Stoicism

[Peter Kirby]

I am thinking that I would like a label for my philosophy, and one that attracts me is Stoicism.

To read about ancient Stoicism, see here:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/)

Probably the best-known Stoic document is the "Handbook of Epictetus," available here:

Handbook of Epictetus (http://www.san.beck.org/Epictetus.html)

Here is an excerpt: If you wish that your children and wife and your friends
live forever, you are silly;
for you are wishing that
things not in your power be in your power
and others' things be yours;
thus if you wish that the servant not fail, you are a fool;
for you are wishing that vice not be vice,
but something else.

But if you wish not to fail in desiring, this can be done.
Therefore exercise this, what can be done.
The lord of each is the one having authority
over what that one is wishing or not wishing
in the obtaining or taking away.

So whoever would be free,
let them neither wish anything nor avoid anything
in the power of others;
or else be by necessity enslaved. Basically, I am looking for an ethical philosophy that recognizes that harm comes from various superficial desires: the desire to have the perfect body, the perfect job, the perfect mate, etc., which cannot ever be satisfied and simply lead to suffering.

Rather, I would like to be realistic about what can be achieved, and to attempt to achieve things that are worthwhile, such as reduction in pain and promotion of knowledge. Also, I would not like to be entirely selfish.

The two philosophies that seem to express this most clearly are Buddhism and Stoicism. Obviously, they can both be good philosophies, as can other ways of life. But I think that the endorsement of Einstein and other celebrities has made Buddhism appear too "trendy" in the western world. On the other hand, Stoicism has some similar teaching yet is mostly unknown (apart from the word "stoic" in our vocabulary), and so is unlikely to appear to be a superficial labeling. Also, I am fond of ancient Greek philosophers. That said, I still like Buddhism and have recently ordered three books on Buddhism from Amazon.

As far as ontology is concerned, Stoicism is closest to scientific pantheism and/or atheism. There is no special revelation in Stoicism.

Does anyone have comments on Stoicism as a philosophy?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Sarpedon]

I have found a kindred spirit!

I have several times described myself as a "stoic buddhist". I love Epictetus. You might also try reading some of the writings of Emperor Marcus Aurellius, who is considered to be a stoic philosopher. Seneca too, was a roman stoic. The famous Zeno, (paradox man) also was a stoic. Although many of the stoics seemed to have a spiritual bent, it is not essential to its philosophy. Similarly, various gods are made into characters in buddhist stories, but they are not essential to the principles of buddhism. I think both of these systems are good inspiration for a kind of atheistic morality.

This might be a better topic for philosophy, or moral values, though.

[premjan]

what is the real difference between these two, other than the particle size of the arguments. philosophy uses logical arguments, and spiritualism uses metaphysical arguments. It has more to do with the set of base concepts and the transformation rules, otherwise IMO they are structurally and formally similar.

Buddha was more of a philosopher than spiritual, if you compare him to many others. The Stoics are definitely philosophers. The Greeks used to use the concept of "Logos" as a thinking logical component of the universe, operating according to formal logical rules rather than intuition. Spirituality operates a little less visibly, using more intuition and less logic. Difference is not huge in my opinion.

[Hugo Holbling]

Stoicism shares much with other quietist approaches to life and has many parellels in Buddhism and also Taoism. A nice compendium of Stoic texts is The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers, published by Random House in 1940 but now OOP. If the books you mention aren't by Suzuki then it would be worth your while to read all of his masterful works. Another resource could be Lin Yutang's mesmerising prose which again shares much with Stoicism.

Here (http://www.geocities.com/stoicvoice/journal/0200/pr0200a1.htm) is an interesting paper summarising some of the critiques of Stoicism. I would say that if you are thinking of it as a guide rather than a system then you will be able to use it to get more out of the other suggestions i made above.

In their writings the Stoics generally take the existence of the Greek pantheon of gods as given. I don't know if you consider this problematic but their ideas were considerably more sophisticated than they would seem at first glance.

[Heathen Dawn]

The stoics were pantheists (http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/zeno.htm), I think.

I haven’t enough patience for Stoicism. It’s too deep for me.

[lpetrich]

How did the Stoics tend to regard the Olympian pantheon? As real, but lesser beings?

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by lpetrich
How did the Stoics tend to regard the Olympian pantheon? As real, but lesser beings? Marcus Aurelius writes (Meditations (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/marcuaurelius1.html), Book 7):

"All things are implicated with one another, and the bond is holy; and there is hardly anything unconnected with any other thing. For things have been co-ordinated, and they combine to form the same universe (order). For there is one universe made up of all things, and one God who pervades all things, and one substance, and one law, one common reason in all intelligent animals, and one truth; if indeed there is also one perfection for all animals which are of the same stock and participate in the same reason."

The best description of such a passage as this is pantheism. Marcus Aurelius speaks often of "the gods," and in each case the phrase "Providence" can be substituted with no violence to the meaning (though sometimes adding redundancy). To Marcus, the non-existence of "the gods" is equivalent to the universe acting on chance, which he does not allow, upholding a cosmos governed by Law. Meditations does not mention Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, or any other particular god in the Greco-Roman pantheon.

Here is what we find in the Discourses (http://www.constitution.org/rom/epicdisc.txt) of Epictetus, chapter 14:

When a person asked him how a man could be convinced that all his actions
are under the inspection of God, he answered, Do you not think that all
things are united in one? "I do," the person replied. Well, do you not think
that earthly things have a natural agreement and union with heavenly things
"I do." And how else so regularly as if by God's command, when He bids the
plants to flower, do they flower? when He bids them to send forth shoots, do
they shoot? when He bids them to produce fruit, how else do they produce
fruit? when He bids the fruit to ripen, does it ripen? when again He bids
them to cast down the fruits, how else do they cast them down? and when to
shed the leaves, do they shed the leaves? and when He bids them to fold
themselves up and to remain quiet and rest, how else do they remain quiet
and rest? And how else at the growth and the wane of the moon, and at the
approach and recession of the sun, are so great an alteration and change to
the contrary seen in earthly things? But are plants and our bodies so bound
up and united with the whole, and are not our souls much more? and our souls
so bound up and in contact with God as parts of Him and portions of Him; and
does not God perceive every motion of these parts as being His own motion
connate with Himself? Now are you able to think of the divine administration,
and about all things divine, and at the same time also about human affairs,
and to be moved by ten thousand things at the same time in your senses and
in your understanding, and to assent to some, and to dissent from others,
and again as to some things to suspend your judgment; and do you retain in
your soul so many impressions from so many and various things, and being
moved by them, do you fall upon notions similar to those first impressed,
and do you retain numerous arts and the memories of ten thousand things; and
is not God able to oversee all things, and to be present with all, and to
receive from all a certain communication? And is the sun able to illuminate
so large a part of the All, and to leave so little not illuminated, that
part only which is occupied by the earth's shadow; and He who made the sun
itself and makes it go round, being a small part of Himself compared with
the whole, cannot He perceive all things?

For Epictetus, God is creator, yes, but all of creation is part and parcel of God. A modern might refer to the God of Epictetus as Hawking's Wave Function of the Universe (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html) perhaps.

As with Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus regards the gods as equivalent to Fate or Destiny. See the concluding three quotations in his handbook (http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html) (which was passed out to military men in its day):

<<
52. Upon all occasions we ought to have these maxims ready at hand:

"Conduct me, Jove, and you, O Destiny,
Wherever your decrees have fixed my station."
Cleanthes

"I follow cheerfully; and, did I not,
Wicked and wretched, I must follow still
Whoever yields properly to Fate, is deemed
Wise among men, and knows the laws of heaven."
Euripides, Frag. 965

And this third:

"O Crito, if it thus pleases the gods, thus let it be. Anytus and Melitus may kill me indeed, but hurt me they cannot."
Plato's Crito and Apology
>>

There were some murmurings that the one who carried through the philosophy would be rightly considered divine. Julian the Emperor writes of the Cynics, a related populist movement: "Freedom from emotion they regard as the end and aim; and this is equivalent to becoming a god" (Orations 192A; Loeb, vol. 2, p. 35) Epictetus says in the Handbook: "Remember that you must behave in life as at a dinner party. Is anything brought around to you? Put out your hand and take your share with moderation. Does it pass by you? Don't stop it. Is it not yet come? Don't stretch your desire towards it, but wait till it reaches you. Do this with regard to children, to a wife, to public posts, to riches, and you will eventually be a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods. And if you don't even take the things which are set before you, but are able even to reject them, then you will not only be a partner at the feasts of the gods, but also of their empire. For, by doing this, Diogenes, Heraclitus and others like them, deservedly became, and were called, divine." The only danger here, as Buddha traditionally warned, is to practice asceticism as another form of self-indulgence. The Stoics proposed that you concern yourself with the internals, that which is under your control, that is virtue, and in this way you can go through life without adding suffering from (unnecessary) concern with things not under your control. If this process is carried through to the end, which I don't believe it ever has been, one would truly be god-like, or in the state that Buddhists call nirvana. For now, one practices.

best,
Peter Kirby

[boneyard bill]

Peter Kirby writes:

On the other hand, Stoicism has some similar teaching yet is mostly unknown (apart from the word "stoic" in our vocabulary), and so is unlikely to appear to be a superficial labeling.

Yes, the labelling is archaic but the ideas are not. Fundamentalism is a new development on the Christian scene. I was raised in a branch of Protestant Christianity that was pure Stoicism. The "end times" were almost never discussed. Certainly not from the pulpit. We had a vague idea of a second coming in the unimaginably distant future. I never heard of "salvation by grace alone" until I got to high school and a girl friend dragged me to a Baptist revival.

The important thing was to follow the proper moral path. You needed Jesus to help you in this because humans are weak. Jesus helped you to salvation by helping you stay on the right moral course. He didn't save you directly apart from your works. Furthermore, you needed to follow the right moral path for its own sake, not for some future reward. Eternal salvation was an incidental by-product.

Of course, there's more of Cicero in this than Epictetus. But my point is that stoicism has remained with us through the centuries in the form of Christianity. The apocalyptic form of Christianity which is on the upswing today has been historically far less significant. I would go so far as to suggest that Christian ethics owes much more to stoicism than it does to the Bible even though there is also an obvious stoic influence in the New Testament as well.

[Hugo Holbling]

I think Albert Jay Nock's understanding of Christianity was similar to the one you describe, bb.

[Infidelettante]

I'm not very familiar with the teachings of Buddhism or Stoicism but I think I know enough to ask a meaningful question. If not I trust you to let me know.

Is there an aspect to these approaches that require a rejection of materiality. This may not be so of Stoicism but I think it is so of Buddhism.

I ask because as a Pagan I hold materiality to be the greatest of Mother Gods blessings. The joy of life is in the body. The meaning of life is the incarnation.

Even if Stoicism is the denial of the passions rather than a rejection of the body I still can’t understand either system as a meaningful approach to life. I hope you can set me straight on this and I will do some reading before I attempt to question ancient and honored religions again.:D

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Infidelettante
I'm not very familiar with the teachings of Buddhism or Stoicism but I think I know enough to ask a meaningful question. If not I trust you to let me know.

Is there an aspect to these approaches that require a rejection of materiality. This may not be so of Stoicism but I think it is so of Buddhism.

I ask because as a Pagan I hold materiality to be the greatest of Mother Gods blessings. The joy of life is in the body. The meaning of life is the incarnation.

Even if Stoicism is the denial of the passions rather than a rejection of the body I still can’t understand either system as a meaningful approach to life. I hope you can set me straight on this and I will do some reading before I attempt to question ancient and honored religions again.

Re: Buddhism, you may want to look up "Anatta," translated as the Doctrine of No-Soul. I don't profess to understand it.

Re: Stoicism, I am still learning but can offer this.

Stoicism distinguishes between two categories that are frequently associated with the "I," namely the internals and the externals. The line is drawn in the opening words of the Handbook of Epictetus:

"Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed."

Understanding what externals are is easy. Owning a $50,000 luxury car is an external. Having a very attractive girlfriend or boyfriend is an external. Being regarded as the most intelligent person in a group is an external. These things are under the control of outside forces and, in fact, should not be regarded as part of what you are. The category of externals is explicitly in Epictetus: see 13, 23, 29, 33, and 48 of his handbook. Epictetus gives this advice:

(6) "Don't be prideful with any excellence that is not your own. If a horse should be prideful and say, "I am handsome," it would be supportable. But when you are prideful, and say, "I have a handsome horse," know that you are proud of what is, in fact, only the good of the horse. What, then, is your own? Only your reaction to the appearances of things. Thus, when you behave conformably to nature in reaction to how things appear, you will be proud with reason; for you will take pride in some good of your own."

Epictetus warns about tending to appearances, or to that which is not part of you, and exhorts instead to act in response to what life throws at you in a way that 'conforms to nature' or, in other words, to turn your efforts towards being a virtuous person. The idea of suppressing all emotion is something of an outer mystery, which Epictetus suggests to be an initial target in preparation for having only those emotions that befit a human being in harmony with the real world, as opposed to a vulgar individual chasing after vanities and resisting inevitability. This is brought out in the second section:

(2) "Remember that following desire promises the attainment of that of which you are desirous; and aversion promises the avoiding that to which you are averse. However, he who fails to obtain the object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object of his aversion wretched. If, then, you confine your aversion to those objects only which are contrary to the natural use of your faculties, which you have in your own control, you will never incur anything to which you are averse. But if you are averse to sickness, or death, or poverty, you will be wretched. Remove aversion, then, from all things that are not in our control, and transfer it to things contrary to the nature of what is in our control. But, for the present, totally suppress desire: for, if you desire any of the things which are not in your own control, you must necessarily be disappointed; and of those which are, and which it would be laudable to desire, nothing is yet in your possession. Use only the appropriate actions of pursuit and avoidance; and even these lightly, and with gentleness and reservation."

If Epictetus were asked to summarize true philosophy while standing on one foot, he would have likely said, "Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well." (8)

If a rejection of the "more more more" materialistic syndrome is a rejection of materiality, then Stoicism would definitely be a rejection of materiality. If a rejection of materiality is to strain to appear to be an other-worldly being, like a monk who sits on a pillar for years, then Stoicism would definitely not be a rejection of materiality.

Stoicism is addressed to the practicality of living in a world which, if you let your wishes and desires and repulsions have free reign, you will constantly and necessarily be disappointed and hurt. Rather, happiness can come when you have control over your actions and direct them in such a way that reality doesn't frustrate your will. This is most easily achieved not by pinning your hopes on getting the winning lotto ticket, but rather by developing your own self into a good person who rolls with the punches and accepts what is pleasant as it comes.

It is entirely possible that I have mixed my own opinions in with ancient Stoicism, as my method is to work out what I think and then to find a label, not the other way around.

best,
Peter Kirby

[premjan]

is to be accepting of life as it is. I think this much is common English usage.

[Infidelettante]

Stoicism is addressed to the practicality of living in a world which, if you let your wishes and desires and repulsions have free reign, you will constantly and necessarily be disappointed and hurt. Rather, happiness can come when you have control over your actions and direct them in such a way that reality doesn't frustrate your will. This is most easily achieved not by pinning your hopes on getting the winning lotto ticket, but rather by developing your own self into a good person who rolls with the punches and accepts what is pleasant as it comes.

It is entirely possible that I have mixed my own opinions in with ancient Stoicism, as my method is to work out what I think and then to find a label, not the other way around.

best,
Peter Kirby

Thank you Peter. It seems this Pagan could learn a few things from the Pagans. And who would have thought it.
JT

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Infidelettante
Thank you Peter. It seems this Pagan could learn a few things from the Pagans. And who would have thought it. Thanks!!

best,
Peter Kirby

[Psycho Economist]

Originally posted by premjan
is to be accepting of life as it is. I think this much is common English usage.

Not in philisophically disinclined places such as the U.S. In common usage as I know it, stoic means impassive and often connotes a pretentious denial of emotion.

I wen through high school dabbling in stoicism the way some people wear black makeup and dabble in "gothism" or whatever. I had a an ephiphany when I realized that Obi-Wan Kenobi was a "better" stoic than Spock. I was about as picky reading my copy of the Meditations of Marcus Aureleus as most Christians are of the Bible. I'm better now.

[paul30]

Stoicism is an admirable outlook.

But there is one problem with it that I know of.

The Stoics stressed INTENT in actions, rather than results.

If you do good by accident, you are not doing good at all. If you do evil while intending to do good, it's OK. This would justify Hitler and all the other self-deluded evildoers on earth.

I can understand why they did this--it was something like the "detachment from results" in Buddhism.

Still, in ethics you must always pay attention to results.

[premjan]

stoicism has the central weakness of hinduism and buddhism. it is not goal-driven. I think any philosophy has the same weakness, since it tries to set a pattern of thinking rather than a pattern of results.

[Ramen]

posted by premjan:
stoicism has the central weakness of hinduism and buddhism. it is not goal-driven. I think any philosophy has the same weakness, since it tries to set a pattern of thinking rather than a pattern of results.

I don't know anything about stoicism, but I know a little about Buddhism. The problem with your statement is that you are presenting Buddhism only as a philosophy. The following quote is about the Tao, but IMO the same can be said about Buddhism.

Excerpt from The Wisdom of No Escape by Pema Chodron (http://www.shambhala.com/pc/html/winoes-ex.cfm/)

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the ultimate Tao." Another way you could say that, although I've never seen it translated this way, is, "As soon as you begin to believe in something, then you can no longer see anything else." The truth you believe in and cling to makes you unavailable to hear anything new.

Holding onto "a pattern of thinking" is clinging to beliefs. Buddhism addresses the problem of holding onto "a pattern of thinking" with the old saying "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha." Or in other words, if you think you have "set a pattern of thinking" that defines Buddhism, kill it.

[premjan]

in comparison with a secular ideology like capitalism, buddhism is still not goal-oriented. goal-oriented would be to say "a chicken in every pot" or "a phone in every home". and so on. That could also be the basis for a religion-like ideology (perhaps we would term this communism).