Stoic Physics


Introduction


When one begins to read the ancient Stoics, it is evident they often speak of god or the gods.  It seems that the ancients largely believed in a god or the gods.  While many people have claimed to have seen god or talked with him or her or it, the accounts don’t seem entirely consistent.  And these accounts seem to be few and far between.  The simple fact of the matter is most haven’t experienced a definitive super natural experience, in which there is overwhelming proof that it was god.  While anecdotal experiences are shared from another person, one can’t be sure if they are of a sound mind. However, there are claims that 50% of the population have had some mystical experience (The Weekend University & Sheldrake, 2020).


More common, are the quiet moments of inspiration or dreams or other less definitive experiences, which lead many to believe that god exists.  While some might discount these types of experiences, they are nonetheless, real to a certain extent.


Still others are adamant that both the extraordinary and the less extraordinary supernatural experiences should be discounted.  To them, these experiences can be explained away by brain chemistry and drug-induced reactions in the brain.  God does not exist to a reductionist or atheist.  All can be accounted for through cause and effect in a universe that is cold and uncaring.  As Lawrence Becker (2017, p. 11) writes, “When we face the universe, we confront its indifference to us and our own insignificance to it. It takes no apparent notice of us, has no role other than Extra for us to play, no aim for us to follow."  This sentiment aligns with the unfiltered honesty of the Existentialists, who convey a similar message in arguing there is "no overarching reason, order, or purpose to our existence, that it is all fundamentally meaningless and absurd" (Aho, 2023).


The goal of this essay is to explain a traditional, classical Stoic perspective of god and to provide the reader (atheist or not) some things to consider, especially in response to the sentiment expressed by Becker.  Through the course of the essay, the intent is to show that the cosmos is god and that god is not uncaring, but providential; that god is conscious of itself and us and that god does provide an aim for us, namely wisdom.  All of these ideas fall under the topic of Stoic physics, and having an understanding of the big ideas might help the reader more fully appreciate the spiritual and practical exercises tied to the philosophy.


The Four Proofs of Existence of God


As mentioned in the introduction, it is difficult for many people to believe the supernatural encounters with god, yet those who experience these visitations claim it is proof of god’s existence.  From the stories in the bible, to American revivalists to modern-day stories and books, anyone can claim they’ve seen god and know god exists.


Other people who have had no supernatural experiences with god, will generally point to other proofs.  While not scientifically provable, they nonetheless resonate with many people still today.  On this basis, the Stoics approach god by reason.  It seems they did not make god up in their own image or otherwise.  Rather, they applied reason to attempt an understand of god.


The Stoics claimed four proofs for god’s existence:


Universal Belief


For as long as humans can remember and no matter to which part of the world you travel, it is observed that humans worship god.  Kiempe Algra notes “people always and everywhere have believed that there are gods: religion appears to be a universal human phenomenon. This is what later became known as the argument e consensu omnium” (Inwood, 2006, p. 161).  The Stoics were not alone in using this proof.  “They agreed with Epicurus that the strength and prevalence of human ideas of divinity provide evidence of the necessary existence of God or gods.” (Long, 2001, p. 149).  With over four thousand religions identified in the world and after tallying up membership numbers of major religions, it becomes quite evident that, even today, the majority of people believe in a god (Fairchild, 2021).  Indeed, it is a phenomenon that so many people instinctively believe in god, or at least are persuaded of god’s existence.


Why is it that so many seemingly default to this way of thinking?  And why isn’t it the other way around, where the extremely few believe in a god while the vast majority don’t?  It is in this space that philosophy seeks to guide us.  As for the Stoics, they simply point to this fact as evidence of god’s existence.


Zeno’s Syllogism


Closely related to the universal belief proof is an argument known as Zeno’s Syllogism.  The argument, as found in Algre’s essay follows (Inwood, 2006, p. 163).


(a1)  A man may reasonably honour the gods.

(a2)  Those who are non-existent a man may not reasonably honour.

(a3)  Therefore the gods exist.


The spirit of the argument might simply be restated as, “reasonable people worship god.”  However, as many may quickly point out, insane and un-reasonable people may also worship god.  At the heart of the matter, when it comes to consensus of belief, the individual has to wrestle with the fact that many sane, reasonable people believe and worship god.  Alternatively, the individual could also wrestle with the fact that perhaps the majority of people are indeed insane!


Design


Another argument that god exists comes from Chrysippus, as recorded by Cicero in his On the Nature of the Gods.  Just as we see a spectrum in people who can create simple and very complex machines, then it follows that there may be other species or intelligences higher than humans which have created the order of the universe.


Cicero writes, “If there is something which man could not create, he who does create it is more excellent than man; man cannot create these things that are in the universe; therefore he who was able to create them is superior to man; but no one could be superior to man except god, who is thus shown to exist” (Cicero, 1896 and Long, 2001, p. 149).


Elaboration of this proof of god from design is observed in the order of the cosmos and the physical universe.  From the cyclical nature of the movement of stars and planets to the ordered structure of the cosmos, humans can see order and beauty in the earth and the sky.  Even if one were to focus on a single planet and the order, structure and organisms which exist in a single planet, no human, thus far, has been able to replicate the process of creating something as complex as an animal, let alone the entire planet.


Unacceptable Consequences


The last of the proofs for god’s existence is put in such a way to so as to assume that god does not exist and then to determine if the consequences are acceptable or not.  In one sense, this is somewhat related to the ‘universal belief’ proof.  As the majority of people worship, make sacrifices, pray and perform other rituals, all would be in vain if god did not exist.  The upheaval of that belief system would cause many to question morality in general.


The proof follows, then, that there is nothing superior to humanity.  But this is unacceptable in that we observe a continuum of intelligence in all the animals and humans on the earth.  We even see a continuum in rationality among humans.  It follows then, that if we can point to a perfectly virtuous person, there must be something or someone better, therefore this would be god.


This argument was attributed to Cleanthes as reproduced by Sextus Empiricus.


“If one nature is superior to another, there must be some best nature; if one soul is superior to another, there must be some best soul; and if one animal is superior to another, there must be some supreme animal; for such things are not of a nature to continue to infinity. So just as nature could not be infinitely augmented for the better, neither could soul nor animal. [89] But now, one animal is superior to another; for instance, the horse is superior to the tortoise, and the bull to the ass and the lion to the bull. But the human being surpasses and is supreme among virtually all terrestrial animals in both bodily and psychic disposition; therefore there must be a supreme and best animal. [90] However, the human being cannot possibly be the supreme animal, because, for a start, he goes the entire time in vice – or if not the entire time, most of the time, for if he does ever conquer virtue, he conquers it late and at the sunset of life; and he is subject to fate and weak and in need of vast numbers of aids, such as food and clothing and other care for the body, which is set over us like a harsh tyrant and demands its daily tribute, and, if we do not make provision for washing and anointing and clothing and feeding it, threatens diseases and death. So that the human being is not a perfect animal, but imperfect and far apart from perfection. [91] But the perfect and best must be superior to a human being, complete in all the virtues and not receptive of anything bad; and this will not differ from god. Therefore there is a god” (Bett, 2012, p. 21).


These proofs may not convince some people, but they do offer some explanation of the Stoics’ reasoning related to god’s existence.  They also align well with the more complete concept of the Stoic god.  In today’s post-modern civilization, many have based their concept of god on what their default religion taught them - typically a man sitting in the heavens casting favors, judgements and punishments on humankind.  The Stoic's concept of god’s nature is similar in some ways but different in others.


The Nature of God


Pneuma and Mixture with the Passive Elements and the Void


Perhaps the most important aspect of the Stoic god is the element pneuma.  A.A. Long, in his Book Hellenistic Philosophy (2001) has noted pneuma as “fiery breath” (p. 150), “artistic fire” (p. 152), “the active principle” (p. 153), “breath … vital spirit … hot breath … vehicle of the logos” (p. 155), “force or energy” (p. 156), “‘field of force’ activating matter” (p. 158) “intelligent director of everything” (p. 164).  John Sellars (2006) describes pneuma as “identified with God and reason” and “a conscious and rational organizing principle” and as “the soul of the cosmos” (p. 97)  He cites Aetius by calling God “creative fire (pur technikon)” (p. 98).  He also cites Stobaeus saying that it is the force “causing growth and preservation” (p. 99).


Besides this active principal, pneuma has another important aspect: it mixes with passive elements (fire, air, water, earth) and binds itself to them causing bodies to exist.  Depending on how much pneuma is mixed into passive elements will determine how alive an object is and if it has a soul or not (Sellars, 2006, p. 91, 98; Long, 2001, p. 158-160).


More specifically, there are varying levels of tension in all things in the universe.  All objects in the universe have cohesion (hexis) pneuma.  They have the force that holds them together.  Things that are alive have growth (phusis or physis) pneuma.  Even rarer are cohered, living things which have soul (psuche or psyche) pneuma.  Those living things which have this pneumatic force have the powers of perceptions, impressions, movement, impulses and reproduction.  Most importantly is the fourth level or principal, which is found in mature human adults, who, when fully developed have the ability of “rational power of judgement that can intervene between receiving impressions and acting on impulses'' (Sellars, 2006, p. 105).  This pneuma is known as logike psuche or logica psyche. The varying levels of tension are called scala naturae, which is “a hierarchy of the powers in nature based on the activity and organization of the pneuma” (Rubarth, n.d., direct link).


Is everything in the cosmos considered to be the Stoic god?  Or is the Stoic god within everything in the cosmos?  It may not matter much to the individual Stoic, but for the sake of thoroughness, it is noted that both Long and Sellars state that Stoics are pantheists (Long, 2001, p. 150; Sellars, 2006, p.  91, 99).  A pantheist is someone who holds the belief “that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god” (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019b).  Slightly different is the panentheist idea which holds the belief that “the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time” (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019a).


Is a Stoic a pantheist or a panentheist?  The answer may be found in the idea of the eternal return, conflagration or ekpyrosis.  This is the Stoic belief that the cosmos (god) dies and is reborn in a never-ending cycle.  This cycle accounts for the cosmos’ need to expand into a larger space than its current state.  At the ending and beginning, the only element that exists is pure pneuma with passive elements having converted to the active.  When the cosmos is reborn, pure pneuma is mixed and infused with the passive and the cycle begins again.  Therefore, pneuma is in everything (Sellars, 2006, p. 99) and the idea is more aligned with panentheism.


One other point to note, about the nature of the Stoic god is the void.  Sellars cites Diogenes Leartes who wrote “the cosmos is a living being … conceived as a spherical being, surrounded by infinite void (DL 7.140)” (Sellars, 2006, p. 96).


Why might it be important to understand these aspects of Stoic physics?  It may help the Stoic student, when he reads passages from Marcus Aurelius (2014), who writes of Empedocles’ perfect sphere and which parts belong to the individual and which parts do not.  Consider Meditations 12.3:


There are three things in your composition: body, breath, and mind. The first two are yours to the extent that you must take care for them, but only the third is in the full sense your own. So, if you separate from yourself - that is, from your mind - all that others say or do, all that you yourself have said or done, all that troubles you for the future, all that your encasing body and associate breath bring on you without your choice, all that is whirled round in the external vortex encircling us, so that your power of mind, transcending now all contingent ties, can exist on its own, pure and liberated, doing what is just, willing what happens to it, and saying what is true; if, as I say, you separate from this directing mind of yours the baggage of passion, time future and time past, and make yourself like Empedocles' 'perfect round rejoicing in the solitude it enjoys', and seek only to perfect this life you are living in the present, you will be able at least to live out the time remaining before your death calmly, kindly, and at peace with the god inside you.


When Marcus talks about the various parts of the soul and which are up to him and the passage of time, introspection and change, the reader may see the parallels of the cosmic pneuma, change, cycle and spherical body of the Stoic god.


Being familiar with pneuma and other aspects of the Stoic god can provide a person with a rational and conceivable framework of the world and cosmos in which we live.  The Stoic student will often be called upon to react or not, to circumstances beyond his control.  How he reacts may depend on his paradigm of the universe and how it operates.  Is it created and directed by a benevolent and vengeful man with a white beard?  Is it completely ambivalent to everything within it?  I don’t know that there is anyone who knows with certainty the true, correct paradigm of the universe and whether god exists or not.  But at least considering the ancient Stoic perspective of god may help the student be grounded in a realistic perspective of our circumstances.  And this perspective can be brought into greater comprehension with the study of Heraclitus.


Heraclitus and the Perspective of the Whole


The Stoic student should also be aware of an important pre-Socratic philosopher by the name of Heraclitus (1920).  Much of Stoic cosmology is based on his sayings and fragments.


Nine fragments focus on the oneness and wholeness of the Stoic god.  The key idea, with regard to these fragments, is to remember that from the perspective of god, all things are one; whether it is strife, change or our choices - all is part of the one.


Fragments 50, 41 and 10 explicitly address the oneness idea.


“It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my Word, and to confess that all things are one” (Fragment 50).


“Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by which all things are steered through all things” (Fragment 41).


“Couples are things whole and things not whole, what is drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one” (Fragment 10).


Fragments 80, 110 and 111 address specifically how human striving is encompassed within the one.


“We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away through strife” (Fragment 80).


“It is not good for men to get all they wish to get. It is sickness that makes health pleasant; evil, good; hunger, plenty; weariness, rest” (Fragments 110-111).


Fragments 126, 12 and 84 speak of the constant changing of nature and if viewed from the proper perspective, it is simply one.


“Cold things become warm, and what is warm cools; what is wet dries, and the parched is moistened” (Fragment 126).


“You cannot step twice into the same rivers; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you” (Fragment 12).


“It rests by changing” (Fragment 84).


Lastly, one fragment focused on the human perspective of all strife and change.  From the perspective of the whole, all these things are one and are not considered good or evil.


“To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong and some right” (Fragment 102).


In this last fragment a Stoic lesson is found, which is based on ancient Stoic physics.  You must take the holistic perspective when addressing the fear, anxiety, elation and hubris you feel as well as to understand what wisdom is.  These ancient fragments from Heraclitus are nothing more than different takes on the practice many know today as “the view from above,” not in the strict sense, but in a general sense.  Indeed one may imagine himself lifting off the earth, floating over his neighborhood, city, nation, continent and off into space to view how insignificant many things on earth are.  But the Stoic student should also remember that taking this perspective will not only help manage fear, anxiety, elation and hubris, but they will begin to see things from the correct and wise perspective, from the perspective of the whole; of Nature; of god.


Up to this point of the essay, the important points discussed have been: to reasonably show that god exists (the 4 proofs), what causes god to exist (pneuma) and the definition or scope of god (god is in everything; god is the cosmos; god is the one).  This next part of the essay will discuss two additional aspects of god, which are, perhaps, more relevant to humans with regard to applied living: the providence of god and god’s consciousness.


The Providence of God


The word providence evokes many images, from a shepherd caring for the flock, protecting them from wolves, to an owner of a dog who feeds, bathes and cares for the pet, to parents providing food, shelter, clothing and safety for children, to government officials and elected leaders who provide infrastructure, services, defense and common welfare or to a moral leader who teaches and provides guidance to her followers.  In all of the above examples, we could say that the providers care deeply for their flock, pet, children, citizens and followers.


However, there are also examples at the other end of the spectrum of care which demonstrate how minimal, yet crucial, providence is given.  We admire extreme examples of those who have survived on the land with very little, for a long time, such as Henry David Thoreau.  We are impressed by military commandos who carry out missions who have only been provided with a minimal kit.


When it comes to the providence of god, we find what god has given us, hidden in plain sight, in the examples above: we have been provided with rationality, the ability to be conscious, to think and act.  In a word, rational beings have been provided with agency, and everything else within Nature to sustain itself.  This is an important idea to remember, especially when I discuss safetyism in the action essay.


Marcus Aurelius (2014, 9.1) and the Stoics pointed to the original impulse or decree of god, from which everything is provided.


By 'universal Nature treating these things indifferently' I mean that they happen impartially by cause and effect to all that comes into being and owes its being to the fulfillment of an original impulse of Providence. Under this impulse Providence set out from a first premise to establish the present order of the universe: she had conceived certain principles of what was to be, and determined generative powers to create substances, transformations, and successive regeneration.


Epictetus (2014, Discourses 2.14) succinctly states


The philosophers say that we ought first to learn that there is a God and that he provides for all things.


One could argue that of all the living things in the cosmos, rational beings have been provided the greatest gift of all: the ability to reason and think, which in turn provides the rational being the ability to care for itself rationally and physically.


If the reader will allow me to be personal and wax a bit more philosophical at this point, then let me share some thoughts on this important aspect of Stoic thought.  What is the right amount or providential care?  In terms of parenting, I’ve had many conversations about this topic over the years.  Should one use free-range parenting?  Helicopter parenting?  Something in between?  Perhaps it boils down to preference, but for my part, as I’ve contemplated this, I’ve concluded that if the goal for children is resilience, happiness and freedom, then the providential parenting model would tilt toward teaching the child correct principles and then allowing the child to decide and learn largely on their own, rather than parenting through control, exertion and commanding oversight.  If asked if I prefer to constantly hound and control my kids to do the right thing or if I prefer for them to choose to do what is right, I would prefer the latter.  Seeing a child say and do the right things, without my prompting, adds to my own happiness.


Alternatively, parents who feel compelled to constantly watch, track and oversee every thought and action of their child, provide them a tremendous disservice.  Rather than promoting independence, the parent promotes a stronger dependence on which the child may come to rely and expect.  Inevitably, the child must begin to live on their own and care for himself and if they are not equipped to think and decide on their own - and to make wise decisions on their own - their resilience, happiness and freedom are stunted.


Obviously, the above does not apply to all children.  Some children are mentally and physically handicapped and therefore will not be able to do all things on their own; they will need help from the parents and care-givers.  I speak broadly of the 85% that are not handicapped (The World Bank, 2021).


My point of that little diversion is to show that there is providential care given to all.  God has given humans a kind of minimum kit to find their way in the cosmos.  And the sooner the rational being recognizes this gift, the more quickly they can approach wisdom and fulfillment.


Furthermore, the sooner a person comes to the realization of what only comes from god, the sooner they will have a correct perspective of the universe and how it operates.  The only guaranteed providential care god provides humans is this rational agency and consequently anytime someone claims god harmed them or did not provide for them in terms of directly providing food, clothing, shelter and other things, they misunderstand the real nature of providence.


The Consciousness of God


The final point about the nature of the Stoic god deals with the question of Nature's consciousness.


Many authors and ancient Stoics have defined consciousness in various ways.  Depending on how one defines it will depend on whether one agrees to the notion of a conscious god and universe or not.


To begin, the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary uses terms such as “perceiving,” “noticing,” “concerned,” “interested,” “awareness,” “design,” and “perception” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).


Diogenes Laertius defines consciousness as “rational, animate and intelligent” (see DL 7.142-3, as cited in Sellars, 2006, p. 94-95).


Pierre Hadot (2001, p. 180) writes much of consciousness, mostly at the individual level.  But at the core of his writings on the subject is the sentiment of awareness and attention (see also other references in the index on p. 340).


Even in everyday life, we observe examples of people acting consciously or unconsciously.  We might see examples of rational and predictable thinking or people who take the time to think and rationalize and then change behavior to achieve an outcome.  Over time, we may observe complexity to the way they operate and live their life.  Alternatively, we may find someone doing something unconsciously where they are not aware of why they are doing such a thing; they lack introspection.


In sum, if we can point to evidence that the universe is rational, predictable, changes over time and shows some complexity in design and its operations, then perhaps we can state that god is conscious.


But to where do we point for this evidence?  Before looking, it is worth recognizing that the crux of this argument hangs on the premise stated by Zeno: “that which employs reason is better than that which does not” (ND 2.21, Sellars, 2006, p. 93).  As previously discussed in the essay, god or the cosmos is to be viewed as one whole and greater than a rational human being; and combined with evidence that humans employ reason, we arrive at Zeno's conclusion, “Now nothing is superior to the cosmos; therefore the cosmos employs reason.”


If one agrees with the arguments outlined above, then evidence is plentiful, not only in human beings, but in many other living objects, organisms and in the grand universe.  The scope of the essay must be limited, to some degree, and therefore cannot extensively elaborate on the evidence to suggest that god (the universe) is conscious.  Therefore it will simply direct the reader to articles and books which allow him to consider evidence as provided by some scientists, doctors and other authors that the cosmos and Stoic god are conscious (see Appendix A).


Why would it be important for a Stoic to consider god being conscious?  Allow me, again, to interject some personal thoughts on the subject.  I think the crucial point to all of this is the idea of “inspect and adapt.”  Consider how many people want to be better.  Better than what?  Better than themselves from the previous day; or perhaps better than what they consider less - they may have some ideal or standard in their mind, to which they aspire and they see a gap between themselves and this ideal.  At a macro level, history has shown a long, albeit slow and with major setbacks, progress towards a wiser, more educated and unified society.  Perhaps we are striving towards One or toward Unity.  And this underlying desire to be better - to be wise, to transcend mere daily existence - is the manifestation of consciousness striving toward a goal.  Improvement towards something grander than oneself uplifts and edifies not only the seeker but those around him.  If this is a person’s paradigm, then they may be more inclined to strive towards wisdom and turn away from a nihilistic view.  But if a person is inclined to have a view that humans are the apex of rationality in the universe and have nothing better towards which to strive, much meaning in one’s life can become base and little more than animalistic.


Differences between Modern and Traditional Stoics


This debate, about whether there exists a providential, conscious god or if there are simply random atoms, has been continuing since the Epicureans and Stoics took it up many centuries previous.  As recently as 2015, two modern Stoics wrote articles discussing the opposing views of the existence of god.  Chris Fisher (2015) wrote 'Providence or Atoms? Providence!' discussing the traditional Stoic perspective, while Donald Robertson (2015) wrote 'Providence or Atoms? Atoms!' which gives Stoic atheists and agnostics reasons to ignore and hand-wave passages from ancient Stoics which discuss god or Zeus.


Fisher discusses at length many of the same ideas this essay has noted - namely that god exists, is rational, conscious, providential.  He further elaborates why it is important for society to consider this perspective and the possible repercussions for taking an atheist or agnostic perspective.  He contends that humans need to look to something better and that they “need to be tethered to something lest they risk drifting aimlessly into the dark abyss of meaninglessness.”  He cites evidence of the rise of despair, violence and nihilism and how many atheists and agnostics are noticing this void and are seeking something more.  While they may never wish to return to religion where many of them had to submit to “intellectual bondage,” there is a rational alternative: the Stoic god.


It seems Fisher is relying on the 4th Stoic proof of the existence of god and is citing real-world repercussions of an atheist or agnostic perspective as a majority view - namely unacceptable consequences.


While there are many examples of atheists and agnostics who are rational and wise people who are social, caring, who strive for wisdom and justice and who can find significant meaning in their life, some historical examples can't be ignored in which history shows cultures and governments built on the lack of belief in god and the ethics those cultures produced.  History lessons from the Soviet Union, to Cambodia to modern-day China and North Korea, demonstrate how atheism was actively and brutally promoted and which led to not only widespread injustice, but to the killing of many, many people.


Robertson (2015) bases his argument on the fact that Socrates may have been atheist or agnostic, but nonetheless chose to believe in god.


“It’s worth noting that Socrates was sometimes portrayed as a partial agnostic.  He admitted that certainty about the gods is impossible but chose to believe in them on the basis of probability.”


Robertson goes on to note ancient Stoics who simply minimized the importance of the belief in god in the examples of Panaetius, Aristo of Chios and the Stoic poet Lucan who wrote, “No guardian gods watch over us from heaven.”  It’s interesting to note that Robertson admits this sounds “more Epicurean perhaps than traditionally Stoic.”


He then addresses the many times Marcus Aurelius talks about “gods or atoms.”  Robertson emphasizes the minimal need to avow a belief in god in order to be a Stoic.  One may believe in god which leads to sound Stoic ethics, but even if one did not believe in god, the rational ethical choice is still Stoic ethics.  He cites Pierre Hadot (2001), who wrote,


“Marcus thus opposes two models of the universe: that of Stoicism and that of Epicureanism.  His reason for doing so is to show that, on any hypothesis, and even if one were to accept, in the field of [philosophical] physics, the model most diametrically opposed to that of Stoicism, the Stoic moral attitude is still the only possible one.”


But if one continues reading in The Inner Citadel they will find on the next page Hadot (2001, p. 149) writing this:


“We can see that Marcus has already made his choice between Epicureanism and Stoicism, by the very way in which he describes the Epicurean model with a variety of pejorative terms: ‘confused mixture’ or ‘formless mess,’ for example.”


Hadot then cites Meditations 4.27, which reads,


Either an ordered universe, or a stew of mixed ingredients, yet still coherent order. Otherwise how could a sort of private order subsist within you, if there is disorder in the Whole? Especially given that all things, distinct as they are, nevertheless permeate and respond to each other.


His reasoning hearkens back to the premise of Zeno, questioning how disorder and unconsciousness give rise to order and consciousness.


So while Marcus attempted to argue that the end result of an individual’s actions should lead to Stoic ethics, regardless if one believed in god or not, he nonetheless states that the Epicurean model is confused and a mess - as if the logic to get to ethics is tortured and forced down the ‘atoms’ route.  But if one were to tilt toward belief in god, the Stoic ethics become much more impactful and meaningful.


Lastly, Robertson (2015) addresses a passage purported to be by Epictetus, which reads,


What does it matter to me, says Epictetus, whether the universe is composed of atoms or uncompounded substances, or of fire and earth?  Is it not sufficient to know the true nature of good and evil, and the proper bounds of our desires and aversions, and also of our impulses to act and not to act; and by making use of these as rules to order the affairs of our life, to bid those things that are beyond us farewell?  It may very well be that these latter things are not to be comprehended by the human mind, and even if one assumes that they are perfectly comprehensible, well what profit comes from comprehending them?  And ought we not to say that those men trouble in vain who assign all this as necessary to the philosopher’s system of thought? […] What Nature is, and how she administers the universe, and whether she really exists or not, these are questions about which there is no need to go on to bother ourselves.


The upshot of this fragment is simply to note that Epictetus thought the detailed discussion of the existence or not of god was not necessary.  As evidenced in much of Epictetus’ sayings, he preferred to focus on the here and now - on a lived ethics - rather than elaboration on something that cannot be fully comprehended.   Robertson seems to hold strong to this point of view, which I think is slightly different than proclaiming “not god, but atoms!”  Alas, even despite all the focus on actions, from Epictetus, he talks much of god and many of his important points are based on a belief in god.


After all the debate, I think it boils down to how an individual reacts to a specific circumstance.  For example, and to apply this to a real-world scenario, how would the reader react to the news that their son became lost while driving home from college?  He departs the college town, driving on country back-roads, but never arrives home.  The police find his wrecked, abandoned car in the countryside.  They find his phone, wallet, money and a bit of blood in the car, but no body.  A search is conducted over days and weeks, but his body is never found.  Do you tilt towards a reason for his death or do you land on the side that the world truly is random and cruel and uncaring?  Or does the reader have some other reaction?  Personally speaking, I think the traditional Stoic perspective of god helps us tilt towards seeking meaning.  As one person on-line said recently, "Atomistic physics gets you atomistic ethics. Stuff just banging about in the void, nothing connected, least of all people to one another in any meaningful way" (James Daltrey in a comment to a post on the 'Living Stoicism' Facebook group).  


However, others find the Stoic trust in the cosmos “chilling.”


“It is one thing to say that human vision is limited, unable to grasp the full cosmic perspective.  But even at its noblest, in the writings of Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, there is something chilling and insensitive about the Stoic’s faith that all will turn out well in the end.  They were the only Greek philosophers who tried to find rationale for everything within their concept of a perfect, all-embracing Nature” (Long, 2001, p. 170).


Lastly, on September 8, 2024, in a College of Stoic Philosophers faculty meeting, Chris Fisher did an excellent job reviewing his view on this subject. Click here to hear this fascinating discussion.


God, Determinism and Free Will


The Stoics could be called “cosmic optimists;” meaning they were comfortable with the idea that god and the cosmos are rational and therefore everything will turn out just fine in the end as Long stated above (Inwoo, 2006, p. 205).  But where does that leave one’s free will?  What of god’s providence in granting humans rationality?  Herein lies an important lesson for applying Stoic physics and the discipline of desire.


Before answering those questions, it may be best to provide a bit of context in the domain of determinism and free will.  Two key questions humanity must face are:



There are two main camps of response to these questions: compatibilists or incompatibilists.  Compatibilists believe that agency and moral responsibility are generally compatible with a cosmos that is determined by cause and effect.  Incompatibilists do not think a person truly has agency and is not generally responsible for his actions.  It is between these two ends of the spectrum that a person has to untangle the twists and knots of cause and effect to understand if anything they do matters or not.  While it may be uncomfortable and hard to think about these things, it is on precisely this subject that one must spend some hard thought, to understand where they fall.  The mental work will go a long way to help him understand not only himself, but the world and universe around him.


This essay won’t attempt to teach the reader all the various paths which lead to compatibilist, pessimist and libertarian thought.  I’ll leave the reader to an excellent resource to help them understand where they lie on the spectrum (Strawson, 1998).  Rather, this essay will simply offer a summary of Stoic thought to consider and explain where the Stoics thought free will existed.


As noted previously, the Stoics reasoned god is perfectly rational and that humans lack the perspective of the whole to see how all events work out well for the benefit of the cosmos.  It is on this key premise, and dare I say, belief, that much of the Stoic’s view of god rests.  If this premise holds, then one can hold an optimistic view of fate or the cause and effect in the universe.  Sellars (2006, p. 101) summarizes,


For if God is supremely good and supremely rational, then there will surely be only one course of action open to him, namely the best and most rational course of action.  God could not act in any way other than he does, but then he would not want to.  It is presumably in this sense that the Stoics thought fate and providence could be reconciled.  There is a necessary and unalterable order of causes that we call fate; but this necessary order is providentially arranged by God to be the best possible order.”


In Moral Letters 65 - On the First Cause, Seneca (n.d.) succinctly writes, “The Stoics believe in one cause only, – the maker.”  And earlier in the letter, he notes, “Cause, however, by which we mean reason, moulds matter and turns it in whatever direction it will, producing thereby various concrete results.”


In sum, Stoics are determinists, but determinists who hold strong to an implicit trust in god’s providential order of the cosmos and that it is only our humanly limited perspective that prevents us from seeing the good in all causes and effects.


But allow me to make an even finer point regarding pneuma, logos and the extent it pervades objects in the cosmos.  Recall the concept of the conflagration or ekypyrosis and how at the end and beginning of the life of the Stoic god, it is pure pneuma.  If pneuma is the essence of god, and it pervades everything in the cosmos, and we humans have more pneuma than other species and objects, then in a sense, we are god.  This idea is the key conclusion of both The God Theory (Haisch, 2009) and God’s Debris (Adams, 2004).


In The God Theory, Haisch postulates,


According to esoteric traditions, a desire arises in the unmanifest Godhead to experience itself from the point of view of “not God.” To put it another way, God is infinite potential. But potential— infinite or not—is not the same as experience. So the Godhead desires to actualize its potential and experience it as reality. The unmanifest and trans-infinite God—greater than all and less than nothing—thus transforms into God the Creator, God made manifest. Being becomes doing; the Absolute becomes relative. Out of the realm of the absolute, a realm of the relative is created. The realm of the relative is a realm of polarity: hot vs. cold, light vs. darkness, good vs. evil, yin vs. yang. Gender is such a polarity, which immediately points out the absurdity of imagining God as one or the other. It takes polarity to make experience possible. Without polarity experience is impossible (chapter 9).


In Scott Adam’s (2004) thought experiment God’s Debris he posits we are indeed remnants of god in its pure form - the remnants being called “debris” (see p. 44).


Epictetus (2014) said, “But you for your part are of primary value; you’re a fragment of God” (Discourses 2.8).  He also notes an important reason for our existence as humans:


But God has brought the human race into the world to be a spectator of himself and of his works, and not merely to observe them, but also to interpret them. It is thus shameful for a human being to begin and end where the irrational animals do  (Discourses 1.6.19-20).


In sum - we are god and therefore are also the prime cause of events.  We could see this if we could see the whole of time and space.  But since we are only fragments of god, we are only morally responsible for our limited time and circumstances in our lifetime.


To take this thought in a slightly different direction, there is a sort of chicken-and-egg about cause and effect.  According to the Stoics, it is all one and it is the search for true wisdom which will reveal the truth.  But this mindset rests on the importance of taking a “view from above - from the whole” rather than a short-term, limited, dogmatic perspective.


Hence the key premise of all Stoicism is understanding what is 'up to us' - truly understanding that you have a legitimate, inner choice - an inner attitude and soul - that can choose how to view the world and cosmos and everything in it.  On this idea rests all desire, judgement and action.  For the Stoic, the ultimate goal is to be good, wise, content, caring and at home and one with the universe, regardless of what happens - and this largely occurs internally.


The Discipline of Desire


At the heart of it all, when it comes to Stoic physics and the discipline of desire - it is awareness of oneself in the grand scheme of things.  The aim of Stoic physics is to help the individual to strive to come to a rational, awareness of one’s place in the cosmos - how one fits in it all.  Granted, since none of us truly know the nature of everything, the Stoics did their best to arrive at a rational approach to god and the cosmos.  Pierre Hadot (2001, p. 182) beautifully summarizes the goal of Stoic physics.


“It is the self’s awareness of itself which transforms it, making it pass in succession from the domain of necessity to the domain of freedom, and from the domain of freedom to the domain of morality.  The self - that infinitesimal point within the immensity - is thereby transformed, and made equal to universal Reason.”


Once this view is unlocked in one’s mind, it becomes the task of the Stoic to begin to rise above the daily grind and limited view one is born to.  The task is to find meaning and learning in everyday living.  The task becomes being acutely aware that you will die someday and that time is the most precious commodity.  The task is a race against time to seek wisdom and to prepare for one’s death and disbursement back into the universe.  The task is one of recognition of what is only in your control and what is not.  The task is being cognizant of the present moment and the ever-present choice of how you choose to view your present circumstances: as a gift to demonstrate your excellence of character or a resignation of your poor, random and sorry state in life.  In sum, the discipline of desire comes down to choice and perspective.


As the universe of causes and effects throw unique events your way, how will you not only survive them physically and mentally, but how will you escape the seductive allure of resignation and free your will to strive to make a difference in the collective journey to wisdom?  How can you make each and every moment, task and event in your life a demonstration of  your moral choice and reaction?  The only thing that truly belongs to you is your intent - your will - your attitude - your character - your choice in desire.


Courage and decorum, therefore, are needed to take up this discipline.  In one’s daily rituals, the Stoic will seek wisdom from the perspective of the Whole, in both time and space; recalling that events are neither good nor bad, but that only moral intent is of the utmost importance.  One will be keenly aware of the present moment and intend to retain his equanimity regardless of circumstances, health, wealth or status in life.  One will recall that his death will come one day and that his time to live should never be taken for granted.  One will be mindful of complaining about things that are indifferent to his choice.


Conclusion


This essay covered a lot of content and will give the reader a lot to think about from the Stoic proofs of god's existence, to the nature of god and to why it should matter.  The goal of the essay was to summarize some of these big ideas around Stoic physics as well as to help the reader get started in their own journey to understanding these concepts and then determining where they stand on the various issues.


Appendix A


Life with purpose by Philip Ball

Biologists balk at any talk of ‘goals’ or ‘intentions’ – but a bold new research agenda has put agency back on the table  https://aeon.co/essays/the-biological-research-putting-purpose-back-into-life


Is the Universe Conscious? By Corey S. Powell

Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.  https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956


Haisch, B. (2009). The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields, and What's Behind It All. Cork: Red Wheel Weiser.


References


Adams, S. (2004). God’s Debris: A Thought Experiment. Andrews McMeel ; Burnham.


Aho, K. (2023, January 6). Existentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/


Aurelius, M. (2014). Meditations (M. Hammond, Trans.). Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books.


Becker, L. C. (2017). A new stoicism. Princeton University Press.


Bett, R. (2012). Sextus Empiricus: Against the Physicists. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.


Burnet, J. (1892). Early Greek Philosophy, by John Burnet. London: A. Black. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus)


Cicero, M. T. (1896). On the Nature of the Gods (F. Brooks, Trans.). Libertyfund.org; Methuen. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/cicero-on-the-nature-of-the-gods#lf0040_head_128


Epictetus, (2014). Discourses, fragments, handbook. (R. Hard, & C. Gill, Trans.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Fairchild, M. (2021, March 22). Take a Tour of the Global Religious Landscape. Learn Religions. https://www.learnreligions.com/how-many-religions-are-there-in-the-world-5114658


Fisher, C. (2015, July 11). “Providence or Atoms? Providence!” Modern Stoicism. https://modernstoicism.com/providence-or-atoms-providence-by-chris-fisher/


Hadot, P. (2001). The inner citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press.


Haisch, B. (2009). The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields, and What's Behind It All. Cork: Red Wheel Weiser.


Heraclitus. (1920). Fragments of Heraclitus (J. Burnet, Trans.). Wikisource.org; Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus


Inwood, B. (2006). The Cambridge companion to the Stoics. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

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


Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Definition of Conscious. Www.merriam-Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious


Robertson, D. (2015, July 12). “Providence or Atoms? Atoms!” Modern Stoicism. https://modernstoicism.com/providence-or-atoms-atoms-donald-robertson/


Rubarth, S. (n.d.). Stoic Philosophy of Mind | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/


Sellars, J. (2006). Stoicism. Berkeley: University of California Press.


Seneca. (n.d.). Moral letters to Lucilius (Epistulae morales ad Lucilium) (R. M. Gummere, Trans.). Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius


Strawson, G. (1998). Free will - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Www.rep.routledge.com. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/free-will/v-1


The Weekend University. (2020, August 9). A Conscious Universe? – Dr Rupert Sheldrake. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqWbIVlnmNM&ab_channel=TheWeekendUniversity


The World Bank. (2021, March 19). Disability Inclusion Overview. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability#1


Wikipedia Contributors. (2019a, June 25). Panentheism. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism


Wikipedia Contributors. (2019b, December 18). Pantheism. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism