The Stoic System
The Stoics of antiquity, whose main proponents were the Greek philosophers Zeno and Chrysippus and the Roman philosophers Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, saw the world as being guided by providence and pervaded by a substance they called pneuma, a mixture of air and invisible fire, a form of vital breath, that gave everything life and order. They were determinists who rejected that anything occurred by random, despite the fact that they recognized that a particular outcome is influenced by a number of unknown causal elements.
As a result, fate must be accepted and welcomed. However, this did not imply that effort, particularly moral effort, was fruitless for them. They believed that everything in nature tries to preserve itself, and that reason allows us to shape our own personalities by using the ordered nature of the sky as a model of stability and durability. Stoic ethics is concerned with growing virtue on the one hand, and adjusting oneself to the unavoidable losses that human existence implies on the other.
Moral power, according to the Stoics, comes from reason's realization of the natural law. Order was inherent in nature, and moral ideals such as infant care and ruler respect were embedded into the fabric of existence. They varied from Epicureans in this aspect, who considered all justly enforced rules as based on collective judgments about what was best for the group's welfare. There were several areas on which both parties agreed.
Many Stoics, like the Epicureans, were opposed to slavery, which they saw as a customary arrangement that contradicted all persons' innate equality. This was in contrast to the more common belief that certain persons were born to be slaves, which Aristotle espoused vehemently and persuasively, and which has continued to the current day. They did, however, have domestic servants in their community.
Epicurus permitted slaves and women to participate in philosophical debates; the Stoics, as far as I know, did not, despite the fact that Epictetus was a former slave.
Too Much Fortitude?
The Stoic considers the universe to be ordered and reasonable, and human responsibilities to be objective and binding on all people. Stoicism is dignified, uplifting, and even cheerful in certain ways.
However, it has little room in its ideology for compassion or opposition to persecution, and it might appear to be oblivious to sources of happiness in human existence.
The real Stoic, a determinist who believes that nothing could have gone wrong and that we must accept our destinies, does not mourn the loss of anybody. She considers how the laws of nature make it unavoidable that some infants would have leukemia, some middle-aged women will develop breast cancer, and some elderly people will be run over. School shootings, too, are governed by natural principles... a particular amount of enraged individuals; a certain quantity of superweapons accessible.
Toughness, rather than fragility, is a recurring theme in Stoicism, particularly in its modern revival. Military personnel with a passion for philosophy or who are responsible for teaching it are particularly drawn to it. While scholars may argue that no Stoics were warmongers and that some Stoics desired peace, there are clear reasons why generals and soldiers would not be drawn to Epicureanism. The Epicurean asks just how to avoid battle by restricting ambition, avoiding religious and ideological extremism, and refraining from violence, but the Stoic requires fortitude in the face of bodily danger and the tooth-gritting endurance of suffering and imprisonment.
One of Stoicism's most important beliefs was that emotions are spiritual "diseases" similar to physical sicknesses. They are viewed as disrupting our peace of mind and leading to compulsive, ineffective thinking. It is pointless, according to the Stoics, to regret one's previous deeds or to be concerned about what other people are doing, because they cannot help but act in accordance with their personalities.
Even justified rage, according to the Stoic Seneca, could never be a positive force. They believed that an emotion is an interpretation of a circumstance that affects oneself, and that by acquiring an objective perspective, the feeling would evaporate and peace of mind could be restored. The mind, according to Marcus Aurelius, is a "inner fortress" that external pressures can never tear down.
For the Stoic, the greatest way to acquire perspective was to realize that one had not been picked out for a particularly awful fate. Bad things happen all the time, and they can't always be predicted or avoided. The Stoics were more conscious of the perils of political and financial life than the Epicureans because they were more immersed in city life. Envy for successful individuals breeds rivals who seek to bring them down. As Seneca discovered under Emperor Nero, tyrants can be brutal and capricious. Powerful rivals can jail you unfairly on false accusations, deprive you of your possessions, and send you into exile.
According to the Stoic moralist, the key to living happy was to accept that these things occurred all the time and not to grow reliant on a specific degree of riches, authority, or prestige. There was no explicit commandment for the Stoics to live simply. You may enjoy riches, power, and status while you have them – as Seneca did – but you must be ready to live without them. If circumstances grow too awful, the honorable alternative is to commit suicide. As they used to say, 'the door is open.'
What is the Meaning of Life for Stoics?
Life, according to the Stoics, is a never-ending sequence of trials and afflictions that put our fortitude to the test. Breakups and losses, job failures, financial downturns, terrible diseases, and betrayals by friends and lovers are all part of life. Stoic ethics are concerned with self-defence, and the general recommendation they offered was to anticipate adversity so as not to be caught off-guard.
To be concerned and upset, according to the Stoic, is to allow oneself to be bothered and upset, and you have a choice here.
Inner serenity and imperturbability can be developed. In the words of Epictetus, the Stoic can "be sick and yet happy," "be in jeopardy and yet happy," "be dying and yet happy," "be in exile and yet happy," "be in shame and yet joyful." Despite Epicurus' claim to be joyful even on his deathbed, the Epicurean openly questions that you can always choose whether to feel afraid, insulted, or overcome by disappointment or sadness. We don't believe the human body can withstand any amount of heat, cold, or force and remain unaffected. Why should we believe that the human mind can withstand any level of stress and regain balance just by mental effort? Aren't we sometimes unable to do anything except allow our thoughts, like our bodies, time to recover via forgetting and diversion if emotions are diseases?
The Epicurean, in any event, is unsatisfied with the description of emotions as soul ailments. Imagine being able to take a drug that made you never feel worried, scared, enraged, wounded, insulted, jealous, humiliated and regretful, contemptuous, or exhilarated, passionate, optimistic, victorious, compassionate, or ambivalent. Would you be inspired to take such a drug to get peace of mind? People who are administered mood-altering medications for anxiety or manic-depressive disease sometimes claim that life is unbearable in that state. And the fact that people seek out vicarious experiences through literature and film, not only of soft feelings but also of dread and terror, suggests that we value emotional experience as such when the long-term effects aren't harmful. Feeling is a form of knowledge; it is only via our feelings that we can recognize that we have been offended, that we love someone, that danger is ahead, or that we are unsure of what to do next. Suffocating emotions results in a loss of awareness and involvement with the world. Furthermore, while certain things must simply be tolerated since there is nothing we can do about them, human agency in the face of emotional distress may have a significant rehabilitative impact. Don't let your pain go unnoticed. Admit your pain, declare your love, and wait to see what happens.
When it comes to personal losses and little irritations, the Stoic believes that we should accept the fact that such things occur on a daily basis. 'If, for example, you are fond of a certain ceramic cup, remind yourself that you are fond of ceramic cups in general,' Epictetus recommends. Then you won't be bothered if it breaks. If you kiss your child or your wife, tell them that you only kiss human beings, and they will not be bothered if one of them dies.' The Epicurean believes that comparing the breaking of a cup to the death of a child is absurd. In the latter instance, the only option is to get over your sadness and, in time, look back fondly on your memories while hoping for better things in the future.
Wrapping Up
Because they deal directly with real-life concerns of labor, love, professional ethics, and political philosophy, ancient moral and political philosophy are valuable tools for us today. Simultaneously, they set the debate in a larger perspective, making their positions and counsel more solid and less arbitrary than it would otherwise be. Returning to ancient philosophy helps to bridge the gap between current professional philosophy and advice columns and editorials in newspapers and blogs on the one hand, and advice columns and editorials in newspapers and blogs on the other.
The former works at a high level of abstraction, conjuring up thought experiments involving hypothetical personal and political scenarios that none of us will ever encounter. The latter, on the other hand, cannot illustrate how its thinking fits into a wider view of nature and human existence, even when it gives unambiguous advice. So be it if you find the Stoic viewpoint to be more in line with your own ideas and experiences than the Epicurean. The two old philosophies have features in common that make them both valuable. Both are concerned with sorrow, which may occur even in times of plenty. Both recognize that moral philosophy cannot simply tell individuals how to spend their lives without also explaining why that path is preferable to others.
The concept of the limit can be considered to underpin Epicurean philosophy. First, the life of animals, humans, and material items, as well as governments and relationships, have inherent bounds. We do everything we can to keep those we care about from dying prematurely. Second, there are moral boundaries that we should adhere to but frequently do not: limitations on consumption and dominance and exploitation of other people and animals. We may save ourselves – and future generations – worry, anxiety, and misery by reconciling ourselves to natural boundaries and taking moral constraints seriously. At the same time, we may discover plenty of new and surprising pleasures in the material world and in the company of others within these natural and moral boundaries.
'Stranger, here you will do well to remain; here our ultimate good is pleasure,' according to an inscription near Epicurus' Garden's entrance. The Stoic Seneca recommended a young buddy to go to the Garden in order to defend the true Epicurus against others who wanted to use him "as a screen for their own vices." The courteous host, the caretaker, will be waiting for you; he will greet you with barley-meal and plenty water, with the words, "Have you not been pleasantly entertained?" "This garden does not whet your hunger; it quenches it," he explains.
An article can only serve to pique your interest. However, I hope you will accept my invitation to explore Epicureanism.