A Closer Look at 'Sophisticated Stoicism': Reply to Stephens and Feezell
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 4 (3):341-354 (2011)
| Abstract | Stephens and Feezell argue, in ?The Ideal of the Stoic Sportsman? (2004), that ?one need not be a scholar of ancient Greek philosophy to refer to ?stoic? conduct or a ?stoic? approach to certain matters, because the vocabulary related to this apparently antiquarian view of life has seeped into our common language?. Nonetheless, Stephens and Feezell go on to give a scholarly account of Stoicism as it relates to athletic participation. Their account, in part, takes the form of a distinction between ?simple Stoicism? and ?sophisticated Stoicism?? the former being a common, contemporary grasp of Stoic moral psychology; the latter being a more sophisticated and historically accurate grasp of Stoic moral psychology. In fleshing out their more sophisticated account, they disclose a paradox. Given the Stoic sufficiency thesis ? i.e., that the sole (Stoic) good is virtue ? the Stoic sportsman must be indifferent to failure or winning. Yet the Stoic sportsman must be sufficiently attached to the athletic experience to use it as a means of developing virtuous states of character. That they dub the paradox the ?paradox of Stoic detachment?. ?Curiosity? Paradox? Or psychological incoherence?? they ask. The aim of the present undertaking is a ?soft? critique of Stephens and Feezell ? soft, because the critique is not so much a critical rejection of the authors' view tout court. Instead, I aim to point out deficiencies with their account and expand on other points not fully elucidated in it. The most salient point I make is that what they deem paradoxical is not really paradoxical, once there is a more thorough account and clearer grasp of Stoic ?detachment? | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesWilliam O. Stephens (1994). Stoic Naturalism, Rationalism, and Ecology. Environmental Ethics 16 (3):275-286.
William O. Stephens (1994). Stoic Naturalism, Rationalism, and Ecology. Environmental Ethics 16 (3):275-286.
Carmen Velayos Castelo (1996). Reflections on Stoic Logocentrism. Environmental Ethics 18 (3):291-296.
Carmen Velayos Castelo (1996). Reflections on Stoic Logocentrism. Environmental Ethics 18 (3):291-296.
John M. Rist (1969). Stoic Philosophy. London, Cambridge U.P..
Firmin DeBranander (2006). Stoic Realpolitik. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (3):277-292.
Tad Brennan (2005). The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate. Oxford University Press.
Rachel Barney (2003). A Puzzle in Stoic Ethics. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 24:303-40.
Christopher Gill (2007). Galen and the Stoics: Mortal Enemies or Blood Brothers? Phronesis 52 (1):88-120.
Keith H. Seddon, Epictetus. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Susanne Bobzien (1999). Logic: The Stoics (Part Two). In Keimpe Algra, Jonathan Barnes & et al (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. CUP.
Michael Ure (forthcoming). Nietzsche's Free Spirit Trilogy and Stoic Therapy. Journal of Nietzsche Studies.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-03Total downloads7 ( #133,479 of 549,093 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,093 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
