Consider Marcus Aurelius: was he a wise ruler whose actions were informed by Stoic philosophy, or a brutal colonialist enforcing imperial rule? I have had this discussion recently on Substack’s Notes as a follow up to an article I wrote in which, among other things, I suggested that modern Stoics should stop regarding James Stockdale a role model.
Stockdale was an American pilot who was shot down during the Vietnam War. He was apprehended and spent several years in a Vietnamese prison where he endured torture and abuse. Stockdale credited his survival to having read the Stoic philosopher Epictetus and having internalized his famous fundamental rule: some things are up to us, others are not, and the key to life is to focus on the first ones and develop an attitude of equanimity toward the latter.
In my article I argued that Stockdale’s use of Stoicism is an example of (successful!) life hacking, but not of actually practicing the philosophy. You see, Stockdale had been present at the infamous incident of the Gulf of Tonkin, which the United States used as a pretext to start the war. The US Government claimed that the Vietnamese had attacked American ships unprovoked. But Stockdale was actually there and knew that this was bullshit. Nevertheless, he kept quiet and willingly participated to an unjust war that he knew had began under false pretenses. Not, I argue, what I’d expect from a Stoic role model.
My criticism of Stockdale provoked a range of responses, and more than one reader pointed out that arguably even Marcus Aurelius, one of the three big Roman Stoics, did not truly act as a Stoic. After all, he was at the head of an oppressive empire, and besides he persecuted the Christians.
That’s an interesting argument, and it deserves to be taken seriously. It consists really of two components: on the one hand, there is a factual element to it. How oppressive was the Roman Empire? Did Marcus actually persecute Christians? On the other hand, there is a philosophical element to it: is it a good idea to project our modern moral standards onto cultures of the past, a practice often referred to as “presentism”?
On the factual side, there is no question that the Romans were an imperial power. Then again, so was every other power on the globe, from the Parthians to the Chinese. So the choice, so to speak, wasn’t whether to live under imperial control but rather under which particular empire. By the standards of the time, the Romans were among the mildest of rulers, largely interested in maintaining the peace and collecting taxes. And they did significantly improve the life of their subjects across their domain. (For a funny rendition of the latter point see here.) Also, did Marcus persecute the Christians? Apparently not, though other emperors certainly did.
But what concerns me the most here is the philosophical issue underlying the practice of presentism. Did my critics engaged in presentism when they pointed out Marcus’s alleged sins? Did I do it when criticizing Stockdale? Let’s take a look.
To begin with, presentism is defined as the introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past and it is often (but, crucially, not universally!) considered by historians a form of cultural bias. We tend to think of our own cultural mores as unbiased, as if history had somehow reached the end and apex with us, so that we are justified in using our own standards as the golden ones. But of course that’s nonsense on stilts and a result of hubris, not rational thinking. We are one more culture among many that have marked, and will mark, the history of humanity. In a number of respects we have arguably improved on the past, and in a number of others we have not. And who knows what future generations will think of our stage of moral development.
