Maverick Philosopher

Nihil philosophicum a me alienum puto

To promote independent thought about ultimates. Philosophy, commentary on the passing scene, and whatever else turns my crank. Since 4 May 2004. By William F. Vallicella, Ph.D., Gold Canyon, Arizona, USA. Motto: "Study everything, join nothing." (Paul Brunton) Latin Motto: Omnia mea mecum porto. Turkish motto: Yol bilen kervana katilmaz. (He who knows the road does not join the caravan.) All material copyrighted.

Justus Lipsius and Neo-Stoicism

The humanist and classical scholar Justus Lipsius (Joost Lips) (1547–1606) was the founder of Neo-Stoicism, a partially Christianized Stoicism. Learn more.

Posted by William F. Vallicella on Friday December 16, 2005 at 5:57pm
Henry Verheggen:
Perhaps I am reading my own experience into this, but I can't help but think that the popularity of Lipsius had to do with his ideas having offered something that was lacking in the Christianity of his day. Perhaps what it offered was the promise of a means of getting peace of mind, or a kind of temporal salvation that the Christianity of his time had de-emphasized. I say it had been de-emphasized, because peace of mind is not an alien concept in Christianity. There is "the peace that surpasses understanding", "the truth that will set you free", and "give no anxious thought for tomorrow." In fact if you look at the writings of the Desert Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries, as compiled in a work such as the Philokalia, you find that they had essentially devoted their lives to the achievement of apatheia, although they believed that there were other modes of consciousness beyond apatheia, such as agape.

I wonder also if this has not occurred in our own time, and would explain the popularity of Buddhism. I know that the formal Christianity of my upbringing offered no clues as to the possibility of a salvation here-and-now. My parents were saavy enough to be aware of the Christian mystical tradition and brought it to my attention at an early age, and that provided a more expansive view of Christianity. But otherwise the emphasis was on avoidance of sin, guilt, and salvation after death.

There was a reaction in the Church, of course, with a new emphasis on "love" and "compassion" in the late 60's and 70's. But this movement always struck me as phony. Not phony as an ideal, but phony in the notion that one could just choose to love in this way; no clue that apatheia is a prerequisite of agape. I think Gurdjieff had the right assessment of this, when he said something to the effect that there are no Christians and it was impossible to be a Christian, because people had lost the esoteric methods needed to become Christians. (Maybe Malcolm remembers what G. said better.) Jacob Needleman, a follower of Gurdjieff, wrote in his book "Lost Christianity" that "all these high ideals have been let loose in the world like a pack of marauding dogs."
12.17.2005 7:54am
Account:
Password:
Remember info?
1. Leaving comments is a privilege, not a right. The site administrator is under no obligation to accept comments at all, let alone from any particular person. And to underscore the obvious: nothing in the nature of a weblog requires that it accept comments from readers.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.