The Happiness Blog:

Understanding Stoicism, and the link to moral action by the Good Wolf

Copyright (c) Jim Byrne, 28^th October, 2010

Philosophy is as natural for a human being as grazing is for a cow.  We are natural philosophers, and the work of those who wish to control us is to feed us false philosophies (like feeding polluted food to a cow).

If you take your philosophy from the mass media, or state funded education systems, how do you know that your ideas are even reasonably valid, or the best way to promote a thriving society?

If you work in counselling and therapy, or use counselling and therapy services, or self help resources, then you need to beware of being enrolled into philosophies that work against you.  And you need to beware of passing on defective philosophies that you do not fully understand.

Over the past ten years or more, I have read the Enchiridion by Epictetus, at least three times; the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, at least twice; and the REBT version of Stoic philosophy many times.  Does that mean I now understand Stoicism; and can I be sure that Stoicism is a philosophy that will serve me well?

Firstly, it seems the Stoic ideas of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are expression of the ‘third stage' in the evolution of that philosophy.  (See William Irvine's book, A Guide to the Good Life: the ancient art of Stoic joy; Oxford University Press, 2009).  Irvine traces the history of the development of Stoicism from Zeno of Citium through to the end of the Roman Empire.  In the process he describes three phases in its development, two within Greece, and one of adaptation to Rome.  Zeno, it seems, began as a shipwreck (which he later described as ‘a great good fortune') which led him to explore the philosophies being taught in public places in Athens, and later at training schools.  He first became a Cynic - which is a form of anti-materialistic asceticism - and later fused cynicism and Plato's philosophy, by attending the Academy. 

Under Zeno's guidance, Stoicism thrived in Athens; but after his death it went into decline; and had to be reformulated to make it more appealing to the public. 

The basic Stoic philosophy is to live in accordance with nature.  If we do this, they say, we will be living a virtuous life, and a good one (meaning an enjoyable, happy life).  However, there is an immediate problem.  What does it mean to "live in accordance with nature"?  Well, for the stoics it meant performing the functions of a human with excellence; and their idea of what was uniquely human was this: being Rational; the use of Rationality.  So for a Stoic, to live the good life is to live an ethical life, and this also means to live in accordance with nature; which also means to live a rational life; a life dictated by reason/rationality.

However, it could be objected that both Conservatives and Social Democrats believe they are living a life dictated by reason/rationality; as do fascists and communists; and Catholics and Protestants.  And yet none of these polarized viewpoints can agree on anything.  So how is it possible to pin down the answer to the question: "How should I live?"  Or: "What must I do in order to live in accordance with nature?"

There are, I think, no easy answers!  So if somebody tells you they are advocates of Stoicism, and they think you should do X and not-Y, ask them this: "How did you work this out?"  "What are the principles upon which this conclusion is based?"  If their conclusion is "You should do X, but not-Y"; ask them: "What are the premises that support that conclusion?"  (See Bowell and Kemp's book on Critical Thinking Skills).

Philosophy is a very tricky discipline.  Irvine actually suggests that people should choose their philosophies according to their natures, or personalities.  But he thinks that Stoicism would be a suitable philosophy of life for many people.

But please note, it is not going to be easy to work out what your personality is, and what kind of philosophy of life would suit you.  For a start, your Good Wolf may want to live one way; and your Bad Wolf may want to live another way. I think there is an objective case that can be made that you should live according to the dictates of your Good Wolf - assuming it has been well trained by your parents and teachers.

To live according to the dictates of your Good Wolf means:

1. To develop admirable and pro-social virtues, like: love, gratitude, compassion, charity, tolerance, patience, forbearance, generosity, and so on; and to avoid engaging in anger, rage, hostility, greed, meanness, vainglory, and so on.

2. To follow the Golden Rule; Do not harm anybody in any way; Treat others as you would like them to treat you.  (This is the basis for defending greater equality, and the case against inequality).

3. Actively strive to maximize happiness and minimize suffering in your dealings with others.

The art of living in accordance with the dictates of your Good Wolf is the art of blending the guidelines in 1, 2 and 3 above, from one situation to another.

Of course, some neo-liberal will doubtless tell you that ‘morality is relative to the individual', and that greed is okay for greedy people, and poverty for poor people.  I suggest you begin to develop arguments against this kind of absolute relativism.  (Cultural relativism exists, but there is widespread agreement from society to society about the need to respect human life, and so on).  One place you can begin is with Philippa Foot's ideas on Goodness.  (See, to begin with, Chapter 10 of this book: What More Philosophers Think; edited by Baggini and Stangroom; Continuum, 2007; pages 103-114). 

Philippa Foot is a very interesting philosopher who spent decades thinking through her ideas on Goodness before she published anything; and she has now published three books on the subject.  She is very impressive if only for this reason: She has finally invalidated David Hume's claim that you can never derive an ‘ought' from an ‘is'.  That is to say, she can demonstrate that we must be moral when a logical case for being moral is made.  This is, after all, an example of living in accordance with nature: living morally in line with our reasons for doing so!

Philosophy is slippery and difficult to do; but it is, in the end, all we have got when we want to reason our way through our lives.

Don't let other people tell you what to think, unless you are sure they are moral beings, who have your best interests at heart.  (Even then you should subject their ideas to the most stringent tests you can devise!)  Learn how to think for yourself, and learn how to live in accordance with the wishes of your Good Wolf.  You will have mastered your philosophy when you understand that this makes sense.

Best wishes,

Jim's email address

Postscript: If you want to be happier, remember: Every night before you go to bed, make a list of three things you are grateful for from that day.  It might be something you got; something you gave; something you saw or heard; or something (bad) that did not happen!  Choose one of those three items and go to bed determined to dream about it. 

And remember to smile!

Postscript: Please take a look at the Institute for CENT.***

Also, the e-book on CENT: Therapy after Ellis, Berne, Freud and the Buddha: The birth of CENT.***

SITE MAP

~~~

If you like this blog, why not share it with your social networks? Click the button that follows:

 

~~~

The Happiness Blog:

Six Windows on Suffering, Loss and Philosophy of Life

Copyright (c) Jim Byrne, 22nd October, 2010

Last week I began this blog with the following words: "The Six Windows Model of CENT is a powerful tool for eliminating emotional upsets.  It is thus a way to enhance our happiness in a difficult world".

That statement raises at least one interesting question: ‘Just how difficult is our world?'

That question leads me back to the blog I had actually intended to post last week:

I recently bought a copy of Arthur Schopenhauer's book ‘On the Suffering of the World', Penguin Books, 2004.  (This is a selection from his ‘Parerga and Paralipomena' (1890).

Schopenhauer took a glum view of how difficult our life and world seems to be.  This is how he summarizes his position:

"If you imagine, in so far as it is approximately possible, the sum total of distress, pain and suffering of every kind which the sun shines upon in its course, you will have to admit it would have been much better if the sun had been able to call up the phenomenon of life as little on the earth as on the moon; and if, here as there, the surface were still in crystalline condition". (Page 11).

For Schopenhauer, this constitutes a prima facie case for the proposition that "...the world, and man/woman too, is something which really ought not to exist..." (Pages 14-15)

This is really a very nihilistic view of life, and one that leads on to the blackest of depressions, for if the world really should not exist, but nevertheless it does, in all its ugliness, then surely this is insufferable?  Indeed, Schopenhauer believes (with much justification) that "...the world is Hell, and men/women are on the one hand the tormented souls and on the other the devils in it". (Page 12).

But Schopenhauer is here making two serious philosophical errors:

(1) He is overlooking the ‘Law of Seeming'; and:

(2) He is adopting a mono-focal view of ‘reality'.

Firstly, the Law of Seeming, or the Way of Seeming, asserts that ‘things show up (in consciousness) for humans'.  That is to say, we do not look out through our eyes and see ‘what is there'; but rather, images carried in the light that passes into and through our eyes is interpreted by our stored, cumulative, interpretive experiences.  Therefore, that ‘showing up' is always interpretative.  There is (it seems!) no way to get beyond interpretations.  There can be individual interpretations, and ‘local agreements' (or social interpretations); but no "one way to view this damn, concrete thing here!"  The "only one way to see it" thesis is the stuff of dogmatic religion and Positivistic ‘science'.  But in the world of phenomenological or social constructionist philosophy, there seems to be a process of interpretation behind every ‘truth claim' - such as the ‘truth claim' that ‘the world is Hell'.  It might be truer to say: "It seems to me, based on the data that I (Arthur Schopenhauer) have reviewed, that the world is hell".

Secondly, he is adopting a mono-focal viewpoint on his research topic.  He looks at it from one direction, and does not admit of alternative angles of orientation, or different vantage points.  The Six Windows model*** of CENT is a palliative which overcomes this mono-focal perspective.  (Please see last week's blog).

Schopenhauer was very well read and educated in the philosophical works of ancient Greece and Rome, and the philosophy/ psychology/ mythology of ancient India and China.  However, he failed to use the insights of those cultures to break down his mono-focal, nihilistic perspective on the badness of life.  In particular, he failed to note the Buddhist sutra that says: "Life is both suffering and non-suffering".  His view of life is unrelentingly negative:

"The conviction that the world, and therefore wo/man too, is something which really ought not to exist is in fact calculated to instil in us indulgence towards one another: for what can be expected of beings placed in such a situation as we are?  From this point o view one might indeed consider that the appropriate form of address between wo/man and wo/man ought to be, not monsieur, sir (or madam, mademoiselle) but fellow sufferer, compagnon de miseres.  However strange this may sound it corresponds to the nature of the case, makes us see other wo/men in a true light and reminds us of what are the most necessary of all things: tolerance, patience, forbearance and charity, which each of us needs and which each of us there owes".

Despite my reservations about Schopenhauer's two philosophical errors, above, I nevertheless think he does give us a good guide here.  Since, as Albert Ellis never tired of reminding us - and he knew his Schopenhauer well - we are each of us a fallible, error-prone human, who will inevitable screw up, some if not much of the time.  We will step on each other's psychological toes, offend each other by acts of commission and omission, and generally cause each other difficulty and frustration.  For this reason, we owe it to ourselves and others to promote the virtues of tolerance, patience, forbearance and charity.

~~~

PS: I had intended to add a piece on Stoicism, but it will have to wait until later! :-)

Best wishes,

Jim's email address

Postscript: If you want to be happier, remember: Every night before you go to bed, make a list of three things you are grateful for from that day.  It might be something you got; something you gave; something you saw or heard; or something (bad) that did not happen!  Choose one of those three items and go to bed determined to dream about it. 

And remember to smile!

Postscript: Please take a look at the Institute for CENT.***

Also, the e-book on CENT: Therapy after Ellis, Berne, Freud and the Buddha: The birth of CENT.***

SITE MAP

~~~

If you like this blog, why not share it with your social networks? Click the button that follows:

 

~~~

The Happiness Blog:

Summarizing the Six Windows Model

Copyright (c) Jim Byrne, 15^th October, 2010

The Six Windows Model of CENT*** is a powerful tool for eliminating emotional upsets.  It is thus a way to enhance our happiness in a difficult world.

Recently I was asked: "Is it possible to summarize the Six Windows Model on a single sheet of typing paper, so I can carry it around with me, and consult it when I need to manage my emotions?"

That seemed to me to be a tall order, but I decided to give it a try.  Having thought about it, this is what I decided:

1. You cannot summarize the model in a single sheet of paper for somebody to LEARN the process.  To learn the process, and the philosophy behind it, would take several pages.  However:

2. Once somebody has studied the model and got a reasonable grasp of the philosophy behind it, they could carry a single sheet to remind themselves of the slogans on each of the six frames.

This is how that would look:

Window No.1	Window No.2
~~~	~~~
Window No.3	Window No.4
~~~	~~~
Window No.5	Window No.6

If you have reviewed these six window-slogans and cannot understand how to use them in your life, then you need to read a full description of the Six Windows Model, here.***  But if you are in a rush, take a look at the Quick Intro to the Six Windows Model.***

~~~

PS: This is not the blog I intended to post this week.  I wanted to write about Stoicism and the philosophy of Schopenhauer.  So I will do that next, in a few days time.

Best wishes,

Jim's email address

Postscript: If you want to be happier, remember: Every night before you go to bed, make a list of three things you are grateful for from that day.  It might be something you got; something you gave; something you saw or heard; or something (bad) that did not happen!  Choose one of those three items and go to bed determined to dream about it. 

And remember to smile!

Postscript: Please take a look at the Institute for CENT.***

Also, the e-book on CENT: Therapy after Ellis, Berne, Freud and the Buddha: The birth of CENT.***

PPS: Please leave a comment below: (‘Comments').

SITE MAP

~~~

If you like this blog, why not share it with your social networks? Click the button that follows:

 

~~~

The Happiness Blog:

Many Roads to Happiness

Copyright (c) Jim Byrne, 1^st October, 2010

A few weeks ago, I spent a few sessions talking about Attachment Theory, in particular by reviewing aspects of Dr David Wallin's book on Attachment in Psychotherapy.  The fact that I have switched to other topics does not mean that I have completed that discussion.  There will be more later.  However, I like to discuss my current reading and thinking in this blog; and since I like to read widely, and I cannot read everything at once, there is inevitably a certain amount of jumping around from topic to topic.

However, it should be made clear that I think your attachment style is central to your prospects for happiness in your adult relationships.  If you had an insecure attachment to your parent or parents, then you will most likely have to do some kind of therapeutic, or self-healing, work to correct that, before you can have a happy relationship with a fellow adult.

~~~

In the past I have distinguished between two kinds of happiness:

(a) Exciting happiness, which results from gaining some valued thing from outside of yourself, or outside of your own mind.  And:

(b) Calm, serene and tranquil happiness, which does not depend upon getting anything, or avoiding getting anything.  Tranquil happiness depends almost solely on the way you manage your mind.

When writers talk about ‘happiness', or ‘positive psychology', they need to clarify which types of happiness they are advocating.

Exciting happiness, because it depends upon getting something you value from outside yourself, or outside of your own mind, proves to be problematical.  Some of the things about which you might feel happy if you acquired them will often prove to be beyond your control.  And when something is beyond your control, and you desire it, there is always the chance you will not get it, and that you will (almost automatically) make yourself unhappy about not getting it.  And even before you know whether or not you will get it, you can make yourself anxiously unhappy about the possibility if will not materialize.

The pursuit of exciting happiness should therefore, logically, be restricted to those desirable goals that are within your own control.  As soon as you begin to pursue happiness goals that are beyond your control, you are setting yourself up for anxious unhappiness (in case you do not get it) and angry and/or depressed unhappiness (which will result when you finally know you have failed to get it).

Calm, peaceful and tranquil happiness mainly result from pursing the happiness goals that are within your own control.  If you are an author, for example, you can set goals to write a book or article; to edit your work; and to submit your work to publishers, agents, etc.  But you should not set any goals to ‘see my work in print' - since you truly cannot control that outcome.  (See: Irvine, W.B. 2009  A Guide to the Good Life: the ancient art of stoic joy.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pages 97-98).

~~~

In order to find out how to develop a happier life, you will need to study many authors.  For examples, last week I mentioned Nick Baylis and Arthur Schopenhauer.  Martin Seligman and Albert Ellis should also be on your list.  And many others.  But it would be a mistake to follow anybody, like a guru.  This advice is in line with the quote from the Buddha, which I presented last week: "Find out for yourself".

Here's a new Zen quote on this subject: "Do not seek to follow in another's footsteps.  Rather, seek what s/he sought".

In 2000, I read John Chaffee's (1998) book: The Thinker's Way: 8 steps to a richer life.  One bit of advice offered by Chaffee is to identify your "thinking skills role model" and to write a portrait of their approach to thinking.  Who is that person upon whom you model your thinking skills?  I thought about it.  It seemed likely that it would be Albert Ellis, the creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy.  After all, I had studied his system of counselling and therapy since 1992, and I tended to think of myself as a "pure REBTer".  However, I was in for a shock.  When I sat down to write a pen-portrait my thinking skills role model, this is what I wrote:

1. Dr Edward De Bono's open-mindedness.  (Everyone is always right in their own terms.  Nobody is ever right, in absolute terms). (3).

2. Dr Albert Ellis's approach to developing well-reasoned beliefs.  (Where is the evidence?  Is it logical?  Does it help you?) (7)

3. Dr John Chaffee's view of ‘Stage 3 thinking'; i.e.: "Some viewpoints are better than other viewpoints... because there are compelling reasons to support these viewpoints". Page 42). (6).

4. Roger Fisher and William Ury (‘Getting to yes'). "Insist on objective criteria (when negotiating with others)". (‘What's your theory?'  Agree on principles first).  (8).

5. Gerard Nierenberg (‘The Complete Negotiator').  ("Questions are windows to the mind").  But be careful!  Questions can be anxiety-arousing.  (9).

6. Alfred Korzybski (‘Science and Sanity', 1933).  ("Consciousness of abstracting".  We construct our perceptions as abstractions from something ‘out there' which is never known!).  (2).

7. Helen Hall Clinard.  (Read and interpret their behaviour; focus through the appropriate part of the MER lens (to understand whose problem it is); Map to the appropriate skill response). (10).

8. Wittgenstein and various Zen masters: Language has its limitations for thinking and communicating.  Language is problematical.  Language is part of the problem.  (1).

9. Taoism (Lao Tzu): Dealing with people is like cooking very small fish. (So be careful/skilful). (11).

10. Novak and Gowin (1984) (Learning how to learn): "Facts are records of events which are no better and no worse than the person or device making them". (3).

11. Freud/Berne: We are not what we seem.  We are highly fragmented bits of memorized experience in many ‘ego states' - mainly non-conscious! (4)

12. Steven Covey: Communication involves a two legged walk.  On the out journey we listen to the other person's story.  Then we turn them around and walk them back through our story.  ("Strive first to understand, and then be understood").  Seven Habits... book. (12).

13. I could list several of the thirteen systems of counselling and psychotherapy that I have studied, and many other role models, but that would become unwieldy.  (13)

The numbers in (brackets) at the end of each statement above represents a reclassification which I did about a year after the first listing.

The main implication of the list of thinking skills role models above is this: I do not follow a guru.  I do not promote personality cults.  I use ideas from many disparate sources, and think about them, and work them through, as situations arise in my life.

Much of my ability to be happy seems to be based on the fact that I am a philosopher who thinks about his life, and tries to steer the boat of both my body and my mind through the shark infested waters of consumerist society.

Find out for yourself.  Think for yourself.  Do not follow anybody, but have a good range of thinking skills role models in your ‘reference group'.  (A reference group is a group of people in your head to whom you turn when you need advice and help with a problem).

Take a close look at two schools of thought that could help to promote your happiness: Stoicism and Buddhism.

Take care,

Best wishes,

Jim's email address

Postscript: If you want to be happier, remember: Every night before you go to bed, make a list of three things you are grateful for from that day.  It might be something you got; something you gave; something you saw or heard; or something (bad) that did not happen!  Choose one of those three items and go to bed determined to dream about it. 

And remember to smile!

Postscript: Please take a look at the Institute for CENT.***

Also, the e-book on CENT: Therapy after Ellis, Berne, Freud and the Buddha: The birth of CENT.***

PPS: Please leave a comment below: (‘Comments').

SITE MAP

~~~

If you like this blog, why not share it with your social networks?

 

~~~