I can understand why you and some of your Substack readers who live in the West think the current events there are topics worth writing about
I also think using the lens of Stoic and other Greco Roman Philosophies to examine real world current events and peoples and places is a really useful activity
However in the interests of your subscribers who do not live in the West could you use a topic not related to America the next time you write this kind work?
Nicholas, you make a good point, but I believe in writing about things one actually knows something about. I don’t know enough about, say, Indian or Japanese politics to meaningfully comment, so I leave that to others. But if you have specific suggestions in mind I’d be happy to look into them.
Hi Massimo that's a fair point In that case let me make a suggestion .How about significant historical figures in recent American history? for example Malcolm X, or Colin Powell, or Henry Kissinger Those are major figures with significant life stories. Looking at Malcolm X or Kissinger through a Stoic lens would be a really interesting exercise
Interesting read. Or course, what is going on in the United States is not Democrat vs. Republican. It's right vs. wrong. Most Americans, left, center or right-of-center, oppose what the trump administration is doing.
Well done! I also am interested in the lack of humility of the convert. I think in American culture we’ve lost reverence for our teachers - anyone can discover anything and speak with authority as an expert pontificator. VS the tradition of asking the master’s opinion on interpretation and alignment within the lineage of teaching. I see it at every level of what I do as an art teacher. All painting traditions until recently worked within a master/ apprentice framework but now having a lineage or indeed a teacher is a career liability in our culture that loves novelty, independence and authority. I would say that to be a convert is to acknowledge that you didn’t have all the answers and therefore an ounce of humility would be appropriate - deference to the trained pontiff. But that would be un-American.
Karima, thank you! And yes, very interesting parallel with the arts! Indeed, recognizing the need for masters, teachers, experts, eta., is a sign of humility and willingness to learn. That doesn’t mean our masters cannot be outdone, or that they are always right. But they are a better starting point that just “doing your own research”…
Vance has of course an even harder moral dissonance (cognitive dissonance is not the right term here?) than his counterparts in Europe. Catholic Vance needs to treat the mostly catholic migrants into the US as the beyond-love-category while his peers in Europe can create a greater distance by pointing to a religious difference between catholics/protestants/orthodox/non-believers and Muslims (not to condone any of this hate).
Side issue. Doesn't Jesus ask us to love our enemies and our persecutors?
Maurits, interesting distinction you make between cognitive and moral dissonance. I regard morality as at least partly the result of cognition, so I’m good with using cognitive dissonance in the broad sense.
And yes, Jesus does ask us to love our enemy. So, interestingly, did Seneca.
Thank you for this. I was partly raised by sweet catholic nuns. Having read a bit about Vance’s conversion to Catholicism and his chosen patron saint, I really was puzzled by Vance’s statement. Goes to show, religion can be misused as a “life hack” by the tech bros just like Stoicism. What’s next? Multiple choice commandments?
I was very glad to see Francis correcting Vance. While there are instances where the Church’s position clearly aligns with certain political platforms—such as its stance on abortion—this was a clear misuse of Christian doctrine to justify a political agenda unrelated to the Church’s teachings on immigration. It would be interesting to analyze whom Vance was addressing in that interview. Some have suggested he was speaking primarily to his core base—likely from states with strong Christian majorities—especially given that the remarks were made on Fox News. He may not have anticipated the broader backlash or that his comments would gain such wide attention. Francis, in contrast, has historically been quite attuned to the nuances of political and media discourse. The new Pope also seems quite thoughtful and reasonable, and will likely uphold a similarly discerning approach. It will be especially interesting to observe how his background as a mathematician shapes his theological and philosophical perspectives on contemporary issues, like technology!
Finally, as I delve deeper into the relationship between Stoicism and Christianity, which is my central area of research for my thesis, I’m coming across some fascinating material that may deserve closer analysis. One such example is an excerpt from Augustine’s City of God, where he criticizes Cato the Younger for committing suicide, and more broadly, denounces the Stoic justification of suicide. However, Augustine seems to overlook a crucial point: Cato didn’t take his own life out of despair or unhappiness. Rather, he refused to live under Caesar’s rule, rejecting the idea of being pardoned, which he saw as a form of subjugation that would legitimize Caesar’s authority over him and his lineage. That, to me, sounds quite Stoic!
I can't believe that at the 4th century A.D. thinkers like him didn't know about Cato's real intentions. Do you think he intentionally overlooked that to make a point?
Demian, Vance was certainly speaking to his base, though it’s hard to imagine he thought the comments of a US VP would not resonate more globally. What truly puzzles me is how on earth his base thinks that their views on immigration are in any way “Christian.” They must be able to engage in a seriously high degree of rationalization.
As for Augustine, you make a good point, but my understanding is that the Catholic Church is against suicide regardless of the motivations. In this I prefer the Stoic position, which says that the option of suicide is the ultimate source of freedom for a human being, Epictetus’s “open door,” but also that it needs to be taken seriously and actually done only in extreme and well justified cases.
I'm not an expert in these matters, but I think you're right about the Catholic Church's stance on suicide. It seems to be deeply rooted in its theological and metaphysical view that our lives belong to God, and therefore we don't have the authority to end them ourselves. What's particularly interesting is the possible influence of Platonic thought here. In the Phaedo, if I’m remembering correctly, Socrates suggests that we are the possessions of the gods and have no right to harm or kill ourselves. That idea resonates with the Church’s position. Yet, there's a tension: Socrates ultimately accepts his death sentence and refuses to escape, even when given the opportunity. While this is not exactly what Cato did—who rejected pardon and chose suicide—there’s a kind of parallel in how both saw their deaths as a matter of principle or higher order, considering their own lives less important than breaking virtue. Anyways, I am probably diverging too much, so perhaps a topic for another discussion. Thank you.
This am, Atlantic posted an article by George Packer. He notes JD Vance has a missing of quality of character. An echo resounds
I’ll check the Atlantic article. But yeah, I agree that he is significantly deficient, character-wise.
Thank you, again
I can understand why you and some of your Substack readers who live in the West think the current events there are topics worth writing about
I also think using the lens of Stoic and other Greco Roman Philosophies to examine real world current events and peoples and places is a really useful activity
However in the interests of your subscribers who do not live in the West could you use a topic not related to America the next time you write this kind work?
Nicholas, you make a good point, but I believe in writing about things one actually knows something about. I don’t know enough about, say, Indian or Japanese politics to meaningfully comment, so I leave that to others. But if you have specific suggestions in mind I’d be happy to look into them.
Hi Massimo that's a fair point In that case let me make a suggestion .How about significant historical figures in recent American history? for example Malcolm X, or Colin Powell, or Henry Kissinger Those are major figures with significant life stories. Looking at Malcolm X or Kissinger through a Stoic lens would be a really interesting exercise
Nicholas, yes, those are all good suggestions. I might follow up on some.
Interesting read. Or course, what is going on in the United States is not Democrat vs. Republican. It's right vs. wrong. Most Americans, left, center or right-of-center, oppose what the trump administration is doing.
David, agreed. Not enough Americans, at the moment. But it may change soon.
For a guy who doesn’t want to delve into politics, you do an excellent job summing up Vance’s “power trumps reason” perspective. (Sorry for the pun.)
Seriously, thank you for the explanation. As usual, I am smarter for your analysis.
John, I’m trying not to overdo it in the political department, but I do feel some things ought to be said.
Well done! I also am interested in the lack of humility of the convert. I think in American culture we’ve lost reverence for our teachers - anyone can discover anything and speak with authority as an expert pontificator. VS the tradition of asking the master’s opinion on interpretation and alignment within the lineage of teaching. I see it at every level of what I do as an art teacher. All painting traditions until recently worked within a master/ apprentice framework but now having a lineage or indeed a teacher is a career liability in our culture that loves novelty, independence and authority. I would say that to be a convert is to acknowledge that you didn’t have all the answers and therefore an ounce of humility would be appropriate - deference to the trained pontiff. But that would be un-American.
❤️
Karima, thank you! And yes, very interesting parallel with the arts! Indeed, recognizing the need for masters, teachers, experts, eta., is a sign of humility and willingness to learn. That doesn’t mean our masters cannot be outdone, or that they are always right. But they are a better starting point that just “doing your own research”…
Very good one, Massimo!
Vance has of course an even harder moral dissonance (cognitive dissonance is not the right term here?) than his counterparts in Europe. Catholic Vance needs to treat the mostly catholic migrants into the US as the beyond-love-category while his peers in Europe can create a greater distance by pointing to a religious difference between catholics/protestants/orthodox/non-believers and Muslims (not to condone any of this hate).
Side issue. Doesn't Jesus ask us to love our enemies and our persecutors?
Maurits, interesting distinction you make between cognitive and moral dissonance. I regard morality as at least partly the result of cognition, so I’m good with using cognitive dissonance in the broad sense.
And yes, Jesus does ask us to love our enemy. So, interestingly, did Seneca.
Dissonance: because poor moral judgements stem from ignorance ? Point taken, then.
At least that’s the Socratic take.
St Augustine's prayer "Lord give me chastity and continence, but not yet" is one of my favorite prayers of a Saint. Excellent post, thank you!
Thank you for this. I was partly raised by sweet catholic nuns. Having read a bit about Vance’s conversion to Catholicism and his chosen patron saint, I really was puzzled by Vance’s statement. Goes to show, religion can be misused as a “life hack” by the tech bros just like Stoicism. What’s next? Multiple choice commandments?
Multiple choice commandments! 😆
Yes, every good idea can be misused. Which is why it’s always a good service to humanity to remind people of what those ideas actually mean.
Well said!
Thanks for sharing, Massimo.
I was very glad to see Francis correcting Vance. While there are instances where the Church’s position clearly aligns with certain political platforms—such as its stance on abortion—this was a clear misuse of Christian doctrine to justify a political agenda unrelated to the Church’s teachings on immigration. It would be interesting to analyze whom Vance was addressing in that interview. Some have suggested he was speaking primarily to his core base—likely from states with strong Christian majorities—especially given that the remarks were made on Fox News. He may not have anticipated the broader backlash or that his comments would gain such wide attention. Francis, in contrast, has historically been quite attuned to the nuances of political and media discourse. The new Pope also seems quite thoughtful and reasonable, and will likely uphold a similarly discerning approach. It will be especially interesting to observe how his background as a mathematician shapes his theological and philosophical perspectives on contemporary issues, like technology!
Finally, as I delve deeper into the relationship between Stoicism and Christianity, which is my central area of research for my thesis, I’m coming across some fascinating material that may deserve closer analysis. One such example is an excerpt from Augustine’s City of God, where he criticizes Cato the Younger for committing suicide, and more broadly, denounces the Stoic justification of suicide. However, Augustine seems to overlook a crucial point: Cato didn’t take his own life out of despair or unhappiness. Rather, he refused to live under Caesar’s rule, rejecting the idea of being pardoned, which he saw as a form of subjugation that would legitimize Caesar’s authority over him and his lineage. That, to me, sounds quite Stoic!
https://gutenberg.org/files/45305/45305-h/45305-h.htm#Page_305
I can't believe that at the 4th century A.D. thinkers like him didn't know about Cato's real intentions. Do you think he intentionally overlooked that to make a point?
Thanks!!
Demian, Vance was certainly speaking to his base, though it’s hard to imagine he thought the comments of a US VP would not resonate more globally. What truly puzzles me is how on earth his base thinks that their views on immigration are in any way “Christian.” They must be able to engage in a seriously high degree of rationalization.
As for Augustine, you make a good point, but my understanding is that the Catholic Church is against suicide regardless of the motivations. In this I prefer the Stoic position, which says that the option of suicide is the ultimate source of freedom for a human being, Epictetus’s “open door,” but also that it needs to be taken seriously and actually done only in extreme and well justified cases.
I'm not an expert in these matters, but I think you're right about the Catholic Church's stance on suicide. It seems to be deeply rooted in its theological and metaphysical view that our lives belong to God, and therefore we don't have the authority to end them ourselves. What's particularly interesting is the possible influence of Platonic thought here. In the Phaedo, if I’m remembering correctly, Socrates suggests that we are the possessions of the gods and have no right to harm or kill ourselves. That idea resonates with the Church’s position. Yet, there's a tension: Socrates ultimately accepts his death sentence and refuses to escape, even when given the opportunity. While this is not exactly what Cato did—who rejected pardon and chose suicide—there’s a kind of parallel in how both saw their deaths as a matter of principle or higher order, considering their own lives less important than breaking virtue. Anyways, I am probably diverging too much, so perhaps a topic for another discussion. Thank you.
Demian, I think you are exactly right. That parallel is very strong, and yet, as you point out, also problematic.
Great analysis. Thanks.