Phil 302 Four Epictetian Analogies Explaining Stoicism

Four Epictetian Analogies Explaining Stoicism

Born in 55, Epictetus was enslaved early in his life or even from birth, as he was taken to Rome “as a boy” by Epaphroditus (Seddon).  As a slave, he was introduced to and studied Stoicism with Musonius Rufus, who some modern scholars call “the Roman Socrates” (Gaius Musonius Rufus and Lutz, 4). Prior to 89, he was freed and then sometime between 89 and 95 he was part of the group of philosophers who were expelled from Rome by the emperor Domitian (Long, 9).  From Rome, he fled to Nicopolis where he founded his philsophy school and taught there for the remainder of his life (Seddon).  Epictetus’ student Arrian wrote much of what survives of his teachings today.  Arrian wrote them “as a literal record of Epictetus’ teachings, based on the notes he took as a student” (Epictetus, et al., ivvv).  If nothing else could be said of Epictetus, the one idea he relentlessly taught was to live Stoicism.  In the Handbook, he emphasizes that the only pride one ought to have is not for the ability to read and understand the teachings, but to apply them (Handbook 49).  Because of his impact on his students, he earned a legendary reputation and was more popular in his day than Plato was in his (Seddon).

Stoicism is learned and lived in three parts: logic, physics, and ethics.  All three work together to explain the whole philosophy.  Early founders of Stoicism used analogies to explain the three topics.  One analogy is that of an egg where the shell represents logic, the egg white represents ethics, and the yolk represents physics.  Two other analogies compared philosophy to the body (bones and sinews as logic, flesh as ethics, and the soul as physics), and a fruit field (wall as logic, fruit as ethics, land, and trees as physics) (Long and Sedley, 158).  The point of these analogies was to show that all three are necessary and one could not truly understand or live Stoicism with only one or two topics.

In similar fashion, Epictetus used analogies to teach his students how to learn and apply various aspects of Stoicism.  This essay will focus on four examples, which provide a rough explanation of the philosophy.  The first will focus on logic as a standard for knowledge and the analogy of knowing what a measurement is and how to use tools to measure.  The second and third will focus on physics and how one can live in agreement with Nature or God, as well as living in agreement with one’s individual nature by using the analogies of visiting one of the seven wonders of the world as well as being a vivid thread.  And lastly, the fourth analogy will focus on how ethics ought to be lived and not merely discussed, by using an analogy of a carpenter who truly builds something rather than merely discussing it.

Logic and the use of senses help one learn how the world works and really is, which help an individual to use his volition to make the best choice.  Epictetus compares logic with understanding how to measure or weigh something.  If an individual’s goal is to build or bake something, then that person must have a sound understanding of the concepts of measuring and weighing, as well as how to use the tools to accomplish good measurement and weighing.  If one does not know what measurement or weight is, or what a ruler or scale does, then how could he begin to build or make something?  In Discourses 1.17.7, he teaches, “unless we start off by establishing what a unit of measurement is, and what a balance is, how shall we ever be able to weigh or measure anything?”  Applied to philsophy, one must know the standard of knowledge and how to use the tool humans have been given (their mind) to demonstrate sound judgement and volition.  Equipped with standards and the correct use of his mind, the individual begins to distinguish the things which up to him and which are not.  From this knowledge, the person begins to comprehend how he is a minuscule part of the Whole and begins to gain an appreciation for the spectacle of the Cosmos, or the Stoic god.

Because much of the world and Cosmos is “not up to us” the individual ought to assume the wise attitude of following and seeking to understand Nature as opposed to seeking to control it or complain about it (Handbook 1).  Part of living this wise attitude is to appreciate Nature rather than wasting time complaining about it.  In another analogy Epictetus compares one’s attitude to that of visiting a sculpture of Phidias, who sculpted one of the seven wonders of the world (Jordan, 77).  While many people would endure heat, crowds, rains, shouting and “other irritations” just for the chance to see the work of Phidias, when it comes to appreciate the works of Nature directly in front of them, they have no desire to comprehend them, but would rather complain about the trials and hardships of life (Discourses 1.6.23-28).  Therefore, just as people endured all types of hardships for the chance to see one of the seven wonders of the world, so too should they endure much to learn, appreciate, and live according to Nature.  And not only are people to follow Nature, but they are to align their individual wills or their inner daimon with the greater Cosmos (Bonhöffer and Stephens, 13)

Part of aligning one’s will with Nature is to determine who one really is and stand out by performing his own unique part in life.  In the third analogy, Epictetus teaches that one ought to learn his unique role and then be the distinctive thread in a cloth.  One should say to himself, “I want to be the purple, the small gleaming band that makes all the rest appear splendid and beautiful” (Discourses 1.2.18).  Epictetus similarly teaches one should learn his unique talents and not ignore them (Handbook 37).  Lastly, one learns that he may have an assigned role which he is to play and rather than complaining about what parts he does not get to play, he ought to learn his part and play it well (Handbook 17).  The unifying concept in many of these analogies is action.

Philosophy is to be lived, not merely studied.  If one were only to study philosophy, but not live it, he is no better than a person who expounds about the process of building, but never actually builds something.  “A builder doesn’t come forward and say, ‘Listen to me as I deliver a discourse about the builder’s art,’ but he acquires a contract to build a house and shows through actually building it that he has mastered the art” (Discourses 3.21.4).    In the same passage, Epictetus continues by enumerating many duties a Stoic ought to perform in order to live an ethical life, including how to eat, drink, take care of oneself, rear a family, participate as a citizen, endure insults, and tolerate family and neighbors when they behave badly.  All duties relate back to the core virtues.  The best practiced volition is one that demonstrates justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom regardless of circumstances (Hadot, 233).

While this essay only focused on four analogies, Epictetus’ wide and varied use of parallels can be seen throughout all his works.  This essay focused on a subset of comparisons, which guide the reader in a general direction of how Stoicism can be explained and lived.  Epictetus used measuring to demonstrate how one ought to be familiar with logic, concepts, and tools.  He compared visiting one of the wonders of the world, as well as a vibrant thread for how one ought to view life in general.  And lastly, he compared living one’s philosophy to a carpenter who truly builds something rather than merely talking about it.  When the student actually sees the wonders of life, or a vibrant thread, or a measuring ruler or a carpenter, then perhaps he will be more likely to remember Epictetus’ teachings and strive to live them.

Works Cited

Bonhöffer, Adolf Friedrich, and William O. Stephens. The Ethics of the Stoic Epictetus : An English Translation. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, 2021.Epictetus, et al. Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Epictetus, et al. Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Gaius Musonius Rufus, and Cora E. Lutz. Musonius Rufus - “the Roman Socrates.” Yale Univ. Press, 1947.

Hadot, Pierre, and Michael Chase. The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, Mass. London Harvard University Press, 2001.

Long, A. A. Epictetus : A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Clarendon Press, 2013.

Long, A. A., and David N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers Commentary. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Jordan, Paul. Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, Taylor & Francis Group, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1683541.

Seddon, Keith H. “Epictetus | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 3 Jan. 2003, iep.utm.edu/epictetu/.

Essay on Refuting Musonius Rufus (Never to File a Lawsuit)

 Originally written August 2020

Musonius Rufus Would Never File a Lawsuit for Assault

Musonius Rufus argues “he would never file a lawsuit against anyone for assault” 1 and that by pressing charges, a philosopher would demonstrate he is disturbed, upset, or feeling revengeful by the assault.

His argument could be framed with the following:

1) If a Stoic is assaulted, then he will retain his equanimity.

A Stoic is assaulted.

Therefore, a Stoic retains his equanimity.

2) If a Stoic files a lawsuit, then he loses his equanimity.

A Stoic files a lawsuit.

Therefore, a Stoic loses his equanimity.

This essay will briefly explore a key assumption in Rufus’ argument and then refute it by showing a Stoic may, in some cases, file a lawsuit, while simultaneously retaining his equanimity.  This will be demonstrated by exploring the possibility that a Stoic would not file a lawsuit out of a sense of having been offended, but rather would file a lawsuit out of a sense of duty to justice and social oikeiôsis, with the intent to help society by educating the person who has carried out the assault.

Musonius Rufus’ Assumption

Musonius’ argument seems to be strictly based on the premise that if you file a lawsuit, then this equates to feeling injured or insulted.  If, however, he were to limit his recommendation that a Stoic would take jeering, beating, being spat upon and outright assaults with perfect indifference, then his point would be entirely defensible from a Stoic perspective.  But in his argument, he immediately jumps to the conclusion that since a person is filing a lawsuit, then that person must be doing so out of revenge or spite or being insulted.  He says, “Indeed, plotting how to bite back someone who bites and to return evil against the one who first did evil is characteristic of a beasts, not a man.” 1 But how do we know the reasons for someone filing a lawsuit?  Musonius seems to be mind-reading and assuming as to why a person is filing a lawsuit.  Per Musonius’ logic, the only reason a person would file a lawsuit is so that they can plot how to bite back.

However, he opens the door related to two other Stoic duties: upholding justice and educating others, which are valid Stoic reasons as to why a person could file a lawsuit.  He says, “A beast is not able to comprehend that many of the wrongs done to people are done out of ignorance and lack of understanding.  A person who gains this comprehension immediately stops doing wrong.” 1

If a Stoic can find a way to educate the person who has assaulted him, ought he to try?  And if this education leads to upholding justice (the assaulter “immediately stops doing wrong”), is it not the Stoic’s duty to pursue and uphold justice, no matter what form it takes and who the victim is?

And if we can prove that filing a lawsuit would lead the assaulter out of ignorance and into understanding, and if the Stoic can file said lawsuit with perfect indifference and with the sole intention of upholding justice and educating the assaulter, then we can show that at least in some circumstances, Rufus ought to ignore his own argument.

This essay will next explore the path to upholding justice and educating the ignorant, via filing a lawsuit with indifference.

Virtue is the Sole Good – A Duty to Uphold Justice

Without having to delve into a deep philosophical, divine discussion around justice, for the sake of this argument, I propose the concept of justice is based on the aim of humans living in harmony with each other.

Humans can live in harmony based on laws and rights and justice as defined from a commonly accepted dictionary: 2

the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments

the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

the quality of being just, impartial, or fair

the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action

conformity to this principle or ideal

Included in the above definition is an implication of action.  For as many laws that are agreed upon, those laws ultimately mean nothing unless they are enforced.

A society without laws, is beholden to tyrants and anarchists, in which case there is no justice.  Similarly, a society with laws, but with no law enforcement, would also soon devolve into a society with no justice.  For this reason, the French philosopher Pascal Blaise noted, “Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical.” 3

If a Stoic, whose aim is to live a life of virtue, agrees that virtue is the sole good; and as part of living a life according to virtue, the Stoic subscribes to living by and in support of justice, then one could say it is the Stoic’s duty to support and uphold the laws of society.

Therefore, if a society deems that physical assault against an innocent person is against law and justice, then a Stoic’s duty would be to uphold the law regardless of who is involved.  If upholding the law includes the prosecution of or the filing of a lawsuit against the perpetrator, then a Stoic’s duty would include such action.

Failing to support such action would erode justice and encourage law-breaking by society’s members.  As more laws are ignored, the harmony of society breaks down and anarchy and tyranny rise.

Consider what a Stoic ought to do if he witnessed a rape or an assault.  Would a good Stoic ignore this?  Or would he intervene to uphold the law for the sake of justice?

One bleak example of people failing to uphold justice is found in the tragic story of Kitty Genovese.  After finishing her shift at a bar, she returned to her neighborhood, in the early morning hours of March 13, 1964.  After parking her car, she walked toward her residence, and then was attacked by Winston Moseley, who stabbed her twice, with a hunting knife.  She cried out for help, after which a neighbor yelled out the window, and Moseley ran off.  She continued to cry for help as she tried to return to her apartment.  But no definitive action was taken by neighbors, many of whom thought the cries and yells were domestic fights or drunken quarrels.  Mosely, seeing that no one was aiding Genovese, returned, murdered, and raped her. 4

Genovese’ story shocked New York City and the United States – shocked at how many neighbors failed to definitively act to not only uphold justice, but to render aid to a victim of an injustice.  This outrage lead to several psychology studies, which named this behavior the Bystander Effect.  One psychologist bleakly noted,

In his book, Rosenthal asked a series of behavioral scientists to explain why people do or do not help a victim and, sadly, he found none could offer an evidence-based answer. How ironic that this same question was answered separately by a non-scientist. When the killer was apprehended, and Chief of Detectives Albert Seedman asked him how he dared to attack a woman in front of so many witnesses, the psychopath calmly replied, 'I knew they wouldn't do anything, people never do’ 5

For justice to be upheld, action must be taken, based on established legal and moral laws.  If a Stoic’s duty is to uphold justice, then he must uphold laws where injustices have been committed against others and even himself.

To put a theoretical emphasis on this point, assume Genovese survived the assault and was a Stoic.  If she took Musonius’ teaching seriously, she would not file a lawsuit.  Moseley would supposedly not be held accountable for his assault and would perceive that people “wouldn’t do anything.”  He would potentially never be corrected and could go on to commit more assaults.  Affirming and upholding justice is a Stoic’s duty and a commitment to maintaining a harmonious society, regardless if he is the victim or not.

Next, this essay will explain how upholding justice, in some cases, begins the process of educating others and how filing a lawsuit may be the catalyst for moral growth.

Social Oikeiôsis

Stoic ethics is based on the idea of oikeiôsis which is “the basic desire or drive in all animals (including human beings) for self-preservation.” 6 Furthermore, Stoics put a premium on rational self-preservation over physical self-preservation.  By focusing on one’s rational nature, one begins to live according to nature.

Stoic ethics further elaborate on the concept of social oikeiosis wherein the Stoic widens his “circle of concern” and care for others – including desiring that others, too, are preserved both physically and rationally. 6 Ultimately, the Stoic views all humans as fellow citizens of the cosmos.  And as the Stoic develops the view of his place in the cosmos, he begins to see how others too, may live under a common, rational set of laws.  And if those laws are broken, then it does not preserve a rational society.  On this basis, Marcus Aurelius notes “What does not benefit the hive does not benefit the bee either.” 7

As an example, we may assume that war does not benefit or preserve humanity, therefore war does not benefit or preserve the human.  From this starting point, we can walk it down to a minute level.  Nuclear war, regional conflicts, border skirmishes, riots, mobs, and plundering do not benefit humanity nor the human.  Going even further down the spectrum, we can argue that widespread abuses, assaults, and bullying, also do not benefit humanity and therefore do not benefit the human.

Therefore, in the intermediate circles of concerns for others, a Stoic’s duty is to act rationally and think of ways to preserve those who need it.  One way to accomplish this is through education.  A Stoic’s ethics ask him to consider ways to care for the human and for humanity through education.

Consider this argument:

If a Stoic always educates others, then he will help educate a person who assaults him.

If he helps educate a person who assaults him, then the assaulter may become a better citizen.

Therefore, if a Stoic always educates others, then a person who assaults him may become a better citizen.

If it can be demonstrated that filing a lawsuit becomes the catalyst for the moral education of the assaulter, then a Stoic should file a lawsuit against the assaulter.  The assaulter not only becomes enlightened himself but could then be a person who upholds justice and goes on to help others, which benefits society.

Social Oikeiôsis – Care for the One

Instigating wars, conflicts, assaults, and bullying for immoral reasons is not good for the rational soul.  The highest good or summum bonum of philosophy, including Stoicism, is eudaimonia – which generally translates into happiness or even well-being or flourishing. 6 For Stoics, arete is the sole good and all vice is to be avoided to achieve eudaimonia.  Therefore, people will not achieve eudaimonia by creating conflict for immoral reasons.  As a result, a Stoic would never engage in such behavior.  And as a Stoic widens his circle of concern (social oikeiôsis), he would make efforts to teach and educate others to also not engage in such behaviors, so that they too can attain the summum bonum.

Therefore, if a Stoic knew, that someone’s life could be turned around or turned away from a life of instigating assaults, and if that path included filing a lawsuit against that person, he ought to do so.

Seneca offers a wise approach for educating others.  While some people are very receptive to moral education, others are not.  For those who assault a Stoic and perhaps are receptive to a moral education, all that may be needed is to talk to them and to help them see a better way.  There would be no need to file a lawsuit for assault.  However, for those not very receptive, it would take concentrated effort and a stronger catalyst.  Seneca states:

Amid this upset condition of morals, something stronger than usual is needed, – something which will shake off these chronic ills; in order to root out a deep-seated belief in wrong ideas, conduct must be regulated by doctrines. It is only when we add precepts, consolation, and encouragement to these, that they can prevail; by themselves they are ineffective.

"But what, then," people say, "have not certain persons won their way to excellence without complicated training? Have they not made great progress by obeying bare precepts alone?" Very true; but their temperaments were propitious, and they snatched salvation as it were by the way. For just as the immortal gods did not learn virtue having been born with virtue complete, and containing in their nature the essence of goodness – even so certain men are fitted with unusual qualities and reach without a long apprenticeship that which is ordinarily a matter of teaching, welcoming honourable things as soon as they hear them. Hence come the choice minds which seize quickly upon virtue, or else produce it from within themselves. But your dull, sluggish fellow, who is hampered by his evil habits, must have this soul-rust incessantly rubbed off.

It will therefore be of no avail to give precepts unless you first remove the conditions that are likely to stand in the way of precepts; 8

For some, such as repeat offenders or those who may not be mentally fit, filing a lawsuit could help with treating this “soul-rust.”

As an example of a lawsuit beginning the reform process, consider the abuses committed by Catholic priests.  For years, despite knowing that the abuse needed to stop, many continued to perpetrate and hide the assaults and abuses carried out by Catholic priests.  Over the course of ten years, the leaders of the Archdiocese of Boston tacitly admitted moral injustices by hiding the abuses through “private negotiations that never brought the parties near a courthouse.” 9  As the church quietly settled these assaults, the injustices continued and many priests who would have otherwise began to receive a more profound moral education, continued in their ways of error.  It was only after the Boston Globe newspaper shed greater light on the abuses, which ultimately lead to the full uncovering of the assaults, which lead to lawsuits, which lead to actual reform in both the individual priests and the Catholic church.  One article succinctly describes the moment when lawsuits became the catalyst for reform:

By the end of January, the documentary damage was essentially done. But by then, the first of hundreds of victims had begun contacting the paper with their stories. A further spate of civil lawsuits against the archdiocese followed, and the Globe reporters' hard work was finally crowned when an exasperated judge ordered the archdiocese to make public every single private church file kept on every Boston priest ever accused of sexual abuse. 10

What should a Stoic do if he were assaulted by a Catholic priest?  From a social oikeiôsis point of view, the Stoic ought to ignore Musonius Rufus’ advice.  Instead, he ought to consider if filing a lawsuit would prevent future abuses committed by the priests – for the sake of the well-being of the priest.  Given priest would be in a Stoic’s circle of concern, and if the Stoic would want the priest to achieve eudaimonia, and if the lawsuit would definitively be the catalyst for moral reform and education for the priest, then the Stoic must file the lawsuit.

Indeed, a philosopher may keep his equanimity by not filing a lawsuit for revenge, but rather he would do so with the intent to help the perpetrator begin the process of moral education.  Furthermore, the Stoic would not only be caring for the one, but he would be also caring for the many.

Social Oikeiôsis – Care for the Many

In the 2003 film The Matrix Reloaded, agent Smith has gone rogue after being severed from the matrix.  In a memorable scene, we observe his ambitious plan to replicate himself hundreds of times, by shoving his hand into the chest of bystanders, who then morph into a copy of agent Smith. 11 How efficient it would be to expand our circle of concern for others if a Stoic sage could simply copy her wisdom onto others so violently and swiftly!  As comical as that idea may seem, the end goal is somewhat similar.  Stoics want to spread wisdom through education and care for others; and by caring for the one, they care for the many either directly or indirectly.

Continuing with the example of the Catholic priest abuse, and asking the question if a lawsuit should be filed or not; it is not a stretch to think how filing a lawsuit not only would be the catalyst for moral education for the abuser, but the lawsuit would also prevent further injustices for many future, potential victims.

Consider the data on the number of abuses from the year 1970 to the year 2019.  Abuses continued for decades until the scandal was blown wide open leading to many public lawsuits.  Close to 2,000 abuses were documented in the years 1970-1974 and then dropping to about 120 after the Boston Globe investigation blew things open.  In the ensuing years, after the lawsuits became public, the number of allegations has dropped to 2 in the year 2019. 12

 

One could reasonably argue, that had the lawsuits not been filed, hundreds of victims would have been abused and assaulted in the last decade.  To bring this point back to what a Stoic should do after having been assaulted, if he were to follow Musonius’ advice to never file a lawsuit, then the Stoic would have failed in his duty to social oikeiôsis and circle of concern for others.  Therefore, if a Stoic is assaulted, they must not only face the abuse with equanimity, but must also consider what actions he could take considering his duty to those in his circle of concern.  If a lawsuit will prevent further injustices to many, then the Stoic ought to file a lawsuit.

Summary

In sum, this essay has attacked Rufus’ assumption that simply because a person has filed a lawsuit, that does not equate nor imply the person is intending to “bite back” at their assaulter.  Furthermore, the essay has attempted to refute Musonius’ argument by showing a Stoic may, in some cases, file a lawsuit, while simultaneously retaining his equanimity.  First by showing that a Stoic would not file a lawsuit out of a sense of having been offended, but rather out of a sense of duty to justice.  Secondly, a Stoic could also file a lawsuit out of a duty to social oikeiôsis, with the intent to help not only the individual, but also society through the means of educating the person who has carried out the assault.

Notes

1 Rufus, C. Musonius, Cynthia Ann Kent King, and William Braxton Irvine. Essay. In Musonius Rufus: Lectures & Sayings, 50-51. United States: Createspace, 2011.

2 “Justice.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Accessed August 30, 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice.

3 Pascal, Blaise, and M. Kaufmann. Essay. In Blaise Pascal Thoughts: Selected and Translated, 56.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

4 “Murder of Kitty Genovese.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, August 23, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese.

5 Takooshian, Harold. “The 1964 Kitty Genovese Tragedy: What Have We Learned?” Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, March 24, 2014. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/not-just-bystander/201403/the-1964-kitty-genovese-tragedy-what-have-we-learned.

6 Sellars, John. Essay. In Stoicism, 108, 123, 131. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.

7 Aurelius, Marcus, Martin Hammond, and Diskin Clay. “Book 6, 54.” Essay. In Meditations. London: Penguin Classics, 2014.

8 “Moral Letters to Lucilius/Letter 95.” Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 95, v. 34-38  Wikisource, the free online library. Accessed August 30, 2020  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_95.

9 Carroll, Matt, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michae Rezendes. “Scores of Priests Involved in Sex Abuse Cases - The Boston Globe.” Edited by Stephen Kurkjian and Walter V Robinson. BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, May 30, 2012. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/special-reports/2002/01/31/scores-priests-involved-sex-abuse-cases/kmRm7JtqBdEZ8UF0ucR16L/story.html.

10 Henley, Jon. “How the Boston Globe Exposed the Abuse Scandal That Rocked the Catholic Church.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 21, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-abuse-scandal-catholic.

11 Silver, Joel (Producer), & The Wachowskis (Directors). (2003). The Matrix Reloaded [Motion Picture], United States, Warner Bros. Pictures

12 “Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.” Accessed August 30, 2020. https://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/.

Essay on David Hume reductio ad absurdum Argument

Originally written August 2020

The Creation and the Creator

The context of this essay revolves around if the world (perfect or not) was created by a perfect or imperfect God.  Scottish Philosopher, David Hume, argues the world was not created by a perfect God.  He advances this claim with an analogy by comparing the world to a ship, which was created by a carpenter who finally succeeded by mimicking superior craftsmen, through repeated failures, attempts and successes.

Presented in the reductio ad absurdum form of argument, Hume claims:

To prove: the world does not have a creator in the way a ship does.

Assume the opposite: The world does have a creator in the way a ship does.

Argue that from the assumption we would have to conclude: an imperfect world must have been created by an imperfect god.

Show that this is false (morally or practically unacceptable): God cannot be imperfect.

Conclude: The world does not have a creator in the way a ship does.

This essay will first question the validity of Hume’s analogy and then respond to Hume’s premise that the world is imperfect.  If the analogy is not valid, then the argument breaks down.  Also, if it can be demonstrated that the world is indeed not imperfect, then Hume’s argument can be further refuted.  The essay will also elaborate on the Stoic concept of God, in response to the idea of perfection and imperfection.

Hume’s Analogy Not Quite Valid

Hume’s creator of the ship analogy is as follows:

But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellences can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiple trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving. 1

Hume’s creator of the ship analogy fails in a few ways.

First, a ship is an inorganic object which floats on water.  Earth, on the other hand, is organic, teeming with life inside an atmosphere.  The earth exists in the vacuum of space instead of a body of water or a dry dock.

Secondly, the degree of complexity between ship and a planet is wide and the required maintenance of each varies.  The actual mechanisms to manipulate the ship are simple compared to those of the earth.  A ship merely needs a rudder and an engine, from something as simple as a sail or a motor.  After that, the ship requires a captain and crew to steer it and maintain it (removing barnacles, replacing rotten wood, etc.).  The earth, however, has a core, layers of earth, complex life support systems in the land, water, and layers of atmosphere, to maintain its viability to sustain life.  And despite its complexity, the earth requires no intervention of a crew for on-going maintenance and repairs.  A simple ship would crash and rot without a crew.  The complex earth needs no crew to persist.

Thirdly, the purpose of a ship and the purpose of the world are different.  The goal of a ship may range from being a pleasure boat for people to explore exotic islands or it may be to transport thousands of passengers across the world to another continent or it may be designed to carry munitions in a war, to fire them on an enemy.  Broadly speaking, a ship’s purpose is for transport of people and things over water – its purpose and scope is finite.  The world, in contrast, may have a multivariate purpose, some of which may be deeply philosophical.  But it is evident, the world is not strictly a means of transportation.  There is no port from which the world has departed nor to which it will return – there is no evidence to support this idea.  And there is no clearly defined goal and universally understood mission or purpose of the world – it is not finite.

The other part of Hume’s analogy compares the creator of the ship to God.  This part of the analogy does not quite seem relevant to the scope of argument.

When most people who believe in a God, think of the concept of God, they will “go up the chain” as a matter of speaking, as far as possible.  Even the deeply seated philosophical question of “who created me” hits at the very essence of the question.  Of course, we know that my biological mother and father created me – that is how I literally came into existence.  But we want to go further, to the point of asking, who created the first human.  And even then, we may not know if whoever created the first human is indeed God or not.  Perhaps Hume was trying to limit his analogy to the scope of a creator of a ship, but in fact, he should have found an analogy that assumes a broader scope, such as one that asks the question of who designed the creator of the ship, or who is the original architect of the design of ships.  The goal would be to get to the ultimate fount of creation, instead of focusing on an intermediary.  In sum, the scope of his analogy is too limited.

His creator of the ship analogy falls apart on a few levels.  Comparing the ship to the world does not equate.  And the creator, in the analogy, is too limited in scope.

Even if we were to grant that Hume’s analogy is valid, it still fails on the point of God creating an imperfect world.  The concept of perfection versus imperfection must be addressed from a Stoic perspective.

Refuting the Idea of Perfection Versus Imperfection – a Stoic Response

The Stoic God is everywhere and is everything.  Nature is God, to the Stoics.  Everything flows from Nature, including the world.  As such, Nature is greater than the notion of perfection and imperfection.

The idea of perfection (or a superior standard), is a difficult definition to pin down, in time and space.  Things are in a constant state of change regarding time and space.  Humans have created the idea of perfection (or a superior standard), which simply means any standard they think should exist is perfect.  Without evidence of perfection, or a standard to refer to, the idea of perfection and imperfection, does not exist; rather it only exists in our minds.

As opposed to this dichotomous thinking (perfect vs imperfect), we have evidence of a hierarchy of tension in objects in the cosmos.  At the foundational level of tension are things that have no consciousness and are always acted on.  Next would be things that have consciousness but may act on other things.  At higher levels would be things that are conscious and usually act on other things.  At the highest level resides the Stoic God: Nature, which is conscious and acts on everything.  From Nature flows all things, both conscious and unconscious, both things that are acted on, and things that act.

In sum, if there is only one fount, from which all the universe, and the cosmos and everything in the cosmos, flows, then everything within the cosmos has continually changed, and simply exists now, and is in a constant state of change in the future, due to things acting on other things.  Therefore, as the universe is in a constant state of flux, if such an idea of perfection existed, it would only exist in the now.  More succinctly stated: Nature is.

The Stoic God

Marcus Aurelius explains the Stoic view of God in one concise verse:

Think always of the universe as one living creature, comprising one substance and one soul: how all is absorbed into this one consciousness; how a single impulse governs all its actions; how all things collaborate in all that happens; the very web and mesh of it all. 2

Stoic physics describe God as a philosophical God, “a living being” who is “rational, animate and intelligent.” 3  The basis for arriving at this conclusion comes from the logic that since humans are rational, animate and intelligent, therefore the cosmos cannot give rise to something which it does not possess.  Zeno stated, “that which employs reason is better than that which does not.  Now nothing is superior to the cosmos; therefore the cosmos employs reason.” 4

Beyond Nature is only void.  Consequently, there is nothing with which to compare Nature.  Nature simply exists and is “governed by reason” and exists as “the best possible organization … as there is only one possible organization.” 5

Perfection vs. Imperfection

Traditional Christians and Skeptics suggest that God is either perfect or imperfect.  Hume outlines this argument through the voices of Philo, Cleanthes and Demea.

The Christian argument might focus on the perfection of God with God’s intent to design the world preceding the creation of it.  On the other hand, the Skeptic might argue that the world was a lesser production than the creator intended.

But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellences can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiple trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving. 1

The Stoic view might respond to the debate between Philo, Cleanthes and Demea that this is dichotomous thinking.  How do we know what a perfect world is?  By what standard can we point that our world is the final result, stemming from a long string of mishaps and misfires?  It would seem the Skeptic is not skeptical enough!

To a Stoic, things, including our world, simply are.  There is no notion of perfect or imperfect.  Whereas the average person might question why brambles and bitter cucumbers were made and point to such things as evidence of an imperfect world, a Stoic, such as Marcus Aurelius, demonstrates the correct way of contemplating these things.

A bitter cucumber? Throw it away. Brambles in the path? Go round them. That is all you need, without going on to ask, 'So why are these things in the world anyway?' That question would be laughable to a student of nature, just as any carpenter or cobbler would laugh at you if you objected to the sight of shavings or off-cuts from their work on the shop floor. Yet they have somewhere to throw their rubbish, whereas the nature of the Whole has nothing outside itself. The marvel of its craft is that it sets its own confines and recycles into itself all within them which seems to be decaying, growing old, or losing its use: and then creates afresh from this same material. This way it requires no substance other than its own, and has no need for a rubbish-dump. So it is complete in its own space, its own material, and its own craftsmanship. 6

To reiterate, the Stoic response to the claim that the world is either perfect or imperfect, is to say that it is neither; rather, “it is complete in its own space.”

Marcus further emphasizes this point by demonstrating the philosophy of unity of the Whole.  Nature, and everything in it, is one whole and complete in its own space.

Everything is interwoven, and the web is holy; none of its parts are unconnected. They are composed harmoniously, and together they compose the world.

One world, made up of all things.

One divinity, present in them all.

One substance and one law—the logos that all rational beings share.

And one truth . . .

If this is indeed the culmination of one process, beings who share the same birth, the same logos. 7

In sum, Stoic physics explain the concept that everything is encompassed in Nature (God).  Things within may need to discard shavings, as evidenced in the metaphor of the carpenter.  But for Nature as a Whole, there is nowhere to place such things to be discarded.  Instead, Nature is able to self-regulate and use everything to its advantage.

The concept of self-regulation can be further explained through the concept of the hierarchy of tension of pneuma of things in the cosmos.

The Hierarchy of Tension

Stoic physics explain differing levels of tension or tonos of things in Nature.  At the low end is simple cohesion (hexis).  Things such as rock would have cohesion.  Moving up the hierarchy of tension is nature (phusis).  Things that have this level of tension would be classified as alive.  The next level up is soul (psuche).  Things with this level of tension would be animals that possess the power of perception, movement and reproduction.  And still higher would be the tension of rational soul (logike psuche).  Things with this level of tension would be adult human beings. 8

Taking this hierarchy one step further, we know that which is higher than the rational soul would be the rational Cosmos.  While the adult human being possesses a rational soul, she is still only “a fragment of matter that constitutes the cosmic body” of Nature.  From this basis of reasoning, we arrive at the conclusion that from Nature, all things flow, both things that are acted upon and things that act. 9

Observing this cosmic perspective of things and events, therefore, helps us to avoid the entire debate of things being perfect versus imperfect, or even good versus evil.

If we accept the premise that all things flow from Nature and that Nature (God) is rational, then we can assume that Nature has accounted for all and is able to self-regulate.

Therefore, as rational beings, we can observe the movement of the stars and the changes of the earth and the life cycle of the animals.  These things naturally manage themselves, without the need of oversight.  A weed grows, it dies, it replenishes the earth and enriches the soil.  If a person chooses to see a weed as an imperfection, then that person has not widened his aperture to the right level of perspective.  He should try to look at the weed in a broader, more cosmic perspective, and he may begin to not see the weed as imperfect, but as a necessary part of Nature’s way of self-regulation.

Summary

The essay has attempted to first, refute the validity of Hume’s creator of the ship analogy, by claiming that a ship does not equate to the world, nor does the scope of the creator quite arise to the scope of God.

The essay went on to also question the premise of God creating an imperfect world, by attacking the notion of perfect versus imperfect.  In so doing, it explained the macro framework of Stoic physics, including the Stoic God.  The Stoic God, which is Nature, encompasses things which have differing levels of tension, from simple cohesion such as in stones, all the way up to the fully rational, self-regulating organism of Nature itself.

Within Nature, some people have assumed the wrong perspective regarding perfection or imperfection.  If a person thinks our world is either perfectly made or not, then he has not considered the grand perspective of Nature, wherein all things are managed and in a constant state of change.  If he takes the correct perspective, he will appreciate that, to God (Nature) “all things are fair and good and just” and that it is “people [who] hold some things wrong and some right.” 10

Notes

1 David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part V

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm#chap05 

2 Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4, 40

3 John Sellars, Stoicism p. 93, 95

4 Sellars, Stoicism p. 93

5 Sellars, Stoicism p. 99  

6 Aurelius, Meditations 8, 50

7 Aurelius, Meditations 7, 9

8 Sellars, Stoicism p. 91

9 Sellars Stoicism p. 104-105

10 Heraclitus, DK B102, from Porphyry, Notes on Homer, on Iliad 4.4