The vital heart of Stoic doctrine

 

Stoicism says that the common-sense view of emotions is completely and totally wrong.

The following is Grant Sterling's message to the International Stoic Forum in answer to Anna Kinesman.

On 9/18/15 8:42 AM, Anna Kinesman [ ... ] [stoics] wrote:
>
>
> Dear Grant,
>
> Before I went away we were discussing my view that Stoicism is common
> sense and simple.
>
> Looking at Nigel’s response to your posts, he seems to have dealt with

> most of your objections.However when it comes to you saying that <<< The


> Stoics explicitly reject the common sense view of the emotions >>> -
> perhaps if you were to read a piece by John Sellars (Research Fellow at
> King's College London) which you can find at
>
> http://misc-stoica.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/stoicism-and-emotion.htmlyou
> will see what I was trying to explain.
>
> He offers what I find to be a very good common sense approach to the
> various types of emotions and the Stoic attitude to them.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Anna

I have been extremely busy with matters of university
governance, so I haven't had a chance to respond to the contributions
on this thread (and related threads, such as the one on Epictetus'
ethics). I have a little time now, but only for one post, so
I'll try to tackle some broad issues that will apply to many
different discussions.

I have read the linked article. I find, in general, that
he has accurately stated Stoic doctrine but drawn the wrong
conclusions. I won't follow step-by-step through the article, but
I will highlight a few points.

1) On the word "emotion". I quite agree with the author that the
Stoic technical term "pathos" doesn't perfectly match up with the
ordinary-language English word "emotion", because like most ordinary-
language words "emotion" is not used with anything like a consistent and
rigorous definition, and so sometime it is used for things the Stoics
wouldn't have called "pathe".
However, I think we can easily go on talking about "emotions"
(as I have done), for two reasons:
a) If you try to converse with people about Stoicism outside
a fairly technical setting, then insisting on using ancient Greek
terms will end the conversation with no information being passed.
As a professional philosopher, I am quite comfortable with having
conversations that rely on technical terms from other languages, but
on this list I usually use English except when narrowly technical points
are being discussed (or occasionally when I think no English word is
even close to the meaning I want). Since this thread was about, in
part, discussing Stoicism with non-philosophers, I don't think we should
"go Greek".
b) "Emotion" is much closer to "pathos" than any other English
word, including "passion". ("Passion" is now used almost exclusively
for intense desires, especially sexual ones. Just as "emotion" is
sometimes used too broadly in comparison to "pathos", "passion is
typically used far too narrowly.)

Whatever the version of the OED that Sellars has may say
(my OED defines it much differently), ordinary English speakers
_almost never, in fact, use the word "emotion" for just any mental
feeling whatsoever_. Try this test: find 10 people at random, and
ask them to write down the first three types of emotion that enter their
heads. I am willing to bet that almost all 30 of the words they
write down would qualify as Stoic "pathe": fear, grief, anger, love,
hate, etc. While someone might in theory use the word "emotion" to
describe "the joy experienced by a virtuous person when they perceive
that an act of virtue has been performed", no-one in fact thinks of
this sort of thing when they think of "emotions". The physical pleasure
of eating a good meal could conceivably be called an "emotion", but
few people think of that when the word "emotion" is used. Instantaneous
shock might be called an emotion, but it's not one that anyone thinks
of.
So, in fact, when you tell someone "the Stoics called for the
elimination of all emotions" most English speakers will think that
you mean that the Stoics called for the elimination of love (as a
passionate feeling), hate, anger, fear, grief, etc. And since that
is exactly what the Stoics called for, your statement will convey
accurate information. If the conversation continues and you need to
make explicit that things like virtuous joy and physical or aesthetic
pleasures don't count as "emotions" you can easily do so. But you
will have brought the other person far closer to the truth than if
you try to say something like "the Stoics want to eliminate excessive
emotions" (which they will interpret as "go ahead and fear anger,
fear, grief, etc., just not too strongly" which is totally and
completely off the mark) or "the Stoics want to eliminate negative
emotions" (which they will understand as allowing passionate love
and desires) or any similar formulation.

2) On "care" (or "love"). It's true that the Stoics think that
a kind of concern for the well-being of oneself and others is
appropriate, and that indeed it should be extended and not
eliminated. But to call it "care" is even more misleading than to
call pathe "emotions". According to the Stoics, I should have concern
for my wife, but if she dies tomorrow I should feel NO grief. (I
might be stunned for an instant if she were to die unexpectedly or
suddenly, but no more than that.) This completely rational and logical
attempt to make someone's life better is nothing at all like what
English-speakers usually call "care" or "love". If I am diagnosed with
possible cancer I should feel NO fear. If my child is murdered I
should feel NO anger. Etc. This sort of Stoic care or love is not, in
fact, any reason to say that the Stoics don't call for the elimination
of all emotion.

3) The vital heart ⁶of Stoic doctrine...
The Stoics believe that only things directly related to virtue
(beliefs, desires, will) are in our control.
They believe that only virtue is good and only vice is evil.
They believe that all things not in our control ("externals")
are neither good nor evil.
They believe that desires are caused by beliefs about good
and evil.
Hence, the good Stoic will have no desires whatsoever regarding
external things.
They believe that our feelings of love, hate, fear, grief, anger,
frustration, disappointment, etc., are all caused by beliefs
that external things are good or evil.
Hence, the good Stoic will never experience any of those
feelings, even in the slightest degree.
Of course, we haven't been brought up as Stoics. So they
believe that we have a lifetime of habits built around believing that
externals are good or evil. This means that we are liable to make
_false_ judgments, and hence feel those feelings to some degree.
Some Stoic teachings are designed to helping us deal with those
mistakes when they occur--but this doesn't mean that these mistakes
are somehow acceptable or appropriate.
{Ordinary people believe that every single one of those
basic principles is false.}

The ordinary, common-sense view of emotions is that emotions
are a natural response to situations of a certain sort. (Natural
both in the sense of 'arising from our nature and hence not in
our control' and in the sense of 'appropriate and acceptable'.)
Emotions shouldn't get "out of hand", in the sense of leading us
to do obviously self-destructive things or preventing us from
leading normal lives, but less violent emotions are just fine.
If my wife dies I _should_ be overcome for a while by grief (if
not, then I didn't really love her and I am therefore to be
condemned). Although I should gradually recover from this grief
over a period of days, painful memories of loss may be expected to
persist for the rest of my life. If my cat dies I should feel
grief of a lesser degree, and should recover more quickly and
completely.
If my child is murdered or raped I should feel intense
and lasting anger. Not anger so violent as to lead me to run
across the courtroom and try to strangle the accused attacker,
although I probably wouldn't be condemned if I did so. As with
the grief, the anger should dissipate somewhat as time goes by,
although if I ever completely forgive the attacker that will be
an act of saintliness, which would not be normal or expected.
If someone insults me at work I should feel anger of a lesser
degree.
If I am diagnosed with cancer, I should feel fear.
That fear may well be severe enough to interfere with my normal
life for some time, although not so severe as to completely
debilitate me. If I might lose my job, I should feel fear to a
lesser degree.

That's the common-sense view of emotions. That's
the view of emotions that every single person that I know
of who hasn't studied Stoicism holds. Stoicism says that this
view is completely and totally wrong. Emotions (as here
understood) are not "natural", they result from our beliefs, and
our beliefs are in our control. (They may be _habitual_, but
that's completely different.) And the appropriate level of grief,
anger, and fear to feel is...zero.

So I stand by my claims. Stoicism calls for the elimination
of all the things that people ordinarily think of when they think of
"emotions". Stoicism completely rejects the ordinary view of emotions.
Stoicism is utterly radical.

Regards,
Grant