Are You Still a Stoic If?

 In this 4/24/2011 message to the International Stoic Forum Grant Sterling answers Nyk Cowham.

----- Nyk Cowham [ ... ] wrote:

> Salvete Stoici in foro,
>
> As we have a few discussions attempting to identify the 'essential'
> principles and definitions of Stoicism some interesting questions arise
> given that modern Stoics may reject some and embrace other aspects of
> ancient Stoicism. This raises the ancient problem of identity - how can
> Stoicism change and yet still be Stoicism?
>
> Here are the questions that come to mind: 
>

> 1. If you reject the physics, adopt modern symbolic logic in place of

> stoic logic and focus almost exclusively on the ethics, are you still a
> Stoic?

*****
If by 'focus almost exclusively on ethics' you mean
'accept the ethical principles accepted by the Stoics',
then "yes". Notice that this is true of Epictetus _as
found in his writings_--I doubt that anyone who knows
anything about philosophy and who picked up only Epictetus'
works as currently preserved would deny that E. is a Stoic
(indeed, he is a paradigm Stoic) and yet he says almost
nothing about physics or logic. (We have external
reasons for supposing that he taught about physics and logic,
and his teachings may have been quite orthodox, but not
one person that I know of counts him as a Stoic _on those
grounds_. Aurelias says little about physics or logic,
but seems to count as a Stoic.
*****

> 2. If you reject the ethics and logic, and are only interested in the

> physics, are you still a Stoic?

> 3. If you reject the ethics and physics and are only interested in the

> logic, are you still a Stoic?

*****
"No", and "No". People today adopt a huge range of
theories of physics and logic, some of which might
resemble the views of the Stoics in various ways, but
without anything resembling Stoic ethics they aren't Stoics.
*****

> The underlying question is it is essential, as Zeno, Chrysippus, et al
> claimed, to have all elements of the philosophy due to their tight
> interdependence? Must we refute their claim, and if so, on what grounds?

*****
On the grounds that we see clear examples of people
who have adopted distinctively Stoic positions in ethics
who everyone agrees are Stoics who reject all or most
Stoic physics and logic.
*****

>
> I have been diving deeply into the Stoic physics and as you engage in the
> discourse it seems that indeed you cannot really grasp it without reference
> to both their logic and ethics. This interdependence between the fields of
> philosophy seems to be an essential feature of their physics, logic and
> ethics. For example, Sambursky in 'The Physics of the Stoics' does a very
> good job showing that the ethical argument that distinguishes between that
> which is in our power and that which is not is can be directly derived from
> the determinism and causal theory of their physics. By the same causal
> theory the reason for asserting that virtue or character is the only thing
> we can make a ruling on, and therefore the only way we can influence the
> direction of our fate towards eudaimonia is given. There are many similar
> examples where the logic is in it's form different to modern propositional
> logic in support of the physical and ethical theories.

*****
I categorically reject the determinism and causal
theory of the ancient Stoics, and yet I have totally
independent reasons for accepting their notions of control
and of virtue. I accept their theory of the emotions
for strictly introspective/empirical reasons--it
accounts perfectly for all my actual experiences or
emotion. Etc.
*****

> This interdependence between the fields is itself a feature of Stoic
> physics, specifically their theory of causality again. It is an example of
> mutual causality:
>

> *But it is of interest to notice another analogy mentioned by Clemens of

> Alexandria, who tells of the distinction made in Stoic terminology between
> the asymmetrical cause-effect relation and the symmetrical relation of
> mutual cause and interaction. Among the examples quoted are the virtues
> ("the virtues are each other's mutual cause in such a way that they cannot
> be separated because of their interdependence") together with "the stones of
> a vault which are each other's cause for remaining in place." Here we have
> the picture of an interaction of localized units of a class where the
> removal of one unit leads to the breaking up of the whole system held
> together by the laws of statics. It is very suggestive to compare these two
> equivalent pictures of reciprocal causality, one based on the
> interpenetration of pneuma tensions and the other on the equilibrium of

> forces acting between adjacent bodies.*

> S. Sambursky, "The Physics of the Stoics", pp. 81-2.

*****
All this seems to me to say is that they drew an
interesting illustrative analogy between the unity of
the virtues and a certain kind of physical relationship.
{Jan will tell us that his favorite philosophers believe
that such metaphorical connectiomns are pervasive in
all of philosophy, and I'll say "so what?" :) }
Aristotle believed in the unity of the virtues, and
so do I (in some form or other) despite the fact that
neither of us believes in pneuma.
*****

> This idea of interdependence and mutual causality (which has interesting
> parallels in Buddhist Abhidhamma - reciprocal cause), implies that if you
> remove any of the fields of Stoicism, then the whole cannot stand. If we
> reject this interdependence of the disciplines in order to reject the
> physics and logic in favor of the ethics - then a new account that justifies
> the ethics must be devised. I suspect right now that the justification for
> many of us may simply be that the stoic theory is less noxious than the
> alternatives, or some other fallacious justification that appeals to
> consequences.

*****
I see no logical argument here that these beliefs
must be interconnected. If you only mean that people
should not hold philosophical views that contradict
their views in other fields, then I completely agree--
but there's nothing particularly Stoic about the idea
that our set of beliefs shouldn't be self-contradictory.
I'm a metaphysical dualist, a libertarian about free will,
and I believe almost all the essential ethical doctrines
that, say, Epictetus believed. I think that anyone who
read my philosophical views (without knowing that I
called myself a Stoic or subscribed to this List) would
call my views "Stoic" once they read the ethics--and that,
to me, is conclusive. "Stoic" is a word we use to
communicate--and in the philosophical community the
word is used to denote people who subscribe to a certain
set of ethical doctrines, regardless of their logical
or physical views (or their religious views, etc.).
*****

> I think if we want to find the essence of Stoicism this interdependence
> would seem to be a fundamental feature, at least according to the ancients.

*****
Again, if you cvonsider Epictetus we find him
taking great pains from the outset to teach his
students certain ethical doctrines...and he almost
never mentions anything at all about "interdependence".
He, at least, does not seem to have regarded this
idea as essential or indeed as important at all.
*****

> They may have been wrong, but the burden of proving them wrong would be on
> anyone who would remove elements from Stoicism and claim to be Stoic. In
> claiming a philosophical tradition it is not enough to simply pick what you
> like and ignore the rest, you also have to develop a discourse that
> justifies your identity with the tradition. The historical parallel is the
> Neoplatonists, who claimed to be continuing the Platonic tradition, despite
> the fact there was no unbroken line of succession from the Platonic academy.
> It should be noted the Neoplatonists claimed to be Platonists without
> qualification. It was later commentators who added the qualification of
> 'Neo', presumably because the Neoplatonists failed to give an adequate
> account of their claim to the Platonic succession. Are you a Stoic or a
> Neostoic?

*****

[At this point Grant's email was sent prematurely, so I'm adding, here, the text from Grant's correcting email which followed.]

I'm not sure what you mean by "failed to give an

adequate account of their claim to the Platonic

succession". If you mean that later scholars came
to believe that the content of their views was at odds
with central features of Plato's own view, then you're
right--compare, if you will the much later group called
the "Cambridge Platonists", who were much farther
removed from Plato in time and space and milieu,
but who defended some essentially Platonic doctrines
to such a degree that they were not called "Neo-"
or "quasi-" Platonists.
*****

> I think we have a serious philosophical challenge here. It is not so serious
> if we simply want to take Stoic ethical conclusions and accept them as
> articles of faith, but that would mean that modern Stoicism is no longer in
> the philosophical tradition but is rather a creed.

*****
Quite true--but I see very few instances on
this List where people accept fundamental
doctrines of Stoicism "on faith".
*****

>
> --
> Nyk Cowham
> Cowham Consulting
> [ ... ]

Regards,
Grant

"Why seek ye the living among the dead?"