Definition of a (modern) Stoic

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/message/23882

Re: [stoics] Definition of a (modern) Stoic

At 01:16 PM 3/3/2009, Steve Simmonds wrote:

>A question for those on this list who consider themselves stoics

>...what definition do you use to determine yourself to be a stoic?

>

>Are there a set of essential requirements? if so, what are they?

>

>All answers welcome.

>

>Steve S.

This is off the top of my head, so I may have missed something:

I think a Stoic is someone who holds (most or) all of the

following beliefs:

1) Happiness (eudaimonia) is to be found exclusively in Virtue.

2) Things not in our control are neither good nor evil.

3) The only things we control are inner events such as our

beliefs, desires, and act of will.

4) Emotions (or passions, if you prefer) arise from (false) beliefs that

external things have value.

5) Virtue (or virtue and certain things that can be attained only by

those with virtue) is the only genuine good, and vice the only

genuine evil.

I think anyone who held all 5 of those beliefs could

reasonably be called a Stoic, and maybe someone who

held almost all of them. I don't think anyone who rejects

most of these 5 could be reasonably called a Stoic. You

might add a sixth, along the lines of "No-one should be

distressed by any external occurrance", but I think that

is derivable from the 5 above.

Certainly classical Stoicism could add many other

principles (pantheism/panentheism, materialism, determinism,

divine Providence, assent to appearances, etc.), but none of

them seem to me to be as critical to whether someone

counts as a Stoic as these. I don't think, for example, that

Epictetus was a pantheist, and I'm not sure he was a

materialist or determinist {he might have been, but I can't

tell}, but he was surely a Stoic.

I'm not a pantheist, materialist, or determinist, FWIW.

Some people on this List are.

Regards,

Grant