Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy

brought to you by Ron Yezzi

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy

Minnesota State University, Mankato

(Author's Note: The account below, with slight modifications, is taken from Ron Yezzi, Philosophical Problems: The Good Life (Mankato: G. Bruno & Co., 1994), pp. 24-29.)

Topics

Basic Position

The Stoic in Times of Trouble

Stoicism and Epicureanism

Stoicism and Public Life

Controversies: Some Objections and Possible Replies

Thought Excursions

Sources

The Good Life:

Stoicism

Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius

Basic Position

According to the stoic, the good life consists in accepting whatever happens to you. This advocacy of acceptance rests upon two claims:

(1) All events in the universe, including human actions, are determined—except for freedom of will in our attitudes toward what is happening to us; and

(2) The universe is ordered by a Divine plan to serve the best possible purposes.

Since only our own attitudes are under our control and since we can trust Divine Providence, we fare best when we accept whatever happens. For the stoic, a particular event may seem to be wrong at times, but only because we fail to grasp the Divine plan for the universe. Therefore a wise person always seeks to understand the brighter side of any event so as to bring oneself into accord with the laws governing nature. For example, a person may look upon some crisis or tragedy in life as an opportunity to test one's character. Thus a fire, a war, a death in the family, or an earthquake are all events that can serve a good purpose.

The Stoic philosopher Epictetus aptly captures this view of the good life in the following passage:

Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well.

Sickness is an impediment to the body, but not to the will unless itself pleases. Lameness is an impediment to the leg, but not to the will; and say this to yourself with regard to everything that happens. For you will find it to be an impediment to something else, but not truly to yourself.

Upon every accident, remember to turn toward yourself and inquire what faculty you have for its use. If you encounter a handsome person, you will find continence the faculty needed; if pain, then fortitude; if reviling, then patience. And when thus habituated, the phenomena of existence will not overwhelm you.

Never say of anything, “I have lost it,” but, “I have restored it.” Has your child died? It is restored. Has your wife died? She is restored. Has your estate been taken away? That likewise is restored. “But it was a bad man who took it.” What is it to you by whose hands he [God] who gave it has demanded it again? While he [God] permits you to possess it, hold it as something not your own, as do travelers at an inn.¹

By recognizing what is in our power—namely, our thoughts, desires, and aversions—and by disciplining our minds, the stoic believes that we can bring ourselves into accord with nature and achieve contentment. Recognition of what is in our power allows us to be true to ourselves and not slaves to external things—“for freedom is not acquired by satisfying yourself with what you desire, but by destroying your desire.”² Mental discipline requires development of character so that we can bear the burden of events not under our control; it also requires development of an ability to reason well so that we rationally can understand how to bring ourselves into harmony with nature. Education is a useful means to attain this latter end.

Given the strong emphasis upon accepting whatever happens, we may well wonder how stoics can have any positive goals in life or even pick a vocation. After all, events, our bodies, possessions, relatives, friends, and fellow citizens are not within our control.

We should remember however that stoics regard the will as being free in its thoughts, desires, and aversions. Thus we can will good instead of evil. Accordingly, we can turn our thoughts toward such goods as forbearance, self-control, good faith, service to others, simplicity, kindness, honor, seriousness, purity, freedom from affectation, and worship of the Divine. Moreover, we can develop an aversion for such evils as thievery and adultery. Similarly, in selecting a vocation, we rationally can assess our abilities and decide to employ them in the best possible way, so as to bring our life work into accord with nature. In assessing and deciding, we should take care to free ourselves from such selfish desires as avarice, ambition, and vanity. From all this, it follows that the stoic attitude does not eliminate positive goals; rather, it provides a way to accept with equanimity whatever life offers.

Biographical Sketch

Epictetus (c. 50 - c. 130 C.E.) was born in Hierapolis, a city in what is now central Turkey. Although he received an excellent education, he was a Roman slave for a number of years, until freed by his master.

Apparently, he was banished from Rome by the Emperor Domitian. He then founded a thriving school for the teaching of Stoicism in the Epirus, a region of Greece. Epictetus was renowned for his personal simplicity. Although he left no writings of his own, we do have notes of his teaching (known as The Discourses and The Enchiridion, or The Manual, of Epictetus), taken by his follower, Arrian.

The Stoic in Times of Trouble

When we ourselves or others fail to do what is right in actions, the stoic attitude reminds us that actions are not within our control. So we should not berate ourselves for past misdeeds; nor should we become angry or show pity in the presence of others' misdeeds. We can will to do better next time; and we can point out moral errors to others. But we cannot control events. Epictetus offers the following advice to persons victimized by an unrepentant thief or adulterer:

Why, then, are we angry? Because we admire the goods of which these men rob us. For, mark you, stop admiring your clothes, and you are not angry at the man who steals them; stop admiring your wife's beauty, and you are not angry at her adulterer. Know that a thief or an adulterer has no place among the things that are your own, but only among the things that are another's and that are not under your control. If you give these things up and count them as nothing, at whom have you still ground to be angry? But so long as you admire these things, be angry at yourself and not at the men that I have just mentioned. For consider; you have fine clothes and your neighbour does not; you have a window and wish to air them. He does not know wherein the true good of man consists, but fancies that it consists in having fine clothes, the very same fancy that you also entertain. Shall he not come, then, and carry them off? Why, when you show a cake to gluttonous men and then gulp it down all to yourself, are you not wanting them to snatch it? Stop provoking them, stop having a window, stop airing your clothes.³

Although Stoicism was most influential during the Roman Empire, it is not absent in the present day. There is a strong stoic tendency in the admonition, “Well, you just have to be philosophical about that!” And sometimes, religious persons display a strong element of stoicism, as shown rather dramatically and tragically in the following incident that occurred in Minnesota. Upon hearing that their three-and-one-half-year old son had been hanged by a fourteen-year old boy, the parents announced that, as devout Christians, they harbored no bitterness toward their son's slayer. The father said, “Whatever the Lord allowed to happen would be for the best. I have perfect peace. We've always given our children to the Lord.” In the face of misery and helplessness, a stoic tendency may well exist in most of us.

While Stoicism probably strikes most people as a very passive attitude, we should note that the position carries with it a sense of invincibility. You never regret the past; you always look to the future; and you are ready to withstand any obstacles.

Stoicism and Epicureanism

Strong resemblances exist between stoicism and the ascetic hedonism of Epicurus, but with at least two fundamental differences. First, whereas Epicurus looked upon avoidance of pain and achievement of pleasure as the goal of life, the proper attitude for a stoic is indifference to pleasure and pain, since they are beyond our control. And secondly, whereas Epicurus advocated withdrawal from public affairs in accord with his egoistic hedonism, the stoics accepted civic duty as a natural expression of the relationship between oneself and other human beings; hence they did not shun positions of public authority. Indeed, one of the most prominent Stoic philosophers was the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

Biographical Sketch

Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 C.E.), born in Rome, was an avid student who first encountered (and soon embraced) the doctrines of Stoicism at age 11. He became the adopted son and heir of his uncle, the Emperor Antoninus. After 23 years of apprenticeship in the art of ruling, he became Emperor himself in 161. As a person, Marcus Aurelius showed steadfast and humane dedication in service to the state and a generous disposition toward political enemies and the failings of his relatives. During his reign, however, he was often forced to lead in battle to protect the far-flung provinces of the Empire. While on campaign, he wrote the Meditations, which is his major contribution to Stoicism.

Controversies: Some Objections and Possible Replies

(Note About Objections and Possible Replies: You should look upon the objections and possible replies as opportunities for further thought rather than as definitive statements. Holders of the original position are not likely to be overwhelmed by the objections; and critics of the original position are not likely to be convinced by the possible replies. These objections and possible replies accomplish a proper goal if they push you to think more deeply about an issue, leading you to seek more clarity and justification in drawing your own conclusions.)

As we may expect, not everyone accepts the two fundamental claims of stoicism, namely, that all events except for our attitudes are determined and that Divine Providence rules the universe. Moreover, denial of either or both these claims, turns the stoic attitude into an untenable state of passivity and resignation. We will not however examine these two claims in any detail here.

(1) A Moral Paradox

Although stoics exhort us to develop an aversion for evil actions, we morally cannot condemn these actions when they occur because they serve the best possible purposes, according to the Divine plan for the universe. For example, we ourselves should have an attitude of aversion toward thievery and adultery; yet we should accept acts of thievery and adultery that occur as being in accord with Divine purpose. Apparently then, evil actions are not really evil actions; hence there is a paradox.

A Possible Reply: No real paradox exists here. In themselves, evil actions are simply evil actions; in some other respect however, they can serve a good purpose. For example, thievery and adultery are evil actions in themselves; yet they can fit into the Divine plan for the universe by providing moral lessons in the harmful consequences of such actions or by developing a strong character able to withstand life's misfortunes. Thus we can have an aversion for thievery and adultery without condemning the acts when they occur—without being inconsistent.

(2) Lack of Concern for Others

If, according to the stoic ideal, spouses, children, and friends should mean nothing to us because they are not within our power, we are not likely to show any genuine concern or compassion for other people because they mean nothing to us. For us to show genuine concern and compassion, other people must mean something to us so that we value and respect them. Furthermore, we cannot show much concern and compassion without grieving over their loss—whether they be spouses, family members, friends, or just fellow human beings.

A Possible Reply: Stoicism requires that we will to treat others with kindness, good faith, honor, and a spirit of service; hence there is no lack of concern or compassion for other people. Yet we should never become so possessive of others that we fail to recognize our limited powers of control or that we let their loss affect our sense of well-being.

(3) Passivity and Resignation

In the contemporary world where continual, rapid change and enormous powers of human control are everyday facts of life, the stoic view of the good life is simply inappropriate. The weighty problems associated with the need for decisions about the direction human beings will take in the future are not likely to be solved by a philosophy that encourages passivity and resignation.

A Possible Reply: What evidence is there that the world's "problem solvers" with all their alleged powers of human control are eliminating war, starvation, disease, greed, and envy? Or that they are making people happier, more secure, and more content with life? This currently prevalent sense of power is an illusion. People gain far more by using reason to bring themselves into harmony with nature—living a life of simplicity, purity, and seriousness.

Thought Excursions

3.20 Suppose that you accept the stoic view of the good life and that you are walking along when a child near you suddenly wanders into the street, into the path of an oncoming car. How would you react to, and interpret, the situation? For example, would you simply walk on and say that whatever happens will be for the best?

3.21 Can a stoic seriously argue that starvation, disease, natural disasters, war, and murder serve a good purpose? What do you think?

3.22 What would you say about Epictetus' statement, “For freedom is not acquired by satisfying yourself with what you desire, but by destroying your desire”? If you accepted the statement and lived accordingly, do you think that your life would be happier and more contented? Why or why not?

3.23 How likely is it that a stoic would become a political revolutionary? Would you be surprised to hear that a stoic announced candidacy for President of the United States or Prime Minister of Canada? Why or why not? On the basis of your replies, discuss what role, if any, you think a stoic might have in contemporary national politics. (Before answering, be sure to read over the account of Stoicism and Public Life.)

3.24 How would you evaluate the various objections to stoicism mentioned? Be sure to consider the possible replies a stoic may make to each objection. Which is the strongest objection? The weakest? Would you offer other objections besides those mentioned in the text? If so, what are they? What is your general evaluation of stoicism as a view of the good life?

Stoicism and Public Life

Whether the universe is a concourse of atoms, or nature is a system, let this first be established, that I am a part of the whole which is governed by nature; next, I am in a manner intimately related to the parts which are of the same kind with myself. For remembering this, inasmuch as I am a part, I shall be discontented with none of the things which are assigned to me out of the whole; for nothing is injurious to the part, if it is for the advantage of the whole.... And inasmuch as I am in a manner intimately related to the parts which are of the same kind with myself, I shall do nothing unsocial, but I shalt rather direct myself to the things which are of the same kind with myself, and I shall turn all my efforts to the common interest, and divert them from the contrary. Now, if these things are done so, life must flow on happily, just as thou mayest observe that the life of a citizen is happy, who continues a course of action which is advantageous to his fellow-citizens, and is content with whatever the state may assign him.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations X

The passage above is sufficient to show why a stoic accepts public life as activity in accordance with nature and, more particularly, why Marcus Aurelius accepts with equanimity the office of Emperor. We can also understand a stoic's dedication to serving the state and the common interest.

Yet, at least two problems remain: (1) What does a stoic do when the state requires performance of an evil action? and (2) Can a stoic be innovative or aggressive in setting and pursuing political goals?

Regarding performance of evil actions, Epictetus does not seem to advocate submission, especially when governmental authority threatens us. Our bodies may suffer; but our wills are always free. Thus we can resist without fear.

As for political goals, stoics can be active in desiring good rather than evil. Given the stress upon adaptation and acceptance however, they are not likely to be radicals or revolutionaries; indeed they are not even likely to pursue avidly political office. For Marcus Aurelius, innovation in the sense of introducing new laws that better serve the common interest is simply the normal duty of one's office; but radicalism, revolution, and civic turmoil are not in keeping with acting for the good of the whole. There is no indication that he would recognize a degree of oppression sufficient to justify a revolution. There is also no indication that Marcus Aurelius would approve the rather aggressive seeking of political office characteristic of contemporary democracy. Aside from the likelihood of excessive ambition in such pursuit, he envisions a good society in which the well-qualified are selected for higher office and then do their duty. Officials already in office might well gather inspiration and consolation from reading the Meditations. As a handbook for gaining political office or as an incentive to seek office however, it has nothing to offer.

Sources

Footnotes

1. Epictetus, The Enchiridion (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1948), pp. 20-21.

2. W.A. Oldfather, tr. Epictetus (London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1959), Vol. II, p. 305.

3. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 125.

Return to Start Page

Return to Philosophical Issues Page