/lit/ - Literature

>>20587600
Virtue is both what is reasonable and (hence) what is just, you are right in a sense when you say it's a matter of a subjective 'moral code', but as in Plato, there is an objectivity even in man's subjectivity. While cultural values may differ, the soul of man itself will always know some acts to be just/unjust.

>This begins with common Stoic ideas, e.g.: 'as nature requires....' but tends to, when pressed, become: 'don't kill people, don't steal etc'
There are theoretical examples in which both of those things could be considered perfectly reasonable, Aurelius was himself happy to orchestrate the grand campaigns into Germanic territory against the Marcomanni for the sake of preserving the state he had been placed steward of

>which is an issue because if an individual denies, as he is right to, the self-harm caused by acting contrary to these codes, then there is no means by which the stoic can prove him wrong, or even prove his actions wrong.
I don't know if he has a 'right to', but he can indeed claim it, and yes the Stoic couldn't reach into his soul and disprove him in any way he could exhibit to non-experiencing observers, but he has no need to prove it to any who are not already aware of it.

In a similar way, there is not really any point to our continued discussion, no short paragraphs I can write will communicate the core ideas, we would be merely dancing around the edges of technical argument (as we have been), if your interest is sincere in Stoicism (even if to just more accurately speak against it), read the Socratic/Platonic dialogues first. Your understanding and the type of criticisms you are levelling are otherwise going to be inaccurate and very irrelevant in ways that you don't realise because you're arguing from the zeitgeist of modern, vulgar, herd 'morality'

>>20587600
Virtue is both what is reasonable and (hence) what is just, you are right in a sense when you say it's a matter of a subjective 'moral code', but as in Plato, there is an objectivity even in man's subjectivity. While cultural values may differ, the soul of man itself will always know some acts to be just/unjust.

>This begins with common Stoic ideas, e.g.: 'as nature requires....' but tends to, when pressed, become: 'don't kill people, don't steal etc'
There are theoretical examples in which both of those things could be considered perfectly reasonable, Aurelius was himself happy to orchestrate the grand campaigns into Germanic territory against the Marcomanni for the sake of preserving the state he had been placed steward of

>which is an issue because if an individual denies, as he is right to, the self-harm caused by acting contrary to these codes, then there is no means by which the stoic can prove him wrong, or even prove his actions wrong.
I don't know if he has a 'right to', but he can indeed claim it, and yes the Stoic couldn't reach into his soul and disprove him in any way he could exhibit to non-experiencing observers, but he has no need to prove it to any who are not already aware of it.

In a similar way, there is not really any point to our continued discussion, no short paragraphs I can write will communicate the core ideas, we be merely dancing around the edges of technical argument, if your interest is sincere in Stoicism (even if to just more accurately speak against it), read the Socratic/Platonic dialogues first. Your understanding and the type of criticisms you are levelling are otherwise going to be inaccurate and very irrelevant in ways that you don't realise because you're arguing from the zeitgeist of modern, vulgar, herd 'morality'