COMMENTS
Dear Professor,
I noticed during the webinar that most presenters approached Stoic pragmatism from a distinctly Western perspective – underpinned by Western norms, discourses and a cultural mentality that isn’t shared across Eastern traditions. That may be why Davor, Juan Diego, Servet and I each interpreted key ideas quite differently. For example, William James’s notion of the “self” and Richard Rorty’s appropriation of Nietzsche’s “death of God” are deeply rooted in Western philosophical debates, and these concepts don’t resonate in the same way in many Eastern contexts.
I wonder whether introducing themes that cut across cultural boundaries—such as ethics in everyday life, the role of community, or practices of self-cultivation—might spark even deeper discussion and broader engagement. I may be mistaken, but that’s what I’ve observed from the questions and comments so far.
For instance, I understood what Mr. Davor meant when he said, “God is the knowledge which is inside the self.” This reflects a typically Eastern interpretation of the self, shaped by a communal and spiritual perspective. His point, as I understood it, is that the self is not an independent entity that acquires knowledge on its own. Rather, in Orthodox and Islamic thought, “self-knowledge” means recognizing the divine knowledge already within us. In this view, knowledge is not something created but something revealed—something God wants us to discover. This contrasts with the Western notion of self-knowledge as something pursued independently. So, Nietzsche’s “death of God” does not resonate in the same way in Eastern traditions. I believe this is what Davor was pointing to—and I agree with him—even though I know it may fall a bit outside the scope of Stoic pragmatism.Best Mehmet Sadik Bektas
Leave a Reply