Stoicism is the Theory that: ...

 

This is a message that Grant C. Sterling sent to the International Stoic Forum in response to Anna and Nigel.

"As I said before, this might have been a more

productive conversation if you and Nigel had simply

presented your position as "modern science proves Stoicism

to be false, but here's a view that shares some of the

ideas of the Stoics in a modern setting". But you persist

in asserting that your views are "Stoicism".


    "Stoicism" is the theory that:

a) Emotions are caused by value beliefs (beliefs about

what things are good or evil).

b) I am my soul/prohairesis/inner self.

c) Everything else, including my body, is an external.

d) No externals are ever good or evil.

e) All beliefs that externals have value are, hence,

false.

f) All feelings that result from false value beliefs

are, therefore, pathological and should be eliminated.

This includes all fear, grief, and anger, as well as

mental "pleasure", passionate love, etc. We eliminate

them by changing the false value belief that generated

the emotion.

g) Any feelings that arise from true value beliefs are

not pathological. The primary example of this is "Joy".

h) Some feelings do not arise from a cognitive source,

and hence are by definition indifferent externals.

This includes 'startlement', physical pleasures and

pains, and a few other things.

i) The goal of life is eudaimonia.

j) Eudaimonia includes both living a virtuous life and

living a life of positive feelings.

k) Living a virtuous life is necessary for eudaimonia

[because it is part of the very definition of eudaimonia],

and is also sufficient for eudaimonia [because the virtuous

person will experience Joy, a positive feeling, and no

negative feelings whatsoever].


    That's the theory people mean when they call

someone a "Stoic". It's not a complete list of everything

the ancient Stoics believed (and the ancie

nt Stoics

were not unanimous in what they believed--for example,

I don't think there's convincing reason to believe that

they were all pantheists, Epictetus shows no sign of

being a determinist, etc.). Those are the ideas that

people even in ancient times regarded as really distinctive

of Stoicism. [The skeptics excepted--they thought that

the concept of cataleptic impressions was the truly

distinctive doctrine, but that may be because they

were almost exclusively interested in epistemology.]

As I said before, if you were only trying to

argue that modern science tells us that there are

a few more feelings in category 'h' than the ancient

Stoics recognized, that would clearly still be Stoicism

and, I think, would be well-justified. If you want

to argue that PTSD is a feeling not caused by a value

judgment, I'll cede the field to you, because I know

little about it. The same is true of clinical depression,

or phobias. But none of those are significant changes

because all of those are _bad things_ that we should

try to get rid of, and none of those require any changes

in any of the other core doctrines.


    But that isn't what you're saying. Either you

or Nigel have at times denied 'a' by holding that normal

emotions like anger and grief do not arise from value

beliefs; 'b', by denying that my mind/soul/etc. is

fundamentally separate from my body; 'c', by asserting

that my family is in some sense part of me; 'd-f',

by claiming that feelings of grief and anger and

other painful feelings are sometimes appropriate and

should not be removed; 'g', by denying that 'Joy'

should be regarded as always appropriate; 'i-j', by

denying that feelings of any kind are the goal of life,

and 'k', by asserting that even the virtuous person will

feel negative feelings.


    Your view is not Stoicism. It is not even

close to Stoicism. And if I were to introduce a

similar definition of Aristotelianism (with doctrines

like 'moderation in everything'), your views would

fit perfectly.

***


> Yours sincerely,

>

> Anna


    Adieu,

        Grant