Un point qui me chiffonne :
I believe that adopting and adapting a philosophy of life to guide you is more important than whichever specific philosophy you end up choosing.On a un peu l'impression d'une recherche du dogme pour le dogme, sa sécurité, son caractère rassurant. Et dire que peu importe la philosophie qu'on choisit tant qu'on en a une m'irrite : non, tout ne se vaut pas. Et pourquoi, plutôt que de se convertir au stoïcisme, ne pas tout simplement découvrir le plus de philosophies possibles et picorer dans chacune (dans certaines plus que d'autres, certes) jusqu'à se construire son propre édifice, plutôt que d'emménager dans un édifice déjà construit et y apporter quelques modifications de détail ? Il me semble vraiment domage de passez à côté de la beauté de l'épicurisme par allégiance au stoisime, par exemple.
Un résumé limpide du rapport du stoïcisme à la religion : « To a Stoic, it ultimately does not matter if we think the Logos [les lois de l'univers] is God or Nature. » Et aussi :
Many of the Stoics did not believe in anything like the modern monotheistic conception of God. Their preferred word for it was Logos, which can be interpreted as the Word of God (as the Christians who inherited a lot of Stoic philosophy did), or as a kind of Providence embedded in the very fabric of the universe, or even more simply as the rather straightforward observation that the cosmos can be understood rationally, regardless of how it came to be.
There are two related points to be noted about this conception of God: first, the divinity doesn’t engage in miracles; this God does not suspend the laws of nature in order to intervene here and there to right local wrongs. Second, and relatedly, there is very little practical difference between this God and a simple acknowledgment (made by the Stoics) that the universe works through a web of cause and effect; this very modern concept is entirely compatible with the scientific view of the world as we understand it.
Diverses positions sur les racines de la moralité :
- Skepticism : there is no way to know which ethical judgments are right or not.
- Rationalism : it is possible to arrive at knowledge by just thinking about stuff, as opposed to observing or experimenting.
- Empiricism : we ultimately arrive at knowledge on the basis of empirical facts - that is, observations and experiments. Science is the ultimate empiricist discipline.
- Intuitionism : ethical knowledge does not require any kind of inference, whether by way of reason or observation. Instead, it is sort of built into us in the form of strong intuitions about what is right and wrong.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire