Interesting; was ‘familiar’ with all but Blossius-did not know of him:) As to Trump, he’s not a conservative-he has no political philosophy or belief system beyond “what’s in it for me?” At his core, he’s a petty/petulant narcissistic sociopath…a total pos.
There is no Conservative Party in the US-only a rump Republican Party that Trump-who I detest-has taken over. He is not a conservative. Indeed, he has no well thought out political philosophy. He is an apolitical, amoral narsistic sociopath.
Massimo, thanks for your well-argued thoughts about the aim of the "polis" being to
make "every citizen into a better human being, understood specifically as a more reasonable and prosocial one."
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "A Stoic ought to strive to treat every human being, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, as a brother or sister." Then you say "Which means also being in favor of as liberal an immigration policy as pragmatically feasible at any given moment, and aspiring, long term, to a human society with no borders or nationalities." I'm puzzled by this following implication, which seems idealistic given what we moderns know about sociology & human psychology.
What I appreciate about Stoicism & your teaching of it, is its pragmatism. To me, when applied to politics as defined above, Stoicism must take into account the economic, infrastructure & social constraints of any state. In contrast to your view, what I find appealing & pragmatic is Konstantin Kisin's view which posits a multiethnic society within a unifying monoculture. This enables & requires cohesion among citizens who must abide by the laws & customs of the host state. Without a sense of national appreciation, affinity and, dare I say, pride towards their country, the utopian vision implied by your second statement may not be practical or effective for addressing the complex relationships between humans with different nationalities, identities & drivers. E.O. Wilson's quote can be misappropriated here "lovely idea, wrong species".
I'm curious about your thoughts on the reported failures of multiculturalism currently playing out in Germany, Britain, Sweden, Denmark, France, Canada, Australia & elsewhere. These are increased crime rates, social and political polarization, and difficulties integrating immigrants into the labor market. Such tensions are a consequence of prioritising the ideals of more open borders which welcome all national identities without sufficiently strict entry & assimilation criteria.
Some research has shown that multicultural policies can hinder social integration, leading to social fragmentation, ethnic tensions, and the creation of "parallel societies". Some studies also suggest that multiculturalism can reinforce racial inequalities, especially within political, cultural & educational institutions. How do you understand these arguments?
Vivian, as a cosmopolitan I am committed to the idea that humanity is one big family, without borders or artificial barriers. Whether that’s idealistic or not remains to be seen, but one never goes very far if one sticks only to what currently works.
That said, cosmopolitanism without borders is a long-term project, not something that could be implemented in the near future, or on any kind of accelerated schedule. I would remind skeptics of multicultural societies that the Roman empire was one of the best examples in history of what we are talking about, and it lasted for many centuries. Roman citizenship was eventually extended to anyone who lived in territories controlled by the Romans, and there were very few restrictions on the sort of cultural practices people could follow. (Basically, the only requirements were to pay your taxes and formally respect the emperor.)
I’m somewhat skeptical of contemporary studies, because they are very difficult to carry out, given the number of variables, the impossibility of controlled experiments, and the difficulty of articulating meaningful comparisons. You speak of the “failure” of all those countries, where I see long-term success despite current problems.
You also speak of pride in one’s nationality, and it’s hard for me to wrap my Stoic head around that concept. Proud of what? I didn’t build my nation or culture, I was just lucky to be born in one place and time rather than another. So national pride is one of the most irrational things I can think of, and it easily breeds nationalism and therefore aggressive foreign policy, and possibly war. No, thanks.
You refer to the need to respect the laws of a country. Of course. I doubt there is any cosmopolitan who would think otherwise, unless of course the laws in question happen to be unjust. After all, we measure human/positive law by the standards of natural law. Any law that has a net effect of decreasing the chances at flourishing of human beings is a bad law.
I’m not sure how a “multiethnic society within a unifying monoculture” would work. The Unites States may be considered one such culture, and it has been characterized by genocide, (ongoing) racism, and (persistent) misogyny, not to mention extreme degrees of inequality that approximate the conditions of slave labor. Do you have better specific examples in mind? What would be the opposite of the problematic countries you mentioned, just to talk about specifics?
One of the delights of Stoicism is its adherence to reason. Often, current hot-button issues can be resolved simply by ignoring the heat and casting a rational light.
For example "gender affirming care". To illustrate: "spark plug affirming care": Is affirmation by my auto mechanic of my belief in a faulty spark plug in my Tesla the objective of my visit to the mechanic? Or might it rather be in order to find the problem? Likewise, visiting the doctor. You don't need the Cass report.
In short, the rational Stoic can dismiss affirming care as incoherent from the get go. (Unfortunately, since younger cohorts of mental health professionals are infested with "identity politics", in a word, wokery, many individuals may not be able to provide care).
How might the Stoics, being rational, assess claims that a certain population is underperforming due to a particular cause. Once again, applying reason to assess the plausibility of such claims:
"(IIIb) The robot [ie assessor]always takes into account all of the evidence it has relevant to a question. It does not arbitrarily ignore some of the information, basing its conclusion only on what remains. In other words, the robot is completely nonideological." [E T Jaynes - "Probability Theory"]
There is failure to consider alternatives compounded by suppression of research The evidence for any particular hypothesis, not making use of the matter to be explained, seems to be minimal. In short, pending a comprehensive examination, the plausibility to be applied to every hypothesis is equal and minimal.
In these examples, the contrast is between ideology and rationality. If the conclusions appear conservative, this reflects the preference for some other-than-conservatives for ideology and irrationality.
Terry, seems to me that there are far weightier issues than transgender care to focus on these days, on either the right or the left. My take on that one, however, is that in part it is an empirical question. Outside of that (meaning, outside of evidence-based medical advice) I’m good with people advocating for whatever they wish to advocate. That’s one of the basics of democracy, right?
Massimo , re "gender affirming care" this might be a weighty concern for its victims.
Re advocacy, I couldn't agree more. I note that the restraints on speech in universities appear to be severe. For example, I see that FIRE created a special category for Harvard as worst in the United States for freedom of speech – I think the term was "abysmal".
Closer to home, the Online Safety Bill has resulted in censorship by providers of, for example: a parliamentary speech, social media expressions of support for single sex spaces and videos of public demonstrations. This bill was a product of the previous Conservative (right wing) administration but now only an example of severe repression (by United States standards) of speech by the current Labour (left-wing) administration. As a result of the bill, apparently, new subscriptions to the Proton VPN are up eighteen times the previous daily rate and to the Nord VPN ten times.
Meanwhile in Germany, politicians may bring actions against critics – used by one politician more than 300 times to punish criticism.
JD in his Munich speech was spot on – there is dire suppression of speech across much of Europe.
Terry, “JD” as in JD Vance?? *That* champion of free speech? The same speech in which he said Europe is engaging in “civilizational suicidi,” whatever that means? You’ve got to be kidding my friend.
To be a Stoic we assent to the idea that the universe is rational. Humans are humans because they are also rational. We assent to using this ability to reason to live in accordance with the natural order. In essence, to be a Stoic is nothing more than that.
We also follow the logic further. We say that we are social beings. To dissent from this is irrational. Therefore we accept the importance of civil duty for the well-being of our fellow man and for civil cohesion. Marcus Aurelius reminds us to “do what is fitting for a man” by serving the community, not ourselves.
Could a Stoic reason that an individual injustice might be accepted as necessary for the greater good of society? Most would answer no. Epictetus taught that we cannot choose to do wrong, even for advantage, because injustice corrupts our own reason. Yet in practice, Stoics in Rome often faced dilemmas where justice for the many clashed with the treatment of the few.
But what if this was not injustice at all? Not because the ends justify the means, but because justice itself is objective. Justice grounded in reason and nature, not in personal perception. An individual may misjudge an action as unjust if they measure it only by its effect on themselves. Is not the common good is also their good? Since humans are parts of the whole, what preserves society also preserves them as a rational being within it. As Marcus said, what harms the hive also harms the bee. By that logic, restraining a person who endangers the hive can be an act of justice. If so, what strong political ideas could this lead to?
Zeno rejected marriage and money, and suggested the Stoic republic would only be open to those who live within reason. His idealist vision was a political view of the ideal. Later Stoics took a different view. They said marriage and family are natural, that humans are social, and that it is proper to form households and raise children. This, they argued, helps us live according to nature.
Although Zeno was simply trying to imagine how a purely Stoic city would function, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the idea could in fact be exclusive rather than inclusive. If only those who truly live by reason could enter its gates, many would be excluded. That would make the idea of the ideal city irrational, because it contradicts the universal bond of reason that Stoicism upholds.
It is this dialectical relationship between political belief and Stoic ideas that allows Stoicism to speak across political and religious ranks. Compassion and civil duty to our fellow humans is often, as it is for me, a grounding factor that leads towards a progressive stance. Yet a Stoic must admit that what feels compassionate is not always rational. The test is always reason in accord with nature, for does not a preconceived political stance distort our ability to reason?
Edgar, interesting commentary, thank you! I’m going to disagree with your contention that “to be a Stoic we assent to the idea that the universe is rational.” It depends on what you mean by that, precisely. If you are saying that as a Stoic I recognize that the universe is understandable by way of rationality, then yes. If that were not the case, we wouldn’t be able to do science. But if you are saying that I have to agree with the ancient concept that the cosmos is a living organism endowed with the logos, then no, I think modern science is incompatible with that particular idea, which means it has to go.
Marcus’s comment on the bee and the hive is misleading. Human beings are social, but not at all in the same way in which bees are, so the same approach does not really apply. Bees, unlike human beings, have very little individuality because of the way their genetic architecture works. So there is little we can extrapolate from them to humans.
“Justice grounded in reason and nature, not in personal perception. An individual may misjudge an action as unjust if they measure it only by its effect on themselves.” True, but we only have access to the human perspective here, not to a god’s eye view. And we need to be careful because to simply assume that whatever is natural is therefore just is both dangerous and logically fallacious.
Thank you, Massimo. In a previous article on the SFN (Stoic Fellowship Network) I argued that Stoicism loses coherence if we abandon its physics and logic. When I say the universe is rational, I mean this in the classical Stoic sense of living in accordance with nature as an ordered whole. The Stoics often spoke of Logos metaphorically. Cleanthes, for example, invoked Zeus as the immanent Logos, the rational order that binds all things.
I do not see this as incompatible with modern science. On the contrary, the very possibility of science depends on the universe being intelligible to reason. If the cosmos were not ordered in a rational way, there would be no foundation for scientific inquiry at all.
For me, modern Stoicism should not discard the rational cosmos but rearticulate it in dialogue with science. Stoic physics was not an optional addition. It provided the grounding for ethics and underpins why virtue is the only good and why externals are indifferent. Without physics, Stoicism risks becoming a set of psychological techniques cut off from its philosophical roots.
Edgar, it doesn’t seem we disagree on the substance. I have no problem with the notion that the cosmos is rationally ordered and thus comprehensible. I do have a problem with the stronger notion that the cosmos is a living being endowed with reason. As a biologist with passing knowledge of physics I think that’s incompatible with modern science, so it has to go.
I agree that Stoicism is a coherent system, but that doesn’t mean one has to accept everything the ancients said. One can replace better notions so long as coherence is maintained. Seneca certainly thought those who preceded us are not our masters, only our teachers, and whenever we discover better ways of doing things we should go for it.
In my A Field Guide to a Happy Life I articulate in detail how a modern Stoic can reject the notion of a sentient cosmos and still retain much of Stoic ethics. The logic doesn’t present a problem.
Thank you. I believe we agree more than we disagree, though perhaps not in every detail. My main point was that while our social and compassionate tendency as Stoics often leans towards a progressive political stance, it does not exclude other positions. What matters is that we do not allow ingrained political beliefs to distort our reason.
This is why I see Stoicism not as a set of political doctrines but as a philosophy that can be widely inclusive. Its test is always reason in accord with nature, not loyalty to a particular stance.
So what do you do with Marcus? He’s beloved by the Stoic tribe. But he most certainly was a fascist. You can argue that statement is anachronistic, because fascism, most precisely, is a post 19th century politico-economic phenomenon which emerges from time to time from within Western democratic-capitalistic regimes. Fair enough. But if anachronism is the test, then any exercise in applying the learnings, lives, teachings and philosophies of the ancients to modern times is anachronistic, and I don’t think too many are prepared to take that position. Instead, we look for throughlines, and there is a very natural throughline between the Roman Empire and modern fascism. So then the easy answer is to say that Marcus was just a bad Stoic, and didn’t practice what he preached. Yeah he was good at journaling and did some admirable things as Emperor (which the Modern Stoics LOVE to cherry pick) - but he still ruled as an autocrat, and for the most part very cruelly. And by the way, you could make similar arguments about Seneca. It becomes pretty untenable, don’t you think, to try to drive a wedge between Stoicism and fascism, when 2 of its 3 most elevated saints were, well, fascists?
We can certainly agree that humans are always the root case :) I will offer this as a parting perspective: I think anachronism and presentism tend to be used conveniently and inconsistently. Let me redirect your critique back at you. I have heard you many times dismiss Epicureanism because of its focus on friendship and the garden, and the admonitions of Epicurus against political engagement. You’ve said, well, I believe in political engagement, so that doesn’t work for me.
Your view… is anachronistic and suffers from presentism.
You make it sound like Epicurus is saying, nah, don’t march with MLK, sit at home and eat some cheese. Hardly.
First, his perspective here was not a transcendent principle or directive. It was contextual, and of course relates back to ataraxia and the application of virtue ethics as a means thereto. Why? Because political involvement in that post-Alexander period was hardly the stuff of modern civil rights grassroots engagement. It was messy, corrupt, ugly and self-serving. Period. So his perspective makes perfect sense - in that time and place.
Alternatively, if you were a Stoic involved in the Greco political scene in that era, well, I suspect your purse was bursting as was your pride and greed. You weren’t looking to extend the franchise to women, or eliminate slavery, or whatever. You weren’t marching in the streets in support of social justice, that’s for sure.
The point is a goose and gander one, and I’ve always thought you were remarkably unfair and blinkered here, which is not your normal setting!
Anyhow, thanks as always for the thoughtful article and engagement!
David, I’m sure there are inconsistent and self-serving uses of both presentism and anachronism. But the question is always whether this or that particular instance are defensible or not.
I get your criticism of my treatment of Epicureanism, but I stand by it. I don’t think Epicurus was simply advising what to do in the specific political moment, he was making a general statement. Involvement in politics always causes headaches and leads us away from ataraxia, which is why the Epicureans maintained that the wise person involves himself in politics only when absolutely necessary, under extreme circumstances. (It is interesting to note that, ironically, both Julius Caesar and Cassius were Epicureans…) This was true then as it is now, so it’s not an example of either presentism or anachronism, in my opinion.
I’m not sure why you think that my ancient Stoic purse would have been bursting. I could have been a slave like Epictetus. In fact, statistically, that was far more likely.
I would not have marched in the streets to support social justice because the modern concept of social justice (or marching in the streets, for that matter) did not exist. Anachronism! But I would have tried to do what was in my power to act justly toward others, according to the limited concept of justice of the time.
If I could just underscore a point David makes here (one I have made with you back in the day at your Ethical Culture groups): the inclusiveness of the Epicurean garden was an example of political/social action for its time, if not in fact for ours. It is a model that can be readily applied to any age.
Daniel, yes, that’s one way to put it. I’m afraid, though, that if we expand the term “political” that far it risks losing meaning. The Epicureans themselves were clear that politics (in the standard sense) should only be engage in by the wise person under extreme circumstances (a la Cassius, for instance). Inviting my friends over for dinner with cheese and bread hardly counts.
What’s not anachronistic is to say that Marcus was an autocrat and that Seneca supported one. So let’s use that more transcendent language, and park fascism. And while concerns regarding presentism have their merits, within the context of gentlemen such as these, who held power, influence and exposure to more virtuous views, it’s far too forgiving (it’s not as if no one was saying that the Empire was rotten and corrupt, and that a return to Republican principles - and even the Republic itself - would result in a better and more equitable system). I do agree with you that ultimately one’s decision is a personal one, and that one should choose a philosophical apparatus based upon its internal structure and substance, and its personal resonance. THAT SAID, just as one should with Christianity, it’s important to be aware and sensitive to the fact that Stoicism has a real tendency to be co-opted, weaponized and used as scaffolding and agitprop for some awfully despicable regimes, civic structures and anti-social phenomenon. Which would indicate that one must handle it with care, and be on constant guard that they don’t find themselves sucked into a similar place of hypocrisy and terror, because clearly the philosophy has some internal weaknesses which leave it susceptible to hacking of this sort. The history of Stoicism presents a cautionary tale that purveyors and followers would do well to acknowledge and guard against unflaggingly.
But I think you dismiss concerns with presentism a bit too easily, and did not address at all my point that the time asymmetry here matters: it is one thing to criticize the ancients on the basis of modern standards (not very useful, in my mind), and another thing to ask what ancient ideas can do for us (very useful, I think).
Even the word “autocrat” is anachronistic, because it means something different today. Because the social and political context is different. Heck, even “tyranny” started out as a neutral, not a negative word.
Marcus was one of the best rulers of his time, not just the author of a pretty good personal diary. The case of Seneca is more complicated, which is why I posted the link to an essay I wrote on the topic. I’m not at all convinced by the standard story that Seneca was a mere facilitator of a corrupt regime. For one, because Nero’s regime was not, in fact, corrupt, for the first several years, which coincided with the time when Seneca (and Burrus, the prefect of the Pretorian Guard, who worked with Seneca) was in charge.
Returning to the notion that certain ideas are open to being misused, I think that human beings have an uncanny ability to misuse everything, so at least in some cases it isn’t the idea that is problematic, it’s the human beings.
David, interesting point. The label fascist is, as you say, anachronistic. And there is a difference between applying a modern label to the ancients vs trying to applying the teaching of the ancients to modern life. The latter, by definition, is not anachronistic. The time asymmetry makes the difference.
That said, one’s behavior needs to be judged by the standard of its own time, not by our standards. Doing the latter is an example of presentism, which is a logical fallacy. I’ve written about that topic here at Figs: https://figsinwintertime.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-presentism
If none of the above moves you, then consider another approach: what matters is Stoic philosophy, not what individual Stoics did. The same as with Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions or philosophies of life. So one should ask whether Stoicism is more friendly to autocracy than to democracy. I don’t think that’s true.
I have to admit that reading Rome's Last Citizen left me with mixed feelings about Cato. Perhaps I should revisit it, but I recall that, on more than one occasion, he reminded me of contemporary aristocrats who prefer to preserve the status quo—often synonymous with their own privileges—rather than confront the pressing social issues of their time, such as land reform or the unjust treatment of war veterans.
By contrast, Caesar sometimes evokes the opposite impression. While his motivations likely revolved around personal power—much like those of a modern populist—he also seemed more attuned to Rome’s structural problems. That, in my view, makes him a more effective statesman than many of his rival optimates.
That said, I’m not suggesting that Cato was a villain and Caesar a hero. But I also wouldn’t fully endorse Cicero’s views on either of them.
Finally, a small confession: I watched HBO’s Rome as a teenager, and Ciarán Hinds’ portrayal of Caesar left a lasting impression on me. So it’s possible that some of my sympathy for Caesar stems from that portrayal. Not to mention the fact that Octavian—who held Caesar in high regard—was his adoptive son.
Demian, I agree. And I loved the HBO “Rome” series. You probably noticed that the image accompanying the essay is from that series. I would argue that the best men at the time was actually Cicero, who was sympathetic to both Cato and Caesar.
I don’t know Roman history well enough. Was Julius Caesar progressive and actually implemented the land reforms he apparently supported or did he simply talk this idea up to get public support and then further consolidate wealth and power? For either side to be considered Stoic they should be evaluated by their actions not by their words. The actions of today’s US government is a good example of not living up to spoken promises or expected outcomes. How many of the revolts in Ancient Rome actually due to such broken promises? I strongly identify with the concept of cosmopolitanism and the Stoic framework. I can only imagine what could be achieved if we as a species could learn to work together without all the power struggles. What could we possibly accomplish?
Paul, very good question. An argument can be made that Caesar thought of himself as a true “progressive” but that in reality he was quickly corrupted by the sort of absolute power he thought was necessary in order to implement his policies. A stern warning for currently unfolding events, even if one is inclined to grant the most charitable interpretation to what Trump is doing (I’m not).
I agree wholeheartedly! The America First policy has nothing to do with the American people. It is designed to further enrich the wealthy. We are witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth from the poorer citizens to the wealthiest in the history of this country. It is truly a sad state of affairs.
Funny, I just finished listening to a podcast episode about Tiberius! Mike Duncan’s History of Rome podcast is really good for anyone interested!
I agree with the main thesis that Stoicism is not necessarily conservative or progressive, in part because those terms have shifting meanings. I mean in some sense the defenders of the Roman Republic were conservative and Julius Caesar was progressive in the sense that he was changing to something new!
So it depends exactly on what we’re proposing to conserve or change!
I'm glad to see your thinking on this has evolved over the last few years. I know we don't have any ancient Stoic writings with a political system laid out, but it has always seemed clear to me that following virtue, cosmopolitanism, and oikeiosis leads to political conclusions.
Scott, right, while justice can certainly be practice by most people on a wide political spectrum, cosmopolitanism has a definitely left-leaning appeal.
Interesting analysis from the perspective of current US political stereotypes. I'm in Europe and so, these don't sit well with me. Also I think that a simple bipolar analysis doesn't really capture the complexity of political ideology.
With my much more limited knowledge of the views of the ancients political leanings I tried to use the political compass tool (I found it difficult to suppress my own biases) and got this result. I would be interested to see what you came up with.
Tim, I am a European as well, and I frankly don’t see much of a difference with the American approach, at this point. That said, last time I did the political compass I was in the lower left quadrant, “libertarian left.”
Me too. I was wondering if you could do it through the eyes of the ancient Stoics. I tried but it ended up not too far from where I sit, so I'm curious.
An interesting post today. I normally think of Stoical qualities in leaders during wartime rather than peace. For example, Lincoln, Washington and Churchill seem to me to embody those virtues, especially while they were leading through a time of conflict. Of those three, all could be viewed as conservative, in the traditional sense.
In today’s environment it’s harder to find someone with stoical qualities. Sherrod Brown, former senator from Ohio and Barack Obama come to mind, both progressives of course.
Clearly the current administration and those who support it are at the opposite end of the spectrum, but yet they would be considered populists, drawing their power from the mislead masses.
David, yes, the complexity of it is what makes the issue so interesting to me. And, like you, I tend to reason by way of historical and current examples.
A very interesting thought experiment here, Massimo. Thanks once again. If we are applying Stoicism to this then indeed we are supposed to be indifferent so naturally you would have to assume both sides of the coin. I personally have always leant toward progressive myself because then as a society, I believe we become stagnant, or as recent events are telling us, we are not cosmopolitan in the slightest and are looking inward for selfish reasons.
That being said, Regarding the suicide of both Cato and Blossius. What are your thoughts regarding that? It seems to me to be very extreme to kill oneself, especially when it seems to me you can do more good being alive. Isn’t the act of suicide in this case - uncosmopolitan?
Have you ever done a piece on this act itself and it’s meaning within Stoic philosophy?
Thank you for sharing. I just went on a walk after sending to contemplate and I kind of came up with a similar conclusion.
Incidentally, I sat by a local river for 10 mins to watch the swans preening. The habits of the birds has always fascinanted me as they just be. I was then interrupted by the local high school crew team rowing with their cox blaring out instructions. I guess this is modern life.
I probably should take the time to write an update, almost a decade later…
In general, I respect the Stoic take on the issue: it’s a personal decision, and if one decided that “the room is too smoky,” as Epictetus puts it, then there is the option to leave. Indeed, Epictetus (and Seneca) think that this is the root of true human freedom: so long as we stay, it’s because we want to stay.
I'm inclined to believe that Stoicism is naturally compatible with progressives than it is with conservatives. Look at the case of Cato; his identification with the Optimates doesn't align well with the four cardinal virtues. The Senate/Optimates' opposition to land reform ultimately led to the rise of Caesar and the fall of the Republic. Not much wisdom in that. Social justice? Ditto. Moderation? Not when you believe one class should hog all the privileges. Courage? Well, it takes courage to question your rigid beliefs, as if they are set in stone.
Jim, I’m inclined toward the same conclusion, but I don’t think it’s an either / or. I can imagine conservative politicians who act according to Stoic principles. Similarly, I can imagine some on the Left who don’t.
Well, when either side fails to do so, perhaps we can say they fail as genuine Stoics. I'm reminded of your essay some time ago on James Stockdale. So Stoic in many ways, yet unable/unwilling to question his unjust orders.
Right. I’ve come to think of Stockdale as a stoic rather than a Stoic. He successfully applied the life-hackery version of Stoicism, but not, in my mind, the philosophy.
Ah, now you've got me! There is being a stoic with a small 's' and a Stoic with a big 'S'.
Can one be a Stoic even if one is not always stoical? Or should that be Stoical? And is it not being stoical a process open to making mistakes, thus learning from them to modify behaviour and thoughts in the future?
Whichever, it all seems to point to the practice being a life-hack to whatever degree it aligns with the ultimate philosophical ideal in contrast to what one is capable of or thinks one can get away with.
Demetri, one can certainly be a Stoic and not be stoical (in the sense of stiff upper lip / suppression of emotions). Indeed, I think the two are incompatible.
But yes, of course we all make mistakes, unless we are sages. And I haven’t seen many of those around of late…
Interesting; was ‘familiar’ with all but Blossius-did not know of him:) As to Trump, he’s not a conservative-he has no political philosophy or belief system beyond “what’s in it for me?” At his core, he’s a petty/petulant narcissistic sociopath…a total pos.
There is no Conservative Party in the US-only a rump Republican Party that Trump-who I detest-has taken over. He is not a conservative. Indeed, he has no well thought out political philosophy. He is an apolitical, amoral narsistic sociopath.
True, and highly unfortunate.
I agree with your characterization of Trump, but the fact is that he is currently in charge of the conservative party in the US.
Massimo, thanks for your well-argued thoughts about the aim of the "polis" being to
make "every citizen into a better human being, understood specifically as a more reasonable and prosocial one."
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "A Stoic ought to strive to treat every human being, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, as a brother or sister." Then you say "Which means also being in favor of as liberal an immigration policy as pragmatically feasible at any given moment, and aspiring, long term, to a human society with no borders or nationalities." I'm puzzled by this following implication, which seems idealistic given what we moderns know about sociology & human psychology.
What I appreciate about Stoicism & your teaching of it, is its pragmatism. To me, when applied to politics as defined above, Stoicism must take into account the economic, infrastructure & social constraints of any state. In contrast to your view, what I find appealing & pragmatic is Konstantin Kisin's view which posits a multiethnic society within a unifying monoculture. This enables & requires cohesion among citizens who must abide by the laws & customs of the host state. Without a sense of national appreciation, affinity and, dare I say, pride towards their country, the utopian vision implied by your second statement may not be practical or effective for addressing the complex relationships between humans with different nationalities, identities & drivers. E.O. Wilson's quote can be misappropriated here "lovely idea, wrong species".
I'm curious about your thoughts on the reported failures of multiculturalism currently playing out in Germany, Britain, Sweden, Denmark, France, Canada, Australia & elsewhere. These are increased crime rates, social and political polarization, and difficulties integrating immigrants into the labor market. Such tensions are a consequence of prioritising the ideals of more open borders which welcome all national identities without sufficiently strict entry & assimilation criteria.
Some research has shown that multicultural policies can hinder social integration, leading to social fragmentation, ethnic tensions, and the creation of "parallel societies". Some studies also suggest that multiculturalism can reinforce racial inequalities, especially within political, cultural & educational institutions. How do you understand these arguments?
Vivian, as a cosmopolitan I am committed to the idea that humanity is one big family, without borders or artificial barriers. Whether that’s idealistic or not remains to be seen, but one never goes very far if one sticks only to what currently works.
That said, cosmopolitanism without borders is a long-term project, not something that could be implemented in the near future, or on any kind of accelerated schedule. I would remind skeptics of multicultural societies that the Roman empire was one of the best examples in history of what we are talking about, and it lasted for many centuries. Roman citizenship was eventually extended to anyone who lived in territories controlled by the Romans, and there were very few restrictions on the sort of cultural practices people could follow. (Basically, the only requirements were to pay your taxes and formally respect the emperor.)
I’m somewhat skeptical of contemporary studies, because they are very difficult to carry out, given the number of variables, the impossibility of controlled experiments, and the difficulty of articulating meaningful comparisons. You speak of the “failure” of all those countries, where I see long-term success despite current problems.
You also speak of pride in one’s nationality, and it’s hard for me to wrap my Stoic head around that concept. Proud of what? I didn’t build my nation or culture, I was just lucky to be born in one place and time rather than another. So national pride is one of the most irrational things I can think of, and it easily breeds nationalism and therefore aggressive foreign policy, and possibly war. No, thanks.
You refer to the need to respect the laws of a country. Of course. I doubt there is any cosmopolitan who would think otherwise, unless of course the laws in question happen to be unjust. After all, we measure human/positive law by the standards of natural law. Any law that has a net effect of decreasing the chances at flourishing of human beings is a bad law.
I’m not sure how a “multiethnic society within a unifying monoculture” would work. The Unites States may be considered one such culture, and it has been characterized by genocide, (ongoing) racism, and (persistent) misogyny, not to mention extreme degrees of inequality that approximate the conditions of slave labor. Do you have better specific examples in mind? What would be the opposite of the problematic countries you mentioned, just to talk about specifics?
As always, thank you for your thoughts.
And to you for the dialogue!
One of the delights of Stoicism is its adherence to reason. Often, current hot-button issues can be resolved simply by ignoring the heat and casting a rational light.
For example "gender affirming care". To illustrate: "spark plug affirming care": Is affirmation by my auto mechanic of my belief in a faulty spark plug in my Tesla the objective of my visit to the mechanic? Or might it rather be in order to find the problem? Likewise, visiting the doctor. You don't need the Cass report.
In short, the rational Stoic can dismiss affirming care as incoherent from the get go. (Unfortunately, since younger cohorts of mental health professionals are infested with "identity politics", in a word, wokery, many individuals may not be able to provide care).
How might the Stoics, being rational, assess claims that a certain population is underperforming due to a particular cause. Once again, applying reason to assess the plausibility of such claims:
"(IIIb) The robot [ie assessor]always takes into account all of the evidence it has relevant to a question. It does not arbitrarily ignore some of the information, basing its conclusion only on what remains. In other words, the robot is completely nonideological." [E T Jaynes - "Probability Theory"]
There is failure to consider alternatives compounded by suppression of research The evidence for any particular hypothesis, not making use of the matter to be explained, seems to be minimal. In short, pending a comprehensive examination, the plausibility to be applied to every hypothesis is equal and minimal.
In these examples, the contrast is between ideology and rationality. If the conclusions appear conservative, this reflects the preference for some other-than-conservatives for ideology and irrationality.
Terry, seems to me that there are far weightier issues than transgender care to focus on these days, on either the right or the left. My take on that one, however, is that in part it is an empirical question. Outside of that (meaning, outside of evidence-based medical advice) I’m good with people advocating for whatever they wish to advocate. That’s one of the basics of democracy, right?
Massimo , re "gender affirming care" this might be a weighty concern for its victims.
Re advocacy, I couldn't agree more. I note that the restraints on speech in universities appear to be severe. For example, I see that FIRE created a special category for Harvard as worst in the United States for freedom of speech – I think the term was "abysmal".
Closer to home, the Online Safety Bill has resulted in censorship by providers of, for example: a parliamentary speech, social media expressions of support for single sex spaces and videos of public demonstrations. This bill was a product of the previous Conservative (right wing) administration but now only an example of severe repression (by United States standards) of speech by the current Labour (left-wing) administration. As a result of the bill, apparently, new subscriptions to the Proton VPN are up eighteen times the previous daily rate and to the Nord VPN ten times.
Meanwhile in Germany, politicians may bring actions against critics – used by one politician more than 300 times to punish criticism.
JD in his Munich speech was spot on – there is dire suppression of speech across much of Europe.
Terry, “JD” as in JD Vance?? *That* champion of free speech? The same speech in which he said Europe is engaging in “civilizational suicidi,” whatever that means? You’ve got to be kidding my friend.
To be a Stoic we assent to the idea that the universe is rational. Humans are humans because they are also rational. We assent to using this ability to reason to live in accordance with the natural order. In essence, to be a Stoic is nothing more than that.
We also follow the logic further. We say that we are social beings. To dissent from this is irrational. Therefore we accept the importance of civil duty for the well-being of our fellow man and for civil cohesion. Marcus Aurelius reminds us to “do what is fitting for a man” by serving the community, not ourselves.
Could a Stoic reason that an individual injustice might be accepted as necessary for the greater good of society? Most would answer no. Epictetus taught that we cannot choose to do wrong, even for advantage, because injustice corrupts our own reason. Yet in practice, Stoics in Rome often faced dilemmas where justice for the many clashed with the treatment of the few.
But what if this was not injustice at all? Not because the ends justify the means, but because justice itself is objective. Justice grounded in reason and nature, not in personal perception. An individual may misjudge an action as unjust if they measure it only by its effect on themselves. Is not the common good is also their good? Since humans are parts of the whole, what preserves society also preserves them as a rational being within it. As Marcus said, what harms the hive also harms the bee. By that logic, restraining a person who endangers the hive can be an act of justice. If so, what strong political ideas could this lead to?
Zeno rejected marriage and money, and suggested the Stoic republic would only be open to those who live within reason. His idealist vision was a political view of the ideal. Later Stoics took a different view. They said marriage and family are natural, that humans are social, and that it is proper to form households and raise children. This, they argued, helps us live according to nature.
Although Zeno was simply trying to imagine how a purely Stoic city would function, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the idea could in fact be exclusive rather than inclusive. If only those who truly live by reason could enter its gates, many would be excluded. That would make the idea of the ideal city irrational, because it contradicts the universal bond of reason that Stoicism upholds.
It is this dialectical relationship between political belief and Stoic ideas that allows Stoicism to speak across political and religious ranks. Compassion and civil duty to our fellow humans is often, as it is for me, a grounding factor that leads towards a progressive stance. Yet a Stoic must admit that what feels compassionate is not always rational. The test is always reason in accord with nature, for does not a preconceived political stance distort our ability to reason?
Edgar, interesting commentary, thank you! I’m going to disagree with your contention that “to be a Stoic we assent to the idea that the universe is rational.” It depends on what you mean by that, precisely. If you are saying that as a Stoic I recognize that the universe is understandable by way of rationality, then yes. If that were not the case, we wouldn’t be able to do science. But if you are saying that I have to agree with the ancient concept that the cosmos is a living organism endowed with the logos, then no, I think modern science is incompatible with that particular idea, which means it has to go.
Marcus’s comment on the bee and the hive is misleading. Human beings are social, but not at all in the same way in which bees are, so the same approach does not really apply. Bees, unlike human beings, have very little individuality because of the way their genetic architecture works. So there is little we can extrapolate from them to humans.
“Justice grounded in reason and nature, not in personal perception. An individual may misjudge an action as unjust if they measure it only by its effect on themselves.” True, but we only have access to the human perspective here, not to a god’s eye view. And we need to be careful because to simply assume that whatever is natural is therefore just is both dangerous and logically fallacious.
Thank you, Massimo. In a previous article on the SFN (Stoic Fellowship Network) I argued that Stoicism loses coherence if we abandon its physics and logic. When I say the universe is rational, I mean this in the classical Stoic sense of living in accordance with nature as an ordered whole. The Stoics often spoke of Logos metaphorically. Cleanthes, for example, invoked Zeus as the immanent Logos, the rational order that binds all things.
I do not see this as incompatible with modern science. On the contrary, the very possibility of science depends on the universe being intelligible to reason. If the cosmos were not ordered in a rational way, there would be no foundation for scientific inquiry at all.
For me, modern Stoicism should not discard the rational cosmos but rearticulate it in dialogue with science. Stoic physics was not an optional addition. It provided the grounding for ethics and underpins why virtue is the only good and why externals are indifferent. Without physics, Stoicism risks becoming a set of psychological techniques cut off from its philosophical roots.
Edgar, it doesn’t seem we disagree on the substance. I have no problem with the notion that the cosmos is rationally ordered and thus comprehensible. I do have a problem with the stronger notion that the cosmos is a living being endowed with reason. As a biologist with passing knowledge of physics I think that’s incompatible with modern science, so it has to go.
I agree that Stoicism is a coherent system, but that doesn’t mean one has to accept everything the ancients said. One can replace better notions so long as coherence is maintained. Seneca certainly thought those who preceded us are not our masters, only our teachers, and whenever we discover better ways of doing things we should go for it.
In my A Field Guide to a Happy Life I articulate in detail how a modern Stoic can reject the notion of a sentient cosmos and still retain much of Stoic ethics. The logic doesn’t present a problem.
Thank you. I believe we agree more than we disagree, though perhaps not in every detail. My main point was that while our social and compassionate tendency as Stoics often leans towards a progressive political stance, it does not exclude other positions. What matters is that we do not allow ingrained political beliefs to distort our reason.
This is why I see Stoicism not as a set of political doctrines but as a philosophy that can be widely inclusive. Its test is always reason in accord with nature, not loyalty to a particular stance.
So what do you do with Marcus? He’s beloved by the Stoic tribe. But he most certainly was a fascist. You can argue that statement is anachronistic, because fascism, most precisely, is a post 19th century politico-economic phenomenon which emerges from time to time from within Western democratic-capitalistic regimes. Fair enough. But if anachronism is the test, then any exercise in applying the learnings, lives, teachings and philosophies of the ancients to modern times is anachronistic, and I don’t think too many are prepared to take that position. Instead, we look for throughlines, and there is a very natural throughline between the Roman Empire and modern fascism. So then the easy answer is to say that Marcus was just a bad Stoic, and didn’t practice what he preached. Yeah he was good at journaling and did some admirable things as Emperor (which the Modern Stoics LOVE to cherry pick) - but he still ruled as an autocrat, and for the most part very cruelly. And by the way, you could make similar arguments about Seneca. It becomes pretty untenable, don’t you think, to try to drive a wedge between Stoicism and fascism, when 2 of its 3 most elevated saints were, well, fascists?
We can certainly agree that humans are always the root case :) I will offer this as a parting perspective: I think anachronism and presentism tend to be used conveniently and inconsistently. Let me redirect your critique back at you. I have heard you many times dismiss Epicureanism because of its focus on friendship and the garden, and the admonitions of Epicurus against political engagement. You’ve said, well, I believe in political engagement, so that doesn’t work for me.
Your view… is anachronistic and suffers from presentism.
You make it sound like Epicurus is saying, nah, don’t march with MLK, sit at home and eat some cheese. Hardly.
First, his perspective here was not a transcendent principle or directive. It was contextual, and of course relates back to ataraxia and the application of virtue ethics as a means thereto. Why? Because political involvement in that post-Alexander period was hardly the stuff of modern civil rights grassroots engagement. It was messy, corrupt, ugly and self-serving. Period. So his perspective makes perfect sense - in that time and place.
Alternatively, if you were a Stoic involved in the Greco political scene in that era, well, I suspect your purse was bursting as was your pride and greed. You weren’t looking to extend the franchise to women, or eliminate slavery, or whatever. You weren’t marching in the streets in support of social justice, that’s for sure.
The point is a goose and gander one, and I’ve always thought you were remarkably unfair and blinkered here, which is not your normal setting!
Anyhow, thanks as always for the thoughtful article and engagement!
David, I’m sure there are inconsistent and self-serving uses of both presentism and anachronism. But the question is always whether this or that particular instance are defensible or not.
I get your criticism of my treatment of Epicureanism, but I stand by it. I don’t think Epicurus was simply advising what to do in the specific political moment, he was making a general statement. Involvement in politics always causes headaches and leads us away from ataraxia, which is why the Epicureans maintained that the wise person involves himself in politics only when absolutely necessary, under extreme circumstances. (It is interesting to note that, ironically, both Julius Caesar and Cassius were Epicureans…) This was true then as it is now, so it’s not an example of either presentism or anachronism, in my opinion.
I’m not sure why you think that my ancient Stoic purse would have been bursting. I could have been a slave like Epictetus. In fact, statistically, that was far more likely.
I would not have marched in the streets to support social justice because the modern concept of social justice (or marching in the streets, for that matter) did not exist. Anachronism! But I would have tried to do what was in my power to act justly toward others, according to the limited concept of justice of the time.
Thanks your for the exchange!
If I could just underscore a point David makes here (one I have made with you back in the day at your Ethical Culture groups): the inclusiveness of the Epicurean garden was an example of political/social action for its time, if not in fact for ours. It is a model that can be readily applied to any age.
Daniel, yes, that’s one way to put it. I’m afraid, though, that if we expand the term “political” that far it risks losing meaning. The Epicureans themselves were clear that politics (in the standard sense) should only be engage in by the wise person under extreme circumstances (a la Cassius, for instance). Inviting my friends over for dinner with cheese and bread hardly counts.
What’s not anachronistic is to say that Marcus was an autocrat and that Seneca supported one. So let’s use that more transcendent language, and park fascism. And while concerns regarding presentism have their merits, within the context of gentlemen such as these, who held power, influence and exposure to more virtuous views, it’s far too forgiving (it’s not as if no one was saying that the Empire was rotten and corrupt, and that a return to Republican principles - and even the Republic itself - would result in a better and more equitable system). I do agree with you that ultimately one’s decision is a personal one, and that one should choose a philosophical apparatus based upon its internal structure and substance, and its personal resonance. THAT SAID, just as one should with Christianity, it’s important to be aware and sensitive to the fact that Stoicism has a real tendency to be co-opted, weaponized and used as scaffolding and agitprop for some awfully despicable regimes, civic structures and anti-social phenomenon. Which would indicate that one must handle it with care, and be on constant guard that they don’t find themselves sucked into a similar place of hypocrisy and terror, because clearly the philosophy has some internal weaknesses which leave it susceptible to hacking of this sort. The history of Stoicism presents a cautionary tale that purveyors and followers would do well to acknowledge and guard against unflaggingly.
David, I’m all in favor of guarding against misuses of Stoicism. In fact, I wrote abut it: https://figsinwintertime.substack.com/p/the-varieties-of-bad-stoicism
But I think you dismiss concerns with presentism a bit too easily, and did not address at all my point that the time asymmetry here matters: it is one thing to criticize the ancients on the basis of modern standards (not very useful, in my mind), and another thing to ask what ancient ideas can do for us (very useful, I think).
Even the word “autocrat” is anachronistic, because it means something different today. Because the social and political context is different. Heck, even “tyranny” started out as a neutral, not a negative word.
Marcus was one of the best rulers of his time, not just the author of a pretty good personal diary. The case of Seneca is more complicated, which is why I posted the link to an essay I wrote on the topic. I’m not at all convinced by the standard story that Seneca was a mere facilitator of a corrupt regime. For one, because Nero’s regime was not, in fact, corrupt, for the first several years, which coincided with the time when Seneca (and Burrus, the prefect of the Pretorian Guard, who worked with Seneca) was in charge.
Returning to the notion that certain ideas are open to being misused, I think that human beings have an uncanny ability to misuse everything, so at least in some cases it isn’t the idea that is problematic, it’s the human beings.
David, interesting point. The label fascist is, as you say, anachronistic. And there is a difference between applying a modern label to the ancients vs trying to applying the teaching of the ancients to modern life. The latter, by definition, is not anachronistic. The time asymmetry makes the difference.
That said, one’s behavior needs to be judged by the standard of its own time, not by our standards. Doing the latter is an example of presentism, which is a logical fallacy. I’ve written about that topic here at Figs: https://figsinwintertime.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-presentism
As for Seneca in particular, here is a defense of him: https://figsinwintertime.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-seneca
If none of the above moves you, then consider another approach: what matters is Stoic philosophy, not what individual Stoics did. The same as with Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions or philosophies of life. So one should ask whether Stoicism is more friendly to autocracy than to democracy. I don’t think that’s true.
I have to admit that reading Rome's Last Citizen left me with mixed feelings about Cato. Perhaps I should revisit it, but I recall that, on more than one occasion, he reminded me of contemporary aristocrats who prefer to preserve the status quo—often synonymous with their own privileges—rather than confront the pressing social issues of their time, such as land reform or the unjust treatment of war veterans.
By contrast, Caesar sometimes evokes the opposite impression. While his motivations likely revolved around personal power—much like those of a modern populist—he also seemed more attuned to Rome’s structural problems. That, in my view, makes him a more effective statesman than many of his rival optimates.
That said, I’m not suggesting that Cato was a villain and Caesar a hero. But I also wouldn’t fully endorse Cicero’s views on either of them.
Finally, a small confession: I watched HBO’s Rome as a teenager, and Ciarán Hinds’ portrayal of Caesar left a lasting impression on me. So it’s possible that some of my sympathy for Caesar stems from that portrayal. Not to mention the fact that Octavian—who held Caesar in high regard—was his adoptive son.
Demian, I agree. And I loved the HBO “Rome” series. You probably noticed that the image accompanying the essay is from that series. I would argue that the best men at the time was actually Cicero, who was sympathetic to both Cato and Caesar.
I don’t know Roman history well enough. Was Julius Caesar progressive and actually implemented the land reforms he apparently supported or did he simply talk this idea up to get public support and then further consolidate wealth and power? For either side to be considered Stoic they should be evaluated by their actions not by their words. The actions of today’s US government is a good example of not living up to spoken promises or expected outcomes. How many of the revolts in Ancient Rome actually due to such broken promises? I strongly identify with the concept of cosmopolitanism and the Stoic framework. I can only imagine what could be achieved if we as a species could learn to work together without all the power struggles. What could we possibly accomplish?
Paul, very good question. An argument can be made that Caesar thought of himself as a true “progressive” but that in reality he was quickly corrupted by the sort of absolute power he thought was necessary in order to implement his policies. A stern warning for currently unfolding events, even if one is inclined to grant the most charitable interpretation to what Trump is doing (I’m not).
I agree wholeheartedly! The America First policy has nothing to do with the American people. It is designed to further enrich the wealthy. We are witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth from the poorer citizens to the wealthiest in the history of this country. It is truly a sad state of affairs.
Funny, I just finished listening to a podcast episode about Tiberius! Mike Duncan’s History of Rome podcast is really good for anyone interested!
I agree with the main thesis that Stoicism is not necessarily conservative or progressive, in part because those terms have shifting meanings. I mean in some sense the defenders of the Roman Republic were conservative and Julius Caesar was progressive in the sense that he was changing to something new!
So it depends exactly on what we’re proposing to conserve or change!
I'm glad to see your thinking on this has evolved over the last few years. I know we don't have any ancient Stoic writings with a political system laid out, but it has always seemed clear to me that following virtue, cosmopolitanism, and oikeiosis leads to political conclusions.
Scott, right, while justice can certainly be practice by most people on a wide political spectrum, cosmopolitanism has a definitely left-leaning appeal.
Interesting analysis from the perspective of current US political stereotypes. I'm in Europe and so, these don't sit well with me. Also I think that a simple bipolar analysis doesn't really capture the complexity of political ideology.
With my much more limited knowledge of the views of the ancients political leanings I tried to use the political compass tool (I found it difficult to suppress my own biases) and got this result. I would be interested to see what you came up with.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-6.5&soc=-4.72
Lower left quadrant for me, too.
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33
Thanks for sharing!
Tim, I am a European as well, and I frankly don’t see much of a difference with the American approach, at this point. That said, last time I did the political compass I was in the lower left quadrant, “libertarian left.”
Me too. I was wondering if you could do it through the eyes of the ancient Stoics. I tried but it ended up not too far from where I sit, so I'm curious.
Tim, hmm, interesting suggestion! I just did it again, trying to answer in the way I think a (modern) Stoic would. Lower left quadrant.
An interesting post today. I normally think of Stoical qualities in leaders during wartime rather than peace. For example, Lincoln, Washington and Churchill seem to me to embody those virtues, especially while they were leading through a time of conflict. Of those three, all could be viewed as conservative, in the traditional sense.
In today’s environment it’s harder to find someone with stoical qualities. Sherrod Brown, former senator from Ohio and Barack Obama come to mind, both progressives of course.
Clearly the current administration and those who support it are at the opposite end of the spectrum, but yet they would be considered populists, drawing their power from the mislead masses.
David, yes, the complexity of it is what makes the issue so interesting to me. And, like you, I tend to reason by way of historical and current examples.
A very interesting thought experiment here, Massimo. Thanks once again. If we are applying Stoicism to this then indeed we are supposed to be indifferent so naturally you would have to assume both sides of the coin. I personally have always leant toward progressive myself because then as a society, I believe we become stagnant, or as recent events are telling us, we are not cosmopolitan in the slightest and are looking inward for selfish reasons.
That being said, Regarding the suicide of both Cato and Blossius. What are your thoughts regarding that? It seems to me to be very extreme to kill oneself, especially when it seems to me you can do more good being alive. Isn’t the act of suicide in this case - uncosmopolitan?
Have you ever done a piece on this act itself and it’s meaning within Stoic philosophy?
Thank you for sharing. I just went on a walk after sending to contemplate and I kind of came up with a similar conclusion.
Incidentally, I sat by a local river for 10 mins to watch the swans preening. The habits of the birds has always fascinanted me as they just be. I was then interrupted by the local high school crew team rowing with their cox blaring out instructions. I guess this is modern life.
James, I’ve written about suicide only at my old blog, here: https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/epictetus-on-suicide-the-open-door-policy/
I probably should take the time to write an update, almost a decade later…
In general, I respect the Stoic take on the issue: it’s a personal decision, and if one decided that “the room is too smoky,” as Epictetus puts it, then there is the option to leave. Indeed, Epictetus (and Seneca) think that this is the root of true human freedom: so long as we stay, it’s because we want to stay.
I'm inclined to believe that Stoicism is naturally compatible with progressives than it is with conservatives. Look at the case of Cato; his identification with the Optimates doesn't align well with the four cardinal virtues. The Senate/Optimates' opposition to land reform ultimately led to the rise of Caesar and the fall of the Republic. Not much wisdom in that. Social justice? Ditto. Moderation? Not when you believe one class should hog all the privileges. Courage? Well, it takes courage to question your rigid beliefs, as if they are set in stone.
Jim, I’m inclined toward the same conclusion, but I don’t think it’s an either / or. I can imagine conservative politicians who act according to Stoic principles. Similarly, I can imagine some on the Left who don’t.
Well, when either side fails to do so, perhaps we can say they fail as genuine Stoics. I'm reminded of your essay some time ago on James Stockdale. So Stoic in many ways, yet unable/unwilling to question his unjust orders.
Right. I’ve come to think of Stockdale as a stoic rather than a Stoic. He successfully applied the life-hackery version of Stoicism, but not, in my mind, the philosophy.
Ah, now you've got me! There is being a stoic with a small 's' and a Stoic with a big 'S'.
Can one be a Stoic even if one is not always stoical? Or should that be Stoical? And is it not being stoical a process open to making mistakes, thus learning from them to modify behaviour and thoughts in the future?
Whichever, it all seems to point to the practice being a life-hack to whatever degree it aligns with the ultimate philosophical ideal in contrast to what one is capable of or thinks one can get away with.
Demetri, one can certainly be a Stoic and not be stoical (in the sense of stiff upper lip / suppression of emotions). Indeed, I think the two are incompatible.
But yes, of course we all make mistakes, unless we are sages. And I haven’t seen many of those around of late…
The stiff upper lip version definitely sounds like a conservative option to me!
Anyway, I thought the internet was almost full of sages 😉