목요일 2026년1월22일	-	Cosmopolitan

Discourses 1.9:

	Now, suppose one has studied the organization of the
	universe, and has come to understand that, 'of all things,
	the greatest, most important, and most all-embracing, is
	this society in which human beings and God are associated
	together. Why shouldn't one who understands this call
	himself a citizen of the universe? Why should he fear
	anything that comes about for human beings?
	
In this radical belonging/community available to the atheist? This might
be the largest loss when one no longer believes in God. Sure, we share a
unity and common origin with the other elements, but it is a cold and
uncaring bond, one that does not nurture the human need for communion and
love.

A question, though. Is this not something that we can build for ourselves?
Human to human, one act of parochial defying kindness at a time? It would
not be the brute fact of the world, but one composed of our choices.
Wouldn't this be a very Stoic idea as well? Perhaps the reason the former
is so comforting is that it is true independent of our decisions, no work
needed to realize it, whereas the latter calls upon us to do the emotional
labor ourselves in building this universal community, and so is subject to
our weaknesses and foilibles. We like easy certainty over difficult and
tremulous hope that does not promise success. But this success or lack
thereof is not something we can determine; only the work towards it is
within our power. And that strikes me as a very Stoic perspective as well.

But what do I know? I'm not even a Stoic.