I don't think this is a fair criticism of Stoicisim. It definitely doesn't say ignore the outside world or things you can't change, rather acknowledge and accept them to allow the capacity to focus on the things you can change.
You're right. The Romans were generally open to stoicism because, unlike epicureanism or cynicism, stoicism wasn't seen by Romans as demanding a retreat from public affairs.
>> ... [stoicism] is a response to perceiving the breakdown of a functioning world. Their prescription for dealing with such troubles is to develop profound internal strength, and in doing so the stoic attitude can dodge some societal-level failures by compartmentalizing toward a robust individualism.
Where this author speaks of "profound internal strength", stoicism talks about ataraxia and "remedies" or techniques to achieve a state of tranquility when encountering something that disturbs that state (e.g. someone calls you an idiot). Seneca's letters, for example, talk about progressing along a path and becoming more skilled, not developing "profound internal strength".
Lastly, I wanted to say "individualism" is an anachronistic modern concept the author has insinuated into the ancient world.
The point of Stoicism isn't to avoid feeling bad about living in a failing Empire.
It's acknowledging that you can't control the world. You can only control your reaction to it and your own actions.
And putting your faith in large institutions doesn't give you that control. It just creates a illusion of control. Large institutions can embody knowledge and procedures to reduce the incidents of failures to a significant degree, but whem they do fail they amplify the effect of that failure.
For example if two people get into a dispute over land there is the potential it could devolve into violence. Most of the time this doesn't happen, but the potential is there. One or both of those people may end up being killed. They may accidentally hurt or even kill people by unhappy accident as part of their conflict.
But by and large the violence and damage is limited to the people that made the decisions.
However when large governments get into conflicts over land and become unreasonable then the potential damage is massive. Millions of people can die. Mostly innocent people who have no stake or choice in conflict and will not benefit from any outcome can be slaughtered in mass mumbers.
And what is worse is the people that make those decisions are not personally affected by it.
In the last century hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of their own governments. Far exceeding the number of victims of individual violence and criminality. And almost none of the "leaders" that made those decisions ever faced punishment or even significant personal consequences.
Most died while still in power living in relative luxury of old ages or natural diseases.
Making large institutions to try to control the world does not result in control over the world. It creates a illusion of control coupled with a potential for extreme levels of destruction.
You only want as big of a institution that is absolutely required. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only way I'd believe this is if someone ran an RCT with large institutions and without. Pontification about it otherwise is just a process of transmuting attention biases into statements of fact.
I’m doubting the author read the whole of Meditations. Maybe read an executive summary from a book club? Marcus exhorted people to be the best they could be in their role in society. To accept the vagaries of life and world around them and focus on self improvement for the benefit of self and society.
Author seems hung up on modern use of the word stoic instead of reading and contemplating on what was actually said, and importantly what was DONE by the early Stoics.
Like other have mentioned here, the author seems to have missed some core tenets of stoicism.
Stoicism, nihilism, various forms of the Buddhist tradition all seem to focus on the message: "You are the leaf, not the river".
You can't control the river/universe. It will happen with or without you. Worrying about it or what it will do to you is almost a waste of time and energy. Like if the sun were to explode right now, it almost wouldn't warrant reaction. Because the outcome is set. Any reaction is going to be erased in 8 minutes.
On a much smaller scale, you also can't control other people. They're going to do their things. If something they do affects you, do what you can to mitigate or enhance the effects depending on if the results are wanted or not. Like if I were to get fired from my job, there's little I can do to change that outcome. Even if I wanted to. So there's no point to dwell on it. I need to focus on the next thing now. I would pack up my things, scrub my work machine, turn it in, and go home to look for a new job. No crying, no yelling, etc. Disappointment, sure, but I got shit to do.
I'm curious why you think the author misrepresents/misunderstands stoicism on this point.
The entire piece is that Stoicism is an individual's philosophy -- one that solves an individual's struggles. The philosophy helps confront that which you can't control...but the author is arguing that it will tempt you to throw up your hands, that you can't control anything.
The short of it is that Stoicism encourages an individual to draw within themselves and create a worldview that is acceptable. All well and good for the individual, but the world's problems will be fixed by collective action -- not individuals withdrawing.
Too much Stoic navel gazing might decrease the likelihood you join the community action board.
"Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc."
This is a modern mischaracterization of stoicism. Mainly because "non-response" is usually interpreted as some sort of strength of will. Even you, you see stoicism as some sort of withdrawal. It's not.
It's not about rejecting the outside world, it's about accepting the outside world. And accepting that the outside world is just that, outside. Being upset at the past is an exercise in futility. It's wasted emotion. Wasted energy.
Stoicism does not reject collective action. What is war but a collective action. And Marucs Aurelius waged him some war. But let's pretend he lost a battle. Well, getting angry isn't going to help. It's not productive. Why did you lose? Can you change things to not lose again? Etc.
Accept what you cannot change. Desire to change the unalterable is the core of suffering.
And sure, anything misapplied or applied too heavily can have bad outcomes. But that's true in all cases. We need water to live, yet we can also drown in it.
But that's life really. There is no "answer". Especially one that means you've "solved" life. Life isn't something to be solved. Life is a river. And you are just a leaf upon it. And sometimes you might get hung up on a rock, but then an eddy will dislodge you and you will continue on down the river.
As a fresh reader of Marcus Aurelius I'm glad I understand that this criticism is poor. "Stoics do not deny themselves pleasure per se, but by denying importance to things outside of their control, they make it easy to inadvertently do so." That's not true. It's clear in the writings that the stoics were completely empathetic but they always kept a logical point of view meaning they wouldn't rant in god for example and eventually accept the harsh reality.
I vehemently disagree with this "Their prescription for dealing with such troubles is to develop profound internal strength, and in doing so the stoic attitude can dodge some societal-level failures by compartmentalizing toward a robust individualism."
Very early in the meditations Marcus talks about how we need to work harmoniously with other people, even surly or disagreeable people, rather than turn our back on or ignore them. He likens it to the upper and lower teeth working with each other. And there is a similar appeal to accepting and working within the confines of nature. He talks about understanding yourself, your place in the world, and what you constitute in the world.
To me, the appeal of the stoic philosophy is to tamp down all of the negative and unproductive ideation that one is prone to, so that you might focus on things which are actually important, and may in some way improve the world.
Marcus Aurelius does not recommend disengagement from the world. He was the last great emperor of Rome, for crying out loud.
Heuristic: it is always possible to write an article “X is not Enough” because, of course, no X embodies all possible nice things. Nevertheless, stoicism helps society go.
> Problem: The modern world contains abundant food, screens, advertisements practically weaponized to influence you, endless games and drugs.
> Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc.
The HTML formatting suggests that this is a quote from some stoic philosophy source, which it isn't; the quotes themselves are also not found anywhere on the Internet. Seems it's the author's own musings (EDIT: it is, quote: "so please indulge a summary") posing to be some sort of truth, which then is used to justify the rest of the article.
Marcus Aurelius's Meditations is a wonderful guide on how to apply various principles of Stoicism, especially principles around cultivating resilience in the face of circumstances beyond one's control.
However, to read only Meditations and go on to make claims about the philosophy as a whole is a bad idea that ignores hundreds of years worth of philosophers who also contributed to Stoicism.
For those interested in a more broad treatment of Stoicism, a wonderful follow-up to Meditations is Donald J. Robertson's Stoicism and the Art of Happiness
I wish the author paid some attention to the Virtues, which are central to Stoicism. I would find any rebuttal of the idea “Virtues are All You Need” more engaging (even if unconvincing). He even seems to be advocating for hedonism (as another Roman era school of thought still advocated by some “Professional Philosophers”) without knowing it?
The Orthodox Christian version of stoicism is to recognize that your selfish desires and fears ("passions") aren't who you are, that they're more like spirits who want to bring you down, and that once you observe them and set them aside you can be who you truly are, which is an image of God, i.e. infinite and eternal love.
(Attempting to speak from the Orthodox Christian point of view:) While we know some things due to divine revelation, there's plenty of truth to be discovered through the observation and contemplation of God's creation (both seen [the physical world] and unseen [logic, math, thought itself]). Whatever is true that comes out of Buddhism is true because it comes from God, it just comes by way of extraordinary insight, unaided (as far as we know, in the Christian tradition) by direct communication from God.
While we’re on the topic of philosophy… I re-read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance on my road trip to Montana last week.
I bring this up because it spoke to me in a way that Meditations seems to speak to others. Surely, there’s room for both, but the latter is still sitting 1/4 read on my desk. Maybe I’ll pick it back up next week.
The argument is that stoicism - a philosophy for cultivating inner serenity - doesn't address how to fix the outside world / government / institutions.
It's like saying buddhism is terrible at addressing sociology
My biggest problem with stoicism is that it teaches you to not worry about things out of your control, but doesn't give you the full toolset to actually make that happen. Those worries often take place outside of our conscious control, and we end up just building defenses on top of them to try to tamp them down, rather than addressing the underlying fears directly.
Maybe pure stoicism does actually give you those tools, but the modern "McStoicism" that everyone seems to go on about really feels lacking to me.
Very interesting, the drive to censor the public from dissenting opinion does look fairly Epicurean, though the originals almost universally rejected politics for the stresses involved.
This seems like it was written by someone who has only read Meditations and the wikipedia on Stoicism and decided they knew enough to write an article on a tradition that has lasted two and a half millenia.
Calling the first cosmopolitan philosophy in history(perhaps mohism predates, I'm not a sino guy) objectionable because of its individualism, a philosophy that advocates the view from above (read your tully) and thinking of yourself as part of the whole (read your seneca or aurelius) is ridiculous.
I think more generally worry about things you can change is a big net positive for the individual. Worrying about external things that you have no control over is a huge drag on most people's lives. It leads to a lot of anxiety and stress. Sure there may be some individual that believes they cannot change something when they in fact can make a difference, but this is exceptionally rare. The more likely case is that someone can choose to focus on something small where they can make a difference, in which stoicism would guide them to make that difference as opposed to feeling dread about something that they have no control over.
For instance, if you're concerned about climate change, one way you can go about it is to go to some big demonstration and yell about it (and leave a big mess in its wake). Or you can focus on the local, like cleaning up your own neighborhood which is something you can make a difference on. The local action will have more of an impact and be more personally rewarding.
You are indeed correct. But the stoics too were completely aware of the problem of how to do good, politically, after all many were martyred in the manner of Socrates, that is by the very people they were trying to help.
Personally I blame tacitus for creating this misunderstanding.
tl;dr: Stoicism's first response to a problem is to change the individual (have the individual reinvent their worldview such that what can't be changed is instead accepted and perhaps even reveled in). In a world of decay, having this as your first response delays -- if not outright masks -- collective action towards rectifying the problem, towards building a better world.
Stoicism is great for dealing with things you can't change (illnesses, famine, etc). It's great for accepting that personal struggles, like the fact that your parents aren't going to say the Thing and give you a hug.
But what does Stoicism offer to the community? I as an individual can create my own happiness, but nothing in the philosophy would properly motivate me towards helping to fix the world with my brethren.
I like your recognition about the community. I humbly recommend everyone consider utilitarianismhttps://www.utilitarianism.net/
“The core precept of utilitarianism is that we should make the world the best place we can. That means that, as far as it is within our power, we should bring about a world in which every individual has the highest possible level of well-being.” - Peter Singer
If you are responsible for your own happiness, it follows that others aren't.
Healthy relationships operate under this principle- that of recognizing (and respecting) the autonomy of the other. On the other hand, consoder toxic relationships where you feel a friend or romantic partner _owes_ you happiness and satisfaction.
If there are things in your community you can change, then stoicism certainly does not say dont do it. Marcus aurelius, one of the most famous stoics, was roman emporer. Hardly a position someone who felt they could change nothing in their community would take on.
Theoretically, the "community" would contain a pool of people who have done significant introspection and developed self-control.
Some people want prescriptive architectures for society that achieve some desired end (equity, diversity, whatever). Others are OK having some people with wisdom to turn to in the face of ambiguity.
I don’t feel this is a fair critique of stoicism, specifically because stoicism does not promote social disengagement, but rather promotes understanding that you can choose your reactions to the results of engaging, whether positive or negative.
If anything, stoicism fails in a very specific way for some people merely because it’s context is often misunderstood. Stoicism was born in an era when strong, even violent passions were assumed and perceived as valid and unavoidable. In this context, stoicism is revolutionary.
In the modern context, where uncontrolled passions are perceived as borderline mental instability and total self control is expected, stoicism can accidentally be misapplied to the detriment of some practitioners. Epictetus touches on this but does not go into detail when he speaks about observing and being pleased by your good and correct internal reactions to things, positive or negative.
Modern Inculturated humans are sort of an odd creature.
We have an animal component, the biological human with its own needs, desires, emotions, and drives. We also have a memetic component, the psychological construct that is comprised of culture, knowledge, ethics, and ideas.
Part of the process of inculturation is that the memetic component is put in charge of the animal component. This is what you are taught when you parents tech you to “control yourself” and things like “self discipline”. If you think a little, even the terminology of these lessons implies two separate entities.
This process of inculturation succeeds in different people to different degrees.
In most people, their emotional/ animal component remains mostly in charge, with their memetic component taking a back seat but supervisory role , often making justifications or excuses for the behaviour and choices of the animal component.
In extreme cases, inculturation mostly fails, and the person has very low impulse control and will usually struggle to integrate into society in a positive way.
On the other hand, with other extreme cases, the animal component is mostly or even completely dominated by the memetic component. These people are typically very decision driven and tend to measure their well being by metrics of achievement rather than joy.
The danger in this is that memetic -dominant people may not adequately engage with their animal component. If one’s natural self is ignored or even forgotten, it only receives negative feedback. It is castigated and denied when it acts out. Like a dog kept on a chain whose main socialization is beatings, it’s not likely to become a very pleasant animal. Since it is responsible for the control of your movement, mood, and impulses, this is not a desirable condition.
IMO If you think you are highly memeticly dominant, you should make an effort to engage positively with your animal side. It can be helpful to think of them as your pet dog. You wouldn’t keep your dog locked in a cage, never talk to them or pet them, never take them on walks, never reward them, so why would you not treat yourself at least as well?
When you look in the mirror, acknowledge them. Speak to them. Praise them when they help you, counsel them when they hinder you.
Engage with them as you would your beloved pet. Take them for a walks, make time do things that bring you joy even when it isn’t “part of the plan”. Like a dog, physical things are the goal.
IMHO, Don’t use media or passive activity for this. It needs to be physical activity like going somewhere, actively interacting with other people, exercise, in-person play, or other physical activity to get the full benefit.
Stoicism balanced with a deep awareness of self is a winning combination for me at least.
> In reading the book I get a gloomy feeling, as if the author was deeply disturbed by something but couldn’t quite articulate what.
The author seems to elude that Meditations is simply inspired by war because that was the time in which it is supposed to have been written. Meditations is a self reflection book, never intended to be published, and is likely inspired by his entire life. From the deaths in his family, to the plagues, managing wars, and his own lack of desire to be emperor.
> Problem: The modern world contains abundant food, screens, advertisements practically weaponized to influence you, endless games and drugs.
> Solution: To combat these inhuman forces you must summon inhuman willpower: Master fasting, meditation, discipline, etc.
Stoicism can help someone see value in and yet seek moderation in these things. The solution and problem are not framed in a way Stoicism can really help you though. For instance, when I used LSD I went into it with intention and moderation. I wanted to address and heal my trauma but I didn't want a recreational trip. Stoicism helped me develop that intention and helped me commit to the idea despite fears that I could not answer. Turns out, if you talk to any psychonauts, this is exactly what you should do before a trip.
> By couching success as something that happens entirely within the ego, it encourages one to downplay anything external. If a stoic attitude is applied too liberally, the insistence that success lies solely within becomes an unconscious dodge of difficult forces and responsibilities beyond one’s complete control.
I disagree that this is the point of Stoicism. It can help you moderate the ego and shape the lense that the ego can influence, but it also helps you dig into and understand failure at a mostly logical level. I don't think it leaves the bucket and responsibility with the ego as much as it would influence me to think that sometimes my own personal failures, when not directly attributable to my actions or out of my influence, is the sum of many variables out of my control. Now, what you do from there has many forks, not one.
> If our surroundings are miserable, perhaps we’re better off acknowledging our malcontents.
This is basically step 1 of Stoicism. Know the degrees of control and influence in your life.
> We should express our distress, and try to work together to change that environment, instead of reorganizing our inner feelings until we decide that the current (less optimal) world cannot possibly bother us.
This isn't out of the purview of a stoic, but participation in such an activity may vary stoic to stoic. The choice to participate or not participate depends on many internal variables that the potential participant may be working with. Would you really want someone to participate in political change who feels their own internal variables are not aligned in such a way to fully participate? Stoicism also breeds a sense of priority in issues, and participation in such an activity may be eschewed by having other priorities that the stoic may see as more important or of more immediate benefit. Stoicism asks a question and provides a framework, the answer is for the user to describe.
> Great empires, communities, and societies are not solo undertakings, they cannot be achieved by inner work. They require the attention of strong persons who refuse to discount the external world.
Stoicism helps you become the strong person in the face of perceived adversity. The overall fabric of participation is not part of Stoicism at all, to my knowledge.
I think the author misses the point of how stoicism is used and what it's really for. I can't even really figure out what the author wants in its place. It seems like they're championing some grander philosophy that begets cooperation among many individuals. This is not at competition with stoicism. Using the OSI model for my metaphor, that would be a layer above stoicism as stoicism would help the individual be an intentful member of said group.
I must be the only one in this thread who agrees with the author-- Stoicism is a very defensive philsohpy-- it teaches you how to survive harsh times, but has nothing about living a joyful and fulfilling life. I find you have to couple Stoicism with something like religion,or Eastern philosophy, to really get the most out of it
That's exactly what Bertrand Russell had to say about stoicism and one part of why he was critical: "It is remarkable that Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are completely at one on all philosophical questions. Although social circumstances affect the philosophy of an age, individual circumstances have less influence than is sometimes thought upon the philosophy of an individual...in bad times they invent consolations; in good items their interests are more purely intellectual." And so he goes on: "When we compare the tone of Marcus Aurelius with that of Bacon, or Locke, or Condorcet, we see the difference between a tired and a hopeful age. In a hopeful age, great present evils can be endured, because it is thought that they will pass; but in a tired age even real goods lose their savour. The Stoic ethic suited the times of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, because its gospel was one of endurance rather than hope."
The Stoics had plenty to say on what constitutes a good life. They might have also cautioned that a 'joyful' life may not be the same thing as a 'good' life, if that joy is derived from vice or a lack of virtue.
