The word "Stoic" now designates an ethical/psychological theory

The following 7/24/2017 message of Grant Sterling to the International Stoic Forum was addressed to Chris Fisher.

Chris:

Thanks for your thoughtful letter. Unfortunately,
like Nigel, I think you have misunderstand a key issue.
The scholars you cite are not, generally speaking,
discussing the issue of what is essential to Stoicism,
understood as a general philosophical school. They are
attempting to explain the doctrines of the historical school
of Stoicism which existed among the ancient Greeks and
Romans. No-one that I know of has denied that the ancient
Stoics were theists. No-one that I know of has denied that
they connected their theological principles to their other
principles (Ethics and Logic, as they called them). I
don't doubt that if you had asked them, they would have
said that their theology was "essential" to their ideas.
(Just as they would have said that their doctrine of
kataleptic impressions was essential.) All of this is
true, well-documented (as you have pointed out), and
irrelevant.
The question that some of us have been discussing
on this List is quite different. We are asking "if I
am looking at a philosophical theory of someone writing
at any point in history (today, 200 years ago, 2000 years
ago), what are the doctrines that would be most critical
in deciding whether to call that theory a "Stoic" theory
or not? And that issue has been decided by philosophers
just as decisively as the historical issue. Because if
you were to compile all the references to Stoicism in the last
two millenia of the form "X was heavily influenced by the Stoics", "I
reject the doctrine of the Stoics on this issue. They held....",
"I take from the Stoics the idea that...", "I here develop
a new Stoicism", etc., etc., etc. you will find that virtually
none of those references have anything to do with Physics
(/theology) or Logic (/epistemology). Nearly 100% of those
references are to ethical and/or psychological doctrines--
the cognitive theory of emotions, the denial of value to
externals, the elimination of emotions, etc.
This is not an historical accident. The fact is
that after the debates between the Stoics and the Skeptics
regarding the existence of kataleptic impressions, the
issue disappeared from philosophical discussion. Skepticism
fizzled, and was not seriously revived for centuries, and
when it was, the epistemological ground had shifted and
the notion of "impressions" had been revised so radically
that no-one would talk any more about them being a source
of certainty.
And the fact is that _even during the time of the
ancient Stoics themselves_ the theological ground was
shifting. Epictetus (at least in the surviving written
works) holds on only to a generic Providentialism. That
theological doctrine was still tied to his ethical principles
quite strongly, but it is no longer identifiable as a
distinctive doctrine. Almost everything that Epictetus
says about the gods could be readily and easily affirmed by
a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. (apart from the use of the plural
form--and even in that Epictetus is not consistent). So
even by Epictetus' time a distinctively "Stoic" theology
was disappearing--and, as far as mainstream philosophy is
concerned, it never reappeared. The vast majority of philosophers
today are monotheists or atheists--but even among the pantheists,
panentheists and polytheists, the fragmented writings of the
ancient Stoics are not widely discussed.
But the Ethics...that's a different story. Stoic
ethics is distinct--no other philosophical movement in history
advocated the complete severance of value from the external
world while still preserving the idea that ethical truths
existed and were objective facts. And not only was this idea both
revolutionary and unique to the Stoics, it is continually revived
throughout the history of philosophy. While it has never again
attained the popularity that it achieved during the Roman era,
there have been philosophers ever since who have been influenced
by Stoic Ethical ideas.
So, to be blunt, Stoic Logic is effectively dead. The
few philosophers who defend views very similar to those of
the Stoics (I am one) virtually never discovered those views
first in Stoic writings, virtually never present them in
discussion using Stoic terminology or by citing Stoic authors,
and in most cases have no idea that their views are similar to
those of the Stoics. I know of eminent, leading epistemologists
who know [nothing] at all about Stoic "Logic".
Stoic pan(en)theistic theology is effectively dead. The
few philosophers who defend views very similar to those of
the Stoics (I am not one) virtually never discovered those views
first in Stoic writings, virtually never present them in
discussion using Stoic terminology or by citing Stoic authors,
and in most cases have no idea that their views are similar to
those of the Stoics. I know of eminent, leading theologians
who know [nothing] at all about Stoic "Physics". (Providentialism,
on the other hand, is alive and well but has become entirely
divorced from Stoicism--_Stoic_ Providentialism is dead.)
But Stoic Ethics is alive. The philosophers who defend
views very similar to those of the Stoics (I am one) often
discovered those views first in Stoic writings, frequently present
them in discussion using Stoic terminology or by citing Stoic authors,
and in almost all cases are fully aware that their views are similar to
those of the Stoics. I know of not one eminent, leading ethicist
who knows [nothing] at all about Stoic "Ethics"--indeed, I know very
few epistemologists or theologians who know nothing about Stoic
Ethics!

So the fact is, if you go to a philosophy conference and
tell people "I'm a Stoic" or "My views are heavily influenced by
Stoicism", etc., they will immediately assume that you mean
that you hold that externals are neither good nor evil, virtue
is the only good, emotions are caused by false value judgments,
etc. They will not assume that you are a theist, much less
assume that you are a pantheist. They will not assume that you
believe in kataleptic impressions. They may very well not know
that the ancient Stoics believed in such things. They'll assume
that you're talking about Ethics.

To put this another way:
1) Historically speaking, Stoic influence on epistemology
and theology in the last 2,000 years has been almost non-existent.
But Stoic Ethics has been very influential (even though only a
small minority of ethicists are Stoics).
2) Philosophically speaking, Stoic pantheism has not
stood out from other pantheisms as a substantially different
doctrine, nor has Stoic Providentialism stood out from other
providentialisms (or Stoic dogmatist epistemology from other
dogmatisms). But Stoic Ethics remains unique. And (Long's
"broken-backed" comment aside) no-one has shown any reason why
one would have to be a Theist (much less a pantheist) in order
to defend those doctrines.

Hence--I agree that the ancient Stoics thought that
all three areas of thought were important. If you are a
traditional Stoic in all three areas, that's fine with me.
(I wonder how you resolve some of the tensions that arise
from trying to be a pantheist and a Stoic in ethics at the
same time, but that's a discussion for another day.) I agree
that fully traditional Stoicism is a viable philosophical
theory. I'm certainly not trying to argue that you aren't
a Stoic. (Nigel's not a Stoic--he's an Aristotelian. But
you may be a fully traditional Stoic for all I know.) But
the word "Stoic" now designates an ethical/psychological
theory.

(The Greek Stoics would probably reject Steve
from their camp (he is at the very least heavily skeptical
of the notion of kataleptic impressions). They would
reject me (I'm not a materialist or a pantheist). They
would reject Nigel (he thinks that it is sometimes appropriate
to feel anger, grief, etc.). That's an interesting historical
fact, but irrelevant to the question of what is essential to
Stoicism as a perennial theory.)

Regards,
Grant

PS: It's very much like the term "Marxist". If someone
at a philosophy conference sits next to me at lunch and
tells me that she is a Marxist, I will immediately (and
reasonably) assume that she holds all or most of the
distinctive _economic_ principles that Marx held--the
labor theory of value, the theory that personality is
shaped by the economic system of one's society, etc. I
will not assume that she is an atheist or holds Marx's views
about the Jews, etc.
Marx was an atheist, and he thought that atheism was
critically connected to his economic theories. But
others have shown, since then, that one can easily hold
distinctively Marxist economic views without being atheists.
Marx had distinctive views about the Jews (I will not enter
into the debate about whether those views constitute anti-Semitism),
and connected those views to his economic theories, but people
with different views of the Jews (harsher or milder) have
embraced his economic theories. What stands out about Marx
is his economic theory--and today the word "Marxist" denotes
that, and only that.