"Someone who knows everything about Stoic theory, but does not practice it at all, gets nowhere"

 

Grant C. Sterling responds to Theo:

On 1/14/2011 4:53 AM, TheophileEscargot wrote:
>
> Someone who knows everything about stoic theory, but does not practice
> it at all, gets nowhere.

*****
        I completely agree.  Like Aristotle, the Stoics hold
that the point of learning Ethics is to help you _be_ a virtuous
person.  If you know what to do but don't do it, then the
effort is wasted.
*****



> However, I think someone who knows nothing at all about stoic theory,
> but attempts to live virtuously according to another reasonable system,
> will get nearly as far towards eudaimonia. This is true whether he's
> following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, attempting to maximize overall
> human happiness in accordance with Utilitarianism, or following the
> teachings of Christianity.

*****
        And here's the crux of the matter.  I _do_ think
that this conversation is relevant to any attempt to make
a "Modern Stoicism".
        The Stoics believe that virtue is necessary and
sufficient for eudaimonia.  They also believe that virtue
consists in Reason, and that emotions arise from false
value beliefs.  Therefore, in order to have virtue one
must have rational beliefs, having rational beliefs requires
eliminating beliefs that can be shown to be false, and
many of our ordinary value beliefs are false--in particular,
all beliefs that give value to externals are false.
        So Stoic "Practice" _IS_ to adopt a set of beliefs
o[r] attitudes about the world.  Stoic practice is not a matter
of external rituals, breathing exercises, meditation, journal
writing, eating low-fat foods, giving to charity, or anything
else--it is a purely internal matter of coming to view the
world in a different way and willing (acts of will are internal)
the correct actions on that basis.  So you will find no passages
on which Stoic authors warn you not to put too much emphasis on
Stoic practice as opposed to Stoic theory, because Stoic practice
is impossible without Stoic theory.
        Now before you say that I have gone too far, let me
make it clear that lots of people accept parts of Stoic theory
without ever having heard of Stoicism.  I was talking to a student
the other day, who was discussing a problem he'd had, and he
said "I've learned that I can't change it so I might as well
just accept it and do the best I can".  That's a very Stoic
attitude--but I am certain that this student has never heard of
Stoicism, never read Epictetus, etc.  Everyone, in fact, has the
correct Stoic attitude about some (indeed _most_) externals,
and so everyone will engage in some appropriate actions and
will avoid some passions.
        And, indeed, I agree with you that one might identify
oneself as a Buddhist or a Christian or even (perhaps) a
Utilitarian and make progress.  But that's only because those
theories _overlap with Stoicism_ to some degree.  The Christian
"Serenity Prayer" is quite Stoic--a Christian who resolved to
work harder at following the precepts of the S.P. would indeed
make progress towards eudaimonia without studying Stoic theory...
or indeed even if that person rejected Stoicism as a pagan relic.

        But here's the key issue.  On the Stoic view, such progress
can only exist to the extent that those other theories happen to
correspond to Stoic theory.  That may be a fairly long way, and
indeed in some cases the other theory will be much closer to
the Stoic goal than the ordinary values of everyday life, and
so a devoted follower would make substantial progress.  But it only
takes you so far, and in some cases it may actually take you
_farther from_ your goal.  It's like two people in Indianapolis
who want to drive to watch the Washington (D.C.) Nationals play the
Philadelphia Phillies--only one thinks the game is being played
in Washington and one knows that it's in fact being played in
Philly.  They may both travel along the same highway for a good
part of the way, and when the first person discovers that he was
mistaken he'll be much closer to his goal than he was when
he started in Indy--but the second person is the only one who
will actually have a chance of reaching the goal, and will
get closer faster and with less wasted or counter-productive
effort.  {Of course, in the case of virtue any progress is better
than none at all, so this isn't a perfect analogy.}

        Put it another way--Buddhism, Stoicism, Aristotelianism,
Utilitarianism, Christianity, etc. have _different conceptions of
Virtue and of eudaimonia_.  So following the Utilitarian conception
of Virtue _might_ bring you closer to eudaimonia than the person
who doesn't seek any kind of virtue or moral action at all, but
it might not get you very close, and certainly not nearly _as_
close as if you understood and accepted Stoicism.  {Of course
the Utilitarian will say that the Stoic view of virtue is wrong...
but I'm a Stoic, not a Utilitarian.}

        So I don't think it makes sense, ultimately, to ask
"which is more important--Stoic teaching or Stoic practice?"
Genuine Stoic practice means exactly "acting in the right way
for the right reason", and that involves believing the principles
of Stoicism (even if you don't know that they're principles of
Stoicism!)
*****



> We should remember that to live well is to live in accord with Nature,
> which is universal, not restricted to those who know the stoic teachings.

*****
        Not restricted to those who know the Stoic teaching directly,
but restricted to those who believe the things that the Stoics
taught.  If I believe that external things have value, I cannot
and will not act in accordance with Nature.
*****



> So, firstly I think practice is more important than theory in that
> practical attempts to live well are utterly necessary, but stoic theory
> is not.
>
> Secondly, I think that in general, an hour spent practicing asceticism,
> or performing an additional human duty like charitable work, probably
> does more to help you achieve eudaimonia, than an hour spent discussing
> stoic theory.

*****
        I completely disagree.  For example, if I perform
charitable work because I view the person's need as a
genuine evil and I am suffering heart-wrenching distress,
then my charitable work is doing nothing at all to lead me
closer to eudaimonia, and an hour of studying Epictetus
would be far more valuable.  If I am practicing asceticism
because I believe that God will reward my suffering and
self-denial, then I will continue to believe that the externals
I am giving up were really good to have, and I will make no progress
towards eudaimonia.
        If I am doing charitable work because I recognize my
duty to produce preferred indifferents (even if I don't use
the terminology of p.i.), then I'm actually practicing Stoicism.
*****



> However, there is always going to be a subjective element to that. We
> have all read all the major stoic texts. If my impression is that they
> are chiefly practical, and Steve's impression is that theory and
> practice are equally important, we are unlikely to reach any common
> conclusion in a thread like this. Nor are we likely to convince any
> independent observer since we're not citing any specific arguments: all
> he can do is read the texts and make up his own mind. So, I think we
> will probably just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

*****
        Again, I think the problem is what you mean by
"practical".  When Epictetus says that when we hear that
someone has been saying something bad about us behind our
backs we should say "Obviously he doesn't know me very well,
or he would not have mentioned only this fault" (that's
paraphrased) he's giving practical advice.  But, of course,
it's practical advice _based on E's view that insults are
not real harms_.  The person who believes that insults are
real harms will not be able to act as E tells him to act,
or if he does perform the external action it will not actually
be accompanied by the proper internal attitude--in other words,
you cannot practice what E is telling you to practice without
believing the theory E wants you to believe.
*****



> But I think I should point out that this view of stoicism as chiefly
> practical, is not unique to me, nor is it original to me.
>
> For instance, the course notes in the Teaching Company lecture series
> Practical Philosophy: The Greco-Roman Moralists

> <http://www.teach12.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=4473> by


> Professor Luke Timothy Johnson, have these summaries:
>
>     The world of empire was vaster, more complex, and morally much more
>     ambiguous. Philosophy had to shift from theory to therapy. The
>     philosophers of the early empire were concerned with proper
>     thinking, to be sure, but thought was always aimed at proper living.
>     Philosophy became a way of life.

*****
        Johnson is clearly wrong, by the way, at least in the
word "became".  Aristotle and Epicurus, for example, were already
aiming at practical living in their ethical writings.  For example,
A. says (speaking of the youthful person) "Moreover, being disposed
to follow his passions, he will listen in vain and without benefit,
_since the end of such discussions is not knowledge but action_."
(Nic. Eth. I, 1, 1095a4)
*****



> Finally, to sum up, the original post was about creating a Modern
> Stoicism, which may diverge from Ancient Stoicism. So even though I've
> spent a long time defending my view of Ancient Stoicism, I don't think
> it's is truly relevant to the original post. If it comes down to a
> subjective impression of the overall body of texts, we'll just have to
> agree to disagree in the end anyway.

*****
        As I said, I think it _is_ relevant.  If you understand
Stoicism as "pure" practice, that is if you really believe that
we attain eudaimonia by helping the needy regardless of what
we think about the goodness or evil of being in need, etc., then
your view cannot be Stoicism as I read the texts.  Epictetus,
the most intensely "practical" of all the Stoics, constantly
peppers his writings with reminders to use impressions correctly,
not to be carried away, not to be attached to externals, etc.
You are certainly right that Epictetus had no use for theory
(Stoic or otherwise) that the person doesn't put into practice.
But Epictetus would never have accepted the idea that one could
"practice" correctly without believing what the Stoics believed
about value, either.  So nothing could count as Modern _Stoicism_
that doesn't contain recognizable Stoic _principles_.


        Regards,
                Grant, who really has to get back to practicing
my profession now rather than spend all this time discussing theory.