![]() With regular armor, if you stay out of fire for a few seconds, the white circle regenerates. Suppose you've been hit, and run to cover. The main difference between Stoic and armor is how that circle regenerates. In fact Stoic doesn't have a white circle at all, so armor regeneration or armor break skills are useless on it. ![]() For an armor perk deck, the thin white circle is what counts, while for Stoic, you look at the thick green circle. When it's empty or nearly empty, you should get into cover and wait for it to regenerate. When it's full, you are at maximum performance: enemies have to shoot their way through the entire ring to bring you down. The circle in the bottom right corner of the screen represents how ready you are to fight. You will be in an ICTV (so expect low speed/stamina/concealment), and you can take a lot of hits from regular enemies, even Snipers, reliably. The aim of this study is to examine Cudworth's claims about Stoic theology, assessing their fairness, but also placing them within the wider context of the early modern reception of Stoicism.What can I expect when playing Stoic?Stoic plays like a heavy armor perk deck such as Armorer. However, in Cudworth's complex taxonomy of different forms of theism and atheism, Stoicism appears twice, first as a form of atheism but also as a form of imperfect theism. Cudworth's aim in this work is to catalogue and then attack all existing forms of atheism and one of the four principal forms of atheism he identifies he calls ‘Stoical’. What happened during the course of the reception of Stoicism in the intervening period? While it remains unclear who was the first person to call the Stoics atheists, there is no doubt that the most philosophically sustained analysis of Stoic theology during this period is to be found in Ralph Cudworth's True Intellectual System of the Universe, published in 1678. In the late sixteenth century a number of influential writers claimed Stoicism to be compatible with Christianity but by the mid eighteenth century, Stoicism had come to be associated with atheism. This is quite different from the approach of his contemporary and fellow Cambridge Platonist, Ralph Cudworth, who was keen to highlight doctrinal differences between ancient philosophers. In this sense More continues the Neoplatonic practice of downplaying doctrinal differences between ancient philosophers in order to construct a single ancient philosophical tradition. I shall argue that while More was clearly an avid reader of the Meditations he read Marcus not as a Stoic but as a ‘non-denominational’ ancient moralist who confirms a range of doctrines that More finds elsewhere in ancient philosophy. Yet More’s general attitude towards Stoicism is more often than not critical, especially when it comes to the passions. More quotes from Marcus’s Meditations throughout the Enchiridion, leading one commentator to note that More ‘mined the Meditations’ when writing his book. I examine Henry More’s engagement with Stoicism in general, and Marcus Aurelius in particular, in his Enchiridion Ethicum. Throughout the period a continual theme was the compatibility of Stoicism with Christianity by the end of the period they were firmly disconnected, paving the way for eighteenth century presentations of Stoicism as a form of materialism and atheism. The early seventeenth century saw a flurry of scholarly studies by Bursius, Scioppius, and Casaubon alongside those of Lipsius. His contemporaries Montaigne and Du Vair presented Stoic ideas in the vernacular and re-emphasized the practical orientation of Stoicism. His De constantia founded what has come to be called Neostoicism, while his two Stoic handbooks published in 1604 brought together for the first time more or less all the surviving evidence for Stoic philosophy. It was with Lipsius that the fortunes of Stoicism changed dramatically. Seneca remained important, even after the correspondence with St Paul was dismissed as spurious, and attracted the attention of Erasmus, Calvin, and Lipsius. Whereas early Humanists associated Stoicism with Cicero and Seneca, later generations returned Zeno and Chrysippus to centre stage. The recovery and translation of Greek authors such as Diogenes Laertius and Epictetus expanded knowledge of the Stoa. However Stoicism also had its critics, from an Epicurean Valla to the Platonic Ficino. Seneca attracted much humanist attention and was the subject of biographies and commentaries. Early humanists such as Petrarca and Salutati admired many aspects of Stoic philosophy, based on their reading of Cicero and Seneca. The ancient philosophy of Stoicism found both admirers and critics during the Renaissance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |