I don't believe they are. Marteau (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

How many times does Seneca use the word "stoicism" in his collected letters? Think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexiblity (talk • contribs) 20:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Lexiblity: regarding your repeated attempts to insert a link to the “Tao of Dirt”

1) The Tao of Dirt is a blog. As per WP:LINKSTOAVOID Wikipedia does not link to “Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. “ The author of this blog, Dmitri Mandaliev, does not appear to be a “recognized authority”. Note that “recognized authority” in this context requires that the individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria (see WP:NOTE). Mr Mandaliev does not appear to meet this criteria; if you believe he does, please discuss. <-- the Exeter blog is...also a blog. Given that the majority of posts on that blog are excerpts from books written by "mere stoics who walk the earth today" which include affiliate links to those books, I'm not sure you can hold that blog up to the same scrutiny.

2) There is no basis for inclusion as per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. If a site includes information directly pertinent to the subject of the article, a link might be appropriate. "Tao of Dirt” does not seem to be about Stoicism per se, but only claims to be written by a Stoic. That is insufficient reason to include a link from the Stoicism article. There are thousands of stoics walking the earth today, but we don't link to their blogs here. yes you do, see above

3) Your account seems to be a WP:SPA (single purpose account) and you seem to not be here to help build an encylopedia WP:NOTHERE, but your only purpose here seems to be to get this link included. Another editor suspects you desire this link to appear because it includes a sales pitch for a book. I share that suspicion. <-- I am not responsible for your suspicions. The exeter blog also links to that book, and many others which no doubt include amazon affiliate tags for sales. Does that mean that the Exeter blog is nothing but a sales affiliate ploy? Gentlemen, come now.

You have attempted to insert this link eight times, and seven times it has been reverted by a bot, by another editor, or by me. You need to discuss this issue on the talk page, and not just blindly revert. Marteau (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Marteau: See my responses above. Also: As you recently removed the link only after my making a comment on this page, it's obvious that you are not removing the link because of WP standards, but because this issue has become personal for you. There are several other links in the list which do not meet the stringent requirements that you outline above. As I've stated, there are more similarities between Dmitri's blog and some that you continue to link to. .

Regarding the status of my account. What business is it of yours or anyone else why I have an account on wikipedia? So what if I have not been so inclined to make a contribution. No one else had added the link to his page, so I have.Lexiblity (talk)

To editor Lexiblity: 1) Do not intersperse comments within another editor's comments. That is bad form. Add comments to the end.

2) Whether or not "The exeter blog" is linked here, or is a blog, is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is Tao of Dirt. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am not addressing "the exeter blog" now, I am addressing Tao of Dirt now. I do not tend to multi-task.

3) The link is in dispute. Before you re-add it, you must obtain consensus as per WP:ELBURDEN. If you are not aware of what "concensus" is please review WP:CON

4) You quoted "mere stoics who walk the earth today". I did not use the term "mere". Misquoting is bad form.

5) Users with single purpose accounts (WP:SPA) naturally receive added attention and their actions are naturally more scrutinized, particularly when they violate Wikipedia conventions and insist on adding links to blogs only indirectly relevant to the article by non-notable persons which happen to also be peddling a self-published paperback.

... and most importantly,

6) According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID blogs cannot be linked unless it is written by an authority. Are you claiming Mr. Mendaliev is an authority? Marteau (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To editor Lexiblity: I've reverted the link again, because I agree with @Marteau:. Please consider having a look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:BURDEN, and please don't insert the link again unless and until further discussion here on the talk page leads to a consensus to add it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI An Article in the NY Times

In case this has not already been noticed, I thought I would pass along the link to an article in the Times on Stoicism. I have no idea if it is in any way likely to be useful to the article as this is a subject outside of my competence, but I hope it helps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"Stoic Opposition"

I removed this passage for WP:UNDUE. The modern view is that there was no movement against the Principate attributable to Stoic doctrine as seen by 18th and 19th century historians. See this Weidemann article Instead, I put a "See also" entry for the topic.

A number of Stoics, whom modern scholars have dubbed the "[[Stoic Opposition]]", were actively opposed to what they perceived as the tyrannical and autocratic rule of certain emperors, particularly Nero and Domitian.<ref name="johnnyappleseed">{{Cite book|author1-first=John Patrick|author1-last=Sullivan|title=Literature and politics in the age of Nero|year=1985|page=115|publisher=Cornell University Press}}</ref>Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Could anyone explain the following sentence at the head of the article?

The Stoics taught that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgment, and the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature

I am not criticizing the meaning of the sentence, but it *is* hard to decipher its meaning.

What is attempted communicated here? That Stoics believed that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgement, period? Because then the second and third part of the sentence appear malformed/incomplete: "and the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that ..."

If we instead interpret it like that Stoics taught that destuctive emotions resulted from 1) errors in judgment and 2) active relationship ... and 3) belief that ..., then the sentence does not appear to be fully correctly formed either.

English is not my native language, but am I onto something here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.166.163 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the second part is referring to common corrections to the errors in judgement, but I agree that the sentence structure is a bit unclear. What do you think about changing this to "The Stoics taught about the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature and that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgement." so that it is more clear that these are three separate things/topics they taught about rather than a continuation of the errors in judgement? Sissizheng (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a small mistake?

I'm not sure but on the ability to judge in the epistemology section of the article, the greek version is (συγκατάθεσις, synkatathesis). If I read it correctly, συγκατάθεσις would be transcribed as sygkatathesis. I believe, thus, that it should be written συνκατάθεσις instead, replacing the "γ" with a "ν". I did not correct the word because I am not a greek specialist. Someone might have to check this out.

I think it is right, since epistemology is derived from episteme, ἐπιστήμη "knowledge" and λόγος "study of". Also, in my philosophy class in college this is also how my professor wrote this on the board. However, I am also not a greek specialist so if someone is an expert, please confirm! Sissizheng (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Neostoicism and Modern Stoicism

The current lead sentence in the article "Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy that flourished throughout the Roman and Greek world until the 3rd century AD." implies that Stoicism ended in the 3rd century. There have been two revival movements since, Neostoicism and Modern Stoicism. It seems to me that these need to be referenced here to point out that the practice of Stoicism extends beyond the 3rd century.Teishin (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: you reverted this edit. May we discuss it here?

@Teishin: I actually have no problem with mentioning modern Stoicism in the first paragraph, but there are three matters that must be addressed: (1) All information must be cited to a reliable, scholarly source for verifiability. This is a "Good Article" so the importance of citing everything is especially high. (2) It needs to be addressed in the body of the article. Right now, the only mention of modern Stoicism is at the end of the lead, but, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the contents of the body of the article, meaning there should not be anything in the lead that is not discussed later on in greater detail. (3) The information about modern Stoicism, if we put it in the first paragraph, should be at the end of that paragraph and should not be more than one sentence; anything more will make modern Stoicism seem more important than ancient Stoicism, which is not accurate, since the philosophy was far more prominent in ancient times than it is today. If you want more information than that about modern Stoicism in the lead, you can put it at the end of the last paragraph of the lead, where modern Stoicism is already briefly mentioned. The ancient philosophy should clearly take precedence over its modern iterations and revivals. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in #1 about citations. I'm just suggesting here pointing to Wikipedia's own articles about Neostoicism and Modern Stoicism. Perhaps a solution would be to move "that flourished throughout the Roman and Greek world until the 3rd century AD" to the last paragraph of the lead and there add the mentions of the later revivals. Teishin (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of lex divina from lede

After some investigating, it appears to me that this content:

the Stoics presented their philosophy as the [[Logos|Word of God]] (''[[lex divina]]''),<ref> If A, Then B: How Logic Shaped the World; By Michael Shenefelt, Heidi White; page 74</ref>

may not belong at all, but at a minimum, does not belong in the lede per MOS:UNDUE. It appears that the relation between the Stoic Logos and the Lex divina did not emerge until later, in the works of Christians. The exception is Philo, but he was arguably not a stoic. Also, that reference doesn't support the claim.

@The New Classic and P Aculeius: Can we agree on this? I want to avoid any warring.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Describe the philosophy in the first two sentences

For search results, the new hover preview, Alexa integration, etc. it would be helpful if somewhere in the first two sentences described the philosophy itself rather than solely describing where it is from. 67.232.62.187 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Eudaimonia - It's definition in the Stoic sense and the means of reaching it

The current version (that is now been edited, reverted, and edited again) is the most accepted and accurate version, hence why I've reverted back from @User:Candido version.

The current version includes the more accepted definition of eudaimonia in the Stoic sense as flourishing instead of happiness as was put before - (see here and here) both of these texts are peer-reviewed by professors and experts in the field. The same goes for the means of 'reaching eudaimonia' - by virtue, not by being present, or by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or by the fear of pain, although these are regarded by many Stoics as important aspects of life and one could argue even very important ones, they are not the most important instruments in the process of reaching eudaimonia but rather a combination of different things Stoics thought important but not most important, i.e eudaimonia which the vast majority of experts and professors in the field agree as a thing that Stoics thought of as the final or most important "goal".

Please provide source/s for your reversion of my edit and explain why your version is correct or more correct than the current.

I hope we can reach an agreement, would love to hear from you on the matter, and thank you ! @Candito

Aboutzero (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Stoicism is NOT shoa

Shoa isn't the same as Stoicism, especially, do not write this in the German Wiki article as well, it's just NOT the same! I do not hate holocaust victim jews! --2001:16B8:57D0:200:B00D:AFAB:A5C1:6C0B (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@2001:16B8:57D0:200:B00D:AFAB:A5C1:6C0B of course, it is not. Do people really pronounce stoa as shoa? Worldpermeating (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Hope nobody objects to me raising a question about this here, if so please direct me to the correct approach. Someone just contacted me pointing out that one of my own books is marked as an unreliable source in this Wikipedia entry. (Stoicism and the Art of Happiness, published by Hodder.) I just wondered what the rationale was for that decision. As far as I can see the book doesn't actually meet any of the criteria for a questionable source cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources It is not self-published but was published as part of a reputable series from a well-known publishing house. Thanks. - Donald Robertson HypnoSynthesis (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, you have come to the right place in the first instance. The book was tagged in January, for reasons not given. I have (a) removed the tag, and (b) linked the citation to the publisher's entry on Wikipedia - John Murray (publishing house). Please note that the article does not cite the Hodder printing, but the John Murray one. Hopefully this matter is now addressed and will not be repeated. (Personally, thanks for your time spent compiling the book.) 182.239.146.18 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing uncited claims and original research

There's a whole lot in this article that isn't supported by any secondary sources. It seems as if some editors may have read the extant works on Stoicism and arrived at their own original conclusions. I'm going through the article and removing anything that is not supported by a secondary, scholarly source. There are no shortage of academic sources covering Stoicism, we should have an article that represents the academic consensus rather than risk introducing some new age interpretations or self-help literature.

This article has a long way to go to meet the good article criteria despite being marked as such - the Stoics made highly structured divisions of their philosophy into Logic, Physics, and Ethics with highly structured subdivisions of each, this is nowhere to be found on this article. There's also almost no history of the movement and how it developed, or discussion of any of the influences it exerted over medieval or modern philosophy. - car chasm (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the transformation of this article by your hand. 182.239.146.18 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)