Let me start by putting forth the context of hope in the founding fathers' principles. Seneca has theoretically dismissed hope as a principle to follow:
They (hope and fear) are bound up with one another, unconnected as they may seem. Fear keeps pace with hope. Both belong to a mind in suspense, to a mind in a state of anxiety through looking into the future.There cannot be a more categorical dismissal of the admission of hope in a stoic's mind. With that set, is there a possible answer to my questions?
On the one hand, if a stoic does hope, he is violating a founding principle of living in and with the present. A man with hope cannot be a stoic. Or rather, A man cannot wish to have hope and claim to be a stoic. But, does the mere thought or wish of hoping for something just displace the fundamental tenet of accepting whatever fate has to throw at him? Does the mere presence of hope in his life puts him in a disadvantaged position from learning the ability to withstand whatever things, good or bad, life throws at him, with equanimity? Why can one not hope and be equanimous and dispassionate at the same time?
On the other hand, can a stoic hope? Is that a right he can exercise to bring a new dimension to the future, if even the concept of future holds ground for a stoic! Can he claim to have simple hopes, and yet be a stoic?
What if we turned to a more contemporary approach to hope? In today's hyper-stretched world - mostly materialistic, self-fulfilling, individualistic, and tense - hope may come to mean something as simple as an anticipatory feeling of simple contentment or peace that is achievable with minimal upset of the balance of the mind, yet the current state of which is anxiety or eagerness. Will this count as hope or will this count as a journey to learning to withstand the whiplashes of fate?
And most of all, what about the hope to learn to be a stoic?
There has to be an answer... someday!
No comments:
Post a Comment