Stoic Response To The Stydle Argument

836 Words2 Pages

The Stoic response to the Idle Argument is the conception of all events being co-fated, that is to say, certain conditions must be met in order for the fated outcome to occur. It is the idea that everything is fated within a given context. In order to recover from the illness it is necessary that the agent call the doctor for consultation, once this condition has been met, the fate of recovery will ensue. Conversely, if the agent refrains from going to the doctor it becomes equally fated that they will not recover, since they’ve failed to satisfy the required conditions to overcome the illness (203; Frede). The external cause (impression) in this case would be the illness; we assent to the impression by choosing whether or not we decide to go to the doctor to remedy the illness. This choice is dependent on our character, which would be the internal cause. If we go, we are fated to recover, if we don’t we are equally fated not to recover and consequently die sooner. In both cases a certain set of conditions are required for one of the two outcomes to occur.
Responsibility for the Stoics is the very nature of the agents mind. Their mind is responsible for what it assents to- when the external causes are the same but the outcomes differ it is the result of the varying minds between agents. Responsible action is established by judgment between the two minds and the results of their assent (270, Bobzein). The agent that chooses to go to the doctor is considered responsible because they’ve chosen (on account of their character) to go to the doctor and remedy their illness. Alternatively, the other, by comparison, is deemed irresponsible for failing to meet the conditions to sustain their life. Moral responsibility functions in the same...

... middle of paper ...

... accepting themselves in order to lead a stress free life- what is the sense in being distressed over something that is beyond your control? The modern day notion of self-improvement implies changing one’s character to be a ‘better’ person. The issue of inconsistency is a result of the objectors’ misguided application of the modern day understanding of the terms. It is not an inconsistency that lies within Stoicism itself, but an inconsistent use of the definitions. The Stoics speak of one set of definitions and the charges speak of another. To prove inconsistency in their work it is necessary that the philosophy be challenged on it’s own terms. Therefore, the charges of inconsistency against Stoic determinism do not stand; they are misguided objections that do not coordinate with the Stoics established understanding of self-improvement and responsibility.

More about Stoic Response To The Stydle Argument

Open Document