Notes on The Basics of Stoicism
Notes on The Basics of Stoicism
Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy that developed in Ancient Greece and Rome. For them, the only good that is worth striving for is virtue which is living in agreement with nature. But what does it mean to live in agreement with nature? There is no metaphysics in Stoicism as there is nothing beyond the material world. Even our souls and God or Zeus are composed of passive matter of a refined fire. Yet there is an active intelligent principle that orders the universe. The active principle that orders is the logos or a universal principle of reason or pneuma and is intelligent and identified with God which permeates everything. The whole of everything is in sympathy with itself as it extends throughout materially. Therefore, if reason is God which permeates through everything then nature itself is perfect and ordered deterministically that must be appreciated. Humans participate through having a rational mind. This is what it means to be in harmony with nature. The universe is one creature made from a single substance and soul and therefore all things in the web of life and interconnected.
How does a Stoic then implement this pantheism into ethics? To live in accordance with oneself is to live in accordance to God who is nature. To do this one must pursue virtue which is knowledge of things as they are. Being a good person is a type of knowledge as it requires knowledge of it being right to be good. It is also good to remember the immediacy of death as it can overtake anyone at any time. Therefore, it is deleterious to focus on anything other than virtue. “Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.” There are things we can control and things we cannot control. If one is uncomfortable with something they can change then they should do so and if they are uncomfortable with something they cannot control such as that they will die then there is no point of being uncomfortable with what is certain as to be uncomfortable is to go against the order permeated by the logos. Everything is always as it should be so therefore one should accept it. If someone curses you it truly does nothing unless you perceive it to be hurtful. Therefore, it is best to be in ordinance with nature and beautify oneself with kindness as it is only ourselves which we can control. One should accept joy when it comes and equally accept pain when it comes.
Paradoxically, they believe in determinism i.e., that every human choice made is simply by cause and effect rather than will, a necessary causal chain of events. All things are done through the logos which is absolute perfect reason and it could not be any other way no matter how trivial. But, at the same time, they hold moral responsibility. It is reasonable to hold to compatibilism as the solution to this. While it is determined that I will put my left foot on the floor first while getting up in the morning, it is still “up to me” to do so. Chrysippus, a Stoic writer, gives the example of a cylinder and a sphere. If one pushes a cylinder it will move in a straight line but if one pushes a sphere it should be easy to roll forward in any direction. A cylinder should not complain that they are a cylinder rather than a sphere. One must try to become through befitting actions the inaccessible ideal of the sage as only the sage is virtuous. There is also the concept of preferred indifference. It refers to things that are not morally good or bad in themselves but are nevertheless preferred by most people because they are typically conducive to a virtuous life unless it would do the opposite. Preferred indifferents include things like wealth, health, reputation, education, and other external goods.
Another important and overlooked aspect of Stoicism is their logic. Their logic was based on propositions and their relationships. In other words, it was based on the analysis of propositions rather than terms. For example,
If it is day then there is light.
(But) it is day.
Therefore, there is light.
Furthermore, a proposition can only be true if the opposite of the consequence would falsify the first part.
If it is day then there is light.
But there is not light
Therefore, it is not day.
These propositions have a truth-value depending on when it was expressed. For example, “it is day” will only be true if it is true that it is day. Aristotelian logic, on the other hand, strongly affirms or denies a proposition and its predicate independent of context. They classified modalities of these propositions into four categories: Possible, Impossible, Necessary, and Non-Necessary. A proposition is possible if it can become true and is not hindered by external things from becoming true. It is impossible if cannot become true or which can become true but is hindered by external things from becoming true. It is necessary if it cannot become false or which can become false but is hindered by external things from becoming false. It is non-necessary if it can become false and is not hindered by external things from becoming false. There are also five basic forms of arguments shown in the table below:
One should contrast Stoicism with another contemporary philosophy, Platonism. While Stoicism is a pantheist philosophy as explained earlier, Platonism was dualistic as there is a sharp distinction between the physical world and the immaterial world of ideas and perfect forms. Stoicism’s monism allows one to focus solely on the world at hand and connect with the logos which is reason or God. A Platonic idea of God would be completely separate from the material world. Stoicism’s pneuma is the active force that God is and what God uses to create order. It cannot be seen but its effects are animated. The logos is the ultimate and perfect understanding and is also pneuma.
There have been many critiques of Stoicism as well. One of the most well-known was done by Friedrich Nietzsche who is discussed in detail in another one of my blog posts. He had the concept known as which translates to “love of fate” in Latin. In this concept Nietzsche believed in the affirmation of life, embracing challenges, and actively striving for greatness. In other words, one should live their life as if they wanted to live it an infinite number of times. Nietzsche’s criticism of Stoicism centered around the idea that embracing one’s fate, no matter how difficult or painful, might lead to passive acceptance of suffering which he considered nihilistic. For example, in the works of the Stoic writer, Epictetus, “If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.” It is a phrase to remind us that nothing will last forever, even those we love. As of that, we ought to not hold a level of attachment that will destroy us when that reality unfortunately comes into fruition. Nietzsche in response says,
“…imagine to yourselves indifference as a power — how could you live in accordance with such indifference? To live — is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavoring to be different? I n reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature “according to the Stoa,” and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature falsely, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise — and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that because you are able to tyrannize over yourselves — Stoicism is self-tyranny — Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a part of Nature?… But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to “creation of the world,” the will to the causa prima.”
In the passage above, Nietzsche criticizes the Stoic philosophy and its attempt to tyrannize human morals and ideals onto nature. He challenges the Stoics’ belief in indifference as a power, arguing that human beings are not indifferent but rather should strive to be different from nature to truly value it. Nietzsche accuses the Stoics of suffering from self-delusion. He argues that they have deluded themselves into believing that they can dictate their morals and ideals to nature. Furthermore, this delusion arises from the innate human desire to impose order and meaning onto the world, to see nature conform to their notions of right and wrong. This desire stems from a sense of superiority and an inflated ego driven by the “Will to Power” to create the world in its own image. For him, it is wrong to say that life is suffering that needs to be escaped from in nature or to heaven. Yet the Stoic still has some virtue. Instead of looking to heaven for treasure, he looks within himself for his resolve as the material world is the only world that is.
Perhaps another virtue of Stoicism is its simplicity. One does not need a PhD in philosophy to read the works of Marcus Aurelius unless the labyrinth of words of Kant and Hegel. Perhaps this explains its attractability in the modern world. It is suitable for the layman. As we conclude this blog post we carry with us the profound wisdom of the Stoics reminding us to find our treasure within, to embrace the simplicity of life, and to nurture the virtues that lead to a life well-lived.
Comments
Post a Comment