Who is a Stoic?

 

Grant Sterling message of 6/15/17 to the International Stoic Forum

On 6/14/17 3:05 PM, Steve Marquis [email deleted] [stoics] wrote:
>
>
> Kevin-
>
> Points of agreement:
> 1.Anyone is going to do exactly what they want.Not only is that not in
> our control we have no legitimate authority to think it should be.

> 2.This pursuit of who is a Stoic, the idea of arguing over the _label_
> of Stoicism, seems to me a pursuit of vanity and the ego.IOW a person
> who wants to thump their chest and self-identify with a bunch of labels
> needs to get a grip.What we want everyone to see us as _is not important_.

*****
I agree.
***

> Points of disagreement:
> 3.Despite the above there is good reason for identifying what this
> ‘philosophy is both from a historical perspective and a logical
> perspective (for us who wish to [practice], I didn’t even include the
> scholar’s goal).This has to do with trying to understand the genuine
> knowledge the system has.This is necessary if we are to actually
> maximize benefit from the practice.

*****
I disagree.
_From a scholar's perspective_, it is important to
identify what a philosophy was from an historical perspective.
From the perspective of someone who wants to practice
a view, it is important to understand what a view is from
a logical perspective.
I deny that these two interests necessarily cross-pollinate,
and I think there is an important third group.

If what I want to do is understand the writings of
Chrysippus*, then I need to know as much as possible about
what Chrysippus said. I need all fragments we have from his
work, as well as comments mentioning him by others. It
will be helpful for me to also know about the ideas of Zeno,
although it will be an open question whether Chrysippus agrees
with Zeno about everything, so I must be careful about extrapolating
Zenonian ideas into Chrysippus. I will (to the degree possible)
study all the ideas of Chrysippus--(using modern terms) ethics,
logic, epistemology, metaphysics (including theology and theories
about the material world and other things), political philosophy,
etc. I will be interested in the ways in which Chrysippus
tried to connect his ideas in one field with his ideas in the
others, if he did. I respect and admire the people
on this List who have greater knowledge of such things than I
have, and I seek to learn from them whenever possible.
From this point of view, obviously, there will be no
issue about whether I myself am or am not a Stoic--I'm studying
the views of Chrysippus, not myself. Indeed, the label "Stoic"
will have only two uses--1) to mark off people who regarded
themselves as part of a certain school, historically, and 2)
as a term of simplicity, so that I can say things like "The
Stoics believed [nota bene the past tense] x.y.z" instead of
having to constantly say "Zeno and Chrysippus and....believed
x,y,z".

If what I want to do is achieve eudaimonia, then it
will be sufficient for me to learn that there is a view which
holds that it is achieved by doing a,b,c. I don't need to know
who thought up this view, or when they lived, or what language
they used to express it, or what sports team they rooted for,
or what _other_ philosophical views they may have held. If
Zeno was a pedophile or Chrysippus loved tacos or Marcus Aurelias
wanted to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperial
State and convert it into a democracy (see the movie version of
MA in "Gladiator") that's all very interesting historically, but
unless we can show that the road to eudaimonia they proposed
required illicit sex, Mexican food, or political democracy, those
things are irrelevant. The historian (sans phrase) will mention
those things, the historian of philosophy (see above) will mention
only the third, but the person seeking eudaimonia need not care
about any of them.
Now if there is a logical connection between ideas such
that my a certain path to achieving eudaimonia requires that
I have certain beliefs about (whatever), then that's a different
story. Because I think we agree that Stoicism is a cognitive
doctrine--that is, it teaches that one can achieve eudaimonia
only by adopting a certain set of _beliefs_. (There are many
people who think that one can achieve happiness by doing certain
things [meditating, having a lot of sex, following your dreams
wherever they lead you, being in love, etc.] regardless of what
you believe.) So if the beliefs that lead to euadimonia (externals
are neither good not evil, etc.) require pantheism, or at least
some-kind-of-theism, or belief in objective value, or belief in
kataleptic impressions, or belief in democracy, then I need to
study and think about those beliefs--if not, I don't.
For this person, there is no need at all to use the
word "Stoic".

Now there is a third group, somewhere in between. These
are philosophers who study different philosophical ideas. They
typically have their own beliefs about which theories are true
(and they typically try to act in ways consistent with those
beliefs), but they are interested in and spend time studying
other possible views as well. I am not talking about historians
of philosophy (they're in group 1) who are discussing what
past thinkers believed. I'm talking about people who are attempting
to understand which philosophical views are true (which requires
understanding the various options). Almost all such people believe
that the truth about philosophy was not achieved by any one historical
figure.
For these philosophers, the word "Stoic" is useful as
a tool of simplicity to mark off a certain set of ideas. You
want to be able to say "Fred's a Utilitarian, Juan's an Aristotelian,
and Niko is a Stoic". {Or, "Fred's an Empiricist, Juan's a
Skeptic, and Niko's a Rationalist", etc., etc., etc.} And the
fact is, as I have pointed out before:
a) like it or not, they have chosen to use the word "Stoic"
to refer exclusively to a set of ethical/psychological doctrines, and
b) if we refuse to use the word "Stoic" for those doctrines,
we'll just have to invent some new word, because those doctrines
form a distinct and interesting set of ethical doctrines, and
c) this usage of the word "Stoic" is the second-most common
usage of the word, behind only the "Stoic means someone who doesn't
show their emotions" usage.
Now the vast majority of these people aren't claiming to be
"Stoics" themselves. They're using the word to label a theory that
they reject. So this isn't a matter of ego.

I, personally, straddle all three groups. My father is
an historian (not of philosophy), and I love history, and I think
it's interesting to learn about Chrysippus purely as an historical
investigation. And I do want to achieve eudaimonia, and to practice
the doctrine that I think will help me get closer to that goal. And
I love to study philosophical ideas, even ones that I disagree with.
Maybe there are few people on this List like me. Certainly more than
one person has explicitly said that they don't care what academic
philosophers think, or do, or how they use words. [Although by no
means all people in the third group are academic philosophers by
profession.] But I see no reason why the way the first group uses
the word "Stoic" must take priority over the way the third group
uses it. Indeed, within the realm of _ideas_ I think that philosophers
should ordinarily have pride of place ahead of mere historians if
one must choose.

Now if someone can indeed show that the beliefs which
form the core of Stoic thought from this third perspective must
include theological beliefs, that would be very interesting. But
I haven't seen it done. I haven't had time to look at all the
articles Chris listed, but so far I have only seen arguments of
the form "this or that ancient Stoic in fact connected their ethical
views to their theology" or "the specific phrasing 'according to
Nature' requires explication in terms of Stoic theology." The latter
doesn't interest me, because Stoic ethics can be explaining entirely
without using that particular phrase. The former doesn't interest me,
because any good philosopher (yes, there are bad ones) will connect
their ideas in one field with their idea in another. I know two people
who are advocates of Democracy as a political doctrine. One is an
atheist, one a monotheist. Both of them try to tie their political
views to their theology. But it is clear to me that their _political_
ideas are essentially identical. By the same token, there are people
on this List with different theologies than mine, but who agree with
me in all the critical ideas that philosophers use to label "Stoics".
I think that Steve is a Stoic, and I'm a Stoic, and probably Chris
is a Stoic and Dave and so on.

Again, anyone on this List who wishes to lay out for me
an argument showing how one cannot consistently believe that
Virtue is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia, that externals
are indifferent, that emotions are caused by false value impressions,
etc., without believing in Providence, or in pantheism, or whatever,
I am quite interested in seeing their argument. I'll encourage you
to write a philosophical paper arguing for a revision of the usual
understanding of Stoicism _as a contemporary theory-type_. But
I haven't seen it yet, and I don't expect to.
***

> 4.As part of a group of people who are interested in a careful reasoning
> approach to life I would think we should naturally oppose those who wish
> to abscond with the pedigree of any system based on reason for their own
> ego labeling purposes with not a care that they just trashed the logical
> coherence of the system in doing so.It seems to me there is an
> obligation on those of us who actually have learned a bit about Stoicism
> to promote the genuine article.The success of that promotion is not up
> to us of course.

*****
I agree. If you can show that stoic ethics requires
certain theological or physical beliefs for its logical coherency,
show me why.
***

> I mean don’t you feel the same way?And not just about Stoicism.There is
> this relativistic equal diversity dumbing down of knowledge in today’s
> culture.No one can be wrong about anything.To claim someone is wrong is
> politically incorrect and most insensitive.This entire movement really
> is IMO anti-truth (I have to back Grant’s insistence on objective
> morality because of this even though we disagree on other things).Truth
> hurts sometimes but truth, I would argue, is how we first survive then
> flourish.Correct reason, which I would assume everyone here is somewhat
> interested in, is opposed to incorrect reason.There just isn’t a way I
> can accept truth and falsehood as equally viable.Can you?
> So this debate has at its roots something very fundamental.Here is a
> slippery slope for you:if those who are interested in Stoicism are OK
> with false variations of their own system who then will stand for truth
> at all anywhere?

*****
Obviously, I think my variety of Stoicism is the
true one. :)
I am totally with you in rejecting relativism, and
rejecting the wishy-washy idea that everyone is right (or, at
least, no-one is wrong). I emphatically reject the kind of
ecumenicalism that says that all religions or all philosophies
are really saying the same thing, or that if a philosophical
view feels good to you then that's all that matters. Philosophy
ought to be the pursuit of truth.
The problem is that some people on this list insist
that the historian's usage of the word "Stoic" (or, worse
yet, Chrysippus' use of the word) is somehow to be enshrined
as the true usage of the word, and everyone like me needs to
wear an scarlet A on their clothes whenever we utter the word.
They have pointed out, truly, that some dead Greeks took very seriously
the ways they connected ethics to physics. (I once again point
out that they never mention kataleptic impressions. Do you
believe in those, Steve? Must you therefore qualify the word
"Stoic" every time you use it? Why haven't we been treated to
long discourses demonizing people who deviate from true Stoic
"logic"?) I have not denied it. When you, or I, or Long
investigates the views of the dead Greek Stoics, we should be
all means investigate those connections. But if the question
is "what does one need to believe in order to be reasonably
called a "Stoic" _today_?" then the philosopher's way of
using words is the relevant one.
***

> Live well,
> Steve

Regards,
Grant

* #49 "When someone acts grand because he understand and
can expound the works of Chrysippus, say to yourself "If
Chrysippus had not written unclearly, this man would have
nothing to be proud of".