2018/09/02

Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations: Ancient Philosophy for Modern Problems - Kindle edition by Jules Evans. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.



Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations: Ancient Philosophy for Modern Problems - Kindle edition by Jules Evans. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.




https://cheap-library.com/book/b4d711b182f750db2f3b96df897f81a0

$5.53 (USD)
Publisher: New World Library
Release date: 2013
Format: EPUB
Size: 1.76 MB
Language: English
Pages: 320


Product details

File Size: 2424 KB
Print Length: 322 pages
Publisher: New World Library (October 3, 2013)
Publication Date: October 3, 2013
Language: English
ASIN: B00F8LP88U
---------------
When philosophy rescued him from an emotional crisis, Jules Evans became fascinated by how ideas invented over two thousand years ago can help us today. He interviewed soldiers, psychologists, gangsters, astronauts, and anarchists and discovered the ways that people are using philosophy now to build better lives. Ancient philosophy has inspired modern communities — Socratic cafés, Stoic armies, Epicurean communes — and even whole nations in the quest for the good life.

This book is an invitation to a dream school with a rowdy faculty that includes twelve of the greatest philosophers from the ancient world, sharing their lessons on happiness, resilience, and much more. Lively and inspiring, this is philosophy for the street, for the workplace, for the battlefield, for love, for life.



--------------
4.6 out of 5 stars
61

4.6 out of 5 stars
---------------------------
Top customer reviews

GirlScoutDad

5.0 out of 5 starsEnduring insights from the ancient ones, still applicable for the eternal dilemmas of human existenceAugust 27, 2014
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

This book rates high for both an engaging, easy writing style, and serious content of some depth. As the Epicureans (if not the Hedonists) might have noted with approval, it was a pleasure to read. The pantheon of ancient western philosophers have provided a wide range of enduring insights that we contemporary mortals should incorporate into our lives in order to live better and wiser. Some of the many ideas put forth are the following (with, in most cases, a separate chapter for explicating the concept):

-- from Epictetus: the importance of distinguishing between what is and is not under our control in life.

-- from the Stoics: the importance of physical and mental training and discipline.

-- from Epicurus, the importance of savoring the moment, and simplifying one's wants and needs.

-- from Heraclitus, the idea of 'cosmic contemplation', seeing the big picture, taking the long view of things.

-- from Pythagoras, the value of mottos, maxims, and their applicability as a kind of "psychological first aid kit."

-- from the Skeptics, the skill of cultivating a healthy doubt, and avoiding dogma, hero-worship, and over-reaction.

-- from Diogenes, tolerating and celebrating creative anarchy.

-- from Plato, the folly of Utopian schemes.

-- from Plutarch, cultivating heroic (resilient) role models.

-- from Aristotle, the cultivation of character through the practice of virtue; the definition of the good life and the art of flourishing.

-- from Socrates and others, courage and celebration in meeting the end of one's life.

The author has done considerable travel and research to search out many places around the globe and on the web where "ordinary" people are actively discussing philosophical ideas and striving to employ these concepts toward the betterment of self and community. I enjoyed William Irvine's book, "A Guide to the Good Life", on modern applications of the ancient Stoics a great deal; this book is even more satisfying because it discusses many classical schools of philosophy in addition to Stoicism.
Read less

36 people found this helpful

Helpful
Comment Report abuse

JKO

5.0 out of 5 starsThousands of years of philosophy made deeply understandableJune 26, 2012
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

Evans does a wonderful job of explaining many different philosophical ideas from ancient Stoicism to modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and shows how they are relevant today. He's clearly at the forefront of the philosophical revival and folds in the latest thinking about cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and modern philosophy to show how ancient concepts are still relevant today and how they can improve your understanding of the world and your quality of life.

This is the first book I've ever read twice in a row. As soon as I finished it, I started over and still got a lot out of it the second time through. There are not many books you can say that about! I found myself wishing the book was twice as long because the topics are so fresh and interesting. I was disappointed when I reached a chapter end because each section was so enjoyable to read and then contemplate.

I hope there is a follow-up book coming soon.

35 people found this helpful

Helpful
Comment Report abuse

M.Ely

5.0 out of 5 starsHope he writes another one soon!December 14, 2012
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

This is my first review ever on Amazon, but I felt compelled to write because I enjoyed this book so much. Evans has really succeeded in presenting ancient philosophy as something accessible and useful to us all. Philosophy has this stuffy, pompous connotation to it, but after reading this book I felt as if a whole different world had opened right before me. As a business major, I consider this the philosophy class I never had. Evans also has a fairly positive attitude about humans and our ability to be resilient and change ourselves, which I found personally uplifting. Overall, an educational, inspiring book that I will refer back to for years to come. Hope he writes another one soon!

22 people found this helpful

Helpful
Comment Report abuse

Kansas Mike

4.0 out of 5 starsEternal questions.June 19, 2014
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

So often I think we feel like we're going through life on our own. That the issues and troubles we face are unique to us. But that's not really the case. Philosophers have been asking life's questions for millenia, and many of their answers can help us in the modern world today. I enjoyed Jules Evans book. He presents an interesting juxtaposition between the knowledge of the ancients, and the knowledge of the RIght Now. I highly recommend this book for an introduction to greek philosophy, as well as a self-help manual for the modern age.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful
Comment Report abuse

oliver

5.0 out of 5 starsvery handy practical guidebook to navigating the deeper parts of the inner worldAugust 23, 2014
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

Thank you Mr. Evans for expertly weaving together the essence of great thinkers, historical and modern, along with some of your own insights and life experience. Perhaps beliefs and ideas are most useful when they are treated like clothes .... Tried on for a period of time and then taken off, run through the laundry and then taken out again at an appropriate occasion. Or perhaps a better analogy is that they are like lenses ... Some help see far away, some magnify the unseen microscopic world, and some just help bring what is before us into better focus.

Your writing has provided an excellent framework for exploring some of the most critical themes in life. If philosophy can be seen as a type of a medicine for the soul, then this book has tremendous healing potential. For sure I will keep this as a go to reference source as I continue to reflect upon what you have shared.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful
Comment Report abuse

Az Jack 520 in Tucson

5.0 out of 5 starsInteresting ideas with just a little hype.August 4, 2014
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

It was tough to decide between a 4 and 5 star rating. The overall material is excellent, but the book contains too many references to the author's website and some of it reads like a sales pitch for his methods. Still, there's definitely some "meat" here and it's far from being one of those self-published books that contains nothing but links to more stuff by the author. He is one of the pioneers in his field, at least in the UK.

One person found this helpful

Helpful
Comment Report abuse

homer

5.0 out of 5 starsThinking about StoicsOctober 14, 2017
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

Kansas City is a city of thinkers. We bring many speakers in to Truman Library, Linda Hall Library and Unity on the Plaza. We have a great location to bring folks from anywhere in the country. #KC5Stars

=====================
Donald Robertson rated it it was amazing
Shelves: philosophy


Jules has written a superb introduction to practical philosophy. This book is perhaps quite unique, although it’s written in a very accessible style. I think I read it in the space of 2-3 days. It introduces the reader to a range of classical philosophical ways of life, by means of many anecdotes and examples that paint a vivid picture of how modern followers of these philosophies make use of them in coping with adversity and living meaningful and satisfying lives. Jules begins with three chapters discussing some of the most well-known Stoic authors of antiquity: Epictetus, Musonius Rufus and Seneca. The Stoics feature prominently, in fact, which should be no surprise as theirs is widely-regarded as the philosophical school most systematically concerned with the Socratic art of living, or practical philosophy. However, Jules adopts an eclectic (or “pluralistic”) approach, introducing the reader to the possible benefits of the main philosophical traditions of the Hellenistic period, and also raising some potential criticisms along the way. He proceeds to explore the great rival of the Stoic school, Epicureanism. Later chapters also touch upon the other major philosophical movements: the Sceptics and Cynics, and the schools of Plato and Aristotle. The pre-Socratic philosophers Heraclitus and Pythagoras also have chapters dedicated to them, as does the Platonist philosopher Plutarch. Throughout, references to modern therapy and positive psychology, etc., are interwoven with anecdotes about contemporary individuals who have made use of philosophy in their lives.


I was very impressed by the way that Jules covered so much ground in the space of a single book. We’re left with a sense that these philosophers offer us a variety of lifestyles, which are different enough to make for interesting comparisons but similar enough to intersect and complement each other in important ways. Indeed, many philosophers of antiquity were not rigidly devoted to the teachings of a single school but drew upon different traditions in quite an eclectic manner, much as Jules’ book does. Even those identifying themselves as “Stoics” or “Platonists”, etc., used to dip into the texts of opposing schools, which I believe Seneca called “raiding the enemy camp” for ideas. In that sense, Philosophy for Life stands in a long tradition of philosophical texts that inspire readers to learn about and perhaps imitate the philosophical lifestyles and practices of the great philosophers of different orientations, inviting them to make comparisons, generate their own synthesis or perhaps choose between them. Most of the Hellenistic schools considered themselves to be descendants, to varying degrees, of Socrates, the pre-eminent Greek sage. However, the Stoics particularly aimed to preserve the practical example of Socrates’ philosophical lifestyle, by means of various strategies and techniques associated with the “art of living”. These happen to resemble modern psychotherapeutic procedures, particularly those of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), as Jules notes, alluding to his own personal story as an example of someone who combined both CBT self-help and classical philosophy to learn methods of emotional self-regulation and personal improvement.


My own orientation is broadly Stoic, a subject I’ve written about in one of the books Jules mentions in Philosophy for Life. So I’m tempted to add some more comments about the Stoic tradition. Jules gives a lot more space to the Stoics than the other philosophies and is broadly sympathetic to their approach, although he also raises some potential criticisms. He gives several examples of individuals who are influenced by Stoicism or provide good examples of Stoic resilience, prominent among which are, quite rightly, modern military personnel such as admiral James Stockdale, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war whose allegiance to Stoicism helped him endure many years of torture without breaking, Rhonda Curnum the head of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness programme, and several US marines and Green Berets, including Major Thomas Jarrett who combines Stoicism and REBT in his own resilience training programme. These anecdotes include great examples of modern Stoic attitudes and ways of coping with adversity. I used the story of James Stockdale in my own book and talked at length about the military metaphors in Stoicism. However, it seems this way of portraying Stoicism can also be off-putting to some people and may create a rather “macho” image that’s arguably not the whole story. Toward the end of this book, Jules actually concludes that the whole Socratic tradition, including all the philosophies described here, may be legitimately criticised for “its overemphasis on the self-sufficient rational individual and its lack of compassion and charity” (p. 255). Of the Stoics in particular he says:




We are not, and should not try to be, invincible Stoic supermen, safe in our lonely fortresses of solitude. We need each other. We need to admit this need, and embrace it. (pp. 210-211)


In some ways, this is a fair point, but I think it deserves a response. It’s not entirely clear what the doctrines of Stoicism were in relation to compassion for mankind, or individuals, and they probably differed among parts of the school. However, in their own lives, the famous Stoics of history clearly engaged with society and generally appear to have valued close friendships. For example, Marcus Aurelius spends the entire first chapter of his Meditations praising his friends and family at some length, and recounting their virtues with great admiration and affection. Marcus says that the ideal Stoic Sage is “full of love”, for the universe and mankind, but free from irrational fear and craving (“passion”, in the Stoic technical sense). I doubt any Stoic would literally believe that we “need” each other but rather that we have a natural affinity for other people and therefore benefit from healthy relationships when we exercise wisdom in them. The Stoics frequently refer to the value they place on love for mankind and gentleness even toward their enemies. Seneca wrote:




No school has more goodness and gentleness, none has more love for human beings, nor more attention to the common good. The goal which it assigns to us is to be useful, to help others, and to take care, not only of ourselves, but of everyone in general and of each one in particular.


The scholar Pierre Hadot notes that the Christian doctrine of “loving one’s neighbour as oneself” was prefigured in Stoicism, centuries before the supposed birth of Christ. Indeed, arguably Stoicism is a philosophy of love. Love of wisdom, as the name “philosophy” literally states, the wisdom to know the difference between good, bad, and indifferent things. It is also therefore, by implication, the love of both human nature and the nature of the universe, through understanding which we grasp what is good and beneficial for ourselves and for mankind in general. I’m not suggesting that Green Berets, etc., don’t value brotherly love but that the military analogies so common in Stoic literature often emphasise resilience in the sense of mental “toughness” and perhaps sometimes obscure the gentle and compassionate side of Stoicism, which it shares to a large extent with the Christian tradition. This is a difficulty with Stoic texts in general, though, and Jules frequently helps to redress misconceptions about Stoicism by pointing out, for instance, that the Stoics developed a sophisticated grasp of the psychology of emotion rather than simply being the utterly dispassionate “cold fish” they’re often portrayed as being. Indeed, the Stoics repeatedly extol positive, rational and healthy emotions such as courage, generosity, compassion, love, friendship, and even joy, insofar as these do not interfere with one’s exercise of practical wisdom. On the other hand, it’s true that the Stoics did sometimes make remarks that appear to paint a more solitary and austere picture of their philosophical practices. It’s therefore important that contrasting ways of life such as those of the Epicureans and Aristotelians are there for comparison.


Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It’s certainly one I will recommend to others and I’ve already found myself referring other people to it as an introduction to both Stoicism and practical philosophy, the Socratic art of living, in general. As noted above, the style of the book is quite different from most others on ancient philosophy, although it might be compared to ancient biographical accounts of philosophers, but written in very modern prose and well-suited to today’s readers, whether or not they have any experience of philosophy. It will be particularly good as the “first book” to read for people interested in finding out more about classical philosophy and how it relates to modern approaches to therapy, wellbeing and personal improvement. Jules has achieved a lot and I’m sure a great many people will benefit from reading his work, which will inspire them to philosophise in their daily lives and to find out more about the Socratic philosophical tradition.
Table of Contents


Preface: Welcome to the School of Athens


1. Morning roll call: Socrates and the art of street philosophy


Morning Session: The Warriors of Virtue


2. Epictetus and the art of maintaining control


3. Musonius Rufus and the art of fieldwork


4. Seneca and the art of managing expectations


Lunch: Philosophy Buffet


5. Lunchtime lesson: Epicurus and the art of savouring the moment


Early Afternoon Session: Mystics & Sceptics


6. Heraclitus and the art of cosmic contemplation


7. Pythagoras and the art of memorisation and incantation


8. Sceptics and the art of cultivating doubt


Late Afternoon Session: Politics


9. Diogenes and the art of anarchy


10. Plato and the art of justice


11. Plutarch and the art of heroism


12. Aristotle and the art of flourishing


Graduation: Socrates and the art of departure


Extra-Curricular Appendix


Appendix One: Is Socrates over-optimistic about human reason?


Appendix Two: The Socratic tradition and non-Western philosophical traditions


Appendix Three: Socrates and Dionysus(less)


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


Nicolay Hvidsten rated it it was amazing
Shelves: non-fiction, headspace, philosophy, re-read, favourites
I'm not sure whether it is the particular order in which I read the following books that caused the profound cumulative effect they had on me, or if they can be read in any order and still have the same effect, or indeed if they possibly can have the same effect on another person, but for the mere chance that they might, I'm listing them here:

The Tao of Pooh - by Benjamin Hoff
The Antidote - by Oliver Burkeman
The Power of Now - by Eckhart Tolle
Awaken the Giant Within - by Anthony Robbins
Deep Work - by Cal Newport
Philosophy for Life - by Jules Evans

(Honorable mentions to The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, We Learn Nothing by Tim Kreider, Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem by Nathaniel Branden, and Zen Shorts by Jon Muth)

These books changed the way I view the world, as well as how I respond to its circumstances, and in my opinion this is the highest achievement a book can ever aspire to. Fiction books have certainly provided moments of introspection and even near ecstacy (caused by, but not limited to, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norell by Susanna Clarke, The Gone-Away World by Nick Harkaway, East of Eden by Steinbeck, Lord of the Flies by Golding, and For Whom the Bell Tolls by Hemingway), but they have never profoundly changed the way I view the world in the way that these books of non-fiction have.

What also strikes me about these books are the astounding similaritiesbetween the ideas taught by each of them. I think it's amazing how similar, for instance, the stoic tradition is to zen Buddhism, whether concerning the idea of a logos (i.e. a cosmic intelligence that we are all part of), or that it is your reaction to external events rather than the events themselves that cause you distress.

These ideas are expounded upon and investigated in all the books I listed, and each provided perspective adds to the overall debate.

What makes Philosophy for Life such an influential book in my particular case is that Evans summarises the similarities between all the various Greek schools of philosophy (stoicism, skepticism, cynicism, epecuritanism et. al.) which is what allowed me to realise the corresponding parallels in the philosophical works that I personally have read (like for instance the similarity between Tolle's insistence of being present and not create a victim mentality and the stoic tradition, or how Anthony Robbins declares that you must "question your beliefs" which is perfectly in tune with the Socratic method of questioning what you think you know, and realise that you harbour false beliefs which impact how you view the world).

All in all this book might be a perfect introduction to Greek philosophy (as well as a tool to practically implement whichever philosophy appeals to you) - it certainly gave me a solid introduction to cynicism and epecuritanism which I had never encountered before - but, most importantly in my particular case, it can also solidify your previous encounters with philosophical ideas (gleamed perhaps from Buddhism, as in my case) and show you the common ground these all build upon.

You might not necessarily need to read all the books I listed initially to gleam this insight (you might already be aware of it for all I know), but I genuinely think that if you should only pick one of them, make it this one.(less)
flag12 likes · Like · comment · see review



Jul 09, 2017Marius rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: bibliothèque-personnelle
Importantă carte de popularizare a filosofiei antice - în principal grecești. Am citit-o prima oară pe Kindle în engleză. Credeam în mod eronat că e o lucrare self-help de duzină așa cum le place vesticilor și nu merita să-i fac loc în bibliotecă.

Este scrisă într-un limbaj accesibil, fără nici un jargon filosofic. Autorul nu vorbește despre filosofie ca de la catedră ci caută să vadă cum poate fi aplicată vieții de zi cu zi. El însuși a folosit filosofia pentru a controla anxietatea și depresia. Prezintă oameni simpli care își conduc viața pe baza uneia sau alteia dintre filosofiile prezentate: stoicismul, epicurismul, cinismul, platonismul ș.a.

Presupun că acestea sunt motivele pentru care cartea a avut succes: a coborât filosofia din școli și universități (unde se dogmatizase) înapoi în mijlocul oamenilor obișnuiți. A făcut-o accesibilă și prietenoasă. A refăcut-o practică. Acest fenomen este un trend pe care trebuie să-l aplaud (alt promotor al filosofiei în rândul oamenilor obișnuiți fiind Alain de Botton )

Este deci o carte pentru tineri și neinițiați scrisă de un tânăr. Pentru „jupâni” în materie recomand Exercitii spirituale si filosofie antica de Pierre Hadot. Demersul său este similar: coborârea Filosofiei din mediul academic unde s-a osificat și folosirea ei ca în antichitate. Atunci filosofia era mai mult practică, scopul ei fiind acela de a ne îmbunătăți viața și de a ne pregăti pentru moarte. (less)
flag7 likes · Like · see review



Sep 12, 2013Blair rated it liked it
Jules Evans enters Alain De Botton territory here as he gives a populist take on Ancient Greek philosophers and how their ideas can be used as therapy. I thought he was going to focus mainly on the Stoics, but he covers a fair bit of ground. It might have been better just to stick to the Stoics, though. He finds links with Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and interviews a lot of people who have applied the ideas of the philosophers in their own lives. What I do like is his level-headed critical approach to things like positive psychology which he admires in theory but is quite willing to point out the flaws with. Ultimately it's a little superficial, which is why I'm on to the philosophers themselves now... (less)
flag5 likes · Like · comment · see review



Jul 16, 2017Peter Mcloughlin rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: 00000good-things, 10000-bce-to-500-ce, 1960-to-1989, 1990-to-present,american-history, biology, biography, classical-world, education, european-history
Practical Philosophy. This book uses ancient Greek and Hellenistic Philosophy to live a better life and indeed help one define the good life. It focuses on Stoicism and its relationship with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and how to use the common sense maxim that there is little under our total control in life save our appraisal and evaluation of the situation. We can control our attitude to the slings and arrows of life and change how we react to them and respond rationally and hopefully with some equanimity. This book also explores other philosophies of the Ancient Mediterranean including Epicureanism, Aristotelean Philosophy, The Cynics like Diogenes, Plutarch( and modeling heroes), and Socratic questioning. Excellent practical philosophy very useful. (less)
flag5 likes · Like · comment · see review

Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations: Ancient Philosophy for Modern Problems / Cheap-Library.com

Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations: Ancient Philosophy for Modern Problems / Cheap-Library.com

Why is Stoicism so popular in the US Army? - Philosophy for life



Why is Stoicism so popular in the US Army? - Philosophy for life

Why is Stoicism so popular in the US Army?



I’ve noticed, during the research for my upcoming book on how people use ancient philosophy in modern life, how many of the Stoics I interviewed were or are soldiers (or cops, or firemen). Why is that? I asked Nancy Sherman, professor of ethics at Georgetown University and the author of Stoic Warriors, which looks at Stoicism in the armed forces. 
-------------

She replied:


There’s a popularization of stoicism with a small s in our culture – the idea of being self-sufficient and self-reliant. In that sense, the word ‘stoic’ has survived in the popular vernacular. It has little to do with Stoicism. But Stoicism is also a natural fit for the military, in the sense of sucking it up, the stiff upper lip, and so on. Being a soldier is about deprivation, survival, the minimization of need and attachment. 

So Stoicism suits them.

In the US Navy and the military at the academy level, Admiral James Stockdale was also a popularizer of Stoicism. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are particularly popular, because they’re accessible. 

And Aurelius was a soldier and emperor, which impresses military people.


Do you think Stoicism can be a harmful ethos?


I think the little s stoic ethos of ‘suck it up and chuck on’ can be harmful. It’s a form of abstinence and denial. Your body goes into it naturally when you go into stressors. But it’s also inculcated by the command. You’re seen as a sissy if you cry, and a wimp if you go for therapy. If it’s linked with a certain macho denial of emotions, then it can be extremely harmful. It minimises all the emotions that are desirable in peace time.
Have a look at this opinion piece Professor Sherman wrote for the New York Times on the harmful impact of an unexamined stoic attitude in the military.

Here’s Admiral James Stockdale’s account of how he used Stoicism to survive seven years in a Hanoi POW camp. Part 1, and Part 2.

And here’s a video of Major Thomas Jarrett talking about his Stoic Warrior Resilience course, which he taught during the Iraq war.






0 0 0


3 thoughts on “Why is Stoicism so popular in the US Army?”


Steven
July 27, 2011 at 10:25 am


Reminds me of Baruch Spinoza, who was influenced by Stoicism but claimed that some emotions – like grief – are extremely hard to deal with.

I'd like to think that Stoicism is an ideal, to be pursued but not 100% attainable. In the end we're human right? Gulia used this metaphor: we're like the driver of a bus with all these passions on board – like love – and in the end we're lucky if we arrive at our destination in one peace…
Reply

TG
June 7, 2016 at 7:40 pm


Stoicism is excellent in times of crisis; it reminds me a lot of the Bhagavad Gita.
Arjuna a Warrior is overcome with grief about a difficult situation.

The Gita responds : “Your words are wise Arjuna; but the truly wise mourn neither for the dead or the living; perform your duty without attachment to the fruit s of your action”

“When a man can still the senses I call him illumined” The Bhagavad Gita

“Whoever practices tranquility whether he wills it or not, must necessarily be attended by constant cheerfulness, and a Joy that issues from deep within” Seneca

Stoicism is the armor which one poises oneself inside
………………………….

Great Topic Jules…………… I appreciate your never ending efforts to provide clear explanations

cheers,

TG
Reply

GTG
March 8, 2017 at 4:16 pm


Stoicism is also popular because paradoxically submerging oneself within, helps one connect to others without. Stoicism is actually good for connecting with others, while rising above personal difficulties.

휴심정 - 죽으면 어디로 가나



한겨레 수행·치유 전문 웹진 - 휴심정 - 죽으면 어디로 가나



자매매체
휴심정과 제휴를 맺은 자매매체의 뉴스를 전하는 마당입니다

죽으면 어디로 가나
보내기

휴심정 2018. 09. 02
조회수 621 추천수 0
--------------------------------
나는 죽어서 어디로 가나
김 형 태 (<공동선>발행인,변호사)

몇 년 전 일입니다. 한 밤중에 술에 잔뜩 취해 집 안 2층 나무계단을 오르다가 우당탕 퉁탕 1층 거실로 굴러 떨어졌습니다. 집에 들어온 것도 계단을 구른 것도 전혀 기억이 나지 않고, 거실 바닥에 머리가 부딪히면서 비로소 정신이 번쩍 났습니다. 그때 더 세게 머리를 박았더라면 정말 나 죽는 줄도 모르고 아주 갔겠지요.

‘아주 간다니’누가 어디로 간다는 말인가요? 어느 새 이순(耳順)을 넘겨 몸은 여기저기 고장이 나고, 마음은 날로 소심해져 가는 데, 이‘내’가 이 모습, 이 마음 그대로 지닌 채 ‘다음 세상’으로 가는 건가?

그럼 배가 난파되어 그리스 해안에 시신으로 떠밀려 온 다섯 살 난민 아이는 그 순진한 마음과 다섯 살 앳된 모습으로 천국엘 갔을까. 만일 그 아이가 노인이 되어 죽었다면 노인의 모습으로 다음 생을 누리는 걸까.

그럼 국회의원 노회찬은 수천만원 정치자금 받아 신고 안하고 쓴 걸 괴로워 하다가 죽었으니 지옥엘 갔을까. 아니, 옛날 노동자로 위장취업 했을 때 산재사고로 죽었더라면 청년 노회찬으로 천국에서 살고 있을 건가.

실제로 기독교, 불교, 힌두교, 이슬람교 등 모든 종교에서는 사람이 죽은 직후 아직 의식이 남아있을 동안 그가 듣고 생각이 정화되어 좋은 곳에 갈 수 있도록 열심히 경전을 읽어주고 기도를 하고 여러 의식을 행합니다.

하지만 내가 계단 아래로 꽝 하던 순간을 돌이키면, 당시의 생각, 외모, 성격 등 ‘나’를 그대로 유지하면서, 죽는 순간의 마음가짐에 따라 천국이나 지옥 같은 다음 세상으로 가는 게 아니라, 이 개체‘나’는 죽는 순간 마치 촛불이 꺼지듯 아주 사라지지 싶습니다. 그 뒤는 없이.

기독교 표현으로 하자면 이 세상 모든 개체는 하느님의 피조물일 뿐이니 언감생심 피조물이 영원할 수가 없을 터이고, 불교식으로 말하자면‘나’도, 이승이나 저승이란 생각도 다 공(空)하니 그렇습니다.

김수환 추기경의 마지막 무렵을 모셨던 신부님의 회고에 이런 대목이 나옵니다.

» 김수환 추기경“추기경님께서는‘하느님이 나를 부르시니까 하느님 안에 편안한 삶으로 넘어간다.’ 이렇게 쉽게 말씀하신 적이 없어요. 항상 죽음에 대해서는‘어, 쉽지 않아.’ 그러셨어요. 교황 요한 바오로 2세가 죽음 앞에서 고통 받으셨던 책자가 있어요. 그거 열심히 보시면서 ‘아, 요한 바오로 2세도 굉장히 힘들어하셨구나’하셨어요...

이런 허무가 있나. 내가 이런 무지의 세계로 가야하나. 그것을 겪을 때는 ‘정말로 하느님 없으신 것 같아. 배반하게 될 것 같아.’이런 말씀을 하시는 거죠...

고독해 하시고 힘들어 하시고 신앙적으로 좀 흔들리는 그런 말씀을 하시다가, 그 다음에는 그런 말씀을 안 하시는 거죠. 그냥 기도하시고...”




아마도 이 회고 글을 읽으면서 충격을 받는 이들도 많을 겁니다. 특히 가톨릭 신자들은. 누구보다 하느님을 잘 알고 누구보다도 당신 가까이 가신 분이라고 믿었던 추기경께서 죽음을 그렇게 힘들어 하셨다니, 하느님을 배반할 생각까지 하셨다니..

나이 먹어 죽음을 향해 가면서 몸과 마음이 쇠약해져 겪는 고통은 그 누구도 피할 수 없습니다. 이 걸 못견뎌하고 힘들어 하는 걸 두고 무어라 할 일은 전혀 아닙니다.

다만 이‘나’가 사라진다는 걸 받아들이지 못하는 건 또 다른 이야기입니다. 아마도 추기경께서 ‘김수환’이라는 개체에 매여 그 개체가 영원하기를 바라는 순간에는 자신의 죽음을 둘러싼 온갖 허무한 생각과 회의가 밀려왔을 겁니다. 그러다가도 ‘흙에서 나온 자 흙으로 돌아가리라’는 전체이신 당신의 말씀을 떠올리면 피조물의 처지를 받아들여 신앙을 돌이키셨겠지요.

모든 종교는 누구나 쉽게 알아들으라고 이렇게 가르칩니다. 네가 착한 일 하면 죽어서도 천당, 극락에 가고 영생 복락이나 열반의 경지를 누리리라. 이 가르침의 핵심은 ‘착한 일을 하라’는 거고, 착한 일하라는 건 내 욕심을 버리라는 말입니다. 그런데 거꾸로 우리는 이 가르침을 내가 영생이나 열반의 지복을 누리는 수단으로 받아들입니다. 우리 모두가 개체‘나’의 소멸을 인정하기 어려워 그러는 거라 여겨집니다.

이 개체가 부활한다거나 열반에 든다는 종교의 표현들은 그 자체로 하나의 거대한 비유요, 은유, 역설입니다.

이 말씀을 글자 그대로 개체에 불과한 내가 이 모습 그대로 영원히 산다고 받아들이는 건 그 말의 뜻과 정반대 결과를 가져옵니다. 모든 종교의 알짬은 이 개체 ‘나’로부터 해방되어 이웃과, 전체이신 당신과 하나 되라는 건데, 정반대로 이 ‘나’를 향해 무한히 집착하고 영생까지 바라니 그렇습니다.

개체인 우리는 전체이신 당신 피조물에 불과하고, 그래서 모든 합성된 것은 공(空)합니다..

그러나 개체‘나’가 흔적도 없이 소멸한다 해서 이 세상에서 내가 행했던 착한 일, 못된 일, 내가 이 세상과 지었던 여러 관계들이 같이 다 사라지는 건 아니고 이 전체의 관계 속에 고스란히 남아 있으니, 그런 면에서 이 개체 ‘나’는 전체의 품 안으로 돌아간다고 말할 수 있습니다.

그렇습니다. 개체 노회찬은 불행하게 소멸했지만, 노동자와 약자들을 위해 울고 웃던 그의 노력은 이 세상 힘든 이들에게 도움과 위로와 법제도로 남을 거고, 그의 생각은 그를 기리는 이들의 마음에 남아 길이길이 이어질 겁니다.

너른 바다 저 물결은 잠시 바다위로 솟구쳐 일렁이며 제가 물결임을 뽐내다가, 다시 스러져서 제가 나왔던 바다로 돌아갑니다.

나는 저 바다위에 일렁이는 물결처럼 잠시 이 세상에 나와 이런 저런 생각과 말과 행위를 짓다가 다시 바다로 돌아가 사라지지만, 한 때의 물결이었던 나의 생각과 말과 행위의 결과는 바다인 이 세상에 남아 있을 겁니다.

김수환 추기경도, 노회찬도 다 한 때 바다 위를 일렁이던 물결로 그렇게 일어났다 스러져갔습니다. 그리고 그 분들의 아름다운 생각과 말과 행위들은 우리 곁에 영원히 남아 있을 겁니다.

그래서 우리 모두는 전체이신 당신 품에서 ‘영원한 안식’을 누릴 겁니다.
----
이글은 <공동선 2018. 9, 10월호>에 게재된 것입니다.
----

The Stoic Virtues

The Stoic Virtues



The Stoic Virtues


The student who assays the Stoic philosophy for the first
time is apt to be engulfed in the repetitions of the later followers of Zeno who
concentrated on things in our power and things not in our power. By
the time he has waded through the Stoic concept of physics and has come to grip
with the metaphysics the detail of the argument, the frequent circular motion
of the discourse and the obvious paradoxes and contradictions can engender a
feeling of helplessness. Is there anything to be gained by filling the mind
with such a complex dialectic which leads to so harsh and rigid a set of rules?(1
¶ 1)

There is great gain to be found here, however. And in the
twentieth century, a visit to the painted veranda of Athens might provide
inspiration for a people who have an enormously advanced technology and
methodology without an accompanying conviction respecting ultimate value and
purpose.
Zeno, the acknowledged founder of the Stoic philosophy, was
born about 340 B.C. in Citium, a city in Cyprus. He prospered as a merchant,
but on a voyage ending in shipwreck he lost all his worldly goods. He turned to
study and philosophy. Finally, convinced that the existing philosophic schools
were not fulfilling their proper mission, he began to expound his own theories
on the variegated porch (stoa) of the Poecile in Athens. The porch
was adorned with the paintings of Polygnotus, depicting scenes from the Trojan
War. Zeno taught his doctrine amid these pillars, it is said, for fifty0eight
years. His followers were called the philosophers of the
porch, hence, Stoics.
It is already commonplace to observe that, as a people,
Americans have made astonishing breakthroughs in scientific and technological
areas whereas, in the field of the humanities, an almost stationary positionh
as been taken if there has not, indeed, been retrogression. We know a great
many things about the physical properties of the world in which we live, and
almost nothing about why we should seek this knowledge, what we are to do with
it, and if there is, in fact, any purpose or value in life or in knowledge
about life.

When we consider the physical sciences, man has reason to
argue that enormous progress has been made since the Renaissance, notably in
the last hundred and fifty years. When we consider what we know of ourselves
and what we understand that will give us purpose and value, one can wonder if
there isn't some truth in the assumption that man is a fallen angel and is
presently on a descending path. Today, there is an overriding possibility that
some highly emotional politician will press that button by means of which terra
may become the nucleus in the formation of a nova.
The principal merit of the Stoics is that they glimpsed the
value of human life and saw a purpose in life needing no justification. In
contradiction to the Platonic and Sophist schools, which were preoccupied
with society and the formation of successful working arrangements for
groups of persons, the followers of Zeno saw in the individual the potential of
perfection and encouraged self-discipline whereby the individual could attain
personal virtue and peace of mind.

It is unfortunate that the writings of Zeno, the founder of
the school, are lost to us. We are left to ponder the works of his followers,
some of whom were prolific in the extreme. Chrysippus, who is
principally credited with organizing Stoic philosophy into logic, natural
science and ethics, is said to have written more than 700 major works although
it is conceded that a number of his later efforts were merely revisions of
earlier treatises.
I shall not concern myself with the natural science of the
Stoics which in the present world would be viewed only as an intellectual
museum piece, but shall confine myself to a portion of the ethical system and
the merit I believe it contains.

Here, in the ethical realm, the Stoics performed a major
service while engaged in perpetrating a monstrous disservice. Indeed, scholars
have found so many things to criticize in the doctrine that it is not necessary
for me to add to the weight of their judgments. And certainly I do not mean to
try to reverse them. The Stoics were thoughtful pagans, but the data from which
they worked was incomplete at best. What is marvelous is not their paganism,
their superstition, their metaphysics nor even their natural science. What is
magnificent and astonishing is the splendor of their ethical view. Their
flirtation with mysticism preserved the concept of an interventionist
anthropomorphic deity, and may have contributed to what remaining superstition
and belief in magic and miracle is still with us. But their preoccupation with
self-discipline, dispassionate objectivity, frugality, forgiveness and mercy
produced the finest men of the centuries which saw the Stoic influence at its
crest. My purpose is to extract from it the pearl of great beauty, the concept
of a moral absolute.

Will Durant says (The Life of Greece, p.
656): Stoicism was a noble philosophy and proved more practicable than a
modern cynic would expect…. Actually, it created men of courage, saintliness,
and good will like Cato
the Younger
Epictetus,
and Marcus Aurelius ….
Whitney J. Oates, in contrasting Stoicism with Epicureanism,
finds both doctrines individualistic yet Stoicism more practical. The two
systems are alike in that they attempt to give men peace and inner calm. But it
is an extraordinary paradox that the hedonistic system should recommend an
ascetic withdrawal from the world, a retirement into the garden, in
order to gain that peace, while in contrast the Stoic system, a stern and rigid
moralism, maintains that the peace must be found in the midst of the world's
confusions for, after all, all men are brothers. (The Stoic and
Epicurean Philosophers
, Modern Library edition, p. xxiv.)

Albert Schwegler, in his History of Philosophy (translated
from the German by Julius H. Seelye), sums it up this way: The merit of
the Stoic philosophy … is that in age age of social ruin it held fast to the
moral idea, and by separating politics from morals, established the latter as
an independent science.

Sixty years ago, R. Drew Hicks, fellow and lecturer, Trinity
College, Cambridge
, summed up his view of Stoicism in an early edition of
the Britannica as follows: It was Stoicism, not Platonism, that filled
men's imaginations and exerted the wider and more active influence upon the
ancient world at some of the busiest and most important times in all history.
And this was chiefly because before all things it was a practical philosophy, a
rallying point for strong and noble spirits contending against odds.
Nevertheless, in some departments of theory, too, and notably in ethics and
jurisprudence, Stoicism has dominated the thought of after ages to a degree not
easy to exaggerate.

The merit these and other scholars have found in the ethic
of Stoicism, in the practical nature of that ethic, should summon a
re-examination in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Today, only a few identify themselves with the Sophists, the
Platonists, the Cynics, the Skeptics, or the Stoics. Today, it is all communism
or socialism, or liberalism, conservatism or sometimes fascism. The argument
today is not on moral values but on economic methods and political
possibilities. There is little concern about the nature of man; there is
considerable agitation over the question, Who gets to own how much of
what?
It is paradoxical that the Stoic ethic, which in itself
offered no understanding of economics and placed little value in material
things, actually laid the foundations for modern capitalism by encouraging the
formation of individual character sufficiently austere to make thrift and the
accumulation of risk money possible and even meritorious.

The popular image of the capitalist as a man lusting to
spend his money in new and gratifying ways is ripe for revision. The true
capitalist is a Stoic, willing to deny himself virtually every luxury and even,
at times, necessities, in order to accomplish a major investment or to hold his
industry or business together against a running tide of competitive forces and
hostile regulative measures. Without a compelling urgency toward frugality,
thrift and endurance, modern capitalism could never have been born.
Man is always at his most vigorous as he begins his
endeavors. And it is Stoicism that encourages the self-denial which makes
beginnings possible. It stimulates that part of man which causes him to
withdraw his energy from a hundred pleasurable pursuits so that it can be
concentrated in the single objective; then, with zeal like a consuming fire,
the energy can be released to conquer worlds. Thus, Stoicism is unworldly in
its withdrawal, but worldly in its concentrations. There is a high-mindedness,
a nobility, a singleness of purpose about it which will attract nearly everyone
who longs for truth and who is willing to endure much to attain either inner
assurance or capitalist objective.

Two of the most famous Stoics whose writings have come down
to us are linked chronologically in the second century. Epictetus died and Marcus Aurelius was
born in it. The outer circumstances of their lives were as sharply different as
fate could arrange, for one was a slave, born into that condition (or possibly
sold into it--sources differ); the other, the nephew and adopted son of an
emperor who himself became the emperor of Rome. In the Stoic philosophy the
beliefs of both men took root. And the writings they have left us, while
differing in style, could otherwise have been written by either of them.

In Epictetus we
find the teacher, the ascetic. Here is a man whose observations were recorded
for him by a faithful Boswell named Arrian. Epictetus, it is said,
wrote not a word. The slave of an officer in Nero's guard, he finally
obtained his freedom and, travelling to Nicopolis in Epirus, he established his Stoic
school where he taught many years.

That Epictetus influenced Marcus Aurelius is
not doubted; that the doctrine of Stoicism was probably spread more rapidly by
the expanding Christian community than by either is evident. Christianity
absorbed much from the Greeks and the contributions of Platonism and Stoicism
are apparent although divergent.

But while Epictetus taught and
lived a gentle, remote and scholarly life, Marcus Aurelius acted.
No philosopher was ever plummeted into a more chaotic and perplexing cauldron
than he. He was confronted with the impending collapse of a great society, the
errors of which he inherited but could not control. Faced with barbarian
invasion, economic ruin, internal revolution, state policies at odds with his
own personal concept of virtue, he struggled manfully and with great personal
calm until a plague virtually decimated the realm. While on a military
excursion in Pannonia,
March 17, 180 A.D., he died while stoically doing what he believed to be his
duty.
The characters of these two men, forged in far different
furnaces, were remarkably similar. Epictetus spoke with
epigram and parable. He is a theorist, abstract, clear, cool as a mountain
lake. Aurelius spoke
directly of himself, not from theory but from actual application of Stoic
principles. In spite of the vortex in which he lived, he remained a
disciplinarian of himself. We read Aurelius and suddenly we know him; he is
human, making effort, having his problems but committed to rigorous
self-examination and correction.

Matthew Arnold speaks of Marcus Aurelius as perhaps
the most beautiful figure in history. He is one of those consoling and
hope-inspiring marks, which stand for ever to remind our weak and easily
discouraged race how high human goodness and perseverance have once been
carried, and may be carried again. (Essay on Marcus Aurelius, The
Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers
, Modern Library series, edited by W. J.
Oates.)
These are the best known of the Stoics for their writings
have been most available. And, suddenly, after the death of Aurelius, the Stoic
philosophy descended from the zenith and plunged below the horizon. Traces remain,
but most who remember some of the Stoic principles do not know that they are
Stoic and cannot identify the source; nor do they understand the framework of
thought into which they fit and from which they were extracted. The ethics of
Stoicism do not deserve oblivion. Although much of the philosophy can be
discounted, the central theme is important and will prove of eternal value.

To encapsulate the philosophy: Stoicism is the belief in the
supreme value of the individual person, the integrity of his will, the primacy
of his own right judgment. In this sense, Stoicism is a system of values which
elevates rational man to such an exalted position that all other things or
conditions are viewed as valueless in comparison. The system of values has
obvious draw-backs, including a down-grading of any and all kinds of material
property. In a way it is ultra-submissive, almost a philosophy made for slaves
rather than free men.

But there is a ring of steel in the flexibility which
appears to be its chief distinction. The Stoic conviction of the value of the
will, in contrast to the value of material things, creates the kind of
character that can and does master the things of this world. Holding material
goods in disdain, the Stoic will is disciplined, regular and resourceful. It
sternly disapproves of pleasure for its own sake, but does not seek pain.

There is a modern school of economics which seeks to divide
all property into two classes: primary and secondary. This school holds that
ideas, the products of the mind, are the primary items of ownership, including
life itself. Strength for this view could be found in Epictetus and Aurelius, if one will
go beyond the product of the mind to the mind itself and evaluate reason and
self-discipline to primary position. Yet Epictetus would have disclaimed
possession of ideas as property and contended that the only real property over
which any man had undisputed sway is the property of his will, his judgment,
his reason:

But as things are, though we have it in our power to pay
heed to one thing and to devote ourselves to one, yet instead of this we prefer
to pay heed to many things and to be bound fast to many—our body, our property,
brother and friend, child and slave. Inasmuch then as we are bound fast to many
things, we are burdened by them and dragged down…. We must make the best of
those things that are in our power, and take the rest as nature gives it.
… What? Am I to be beheaded now, and I alone? Why? Would you have had
all beheaded, to give you consolation?

And here is advice to guide the most stringent believer in
private property of all sorts: What then must a man have ready to help him
in such emergencies? surely this: he must ask himself, What is mine, and
what is not mine? What may I do, what may I not do?
Then the central theme of Stoic moral supremacy over the
affairs of the world: I must die. But must I die groaning? I must be imprisoned.
But must I whine as well? I must suffer exile. Can any one then hinder me from
going with a smile, and a good courage, and at peace?

A taste of this Stoic self-control is reported by the
careful Arrian:
It was in this spirit that Agrippinus used to say--do you
know what? I will not stand in my own way! News was brought
him, Your trial is on in the Senate! Good luck to it, but the fifth
hour is come—this was the hour when he used to take his exercise and have a
cold bath—let us go and take exercise. When he had taken his exercise the
came and told him, You are condemned. Exile or death? he
asked. Exile. And my property? It is not confiscated. Well
then, let us go to Aricia and
dine.

The employment of the rational faculties is
elevated: To the rational creature that which is against reason is alone
past bearing; the rational he can always bear …
But is it not intolerable to hang oneself?
At any rate, when a man comes to feel that it is rational,
he goes and hangs himself at once. In a word, if we look to it we shall see
that by nothing is the rational creature so distressed as by the irrational,
and again to nothing so much attracted as to the rational.
And the use of the independent will in the line of
controlling one's self and adhering to the path of duty is illustrated:
Priscus Helvidius too saw this, and acted on it. When Vespasian sent to him
not to come into the Senate he answered: You can forbid me to be a
senator; but as long as I am a senator I must come in.
Come in then, he says, and be silent.

Question me not and I will be silent.
But I am bound to question you.
And I am bound to say what seems right to me.
But if you say it, I shall kill you.
When did I tell you that I was immortal? You will do your
part, and I mine. It is yours to kill, mine to die without quailing; yours to
banish, mine to go into exile without groaning.
Of one thing beware, O man; see what is the price at which
you sell your will. If you do nothing else, do not sell your will cheap.
What is important to the Stoic? Moral progress would be the
answer as Epictetus expressed
it:
What does virtue produce?
Peace of mind.
Who then makes progress? … Will you not show him what virtue
really means, that he may learn where to seek for progress? Miserable man,
there is only one place to seek it—where your work lies. Where does it lie? It
lies in the region of the will; that you may not fail to get what you will to get,
nor fall into what you will to avoid; it lies in avoiding error in the region
of impulse, impulse to act and impulse not to act; it lies in assent and the
withholding of assent, that in these you may never be deceived…. If you would
tremble and mourn and seek to escape misfortune, progress is of course
impossible.

The Stoic's view of politics and government in general is
disdainful yet penetrating. Here is Epictetus on the foibles
of those who seek political favor:
I know what was said to me by a man older than myself who is
now in charge of the corn supply in Rome, when he passed through here on his
way back from exile; he ran down his former life and made great professions for
the future, saying that when once he was back he would have no other interest
except to live out the rest of his life in peace and tranquility….
And I said to him, You will not do it; as soon as you
sniff the air of Rome you will forget all your professions….
Well, what did he do? Before he came to Rome, a dispatch
from the emperor met him, and as soon as he got it he forgot all he had said
and has gone on adding to his heap ever since….
What conclusion do I draw? do I say that the creature man is
not to be active? Heaven forbid! But what is it that fetters our faculty of
action? …
They do notihng all day long except vote, dispute,
deliberate about a handful of corn or an acre of land, and petty profits of
this sort. Is there any resemblance between receiving and reading a petition
such as this: I beg you to let me export a little corn, and a
petition such as this: I beg you to inquire from Chrysippus how the
universe is governed and what position the rational creature holds in it;
inquiry too who you are and what is good for you, and what is evil?
Epictetus is
never more incisive than in his advice concerning the treatment of
tyrants: The tyrant, for instance, says, I am the mightiest of all
men.
Well and what can you give me? Can you enable me to get what
I will to get? how can you? Can you avoid what you will to avoid, independent
of circumstances? Is your impulse free from error? How can you claim any such
power?
  • Tell me, on shipboard, do you put confidence in yourself or
    in the man who knows? And in a chariot? Surely in him who knows. How is it in
    the other arts? Exactly the same. What does your power come to then?
  • All men pay me attention.
  • Yes, and I pay attention to my platter and work it and
    polish it and I fix up a peg for my oil-flask. Does that mean that these are
    superior to me? No, but they do me some service, and for this reason I pay them
    attention…. For who pays regard to you as a man? Show me. Who wishes to become
    like you? Who regards you as one like Socrates to admire and
    follow?
  • But I can behead you.
  • Well said. I forgot, of course, one ought to pay you worship
    as if you were fever or cholera, and raise an altar to you, like the altar to
    Fever in Rome.
  • What is it then which disturbs and confounds the multitude?
    Is it the tyrant and his guards? Nay, God forbid! It is impossible for that
    which is free by nature to be disturbed or hindered by anything but itself. It
    is a man's own judgments which disturb him. For when the tyrant says to a
    man: I will chain your leg, he that values his leg says, Nay,
    have mercy.But he that values his will says, If it seems more profitable
    to you, chain it.
  • Do you pay no heed?
  • No, I pay no heed.
  • I will show you that I am master!
  • How can you? … You are master of my dead body, take it.
  • Do you mean that when you approach me, you pay no respect to
    me?
  • No, I only pay respect to myself; if you wish me to say that
    I pay respect to you too, I tell you that I do so, but only as I pay respect to
    my water-pot.
  • And on the question of obtaining fame and immortality
    through high office, Epictetus has
    short and pithy counsel:
  • Today one spoke to me about the priesthood of Augustus. I
    told him, Fellow, leave the thing alone; you will spend a great deal on
    nothing.
  • Well, but those who draw up contracts will record my name.
  • Can you be there when men read it and say to them, That
    is my name,and even supposing you can be there now, what will you do if you
    die?
  • My name will remain.
  • Write it on a stone and it will remain….
  • Freedom is viewed as the absolute dominion of the individual
    over his own will. This is the inner realm, which should be governed and over
    which no invading force has any power whatever: For he is free, for whom
    all things happen according to his will and whom no one can hinder.
  • What then? Is freedom the same as madness?
  • Heaven forbid! Frenzy and freedom have nothing in common.
  • But, you say, I want everything to happen as I
    think good, whatever that may be!
  • then you are in a state of madness, you are out of your
    mind. Do you know that freedom is a noble thing, and worthy of regard? But
    merely to want one's chance thoughts to be realized, is not a noble thing; it
    comes perilously near to being the most shameful of all things…. Are we to say
    then that in this sphere alone, the greatest and most momentous of all, the
    sphere of freedom, it is permitted me to indulge chance desires? By no means:
    education is just this--learning to frame one's will in accord with events.
  • The weakness of the Stoic philosophy is found in the area of
    property ownership and economics, generally; the strength is found in its depth
    of human understanding. While the Stoic character makes possible the
    development of capitalism, it is paradoxical that the Stoic system of values
    holds economic goods and material property in very low regard.
  • For all that, the concept of forgiveness runs high.
  • … why are we angry with the multitude?
  • They are thieves, he says, and robbers.
  • What do you mean by thieves and robbers?
  • They are gone astray and know not what is good and what is
    evil.





Ought we then to be angry with them or to pity them? Only
show them their error and you will see how they desist from their faults. But
if their eyes are not opened, they regard nothing as superior to their own
judgment.
What! you say. Ought not this robber and adulterer
to be put to death?
Nay, say not so, but rather, Should I not destroy this
man who is in error and delusion about the greatest matters and is blinded not
merely in the vision which distinguishes white and black, but in the judgment
which distinguishes good and evil? If you put it this way, you will recognize
how inhuman your words are; that it is like saying, Should I not kill this
blind man, or this deaf one? For if the greatest harm that can befall one
is the loss of what is greatest and a right will is the greatest thing in every
one, is it not enough for him to lose this, without incurring your anger
besides? Man, if you must need harbour unnatural feelings at the misfortune of
another, pity him rather than hate him; give up this spirit of offense and
hatred; do not use these phrases whic the backbiting multitude use.
And again—Why then are we angry? Because we admire the
material things of which they rob us. For only cease to admire your clothes,
and you are not angry with him who steals them; cease to admire your wife's
beauty, and you cease to be angry with the adulterer. Know that the thief and
adulterer have no place among things that are your own, but only among things
that are another's and beyond your power. If you let them alone and count them
as nothing, you have no one to be angry with any more.
I have set down in the foregoing some of the most pungent
and meaningful statements attributed to Epictetus by Arrian, his self-appointed
amanuensis.
It is worthy of note that what we often think of as
Christian forbearance and fortitude, Christian values, and so on, actually
derive from Stoicism, which had its birth in the third century before Christ.
But Stoicism has its drawbacks. There is, as Matthew Arnold observed,
little of joy in the philosophy. It is a stern and unyielding task-master, and
it is difficult to clasp it to our bosoms with a glad cry.
Yet, when we come to Marcus Aurelius, the
last of the great Stoics, we find in him the warmth, as well as the humility,
that exalts even as it gladdens the heart.

Perhaps the most famous of the Emperor Aurelius's writings
are found right at the beginning of his first book of meditations wherein he is
rejoicing in the fact that he has adopted the virtues as his guide for
life. George
Washington
, our first president, has left us a booklet, engaging as it is
ingenuous, in which he sets forth the precepts of good behavior in company. It
is a charming recitation of manners and morals which is a revelation of the
eighteenth century. But Aurelius is equally demanding of himself and at a
greater depth of character. Summarized here are the qualities which Aurelius
claimed for himself and for which he obviously struggled as a youth.

  1. Good
    morals and the government of his temper.
  2. Modesty
    and a manly character.
  3. Piety
    and beneficence. Abstinence from evil deeds and evil thoughts. Simplicity
    in life far removed from ostentation.
  4. Gladness
    in having avoided public schools and joy in having had good, private
    tutors.
  5. A
    disinclination to take sides politically. Endurance in labor. To desire
    little for himself. To work with his own hands. Not to meddle in the
    affairs of others. An unwillingness to listen to gossip or slander.
  6. Not
    to be concerned with trifles. Not to believe in superstition. Not to breed
    quails for fighting. To endure the freedom of speech of others. To have
    become familiar with philosophy. To have studied with diligence.
  7. Not
    to be led astray by the Sophists. Not to write speculatively nor to make
    brash and hortatory speeches. Not to seek praise by showing off that he
    practiced self-discipline, or benevolent acts. Not to engage in rhetorical
    display. Not to walk about inside the house in outside garments. To write
    simply and directly. To be easily disposed to reconciliation with those
    who have wronged him, verbally or otherwise. Not to read superficially,
    but to seek deep understanding in books.
  8. Freedom
    of the will and undeviating steadiness of purpose. To also seek reason. To
    be always the same either in joy or sorrow, in pain or pleasure. To
    receive favors from friends without either showing humbleness or letting
    them pass unnoticed.
  9. A
    benevolent disposition. To look after the interests of friends. To
    tolerate the ignorant. Never to show anger or other passion but to be free
    of passion. Also, to be affectionate without noisy display.
  10. To
    be free of fault-finding. And in conversation, when another has used an
    incorrect word or expression, to deftly introduce the correct word or
    expression without correcting the one in error.
  11. To
    recognize the envy, duplicity, and hypocrisy that tyrants practice.
  12. Never
    to take refuge in the excuse of lack of time when called upon for
    assistance or correspondence.
  13. To
    listen when friends find fault, even when they are in error. To speak well
    of teachers and to be truly fond of one's own children.
  14. To
    love one's kind, truth and justice, to understand equality of rights, to
    favor a policy which respects the freedom of the governed. To seek
    consistency, a disposition to do good, to be generous and optimistic, to
    be candid both with friends and enemies, not to dissemble.
  15. Self-government.
    Cheerfulness, sweetness and dignity. To refrain from complaining. To show
    no amazement or surprise, to refrain from haste and never to
    procrastinate. To refrain from falsehood. To be humorous in an agreeable
    way.
  16. Mildness
    of temper. Unchangeable resolution. No pride in honors bestowed. Readiness
    to listen. Release of friends from social obligations. To make thorough
    investigation before forming a conclusion. To manage expenditures well. To
    check applause and all flattery. Not to seek favors by giving gifts. To be
    neither flippant nor pedantic. To honor philosophers. To be easy in
    conversation. To take reasonable care of one's health without being
    obsessed by fear of ill health. To recognize exceptional skills and
    talents in others and to give them due credit for their attainments. To
    look to what ought to be done and not to the reputation one might win for
    doing what ought to be done. To avoid excessive interest in buildings,
    food or clothing. To be neither harsh nor implacable, but to be vigorous
    and consistent in an orderly way with great steadiness.
Throughout the foregoing, Marcus Aurelius displays
the most solemn gratitude, not that he has attained to virtue, but that he has
been taught these virtues which he is striving to acquire. There is some
repetition and this rendition, for purposes of brevity, has not been more than
a broad summation; but it will serve.
To get a real taste of the sweetness of Aurelius, here is a
quotation: Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the
busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these
things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil.
But I who have seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad
that it is ugly, and the nature of him who does wrong, that it is akin to me,
not only of the same blood or seed, but that it participates in the same
intelligence and the same portion of the divinity, I can neither be injured by
any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be angry with my
kinsman, nor hate him. For we are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands,
like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. to act against one
another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be
vexed and to turn away.
Epictetus is
the master teacher, a trifle unearthly, yet practical enough. Aurelius is the
master scholar, putting the precepts of his teachers to use and being grateful
for them as he seeks to manage the burdens thrust upon him by the high office
he held and the demands of a rigorous self-discipline. In these two men, the
high and the low, the emperor and the slave, the full range of the Stoic vision
has play.
In our own time and country, we cannot afford to let the
Stoic qualities of character move into eclipse. What is significant and of
lasting value is the emphasis upon the individual, the recognition that it is
not the things of the world that matter, but man's judgment and control of
himself in the presence of the world that does matter. If individual men can be
made right, society, a mere gathering of men, will be right of necessity. The
emphasis, in the face of our gigantic riddles of the twentieth century, is of
necessity upon the individual.
Plato and many others of various schools of thought, ancient
and modern, have sought to subordinate or even to eclipse the individual in
favor of a perfect or a perfectable society. The method has
been related to organization, structure, procedure, the modus operandi. Let us
turn to the Stoics and see with them that all these things are secondary.
We can, perhaps, join with Emerson in his
essay, Politics, when
he said: Hence, the less government we have, the better; the fewer laws,
and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal government is
the influence or private character, the growth of the individual; the appearance
of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man, of
whom the existing government is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation.


Epictetus and Stoicism | Sam de Brito



Epictetus and Stoicism | Sam de Brito



Slave to our thoughts
Sam de Brito

LinkGuess who?

There was an interesting piece in the Saturday Sydney Morning Heralda few weeks ago by University of London researcher Jules Evans about cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and the philosophy of the Stoics.

CBT, if you've not encountered it "is a form of treatment for emotional and psychological problems where a person talks with a mental health professional such as a psychiatrist, psychologist or counsellor ... to help change unhelpful or unhealthy thinking habits, feelings and behaviours," according to the Victorian government's Better Health website.

It's used to treat a variety of problems including anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, uncontrollable anger, substance abuse and eating disorders by observing and slowly trying to transform the way patients think about certain circumstances.

If I may be so bold, it's somewhat summarised by the famous quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet where the titular character says: "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

In other words, you can be unfairly imprisoned for 27 years - like Nelson Mandela was - but it's entirely up to whether you see this as a negative or a positive and go on to change your country for the better when you get out of the hoosegow.

Jules Evans, who once suffered terrible social anxiety, says CBT worked so well for him he decided to research it.

"I went to New York to interview the psychologist who had invented it, Albert Ellis, and asked him where he had got the idea," writes Evans.

"He told me he had been directly inspired by ancient Greek philosophy, particularly by a line from the Stoic philosopher Epictetus: 'Men are disturbed not by events but by their opinion about events.'

"Ellis, like the Greeks, suggested our emotions always involve beliefs or interpretations of the world. Our interpretations may often be inaccurate, irrational or self-destructive, and this will make us emotionally sick.
Advertisement


"In my case, I had a value system that put a huge emphasis on popularity and social performance, and this flawed belief system had caused me to suffer," writes Evans.

Epictetus (55 CE - 135 CE) taught you could separate the world into two general parts - things you can control and those you cannot - which you might recognise popping up in the famous Serenity Prayer co-opted by Alcoholics Anonymous.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

The fascinating thing not mentioned in the SMH piece*, which strikes me as crucial to Epictetus's world view, is that he was born a slave - so he had no choice but to accept there were many things in his life he could not change.

As historian Will Durant wryly observed back in 1926: "Nothing in all literature is so depressing as the 'Dissertations' of the slave, unless it be the 'Meditations' of the emperor."

Says Epictetus in his Dissertations: "Seek not to have things happen as you choose them, but rather choose that they should happen as they do; and you shall live prosperously."

Durant then shares a famous tale that illustrates how strictly Epictetus lived by this maxim: "Story has it that Epictetus' master, who treated him with consistent cruelty, one day took to twisting Epictetus' leg to pass the time away.

"'If you go on,' said Epictetus calmly, 'you will break my leg'."

"The master went on and the leg was broken.

"'Did I not tell you,' Epictetus observed mildly, 'that you would break my leg?'"

Put in its' historical context, Stoicism (bought to Athens by the Phoenician merchant Zeno about 310 BCE) found fertile ground in a "despondent and decadent" Greece subjugated by Rome.

"The introduction of the Stoic philosophy was but one of a multitude of Oriental infiltrations. Both Stoicism and Epicureanism - the apathetic acceptance of defeat, and the effort to forget defeat in the arms of pleasure - were theories as to how one might yet be happy though subjugated or enslaved; precisely as the pessimistic Oriental stoicism of Schopenhauer and the despondent epicureanism of Renan were in the nineteenth century the symbols of a shattered Revolution and a broken France," writes Durant.

In other words, Stoicism is a great philosophy to observe when you have few choices.

The English philosopher and statesman, Francis Bacon, was neither enslaved or subjugated and had plenty of choices but he wrote around 1600 CE that: "How many things be there which we imagine are not? How many things do we esteem and value more than they are?

"These vain imaginations, these ill-proportioned estimations, these be the clouds of error that turn into the storms of perturbations."

Again: "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Or as the Buddhists say: "As it is".

So what does all this ancient navel-gazing offer for the contemporary reader?

Well, I would not be the first or 1001st writer to suggest the fate of the modern "wage slave" sometimes feels very much out of her or his hands - despite the proliferation of choice at the supermarket and on TV.

Many of us feel constantly buffeted and provoked by far flung causes and effects, our jobs under threat, our welfare at the mercy of "faceless men" in gargantuan bureaucracies; tiny, voiceless gears in the machinery of globalisation.

I'd suggest then, we can learn something from a Roman slave who lived 2000 years ago, by deciding what is important to us and not being suckered in by the dictates of culture and society that see us as consumers first and people second.

If you want what the rest of the world wants, you've got some stiff competition. However, if you do not and you're instead happy with what you've got, you're actually in a position most would find enviable.

It's all in how you look at it.



Read more: http://www.executivestyle.com.au/slave-to-our-thoughts-2prbx#ixzz5PvR73kv3
Follow us: @executivestyle on Twitter | executivestyleau on Facebook

[펌] 끔찍스러운 진보경제학계의 ‘사회학과 정치학’



[펌] 끔찍스러운 진보경제학계의 ‘사회학과 정치학’




[펌] 끔찍스러운 진보경제학계의 ‘사회학과 정치학’

작성자 : 토리고고 작성일 : 2006년 12월 19일







내 책상 위에는 지금 세 권의 책이 있다. 윤소영의 [일반화된 마르크스주의 개론] (2006, 공감), 정성진의 [마르크스와 한국경제] (2005, 책갈피), 그리고 김수행, 김공회의 [한국의 좌파 경제학자들] (2005, 서울대학교 출판부). 

이 페이퍼는 위 책의 내용들과는 직접적인 상관이 없다. 그냥 방금 윤소영의 [일반화된 마르크스주의 개론]을 다 읽고 서평을 쓸까 하다가, 서평에 쓰기도 뭐한 문제고… 하지만, 아무래도 짚고 넘어가야 서평에서 말이 꼬이지 않을 것 같아 따로 몇 자 적어두기로 한다.



10명의 경제학자들을 선정해서 다루는 [한국의 좌파 경제학자들]의 저자들은 논란거리를 피하기 위해 애초부터 이 10명의 선정은 지극히 주관적인 것이라고 한 수 접고 시작한다(iv). 그러나 이 열 명에 신식민지국가독점자본주의론을 통해 종속심화-독점강화 테제를 들고나와 한 시대를 풍미했던 윤소영이 들어 있지 않은 것에 의구심을 품은 이가 비단 나 뿐이었을까? 윤소영의 [일반화된 마르크스주의 개론]은 이 의구심을 심증으로, 그리고 정성진의 [마르크스와 한국경제]는 이 심증을 확신으로 바꾸어 놓았다.





윤소영-김수행



윤소영은 자신이 관계하고 있는 과천연구실의 어떤 대학원생이 김수행 교수에게 박사논문을 제출했는데, 논문 주제의 유일한 전공자였던 정운영 교수를 김수행 교수가 기피했다는 일화를 들면서 다음과 같이 쓴다. “마르크스주의 경제학의 전통…이 단절된 것이 반드시 부르주아 경제학 탓인지 반성해야 할 것입니다. 제 생각으로는 안병직 교수에 이어 김수행 교수도 만만찮은 기여를 했거든요. 진보경제학계의 ‘사회학과 정치학’은 정말 끔찍스럽습니다” (윤소영 2006: 105). 이 때까지만 해도 이게 앞서도 몇번 나온 김수행 교수에 대한 지은이의 유감 표명(65쪽, 81쪽)의 연장이려니 했다. 그러다 책의 맨 뒤에 실린 정운영 선생 추도문을 보면서 이 끔찍한 사회학과 정치학이 더욱 궁금해졌다. 403쪽에서 지은이가 언급한 [민중언론 참세상]에 실린 김수행 교수의 글("이 못난 사람아! 왜 먼저 죽어!")은 이번에 처음 보았는데, 중앙일보로 옮긴 뒤 정운영 교수의 논조를 못 마땅해 하는 나였지만, 정운영 교수들 두고 “당신은 경제학자보다는 신문기자에 더 적성과 소질이 맞다”고 계속 생각해왔다는 그 이상한 추도사는 나를 아연실색케 하였다. 정운영 교수와의 옛 정이나, 글솜씨나 감수성에 대한 칭찬, 변절에 대한 책망, 그리고 먼저 떠난 이에 대한 원망 등이 뒤엉켜 있는 이 글의 형편없는 글솜씨는 충격이 컸거나 시간이 없기 때문이었으리라 좋게 생각한다 해도 글에는 드러나지 않은 무언가가 있었다. 뭔지 모르겠으나, 김수행 교수가 정운영 교수에 대해 어떤 미안함이나 컴플렉스 같은 것을 가졌던 것은 아니었을까?



하여간 김수행 교수의 이 글에 충격을 받은 윤소영 교수는 [밥자유평등평화] (http://bob.jinbo.net) 자유게시판에 다음과 같은 글을 남긴다.



“김수행 교수처럼 정 선생을 추모한답시고 변절 운운하는 것은 김 교수의 생각(저는 김 교수가 마르크스주의자라고 생각한 적이 단 한 번도 없습니다)이나 두 분의 관계(자신은 정통 마르크스주의자이고 정 선생은 저널리스트일 따름이라는 단정은 명예훼손급의 망언입니다)를 잘 알고 있는 저로서는 정말이지 어처구니 없는 짓입니다.”



게시판의 또 다른 글에서 윤소영 교수는 김수행 교수가 언제 “단 한 번이라도 자신의 입장이라는 것이 있었는 지” 모르겠다는 말을 남기면서 격한 감정을 숨기지 않는다.



자신은 김수행 교수를 마르크스주의자라고 생각했던 적은 한 번도 없으며, 그가 언제 입장 같은 게 있었냐는 윤소영 교수의 댓글은 김수행 교수의 추도사 만큼이나 뒤에 무언가가 숨겨져 있다는 느낌을 갖게 한다. 그 숨겨져 있는 무언가의 일단은 윤소영의 이 책에서도 나온다. 지은이에 따르면, 서사연 해산 이후, 이전의 한신경제과학연구소와 비슷한 성격의 연구소를 만들려는 흐름이 있었으나, 연구소 창립이 구체화되는 단계에서 김수행 교수가 참여를 거부하고, 다른 교수들(정운영, 김기원, 정성진, 김성구)도 시큰둥해 하자, 자신 혼자 과천연구실을 시작하게 되었다고 한다 (65쪽). 물론 이것말고 다른 일들도 많을 것이다.



어쨌든 정리하면, 김수행은 윤소영을 무시하고, 윤소영은 김수행을 물어뜯는다.





윤소영-정성진



김수행, 김공회의 [한국의 좌파 경제학자들]은 맨 마지막에 정성진을 다룬다 (122-137쪽). 그 정성진 교수는 자신의 책에서 윤소영 교수에 대한 유감을 다음과 같이 적나라하게 드러낸다 (정성진 2005: 221-222쪽).



“짜골로프의 [사회주의 정치경제학 교과서]를 선전하는 데 앞장섰던 윤소영도 얼마전부터 소련 국가자본주의론으로 개종했다. 비록 문제점투성이의 ‘일국적’ 소련 국가자본주의론이기는 하지만, 이는 일단 환영할 일이다. 그런데 윤소영 (2004)은 이 같은 자신의 이론적 입장의 수정 혹은 변화와 관련된 자기비판이나 해명 대신, 엉뚱하게도 지난 10여년 이상 소련을 일관되게 국가자본주의라고 비판해온 나와 트로츠키주의를 공격하는 것으로 자신의 과거의 오류를 은폐하려 하고 있다. 윤소영은 이미 14년 전부터 소련 국가자본주의 논쟁을 소개해온 나의 글들은 전혀 언급하지 않고, “정성진 교수는 마치 클리프 그룹이 국가자본주의론을 대표하는 것처럼 호도하지만 이는 무지의 소치일 따름”이라는 등으로 비난하는데, 이것이야말로 사실 “호도”이고 역사의 날조다. 게다가 윤소영 (2002)의 소련 국가자본주의론은 … 뒤죽박죽의 이론적 기회주의를 반영한 것이다. “마르크스주의의 역사”를 잡식재단하면서 자신의 “무지” 콤플렉스, ‘트로츠키주의 알레르기’를 달래는 것은 자유이지만, 스탈린주의와 반공주의의 폭압과 개량주의의 포섭에 맞서 노동자계급 자기 해방에 헌신해 온 고전 마르크스주의 전통을 멋대로 왜곡하는 것은 도리가 아니다.”



사실 정성진의 이러한 분노가 전혀 근거가 없는 것은 아니다. [일반화된 마르크스주의 개론]에서도 윤소영은 정성진 교수가 활동하고 있는 트로츠키주의 그룹 ‘다함께’에 대해 가소롭다는 반응을 보인다. 윤소영에 따르면, 트로츠키주의의 부활은 남한이나 그리스에서만 볼 수 있는 다소 특이한 현상이며, 이들의 “‘나는 잘못한 것이 없다’는 식의 알리바이”는 “정말 기가 막히는 태도”란다 (39쪽). 더 나아가 윤소영은 정성진을 다음과 같이 약올린다. 아래에는 “다함께”라고 나오지만, 이는 사실 정성진이다.



“[역사적 마르크스주의]를 발표한 후에 제 생각에 공감하는 사람들도 늘어났지만, 그러나 다함께 같은 데서는 적대감이 더욱 심해졌는지 논쟁을 해보자고 덤벼들곤 하지요. 그런데 미안하지만 저는 그런 논쟁은 사절입니다. 완전히 시간 낭비일 따름이기 때문이에요. 모든 논쟁에는 동지적인 신뢰나 적어도 정직성과 분별력이 있어야 하는데, 다함께에게는 그런 것을 기대할 수 없기 때문이지요.

사실 다함께는 아주 특이한 기질을 갖고 있는 것 같아요. 다함께를 보면 한 손에는 코란 또 한 손에는 칼을 들고 지하드에 나서는 이슬람 시아파 전사가 생각날 정도이지요. 게다가 제가 듣기로 다함께는 노동자의 힘과 만나도 늘 그렇게 으르렁댄다고 합니다. 무슨 시아파가 수니파와 싸우는 것 같아요. 제 말이 정 의심스러우시다면, [이론] 4호에 소개된 캘리니코스의 만델 비판을 한번 읽어보세요. 어떻게 같은 트로츠키주의자에게도 그렇게 적대적일 수 있는지 알다가도 모를 일입니다” (윤소영 2006: 344).



정성진이 보는 윤소영은 은폐된 스탈린주의자이며, 사실을 호도하고, 역사를 날조하며, 이론적 기회주의자이며, “무지” 콤플렉스에 시달리는 넘이다. 반면, 윤소영에게 정성진은 나는 잘못한 게 없다고 오리발이나 내밀면서, 동지적 신뢰는 커녕 정직성과 분별력도 없고, 지들끼리도 껀수 잡아 싸우는 데 바쁜 한심하면서 질까지 안 좋은 넘이다. 정성진은 윤소영 한 번 걸리기만 해보라며 이를 빠득빠득 갈고 있고, 윤소영은 똥이 무서워서 피하냐 하는 식으로 실실 쪼개고 있는 셈이다.





++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



하지만 바로 여기에서 눈여겨 봐야 할 것이 있다. 윤소영에게 시비를 걸고 있는 정성진은 바로 김수행에게 시비를 걸고 있는 윤소영의 모습이다. “본래 남성이란 밴댕이 소갈딱지”라는 윤소영의 말(363쪽)은 우리나라에서 난다긴다 하는 이 좌파경제학자들 – 김수행, 윤소영, 정성진 – 모두에게 해당되는 말이다라고 한다면 이들은 왜 자기가 거기 들어가야 하느냐고 하며 억울해 할까? 그 밴댕이 소갈딱지들 갖고 사회성격논쟁에 다시 불을 지피기는 상당 기간 동안은 힘들 것 같다. 우울한 현실이다.



사실 이 세 경제학자들은 남한의 좌파 경제학자들이 21세기에 어떻게 활동하고 있는가를 보여주고 있는 각기 다른 전형들이다. 김수행 교수의 경우는 서울대학교 경제학과에서 마르크스 경제학을 담당하고 있으며, [자본]의 국역자이다. 일단 마르크스주의 경제학 비판에 관심을 갖게 되면, 제일 처음 접하게 되는 이름이고, 행여 그 부분을 전공으로 삼을라치면 거쳐야할 큰 스승의 위치에 있다.



물론 윤소영 교수는 이렇게 생각하지 않을 것이다. 서울대의 학생은 일류이지만, 교수는 이류일 뿐이고, 비봉판 [자본]은 대학원생들 도움을 받아 개역을 했다고는 하지만, 북한판을 남한말로 옮긴 것에 지나지 않는다. 윤소영 교수는 80년 광주항쟁을 전후하여 마르크스주의로 전향한 이래, 자신의 입장을 갖고 PD론을 정초했으며, 절친했던 선배인 이병천이 중진국론에서 포스트마르크스주의로, 또 발전국가론으로 널뛰기를 하고 있을 때, 알튀세르-발리바르 계열의 마르크스주의의 한 길을 걸어왔다. 한신대라는 좌파 대학에 자리잡고 있으면서, 현실 운동에서는 한 걸음 떨어져 과천연구실을 꾸리고 있다. 그는 87년 이후 선거에 참여하지 않고, (자신의 연구실에 나오는 후학들이 행여 선거에 참여하여 민주노동당이라도 찍을까봐) 과천연구실 MT 출발을 선거당일 아침 6시에 했다는 얘기를 저서에서 자랑스럽게 한다.



이런 윤소영은 정성진 교수에게는 파렴치한 스탈린주의자일 뿐이다. 정성진 교수 또한 경상대라는 좌파 대학 경제학과에 자리잡고 있고, 교수라는 점잖은 직책에도 불구하고 다함께라는 정치조직에 투신하고 있다. 트로츠키주의자로서 자신의 정체성을 분명히 하면서도 동시에, 남한 마르크스주의 르네상스를 위해 학진의 후원을 받는 [마르크스주의 연구]라는 반년간 학술지의 편집장이기도 하다.



이들 말고도 다른 전형들을 들 수 있다. 민주노동당 부설 진보정치 연구소의 장상환, 참여연대나 대안연대에서 활동하는 교수들, 그리고 재야의 채만수 등등...



밖에서 보기엔 그 물이 그 물이고, 우리 힘 한 번 합해서 뭐 한 번 해봐야 하는데... 꼰대들이라 완전 콩가루다. 뭐 거창하게 단결투쟁을 하자는 것도 아니다. 인간에 대한 예의를 갖고 제대로 된 토론문화 한 번 만들어 보는 게 그렇게 어려울까? 모두들 상대방만을 탓하고, 자기가 문제의 일부분이라는 사실은 애써 외면한다. 아니면 이제 연세들이 드셔서 거기까지는 생각이 못 미치는 것인지도 모르겠다.



그 선생들 밑에 있는 대학원생들은 어떨까? 그 사회도 줄을 서야 할텐데... "나는 바담풍 하더라도 너는 바람풍 해야 한다"고 가르칠 수 있을까? 또 이 양반들이 쓴 책을 사볼 어린 학생들이나 노동자들은 또 뭐라고 생각하겠는가? 역시 우리 윤소영... 역시 우리 정성진... 이럴까? 또 그런다고 한들 공부하는 양반들인데, 그게 또 자기한테는 무슨 득이 되겠는가?



안 그래요? 선생님들?

1705 박노자. ‘레닌주의’는 신주단지인가?



‘레닌주의’는 신주단지인가?

‘레닌주의’는 신주단지인가?다른세상을 향한 연대 변혁 재장전
2017.05.23
박노자(노르웨이 오슬로대 교수·한국학)


[이 글은 최근 레닌주의에 대한 재평가를 둘러싸고 벌어진 논쟁에 관한 글이다. 박노자 교수는 이 글에서 레닌주의에 대한 비판적 재평가에 경직된 태도를 보이면서 신성불가침의 영역으로 여기는 태도를 비판하며 이론적 혁신의 자세를 강조하고 있다. 자신의 블로그에 올린 글(http://blog.hani.co.kr/gategateparagate/92734)을 옮겨 싣도록 허락해준 박노자 교수께 감사드린다.]

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

이 포스트는 <노동자연대> 분들의 정성진 선생님 비판 (https://wspaper.org/article/18693 )에 대한 제 반박입니다. 저는 레닌주의를 진정으로 따르자면 기존 레닌주의의 미비점, 결점부터 보완하여, 레닌이 다 못한 이론적 작업들을 해내야 한다고 생각합니다.

저희 불가에서 하는 말로 逢佛殺佛逢祖殺祖(부처를 만나면 부처를 죽이고 조사를 만나면 조사를 죽인다)인지라,진정으로 불조의 혜명을 이어받자면 "지금, 여기에서" 하화중생할 수 있는 부처를 나나 타자 안에서 발견해야 되고, 굳이 이미 죽은 글자들에 옭매일 일은 없습니다.

마찬가지로 레닌주의의 혁명 정신을 창조적으로 계승하자면 "지금, 여기에" 맞는 혁명의 논리를 지금 여기 상황에 맞게 개발해야 하고, 죽은 레닌의 글자 하나하나에 옭매일 일은 없을 겁니다. 오히려 정성진 선생님처럼 이 글자들을 비판적으로 볼 줄 아는 건 진정한 혁명정신에 훨씬 가까운 거죠.

레닌은 과학기술 맹신은 좀 심했습니다. 그뿐만 아니고 제2인터네셔날의 카우츠키 등 당대의 많은 사회주의자들은 기술발전과 "진보"를 동일시했죠. 사회주의를 "쏘비에트 권력과 전국 전기 보급"이라고 한 것은 바로 그 단적 사례입니다. 그런데 우리에게 짐 필요한 건, 전기를 덜 쓰면서 사는 환경적 삶의 방식을 개발하는 거죠.

레닌은 당위론적 "여성해방"의 지지자이었지만, 젠더 문제를 이론화한 적은 거의 없죠. 그런데, "지금 여기"의 대한민국은 희대의 반여성적인 사회입니다. 마초적인 병영문화와 여성 비정규직들에 대한 초과착취를 축적의 주된 원천으로 삼는 신자유주의가 유기적으로 결합된, 여성으로서 인간다운 삶을 구조적으로 영위할 수 없는,그런 사회죠.

이 사회의 젠더적 갈등의 원리를 이해하는 것은, 착취구조를 이해하는 만큼 중요합니다. "사회주의적 테일러주의"를 주장했던 레닌은 규율에 대한 맹신을 가졌지만, 이미 규율화가 지나친 병영사회에서는 이 부분은 해방성이 그다지 없습니다. 그러니까 정말 혁명가 레닌의 정신을 계승하자면, 레닌주의에 대한 수정도 보완도 필요하죠. 레닌주의는 신주단지가 아니고 늘 상황에 따라 발전돼야 하는 혁명의 과학입니다.

며칠 전에 노동자연대라는 클리프주의(구 동구권이나 중국, 북조선 등을 "국가자본주의"로 규정한 트로츠키주의의 별파; 트로츠키 자신은 쏘련을 "왜곡되고 관료화된 노동자국가"라고 규정했음) 단체의 기관지에서 제 학계 동료이신 정성진 선생님에 대한 이 기사를 읽고 (https://wspaper.org/article/18693) 상당한 충격에 휩쌓였습니다.

사실 정선생님은 제가 수업하면서 맨날 하는 일과 똑같은 일을, 발표하면서 하신 거죠. 즉, "사회주의" 사회에 대한 레닌의 여러 시기의 주장들을 종합하여 이 문제에 대한 레닌의 생각이 몇 번 커다란 변화를 겪었다는 사실,그리고 많은 면에서 ("무산계급 독재"하에서의 국가자본주의를 "사회주의의 초보적 단계"로 본다든가, "무산계급 독재" 국가의 통제하의 신경제정책 시기의 시장경제도 사회주의로의 통로라고 보는 측면에서라든가) 맑스의 사회주의관과 다르며 차라리 카우츠키 류의 경제결정론의 영향을 더 많이 받았다는 점을 명확히 하신 겁니다.

글쎄, 저도 대체로 수업하면서 그런 작업을 하곤 하죠. "아세아적 생산양식" 지배하의 아세아가 스스로 자본주의로 진입할 수 없다고 보면서도 중국의 태평천국이나 인도의 무장독립투쟁에 적극적인 의미를 부여하기도 한 마르크스의 아세아관의 자기모순 등을 학생들에게 설명하곤 하죠. 역사학자에게는 맑스도 레닌도 무엇보다는 비판적 검토의 대상물들입니다.

그리고 그런 검토를 가하여 인류의 스승인 이 분들이 각종의 자기 모순 속에서 결국 당대의 유럽중심주의적, 오리엔탈리즘적 편견들을 그래도 상당부분 극복하여 보다 현실적이고 급진적인 세계관을 분투 속에서 형성해나간 궤적을 추적하는 것입니다. 자기 모순들의 극복과정이야말로 사상적 발전의 원천이죠.

레닌은 위대한 사상가이자 실천가인데, 굳이 방점을 찍자면 후자에 찍어야 할겁니다. 특히 1917년10월 집권 이후에는 인민위원 위원회(Sovnarkom, 국무원) 위원장이 된 레닌의 첫째 급선무는 "사회주의"에 대한 올바른 정의라기보다는 무엇보다는 혁명의 생존이었습니다.

러시아와 비슷한 시기에 사회주의 지향적 혁명의 시도들은 헝가리, 핀란드, 바예른 (뮌헨) 등에 있었으며 북의태리나 애란, 노르웨이 일부지역에서까지도 소비에트를 만드는 시도들이 있었는데, 다 진압을 당하고 패배를 당하고 말았죠. 러시아만 빼고요.

학살을 피한 핀란드나 헝가리 사회주의 혁명가들이 모스크바로 망명할 수라도 있었는데, 모스크바까지 함락됐다면 레닌과 그 동지들이 망명할 수 있는 나라는 이 지구별에서는 존재하지 않았습니다. 학살을 방지하기 위해서는 혁명이 살아남아야만 했고, 혁명의 생존을 위해서는 레닌과 그 당은 집권초기부터 "사회주의"와 아무 관계도 없는 일들을 막 해대야 됐습니다.

이상적이지만 당장에 "효율"을 내지 않는 노동자들의 공장관리 대신에 전국적인 중앙집권적 산업경영이 이루어지고, 볼셰비키들의 비판을 받아온 제정정권의 비밀경찰 (Okhranka)보다 더 막강한 권력을 가진 소련 비밀경찰(Cheka)이 세워지고, 사회주의자들이 반대해온 징병제로 운영되며 그 장교 중에서는 구 제정군대의 장교가 약83%나 차지하게 된 엄청난 규모의 붉은 군대가 편성되고, 대부분의 중앙정부 부서의 중하급 기술관료들이 다"노동자 국가"의 행정관료로 재임용되고 말았습니다.

역사학적 입장에서 본다면 레닌과 그의 당이 제정러시아 국가를 인수인계하여 몇배로 보강시킨 거죠. 전국적인 배급제가 실시된 "전시공산주의"의 현실적 모델은 제1차대전시절 독일의 전시계획-배급경제이었습니다. 레닌도 그 사실을 숨기려 하지도 않았고요.

이 모든 일들은 1917년의 <국가와 혁명>에서 이야기한 "국가의 사멸"이라든가, "상비군을 민병제로 대체하여 생산을 직접생산자의 통제하에 두자"는 맑스나 엥겔스 시대의 사회주의의 이해와 아무 관계도 없었습니다. 일당제의 국가가 사실상의 시장경제를 관리하는, 오늘날 중국이나 베트남, 북조선 모델의 원형이 된 1921년 이후의 신경제정책도 마찬가지죠.

참고로, 신경제정책은 실업이라든가 가시적 격차, 성매매 등 사회악들의 복원을 의미했으며 그 당시 많은 당원들을 아주 강하게 실망시켰죠. 그렇다면 레닌이 이끈 혁명에 아무런 의미가 없었느냐 하면 절대 그런 것은 아닙니다. 제정시절의 봉건제(황제, 귀족, 귀족들의 농장, 국교 따위)는 흔적없이 날아갔으며, 어차피 자주적 근대화 능력이 없었던 자본계급을 대신하여 당/국가가 내포적 근대화의 견인차 역할을 맡은 겁니다.

이 당/국가의 관료기구들은 평등주의적 이상을 가진 농노계급 출신들로 충원됐으며, 과거에 비해 훨씬 더 업적주의적, 실력주의적 방식으로 운영하게 됐습니다. 대부분 기층민 출신인 당원 관료들은 개발 위주로 움직이는 신사회에서는 당연히 "사회주의"를 실행할 수 없어도, 적어도 계몽주의적인 "위민"(爲民)정치를 충분히 실시할 수는 있었죠.

스딸린 시절에 들어 우여곡절들이 생겼지만, 일단 1920년대에 국내소수자들이 많은 권리들을 획득했으며, 중국, 조선을 포함한 여러 국외 해방운동들이 상당한 방조를 받아 제국주의 세계체제의 파괴에 기여했습니다.

스딸린 때에 가장 보수적인 스딸린의 파벌이 승리하여 좌파적인 그룹들을 숙청시켜 사회 전체를 다시 보수화시켰지만, 사실 이미 1920년대초반에 공고화된 당/국가의 틀들이 스딸린 집권 이후에도 계속 계승돼온 거죠. 그 명암들을 고스란히 다 간직한 채요.

레닌은 <국가와 혁명>에서는 이상적인 사회주의적 사회의 청사진을 그렸지만, 세계체제(준)주변부의 한 국가에서 국가권력을 장악한 이후로는 당연히 그 구상을 실천할 수 없었습니다. 처음 전시배급경제를 만들었다가 나중에 일당제 국가 관리하의 시장경제로 갔다가 결국 스딸린 치하의 국가독점적 "적색 개발주의" 모델을 구성해 발전시켰지만, (레닌과 같은) 급진적 방식으로든 (스딸린과 같은) 보수적 방식으로든 러시아의 통치자인 이상 개발주의 이외에 할 수 있는 게 아무것도 없었던 거죠.

한데 평등사회인 사회주의를 지향하는 당을 이끄는 입장에 서 있는 이상, 또 그 동시에 배급경제든 국가관리하의 시장경제든 국가독점계획경제든 다 "사회주의로의 통로", "사회주의로의 이행기", "사회주의의 첫단계"라고 말하지 않을 수 없었습니다.

대민 기만? 꼭 그런 것만은 아닙니다. 사회주의야 아니더라도, 결국 스딸린의 공포통치 등 엄청난 곡절을 겪은 뒤에 쏘련에서 생겨난 사회는 사람으로서 살기에는 오늘날 대한민국보다 훨씬 좋은 사회이었습니다.

완결된 복지국가가 태어난 측면도 그렇지만, 인간과 인간 사이에 경쟁 대신 협동적인 관계가 지배적이었다는 점이라든가, 개인에게 여유가 많았다는 점에서 개개인 차원에서 (일과 돈의 압박으로부터의) 자유가 있었다든가,이런 차원에서는 소련사회에는 오늘날 제가 경험하는 한국 내지 서방 자본주의보다는 훨씬 인간적이었습니다.

그게 엄격한 의미에서는 맑스의 사회주의는 아니었다 해도 저는 만약 지금 타임머신을 타고 그 사회로 돌아갈 수만 있었다면 저는 당장에 그렇게 했을 겁니다. 그리고 레닌은 그때그때 임기응변으로 사회주의와 아무 관계 없는 사회 형태들(배급경제, 신경제, 계획경제, "무산계급독재" 즉 일당지배사회 등등)을 억지로 "사회주의"와 연결시키는 견강부회를 저질렀다는 점을 알아도 저는 레닌을 대단히 존경합니다.

그러나 또 존경하는 만큼, 레닌의 한계도 뛰어넘어야 한다고 보기도 합니다. 과학기술이 인제 지구를 거의 망가뜨린 이 시대에는 레닌의 과학기술맹신은 전혀 맞지 않으며, 인간의 소외라든가 젠더 문제 등에 대해 레닌이 거의 이론화적업을 하지 않은 것도 사실입니다. 맑스나 레닌의 결점을 보완하는 작업을 우리가 해야죠. 이거야말로 창조적인 맑스-레닌주의라고 봅니다.



(기사 등록 2017.5.23)