Stoicism Group Did stoic philosophers believe in God?

Nafees M U
2t5Sc rnaoJmcaponnusodnairdmrecyg 2e02ddn0 ·




Did stoic philosophers believe in God?





3737
262 comments

3 shares

Like




Comment


Share


Comments


View previous comments




Ed Heidicker

Some do, some don't, so what?

3






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





David Moss

This is a FAQ.
Ancient stoics would have considered the pros and cons of Gods existing. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that behaving as if they do has no downside while behaving as if they do not may have a downside. Risk management would mean behaving as if Gods exist even if you are unconvinced they exist. So while ancient stoics often talked as if Gods exist, we really can’t tell if they personally believed Gods exist.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





James Daltrey

They didn't think gods were gods.

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




David Moss

Epictetus certainly believed Gods exist. Marcus Aurelius did too.
Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm."
—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11
Zeno believed the Universe itself was God.
Cleanthes, Zeno’s successor, even wrote a hymn:
Lead me, Zeus, and you too, Destiny,
To wherever your decrees have assigned me.
I follow readily, but if I choose not,
Wretched though I am, I must follow still.
Fate guides the willing, but drags the unwilling

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y
·
Edited




Jc Gentner

David Moss, I think James' point was that the Stoics didn't believe the gods were the same gods as those of Greek/Roman myth - and definitely not the God of Abraham.
They didn't believe the gods were personified deities in the heavens; and furthermore, they only believed in one god, which was the universe or nature (God, Zeus, The Universe, Nature, Cosmos, Providence, etc are all synonymous) and any reference to individual gods are descriptors of individual natural events rather than the gods of myth, but everything in the universe is connected through a web of causality.
"All things are interwoven, and the bond that unites them is sacred, and hardly anything is alien to any other thing, for they have been ranged together and are jointly ordered to form a common universe. For there is one universe made up of all that is, and one god who pervades all things, and one substance and one law, and one reason common to all intelligent creatures, and one truth, if indeed there is one perfection for all creatures who are of the same stock and partake of the same reason." (Meditations, 7.9)
For the Stoics, God was something natural and physical, with evidence - not supernatural and metaphysical reliant on faith. It's the god that fascinated Einstein, and continues to be of constant discussion by the world's physicists today.
I say this often, but you could explain the Stoics entire theory of (meta)physics without once using the word "god", and you'd still arrive at the same conclusions. When the Stoics talk of god or the gods, they're not talking of the same gods as most people would understand.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




David Moss

Jc Gentner does anyone believe in the same God/s as anyone else? We know the early stoics spoke as if they believed the Gods of their culture existed. Social harmony may have been the reason, or they may have actually believed in the Gods. As I said earlier there is no downside to assuming God/s exist. Practicality rules!





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Write a public reply…





















D M Michelle Dolan

Hey, just to be a Stoic does not mean all other reality is off limits!
How f boring that would be!





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Savvas Grigoropoulos

ON THE ISSUE OF RELIGION, ONLY THE GREEKS DISCOVERED TRUTH ...
In the Hellenic tradition, our Gods are the laws that govern and control the universe and everything in the universe.
Our Gods are the universe and the universe is our Gods.
Our Gods are above us, below us, around us and within us.
http://ellinikotitaellinismoshellenism.blogspot.com/




ELLINIKOTITAELLINISMOSHELLENISM.BLOGSPOT.COM
Ellinikotita Ellinismos Hellenism / GreeceEllinikotita Ellinismos Hellenism / Greece




Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Giorgos Aronis

«In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.»
Well, where “Word” put “Logos”and I believe you have a pretty good idea of what they believed in...
(Who came first? Stoics or Evangelists?)





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Jesse GlascoShaffer

Giorgos Aronis what??





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Jesse GlascoShaffer

Stoics came before Christians

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Giorgos Aronis

Jesse GlascoShaffer sorry for the misunderstanding; it was a rhetorical question to prove that what was preached later was only rephrasing what was already been said.
I think Stoics were believers with a holistic approach and appreciation of the divine.
Hope I made my self clear now.

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Write a public reply…





















Matthew Stepanovich

Idk does stoic philosophers believe in Truth?





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y

7 replies




Jim Kilbertus

Most stoic believers do not profess their belief. They present themselves as who they are personally.

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Jesse GlascoShaffer

I think that depends on whether you're talking about ancient stoics or modern stoics
There's nothing about stoicism though that would require a belief in a god, just a belief in the natural world

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y

5 replies




Harry Anthony Panther

Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and Epictetus believe in God. Their belief in God are all over in their writings. Unless you have not read their works, your question appears to have some other intention?

3






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Martha Deirdre

Do Stoic Philosophers





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Sirbucktea Undreiyas

Yes, but they were materialists, they understood God as equivalent to the universe which is made of matter.

2






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Steve Branks

Some Stoic philosophers believed in God, and gods, but there is no reason why modern Stoics need to do so. We pretty much know how the universe came about and we certainly know that life on earth has evolved. There is no role for the gods to play any more.

2






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





James Daltrey

Except the Stoics called the universe god, and the big bang is the same..No magic.
You have the wrong kind of God in mind.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Amber Thut

It's the kind of God 99% of the modern population has in mind when they ask if people believe in God.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Thomas Braun

That's why i wrote this book: https://thomaspbraun.com/TheBridge.pdf





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Thomas Braun

And no, modern academics still don't have consensus on how the material plane evolved. They don't even accept the existence of immaterial planes

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Thomas Braun

If one needs belief in God, then one hasn't had a personal revelation. Belief is extinguished with contemplation, introspection, and meditation of internal causality.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Write a public reply…





















Yule Ulys

Yes

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Dobbie Herrion

Yes

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Jerry Janes

Roman elite create religions when they needed them. Cicero believe the Roman needed to be change to something that look more like Christianity and Emperor Claudius wrote book of subject changing and create religion. Some belief the Emperor Titus created Christianity to counter the zealots in the Jewish faith that why it is very anti-Jewish in nature.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Kevin Price

Here we go again





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Frederik Verešpej

Yes

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Tom Herrington

Some do. Some do not.

3






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y
·
Edited





S.D. Plissken

Yes. I believe that stoicism is rooted in theological philosophy, especially in regards to virtue, vice, indulgence and charity.
As a personal note, I feel the Orthodox church lends itself well with the stoic philosophy.

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y
·
Edited





Malkan Maki Pilipovic

They used to, yes, but it's not a requirement of the philosophy. That said, the View From Above sticks well with religious people who see it as taking the perspective of God. Up to you what you believe.

2






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Dennis Dupont

Does it matter? Alot has changed since then, including science. But you can include your beliefs to stoicism if you need that in your life. The pillars of stoicism though, remains the same no matter the timeline..





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Kalen Berreman

Dennis Dupont obviously it matters to OP. Does science have anything to do with the question?





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Amber Thut

Yes actually.
If OP was getting at "then we can't be stoics unless we are also theistic" the reminder that these philosophers knew fuck all about how the world worked (due to a lack of scientific understanding at the time) would be incredibly relevant. Because we believe (or rather, know) lots of things that they didn't.
Our understandings don't need to match. We need only be concerned with the philosophy.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Dennis Dupont

I have never said that science should affect the way we should look at philosophy. What i was meant to say was only that "Yes, they where theistic, and no, it has nothing to do with the practise of the virtues" i probably shouldnt have said science, i guess" it just plays a role in the way i look at the old greeks. And their beliefs.. Its probably not relevant for this post, i am sorry for the confusion. And have a nice day





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Dennis Dupont

And sorry for the grammar, i am danish





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Write a public reply…





















Clark Robert

No

2






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Kalen Berreman

The Stoics of antiquity certainly did.
These days you can be a theist or an atheist.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Clark Robert


Kalen Berreman ah no you cant be a theist. First it is irrational and second it is immoral and third relies on emotionalism. So theism is out.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Write a public reply…





















Khyel Walker

Yes, there was a Stoic God. A monotheistic concept, more pantheistic though. They also were involved in the standard religion of their day, but it depends on which Stoic.

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Bruce Macmillan

They were not monotheists. They had many gods.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Khyel Walker


Bruce Macmillan the Platonic God. It's a monotheistic concept, which does not exclude the pantheon. Hard to understand from a Christian point of view, I know.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Bruce Macmillan

Khyel Walker Well, I know the ancients entertained all sorts of gods, some of them singular in nature. I think the cult of Mithras was popular with Roman officers. Then there were the Egyptian gods, which some Romans took a shine to. Especially if they were stationed in, or lived in Egypt.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Write a public reply…





















Lis Moreau

correct grammar please





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Kalen Berreman

Lis Moreau English isn’t everyone’s first language. Be cool.

4






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Write a public reply…





















Lis Moreau

does??? u mean do?





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Amber Thut

Lookie how smart you are

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Write a public reply…





















Giuseppe Naldi

This question doesn't make sense to me. To believe or not is a personal matter.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y
·
Edited





Lamees Mana

Well Supposed first Stoic philosophers worshiped Zeus , as God of Atoms , and Logos guided the Cosmos .





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Rea Doohan

Yes, they did. Otherwise their philosophy doesn’t make sense.
But their belief in gods had nothing to do with ours monotheistic belief

2






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y

5 replies




Oghenevwede Okuma Ogagavwodia

Epictetus made many references to God. Same as the Marcus Aurelius





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Michael Thomas

I only believe in grammar





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Art LeoMag

According to Seneca, as much as Marcus Aurelius, refer the metaphysical inquiry as the LOGOS. It is a transcendental active and changing process what others would call god or gods — to be all knowing it must be changing and evolving like an ongoing primordial fire that sparked itself that would be borrowed by the transcendentalists in the Romantic Age. But to believe in deities like the Hebrew god or Olympian ones was foolish to them, they questioned the nature of fate and providence and completed perfection of all minds or deities of their age





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Tony Grimwood

I have copied this:
In this last extract we see Epictetus refer to the ideal Stoic practice as that of 'following the gods'. This means essentially the same as 'following nature', for God, who is immanent in the world (as the Stoics understand it) is identified with the way the world manifests, so if one follows nature, one must also be following God (see Discourses 1.20.15, 1.30.4, 4.7.20 and 4.10.14).





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y

1 reply




Magus Reason

I don't there's any relation.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Adam Ridley

I think the following is FAKE NEWS
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
but it is true to what I believe in... If a God will put me in an eternal lake of fire for just believing in Mohammad or Buddha or whatever in not right down to the tee right from the Bible God like whatrever even if I am a really damn great person of a Muslim, Buddhist, Homosexual, Pagan whatever then YES I am happy to stand before that God and spit in thou eye.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y

3 replies




Raffaele Zagarella

Probably not as we mean it, but scholars have often compared Seneca’s writings, for example, with st Jerome’s

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





John Palermo

Yup! God is vital to stoicism, since it's God who puts everything into motion.
Stoics believe in fate, and you cant have fate without god







1



Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





John Palermo








Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Edwardo Lobo

Why can't you have fate without God?





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




John Palermo

Edwardo Lobo Because the Stoics credit God for fate.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Edwardo Lobo

They may have, but that doesn't support your claim that you can't have fate without God.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y




Aida Maria Sanchez

Edwardo Lobo because fate is define as, "the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y
·
Edited




Write a public reply…





















Ramakanta Rautray

There are stoic believer and stoic non believer in God.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Edwardo Lobo

Classical Stoics generally believed in a God or Gods but not generally in the way you might think. Some of them literally believed that the main God was Zeus and believed somewhat in the Greek pantheon.
Others used god as a more abstract concept of lo…
See more

1






Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y
·
Edited





Ramona Russum

Oh, you can. Not a good one, though





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Cram Nala

is that an external event? or is god within my circle of control? if not then its irrelevant.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y

1 reply




Rea Doohan

You can find interesting texts about stoicism and god in www.thestoicgym.com
or traditionalstoicism.com




THESTOICGYM.COM
The Stoic GymThe Stoic Gym




Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Robin James

The idea of the Logos is that of an agnostic god. some called it Zeus and others Nature. In other words some did some did not





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Elliott Fields

God is god, however you define it.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y

1 reply




Stoic Shane Simbeck

yes. Marcus Aurelius believed the universe was divine and that there is something divine in every human. here's a couple good passages:
https://stoictrader.net/meditations-book-xii-passage-xxi/…
See more




STOICTRADER.NET
"Meditations" Book XII: Passage XXI - StoicTrader"Meditations" Book XII: Passage XXI - StoicTrader




Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Stoic Shane Simbeck

stoic bible: https://amzn.to/2tPg28M




AMAZON.COM
MeditationsMeditations




Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 1 y





Sirach Dirac

Epicurus





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 52 w





Adrian Kelly

Stoics are ignostic. God is a metaphor acording to us. Everything for the collective good guided by the one ultimate authority of the universe. To be in line with nature. GOOD ORDERLY DIRECTION





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 51 w





Bashir Nadeem

Yes, most of them.





Like


·
Reply
·
Share
· 51 w

[강좌] 러셀의 [철학이란 무엇인가]를 다르게 강의합니다....이종철 선생님 : 네이버 카페

[강좌] 러셀의 <철학이란 무엇인가>를 다르게 강의합니다....이종철 선생님 : 네이버 카페

[강좌] 러셀의 <철학이란 무엇인가>를 다르게 강의합니다....이종철 선생님

--

2021.01.10.

댓글 11URL 복사

이종철 선생님이 버트란트 러셀의 『철학이란 무엇인가 The Problems of Phiiosophy』 (황문수 역, 문예출판사)를 특별한 방법으로 강의합니다. 철학을 처음 공부하는 분들은 본격 철학에 입문하기에. 철학을 어느 정도 공부한 분들은 철학의 문제를 정리하기에 좋은 강좌입니다.

​

『철학의 문제들』이란 제목으로 번역되기도 한 러셀의 책은 인식론을 중심으로, 현상과 실재, 존재와 사물의 본성, 관념론, 귀납, 보편자, 진리와 거짓, 철학적 인식의 한계와 가치 등 여러 철학적 문제에 대해 묻고 답합니다. 그러면서 플라톤, 아리스토텔레스, 데카르트, 흄, 로크, 칸트, 헤겔 등 여러 철학자들의 중요한 이론을 자연스럽게 소개합니다. 철학에서 아는 것만큼이나 중요한 것은 철학의 문제를 고민하고 탐구하며 깨달아가는 것입니다. 이를 위해 독서와 사색, 좋은 선생님만큼이나 중요한 것은 토론입니다. 이 수업에서는 일방적인 강의보다 책을 읽은 뒤 선생님과 수강자가 문제를 제기하면 그 문제를 가지고 서로 이야기하면서 토론으로 발전시켜 나가려 합니다. 그러니까 러셀의 책은 공부를 위한 텍스트이자 토론을 위한 일종의 마중물 역할을 하는 셈입니다.

​

이 강의는 100% 줌을 통한 온라인으로 진행합니다. 열정과 성실한 연구, 흥미와 호기심 유발, 전달력, 지적인 자극, 강의자의 열린 사고…. 전통적인 대면 수업이든 온라인 비대면 수업이든 좋은 강의가 갖추어야 할 조건은 비슷합니다. 온라인 수업은 거리에 관계 없이 편안한 장소에서 강의를 들을 수 있는 장점이 있지만, 수강자의 눈과 귀를 잡아끄는 전달력과 지속성이란 면에서 난관에 봉착해 있습니다. 줌(Zoom)에서 <비디오 중단>을 클릭한 뒤 수업을 듣는 둥 마는 둥 하는 수강자를 중심으로, 중간 탈락자가 속출합니다. 또한 대부분의 강의는 자극적인 TV나 영화, 유튜브에 비해 단순하고 재미도 없습니다. 이 난관을 돌파하기 위해 대안연이 택한 중요한 방법은 참여와 상호 소통입니다. 교실 수업에서도 마찬가지지만 수강생의 참여는 얼핏 보기에 비효율적입니다. 전문 학자가 요점을 정리해 말해주는 수업에 비해 수강자가 참여하는 수업은 요령부득, 시간 낭비로 보일 수도 있습니다. 그럼에도 토론을 강조하는 것에는 이유가 있습니다.

일방적인 강의는 들을 땐 명쾌하고 그럴듯하지만 대부분 수강자를 스쳐 지나갑니다. 이에 비해 자신이 직접 참여하고 토론한 공부는 몸에 새겨지고 내면화됩니다. 수업에 집중할 수 있습니다. 이는 관람석에서 경기를 관람하는 것과 운동장에서 직접 경기를 하는 것에 비유할 수 있습니다. 프로선수의 화려한 몸동작을 아무리 구경해도 내 근육 하나 움직이지 못하지만 서투르게나마 직접 뛰는 경기는 땀을 흘리며 집중하게 합니다. 내 근육을 탄탄하게 만들며 경기력을 향상시킵니다. 이종철 선생님은 연세대에서 강의할 당시 몇 년 동안 토론 강좌도 열었습니다. 토론 강좌의 성격상 인원 제한이 불가피하기도 했겠지만, 수강 신청이 가장 이르게 마감되는 인기 강좌였다고 합니다. 이 강의에 참여한 학생으로, 전국 대학생 토론대회 우승자도 여럿 있었다지요. 이종철 선생님의 강의는 달변과 거리가 있지만 알게 모르게 지적인 자극을 줍니다.

---

​온라인 화상 강의에서, 철학 텍스트로, 토론을 통한 사고의 모험 혹은 사고의 실험을 시작하는 이종철 선생님의 강좌에 성원과 참여를 기대합니다. 다음은 이종철 선생님이 보낸 강의계획서입니다.

---------------------------------------------------

철학에 호기심을 느껴 공부를 하는 방법은 크게 두 가지로 나뉠 수 있습니다. 하나는 플라톤이나 아리스토텔레스, 칸트, 헤겔 혹은 실존주의 철학자들이나 구조주의 철학자들처럼 특정 철학자에 관심을 갖고 시작하는 경우입니다. 다른 하나는 우리가 일상에서 접하는 문제들에 대해 이를테면 Χ란 무엇인가라는 물음으로 시작하는 것입니다. 이런 Χ에는 삶, 죽음, 실존, 사회, 세계, 인과성, 우주 등 생각할 수 있는 모든 문제들이 포함돼 있습니다. 물론 두 가지 방식이 완전히 별개는 아닙니다. 전자의 특정 철학자의 철학을 공부하다 보면 후자의 철학의 문제들에 대한 그 철학자의 접근과 이해 방식이 드러나게 되고, 후자의 철학의 문제들을 공부할 때도 이런 문제들에 대한 특정 철학자나 철학사에 대한 이해가 필수적으로 요구가 되는 경우들이 있습니다. 그 점에서 이 두 가지 방식은 상보적이라 할 수 있습니다. 그런데 한국에서는 철학자들이나 철학사 중심으로 철학 공부를 시작하는 경우들이 훨씬 많습니다. 대학의 철학과 커리큘럼도 주로 철학자 중심으로 짜여져 있습니다. 이 경우는 철학이나 철학자들에 대한 지식은 많아도 철학의 문제들을 중심으로 파고드는 데는 한계가 있습니다. 일찍이 칸트도 이야기를 했지만 학생들이 철학은 많이 아는 것 같아도 철학함(philosopieren)은 하지 못한다고 비판한 적이 있습니다. 철학을 아는 이상으로 철학의 문제를 가지고 고민하고 탐구하면서 철학을 깨달아 나가는 것이 그만큼 중요합니다.

----

​러셀의 『철학이란 무엇인가 Problem of the Philosophy』는 철학을 문제 중심으로 연구하는 데 아주 적절합니다. 이 책을 쓰기 전, 『수학원리』란 책을 쓸 정도로 명쾌하고 분석적인 사고를 하는 러셀이 전통적으로 철학의 핵심문제로 간주돼 온 것들을 대략 15가지로 나누어서 설명하고 있습니다.

1. 현상과 실재

2. 물질의 존재

3. 물질의 본성

4. 관념론

5. 직접지에 의한 지식과 기술에 의한 지식

6. 귀납

7. 일반 원리에 대한 지식

8. 어떻게 선천적 지식이 가능한가

9. 보편의 세계

10. 보편에 대한 지식

11. 직관적 지식

12. 진리와 허위

13. 지식,오류,개연적 의견

14. 철학적 지식의 한계

15. 철학의 가치

​

철학은 문제들을 보는 철학자에 따라 그 내용에 대한 이해가 달라질 수 있습니다. 그 점에서 수학이나 물리학 같은 자연과학의 이해와 다릅니다. 마찬가지로 우리도 러셀이 구분해 놓은 문제들에 대해 러셀식의 이해와 설명에 갇히지 않고 자유롭게 토론하면서 이러한 문제들에 대한 이해의 폭을 넓히고자 합니다. 철학은 이렇게 끊임없이 문제의 지평을 확장하면서 철학적 이해의 폭을 넓히는 것입니다. 이러한 과정은 사고의 실험이기도 하고, 사고의 모험이기도 합니다.

​

❑ 강의 : 이종철

​

❑ 일시 : 1월 29일(금)부터 매주 금요일 오후 8시~10시(8강)

* 전체를 마치려면 16강 정도가 필요하리라 봅니다. 1세션을 마친 뒤 1주일 정도 쉬고 2세션을 이어갑니다.

​

❑ 수업 진행 방식

-교재의 관련 부문 사전에 읽고 들어오기/관련 부분을 빠르게 읽고 시작하기/

-교재에서 핵심적인 문제나 쟁점을 이야기하기. 일종의 키워드 확인하기

-문제나 쟁점에 대한 다른 의견이나 이론 혹은 철학들을 검토하기

-발표자/논평자/토론

* 첫 수업에 오기 전, 책의 제1장을 읽은 뒤 문제나 질문, 혹은 토론거리를 간단하게 메모해 오시기 바랍니다.

❑ 참여비 : 16만원(8강)

❑ 이종철 프로필

연세대학교 정법대학 법학과를 졸업한 후 동대학원 철학과에서 석사와 박사 학위를 받았습니다. 연세대 교원대 숙명여대 등에서 강의를 했고 몽골 후레정보통신대학 한국어과 교수를 역임했습니다. 현재 연세대 인문학 연구원 선임연구원으로 재직하면서 인터넷 신문 <브레이크 뉴스>의 논설위원과 NGO 환경 단체인 <푸른 아시아>의 흥보대사로 일하고 있습니다.

『삶, 사회 그리고 과학』(공저, 동녘)과 <삐뚤빼뚤 철학하기>(동녘, 2013, 공저), <우리와 헤겔철학>(2016, 용의 숲, 공저) 등이 있으며, 역서에 『헤겔의 정신현상학 1, 2』(J. 이폴리트, 문예출판사), D. 로즈, 『헤겔의 법철학입문』(서광사, 2015), G. 루카치의 『사회적 존재의 존재론』 2,3,4권(아카넷, 2017, 공역) S. Houlgate의 『헤겔의 정신현상학 입문』(서광사, 2019) 외 다수가 있습니다. 그동안 번역해온 헤겔의 『정신현상학』 번역을 완료하면서 관련 연구서를 내고 그동안 써왔던 글들을 모아 책으로 출판할 계획입니다.

❑ 참여방법

참여비를 납입<우리은행 1002-749-668379 김종락(대안연구공동체)>한 뒤 paideia21@gmail.com으로 참여 과목, 이름, 휴대전화번호, 이메일 주소를 적어 보내십시오. 입금하실 때는 수강자의 성명과 수강과목을 적어 주십시오.(예: 홍길동 철학이란)

프로필 사진느리게살기님의 게시글 더보기 

좋아요12

 댓글11

----

밤비

와우 시간대가 험난하네요;;;

혹시 다른 요일로 변경될 가능성이 있을까요? 희망합니다.

만약 요일 변경하시면 더 많은 분들이 참여하실 수 있을 듯합니다.

2021.01.11. 01:56

프로필 사진

느리게살기

아, 그렇군요.

그런데 어느 요일로 하더라도 시간대를 아쉬워하는 분들이 계시더군요. 이를테면 월요일은 <서양철학사>, <혜윰>과 와 겹치고, 화 수 목요일은 또 그 나름대로 다른 강좌와 겹치고요...ㅠㅠ

2021.01.11. 12:51

프로필 사진

밤비

그리고 김종락 선생님께서 적어주신 본문글 내용이 참 좋습니다*.*

2021.01.11. 01:57

프로필 사진

느리게살기

고맙습니다. 밤비 님이 훌륭하신 분이니, 제가 주절주절 쓴 글도 좋아 보이는 듯합니다. 부처님 눈에는 부처님만 보인다고 하잖아요.^^

2021.01.11. 12:52

프로필 사진

라비밈

금요일 말고 다른요일은 없나요 ㅎㅎ

2021.01.17. 20:16

프로필 사진

느리게살기

일단 금요일 수업을 해 본 뒤, 반응이 좋으면 다음엔 다른 요일로 바꾸어 수업을 해 보겠습니다.

2021.01.22. 11:08

프로필 사진

라비밈

느리게살기넵:)

2021.01.22. 11:16

프로필 사진

달구지

철학사조 철학자 구분없이 담론을 주제를 정해하신다는게 넘 신선. 게다가 황금시간대 금욜 강의 해주신건 엄청 감사드려요

2021.01.21. 23:24

프로필 사진

느리게살기

저도 엄청 감사드립니다.

2021.01.22. 11:08

프로필 사진

비유

강의 안내를 잘 읽었습니다.

토론 형식으로 강의자와 수강자가 서로 소통하는 방식의 수업은 충분히 흥미롭고 기대됩니다.

그런데 쌍방이 자유롭게 소통하며 수업을 진행해 나가려면 철학에 대한 기본적인 배경지식을 가지고 있는 수강자들이어야 할 것 같은데, 궁금합니다.

기본적인 배경지식이라는 게 어느 정도 까지인가 하는 문제에 앞서 최소한의 철학적 지식을 가진 사람만 수강이 가능한건지 궁금합니다.

2021.01.24. 21:28

프로필 사진

느리게살기

책 자체가 철학 입문에 가깝습니다. 같이 공부하면서 토론합니다. 철학에 대한 지식보다 철학의 문제를 탐구하고 토론하고 깨달아가면서, 철학함을 지향하는 수업...그러다 보면 철학에 대한 지식도 쌓여가리라 봅니다.

2021.01.25. 00:13

목록 TOP

[한국언론의 세대교체 ◆브레이크뉴스◆] 개인의 자유와 서구의 신화의 몰락

[한국언론의 세대교체 ◆브레이크뉴스◆] 개인의 자유와 서구의 신화의 몰락

개인의 자유와 서구의 신화의 몰락

이종철 철학박사 l 기사입력 2020-09-08

본문듣기가 -가 +

 

▲ 이종철 철학박사.  ©브레이크뉴스

코로나 바이러스가 창궐하면서 특히 놀란 것들 중의 하나는 방역과 관련한 서구의 적나라한 민낯이다. 이른바 선진국이라 불렸던 이들 나라가 왜 이렇게 속수무책으로 당하고 있는가? 제 3 세계권에서 바라보던 그들은 지난 수 세기 동안 근대화와 제국주의를 통해 전 지구를 서구화하는 단단한 신화를 구축했었다. 오리엔탈리즘과 대비되는 유로 센트리즘은 서구인들의 자신감과 오만을 그대로 표현하고 있다. 오랫동안 근대화는 곧바로 서구화로 인식되었고, 서구가 근대화를 가능하게 했다는 인식을 정착시켰다. 이런 근대화의 가장 밑바탕에 놓여 있는 사상 중의 하나가 독립적인 개인과 그런 개인의 자유, 더 나아가서는 사상과 표현의 자유라는 생각이다. 그들에게 ‘개인의 자유’는 어떤 경우든 양보할 수 없는 천부인권의 개념이었다. 그리고 이런 사상은 비단 서구에 한정된 것이 아니라 근대화의 영향권에 속한 다른 문화권과 지역에도 그대로 전파되기 시작했다. 오늘날 ‘개인의 자유’라는 사상은 특수한 지역과 정부를 예외로 둔다 하더라도 지구촌에서 거의 보편화된 사상이다.

 

 

그런데 이 ‘개인의 자유’라는 사상이 코로나 바이러스로 인한 대 팬데믹의 시대에 심각한 위협으로 등장하고 있다. ‘개인의 자유’는 그 한계를 지정할 수 없는 무조건적이고 절대적인 개념이 되기에는 오늘날 너무나 공동체의 존립에 위협적인 한계로 등장했다. 전통적으로 동양은 공동체 중심이고, 서양은 개인 중심이라는 것은 일반적으로 알려져 있는 바이다. 이러한 사상의 차이가 전무후무한 코로나 바이러스에 대응하는 방식에서 동양권과 서양권의 차이에서도 극명하게 드러나고 있다. 코로나 바이러스가 중국의 우한에서 시작해서 중국이 이 문제로 곤욕을 치루고 있었을 때 서구의 저널들과 정치인들은 비난과 조롱, 인종주의적 편견과 전체주의의 혐의를 거침없이 쏟아 부었다. 내가 이글에서 중국을 변호하려는 것은 아니지만 우한을 강력하게 봉쇄한 중국의 조치가 없었다고 한다면 세계는 더 큰 위험에 처했을지 모른다. 아직 정점에 도달하지 않은 바이러스 피해와 관련한 통계를 보아도 가장 큰 피해 지역은 주로 중국과 아시아를 조롱했던 유럽과 미국과 같은 서구 지역에 해당한다. 아시아권에서는 인도가 특히 크지만 이 지역은 동서양의 중심 지대에다가 전통적 의미의 동양권 혹은 유교 문화권과 차이가 있다. 

 

코로나 바이러스의 확산을 막는 가장 직접적이고 강력한 차단제가 마스크이다. 그런데 이 마스크 착용에서 동서양인들 간에 커다란 차이가 존재한다. 공동체적인 전통에 익숙한 아시아권은 마스크 착용에 대해 순순히 응한다. 반면 서구인들은 마스크가 개인의 자유를 제한하고 억압한다는 의식이 강하다. 서구인들은 바이러스가 유행하기 시작한 초기에 마스크 착용을 외면하고 적극적으로 무시하기도 했다. 이런 안일한 반응을 상징적으로 보여준 인물이 미국의 트럼프 대통령이다. 그는 바이러스가 미국에서 창궐해서 수많은 사람들이 죽어갈 때까지 마스크 사용을 거부할 정도로 무책임하게 행동했다. 그 결과 코로나 바이러스로 인한 피해는 중국이나 한국 혹은 동남 아시아권처럼 전통적 의미의 아시아권 보다는 서구 선진국에게서 훨씬 심각하게 나타났다. 이탈리아와 스페인, 프랑스와 독일 그리고 영국 등 이른바 선진국으로 자처했던 이들 나라에서 하루 수천명씩 죽어 나가고 그들이 자랑하던 방역 시스템들이 완전히 붕괴되다시피 했다. 미국은 이런 피해에서 타의 추종을 불허할 만큼 컸고, 현재도 그 끝을 모르는 상태로 진행 중이다. 코로나가 한 풀 꺾였다가 다시 유행을 하고 있는 유럽에서는 파리나 베를린을 중심으로 마스크를 거부하는 대규모 시위가 열리고 있다. 무엇보다 마스크가 ‘개인의 자유’를 억압하는 강력한 수단으로 생각하기 때문인데, 그 피해가 다시 일파만파로 커지고 있다. 

 

 

동서양 간의 이런 큰 차이는 단연코 마스크 착용과 직접적으로 연관되어 있다. 의료 전문가들의 공통된 지적에 따르면 마스크는 대인 접촉에서 바이러스 전달의 직접적 매개체인 비말을 현저하게 차단해주는 역할을 한다. 이 마스크는 타인으로부터 바이러스의 공격을 받지 않으려는 수동적 방어의 의미도 있지만, 혹시 모르게 나로 인해 타인이 피해를 받을지도 모르는 것을 방지하겠다는 적극적 배려의 의미도 있다. 마스크가 타인에게 바이러스를 확산시킬지도 모를 가능성을 차단한다는 점에서 타인과 공동체의 안위에 적극적으로 협력한다는 의미도 강하다. 그런 면에서 마스크는 너와 나 상호 간의 배려 관계이고, 타자에 대한 이런 배려 정신이 개인 이상으로 공동체의 유지와 존립이 중요하다는 사상이다. 이런 공동체 중심의 정신은 아시아인들의 오랜 전통에 기반하고 있다. 반면 서구 근대화와 민주주의 혁명을 이룩한 개인주의는 공동체 보다는 개인을 우선시하는 전통이 강해서 마스크가 자신의 건강을 지킨다는 것 보다는 자신의 자유를 억압하고 위협하는 것으로 받아들인다. 마스크를 거부하는 많은 서구인들에게 이런 공동체 중심의 생각이 결여되어 있기 때문이다. 지금도 그들은 마스크 착용을 강요하는 정부에 대해 자신들을 억압하기 위한 획책이라고 적극 거부하는 집단행동을 보이기까지 하고 있다. 그들에게는 바이러스의 과학 보다는 개인의 자유라는 절대적 신념이 우선하는 것이다. 그리고 그런 신념의 대가는 너무나 혹독하다. 

 

개인의 자유는 양보와 제한이 불가능한 절대적 자유가 아니다. 그것은 봉건 체제의 억압과 구속을 무너뜨리는 과정에서 큰 역할을 한 계몽사상의 중요한 산물이지만 역사적이고 사회적인 태생을 갖고 있다. 서구의 사회 체제는 이 개인의 자유에 기초해서 사유 재산권과 시장 민주주의를 발전시킬 수 있었다. 자본주의 경제학의 기초를 제시한 아담 스미스도 개인의 이기적인 욕구와 자유로운 경제 활동, 그리고 그것에 기초한 시장 경제야말로 생산성을 극대화하고 효율화할 수 있는 초석이라고 강조했다. 하지만 이런 사상은 대 펜데믹의 시대에는 더이상 무소불위의 개념이 될 수 없다. 바이러스의 시대에서는 원하든 원하지 않든 간에 개인의 행동이 타인들과 공동체의 존립에 직접적인 영향을 미치고 있기 때문이다. 마스크 착용을 적극 받아 들이고 이런 행동이 결국은 타인들과 공동체의 존립에도 도움이 된다고 행동하는 아시아에서의 피해가 정반대로 행동하는 유럽이나 남미와 달리 현저하게 적다는 실증적 사실을 그들도 인정해야 한다. 그런 점에서 지난 수 세기 동안 서구의 근대화를 뒷받침 해왔던 ‘개인의 자유’라는 신화도 오늘날에는 재평가를 받을 필요가 있다. 그것은 절대적 자유가 아니라 사회 역사적 한계를 지닌 것이고, 공동체의 존립에 심각한 위해가 될 경우는 어느 정도 제한을 둘 수 있다는 생각이다. 나의 생명과 자유가 중요한 것처럼 타인의 생명과 자유도 중요하다. 아울러 지금의 시대는 개인의 욕망 이상으로 타인의 삶을 존중하고 배려하는 공동체 정신이 더욱 요구되는 시대라는 것이다. 그 점에서 100년 전에 ‘서구의 몰락’을 주창한 슈펭글러의 비판은 오늘 날 ‘개인의 신화의 몰락’에서 실질적으로 찾아야 하지 않을까? Jogel4u@outlook.com

 

*필자/이종철(연세대 인문학 연구원, 철학박사) 

 

연세대 정법대학 법학과를 졸업한 후 동대학원 철학과에서 석사와 박사 학위를 받았다. 연세대 철학연구소의 선임연구원으로 재직하면서 연세대 등에서 강의를 했고, 몽골의 후레 정보통신 대학의 한국어과 교수를 역임했다.(사)푸른아시아 홍보대사를 맡고 있다. 현재는 연세대 인문학 연구원 상임 연구원.

 

The Courage to be Disliked: The Japanese phenomenon that shows you how to free yourself, change your life and achieve real happiness eBook: Kishimi, Ichiro, Koga, Fumitake: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

The Courage to be Disliked: The Japanese phenomenon that shows you how to free yourself, change your life and achieve real happiness eBook: Kishimi, Ichiro, Koga, Fumitake: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

Top reviews from Australia

Tamara

5.0 out of 5 stars Unhappy with your life direction read this book

Reviewed in Australia on 27 June 2018

Verified Purchase

Great book which is written in dialogue form or a philosopher and young man. Excellent as the questions that one would have about concepts are answered succinctly. The concepts are deep but it is clear how this can bring about a change of the world from ones eyes. Dancing with moments ❤️

9 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Manan.cm.au

TOP 500 REVIEWER

5.0 out of 5 stars Simple - Surprising & effective

Reviewed in Australia on 29 May 2019

Verified Purchase

This book is a dialogue between a philosopher and youth in which youth is facing a "crisis of meaning" . Kishmi illustrates a firm standpoint and simple answers for complex questions relating to meaning of life.

I have never been a fan of Freudian psychology and it was good to hear a good refutation by Adler.

Whats surprising is that why such a Gem like Adler never made it to the mainstream.

This book is great read. I would definitely recommend ...

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

AdamMetcalfe

5.0 out of 5 stars Careful! This book may change your beliefs!!

Reviewed in Australia on 21 September 2018

Verified Purchase

I enjoyed the narrative between the philosopher and student in this book. It definitely challenged my views of teh world, and while you wont get a "quick fix" solution (but is there ever such a thing!). I have started to change my mindset based on the individualism concepts presented and it fits better with me.

5 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

frank

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent

Reviewed in Australia on 2 February 2019

Verified Purchase

What a fantastically told story between teacher and student, combining philosophical and psychological theory with real world practice and demonstration of how the the two can merge in the face of hurdles and adversity to an effective outcome. I highly recommend this book to anyone looking to improve their lives.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Alex N

4.0 out of 5 stars Very useful, might just change how I see things!

Reviewed in Australia on 31 May 2020

Verified Purchase

Okay, so I actually didn't read through the whole book the first time, possibly as the earlier ideas in the book are ideas that I had already understood as there are similar ideas in Stoicism.

This time I persisted all the way to the ahead, only taking 1 day to read, and I've highlighted so many parts too! Learning about the difference between vertical and horizontal relationships and the separation of tasks will be useful in the years to come.

The book is a little frustrating at first, but then it is written as a continual discussion/argument so naturally there are points of frustration, like you would have observing one in real life. But you end up with a satisfying conclusion.

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Kristie Morrison

5.0 out of 5 stars Loved it

Reviewed in Australia on 5 September 2018

Verified Purchase

Whether you are interested in philosophy or psychology this book is a fascinating read. I thoroughly recommend it as an invaluable insight into what it takes to live a happy life.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Niall O'Brien

1.0 out of 5 stars I gave up

Reviewed in Australia on 23 September 2020

Verified Purchase

I got through to approximately 30% of the book & became bored so I stopped reading.its designed to challenge your thinking. I found it a challenge to keep reading. Hope you faired better than me.

Helpful

Report abuse

Peter Brimelow

5.0 out of 5 stars Challenge yourself

Reviewed in Australia on 10 May 2018

Verified Purchase

Thought provoking. The disciplines required to be happy, easily understood, you only need the courage.

A book to be read over and over again.

5 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

See all reviews

Top reviews from other countries

maik-arnold

4.0 out of 5 stars A treasury box which shall be consulted in times of trouble or joy

Reviewed in Germany on 25 January 2021

Verified Purchase

This is book is definitely worth reading twice as it contains a condensed overview on Adlerian Psychology in form of a Socratic dialogue. Despite the more relaxed dialogical approach between the youth and the philosopher throughout the whole book, it is still hard to digest. From chapter to chapter the reader gets the feeling of digging deeper into this humanistic psychological approach which is actually for some the greatest life-lie and for others a fresh start to prosper in self-acceptance, confidence to others and longing for happiness. The book could be understood as a treasury box which shall be consulted in times of trouble or joy. These are my Top 10 key lessons learned: (1) All problems are interpersonal relationship problems, (2) if we want to change our life, we need to be courageous, (3) the courage to be happy also includes the courage to be disliked, (4) to get rid of interpersonal relationships to gain freedom is to be disliked by other people, (5) all human beings are equal, but not the same, (6) the concept of the division of task: separate one’s own tasks from other people’s tasks, (7) interpersonal relationships and whole communities should be built on horizontal relationships, (8) to work means to contribute to the community, (9) it's we who assign meaning to our life, (10) life is like a dance; we should live more earnestly only here and now. I very much recommend reading this book as it is not another messianic mission to convert people to live a happier life but to gain a better understanding of the Adlerian Psychology as an alternative to other psychodynamic, systemic and behaviouristic schools of thought.

Read less

Report abuse

Lorenzo Galanti

5.0 out of 5 stars Inspiring. Totally worth reading and re-reading

Reviewed in Italy on 22 April 2019

Verified Purchase

I was not aware of Adlerian doctrines before reading this book. Therefore, its apparently counterintuitive notions came largely as a positive surprise. The idea, for instance, that trauma does not exist per se but as a narrative that was created by ourselves to fit an interpersonal relations problem is eye-opening and refreshing, and full of consequences. So is the fundamental principle of task separation.

I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone looking to critically improve their own lives in concrete way.

Report abuse

Bill Roberts

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent approach to making Adler accessible to general readership

Reviewed in Canada on 20 January 2020

Verified Purchase

The format was entertaining yet serious enough for anyone with a background in Psychology and it has lead to the purchase of several books by Adler, particularly the book What Life Could Mean to You which also gets an excellent rating.

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

Gigi Nasr

5.0 out of 5 stars Amazing BOOOk’!

Reviewed in Mexico on 8 September 2018

Verified Purchase

Amazing BOOk, I fell in love with the Adlerian psychology. Dancing in the here and now, enjoying the moments of life are just our way to empowering ourselves contributing to others. <3

Report abuse

Kindle Customer

1.0 out of 5 stars Wish I would have just picked up a book on Adlerian Psychology

Reviewed in the United States on 13 September 2018

Verified Purchase

I understand why the authors chose a dialogue format, but it didn't work very well. Half of the youth's responses consisted of the last line or phrase the philosopher used with a question mark slapped on the end, which was infuriating. That's not realistic dialogue. I would have preferred the philosopher going on an endless rant. The youth also gave in too easily to the philosopher's points for them to be convincing. The examples used either by the philosopher to illustrate his points or the youth to refute them were either too specific(leading to many "Well, what if"s in my mind) or too vague to really drive the point home

95 people found this helpful

Report abuse

---

Overall    5 out of 5 stars

Performance    5 out of 5 stars

Story    5 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for Vivien

Vivien

01-03-2018

Shining a light on the here and now

I found this book fascinating in that it made clear many vague ideas I already have and perhaps at times inadvertently live by. Nevertheless Many points - in particular about anger were quite new to me. Then concept that CONTRIBUTION is the guiding star to happiness is quite profound. Also that one can only be an individual in relationship to society points out that our connections are what define us. The point is made that it is up to each individual to discover the meaning for their own lives- that life does not in itself provide an intrinsic meaning. I was intrigued that Adler points out that all problems are about personal relationships and that our relationships are best when horizontal- meaning that they are best kept on an equal basis rather than vertical whereby there is a power relationship. Towards the end of the book it is pointed out that if you only shine a dim light on the here and now (so that you can look back into the past and look into the future) then the light on the present moment will be dim. However - Adler says- the past and the future do not exist so shining the light on the present enriches every moment. There is no sense that one should not have goals. In fact having goals is crucial. However it is the journey to get there that is the life and that moment to moment should be viewed as a dance. If the goal that was originally set is never reached in the form anticipated then nothing has been lost- the journey had been a valuable and enriching experience. One needs only courage to take the next step and to live with the intensity that is potential in every moment of life. Then even if life is short - it becomes a life well lived. One should not live to impress others- that means one is not free. Freedom is achieved only by being true to ones own path. As soon as one tries to live by somebody else’s yard stick then one loses one’s direction. One needs the courage to make a personal contribution without looking for external praise. It is a series of philosophies that perhaps need listening to twice! I may have distorted some points in the retelling - I would strongly recommend this book!

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

53 people found this helpful

Overall    2 out of 5 stars

Performance    1 out of 5 stars

Story    1 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for teresa

teresa

15-07-2018

Dumbed down too much

The idea of presenting the content as a dialogue is great to help simplify the concepts. However I found that it did not work in practice. The ‘youth’ character was presented as petulant and the ‘philosopher’ character as condescending. The idea did not pay off and the concepts were over-simplified. I persevered - confident that it would improve as we progressed through the book. It didn’t and I regret not turning it off early.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

15 people found this helpful

Overall    4 out of 5 stars

Performance    3 out of 5 stars

Story    4 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for Kathryn De Jesus

Kathryn De Jesus

15-03-2018

Great Philosophy! Listen don’t Read!!

Love & recommend the content & main messages of this book. As long as you love philosophy & can follow the sometimes long winded conversations, you will appreciate it. The content is presented as an ongoing dialogue between a philosopher & a young man. I would hate to read the actual book, as I think I would loose interest due to this type of presentation, but listening on audible was quick & worthwhile.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

21 people found this helpful

Overall    1 out of 5 stars

Performance    1 out of 5 stars

Story    1 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for Anabel Pandiella

Anabel Pandiella

04-09-2018

Not what I expected.

Maybe I wasn’t in the right mind frame for this but I just could get into into. The voice annoyed me, the way it was structured into dialogue made it hard to engage with and I found the actual content no at all what I expected. Unfortunately not for me.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

6 people found this helpful

Overall    5 out of 5 stars

Performance    5 out of 5 stars

Story    5 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for Anonymous User

Anonymous User

13-04-2018

Controversial, Fascinating

Loved it, listened twice. I have no regrets about this book, I just wish it had an e-book accompaniment.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

5 people found this helpful

Overall    4 out of 5 stars

Performance    4 out of 5 stars

Story    4 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for Michael Vagg

Michael Vagg

31-03-2019

Really comes together in the end...

I struggled to get through this, but I stuck with it. And yes, I wish I knew about Adler 20 years ago but... the format of this book is written as dialogue. Almost like a play. Philosopher: "speaks" Youth: "replies" And the narrator READS "Philosopher" and "Youth." At first hearing that, I was dismayed. I found it jarring and difficult to listen and think. But, it is dropped yet reintroduced periodically. I also found the voices of each protagonist, as voiced by Mulraney, difficult. He is a great narrator and has a wonderful voice, but the format requires two distinct voices in conversation and I struggled listening to one person voice them interchangeably in such quick succession. Ultimately, it was worth it. These initial annoyances faded and I found myself listening intently and was fascinated and inspired by Adlerian psychology as richly illustrated here. The afterward, where seperately, Koga and Kishimi talk about how this book came about and how they worked together is a very important part of this book and left me feeling a lot better about having stuck with it to the end.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

3 people found this helpful

Overall    5 out of 5 stars

Performance    5 out of 5 stars

Story    5 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for roger lewis

roger lewis

08-05-2018

great book in my top 5 of books i have ever listen

it gives you a whole new way of looking at your way of looking at life

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

3 people found this helpful

Overall    2 out of 5 stars

Performance    3 out of 5 stars

Story    2 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for Qi

Qi

14-07-2018

I don't understand all the good reviews

Some points in this book are alright and can be helpful I guess. But can't say I agree with some arguments in this book. For example: "Trauma doesn't exist"; the author basically said if you have any anxiety or depression disorders, then that's because you wanted it. You are using your "anxiety" or "depression" to achieve some of your personal goals. One last point, the term "Adlerian psychology" appears way too much. I know this is a book about Adlerian psychology, but when it appears like twelve times in ten minutes, that's just way too much.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

10 people found this helpful

Overall    2 out of 5 stars

Performance    1 out of 5 stars

Story    1 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for Dwayne

Dwayne

08-03-2018

Numbingly boring & condescending.

I find my mind wanders after a minute of listening. I can't tell the two voices apart and feel lost constantly. Perhaps reading it makes sense but if you are having trouble sleeping this will get you off in no time.

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

17 people found this helpful

Overall    5 out of 5 stars

Performance    5 out of 5 stars

Story    5 out of 5 stars

Profile Image for Anonymous User

Anonymous User

15-03-2018

ACTUALLY A LIFE CHANGING BOOK. I WANTED MORE.

I had the hard copy and the audio simply because I couldn't put it down. When I couldn't read the hard copy I had Adrian's voice in my head. One of the best readings I've heard. Also, I sometimes struggle with the voices of audiobooks, but Adrian's was perfect. The book is incredible and I'll be reading it again within the month to commit to memories. The more I read it the more I'll absorb it and the easier it will become to put it into practice. EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK. EVERYONE

Was this review helpful for you?

Helpful

  Report this

5 people found this helpful

Embracing the courage to be disliked - This Working Life - ABC Radio National

Embracing the courage to be disliked - This Working Life - ABC Radio National




Play

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

LISTEN25m 15s

Volume 90%


00:00
00:00


Download Why seeking approval and being competitive at work won't bring you happiness. (23.13 MB)
Download 23.13 MB

In the inaugural Lisa's Book Club we dissect a book that's a blockbusting best-seller in Asia, The Courage To Be Disliked by Japanese philosopher Ichiro Kishimi and writer Fumitake Koga.

Billed as a self-help book, it is a Socratic dialogue between a philosopher and a lost, rather angry young man. In it they explore the ideas of the 19th and 20th century Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler in attempt to help the young man find direction in life. We sort the guff from the gems and hear how Adler's principles can help in the workplace.

(This program was first broadcast April 30, 2019.)



READ: Seeking approval and being competitive at work is a waste of time

Guests:

Patrick Stokes, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Deakin University

Catherine Robson, founder of Affinity Private

Presenter: Lisa Leong

Producer: Maria Tickle.
Duration: 25min 15sec
Broadcast: Tue 14 Jan 2020, 11:30am






---






Seeking approval and being competitive at work is a waste of time
ABC Everyday / By Lisa Leong


If you're spending time fostering your image as a workplace superhero, we have some news for you.(


Pexels: Bruce Mars/ABC Everyday: Nathan Nankervis)
Share












Do you get upset when a boss doesn't acknowledge your brilliant work? Do you stop contributing because "nobody seems to care", or spend time and mental energy in silent competition with your colleagues?


Perhaps you should stop doing these things. Immediately.


This is advice from author Fumitake Koga and Ichiro Kishimi, a philosopher and academic specialising in psychology.


Together they wrote The Courage to be Disliked, a bestseller we chose to kick off a new book club on our radio program, This Working Life. The purpose of "Lisa's Book Club" is to discuss books that can be applied to work. Ones that "optimise", but also books that may make you happier and more fulfilled.


Joining me for our inaugural meeting were Catherine Robson, award-winning financial adviser, and associate professor Patrick Stokes, the coolest (and only) philosopher I know.


There are two critical lessons from the book that I found particularly worthy of unpacking, and which contain a lot of practical advice you might take for a spin.
Lesson 1: Stop seeking recognition and approval at work


Two years ago I started a company with Tristan, a friend I've known for 25 years.


At the beginning, I kept wondering why Tristan didn't tell me how much he values my contribution. I wondered this every day.
This Working Life




This Working Life looks at how we work and why we work. It explores ideas that are shaping changes in workplaces, and introduces you to people who have interesting and remarkable stories to tell.Read more


Six months in, when I complained about it, he reflected, "Lisa, you are a bottomless pit for compliments. I will never be able to fill it!"


His comment made me wonder why I needed this verbal affirmation. We chose to run a business together, so he obviously values my contribution.


Applying this lesson from The Courage to be Disliked has helped me tap into an internal compass for my work, rather than looking for external guidance and validation.


The result has been incredibly freeing. In fact, my work product is so much better as a result. Don't you think, Tristan? Oh. Whoops.
Lesson 2: Life is not a competition


Consider the following scenario: you're in your monthly team gathering and your boss singles out a co-worker for praise. Honestly, how are you feeling? Warm and fuzzy, basking in the collective glow, or a bit jealous and angry at yourself for not having a similar win?


Does it feel like it somehow takes something away from your own contribution?


Almost controversially, this lesson proposes that life is not a competition. A competitive world view, which the book calls a "life lie" (wow, take that, competitive people!), gets in the way of your real work.
Yotam Ottolenghi's career tips




The much-loved chef talks us through his personal recipe for career success.Read more


Your focus is to improve yourself, without competing or comparing yourself with anyone. Our true comparison is with our own better or ideal self.


If you need something visual to grasp this lesson better, consider relationships as "horizontal, not vertical". Instead of picturing a staircase, where you are climbing up, pushing past others to get to the top, replace that with a picture of a level playing field on which people are moving forward. Some of those people are moving forward behind you.


So why isn't life a competition? According to the authors, it is because we are all "different but equal".


The philosopher in the book explains it this way:




"Look, all of us are different. Gender, age, knowledge, experience, appearance — no two of us are exactly the same. Let's acknowledge in a positive manner the fact that other people are different from us. And that we are not the same, but we are equal."
Boost your productivity by making a habit of doing nothing




Far from feeling guilty about doing nothing, it's important to actually schedule it into your day.Read more


In our book club, Patrick did note a practical point. In a work context, this lesson runs up against the whole infrastructure of how we set up modern workplaces and industries.


"Even in academia, we are measured very closely on how much we produce and where we publish," he says.


Patrick reflects that even if this approach is right, be aware of the opposing forces of your current work structures.


The Courage to be Disliked questions whether the rise up the corporate greasy pole should be the ultimate aim anyway: "People want to climb the corporate ladder for status — it's the desire for recognition. But if you get that recognition, have you really found happiness?"


Has your workplace managed to create a horizontal rather than vertical structure?


ABC Everyday in your inbox


Get our newsletter for the best of ABC Everyday each week
Your information is being handled in accordance with the ABC Privacy Collection Statement.
Email address


SUBSCRIBE
Practical things you might try this week
1.Do one thing at work that you believe, in your heart, should be done and which you can derive pleasure from undertaking. Do not seek any acknowledgement, recognition or reward for performing this task.
2.Chant "all relationships are horizontal and not vertical — life is not a competition" (we'll give you permission to do this bit quietly, or just to yourself, in the bathroom) — then speak up with your view in a team meeting and contribute your equal voice.
3.When a team member does something well, bask in the collective glow, knowing that your unique energy contributed to the success of the whole team.


Lisa Leong is the radio host of This Working Life on ABC RN. Listen to the episode here, and head to the program page where you can hear "Lisa's Book Club". Up next, The Art of Learning, by Josh Waitzkin.

수행

수행

수행

[ 修行 ]

육체를 훈련해서 생리적 욕구에 금압을 가함으로써 정신의 안정 및 신적인 교류나 합일을 달성하려는 자각적 행위. 무술이나 운동, 기예나 도덕, 그리고 종교 등 여러 영역에서 이용되는데, 여기에서는 종교의 수행에 대해서 언급하였다. 학술ㆍ기예를 수련하는 경우에는 <수업>이라는 말을 이용하기도 하는데 미개종교에서는 성인식이나 비밀결사에 대한 입단식 때 격리된 상태 중에서 할례나 단식 등의 시련이 부과된다. 고대 종교에서는 그리스의 오르페우스교나 그 영향을 받은 피타고라스 교단은 영육 이원론의 입장에 서서 신체상의 엄격한 금욕을 지킴으로써 영혼이나 신과의 합일을 얻으려는 밀의종교를 발달시켰다. 이런 사고방식은 후의 그리스도교나 이슬람교에도 적건 크건 영향을 미쳤는데, 그리스도교에서는 신비주의적인 묵상과 기도를 중심으로 하는 중세기의 승원에서 특히 금욕적인 수행이 중시되었다. 이에 대해서 동양에서는 영육일원론의 입장에 선 힌두교의 요가나 불교의 경우에서 볼 수 있듯이, 생리ㆍ심리적 훈련과 금욕이 그대로 영적으로 통합된 이상적인 신체(깨달음, 해탈 상태)를 낳는다고 생각되었다. 따라서 한마디로 수행을 통한 신비체험이라고 해도 그 점에서 그리스도교와 불교는 크게 다르다. 또한 수행의 종류로서는 정진, 참회, 독거, 기도, 순례, 삼림두수, 수행(水行), 좌선, 관상 등 다양한 방법을 들 수 있는데, 그 중에서 가장 중요한 것이 성교의 금지와 단식이다. 전자는 성을 극복함으로써 <인간>을 이탈하려는 행위이며, 후자는 영양의 정지에 의해서 <죽음>에 접근하려는 행위인데, 이 역설적인 금욕수행 중에 신의 계시가 찾아와서 영적인 변신이 실현되는 것이다. 수행 중에 특히 엄격하게 고통을 수반하는 것을 고행, 황행이라고 하기도 한다.

십계도

불교의 기본명제는 육도윤회의 세계에서 빠져나가는 것으로, 사람에 따라서 여러 가지 수행방법이 있다. 불설을 그대로 수용하는 성문(聲聞), 불설에 의해서 혼자서 깨달음을 구하는 연각(綠覺, 독각), 깨달음의 표시로서 인류의 구제에 만진한 보살, 최고의 각자(覺者)로서의 불의 네 가지 수행계가 있다. 『육지도론(六智度論)』은 이들 육도와 육도를 초월하는 사성계를 합친 십계의 존재를 주장한다. 십계도는 이를 도설한 것으로, 옛날에 천태종의 것으로서 <원둔관심십법계도(圓頓觀心十法界道)가 있으며, 마음의 글자를 중심으로 십계제존을 묘사한 예가 있다.

[네이버 지식백과] 수행 [修行] (종교학대사전, 1998. 8. 20.)