Te and Stoicism

[Azeroffs]

Stoicism (Greek Στοά) was a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in the early 3rd century BC. The Stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions. Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature. Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he behaved. Later Stoics, such as Seneca and Epictetus, emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient for happiness," a sage was immune to misfortune. This belief is similar to the meaning of the phrase 'stoic calm', though the phrase does not include the "radical ethical" Stoic views that only a sage can be considered truly free, and that all moral corruptions are equally vicious.

I don't know a whole lot about stoicism, but from what I've heard/read stoicism seems like a good representation of what pure Te is. It's essentially a way of approaching the world indifferently and totally impartially so as to have totally clear and unbiased way of handling it. The stoic will admit to his guilt because it is true. The stoic is indifferent to his personal attachment to anything and he does what he does because that's just how it should be. He does not react to pain or pleasure, he just recognizes it's existence and acts according to what would result in the greatest good. It's about having a picture without letting emotions disrupt the clarity needed to know what needs to be done.


any thoughts on this?

[somavision]

I don't know a whole lot about stoicism, but from what I've heard/read stoicism seems like a good representation of what pure Te is. It's essentially a way of approaching the world indifferently and totally impartially so as to have totally clear and unbiased way of handling it. The stoic will admit to his guilt because it is true. The stoic is indifferent to his personal attachment to anything and he does what he does because that's just how it should be. He does not react to pain or pleasure, he just recognizes it's existence and acts according to what would result in the greatest good. It's about having a picture without letting emotions disrupt the clarity needed to know what needs to be done.


any thoughts on this?

Beautiful

[ashlesha]

i find it appealing and i wouldn't mind having it associated with Te. Te feels stoic to me, but i don't know if it really is, like, objectively.

but i think i've also heard it described in conjunction with Ti before, so i'm interested in how it would be Te>Ti or maybe approached differently between the two or something (if it could be).

[Airman]

I agree it is Te because it is unbiased. Many times I was taken for stupid because I admitted that I was wrong. I think Te-base types strive to be unbiased, like for example, I would never type someone on the basis 'I like him/her so he belongs to my quadra' or the opposite. This is ridiculous biased judgment. In order to have any good evaluation of something you must see it totally objectively, detached from your likes and dislikes, like if YOU were not there, there was just a mind evaluating something, but when you put your own persona in it, it gets fucked up because you take all your prejudices and all your opinions and evaluate something totally biased by them.

[Logos]

I associate Stoicism more with Leading-/, as it appears to be popular primarily with static-types (especially rational statics) over dynamic-types. Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with and . These are dynamic elements outside of the direct control of individuals. For some Stoics, this involved developing ones relationship with more strongly. Stoicism does not disparage . It dealt with minimizing negative while maximizing positive , albeit with disciplined restraint. This is as much of a -seeking goal as it is a -devaluing one. For example, LII frequently try to minimize negative through a certain measure of indifference and aloofness. Even when a LII is experiencing a positive rush, they will attempt to maintain some semblance of composure. While the Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a principle that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with / so much as it did with the here and now of one's surroundings. There was even a certain amount of criticism towards , as it sometimes tries to control what is outside of one's control. Furthermore, using against one's fellow humanity was seen as antithetical to Stoic philosophy. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics typically falls along / lines.

Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, was likely a EII. Chrysippus of Soli, third head of the Stoic School following Zeno and Cleanthes, was probably a LII. He expanded the teachings of Zeno and Stoicism, such that Chrysippus is considered to be a second founder of Stoicism. Seneca the Younger, a Roman Statesman and Stoic writer, was a ILE. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Philosopher-Emperor and one of the most prominent Stoics, was an EII.

But part of the problem with Stoicism is that its popularity was also its death, as everyone eventually became a self-proclaimed Stoic, even its contemporary Christians. So Stoicism to some degree lost its prominence through its dilution. Stoicism attracted a number of admirers in the modern era, especially Baruch Spinoza (ILE/LII) and Albert Einstein (ILE).

[mu4]

I associate Stoicism more with Leading-/, as it appears to be popular primarily with static-types (especially rational statics) over dynamic-types. Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with and . These are dynamic elements outside of the direct control of individuals. For some Stoics, this involved developing ones relationship with more strongly. Stoicism does not disparage . It dealt with minimizing negative while maximizing positive , albeit with disciplined restraint. This is as much of a -seeking goal as it is a -devaluing one. For example, LII frequently try to minimize negative through a certain measure of indifference and aloofness. Even when a LII is experiencing a positive rush, they will attempt to maintain some semblance of composure. While the Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a principle that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with / so much as it did with the here and now of one's surroundings. There was even a certain amount of criticism towards , as it sometimes tries to control what is outside of one's control. Furthermore, using against one's fellow humanity was seen as antithetical to Stoic philosophy. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics typically falls along / lines.

Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, was likely a EII. Chrysippus of Soli, third head of the Stoic School following Zeno and Cleanthes, was probably a LII. He expanded the teachings of Zeno and Stoicism, such that Chrysippus is considered to be a second founder of Stoicism. Seneca the Younger, a Roman Statesman and Stoic writer, was a ILE. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Philosopher-Emperor and one of the most prominent Stoics, was an EII.

But part of the problem with Stoicism is that its popularity was also its death, as everyone eventually became a self-proclaimed Stoic, even its contemporary Christians. So Stoicism to some degree lost its prominence through its dilution. Stoicism attracted a number of admirers in the modern era, especially Baruch Spinoza (ILE/LII) and Albert Einstein (ILE).

Good analysis Logos, more or less what I think.

Te is inherently biased as it deals with profits and productivity.

[Azeroffs]

I associate Stoicism more with Leading-/, as it appears to be popular primarily with static-types (especially rational statics) over dynamic-types. Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with and . These are dynamic elements outside of the direct control of individuals. For some Stoics, this involved developing ones relationship with more strongly. Stoicism does not disparage . It dealt with minimizing negative while maximizing positive , albeit with disciplined restraint. This is as much of a -seeking goal as it is a -devaluing one. For example, LII frequently try to minimize negative through a certain measure of indifference and aloofness. Even when a LII is experiencing a positive rush, they will attempt to maintain some semblance of composure. While the Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a principle that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with / so much as it did with the here and now of one's surroundings. There was even a certain amount of criticism towards , as it sometimes tries to control what is outside of one's control. Furthermore, using against one's fellow humanity was seen as antithetical to Stoic philosophy. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics typically falls along / lines.

I don't really know what you're saying about stoicism because of how you keep using the elements to describe it. Your understanding of the elements is unclear.

The idea that stoicism most strongly correlates with IJ is interesting. Idk if it makes sense that an Fi-base type would naturally lend itself to this way of thinking though. Their judgment system is fundamentally biased. They would have a very hard time putting their passions aside.

If Stoicism can represent anything socionics related, it's Ti and/or Te as far as I understand the philosophy.

Good analysis Logos, more or less what I think.

Te is inherently biased as it deals with profits and productivity.

sarcasm?

[squark]

I have a completely irrational distaste for this kind of mentality. I can't explain why it bothers me so much, except for the way it comes across as arrogance and falseness. I can't help but think that they're judging a person for having emotions, especially "negative" emotions. This especially makes me angry "a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions." Man, what bullshit. Sorry.

[WVBRY]

It doesnt come off as so much as a lack of . Wait. What is the difference?

[Logos]

I don't really know what you're saying about stoicism because of how you keep using the elements to describe it. Your understanding of the elements is unclear.

What in particular is unclear?

The idea that stoicism most strongly correlates with IJ is interesting. Idk if it makes sense that an Fi-base type would naturally lend itself to this way of thinking though. Their judgment system is fundamentally biased. They would have a very hard time putting their passions aside.

If Stoicism can represent anything socionics related, it's Ti and/or Te as far as I understand the philosophy.

The idea that a Fi-base type could naturally lend itself to this style of thinking is supported by the number of prominent Fi-base Stoic philosophers and writers. There is in fact a noticeable dearth of Te-leading Stoic philosophers and writers.

Stoics are not without bias or partiality. I am not entirely sure where you got that idea. They sought clear judgment, but this is not necessarily a freedom of bias. They are not without passions either. Stoicism seeks to minimize harmful emotions, suffering, and disruptive passions. Fi-leading does this through harmonizing itself to the dynamically changing world of Te. Ti-leading, with strong Te, does this through understanding the underlying principle of the Logos and establishing a virtue in its accordance.

I don't know much about Stoicism either, but I agree with what you're describing here as being a characteristically kind of outlook. It's the absence of this kind of outlook which is what's enraging about .

I must have missed the memo about lacking this kind of outlook. The prominent historical Stoics must have missed this memo too.

[Azeroffs]

What in particular is unclear?

Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with and . These are dynamic elements outside of the direct control of individuals. For some Stoics, this involved developing ones relationship with more strongly. While the Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a principle that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with / so much as it did with the here and now of one's surroundings. There was even a certain amount of criticism towards , as it sometimes tries to control what is outside of one's control. Furthermore, using against one's fellow humanity was seen as antithetical to Stoic philosophy. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics typically falls along / lines.

All of this. Could you explain it without symbols?

The idea that a Fi-base type could naturally lend itself to this style of thinking is supported by the number of prominent Fi-base Stoic philosophers and writers. There is in fact a noticeable dearth of Te-leading Stoic philosophers and writers.

This isn't convincing. How do you know their type and even if I assume they were typed correctly it still doesn't tell me why Fi-base type thinking lends itself to this way of thought.

Stoics are not without bias or partiality. I am not entirely sure where you got that idea. They sought clear judgment, but this is not necessarily a freedom of bias. They are not without passions either. Stoicism seeks to minimize harmful emotions, suffering, and disruptive passions. Fi-leading does this through harmonizing itself to the dynamically changing world of Te. Ti-leading, with strong Te, does this through understanding the underlying principle of the Logos and establishing a virtue in its accordance.

Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos).

As far as I understand, Stoicism demands looking at the world completely unbiased and devoid of any passion in order to have a completely clear picture. Only minimizing harmful emotions doesn't accomplish anything. It leaves bias in only making things happen that are best for you rather than "universally best."

[silverchris9]

Yeah. Stoic epistemology is pure Te. The stoic philosophers seem heavily gamma (the good ones anyway). Stoic epistemology is basically "only believe true things" which are called "cognitive impressions," and basically includes absolute, objective facts like sense perception (and then, only sense perceptions that meet certain standards), while still leaving room for some degree of intuition (especially given the vagueness of the term "cognitive impression"---vagueness which may not exist in Greek, but roll with me).

[WVBRY]

I agree it is Te because it is unbiased. Many times I was taken for stupid because I admitted that I was wrong. I think Te-base types strive to be unbiased, like for example, I would never type someone on the basis 'I like him/her so he belongs to my quadra' or the opposite. This is ridiculous biased judgment. In order to have any good evaluation of something you must see it totally objectively, detached from your likes and dislikes, like if YOU were not there, there was just a mind evaluating something, but when you put your own persona in it, it gets fucked up because you take all your prejudices and all your opinions and evaluate something totally biased by them.

Id like you to cite me one human judgement which isnt unbiased.

[silverchris9]

Id like you to cite me one human judgement which isnt unbiased.

Oh, of course there is no such thing as an unbiased judgment, but there is such a thing as attempting to be unbiased and emphasizing those aspects of information and those types of information about which one is most likely to be objective.

[WVBRY]

You can attempt to be unbiased, but does mean you will succeed? I dont know. What do you mean those aspects of information in which is likely to be unbiased? Are you trying to link this to socionics and say that some people are more unbiased than others in the domains pertaining to their strong functions?

[Logos]

All of this. Could you explain it without symbols?

Sure.

Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with emotional states and living in a virtuous accordance with the universe. For some Stoics, this involved understanding more strongly. The Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a logical principle of reason that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. The Logos operates as a principle much like a theoretical law of physics. This universal reason was linked with the study of both rhetorical and dialectic forms of logic. Stoics also frequently employed propositional logic. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with coercion, force, or the temporal future so much as it did with the here and now of one's immediate surroundings. "How are my actions in accordance with the environment that surrounds me?" There was even a certain amount of criticism towards force, as it sometimes tries to control what was deemed to be outside of one's control or to negatively interfere with well-being of another. Force also frequently stems from acting on our passions. Wealth was not criticized per se, but it was when it was pursued in excess or driven by strong passions of lust, greed, and power. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics are typically found among Si/Ne-valuing quadras.

This isn't convincing. How do you know their type and even if I assume they were typed correctly it still doesn't tell me why Fi-base type thinking lends itself to this way of thought.

I know their types partially through my own individual study of Socionics, Stoicism, and these individual philosophers. We have also had past discussions about most of these people to varying degrees on this forum. I am slightly puzzled as to why you are wondering why a Fi-base type would lend itself to an ethical philosophy dealing with the cultivation of moral virtue and rationality?

As far as I understand, Stoicism demands looking at the world completely unbiased and devoid of any passion in order to have a completely clear picture. Only minimizing harmful emotions doesn't accomplish anything. It leaves bias in only making things happen that are best for you rather than "universally best."

First of all, Stoicism does not really demand anything. It seeks to cultivate a mind unhampered by disruptive passions that would interfere with judgment. It strives for rational selection. But this does not remove the bias of the individual. (The Stanford link below, for example, does not mention anything about removing bias.) If anything, clearing the mind of passions, allows one to potentially act stronger on one's bias. It merely helps orient the mind towards rational choices. Many prominent Stoics retained their biases. It is hard, for example, to argue that Cato the Younger, Seneca the Younger, or Marcus Aurelius were freed of bias in their judgments.

For further reading, I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Marcus Aurelius's Meditations.

Yeah. Stoic epistemology is pure Te.

Really? It seems almost Kantian.

[Azeroffs]

Sure.

Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with emotional states and living in a virtuous accordance with the universe. For some Stoics, this involved understanding more strongly. The Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a logical principle of reason that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. The Logos operates as a principle much like a theoretical law of physics. This universal reason was linked with the study of both rhetorical and dialectic forms of logic. Stoics also frequently employed propositional logic. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with coercion, force, or the temporal future so much as it did with the here and now of one's immediate surroundings. "How are my actions in accordance with the environment that surrounds me?" There was even a certain amount of criticism towards force, as it sometimes tries to control what was deemed to be outside of one's control or to negatively interfere with well-being of another. Force also frequently stems from acting on our passions. Wealth was not criticized per se, but it was when it was pursued in excess or driven by strong passions of lust, greed, and power. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics are typically found among Si/Ne-valuing quadras.

I know their types partially through my own individual study of Socionics, Stoicism, and these individual philosophers. We have also had past discussions about most of these people to varying degrees on this forum. I am slightly puzzled as to why you are wondering why a Fi-base type would lend itself to an ethical philosophy dealing with the cultivation of moral virtue and rationality?

First of all, Stoicism does not really demand anything. It seeks to cultivate a mind unhampered by disruptive passions that would interfere with judgment. It strives for rational selection. But this does not remove the bias of the individual. (The Stanford link below, for example, does not mention anything about removing bias.) If anything, clearing the mind of passions, allows one to potentially act stronger on one's bias. It merely helps orient the mind towards rational choices. Many prominent Stoics retained their biases. It is hard, for example, to argue that Cato the Younger, Seneca the Younger, or Marcus Aurelius were freed of bias in their judgments.

For further reading, I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Marcus Aurelius's Meditations.

Ill just have to take your word for at this point. I just don't have a thorough enough understanding.

As far as why I don't think Fi types would lend itself to stoicism.. While I think the ends of what stoicism tries to achieve may be attractive to them, I think the method is a bit counter-intuitive. But, as I said, I don't have a thorough enough understanding.

[ashlesha]

after reading Logos' post i don't think that what i had in mind was actually stoicism, but something else.

[ashlesha]

i've been looking for this old post of Expat's that i think described it really well, but i can't find it. i don't remember exactly what it said, and i don't want to misquote him but it basically talked about how cold Te thinking could be and how Fi types might even be repelled if they were inside a Te brain (which i doubt, but anyway). i remember sort of swooning when i read it, haha.

damnit, i really wish i could find it because if i remember it correctly it was basically perfect.

[Azeroffs]

after reading Logos' post i don't think that what i had in mind was actually stoicism, but something else.

Yeah same

[717495]

It def. does sound like a Te/Fi thing with the emphasis on Te.

It doesn't sound very Fi to me. But its just like Te yeah.

[Galen]

Yeah, types seriously have a love affair with the 'coldness' of .

I think it's more a love affair with devaluing haha. Kinda like I don't have to put on a show to please somebody.

But yeah, I think Archon said something about Te egos being "stoic," not in the sense of a philosophical state of mind but more in just how they act externally. As an guy I've found that such behavior has always been infinitely alluring to me, because it's like there's so much underneath the ego's surface that I want to explore. And from my experiences, people seem to really appreciate and respect that sort of invasion into their inner selves.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[The Greeter]

I agree with Logos; Stoicism has a strong leaning towards rational static types with Ne/Si tendencies.

Purely from Azeroffs' quote, it may seem to be Te-oriented but if you read the literature, particular ones by its prominent proponents, the holistic, more complete impression is as what as been previously stated.

[Beautiful sky]

Wait...Doesn't stoicism mean being indifferent to pleasure and pain?

[The Greeter]

Wait...Doesn't stoicism mean being indifferent to pleasure and pain?

There is a significant difference between the philosophy of Stoicism and the layman's understanding of "stoicism"--a common noun.

[Beautiful sky]

Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos).... According to the Stoics, the senses are constantly receiving sensations: pulsations which pass from objects through the senses to the mind, where they leave behind an impression (phantasia). The mind has the ability to judge (sunkatathesis) — approve or reject — an impression, enabling it to distinguish a true representation of reality from one which is false.

This is Te, but more in the sense of Si.

[Airman]

You can attempt to be unbiased, but does mean you will succeed? I dont know. What do you mean those aspects of information in which is likely to be unbiased? Are you trying to link this to socionics and say that some people are more unbiased than others in the domains pertaining to their strong functions?

1- yes you can TRY to be unbiased and succeed but not 100%

2- no I´m not saying certain types are more unbiased than others. there are some very unbiased Ti people. it has to do with intelligence more than with Te or Ti. intelligent people are oft less biased in their judgments whether they´re Te , Ti, whatever.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[The Greeter]

If you read the literature you will understand that different representatives tell different things and you can't find the true essence of Stoicism in that, but among the teachings of it's founders. Representatives of a current deserve this title when their writings are consistent with its essence, not because they're "prominent" adherents.

Is the "prominent" Kim Yong-Il what what Marx had in mind? No. Is the current Dalai-Lama what Siddharta Buddha had in mind? Most likely he was not interested in politics. Was the Inquisition what Jesus had in mind? No. The examples are countless and this corruption takes place in virtually in every field.

I admit my errors in using the term "prominent". Nevertheless, by "prominent", I mean those who are well-known adherents (as mentioned by Logos) who also, in my opinion at least, stuck to the core concepts of Stoicism, which includes its founders. I'm not speaking of the corruption of the thing, or in other words, the manner in which the idea was applied, I'm speaking of it in its purest forms, the way it exists in thoughts. The examples you provide are sound, but they are all, as you say, corrupted in the translation from thoughts to application.

[mu4]

Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, was likely a EII. Chrysippus of Soli, third head of the Stoic School following Zeno and Cleanthes, was probably a LII. He expanded the teachings of Zeno and Stoicism, such that Chrysippus is considered to be a second founder of Stoicism. Seneca the Younger, a Roman Statesman and Stoic writer, was a ILE. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Philosopher-Emperor and one of the most prominent Stoics, was an EII.

But part of the problem with Stoicism is that its popularity was also its death, as everyone eventually became a self-proclaimed Stoic, even its contemporary Christians. So Stoicism to some degree lost its prominence through its dilution. Stoicism attracted a number of admirers in the modern era, especially Baruch Spinoza (ILE/LII) and Albert Einstein (ILE).

Also of note, Hadrian, whom I think is ILE, was a Stoic, Epicurean, and predecessor to Marcus Aurelius who groomed him from very young age.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[The Greeter]

Possibly *the authors* of the quotes could be considered not complying to the fundamental principles of the founders, not their quotes. Besides the fact that it's only a possibility, not a fact, this is another hasty generalization from your part. So to review your fallacies up to now, in case you don't understand where I'm disagreeing with you:
1. the assumption that all the writings of someone adhering to a certain school may safely be considered representative;
2. that if someone makes writings in contradiction to a certain philosophy, it means that all his writings fall into the same contradiction.

I know that you are pointing out my fallacies, but, if we consider the criteria you are using to evaluate my rhetoric, then this whole discussion is a fallacy, including your own claims. Anyway, I'm not interested in a meta-level discussion of this thread.

[para]

I think Stoicism has both Te/Fi and Ti/Fe valuing supporters in the ancient world. The texts of Seneca, for example, seem very Ti-ego/Fe-seeking. He's a bit softer than the others regarding the 'expression' of emotion, as he distinguishes between the 'print' of the emotional experience, and the continued obsessive study of them. I think he's alpha NT, at least.

[Eos]

A stoic in my mind is someone who works hard labour everyday for 12 hours, comes home and plays with his kids and helps out aroind he house and does it again and again without quiting slogging through the adversity.

Everything else is a little intellectual.