A reminder that sound Stoic reasoning is accompanied by affection.
I've noticed a recent influx of new visitors. Welcome and thank you for your interest. I wanted to take a moment to remind readers about my RSS feed to which there is a link below. It's available so that my inconsistent posting doesn't cause you pains. Though, if I do stress you out, shoot me a line. I have a few Stoic exercises you could try.
People. What a bunch of bastards!
The IT Crowd
Stoics love people, even the bastards. The heart of our philosophy is love for humankind. The virtue that we seek to cultivate can only be properly expressed in relationship to our human family. We agree with Marcus Aurelius who reminded himself that, "your only joy, and your only rest, is to pass from one action performed in the service of the human community to another action performed in the service of the human community." Stoicism is often framed as a lonely discipline, encouraging men to stand apart from the crowd, but that is so far from the truth. Stoic wisdom is meant to enhance the humanity of those who practice it. We are participating with the crowd. We may not act as the crowd would expect or demand, but we always seek to act with our neighbor's best interest at heart. That said, how are Stoics to respond when faced with disagreeable people?
It is within a man's power to love even those who sin against him. This becomes possible when you realize that they are your brothers, that they wrong you unintentionally or out of ignorance, that in a little while you and they will be dead, and above all, that they have not really hurt you so long as you have not sullied your conscience or damaged your inner self by responding in kind.
Aurelius: Meditations 7:22
Marcus Aurelius spent a lot of time preparing himself to interact with awful people. The Emperor did not find his court to be filled with the most uplifting sorts of citizens. So in many of his meditations he would dwell on the formula found in the quote above;
I've addressed the human family before, so I won't elaborate here. It is worth taking a moment to think about the second point; the Stoic principle that no one means to do wrong. Stoicism considers all immorality to be a form of ignorance. It works something like this;
This way of thinking should have a huge impact on how a Stoic treats disagreeable people. If we truly believe that the people who wrong us are simply ignorant, what is the appropriate response? Epictetus addresses this issue in chapter 42 of the Enchiridion:
"When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. For if anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, 'It seemed so to him.'"
"It seemed so to him." This is a position of sympathy. In Stoicism, ignorance is not reviled, it is simply corrected. Epictetus, like Aurelius, clams that the person who is hurt by immorality is the person who performs it. The Stoic is left unscathed, assuming he reacts appropriately. One last Aurelius quote, "People exist for the sake of one another. Teach them then, or bear with them." I used this quote in the article I linked to earlier. In that post I viewed bear with them as a call for something like patience. I think I was mistaken. The more I dwell on the Stoic insistence that we truly love others, the more it sounds like a call to shoulder their burdens. Most daily insults do not happen during teachable moments but they do always arrive with the opportunity to enact virtue. In doing so, we not only stay true to ourselves, we bring good into the world.
Stoics are meant to see the common humanity of everyone we meet. With that kinship in mind, we bear up under the weight of unjust actions and, if possible, point out a better way. If we truly embrace the Stoic perspective, this isn't difficult. Our point of view contains no fuel that could feed indignation. We're left free to act with compassion, and through compassion we show the strength of our philosophy.
Stoicism is a living philosophy. We haven't ceased developing new ways to view and to practice the discipline. So, even though we are fond of a number of long dead men, we can't look only to them for guidance. A person can't simply memorize every line of ancient Stoic text and say, "That's it. I know Stoicism and there is no more to discover." This leaves Stoics with an interesting problem. If we can't appeal to authority to firmly answer what Stoicism is or is not, then what measure do we have when some new idea or practice comes along? What IS Stoic?
I'll hit you right up front with my answer. The core of Stoicism comes down to an acceptance of two maxims.
What is the difference between a modern practicing Stoic and a person who borrows a few concepts or practices but wouldn't label themselves in the same way? Stoics accept the core dogmas of the philosophy. The whole of Stoicism rests on the virtuous life.
The first statement is the foundational ethical position of Stoicism. This is where we separate ourselves from Epicureans, Skeptics, and more modern philosophies. Epicureans, for instance, claim pleasure is a moral good. Stoics say pleasure is morally indifferent in that it can be used both in good and bad ways. Even life itself is morally indifferent within Stoicism. I believe it was Seneca who said life is neither good nor bad, it is simply the space in which the good and the bad happen. The good and the bad are found within human choices.
The second statement is derived from the first. Virtue offers us enough to flourish as a human being. This doesn't mean that virtue will bring you monetary prosperity and perfect health. It means that Stoics accept that your moral integrity is infinitely more important than such things. You can live well without money. You can live well without health. You can live well by dying. Physical things can help us out but, as the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy put it, "Stoics maintain...that the only thing that always contributes to happiness, as its necessary and sufficient condition, is virtue." So what is virtue?
Virtue is the best possible state of the rational and social human mind. The ancient Stoics considered virtue to be a single principle, but also illuminated its four facets as Wisdom, Justice, Temperance, and Courage. Stoic disciplines exist to bring our mindset into agreement with virtue, so that we think, and then act, optimally as human beings. Those optimal thoughts and actions put us in the only state that can guarantee consistent happiness. Again, there's no promise that virtuous living will bring about success in the common sense of the word. Living out justice in an unjust world may bring intense struggles, for instance. Living justly is simply better regardless. The struggle is an indifferent.
I've gone further into this than I meant! I only wanted to lay out the measure that I use to decide if a point of view is stoic or not. I'm not saying that there isn't more to Stoicism than virtue, by the way. There is so much more! I'm saying that virtue is the first thing in Stoicism. When I'm presented with a new idea I look to see if it leads towards virtue, if it does not, I may find it interesting but I won't consider it Stoic.
P.S. I'm laying this out so that people understand where I'm coming from on this blog. I'm certainly not interested in declaring other people as Stoic or non-Stoic. I wouldn't want to cause a Stoa-schism! Ok. That was horrible. I am ashamed. :)
