|
"Stoic: Someone who does not give a shit about the
stupid things in this world that most people care so much about. Stoics
do have emotions, but only for the things in this world that really
matter. They are the most real people alive."
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stoic)
| ||||||
In preparation for today's blog post, I looked around to see what sorts of things one finds on the internet when looking up stoicism and epicureanism. The way modern languages treat these terms is really interesting. Very few people really know the teachings that gave us the terms, yet they're thrown about in conversation regularly.
In class, Dr. J asked, "What kind of conception do we have of what it means to be stoic?" As you can see in the urban dictionary definition, when people think about what it means to be stoic, they typically just think it means someone who doesn't let his or her emotions overwhelm them. The word is most commonly used as an adjective to describe someone's present state of being. Personally, I see a problem with the way our language has morphed this entire system of thought. Stoicism, as we discussed, was more than simply suppressing emotions; it was a lifestyle. We have taken a single word out of its entire historical and philosophical context and turned it into a mere description of a single action. Dr. J mentioned that people typically say they wish they were more stoic, when really what they mean is that they wish they could control their emotions slightly better. I think many people would read stoic principles and be horrified by how much they really believed in ignoring emotion. The comparison to the pot is particularly rough: we know people are able to die, therefore why be upset when they do? In a world with funerals, grievance leave, etc. it is not socially acceptable to not be emotional in this way. When people react quietly to deaths, most people assume there is something very wrong or that they are in denial. We are not taught to react in a true stoic fashion, nor do I think we would think it is normal if someone does.
As far as epicureanism, Dr. J mentioned the general caricature that we associate with the word: "Eat, drink, and be merry!" Most frequented websites I found were dedicated to food and wine (One of the most popular being http://www.epicurious.com/ an obvious play on the word epicurean). Epicurus was actually very restrained compared to the picture of overindulgence people seem to conjure when using the term epicurean.
The way we talk, the language we use, the definitions we give to words, all of these things changes how we live. I would argue our language could even alter perception of how we see the world. With something seemingly small like how we use the word 'stoic' and 'epicurean', it is hard to see what impact-positive or negative- this might have. However, take the example of the psychological studies done with people who speak romance languages: The gendering of nouns actually changes how they see nouns. People were asked to describe a bridge. The people whose noun for bridge was masculine described it as 'strong and sturdy', those whose word was feminine described it as 'intricate and fragile'. The way our definitions shift do have an impact on how we live, and how we see the world.
Andrea: I like that you chose to analyze the etymology of these terms but I'm not as concerned about their current misuse. As you know, each sign moves throughout different regions and time periods, which gives language a complex texture and makes it a site for endless invention, and reinvention. Politically and socially speaking, I don't think you'd want language to be static. Language is a place where meaning is created and sensual experience manipulated. And, I am not arguing that you would want to undermine that potential. But, I do understand your frustration. Take the term Stoic for example. You mentioned that in your experience people use stoic as an adjective but the example you give, from the urbandictionary, uses it as a noun. First, we have the problem that the term stoic, unless it is different from pretty much all other philosophical cadres, was applied retrospectively. Therefore, you have several different philosophers all lumped into a category when in fact they each undoubtedly have a different, nuanced perception of what the term means. Which definition do you use? Epictetus, Seneca, ...? The noun and adjective gets reasonably close to the gist of what Stoic means. Of course, you are spot on, according to the writings, they are a pretty unfeeling bunch. I'm not sure that would be the worst thing though. From what I can tell, they weren't suggesting that you go into denial or perform but simply that you not let the emotion take you over. That doesn't sound so bad, does it? In the end, the Stoic vantage point highlights the relationship between the artificial world and the natural one. Underscoring this relationship might better orient the human populous toward an emphasis on environmental preservation and protection. As far as Epicurianism, we run into a similar problem with trying to figure out whose definition to employ. In this case, however, the Epicurean noun/adjective employed today is seemingly totally off base. That being said, there is no reason why even this sign cannot be recycled and reapplied. The confusing part comes in when you are in a philosophy classroom trying to explain Epicureanism when everyone already has an incorrect idea of what that is. But, the philosophy students spend a good deal of time confused anyway so they will probably survive.
ReplyDelete