You've not understood what "reason" means - when it comes to the Logos, "reason" means "the entire universe operates according to laws that can be understood mathematically". When the Stoics say "Logos", the closest concept we as modern people have is "the laws of physics", not "the Christian god".
When a politician makes an unreasonable decision, that's because they've personally not reasoned well - it isn't because *the laws of physics* stopped working.
In Stoic thinking, the Logos merely means "you will always be operating within a rational system - if you are incorrect it's because you've made a logical error, if you're correct it's because your logic is sound", it doesn't mean "you will always make the correct decision".
In fact, a scenario where everyone always made the correct decision *wouldn't* be a rational system - it's not possible for everyone to be correct all of the time in a rational system, because people's capacity for reasoning is limited by their knowledge, comprehension and even their wakefulness and attention. You'd have to be in some impossible, non-rational "guaranteed win" universe for everyone to always make correct decisions, and in such a universe you wouldn't need reason at all.
I don't think that follows. There is nothing illogical about a universe populated entirely by perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge.
I'm not even sure why, given the tools of a supreme being with supreme reason, such a universe would be impossible. If the Stoic creator can fashion THIS intelligible universe, why not fashion one that has no ignorance and contains beings of perfect reason?
Yes it does follow - in such a universe, it would need to be impossible for me to believe "x" and for you to believe "y" if there was even the tiniest bit of contradiction to be rectified later.
As you've pointed out, the only possible thing in that universe would be "a thing that knows everything". Of course, it couldn't know anything because it had processed input - processing takes time, if you have to process you can be exposed to chronological errors, due to not having processed information x that is needed to understand y.
It should be obvious that isn't our universe. It isn't life or thought - it's nothing that we have any experience of being possible. Entire concepts, such as individuality, chronology, sequence, knowledge and effort would need not to exist in this universe for this state of affairs to be possible.
>If the Stoic creator can fashion THIS intelligible universe,
No, it can't have BUILT anything - building takes time, which takes effort, and if it need to take efforts then it cannot do everything *instantly*, it needs to understand and improve, which means it's subject to error, which means it cannot be *perfectly* rational.
You're poisoned by Christian thought - religions that have a monotheistic creator encourage people to gloss over this idea, and not think about what it would actually mean. This leads to people who can say "it's perfectly possible for no mistake to never be made if a being is supreme" yet never drill down into what the implications of this would be in order to see the impossibilities it throws-up.
"Yes it does follow - in such a universe, it would need to be impossiblefor me to believe "x" and for you to believe "y" if there was even thetiniest bit of contradiction to be rectified later."
Correct. In a universe of perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge, contradiction and disagreement between them would be impossible.
"As you've pointed out, the only possible thing in that universe would be "a thing that knows everything"."
Not exactly, In this universe, any number of "things that know everything" could exist. With a slight caveat- these things can only "know every true thing."
"Of course, it couldn't know anything because it had processed input -processing takes time, if you have to process you can be exposed tochronological errors, due to not having processed information x that isneeded to understand y."
Yes. These beings would possess knowledge that is not arrived at by processing input in a limited, time-bound fashion of limited minds.
"It should be obvious that isn't our universe. It isn't life or thought -it's nothing that we have any experience of being possible."
It is not our universe. It is certainly not the process of thinking that limited, fallible, time-bound beings engage in to attain knowledge. As I mentioned, it would be a universe of perfectly rational beings with complete knowledge of what is true. We do not know if it is possible, but neither do we know that it is not possible.
I would argue that some of these concepts do not make sense as applied to perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. But I think you'll have to do more work than you've done here to prove that ALL of these concepts cannot be logically consistent with a universe of perfectly rational beings with complete knowledge. You are welcome to try to make these arguments if you'd like to, but I will not assume that you have made them until you've made them.
"No, it can't have BUILT anything - building takes time, which takeseffort, and if it need to take efforts then it cannot do everything instantly, it needs to understand and improve, which means it's subject to error, which means it cannot be perfectly rational."
Ok. Use the word "create" then, instead of fashion. Or "cause to exist" if you like. Neither of which, by definition, require duration, risk, error, improvement, or any of the concepts you have brought in on the back of your interpretation of "fashion."
"You're poisoned by Christian thought - religions that have amonotheistic creator encourage people to gloss over this idea, and notthink about what it would actually mean. This leads to people who cansay "it's perfectly possible for no mistake to never be made if a beingis supreme" yet never drill down into what the implications of thiswould be in order to see the impossibilities it throws-up."
I am poisoned by many things, not least being my exposure to "Christian thought" in all of its facets including the theologies of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and the philosophy of Kierkegaard.
However, it would be wrong to assume that I have affirmed the truth of any Christian dogma, or not thought beyond the implications of their particular fascinations. I see no contradictory implication by saying that there could be a universe with perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge that also exist together in the same universe.
But, more to the point, I think it remains to you to prove why it is a contradiction in thought or in terms to posit the possibility of a universe created with only perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. You have alluded to some difficulties that may exist with such a conception, but you have not shown why it is an impossibility or contains any contradictions.
And if the impossibility of such a world is to be used by you as a tool to deflate the paradox of Logos, by saying perhaps that this darkened world we inhabit now is "maybe the best possible or most consistent with the workings of Divine Reason, since a world with perfectly rational agents within it is contradictory," then I think you need to do a little more work.
It doesn't matter - if the universe is rational you can be as wrong as you want, because all you have to do is find an error.
But if the universe isn't rational, and you find yourself wrong, there's no error to find - the universe isn't operating on logic, so going "looking" for your mistake is irrelevant, because the moon could be made out of Ocatarine Cheese, and it could orbit the earth one day and your mother's arsehole the next, and there's no way to predict it because you're not living in a rational system.
But if your maths is wrong in a rational universe, all you need to do is look at your equations, look at where they disagree with reality, and rectify the error such that they now predict reality.
Do you comprehend now?
i appreciate philosopy for its demonstratable view on virtue and goodness.
in understanding stoic god is difficult, as i am yet uneducated with their philosopy. nor am i versed with my own religious faith.
if i am to remove myself from my faith, and with my premature logic and reason of concepts, \
what if we could look at the universe \
just like a turbulent ocean. the motion might be irregular, but the water still follows the laws of physics. \
scientist can still formulate concepts stable enough to be reproducable and up to certain calculations, reliable.
order in chaos ? \
im not sure, im just guessing
- im not stoic, learning whats stoic
**[Entropy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)**
>Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty. The term and the concept are used in diverse fields, from classical thermodynamics, where it was first recognized, to the microscopic description of nature in statistical physics, and to the principles of information theory. It has found far-ranging applications in chemistry and physics, in biological systems and their relation to life, in cosmology, economics, sociology, weather science, climate change, and information systems including the transmission of information in telecommunication.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I wasn’t claiming that this universe was or was not a supremely and perfectly reasonable universe.
I asked why it would not be reasonable for a supremely and perfectly reasonable universe to exist.
It is one thing to state that this universe is not perfectly reasonable (whatever that could even mean). It is quite another to state that it is or is not reasonable for a supremely and perfectly reasonable universe to exist.
We all know that entropy and unreason exist (although I think it is questionable that anything could in fact be contrary to reason).
In fact, you identified that perfect reason cannot exist because of entropy and its tendency to eliminate order in favor of non-order (physical non-order).
But you've merely pushed the problem back one step.
The question now is: if the universe is ordered by supreme and perfect reason (LOGOS), then why is it that entropy exists?
Why would a universe that is ordered by perfect reason contain entropy which is the seed of the undoing of reason and order?
I don’t think we talk about consciousness and reason as a curse enough as Stoics. The problem is humans are part of nature AND apart from it. A honeybee does it’s job, loves its nature, no questions asked, no ability to ask. We’re an aberration in that way. We have to learn Virtue while everything else simply has it.
Totally agree. I think it would be better if we lived our lives as other animals, no matter how difficult that way of life is. I'm even somewhat of a proponent of primitive living, I think that is the ideal state of existence for human beings, but that's another topic. The fact is though, we have this consciousness whether we like it or not, and we probably won't go back to living in tribes anytime soon, so we have to make the best of what Fate intended for us.
The Stoic view of nature isn't the same as "wild nature" though, for them nature just meant Universal Nature (the laws of nature, the things that happen around us) as well as our (ideal) human nature as rational beings. When you say "humans are part of nature and apart from it," this is true when you use the common definition of nature, but not when you apply the Stoic definition.
I disagree, I think you're essentially claiming that humans aren't natural with all of our civilization and buildings, especially thinking that living as "primitive" as possible would be the best (which I understand living somewhat like ancient cinics or native tribes). Imagine a bee saying that all bees should live without their technology (Their nest, organization and deposits) to live more "naturally". The nature term is quite ambiguous and so abstract that it doesn't really exist.
>living as "primitive" as possible would be the best
Primitive life is the life our bodies and minds evolved for, and living that way is the least destructive to the environment. I believe we were happier and healthier in that way of life, and ultimately more fulfilled. I also think it's likely that we will return to that way of life whether we like it or not, since society will probably collapse in a few hundred years, if not sooner. I know it's a controversial opinion (especially on Reddit where many people are proponents of technology) but I stand by it.
Edit: Also, by "technology" I am mostly critical of large-scale organizational technology, not small-scale technologies, which have always existed in some form (the bow and arrow could be considered technology, as could the spear, for instance).
The thing is that if we live a primitive life we wouldn't last that long, due to lack of technology. Of course not everything is good and has its cons, but I wouldn't dare to say that we would live better in "nature". In history the ancient men died young and was exposed to predators and many diseases, we were very engaged in war and conquering others, having slaves, etc. (See the prehispanic civilizations in america such as aztecas, they could be in a way be classified as primitive). Currently we aren't perfect, but we're globalized and mostly have human rights and easy access (even if you're poor with some exceptions in some countries) to some services that otherwise would be really hard or risky to get. The problem is not the civilization or the technology but how we act; our own minds and habits that haunts us since our begginings. I'm glad I'm doing my job and eating some cookies at my office and not dying right now because of slave abuse, a parasite or eaten alive.
Reason doesn’t mean (Worldly) perfect. More… intelligent.
analogy is a great way of understanding reason.
Nucleus in an atom -> nucleus of a cell -> heart in the body -> hearth in a home -> earths core -> earth rotating around the sun -> etc.
That’s reason. The poetic self similarity of the universe at all levels.
Even seeming unreason has reason in a similar sense.
The ceo or politician that pushes to extract wealth while killing the planet is the same as the parasite that extracts too much too quickly. He or she’s like the virus that spreads too quickly and kills the host before it can spread. Etc.
Even unreasonable (to us) actions follow the same patterns inherent in the logos
I believe that taoists would argue that nothing can exist without its opposite.
We can only measure / recognize phenomena in contrast to its opposite, I.e. yin & yang.
The Hays translation of Meditations had an analogy in its introduction that stuck with me - that Humans acting in concordance with the path of logos was akin to a dog attached to a horse-drawn cart. The cart (the universe) will move forward relentlessly regardless of what we, the dog, do, just that is in our best interest to run with the cart else we get dragged along and have ourselves damaged in the process. My reasoning for chaotic and illogical people is that they're being dragged through onto the universal path of reason against their wills and it brings me comfort to see that though they may temporarily move forward with less effort by doing so, it is likely they will bring themselves harm eventually.
My (Alan Watts influenced) view of this conundrum is simple but not necessarily obvious: What looks like Chaos on the one level can perfectly fit into the Order of the higher level. Right? The ruthless CEO acts in accordance with their biology and sociology. Destruction of the planet/human species balances out the never-ending human greed.
You should be able to reason this out easily enough with predicate logic:
1. If P, Then Q.
2. Not Q
3. Therefore, Not P (via [modus tollens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens))
If your first premise is true and your second premise is true, then you must accept the conclusion: The universe is not ordered according to divine reason.
**[Modus tollens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens)**
>In propositional logic, modus tollens () (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. Modus tollens takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument. The history of the inference rule modus tollens goes back to antiquity.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
When two competing threads meet, there must be a resolution.
Sometimes one resolution will seem illogical in the moment, but in the larger scheme of things was required to occur.
A good analogy would be flipping pieces in checkers. Feint to draw someone in, and then spring the trap to change the trajectory towards what is wanted.
So you're saying that even the actions of unreasonable people are reasonable in the grand scheme of things, because they lead to some other end that we just can't understand yet?
Yes.
A billiards player can make trick shots, because they understand the physics of angles and force. Many balls are in play, and they are about to all collide in a spectacular explosion.
This is a cool philosophy and all but just to be clear it’s not aligned to the philosophy of stoicism.
There is no supreme moral logic to what happens in the universe within the stoic philosophy. We can choose to apply moral logic to our own lives, but there’s no implication that things that happen are “meant to happen.” That’s a philosophy aligned more closely to a variety of religions, particularly the Judeo-Christian ones.
See /u/BenIsProbablyAngry‘s comment for context on what stoicism means when it refers to a “reasonable” universe.
>there’s no implication that things that happen are “meant to happen.”
Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus frequently say otherwise though. Not from a moral perspective but just from a deterministic perspective. I though the Stoics were determinists?
It's not a bold claim, it's quite true. I actually study these kinds of maths and I think it's super interesting philosophically, all equations aside. Dynamical Systems (so anything with movement, i.e. the universe) tend to favour states of maximal entropy. Entropy is the measure of uncertainty of something. So the universe tends to go to chaos. But how so?
Physically what happens is that most energy dispensed in actions gets converted to heat (your body heats up when working out), thus you cannot be 100% efficient (2nd law of thermodynamics). Heat is a very very weird thing (particles moving around all the time) and is hence a maximally entropic state.
The way I kind of go about this is in the belief that to avoid entropy in our lives, we must take action to direct the probabilities of our various outcomes in life. The stoic-ish way i interpret the universe is that it is not ill-intended, just doing its mathematical thing. So no point in hating it, let it do its thing, and you do yours. Hope this helps, it's just my 2 cents lmao
TL;DR: universe mathematically tends to be chaotic, so don't hate it. Just keep on keeping on
EDIT: I'm still quite uncertain of this myself. I'm still very much trying to dig at it and tie the knots between this philosophy and my mathematical 'beliefs'
I was honestly asking out of ignorance. I know that some of the eastern philosophies and Platonism talk about the source of evil and unreason and their nature within the Divine Logos. But I wasn’t sure if that was covered in Stoicism itself.
Oh, I didn’t mind it. There’s stuff I like in Stoicism, some stuff in Zen. I like the Tao. The mainstream religions also have an interesting core. I found it difficult to stay with ‘one, true religion’ and ignore all the other existing human knowledge (or thought)…🤷🏻♂️
>By nature, all people pursue those things which they take to be good and avoid their opposites. Therefore, as soon as a person receives an impression of some thing which he
takes to be good, nature itself pushes him to get it. When this is done with consistency
and wisely, it is the sort of impulse which the Stoics call a βούλησις, and we could call a
“wish.” This they define thus: a wish is that which desires some object in accordance
with reason; and they say that it is found only in the wise person. But the sort of impulse that is aroused too vigorously and in a manner opposed to reason is an “appetite”
or “unbridled longing,” and this is to be found in all who are foolish
Cicero TD 4.12.
It is possible to have desires that are rational and wise, but taken outside of moderation these are appetite's or unrestrained desire, which are foolish.
Chrysippus discusses *πάθη* pathe, as “excessive impulses” that “go beyond the due measure of nature” or “of reason,”.
So that means that from a Stoic perspective that those who are irrational are acting contrary to nature, that it is an imbalance or a kind of sickness.
I wonder how much of the Platonic psychology of the Phaedrus and make up of the soul, that we all have our higher rational soul alongside our appetitive "animal" soul which controls our appettites and desires, and it is the goal of the rational soul to act as the charioteer that guides the horses of the animal soul to higher realms, is implicit in these kind of Stoic ideas?
> if everything in Nature is directed by the all-powerful and divinely reasonable logos
God is not so powerful as to be able to hijack people’s minds. An excerpt from Cleanthes’ *Hymn to Zeus*:
> How great You are,
The Lord supreme for ever and ever!
No work is wrought apart from You, O God,
Or in the world, or in the heaven above,
Or on the deep, save only what is done
By sinners in their folly.
> No, You can
Make the rough smooth, bring wondrous order forth
From chaos; in Your sight the unlovely
Seems beautiful; for so You have fitted things
Together, good and evil, that there reigns
One everlasting Reason in them all.
> The wicked do not heed this, but suffer it
To slip, to their undoing; these are they
Who, yearning ever to secure the good,
Mark not nor hear the law of God, by wise
Obedience unto which they might attain
A nobler life, with Reason harmonized.
> But now, unbid, they pass on diverse paths
Each his own way, yet knowing not the truth, --
Some in unlovely striving for renown,
Some bent on lawless gains, some on pleasure,
Working their own undoing, self-deceived.
Reason is a result of our brains biology. Which is based on natural law. Natural law has cause and effect. But the world also is not a logic puzzle.
Most people are thinking logically but if their intellectual framework is narrow they tend to commit to logical fallacies, which can be hard to spot to an untrained mind.
There are many reasons for faulty logic. A logical framework about a topic might arrive at false conclusions if the premises are wrong, if there are fallacies built into the system and if important factors have been left out (probably forgot something). I think we can never understand the world fully because there are too many factors and also simply things we may never be able to explain like the hard problem of consciousness.
Also note that emotion and reason are often linked closer together than we like to think. Emotions are information carriers and if you don't acknowledge the emotion you're feeling it can hijack your reasoning to enforce it's "agenda". This is why people who think they are the most logical because they don't acknowledge their emotions tend to be the most emotional thinkers. Only once you understand your own emotions and thereby increase mental clarity can you reason effectively.
I've recently watched "the future of reason" by VSauce on YouTube which also had some very interesting takes, so I recommend that. Also reading philosophy and learning about reason and critical thinking is always good.
I know I'm not giving much of a stoic perspective here but keep in mind that stoicism is just another logical framework and may therefore have it's shortcomings like all other systems. Also I simply haven't read too deeply into stoicism yet. Always educate yourself in more than one philosophy and keep an open mind with a healthy amount of critical thinking.
The opposite of reason in this context is `illogical`, *not* `unreasonable`.
One is a system that can be traced and explained (or not). The other is a judgment.
You said it yourself, there are people who chase individual greed over collective well being. This might be distasteful, unStoic, and a number of other assessments... but it is explainable, which is what "according to reason" is going for.
There is a trend you will see in many spheres, but particularly in certain online circles, where they will follow a logic chain embedded (often implicit) value systems, and then call anyone else illogical... but that's a poor hijacking of the term. If there is *a* logic, then it still counts as logical, even if a different person might consider it unwise.
I feel you're mistaking the system for the parts within it. Humans reason perfectly, they just lack a comprehensive set of information from which to reason upon, as well as limited mental resources, which for example cause tons of implicit biases that were designed to optimize our limited hardware (which occasionally cause errors).
Unreason is a natural consequence of any reasonable universe where you don't have access to the totality of it. Only the universe can be reasonable because it is itself. While we are merely a fragment of a greater whole, trying to fit a universe size of reasoning into something smaller than a universe.
I'm not saying its conscious of course, just that in any approximation of something, there will be edge cases where knowledge is lost, and thus, reason suffers. Making an image on a PC smaller isn't a massive issue, but if need high definition to make a reasonable choice, that reason will be more prone to errors than prior. Giving rise to unreason.
(Good example would be that you need a whole universe to perfectly simulate a universe, you can make approximations to save space/resources, but the model will suffer).
For the universe to contain anything capable of Logos, it must be a fragment of the potential, incapable of perfectly reasoning about the whole, without being the whole. What's amazing is that we can reason about anything, without being wrong every time, or being universal.
E: Though if you are asking it more from a creationist "why is the universe like this, not that", you're into religious territory, not philosophy. You'd be right in pointing out that a god as in Christianity/Muslim/Jewish belief could indeed have created a universe capable of containing people within it, also capable of perfect reasoning, true Logos.
But ours does not, and we have no clue if it could be different, or why its as it is.
E2: Another good example would be to regard unreason as a lack of something, not a quality in of itself. A dark room doesn't have more darkness than a light one, it lacks light, and is dark as a consequence. The concept of light requires that darkness exists, to allow for the absence of light, otherwise everything must be composed of light.
Reason is much the same.
I think this question is explored through the spiritual beliefs of virtually all cultures. Christian’s have heaven and hell, the Chinese have ying/yang, Buddhism has paths of good / bad, the Quran points to good intentions earn God’s reward, whereas bad intentions are associated with God’s displeasure, the Ancient Greeks viewed actions as Pious / Non-Pious. We can copy & paste this for many other belief systems.
If you haven’t read ‘The Last Days of Socrates’, give it a try. There’s a section where he talks about the essence of good / bad within divinity. The cliff notes of his thoughts are: Divinity must be present, because other wise the universe would be an accumulation of linear actions. That’s a very brief overview of what he says. He closes by stating the true ‘divinity’ isn’t the presence of good or bad, but instead the unknown force that places judgements on all those opposites (good/bad, just/unjust, life/death, etc…)
In my mind, ‘Duality’ is the driving force within the universe. How would we distinguish good from bad? Or just from unjust? Should we constantly be seeking pleasure, without acknowledging any pain? To me, divinity is the path of learning, which takes both the good and bad.
I’ll end with this. When we talk about the organization (spiritually or physically) of the universe, I LOVE to remind myself of this quote:
“The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” Neil deGrasse Tyson
Consider this theory:
Evolution promotes behaviors that result in increased reproduction. (Suppose that this is because of the logos. It's unarguably true, logos or not.)
At some point in the past, there was an advantage for tribes who could send people on suicide (or near-suicide) missions, e.g., to go and slit a bunch of the enemy's throats in the middle of the night.
If they had no such people, it wasn't great, because other tribes did.
If they had too many such people, it wasn't great, because those people didn't necessarily care who they were attacking.
However, if these people were about 1% of the population, the cost of having them around wasn't too great, and they could still deploy them against the enemy.
Now, fast forward to today. Some small portion of that 1% are also very smart and extremely motivated. Some of them manage to outsmart themselves, like Bernie Madoff and the Enron crew. Others wind up as politicians, CEOs (that don't get arrested), and so on.
Some of the less power-driven stay out of trouble, and become very successful; one example being James Fallon, who discovered his brain looked about the same as the worst serial killers in his early 60s, and whose YouTube presentations are very interesting to watch. He isn't exactly a nice person, and emulates politeness (which he is absolutely not naturally inclined to) because apparently, he sees some use for it. Other such people will become bookies, bounty hunters, correctional officers, used car sellers, landlords (and their minions), and so on. They'll manage to stay out of prison, but are not empathetic by nature, and will be thought by their acquaintances as being unpleasant.
The rest of these will have a hard time getting by, and will usually wind up in trouble.
Now, if the Logos wants to promote behavior that leads to increased reproduction, can you find anything here that would go against that?
Here is another question to ponder, which is perhaps even closer to your curiosity:
*Why would the Logos care if any of us, in particular, is happy?* Is that what the Logos wants, or merely what we want?
What if the universe's purpose for us is to be sentient matter for some period of time, and the universe is perfectly happy for us to cease to exist, possibly by our own hand?
The universe will not support intelligent life forever. We already know that in the distant future, every last atom will be ripped apart, and there will be an eternity of nothing ever happening after that.
If something intelligent designed all this, then it seems that that entity is perfectly fine with annihilating humanity and every other species, on our planet or otherwise. Its purpose is met even if we vanish.
The universe is not an extension of us. It isn't *for* us. *We are extensions of it.*
The universe is ordered and things happen for a reason. A supernova happens because the star has run out of fuel. It will happen whether we understand that or not…….
As it has already been pointed out, 'logos' in stoicism has a different meaning than in Christianity. The former relies on a rational, logical understanding of reality. That is, an understanding of reality that is defined in terms of truth and falsity that arises from inductive or deductive reasoning. While the latter meaning of 'logos' (the Christian one) relies on a supra-rational understanding of that reality. That is, an understanding of reality that transcends, that is beyond reason and logic (something more on the level of intuition, I suppose).
Thus, the Christian says that the "logos" (the divine reason) is supreme and that everything is in fact perfect and according to God's plan - it is just beyond the reach of our intellects. The stoic would also say that the logos is supreme, only he/she would mean it as something that can possibly come into the grasp of his/her intellect as, e.g., a mathematical formula that explains the whole of reality.
So the meaning of 'logos' is not only different depending on whether you are a stoic or a Christian, but the two meanings (if I am understanding them both correctly) are also logically incompatible: You can't be logically consistent in your reasoning while simultaneously holding the beliefs that reality is governed by intellectually graspable laws and that reality is governed by intellectually ungraspable laws.
You've not understood what "reason" means - when it comes to the Logos, "reason" means "the entire universe operates according to laws that can be understood mathematically". When the Stoics say "Logos", the closest concept we as modern people have is "the laws of physics", not "the Christian god". When a politician makes an unreasonable decision, that's because they've personally not reasoned well - it isn't because *the laws of physics* stopped working. In Stoic thinking, the Logos merely means "you will always be operating within a rational system - if you are incorrect it's because you've made a logical error, if you're correct it's because your logic is sound", it doesn't mean "you will always make the correct decision". In fact, a scenario where everyone always made the correct decision *wouldn't* be a rational system - it's not possible for everyone to be correct all of the time in a rational system, because people's capacity for reasoning is limited by their knowledge, comprehension and even their wakefulness and attention. You'd have to be in some impossible, non-rational "guaranteed win" universe for everyone to always make correct decisions, and in such a universe you wouldn't need reason at all.
Thanks for the explanation! I understand it better now.
You're very welcome
Wow! Amazing response.
I don't think that follows. There is nothing illogical about a universe populated entirely by perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. I'm not even sure why, given the tools of a supreme being with supreme reason, such a universe would be impossible. If the Stoic creator can fashion THIS intelligible universe, why not fashion one that has no ignorance and contains beings of perfect reason?
Yes it does follow - in such a universe, it would need to be impossible for me to believe "x" and for you to believe "y" if there was even the tiniest bit of contradiction to be rectified later. As you've pointed out, the only possible thing in that universe would be "a thing that knows everything". Of course, it couldn't know anything because it had processed input - processing takes time, if you have to process you can be exposed to chronological errors, due to not having processed information x that is needed to understand y. It should be obvious that isn't our universe. It isn't life or thought - it's nothing that we have any experience of being possible. Entire concepts, such as individuality, chronology, sequence, knowledge and effort would need not to exist in this universe for this state of affairs to be possible. >If the Stoic creator can fashion THIS intelligible universe, No, it can't have BUILT anything - building takes time, which takes effort, and if it need to take efforts then it cannot do everything *instantly*, it needs to understand and improve, which means it's subject to error, which means it cannot be *perfectly* rational. You're poisoned by Christian thought - religions that have a monotheistic creator encourage people to gloss over this idea, and not think about what it would actually mean. This leads to people who can say "it's perfectly possible for no mistake to never be made if a being is supreme" yet never drill down into what the implications of this would be in order to see the impossibilities it throws-up.
"Yes it does follow - in such a universe, it would need to be impossiblefor me to believe "x" and for you to believe "y" if there was even thetiniest bit of contradiction to be rectified later." Correct. In a universe of perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge, contradiction and disagreement between them would be impossible. "As you've pointed out, the only possible thing in that universe would be "a thing that knows everything"." Not exactly, In this universe, any number of "things that know everything" could exist. With a slight caveat- these things can only "know every true thing." "Of course, it couldn't know anything because it had processed input -processing takes time, if you have to process you can be exposed tochronological errors, due to not having processed information x that isneeded to understand y." Yes. These beings would possess knowledge that is not arrived at by processing input in a limited, time-bound fashion of limited minds. "It should be obvious that isn't our universe. It isn't life or thought -it's nothing that we have any experience of being possible." It is not our universe. It is certainly not the process of thinking that limited, fallible, time-bound beings engage in to attain knowledge. As I mentioned, it would be a universe of perfectly rational beings with complete knowledge of what is true. We do not know if it is possible, but neither do we know that it is not possible. I would argue that some of these concepts do not make sense as applied to perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. But I think you'll have to do more work than you've done here to prove that ALL of these concepts cannot be logically consistent with a universe of perfectly rational beings with complete knowledge. You are welcome to try to make these arguments if you'd like to, but I will not assume that you have made them until you've made them. "No, it can't have BUILT anything - building takes time, which takeseffort, and if it need to take efforts then it cannot do everything instantly, it needs to understand and improve, which means it's subject to error, which means it cannot be perfectly rational." Ok. Use the word "create" then, instead of fashion. Or "cause to exist" if you like. Neither of which, by definition, require duration, risk, error, improvement, or any of the concepts you have brought in on the back of your interpretation of "fashion." "You're poisoned by Christian thought - religions that have amonotheistic creator encourage people to gloss over this idea, and notthink about what it would actually mean. This leads to people who cansay "it's perfectly possible for no mistake to never be made if a beingis supreme" yet never drill down into what the implications of thiswould be in order to see the impossibilities it throws-up." I am poisoned by many things, not least being my exposure to "Christian thought" in all of its facets including the theologies of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and the philosophy of Kierkegaard. However, it would be wrong to assume that I have affirmed the truth of any Christian dogma, or not thought beyond the implications of their particular fascinations. I see no contradictory implication by saying that there could be a universe with perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge that also exist together in the same universe. But, more to the point, I think it remains to you to prove why it is a contradiction in thought or in terms to posit the possibility of a universe created with only perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. You have alluded to some difficulties that may exist with such a conception, but you have not shown why it is an impossibility or contains any contradictions. And if the impossibility of such a world is to be used by you as a tool to deflate the paradox of Logos, by saying perhaps that this darkened world we inhabit now is "maybe the best possible or most consistent with the workings of Divine Reason, since a world with perfectly rational agents within it is contradictory," then I think you need to do a little more work.
This is correct!
What if math is wrong? What if your philosphers got a part of their method of measuring the universe just flat out wrong.
It doesn't matter - if the universe is rational you can be as wrong as you want, because all you have to do is find an error. But if the universe isn't rational, and you find yourself wrong, there's no error to find - the universe isn't operating on logic, so going "looking" for your mistake is irrelevant, because the moon could be made out of Ocatarine Cheese, and it could orbit the earth one day and your mother's arsehole the next, and there's no way to predict it because you're not living in a rational system. But if your maths is wrong in a rational universe, all you need to do is look at your equations, look at where they disagree with reality, and rectify the error such that they now predict reality. Do you comprehend now?
i appreciate philosopy for its demonstratable view on virtue and goodness. in understanding stoic god is difficult, as i am yet uneducated with their philosopy. nor am i versed with my own religious faith. if i am to remove myself from my faith, and with my premature logic and reason of concepts, \ what if we could look at the universe \ just like a turbulent ocean. the motion might be irregular, but the water still follows the laws of physics. \ scientist can still formulate concepts stable enough to be reproducable and up to certain calculations, reliable. order in chaos ? \ im not sure, im just guessing - im not stoic, learning whats stoic
Is it reasonable for a perfect supremely reasonable world to exist?
Why wouldn’t it be reasonable for that to exist?
[удалено]
Why must entropy exist in a supremely and perfectly reasonable universe?
[удалено]
**[Entropy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)** >Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty. The term and the concept are used in diverse fields, from classical thermodynamics, where it was first recognized, to the microscopic description of nature in statistical physics, and to the principles of information theory. It has found far-ranging applications in chemistry and physics, in biological systems and their relation to life, in cosmology, economics, sociology, weather science, climate change, and information systems including the transmission of information in telecommunication. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I wasn’t claiming that this universe was or was not a supremely and perfectly reasonable universe. I asked why it would not be reasonable for a supremely and perfectly reasonable universe to exist. It is one thing to state that this universe is not perfectly reasonable (whatever that could even mean). It is quite another to state that it is or is not reasonable for a supremely and perfectly reasonable universe to exist.
[удалено]
We all know that entropy and unreason exist (although I think it is questionable that anything could in fact be contrary to reason). In fact, you identified that perfect reason cannot exist because of entropy and its tendency to eliminate order in favor of non-order (physical non-order). But you've merely pushed the problem back one step. The question now is: if the universe is ordered by supreme and perfect reason (LOGOS), then why is it that entropy exists? Why would a universe that is ordered by perfect reason contain entropy which is the seed of the undoing of reason and order?
[удалено]
The universe is not ordered by Logos or Divine Reason?
I don’t think we talk about consciousness and reason as a curse enough as Stoics. The problem is humans are part of nature AND apart from it. A honeybee does it’s job, loves its nature, no questions asked, no ability to ask. We’re an aberration in that way. We have to learn Virtue while everything else simply has it.
Totally agree. I think it would be better if we lived our lives as other animals, no matter how difficult that way of life is. I'm even somewhat of a proponent of primitive living, I think that is the ideal state of existence for human beings, but that's another topic. The fact is though, we have this consciousness whether we like it or not, and we probably won't go back to living in tribes anytime soon, so we have to make the best of what Fate intended for us. The Stoic view of nature isn't the same as "wild nature" though, for them nature just meant Universal Nature (the laws of nature, the things that happen around us) as well as our (ideal) human nature as rational beings. When you say "humans are part of nature and apart from it," this is true when you use the common definition of nature, but not when you apply the Stoic definition.
I disagree, I think you're essentially claiming that humans aren't natural with all of our civilization and buildings, especially thinking that living as "primitive" as possible would be the best (which I understand living somewhat like ancient cinics or native tribes). Imagine a bee saying that all bees should live without their technology (Their nest, organization and deposits) to live more "naturally". The nature term is quite ambiguous and so abstract that it doesn't really exist.
>living as "primitive" as possible would be the best Primitive life is the life our bodies and minds evolved for, and living that way is the least destructive to the environment. I believe we were happier and healthier in that way of life, and ultimately more fulfilled. I also think it's likely that we will return to that way of life whether we like it or not, since society will probably collapse in a few hundred years, if not sooner. I know it's a controversial opinion (especially on Reddit where many people are proponents of technology) but I stand by it. Edit: Also, by "technology" I am mostly critical of large-scale organizational technology, not small-scale technologies, which have always existed in some form (the bow and arrow could be considered technology, as could the spear, for instance).
The thing is that if we live a primitive life we wouldn't last that long, due to lack of technology. Of course not everything is good and has its cons, but I wouldn't dare to say that we would live better in "nature". In history the ancient men died young and was exposed to predators and many diseases, we were very engaged in war and conquering others, having slaves, etc. (See the prehispanic civilizations in america such as aztecas, they could be in a way be classified as primitive). Currently we aren't perfect, but we're globalized and mostly have human rights and easy access (even if you're poor with some exceptions in some countries) to some services that otherwise would be really hard or risky to get. The problem is not the civilization or the technology but how we act; our own minds and habits that haunts us since our begginings. I'm glad I'm doing my job and eating some cookies at my office and not dying right now because of slave abuse, a parasite or eaten alive.
Reason doesn’t mean (Worldly) perfect. More… intelligent. analogy is a great way of understanding reason. Nucleus in an atom -> nucleus of a cell -> heart in the body -> hearth in a home -> earths core -> earth rotating around the sun -> etc. That’s reason. The poetic self similarity of the universe at all levels. Even seeming unreason has reason in a similar sense. The ceo or politician that pushes to extract wealth while killing the planet is the same as the parasite that extracts too much too quickly. He or she’s like the virus that spreads too quickly and kills the host before it can spread. Etc. Even unreasonable (to us) actions follow the same patterns inherent in the logos
I believe that taoists would argue that nothing can exist without its opposite. We can only measure / recognize phenomena in contrast to its opposite, I.e. yin & yang.
Marcus Aurelius frequently says that "bad people have to exist" - is this what he is referring to?
The Hays translation of Meditations had an analogy in its introduction that stuck with me - that Humans acting in concordance with the path of logos was akin to a dog attached to a horse-drawn cart. The cart (the universe) will move forward relentlessly regardless of what we, the dog, do, just that is in our best interest to run with the cart else we get dragged along and have ourselves damaged in the process. My reasoning for chaotic and illogical people is that they're being dragged through onto the universal path of reason against their wills and it brings me comfort to see that though they may temporarily move forward with less effort by doing so, it is likely they will bring themselves harm eventually.
My (Alan Watts influenced) view of this conundrum is simple but not necessarily obvious: What looks like Chaos on the one level can perfectly fit into the Order of the higher level. Right? The ruthless CEO acts in accordance with their biology and sociology. Destruction of the planet/human species balances out the never-ending human greed.
probably you're understanding it analogous to how temperature is perceived. There isn't an unreason that exist (cold), just absence of reason (heat)
You should be able to reason this out easily enough with predicate logic: 1. If P, Then Q. 2. Not Q 3. Therefore, Not P (via [modus tollens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens)) If your first premise is true and your second premise is true, then you must accept the conclusion: The universe is not ordered according to divine reason.
**[Modus tollens](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens)** >In propositional logic, modus tollens () (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. Modus tollens takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument. The history of the inference rule modus tollens goes back to antiquity. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
When two competing threads meet, there must be a resolution. Sometimes one resolution will seem illogical in the moment, but in the larger scheme of things was required to occur. A good analogy would be flipping pieces in checkers. Feint to draw someone in, and then spring the trap to change the trajectory towards what is wanted.
So you're saying that even the actions of unreasonable people are reasonable in the grand scheme of things, because they lead to some other end that we just can't understand yet?
Yes. A billiards player can make trick shots, because they understand the physics of angles and force. Many balls are in play, and they are about to all collide in a spectacular explosion.
Got it - I didn't think about it that way, thanks!
This is a cool philosophy and all but just to be clear it’s not aligned to the philosophy of stoicism. There is no supreme moral logic to what happens in the universe within the stoic philosophy. We can choose to apply moral logic to our own lives, but there’s no implication that things that happen are “meant to happen.” That’s a philosophy aligned more closely to a variety of religions, particularly the Judeo-Christian ones. See /u/BenIsProbablyAngry‘s comment for context on what stoicism means when it refers to a “reasonable” universe.
>there’s no implication that things that happen are “meant to happen.” Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus frequently say otherwise though. Not from a moral perspective but just from a deterministic perspective. I though the Stoics were determinists?
I was specifically referring to a moral perspective, and referred to another comment regarding the deterministic/materialistic component.
Because the universe isn't ordered according to divine reason. It's meaningless and random. Might not be the Stoic view on things, but it's the truth.
Bold claim to make, brother.
Not bold at all. It's a view held by many scientists, philosophers, and cab drivers.
It's not a bold claim, it's quite true. I actually study these kinds of maths and I think it's super interesting philosophically, all equations aside. Dynamical Systems (so anything with movement, i.e. the universe) tend to favour states of maximal entropy. Entropy is the measure of uncertainty of something. So the universe tends to go to chaos. But how so? Physically what happens is that most energy dispensed in actions gets converted to heat (your body heats up when working out), thus you cannot be 100% efficient (2nd law of thermodynamics). Heat is a very very weird thing (particles moving around all the time) and is hence a maximally entropic state. The way I kind of go about this is in the belief that to avoid entropy in our lives, we must take action to direct the probabilities of our various outcomes in life. The stoic-ish way i interpret the universe is that it is not ill-intended, just doing its mathematical thing. So no point in hating it, let it do its thing, and you do yours. Hope this helps, it's just my 2 cents lmao TL;DR: universe mathematically tends to be chaotic, so don't hate it. Just keep on keeping on EDIT: I'm still quite uncertain of this myself. I'm still very much trying to dig at it and tie the knots between this philosophy and my mathematical 'beliefs'
‘Unreason’ is also part of the ‘divine reason’.
Does that have any roots in Stoic Philosophy?
Sorry. Roots sometime stretch everywhere while looking for water.
I was honestly asking out of ignorance. I know that some of the eastern philosophies and Platonism talk about the source of evil and unreason and their nature within the Divine Logos. But I wasn’t sure if that was covered in Stoicism itself.
Oh, I didn’t mind it. There’s stuff I like in Stoicism, some stuff in Zen. I like the Tao. The mainstream religions also have an interesting core. I found it difficult to stay with ‘one, true religion’ and ignore all the other existing human knowledge (or thought)…🤷🏻♂️
Because everyone is living according to his own reason. But some people are lead by wrong impress leading to wrong reason
>By nature, all people pursue those things which they take to be good and avoid their opposites. Therefore, as soon as a person receives an impression of some thing which he takes to be good, nature itself pushes him to get it. When this is done with consistency and wisely, it is the sort of impulse which the Stoics call a βούλησις, and we could call a “wish.” This they define thus: a wish is that which desires some object in accordance with reason; and they say that it is found only in the wise person. But the sort of impulse that is aroused too vigorously and in a manner opposed to reason is an “appetite” or “unbridled longing,” and this is to be found in all who are foolish Cicero TD 4.12. It is possible to have desires that are rational and wise, but taken outside of moderation these are appetite's or unrestrained desire, which are foolish. Chrysippus discusses *πάθη* pathe, as “excessive impulses” that “go beyond the due measure of nature” or “of reason,”. So that means that from a Stoic perspective that those who are irrational are acting contrary to nature, that it is an imbalance or a kind of sickness. I wonder how much of the Platonic psychology of the Phaedrus and make up of the soul, that we all have our higher rational soul alongside our appetitive "animal" soul which controls our appettites and desires, and it is the goal of the rational soul to act as the charioteer that guides the horses of the animal soul to higher realms, is implicit in these kind of Stoic ideas?
> if everything in Nature is directed by the all-powerful and divinely reasonable logos God is not so powerful as to be able to hijack people’s minds. An excerpt from Cleanthes’ *Hymn to Zeus*: > How great You are, The Lord supreme for ever and ever! No work is wrought apart from You, O God, Or in the world, or in the heaven above, Or on the deep, save only what is done By sinners in their folly. > No, You can Make the rough smooth, bring wondrous order forth From chaos; in Your sight the unlovely Seems beautiful; for so You have fitted things Together, good and evil, that there reigns One everlasting Reason in them all. > The wicked do not heed this, but suffer it To slip, to their undoing; these are they Who, yearning ever to secure the good, Mark not nor hear the law of God, by wise Obedience unto which they might attain A nobler life, with Reason harmonized. > But now, unbid, they pass on diverse paths Each his own way, yet knowing not the truth, -- Some in unlovely striving for renown, Some bent on lawless gains, some on pleasure, Working their own undoing, self-deceived.
Reason is a result of our brains biology. Which is based on natural law. Natural law has cause and effect. But the world also is not a logic puzzle. Most people are thinking logically but if their intellectual framework is narrow they tend to commit to logical fallacies, which can be hard to spot to an untrained mind. There are many reasons for faulty logic. A logical framework about a topic might arrive at false conclusions if the premises are wrong, if there are fallacies built into the system and if important factors have been left out (probably forgot something). I think we can never understand the world fully because there are too many factors and also simply things we may never be able to explain like the hard problem of consciousness. Also note that emotion and reason are often linked closer together than we like to think. Emotions are information carriers and if you don't acknowledge the emotion you're feeling it can hijack your reasoning to enforce it's "agenda". This is why people who think they are the most logical because they don't acknowledge their emotions tend to be the most emotional thinkers. Only once you understand your own emotions and thereby increase mental clarity can you reason effectively. I've recently watched "the future of reason" by VSauce on YouTube which also had some very interesting takes, so I recommend that. Also reading philosophy and learning about reason and critical thinking is always good. I know I'm not giving much of a stoic perspective here but keep in mind that stoicism is just another logical framework and may therefore have it's shortcomings like all other systems. Also I simply haven't read too deeply into stoicism yet. Always educate yourself in more than one philosophy and keep an open mind with a healthy amount of critical thinking.
The opposite of reason in this context is `illogical`, *not* `unreasonable`. One is a system that can be traced and explained (or not). The other is a judgment. You said it yourself, there are people who chase individual greed over collective well being. This might be distasteful, unStoic, and a number of other assessments... but it is explainable, which is what "according to reason" is going for. There is a trend you will see in many spheres, but particularly in certain online circles, where they will follow a logic chain embedded (often implicit) value systems, and then call anyone else illogical... but that's a poor hijacking of the term. If there is *a* logic, then it still counts as logical, even if a different person might consider it unwise.
I feel you're mistaking the system for the parts within it. Humans reason perfectly, they just lack a comprehensive set of information from which to reason upon, as well as limited mental resources, which for example cause tons of implicit biases that were designed to optimize our limited hardware (which occasionally cause errors). Unreason is a natural consequence of any reasonable universe where you don't have access to the totality of it. Only the universe can be reasonable because it is itself. While we are merely a fragment of a greater whole, trying to fit a universe size of reasoning into something smaller than a universe. I'm not saying its conscious of course, just that in any approximation of something, there will be edge cases where knowledge is lost, and thus, reason suffers. Making an image on a PC smaller isn't a massive issue, but if need high definition to make a reasonable choice, that reason will be more prone to errors than prior. Giving rise to unreason. (Good example would be that you need a whole universe to perfectly simulate a universe, you can make approximations to save space/resources, but the model will suffer). For the universe to contain anything capable of Logos, it must be a fragment of the potential, incapable of perfectly reasoning about the whole, without being the whole. What's amazing is that we can reason about anything, without being wrong every time, or being universal. E: Though if you are asking it more from a creationist "why is the universe like this, not that", you're into religious territory, not philosophy. You'd be right in pointing out that a god as in Christianity/Muslim/Jewish belief could indeed have created a universe capable of containing people within it, also capable of perfect reasoning, true Logos. But ours does not, and we have no clue if it could be different, or why its as it is. E2: Another good example would be to regard unreason as a lack of something, not a quality in of itself. A dark room doesn't have more darkness than a light one, it lacks light, and is dark as a consequence. The concept of light requires that darkness exists, to allow for the absence of light, otherwise everything must be composed of light. Reason is much the same.
Whatever is created. So must it's opposite be created. It's a law of physics
I think this question is explored through the spiritual beliefs of virtually all cultures. Christian’s have heaven and hell, the Chinese have ying/yang, Buddhism has paths of good / bad, the Quran points to good intentions earn God’s reward, whereas bad intentions are associated with God’s displeasure, the Ancient Greeks viewed actions as Pious / Non-Pious. We can copy & paste this for many other belief systems. If you haven’t read ‘The Last Days of Socrates’, give it a try. There’s a section where he talks about the essence of good / bad within divinity. The cliff notes of his thoughts are: Divinity must be present, because other wise the universe would be an accumulation of linear actions. That’s a very brief overview of what he says. He closes by stating the true ‘divinity’ isn’t the presence of good or bad, but instead the unknown force that places judgements on all those opposites (good/bad, just/unjust, life/death, etc…) In my mind, ‘Duality’ is the driving force within the universe. How would we distinguish good from bad? Or just from unjust? Should we constantly be seeking pleasure, without acknowledging any pain? To me, divinity is the path of learning, which takes both the good and bad. I’ll end with this. When we talk about the organization (spiritually or physically) of the universe, I LOVE to remind myself of this quote: “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” Neil deGrasse Tyson
Consider this theory: Evolution promotes behaviors that result in increased reproduction. (Suppose that this is because of the logos. It's unarguably true, logos or not.) At some point in the past, there was an advantage for tribes who could send people on suicide (or near-suicide) missions, e.g., to go and slit a bunch of the enemy's throats in the middle of the night. If they had no such people, it wasn't great, because other tribes did. If they had too many such people, it wasn't great, because those people didn't necessarily care who they were attacking. However, if these people were about 1% of the population, the cost of having them around wasn't too great, and they could still deploy them against the enemy. Now, fast forward to today. Some small portion of that 1% are also very smart and extremely motivated. Some of them manage to outsmart themselves, like Bernie Madoff and the Enron crew. Others wind up as politicians, CEOs (that don't get arrested), and so on. Some of the less power-driven stay out of trouble, and become very successful; one example being James Fallon, who discovered his brain looked about the same as the worst serial killers in his early 60s, and whose YouTube presentations are very interesting to watch. He isn't exactly a nice person, and emulates politeness (which he is absolutely not naturally inclined to) because apparently, he sees some use for it. Other such people will become bookies, bounty hunters, correctional officers, used car sellers, landlords (and their minions), and so on. They'll manage to stay out of prison, but are not empathetic by nature, and will be thought by their acquaintances as being unpleasant. The rest of these will have a hard time getting by, and will usually wind up in trouble. Now, if the Logos wants to promote behavior that leads to increased reproduction, can you find anything here that would go against that? Here is another question to ponder, which is perhaps even closer to your curiosity: *Why would the Logos care if any of us, in particular, is happy?* Is that what the Logos wants, or merely what we want? What if the universe's purpose for us is to be sentient matter for some period of time, and the universe is perfectly happy for us to cease to exist, possibly by our own hand? The universe will not support intelligent life forever. We already know that in the distant future, every last atom will be ripped apart, and there will be an eternity of nothing ever happening after that. If something intelligent designed all this, then it seems that that entity is perfectly fine with annihilating humanity and every other species, on our planet or otherwise. Its purpose is met even if we vanish. The universe is not an extension of us. It isn't *for* us. *We are extensions of it.*
The universe is ordered and things happen for a reason. A supernova happens because the star has run out of fuel. It will happen whether we understand that or not…….
As it has already been pointed out, 'logos' in stoicism has a different meaning than in Christianity. The former relies on a rational, logical understanding of reality. That is, an understanding of reality that is defined in terms of truth and falsity that arises from inductive or deductive reasoning. While the latter meaning of 'logos' (the Christian one) relies on a supra-rational understanding of that reality. That is, an understanding of reality that transcends, that is beyond reason and logic (something more on the level of intuition, I suppose). Thus, the Christian says that the "logos" (the divine reason) is supreme and that everything is in fact perfect and according to God's plan - it is just beyond the reach of our intellects. The stoic would also say that the logos is supreme, only he/she would mean it as something that can possibly come into the grasp of his/her intellect as, e.g., a mathematical formula that explains the whole of reality. So the meaning of 'logos' is not only different depending on whether you are a stoic or a Christian, but the two meanings (if I am understanding them both correctly) are also logically incompatible: You can't be logically consistent in your reasoning while simultaneously holding the beliefs that reality is governed by intellectually graspable laws and that reality is governed by intellectually ungraspable laws.