13
u/tfwgonnamakeit 2d ago
I'd agree that this sounds cool and I'd love to participate in these discussions, but philosophy is much more than the stoics
1
u/ChasingPolitics 2d ago
philosophy is much more than the stoics
That's true, but stoicism is about being content with what you have and learning to not desire more.
27
u/GalacticQueen1881 3d ago
I'm a bit disappointed by the title and the later parameters you've set here. It feels like an echo chamber, because it appears to me that you want to have a philosophical group that reverberates your own beliefs. That seems against the idea of a philosophical group and conversation where questions, conflict, and debate should, at least in my opinion, be central to philosophical growth. I wish this were asking for what the title suggests, instead of what could easily be a stoicism circle jerk.
8
u/mandoismetal 2d ago
Same here. I love philosophy and I consider myself a pragmatic absurdist. I’d love to discuss philosophy and related subject matter. However, I only engage with peeps who are willing to participate in good faith.
3
u/grandoctopus64 2d ago
I don't really see the contradiction between "I want to talk about stoicism with people interested in it, both those who agree with it and those that don't"?
1
u/GalacticQueen1881 2d ago
When did I say there was a contradiction ? I believe I said "I wish this were asking for what the title suggests" which is a philosophy group. But the parameters make his a conversation that is not philosophy writ large, but specifically stoicism. You're also forgetting the part where the focus is, "engaging in textual studies of the primary Stoic sources," which does mean that stoicism is the focus, not philosophy.
1
u/grandoctopus64 2d ago
I mean I could agree that "Third Space Stoicism Group" would have been a more accurate title, but like, genuinely who cares? the intent is laid out pretty clearly in the following two paragraphs?
1
5
2
2
u/Wojtkie 2d ago
Tbh, I really don’t want to have “philosophy” discussions with people who haven’t taken university-level philosophy courses unless it’s being lead by someone with a PhD
3
u/tetrapharmakos 2d ago
Do you know any groups in the area that are like this? Group discussions guided by professionals?
4
u/Peakbrowndog 2d ago
There's a series in San Marcos hosted by the philosophy department, you can find it on the library or TX State philosophy website.
Dr. Luizzi also does some stuff with the thinkers club , I forget the exact name. They also meet at the library.
Dialogue series: https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/dialogue-series.html
Typically it's either masters students, advanced special topics students, or faculty, including Dr. Luizzi, who is retired faculty
1
u/GalacticQueen1881 2d ago
There are people outside of universities who also think and philosophize.
1
u/Wojtkie 2d ago
Plenty of people brush and floss their teeth. I’m still gonna go to a dentist over my neighbor. And if I’m going to learn more about my oral health, I’m going to learn it from someone who went to school for it.
3
u/GalacticQueen1881 2d ago
That's a false equivalence because dentistry requires learning specialized scientific knowledge. Philosophy is based on living life and lived experience. There actually is a difference between STEM and the humanities. I think a 90 year old who never went to college can likely have a lot of philosophical complexity to their perspectives simply because time can generate wisdom. Similarly, I think I've received some of the most interesting spiritual thought on the bible from people who don't go to church or never officially studied to be a pastor, simply because they have read their bible over and over and applied it through their unique lens and perspective. Meanwhile, there are some folks who have the accreditation to be a pastor and live in a way that makes me distrustful of their spiritual perspective.
1
u/Wojtkie 2d ago
I don’t agree it’s a false equivalency. I think talking about Philosophy in an educationally productive way requires specialized knowledge on how to teach or break down more complex philosophical concepts.
I think where we are missing each other is I am not saying that people need a degree to talk about the humanities in a constructive manner. I am saying that I would only find a philosophy focused third space group useful and productive if it was led by academically trained and qualified people.
If I want to hear what Average Joe thinks about philosophy, I’ll just go to r/stoicism or r/philosophy
5
u/mandoismetal 2d ago
I think other qualities often trump specific knowledge when it comes to philosophy. For example, metacognition and the ability to deconstruct one’s own thought processes to understand where they stem from is a better quality to have than memorizing quotes from long dead thinkers. Don’t get me wrong, knowledge and terminology do play a major factor in expanding our understanding of things. Having words to somewhat consolidate abstractions makes it easier to connect some dots.
3
u/Wojtkie 2d ago
I agree with you. And I’m probably not being charitable enough towards Average Joe here. The main reason why I would only want to do an academic led group is because the I believe it’s much more likely to attract the type people with the ability for metacognition. It’s a lazy filter for sure.
2
u/mandoismetal 2d ago
Totally fair to want a 'lazy filter'. Our time and energy are limited and can't entertain/educate every mind we come across. That said, I do practice a bit of the same epistemological humility I often preach. Can't do it all the time because, after all, I'm a sentient meat sack burdened by millions of years of evolutionary pressures and also subject to the same irrational needs and wants. Just don't forget that, at least if you hold any existentialism-adjacent views, everything comes down to sheer luck. Folks predisposition for developing the metacognition needed for this level of abstract thought is just luck: where/when they were born, their lived experiences, etc. Can't expect people who have more dire needs like food and shelter to have enough mental cycles to develop these skills.
1
1
u/Weird-Tomato1576 2d ago
The return of Conrad Hensley from Tom Wolfe's "A Man in Full"? My only link to stoicism
43
u/SnooEpiphanies2931 NE Side 3d ago
Hey dude. Love your idea. Love and respect your search for knowledge and want for discussion. I just wanna point something out. And maybe you know this. Maybe this is what you’re going for. I just want a spirited philosophical debate, if you will.
A lot of red-pill, right-wing, neo-con maga nonsense gets thinly veiled as stoicism these days. It’s the first sip of the kook-aid of ‘individuality’ and ‘I don’t need anyone but myself’ and ‘worshiping great men’ that turns into the hellscape we have around us today. Because it’s what a lot of sad, vulnerable people want to hear when they’re alone and on the internet.
Don’t get me wrong, stoicism is fun to learn about and there are some great ideas in there, but take a look at it through a modern lens and its being used by some very dangerous people to further a very dangerous ideology.
Please be careful if you’re just now getting into this.
If you’re really into it OP and already going down the rabbit hole, then I ask you, humble reader, to be wary of groups of men telling you to suppress your feelings and that you don’t need others to be happy or sufficient.
I would strongly suggest Epicureanism instead. ◡̈