Registered user login:

TheFaithColumn

The Faith Column

Every week a different believer gives the inside track on their religion or philosophy.

The Faith Column Homepage

The problem with Stoicism

  • Posted by Jules Evans
  • 16 May 2007

Is possible to be stoical about the loneliness of stoicism?

Stoicism isn’t perfect. Over the millennia, people have made a number of pertinent criticisms of the philosophy.

For example, Stoics like to claim that theirs is a rational philosophy, which doesn’t rely on anything as irrational or superstitious as faith.

Christians, in the Eighteenth Century, tried to save their religion from the onslaughts of rationalistic science by fusing Christianity with Stoicism to create natural theology.

But as the Scottish philosopher David Hume pointed out, the idea at the heart of both Stoicism and natural theology, that the universe is a rationally ordered plan, cannot be proven.

If a car hits my daughter and kills her, I could re-assure myself that it’s all part of the divine Logos. But that’s an assertion of faith, not rationality.

I could, however, assert that it’s the nature of the universe to create and destroy, that life is short and difficult, that none of us live long anyway, and I will soon die too. I could reflect on the billions of lives being created and destroyed every day. Such thoughts are rational, and could help to ease the pain of losing my daughter. So the consolations of Stoicism are not entirely irrational.

Others have objected to the determinism of Stoicism. The Logos determines every event, and there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s like the fascist police – we can either go along quietly, or kicking or screaming. Either way, we’re going with them.

This, I think, is a salient criticism of Stoicism. I prefer the Buddhist or Platonic idea of karma: that what happens to us is a karmic result of our own past actions or past lives. That seems a much better reason for accepting tough events than the Logos. According to Buddhism, the Logos is nothing more than the creation of our own thoughts and actions. This makes more sense to me.

I also feel uncomfortable with the Stoic idea that all passions are bad. What about compassion? The feeling of pity and concern for others? Again, it seems to me Buddhists are more on the mark here than orthodox Stoics.

But I still consider myself an unorthodox Stoic rather than a Buddhist, because Stoicism is from my own culture, it’s at the heart of European thought. It feels much more natural to me as a practice than sitting cross-legged in front of a Tibetan thanka chanting om mani padme hum.

Another criticism of Stoicism is that, because it concentrates on acceptance of external events, it leads to political apathy and quietism.

This is not true. Actually, there’s a distinguished history of Stoics standing up to tyrants: Diogenes supposedly stood up to Alexander, Cato and Cicero stood up to Caeser, Seneca stood up to Nero. Even in our own day, the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky seems to have been inspired by Stoicism when he stood up to president Putin of Russia – he wrote an article in his Siberian prison cell saying the world needed ‘Stoical warriors of liberalism’.

Stoicism creates tough individuals who cannot be bullied by the powerful, because they are not afraid to let go or to die. In fact, their whole philosophy trains them to leave life without fear or regret, and to stand up for their rational principles before any conventional threats or bribes.

But a real problem with Stoicism is that it’s lonely. Christians have their communion, Buddhists have their sangha, but Stoics, rational as they are, have no ritual to join them together, no church in which to meet. They are joined together as citizens of the Cosmopolis, the heavenly city of ideas. But you couldn’t really recognize another Stoic if you saw one. And even if you did, there are no miracles or holy days to celebrate together.

There is, at least, now a Yahoo chat room dedicated to Stoicism, on which you can find many of the world’s leading academic experts on Stoicism, people like Keith Seddon and Jan Garret, who are happy to answer queries on the philosophy. You can find it by clicking here.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

1 comment from readers

remy814
06 June 2007 at 10:17

I just read your essay by haphazard. The topic that makes me want to make some comments.

Of course nothing is perfect, if something never had been finished, you never know a result or a circumscription, otherwise if you really done, it is just your own circumscription. Perfect is just within a personal thought or supposed definition.

Don’t let one noun “Stoicism” to think that much, all word is just invented by human. Stoicism is nothing can define because it hasn’t explained all of otherness. All happened just within all characters experienced to advise to decide a result. Philosophy is just produce an understanding the primary reason, cause or result, which result is activated depends every things affected. Make an example, if you are on a bus and you really want to piss, if you, or can you wait for get down the next bus stop to go to toilet. That should be fine if when you stopped and already know where a toilet is, all play around yourself is your experience or memory, within a sub-cause is your endurance, and you just only need to think about the next bus stop and toilet.

In the other side is if you cannot wait and just incontinence. Then you need to affront more things. Inner you feeling have released something, but you also need to care your wet trousers, the seat, and people. Special are people, because you don’t know how many, how they feel, may be the driver might more impress who make this mess. Obviously, all you don’t want is a mess for other people. Between this, you don’t know how people or how many people would feel it sensitive.

Human minds are many variable happen because had experienced and happened just being a radix which in your memories.

It is also like how to think of money to save, spend or invest. But also would gain, lose or waste.

That is no role to control a person’s mind or behavior. Otherwise just people wanted to have roles which have words to present a part of their selves, or how they can control their mind.

A rational philosophy is just fit on the creator himself. Just like the core never can reach.

Because experiences let you know what may happened, to make difference is base on your experience knows it was happened so search another position you want, and you step by step experienced that what is good for you. Human behavior just using memories to determine its variable but that is times which affect a variable happen. So Stoicism or some kind of words should not have any space to keep or think it in mind. Because it is not as you born as you are, and you are not living in Hellenistic period. It is just ability with experienced, and experience let you reach your wish.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Jules Evans is a freelance journalist, based in Moscow and London. He is currently finishing a book called The Wild Man: A Cultural History of Social Anxiety

Recent Posts

Compassion during the crisis

  • By Matthew Jee
  • 19 November 2008

The church in the crunch

  • By Simon Barrow
  • 18 November 2008

White Poppies

  • By Symon Hill
  • 07 November 2008

Quakers and the UN

  • By Chris Walker
  • 06 November 2008

Walking the talk

  • By Eoin McCarthy
  • 05 November 2008

Quakers for prison reform

  • By Helen Drewery
  • 04 November 2008

Seeking, not finding

  • By Ben Dandelion
  • 03 November 2008