Phil 405 term paper - The Consolation of Stoic Optimism

The Consolation of Stoic Optimism

    A sudden or expected death of a loved one, war, terror attacks, physical assaults, and violent car accidents are types of shocking events which confront individuals at least once in their lifetime (Bonanno, 20). Stoic metaphysics embraces an optimistic view that all events, including the ones listed, will ultimately work out well. However, one of the most prolific modern academics of Stoicism, wondered if this is a problem with the philosophy. After detailing Stoic metaphysics, including the properties of Nature, pneuma, and the philosophy’s optimistic view on providential determinism, A.A. Long mentions “one of the least palatable” characteristics of the philosophy: “trust” in Nature that all is well (170). He goes on to observe the “chilling and insensitive” attitudes of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius which embrace a “faith that all will turn out well in the end” (170). Does a belief in Nature, fate, and that all events will ultimately unfold well help the individual secure a eudaimonic life? Or is this belief inconsiderate and does it minimize the emotions one feels as a result of his fate? With the right perspective, beliefs and attitude, one can achieve a flourishing life regardless of circumstances without necessarily minimizing one’s emotions.

    If one embraces Stoicism’s metaphysical framework, beginning with the concept of pneuma pervading everything through the forces of unity, life, movement and rationality, which logically leads to the idea of Nature or God as one whole, then one can rationally conclude a deterministic fate, in which humans participate in the fate of the Cosmos. Furthermore, despite a deterministic view, at least one research paper offers some evidence that a disbelief in free will can lead to moral behavior and empathy, thus countering the lazy argument (Caspar). One modern day psychologist bolsters this view with arguments from Spinoza and Joseph Wolpe. Therefore, taken as a whole belief system, assuming an optimistic perspective about conjoined fated actions and determinism, humans can flourish and be resilient (live an excellent life) regardless of circumstances and they can even experience a flowing self-determination in the face of any adversity, including death, loss and violent events. Indeed, this has been confirmed by some modern research. Because of their optimism, humans mostly exhibit resilience (Bonanno and Zimmerman). The entire argument, from metaphysical beliefs to determinism, to conjoined fated actions, to obtaining eudaimonia leads to the promise Epictetus gave his students: “[securing a] desire that never fails in its aim, aversion that never falls into what it wants to avoid, motivation that accords with one’s duty, purpose that is carefully weighed, and assent that is not over-hasty” (Discourses 2.8).

    At the very core of Stoic metaphysics is the substance pneuma. In brief, it simply and literally means wind or breath (Liddell and Scott). Long uses various phrases which expand on the literal definition, by describing pneuma as “fiery breath”, “artistic fire”, “the active principle”, “vital spirit … hot breath … vehicle of the logos”, “force or energy”, “‘field of force’ activating matter” and “intelligent director of everything” (150-164). John Sellars defines pneuma as “identified with God and reason” and “a conscious and rational organizing principle” and as “the soul of the cosmos” (97).  He cites Aetius who described God as “creative fire (pur technikon)” and Stobaeus who called it the force “causing growth and preservation” (98-99). Implicit in these descriptions is movement and action.

    Pneuma is in “perpetual motion” and therefore is the cause of other movements in the cosmos (Sambursky 21). Furthermore, this motion not only exists in bodies, but is also the framework for how the cosmos operates.  The motion is like that of waves or ripples after a pebble is tossed into still water. Quoting Stobaios, Sambursky writes, “It begins in the centre of the body and extends outwards to its boundaries, and after touching the outermost surface it turns back till it arrives at the same place from which it started” (31).

    Besides being in perpetual motion, pneuma is considered the active element and mixes with passive elements (fire, air, water, earth) and binds itself to them causing bodies to exist. Pneuma may be mixed with elements to three varying degrees. First is mingling which could be described as a “mechanical mixture” like that of a mosaic, second is fusion, which mixture causes “a new substance,” and third, “complete interpenetration” in which all parts are “jointly occupied by all the components in the same proportion” (Sambursky 12-13). Additionally, depending on the extent to which pneuma is mixed with passive elements will determine how alive an object is and if it has a soul or not (Sellars91). In sum, the extent of pneuma in passive elements determines if an object has simple forces of unity, or is living, or has movement or possesses rationality.

    Given that pneuma is in constant motion, mixes with passive elements, and is the cause of tension and the coherence of everything, the cosmos is one unified whole. Like the glove and hand analogy, whereby the glove would represent the passive elements, and the hand would represent the active force, the cosmos is set in motion and is active by virtue of pneuma. Sambursky succinctly summarizes this idea and notes how the cosmos is one whole because Nature is unbroken in time and space.  Referring to pneuma, he wrote, “It was divine power (viz. Force) impressing a definite state upon matter on the one hand, and causal nexus linking the successive states of matter on the other, and in both these aspects it revealed itself as a spatially and temporally continuous agent” (Sambursky 37). Given their view that the cosmos is one “agent,” the Stoics believed that fate was tied up with Nature - a topic on which Chrysippus had a few things to say.

    Regarding fate, Chrysippus aligns with Zeno’s position, Zeno being the founder of Stoicism.  In some fragments which remain of his writings, we learn Zeno said, “fate is the chainlike cause of existing things or the reason in accordance with which they are ordered … [and is] the moving power of matter according to identical rules and in the same way and it does not differ from providence and nature” (Gould 142). Chrysippus reaffirms Zeno’s stance by calling fate “a certain natural order of all things, following closely upon one another and moved in succession from eternity, and their intertwining with one another is unalterable” (143). Rival philosophical schools attacked Chrysippus’ views on fate arguing that free will was removed and that since fate has been decided, human agency becomes irrelevant (i.e., the lazy argument). In response, Chrysippus would refine his argument with the ideas of “proximate” and “perfect” causes along with the idea that certain things are “in our power” and others are not (149).

    A proximate cause might be the proposition of eating a large unhealthy meal or committing adultery, but the perfect cause would be the individual assenting to the proposition, or not. Chrysippus would expound on this idea with the cylinder analogy. A cylinder may be sitting on a slope and the “initial force” to start the rolling process would be the proximate cause (i.e., the proposition of an unhealthy dinner or the opportunity at committing adultery in the previous example) (149). But “the cylinder’s own form” would be accountable for the ongoing movement down the slope, which would represent the proximate cause (i.e., assenting or not to eating the unhealthy dinner or committing adultery in the previous example) (150). Sellars makes this distinction even clearer by explaining Chrysippus’ ideas on “simple fated things and conjoined fated things” and by providing an example of a mortal being (Sellars 103). He writes that while “Socrates will die” is a “simple fated thing” it is not certain that “Socrates will die this afternoon” because he will opt to visit a doctor and therefore his actual chance of survival is termed his “cojoined fate” since Socrates has some choice in the matter (104). While Chrysippus did much to bolster his views to counter the lazy argument response on fate, modern research also provides a few other reasons which counter the lazy argument on determinism and fate.

    One research study investigated the relationship between people’s belief or disbelief in free will and how their moral actions aligned with those beliefs. In this study, the researchers instructed all participants to complete various questionnaires to determine where their beliefs resided on a scale of belief in free will, determinism and fate. When the participants arrived at the lab, two large groups were formed: the Control group and the No Free will group. In the Control group, participants read a passage from a book which explained how “psychologists tried to develop a method to assess consciousness” while the No Free Will group read a passage from the same book about how “human behavior is totally determined by genetics” (Caspar, et. al. 3). They were then placed in groupings of three individuals in a room: one as “agent,” one as “victim,” and one as “experimenter” (3). The selection of the roles was random, and all participants eventually played one of the three roles. In every situation, the agent was given money if the agent delivered a painful shock to the victim, but if they did not deliver the shock, no money was given. In these sub-groupings, there were two conditions the agent was presented with: the free-choice condition, in which the agent was totally free to give the shock or not, and the coercive condition in which the experimenter told the agent to give the shock, in which case the agent could decide to give the shock or not.

    The results of this experiment indicate “the No Free will group inflicted fewer shocks in the free-choice condition than participants in the Control group” (6-7). While gender does seem to play a factor, the results still indicate that when given a free choice, participants who believed they had no choice in fact demonstrated greater prosocial or moral behaviors. The study further noted that “the reduction of immoral behavior in the no free will group for female participants stems from the induced beliefs” as opposed to their “core beliefs” (7). Additional conclusions from the study show that vengeful behavior was also reduced in the same No Free will group, “and that the higher female participants scored on free will, the more vindictive they were” (7). In sum, this research study reveals that a disbelief in free will does not necessarily lead to one adhering to lazy argument thinking, but it also reveals deterministic thinking can even lead to higher prosocial thinking and behavior.

    If one believes that much of their life and circumstances are determined by things beyond their control, then perhaps they will focus their efforts on empathy and improving societal and environmental conditions which promote improved moral behaviors, rather than seeking to instill punitive forms of persuasion. Indeed, it seems deterministic thinking can cause one to have more compassion and understanding. Donald Robertson, a modern-day psychologist, observed the connection between determinism and empathy by drawing parallels in the ideas of Spinoza and a 20th century psychiatrist named Joseph Wolpe. He noted that to understand the world rationally “is to do so by reference to … the essential idea of Nature itself.” He then quotes Spinoza, whose metaphysical beliefs are similar to the Stoics: “we can desire nothing save that which is necessary, nor can we absolutely be contented with anything save what is true: and therefore insofar as we understand this rightly, the endeavour of the best part of us is in harmony with the order of the whole of nature” (Robertson).

Robertson then notes the relationship between determinism and living in harmony with Nature, to the ideas of the psychiatrist Wolpe, who said this of determinism and empathy:

Objectivity, empathy, and sensitivity to suffering are intrinsic to the behaviour therapist’s approach to his patients. The objectivity follows from the knowledge that all behaviour, including cognitive behaviour, is subject to causal determination no less than is the behaviour of falling bodies or magnetic fields. […] To explain how the patient’s neurosis arose out of a combination or chain of particular events helps [empathic] understanding (Robertson).

The point to this long thread about determinism and empathy is to counter the idea which Long calls “chilling and insensitive” about the idea that “all will turn out well in the end” (170). Taking an optimistic perspective is not disturbing and inconsiderate, but rather it is a rational way for the individual to arrive at acceptance of events as they are and empathic understanding for himself and humanity.

    Furthermore, this thread of thought on determinism and empathy ought to inform the individual to not only validate his own emotions and those of others when they perceive that much is beyond their control - that these perceptions don’t have to be distressing and indifferent -but that we can experience greater and deeper understanding of our shared human experiences and help others see the higher fidelity of existence. The higher fidelity in thinking and perception allows us to truly grasp and comprehend what is up to us, and in that space, we can adjust our attitude towards an optimistic perspective which will lead to resilience in the face of adversity. In fact, resilience seems to be the default human reaction to adversity.

    Humans are a tough and resilient species. One study of 67 potentially traumatic events, such as “mass shootings, hurricanes, spinal cord injuries,” observed that two-thirds resiliently recover from the event (Zimmerman). The article which references this study concludes by noting what psychologists have observed in people who are resilient and flourish in virtually any circumstance: they have a “positive, realistic outlook … [and] look for opportunities in bleak situations, striving to find the positive within the negatives” (Zimmerman). A professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University’s Teachers College, George Bonanno, conducted this research on human resilience in the face of traumatic events, and observed “multiple pathways to resilience” (25). Of note are his findings which align with the optimistic perspective on Stoic determinism. He noted that “hardiness” which includes commitment “to finding meaningful purpose in life” and “that one can learn and grow from both positive and negative life experiences” are hallmarks in those who demonstrate resilience to adverse events (25). These traits align with the Stoic perspective that all events and circumstances can work out for the best. And closely related to this optimistic view, Bonanno further observes, are those responses of “positive emotion and laughter” which have the effect of “quieting or undoing a negative emotion” after an “aversive event” (26).

    To tie all these threads together, the idea that ultimately all works out well (Stoic optimism), not only embraces determinism, but also reminds the individual of what is up to him, namely, his attitude and the ability to grasp the reality of his situation. This higher fidelity in thinking allows him the space to be more empathic with his own situation and that of others. This empathy can counteract the “chilling and insensitive” perspective Long mentions (170). Furthermore, this cognitive space empowers the individual to breed a growth and learning mindset regarding all events in his life, including traumatic events. This optimism, in the form of seeking meaning and purpose, along with the optimistic characteristics of “positive emotion and laughter” can equip the individual to resiliently endure most events in his life (Bonanno 26). Being psychologically prepared and equipped with this mentality, the individual thus gains confidence in his pursuit of leading a fulfilling and flourishing life – he knows when tough times come, these events will provide meaning and opportunity for him to practice excellence in living.

    In conclusion, the entire argument, from metaphysical beliefs to determinism, to conjoined fated actions, to securing eudaimonia leads to the promise Epictetus gave his students: “[securing a] desire that never fails in its aim, aversion that never falls into what it wants to avoid, motivation that accords with one’s duty, purpose that is carefully weighed, and assent that is not over-hasty” (Discourses 2.8). This mindset is not disturbing nor callous, but rather optimistically equips the individual to be psychologically and emotionally durable and possess the confidence to face any adversity. Not only can one wisely respond to any desire, aversion, or event in his life, but he can also feel confidence and gratitude in his mental paradigm. Lastly, Marcus Aurelius compares this robust self-determination to that of ocean waves colliding against the cropping of rocks.

Be like the rocky headland on which the waves constantly break. It stands firm, and round it the seething waters are laid to rest. 'It is my bad luck that this has happened to me.' No, you should rather say: 'It is my good luck that, although this has happened to me, I can bear it without pain, neither crushed by the present nor fearful of the future.' Because such a thing could have happened to any man, but not every man could have borne it without pain (Meditations Book 4, chapter 49).

Works Cited

Bonanno, George A. "Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have we Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events?" American Psychologist, vol. 59, no. 1, 2004, pp. 20-28. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Floss-trauma-human-resilience-have-we%2Fdocview%2F614384211%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289, doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20.

Caspar, Emilie A., et al. “The Influence of (Dis)Belief in Free Will on Immoral Behavior.” Frontiers in Psychology, no. 8 20, 17 Jan. 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00020. 

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

Gould, J B. The Philosophy of Chrysippus. 1970. Netherlands, Brill Academic Pub, 1971.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, a Greek-English Lexicon, πνεῦμα.” Www.perseus.tufts.edu, 1940, www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpneu%3Dma. Accessed 12 Feb. 2023.

Long, A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy : Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. University Of California Press, 1986.

Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, et al. Meditations. Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books, 2014.

Robertson, Donald J. “Spinoza’s Philosophical Psychotherapy.” Stoicism — Philosophy as a Way of Life, 26 Sept. 2019, medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/spinozas-philosophical-psychotherapy-94ff758f6f15. Accessed 18 Feb. 2023.

Sellars, John. Stoicism. Routledge, 2014.

Zimmerman, Eilene. What Makes Some People More Resilient Than Others: RESILIENCE. ProQuest, Jun 18, 2020, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fblogs-podcasts-websites%2Fwhat-makes-some-people-more-resilient-than-others%2Fdocview%2F2414234236%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289.

Letters from a Stoic 124 - On the True Good as Attained by Reason

On the True Good as Attained by Reason

The topic of this letter is "whether the Good is grasped by the senses or by the understanding; and the corollary thereto is that it does not exist in dumb animals or little children."

In sum, the Good can only be grasped and understood by reason.  Animals and little children (and to some extent, non-adults), cannot attain the Good.  This is related to my previous post on letter 123, where I stated "to completely grow and progress into the full bloom of a rational, human adult (logikē psuchē, see Sellars 104-105)."  Animals do not even possess the capacity to reach the cohesion state of logikē psuchē.  But children at least have the capacity to reach that cohesion state.

Sellars writes,

A rational human being, then, will contain pneuma at all four levels of tension. She will have pneuma as hexis giving cohesion to her bones, for instance; pneuma as phusis by virtue of being alive in the most basic biological sense; pneuma as psuchē giving her the animal faculties of impression and impulse; and pneuma as logikē psuchē giving her the rational power of judgement that can intervene between receiving impressions and acting on impulses.

Seneca notes that Stoics associate the Good with the rational mind and not the senses or pleasure.

Those who rate pleasure as the supreme ideal hold that the Good is a matter of the senses; but we Stoics maintain that it is a matter of the understanding, and we assign it to the mind.

...

we condemn men who are slaves to their appetites and their lusts, and we scorn men who, through fear of pain, will dare no manly deed.

The Stoics maintain that eudaimonia is obtained only through reason.

Reason, however, is surely the governing element in such a matter as this; as reason has made the decision concerning the happy life, and concerning virtue and honour also, so she has made the decision with regard to good and evil.

And eudaimonia is attained only according to Nature and that humans are born the the capacity to reach it.

we define as "happy" those things that are in accord with Nature. And that which is in accord with Nature is obvious and can be seen at once – just as easily as that which is complete. That which is according to Nature, that which is given us as a gift immediately at our birth, is, I maintain, not a Good, but the beginning of a Good.

Reason can only be attained and understood by rational humans.  It cannot be attained by animals or children.

In that which does not possess reason, the Good will never exist. In that which is not yet endowed with reason, the Good cannot be existent at the time.

...

the Good cannot be discovered in any random person, or at any random age

Like wheat, the purpose of adult humans cannot be achieved until it is in full bloom.

There is a certain Good of wheat: it is not yet existent, however, in the swelling stalk, nor when the soft ear is pushing itself out of the husk, but only when summer days and its appointed maturity have ripened the wheat. Just as Nature in general does not produce her Good until she is brought to perfection, even so man's Good does not exist in man until both reason and man are perfected.

The Good is:

a free mind, an upright mind, subjecting other things to itself and itself to nothing

...

a matter of the understanding

...

a clear and flawless mind, which rivals that of God, raised far above mortal concerns, and counting nothing of its own to be outside itself. You are a reasoning animal. What Good, then, lies within you? Perfect reason.

How can you know when you have attained eudaimonia?

Only consider yourself happy when all your joys are born of reason, and when – having marked all the objects which men clutch at, or pray for, or watch over – you find nothing which you will desire; mind, I do not say prefer.

And Seneca offers this rule of thumb for know when you have reached that point.

"You will come to your own when you shall understand that those whom the world calls fortunate are really the most unfortunate of all."

Citations

Sellars, John. Stoicism. Berkeley, University Of California Press, 2006.

Letters from a Stoic 123 - On the Conflict between Pleasure and Virtue

On the Conflict between Pleasure and Virtue

In my studies of Stoicism, I've learned the summum bonum is eudaimonia - this is the why of philosophy.  And eudaimonia is the state of having a good soul, or if you earnestly believe the Stoics, it means to align your own part of divinity (your daimon) with the Whole - the Cosmos - Nature, hence the motto live according to Nature (Long, 197; Sellars, 122-123).  Or to put it even more bluntly, to align with, choose with, desire with and will with God (Stephens, 59).

And, in my opinion, the goal is not only to achieve eudaimonia once for a brief moment, but to be able to achieve a constant state of flourishing and excellence - to completely grow and progress into the full bloom of a rational, human adult (logikē psuchē, see Sellars 104-105).

The Stoics will say that avoidance of pain, toil and trials and the pursuit of pleasures and ease are not up to us.  And therefore, if we try to avoid the former and pursue the latter in hopes of achieving eudaimonia, we will end up disappointed and fail in our quest.

But, if we place our desires on the pursuit of exercising moral virtues (and this is entirely up to us), then we have a shot at finding and retaining lasting equanimity, serenity and eudaimonia.

Therefore, all that the Stoics try to teach us, is too focus only on what is up to us and to not get caught up in the avoidance of things (pain, toil, trial) not up to us and the pursuit of things (fame, status, wealth, pleasures) not up to us.  These indifferents are mere materials or mediums for us to exercise what is entirely ours: our will; our volition; our character; our morals.

In this spirit, Seneca attempts to explain how, regardless of circumstances, we can find a way to act with moral conviction.  And he will rail against those whose philosophy is to pursue pleasure and ease, not to make himself feel better or to make others feel bad, but on the contrary - to help people understand the reality of the situation, and to help them find an alternative to folly and disappointment.

nothing is heavy if one accepts it with a light heart, and that nothing need provoke one's anger if one does not add to one's pile of troubles by getting angry.

If your expectations do not match reality, your expectations may need an adjustment.  And your attitude of the situation can be immediately adjusted.  If you find some circumstance to be "heavy" you can simply choose to change your attitude about it.  If something upsets you and you are angry, recognize that by being angry, you are piling on more trouble.

I must not eat until hunger bids me; so I shall wait and shall not eat until I can either get good bread or else cease to be squeamish about it.  It is necessary that one grow accustomed to slender fare

The antidote to gluttony is to delay eating until necessary.  When you complain about the food, wait even longer until the coarse bread becomes rich.

To have whatsoever he wishes is in no man's power; it is in his power not to wish for what he has not, but cheerfully to employ what comes to him.

Folly begins when you find yourself always wishing.  Wishing and desiring for things not up to you will lead to disappointment.  But cheerful acceptance is something you can do something about.

Every circumstance is a test of your character and resolve.  Complaining and anxiety are symptoms of an internal misalignment.  Reflect on these and improve.

viewing one's own troubles not only fairly but calmly, not flying into fits of temper or wordy wranglings, supplying one's own needs by not craving something which was really due, and reflecting that our habits may be unsatisfied, but never our own real selves.

We must be leery of desire infection from others.

how much do we acquire simply because our neighbours have acquired such things, or because most men possess them!   Many of our troubles may be explained from the fact that we live according to a pattern, and, instead of arranging our lives according to reason, are led astray by convention.  There are things which, if done by the few, we should refuse to imitate; yet when the majority have begun to do them, we follow along

Seneca goes so far as to advocate shunning certain people because of their "bad habits."

You should avoid conversation with all such persons: they are the sort that communicate and engraft their bad habits from one to another. We used to think that the very worst variety of these men were those who vaunted their words; but there are certain men who vaunt their wickedness. Their talk is very harmful; for even though it is not at once convincing, yet they leave the seeds of trouble in the soul

I would temper Seneca's advice.  If you are just beginning to practice a philosophical life and if you are trying to drink and eat less, for example, then you should probably not talk much with people who would have you join them at the bar or buffet every week.  A bit more distance from them would be in order.  However, if you have established, good habits, then there is no need for avoiding such people.  Rather, you could be an anchor and boon to them, in helping them see a better way.

Seneca would warn us to avoid such people, because we might catch their tune in our head and soon, we would not be able to get it out of our mind.  Thereafter, we would begin to be persuaded by such devious philosophies such as this:

"Virtue, Philosophy, Justice – this is a jargon of empty words. The only way to be happy is to do yourself well. To eat, drink, and spend your money is the only real life, the only way to remind yourself that you are mortal. Our days flow on, and life – which we cannot restore – hastens away from us. Why hesitate to come to our senses? This life of ours will not always admit pleasures; meantime, while it can do so, while it clamours for them, what profit lies in imposing thereupon frugality? Therefore get ahead of death, and let anything that death will filch from you be squandered now upon yourself. You have no mistress, no favourite slave to make your mistress envious; you are sober when you make your daily appearance in public; you dine as if you had to show your account-book to 'Papa'; but that is not living, it is merely going shares in someone else's existence.  And what madness it is to be looking out for the interests of your heir, and to deny yourself everything, with the result that you turn friends into enemies by the vast amount of the fortune you intend to leave! For the more the heir is to get from you, the more he will rejoice in your taking-off! All those sour fellows who criticize other men's lives in a spirit of priggishness and are real enemies to their own lives, playing schoolmaster to the world – you should not consider them as worth a farthing, nor should you hesitate to prefer good living to a good reputation."

These are siren voices; and we ought to take precautions in order to avoid their messages becoming our philosophy.  And be wary of those who profess to be Stoics, but in reality, they are not.

let us retreat from the objects that allure, and rouse ourselves to meet the objects that attack.

...

only those men bring ruin to our ears, who praise pleasure, who inspire us with fear of pain – that element which is in itself provocative of fear; I believe that we are also in injured by those who masquerade under the disguise of the Stoic school and at the same time urge us on into vice.

The sage is wise and knowledgeable in both intent and actions.

No man is good by chance. Virtue is something which must be learned.

Philosophy fights vice.

philosophy ought not to try to explain away vice.

Citations

Long, Anthony A. Hellenistic Philosophy : Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. London, Duckworth, 1986.

Sellars, John. Stoicism. Berkeley, University Of California Press, 2006.

Stephens, William O. Stoic Ethics : Epictetus and Happiness as Freedom. London ; Oxford ; New York ; New Delhi ; Sydney Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.

Letters from a Stoic 110 - On True and False Riches

On True and False Riches

In Seneca's time, many believed a personal god or protector accompanied each person.

the present the belief of certain persons – that a god is assigned to each one of us as a sort of attendant – not a god of regular rank, but one of a lower grade – one of those whom Ovid calls "plebeian gods."

This is not unlike the Stoic view of deity.  The Stoics believe that there is a bit of god in each of us - our own daimon.  Marcus refers to the daimon often and this is where the word eudaimonia comes from - to have a good god-soul within us; to align our unique part of us with the Whole or Nature.

Seneca makes the point that regardless if you have a bit of god in you or not (and we are therefore neglected), he observes, 

you can curse a man with no heavier curse than to pray that he may be at enmity with himself.

If we are at enmity with ourselves, then we deny our very existence!

He then pivots to the observation that 'evils' do not really turn out to be evils, especially if we take the perspective of the view from above - seeing things from the perspective of God or Nature.

evils are more likely to help us than to harm us. For how often has so-called affliction been the source and the beginning of happiness!

Our lives may be built up over many years; we may enjoy decades of health and savings and prosperity.  But then along comes some misfortune.  We may become ill or lose a job.  How often do we see people reinvent themselves and start anew?  Was the illness or job loss really a misfortune?

But let us also never forget that regardless of the 'highs' and 'lows' of life, the very end for everyone ends up the same.  When compared to our final state (death), all 'lows' and 'downs' in life (e.g. illness, job less, exile, etc.) are nothing.

But this very fall has in it nothing evil, if you consider the end, after which nature lays no man lower.

Wise people consider the Whole.  The wise aim for equanimity - neither tormented by the fears of 'lows' nor overcome with joy by the 'highs.'

measure all things according to the state of man; restrict at the same time both your joys and your fears.

Wise people also remember that externals are nothing to us.  They do not depend on us.  Therefore, we should never get worked up about them!

All these things which stir us and keep us a-flutter, are empty things.

Referring to externals, Seneca observes,

how fleeting, how unsure, and how harmless are the things which we fear.

What is the antidote to succumbing to externals?  To learn what is truly good and evil: our moral choice.  We can learn this.

we acquire by knowledge this familiarity with things divine and human, if we not only flood ourselves but steep ourselves therein, if a man reviews the same principles even though he understands them and applies them again and again to himself, if he has investigated what is good, what is evil, and what has falsely been so entitled; and, finally, if he has investigated honour and baseness, and Providence.

Furthermore, we may frequently take flight and return often to the view from above; and ignore what the majority incorrectly deem as good: riches, fame, status.

The range of the human intelligence is not confined within these limits; it may also explore outside the universe – its destination and its source, and the ruin towards which all nature hastens so rapidly. We have withdrawn the soul from this divine contemplation and dragged it into mean and lowly tasks, so that it might be a slave to greed, so that it might forsake the universe and its confines, and, under the command of masters who try all possible schemes, pry beneath the earth and seek what evil it can dig up therefrom – discontented with that which was freely offered to it.

When Seneca admonishes us to 'explore outside the universe' it sound very familiar to Marcus:

Further, the rational soul traverses the whole universe and its surrounding void, explores the shape of it, stretches into the infinity of time, encompasses and comprehends the periodic regeneration of the Whole. It reflects that our successors will see nothing new, just as our predecessors saw nothing more than we do: such is the sameness of things, a man of forty with any understanding whatsoever has in a sense seen all the past and all the future" (Meditations 11.1.2).

Hadot often speaks of this practice of 'taking flight' and traversing the Cosmos.  See this entry on my blog.

Returning to the Seneca quote above, he also notes that greed is the cause for humanity to turn away from the heavens and towards the earth - to dig for gold, silver and minerals.  Our greed drives us to 'pry beneath the earth and seek what evil it can dig up' as we are 'discontented with that which is freely offered.'  Seneca says something similar in Letter 94.  In this letter he adds,

we have brought to light the materials for our destruction, against the will of Nature, who hid them from us. We have bound over our souls to pleasure, whose service is the source of all evil; we have surrendered ourselves to self-seeking and reputation, and to other aims which are equally idle and useless.

Our goal; and what is freely ours, is

to see clearly for yourself what is necessary and what is superfluous.  What is necessary will meet you everywhere; what is superfluous has always to be hunted-out – and with great endeavour.

We ought to despise greed, gluttony and luxury.  These are all for show.  These are externals and truly are not a part of us nor 'up to us.'  To acquire, to eat to excess, to bask in riches are merely activities of display, but do not demonstrate actual human excellence.

Seneca closes with a quote from Attalus, who speaks of a procession of wealth by an empire, of which a few parts I've copied below.

What else is this, I said to myself, than a stirring-up of man's cravings, which are in themselves provocative of lust? What is the meaning of all this display of money? Did we gather merely to learn what greed was? For my own part I left the place with less craving than I had when I entered. I came to despise riches, not because of their uselessness, but because of their pettiness

...

the riches seemed to me to be as useless to the possessors as they were to the onlookers.

...

It is all show; such things are displayed, not possessed; while they please they pass away. 18. Turn thyself rather to the true riches. Learn to be content with little

...

Do you ask what is the cure for want? It is to make hunger satisfy hunger

...

freedom comes, not to him over whom Fortune has slight power, but to him over whom she has no power at all. This is what I mean: you must crave nothing, if you would vie with Jupiter; for Jupiter craves nothing.

Think often of these things.

If you are willing to think often of these things, you will strive not to seem happy, but to be happy, and, in addition, to seem happy to yourself rather than to others. 

Philosophy 101 - Week 6 - Ethics and Moral Philosophy

While listening to the audio book version of The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, one phrase caught my attention and has remained with me ever since.  The phrase was, "Prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child" (Lukianoff).  Implied in this bit of advice is an ethical framework for navigating the world and preparing oneself for the multifaceted experiences and interactions.  This ethical mindset places the locus of control in the individual, rather the environment.

Our situation in this existence is not singular; meaning, as individuals, we are not the only person on a planet with unlimited resources.  Rather, existence is such, that we live on a planet with billions of other people and therefore, our actions can and often do impact others.  We cannot demand the world conform to our desires and aversions in order to achieve the summum bonum or the ultimate good.

Regarding the definition of the ultimate good, one author wrote, "Aristotle claims that all the things that are ends in themselves also contribute to a wider end, an end that is the greatest good of all" (Athanassoulis).

Furthermore, the ethical framework ought to provide a lifetime motivation for the individual, so he has a reason to want to continue to adhere to the framework for the duration of his life - it must have a catalyst and a sustaining force.

The virtue ethics of ancient Greek schools sought to marry the multi-fold aspects of living, while attempting to persuade the individual to live a certain way, which would not only promote the common welfare of the social structure, but also that of the individual.  One author observes this connection.  The Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic and Epicurean "Schools of philosophy associated happiness not so much with feeling a certain way about how one’s life was going, but rather with the behaviour resulting from one’s cultivation of an excellent or virtuous character. This crucial linkage by these Schools of happiness with virtue is called eudaimonism, and is based on the principal Greek word for happiness, eudaimonia. Binding the pursuit of happiness with the cultivation of an excellent or virtuous character framed within an overarching philosophical view of reality was central to the development of the Graeco-Christian apophatic tradition" (Cook).

By cultivating one's character to be virtuous, one can achieve happiness and flourishing for himself, while also being a benefit to those around him.  The person would not only be concerned about how to live well as an individual, but also how to live well as a father, employee, neighbor, or citizen.

One failing of this ethical framework is the requisite education and rigor needed to learn and pursue a virtuous life.  Because of humanity's primal urges for survival, many of our motivations and desires stem from our non-rational human instincts, and less educated people, who come from less 'lucky' circumstances are never afforded the opportunity to learn how to flourish.  To put it differently, we could ask "is it fair to praise the virtuous (and blame the vicious) for something that was outside of their control? (Athanassoulis).  This leaves open the possibility that virtue ethics is subject to moral luck.

If, however, humanity is able to devise a large-scale method for promoting the framework of virtue ethics, then perhaps moral luck is minimized, and as it flourishes, the framework and way of living becomes self-sustaining on the grand social scale.

References

Athanassoulis, Nafsika. “Virtue Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/virtue/#SH3a.

Cook, Brendan. Pursuing Eudaimonia : Re-appropriating the Greek Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Apophatic Tradition, Cambridge Scholars Publisher, 2012.

Lukianoff, Greg. CODDLING of the AMERICAN MIND : How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation For... Failure. S.L., Penguin Books, 2019.

Letters from a Stoic 98 - On the Fickleness of Fortune

On the Fickleness of Fortune

For a Stoic, the summum bonum is a flourishing life or eudaimonia.  "eu" means 'good' or 'well' and "daimon" is 'soul' or 'spirit' (see this link).  According to Stoic physics, each human has a bit of divinity within him and for the human to fully flourish, he must live in accordance with God or Nature.

Pierre Hadot cites Chrysippus in The Inner Citadel,

The definition of the happy life, according to Chrysippus, is that in which everything is done "in accordance with the harmony between the daimon within each one of us and the will of the governor of the universe" (p. 123).

The translation of this can also be found at The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, by Diogenes Laërtius - see Book VII, Zeno), in which it reads,

Again, this very thing is the virtue of the happy man and the perfect happiness of life when everything is done according to a harmony with the genius of each individual with reference to the will of the universal governor and manager of all things.

This is the basis for the Stoic phrase, 'live according to Nature' or 'live in agreement with Nature.'

Furthermore, the Stoic philosophy maintains that achieving eudaimonia is something which is 'up to us.'  We are not dependent on externals in order to achieve this.  Hence Seneca writes in this letter,

joy which springs wholly from oneself is leal and sound; it increases and attends us to the last; while all other things which provoke the admiration of the crowd are but temporary Goods.

This well-spring of joy or eudaimonia can be found regardless of goods or ills (externals) in our life.  In fact, the externals or indifferents are the material for our use, in order to demonstrate arete which demonstration leads to eudaimonia.

For men make a mistake, my dear Lucilius, if they hold that anything good, or evil either, is bestowed upon us by Fortune; it is simply the raw material of Goods and Ills that she gives to us – the sources of things which, in our keeping, will develop into good or ill. For the soul is more powerful than any sort of Fortune; by its own agency it guides its affairs in either direction, and of its own power it can produce a happy life, or a wretched one (emphasis added).

At a fairly recent local Stoic meetup, we were talking about how Marcus Aurelius viewed wealth.  I forget which passage it was, but the idea conveyed by Marcus was that riches and wealth are indifferents.  One of the attendees wondered if what Marcus was writing about wealth was simply propaganda - basically telling people wealth didn't matter (so why should you pursue it).  I replied that, first, it could not really be propaganda because Meditations was meant for himself and not for others' consumption; and second, that the Stoic view of wealth is simply that of material for good use.  The goal is not to pursue wealth, but the goal is to demonstrate wisdom - wise use - of wealth.  The same can be said of poverty.  Seneca confirms this view when he notes that wealth or poverty are simply 'raw material' for a person to use in order to demonstrate what is uniquely 'up to them.'

Seneca further elaborates,

upright and honest man corrects the wrongs of Fortune, and softens hardship and bitterness because he knows how to endure them; he likewise accepts prosperity with appreciation and moderation, and stands up against trouble with steadiness and courage.

One of the Stoic exercises, which both help him prepare for and endure fortunate and unfortunate events is premeditatio malorum.  I've often wondered if the 'malorum' should be dropped from this phrase.  A Stoic who is comprehensive in his premeditation practice would consider all types of events - ones preferred and dispreferred.  Seneca writes of this practice,

If you are thus poised, nothing will affect you and a man will be thus poised if he reflects on the possible ups and downs in human affairs before he feels their force. ... Be sure to foresee whatever can be foreseen by planning. Observe and avoid, long before it happens, anything that is likely to do you harm. To effect this your best assistance will be a spirit of confidence and a mind strongly resolved to endure all things.

And perhaps most of all, the premeditation we should always consider is the loss of life.

men are so wayward, and so forgetful of their goal and of the point toward which every day jostles them, that they are surprised at losing anything, although some day they are bound to lose everything. ...  We must lose our lives as surely as we lose our property, and this, if we understand the truth, is itself a consolation. Lose it with equanimity; for you must lose your life also.

Other scenarios we ought to reflect on are fire, crucifixion, poison and exile.

The last part of the letter has an interesting tid-bit.  We know that Stoics don't shy away from suicide.  If one's death or suicide is a noble act, then he ought to carry it out.  But when should one carry on living versus dying?

In continuing to live, he deals generously. Some other person might have put an end to these sufferings; but our friend considers it no less base to flee from death than to flee towards death ... if he can no longer be of service to anyone [then he should consider dying].

The man suffering from pain must make the wise choice.

he trust himself in the face of both; he does not suffer with resignation because he hopes for death, nor does he die gladly because he is tired of suffering. Pain he endures, death he awaits.