Should we go eclectic?
A philosophical exercise about the pros and cons of choosing a philosophy of life
Every year since 2015 my friend and collaborator Greg Lopez and I have organized a Stoic Camp retreat in the Hudson Valley north of New York. We get together with about twenty students for 2-3 days and talk about practical philosophy, especially but not exclusively Stoicism. This year we discussed the book that Greg, our mutual friend Meredith Kunz, and I co-wrote, entitled Beyond Stoicism—A Guide to the Good Life with Stoics, Skeptics, Epicureans, and Other Ancient Philosophers (published in the UK with the more descriptively accurate title Live Like A Philosopher—What the Ancient Greeks and Romans Can Teach Us About Living a Happy Life).
The book is an exploration of the major Classical and Hellenistic philosophies, grouped according to their major theme: pleasure (Cyrenaicism and Epicureanism), character (Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Cynicism, and Platonism), or doubt (Socraticism, Sophism, Skepticism, and Pyrrhonism). One of the questions we tackle in Beyond Stoicism is whether it makes more sense to pick one of these philosophies and stick with it or whether it isn’t better to go eclectic, so to speak, and come up with one’s own combination of entrees offered by the broader philosophical menu.
At Stoic Camp, Greg and I demonstrated a standard technique in ancient philosophy—debating the pros and cons of a given question—as a way to explore with the students the question of eclecticism. I thought my readers might be be interested as well, so here we are, beginning with my arguments in favor of the a la carte approach:
Arguments for Eclectic Philosophy
1. Personal Authenticity & Fit
No single ancient philosophy was designed for your specific life circumstances, personality, or modern context. An eclectic approach allows you to craft a worldview that actually fits who you are rather than forcing yourself into a pre-existing mold.
2. Intellectual Honesty
Why should we assume that any one ancient thinker or school got everything right? The Stoics had blind spots, as did the Epicureans. Eclecticism acknowledges that wisdom is distributed across traditions and that truth isn’t the monopoly of any single system.
3. Adaptive Flexibility
Life throws curveballs that ancient philosophies couldn’t anticipate. An eclectic approach allows you to draw from multiple toolkits—perhaps Stoic resilience during crisis, Epicurean appreciation during good times, and Buddhist mindfulness for daily practice.
4. Modern Synthesis
Nowadays we have access to insights from psychology, neuroscience, and global wisdom traditions that weren’t available to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Why artificially limit ourselves to pre-scientific worldviews when we can integrate the best of old and new?
5. Avoiding Philosophical Authoritarianism
Adopting a single established philosophy can lead to forcing your experiences into its framework rather than examining them honestly. Eclecticism preserves intellectual freedom and critical thinking.
Okay, are you convinced that an eclectic approach is best? Not so fast! Here are my arguments for choosing one philosophy and sticking with it:
Arguments for Established Philosophy
1. Systematic Coherence
Established philosophies offer internally consistent worldviews that have been refined over centuries. Eclecticism risks creating a patchwork of contradictory beliefs that collapse under pressure when you need them most.
2. Time-Tested Wisdom
Philosophical systems have survived because they work. Millions of practitioners across centuries have found genuine guidance in Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, etc. Your personal philosophy experiment of one lacks this validation.
3. Depth Over Breadth
Mastering one philosophical approach deeply is more transformative than superficially sampling many. The power of Stoicism or Buddhism comes from complete immersion, not casual borrowing of appealing concepts.
4. Decision-Making Clarity
When facing difficult choices, established philosophies provide clear frameworks and principles. Eclecticism can lead to analysis paralysis or post-hoc rationalization since you can always find some philosophy that supports what you wanted to do anyway.
5. Community and Tradition
Established philosophies connect you to communities of practice and thousands of years of commentary, debate, and refinement. Your personal philosophy isolates you intellectually and cuts you off from this rich tradition of shared wisdom.
6. Avoiding Cherry-Picking
Eclecticism tempts you to take only the pleasant or easy teachings while avoiding the challenging disciplines that often contain the real transformative power. Stoicism’s difficulty with emotions, Buddhism’s insights about suffering—these aren’t bugs to be avoided but features that promote growth.
Changed your mind? Sticking with eclecticism? Why, why not? Try to evaluate the above sets of arguments as honestly as you can and then share your thoughts in the discussion thread. Happy philosophizing!
I can only say what works for me personally, at this moment, Massimo. I think following an updated Stoicism presents a coherent and accurate account of how to live a good life. However, within that overarching framework the insights of other philosophies/traditions/approaches shouldn't be ignored and I try to incorporate them into it. For me that provides simplicity and cohesion but with enough flexibility to be responsive to what life throws at me.
Especially in the face of what we know today scientifically or otherwise, we can't be honest and adopt any ancient philosophy wholesale. It would be silly to do so anyway - our modern societies have very different values from those of the ancients, something that should be discussed more IMO. Furthermore, even within a single framework there are opinions and interpretations or at the very least styles of practice, so we are all forced to be eclectics to some extent. As it should be! Philosophy teaches us how to think, and we should never be comfortable ceding that autonomy.
Personally, Stoicism is my main study - the good stuff is rooted in logic and naturalism - but we cannot deny that there is something personal lost when you accept that the universe is not in fact teleological or aware of you. Absurdism helps me to remember the cold, wild facts of our existence and to rebel by living despite it. Skepticism is there as a constant companion, tempering desire and foolish optimism. Buddhism gives me breathing exercises - not much else but to each his own. And so it will continue, that is until I start my own philosophy that gets everything right! 😉