So you believe that Stoicism makes no positive argument towards non-practitioners as to why to engage with it; rather, it's a practice that its practitioners find personal benefit from?
Not exactly. I'm trying to make a distinction between practice and belief. Other philosophies try to get you to believe something, maybe this has consequences for your actions like if you're a Kantian or something. But Kantianism is more about believing the arguments in the book than practicing certain actions. Stoicism is all about looking inward and controlling ones own actions, so when people just use it for philosophical argument without following any of the practices it is very very phony. No skin in the game
Not entirely related, but your point connects a little to my criticisms of deontology & consequentialism as utterly impractical, as 'philosophies' that have proponents but no true *practictioners*. As you'll recall, I see virtue ethics as significantly more practicable
It seems to me that your understanding of Stoicism as some sort of enlightened state that can not be recommended to others directly conflicts with the motivations of the very founders of Stoic thought. Ask yourself this: "Why did the Stoics write their thoughts down in the first place if not to advocate for their adoption by others?"
Furthermore, Stoicism checks the boxes of a philosophy in the following manner: it is "a study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of experience", it is also "a theory or attitude held by a person that acts as a guiding principle for behavior".
Just because the principles aren't boiled down into explicit commandments and but are rather given shape and form by the nature of Stoic practices, does not mean they do not form a legitimate school of thought. I think of Stoicism as a philosophy that can be proven by personal experience and introspection.
The catching point for you seems to be the fact that the Stoics studied by practice. However, when they communicate and advocate for their practices, they are doing so by presenting to the reader the theoretical benefits they would attain if they too were to subscribe to Stoic thought and practice.
So given that you, I, and the great Stoics of the past have experienced the benefits of Stoic practice and therefore had the opportunity to verify Stoic thought via experience, why not prescribe it to others? A world of Stoics would be one better off.
Most Stoics did not write anything down at all. All of Epictetus's works were copied down by students of his as a way to save his wisdom for their personal practices. Meditations was Marcus Aurelius' personal notes and mantras, he wasn't trying to convert anyone.
That being said, I do think that stoicism is a legitimate school of thought. Perhaps a better title would be "Stoicism is not just a philosophy." One can make claims that are supported by other philosophies without being a personal practitioner of them e.g a deontologist who lambasts people for the non universality of their actions. Regardless of how closely they follow deontology themselves, the arguments of Kant still stand the same through them.
The tenants of Stoicism make this impossible. Anyone concerned with the beliefs of others outside their control is not a true stoic.
A central tenant of Stoicism is to prescribe nothing to the outside world, to not desire anything out of your control.
I think my argument still stands. Why did Epictetus teach anyone?
To illustrate this point, you may not be able to control whether or not someone chooses to accept Stoic philosophy, but you are absolutely in control over whether or not they have the *opportunity* to do so, because you have the power to inform them. Perhaps stoicism is not an all engulfing answer to the questions of right and wrong, but that is not the benchmark for what makes a philosophy.
As for Stoicism as an argumentative stance, it may be that you can't use Stoicism and be a Stoic, but you can be selectively Stoic, and if someone claims to be an absolute Stoic, you can use it as an argument as to what course of action *they* should take even if you are not yourself a Stoic.
I'm just here for the latest episode of "Connor's Contrary Contention Corner."
There is a lot to unpack here: A short version of this would be to say that the world would be better off if more people earnestly practiced Stoicism and less people talked about it and/or used it for virtue signaling.
Marcus Aurelius was probably one of the purest Stoics (we know of,) because after all, he could have forced an empire to learn Stoicism by decree. Yet he didn't. He wrote "notes to self" and tried to live up to the challenge and place that divine providence found him.
Also worth noting, Stoicism puts a lot of weight on "living in accordance with nature," which I think a lot of people misinterpret... by my assessment, all that means is "accepting things as they are."
I am very new to the study of stoic ideals and concepts. So far, I have been deeply appreciative of the capacity I find within what I read to help me face and deal life.
In the comments I hear contention about the word "philosophy". I would think it would matter how one would define the word to determine if it was used appropriately or not. I personally like Maxwell's concession in one of his replies that maybe Stocism is not just a philosophy.
What I hear and appreciate from the original article, however, is a caution against getting caught up in, I will use the word "preaching". I am unfamiliar with some of the other philosophies mentioned, but I have seen this habit applied to Christian scripture, where someone takes written words, extrapolates a meaning to suit their ideologies and then lambasts the world with the "truth" of this ideas, founded in "scripture" which therefore makes it "True".
I like the reminder in this article that the concepts of Stocism are primarily for individual reflection and aid. And I appreciate Maxwell putting the metephorical foot down to say stop using "Stocism" as a label to foist off generalized ideas for the masses that may or may not be helpful and may or may not even be what the original writers or teachers of Stocism would approve of.
I struggle with this similar misuse of "authority" in the religious context as well. I appreciate the tenure of this article to think and know for yourself what you believe in and what you are going to choose to do with that which is in your control, whether that extends beyond you or not.
Chrysippus was certainly a philosopher by any definition, having made important advances in logic. I'd say the Hellenistic schools in general became less 'philosophical', that is less speculative, in their Roman incarnations vs. their Greek roots. Is Epicureanism a philosophy?
I agree with a lot of the points in this, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Most other philosophies require action by people. Confucianism, for example, instructs people on how to live a harmonious life by urging people to treat others the way they want to be treated, among other actions. All philosophies make a claim about how to see the world and how to act in the world. Stoicism is no exception. Stoics see the world as things that are and are not within one's control; the action to take is to control your emotions and actions, and not let things outside of your control dictate your feelings. It is a simple and powerful personal philosophy with few tenants, but it is a philosophy nonetheless.
When Stoicism tells people to "accept our inability to control the world," that is a world view. The view on the world is that there are many things outside of one's control. The actions based on this world view, I agree, are to meditate, look inward, and work towards not allowing these uncontrollable actions to upset you -- to understand that each person is in control of their emotions and actions only, and so individuals can decide when to be happy and what makes them happy.
You can use those other philosophies to tell others what they should do. Many people use the arguments behind Confucianism to prescribe actions on others that they do not take themselves. This is pretty phony but the arguments of most other philosophies are supposed to hold regardless of who says them. Stoicism is only offering you something for yourself. By trying to prescribe actions on other people you are inherently denying the Stoic principle of disconnection from what you cannot control. The only real way to believe in Stoicism is to practice it on yourself. I think this is less true for other philosophies
"By trying to prescribe actions on other people you are inherently denying the Stoic principle of disconnection from what you cannot control."
The Stoics distinguished between total and partial control. They couldn't function otherwise. They would agree they couldn't control whether a sad person feels better. However, they would say that an attempt to comfort someone was in their control and in line with virtue. Therefore, they could reasonably do their best in the attempt. This is why there are surviving consolation letters from Seneca.
In it, he attempts to point out a worldview that could benefit the person who is sad. The advice is good, and if it's used, it may well help the person. If not, they never surrendered virtue or became too fixated on anything outside their control.
You could say that there's a spectrum pure action-free cerebral philosophy to practice. You can do physical exercise, yoga, or something every day without a lot of explicit ideological motivation. It's a habit which seems to work. Maybe you invent some reasons if asked. Someone else might give different reasons. At the other end are doctrinal systems where the doctrine is what defines and motivates what happens, eg, religions and various "isms". The argument is that Stoicism is more towards the practice end, I guess.
Isn't the best philosophy the one that leads to a positive personal practice? Doesn't stoicism improve the lives of its practitioners, therefore it's a good and not laconic philosophy?
Laconic isn't necessarily bad, it just means short and to the point. I definitely think that stoicism is good for practitioners, but I was trying to distinguish it from other philosophies because it requires more conscious practice and participation than like Platonism or utilitarianism.
The post is intended as praise, not as critique! Please forgive the hyperbolic title. This is just me writing about my personal interpretation of stoicism, mostly through Epictetus' and Aurelius' writing.
Stoicism is associated with the notion of Oikeiosis. The notion was that under adverse circumstances some members of the oikos would behave in a dignified manner. This is still our notion of 'belonging'- if we are Americans or Brits or French or have a fucking nuclear force de frappe.
Oikeoisis as a deontic system has a concrete model in directed graph theory which itself can embed Aumann type uncorrelated symmetries.
Why the fuck are you talking such ignorant nonsense? Aumann's result was available when I was a teen.
This is nonsense. Like other systems of Paideia at the time, Stoicism aimed at endowning its students with something which, in itself, would create a Tardean mimetic effect- i.e. they would attract students and thus be able to live as their masters did. The Stoic notion of oikeiosis can give rise to 'sequent calculi', directed graph theory and a Voevodksy type univalent foundation for any deontic logic.
The idea that one only has control over the internal is false. It both underestimates the amount of external control we have and overestimates how much internal control we have or are capable of even with meditation and mantras and such
Could you give an example of how stoicism is misused as philosophy? Like how it's used by bad people to justify abrasive philosophies as you mentioned? Would be helpful to have something concrete to understand why it matters whether or not you call it philosophy. Thanks.
So you believe that Stoicism makes no positive argument towards non-practitioners as to why to engage with it; rather, it's a practice that its practitioners find personal benefit from?
Not exactly. I'm trying to make a distinction between practice and belief. Other philosophies try to get you to believe something, maybe this has consequences for your actions like if you're a Kantian or something. But Kantianism is more about believing the arguments in the book than practicing certain actions. Stoicism is all about looking inward and controlling ones own actions, so when people just use it for philosophical argument without following any of the practices it is very very phony. No skin in the game
Not entirely related, but your point connects a little to my criticisms of deontology & consequentialism as utterly impractical, as 'philosophies' that have proponents but no true *practictioners*. As you'll recall, I see virtue ethics as significantly more practicable
Interesting
Connor's Contrary Contention Corner:
It seems to me that your understanding of Stoicism as some sort of enlightened state that can not be recommended to others directly conflicts with the motivations of the very founders of Stoic thought. Ask yourself this: "Why did the Stoics write their thoughts down in the first place if not to advocate for their adoption by others?"
Furthermore, Stoicism checks the boxes of a philosophy in the following manner: it is "a study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of experience", it is also "a theory or attitude held by a person that acts as a guiding principle for behavior".
Just because the principles aren't boiled down into explicit commandments and but are rather given shape and form by the nature of Stoic practices, does not mean they do not form a legitimate school of thought. I think of Stoicism as a philosophy that can be proven by personal experience and introspection.
The catching point for you seems to be the fact that the Stoics studied by practice. However, when they communicate and advocate for their practices, they are doing so by presenting to the reader the theoretical benefits they would attain if they too were to subscribe to Stoic thought and practice.
So given that you, I, and the great Stoics of the past have experienced the benefits of Stoic practice and therefore had the opportunity to verify Stoic thought via experience, why not prescribe it to others? A world of Stoics would be one better off.
See you in your next post
-Connor
Most Stoics did not write anything down at all. All of Epictetus's works were copied down by students of his as a way to save his wisdom for their personal practices. Meditations was Marcus Aurelius' personal notes and mantras, he wasn't trying to convert anyone.
That being said, I do think that stoicism is a legitimate school of thought. Perhaps a better title would be "Stoicism is not just a philosophy." One can make claims that are supported by other philosophies without being a personal practitioner of them e.g a deontologist who lambasts people for the non universality of their actions. Regardless of how closely they follow deontology themselves, the arguments of Kant still stand the same through them.
The tenants of Stoicism make this impossible. Anyone concerned with the beliefs of others outside their control is not a true stoic.
A central tenant of Stoicism is to prescribe nothing to the outside world, to not desire anything out of your control.
I think my argument still stands. Why did Epictetus teach anyone?
To illustrate this point, you may not be able to control whether or not someone chooses to accept Stoic philosophy, but you are absolutely in control over whether or not they have the *opportunity* to do so, because you have the power to inform them. Perhaps stoicism is not an all engulfing answer to the questions of right and wrong, but that is not the benchmark for what makes a philosophy.
As for Stoicism as an argumentative stance, it may be that you can't use Stoicism and be a Stoic, but you can be selectively Stoic, and if someone claims to be an absolute Stoic, you can use it as an argument as to what course of action *they* should take even if you are not yourself a Stoic.
Connor raises some good counterpoints
I'm just here for the latest episode of "Connor's Contrary Contention Corner."
There is a lot to unpack here: A short version of this would be to say that the world would be better off if more people earnestly practiced Stoicism and less people talked about it and/or used it for virtue signaling.
Marcus Aurelius was probably one of the purest Stoics (we know of,) because after all, he could have forced an empire to learn Stoicism by decree. Yet he didn't. He wrote "notes to self" and tried to live up to the challenge and place that divine providence found him.
Also worth noting, Stoicism puts a lot of weight on "living in accordance with nature," which I think a lot of people misinterpret... by my assessment, all that means is "accepting things as they are."
I am very new to the study of stoic ideals and concepts. So far, I have been deeply appreciative of the capacity I find within what I read to help me face and deal life.
In the comments I hear contention about the word "philosophy". I would think it would matter how one would define the word to determine if it was used appropriately or not. I personally like Maxwell's concession in one of his replies that maybe Stocism is not just a philosophy.
What I hear and appreciate from the original article, however, is a caution against getting caught up in, I will use the word "preaching". I am unfamiliar with some of the other philosophies mentioned, but I have seen this habit applied to Christian scripture, where someone takes written words, extrapolates a meaning to suit their ideologies and then lambasts the world with the "truth" of this ideas, founded in "scripture" which therefore makes it "True".
I like the reminder in this article that the concepts of Stocism are primarily for individual reflection and aid. And I appreciate Maxwell putting the metephorical foot down to say stop using "Stocism" as a label to foist off generalized ideas for the masses that may or may not be helpful and may or may not even be what the original writers or teachers of Stocism would approve of.
I struggle with this similar misuse of "authority" in the religious context as well. I appreciate the tenure of this article to think and know for yourself what you believe in and what you are going to choose to do with that which is in your control, whether that extends beyond you or not.
This is a great comment, thank you so much for reading and thinking about my post!
Chrysippus was certainly a philosopher by any definition, having made important advances in logic. I'd say the Hellenistic schools in general became less 'philosophical', that is less speculative, in their Roman incarnations vs. their Greek roots. Is Epicureanism a philosophy?
This is an excellent article. A great reinforcement of the value Stoicism can provide by reminding us of its limits. Bravo!
I agree with a lot of the points in this, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Most other philosophies require action by people. Confucianism, for example, instructs people on how to live a harmonious life by urging people to treat others the way they want to be treated, among other actions. All philosophies make a claim about how to see the world and how to act in the world. Stoicism is no exception. Stoics see the world as things that are and are not within one's control; the action to take is to control your emotions and actions, and not let things outside of your control dictate your feelings. It is a simple and powerful personal philosophy with few tenants, but it is a philosophy nonetheless.
When Stoicism tells people to "accept our inability to control the world," that is a world view. The view on the world is that there are many things outside of one's control. The actions based on this world view, I agree, are to meditate, look inward, and work towards not allowing these uncontrollable actions to upset you -- to understand that each person is in control of their emotions and actions only, and so individuals can decide when to be happy and what makes them happy.
You can use those other philosophies to tell others what they should do. Many people use the arguments behind Confucianism to prescribe actions on others that they do not take themselves. This is pretty phony but the arguments of most other philosophies are supposed to hold regardless of who says them. Stoicism is only offering you something for yourself. By trying to prescribe actions on other people you are inherently denying the Stoic principle of disconnection from what you cannot control. The only real way to believe in Stoicism is to practice it on yourself. I think this is less true for other philosophies
"By trying to prescribe actions on other people you are inherently denying the Stoic principle of disconnection from what you cannot control."
The Stoics distinguished between total and partial control. They couldn't function otherwise. They would agree they couldn't control whether a sad person feels better. However, they would say that an attempt to comfort someone was in their control and in line with virtue. Therefore, they could reasonably do their best in the attempt. This is why there are surviving consolation letters from Seneca.
In it, he attempts to point out a worldview that could benefit the person who is sad. The advice is good, and if it's used, it may well help the person. If not, they never surrendered virtue or became too fixated on anything outside their control.
So I'm not sure I really buy your argument.
I don’t think that makes Stoicism not a philosophy, though. Even if it’s a personal philosophy, it’s still a philosophy.
You could say that there's a spectrum pure action-free cerebral philosophy to practice. You can do physical exercise, yoga, or something every day without a lot of explicit ideological motivation. It's a habit which seems to work. Maybe you invent some reasons if asked. Someone else might give different reasons. At the other end are doctrinal systems where the doctrine is what defines and motivates what happens, eg, religions and various "isms". The argument is that Stoicism is more towards the practice end, I guess.
A worldview, and preferences.
Isn't the best philosophy the one that leads to a positive personal practice? Doesn't stoicism improve the lives of its practitioners, therefore it's a good and not laconic philosophy?
Laconic isn't necessarily bad, it just means short and to the point. I definitely think that stoicism is good for practitioners, but I was trying to distinguish it from other philosophies because it requires more conscious practice and participation than like Platonism or utilitarianism.
Good point
Article titled, "stoicism is not a philosophy." Does not define philosophy. First sentence of concluding paragraph states stoicism is a philosophy....
This completely ignored stoic theology. Hardly a complete or even researched critique
The post is intended as praise, not as critique! Please forgive the hyperbolic title. This is just me writing about my personal interpretation of stoicism, mostly through Epictetus' and Aurelius' writing.
Stoicism is associated with the notion of Oikeiosis. The notion was that under adverse circumstances some members of the oikos would behave in a dignified manner. This is still our notion of 'belonging'- if we are Americans or Brits or French or have a fucking nuclear force de frappe.
Oikeoisis as a deontic system has a concrete model in directed graph theory which itself can embed Aumann type uncorrelated symmetries.
Why the fuck are you talking such ignorant nonsense? Aumann's result was available when I was a teen.
This is nonsense. Like other systems of Paideia at the time, Stoicism aimed at endowning its students with something which, in itself, would create a Tardean mimetic effect- i.e. they would attract students and thus be able to live as their masters did. The Stoic notion of oikeiosis can give rise to 'sequent calculi', directed graph theory and a Voevodksy type univalent foundation for any deontic logic.
The idea that one only has control over the internal is false. It both underestimates the amount of external control we have and overestimates how much internal control we have or are capable of even with meditation and mantras and such
Could you give an example of how stoicism is misused as philosophy? Like how it's used by bad people to justify abrasive philosophies as you mentioned? Would be helpful to have something concrete to understand why it matters whether or not you call it philosophy. Thanks.