Hi Massimo, thanks for this! I like a lot how you manage to update Stoicism for our changed world view, while keeping the effects on its ethics minimal.
As a side note though, I was surprised to learn about the ancient Stoics’ denial of akrasia. (can you point me to some quote?) I wonder how they would then explain the need for Marcus to write his meditations. Why would he have to admonish himself to get out of bed? Because he “forgot” about virtue? The line between talking to your emotions and overcoming akrasia seems pretty blurry here. Or is it that only sages would be free of akrasia?
Daniel, good question. The apparent contradiction can be resolved in the way you suggest: only the sages truly do not suffer from akrasia. As for specific quotes, I'm not aware of mention of akrasia in the Stoic texts, the term is an Aristotelian one. But they clearly insist on what scholars call "Socratic intellectualism," the notion that people do bad things only out of ignorance.
All of that said, at a recent workshop I organized in Athens both John Sellars and Rob Colter suggested that there is less difference, in this respect, between Aristotle and the Stoics than some people think. We in fact do only what we think is good for us, but our ignorance makes us discount future benefits (or negativities) in favor of current ones. I think there is even a specific quote by Socrates where he says that, though I don't have it handy.
Thanks for the elaboration, Massimo! Indeed I've read about the idea of "hyperbolic discounting" which is sometimes listed as one of our cognitive biases.
I am wondering whether akrasia would then always have to include some measure of incorrect value judgements, as in "it is good to stay in bed a few more minutes" (not a true Stoic good). In that sense it could be framed as ignorance.
Daniel, right, that would be a good way to reconcile Socratic/Stoic intellectualism about virtue with Aristotle's observation about weakness of the will. The basic Stoic assumption is sound, I think: nobody (except for mentally ill people) wants to do things that go against their own wellbeing. So if they do it, it must be because their judgment about such things is mistaken.
Looks like a great blueprint for a New Stoicism. Ticks all the boxes for me. Looking forward to your further thoughts on Stoicism as applied to the environment and non humans who share our special planet with us.
A very clear conceptual map. I do agree that we have to disregard the notion that the universe itself is a sentient organism. And that it operates on cause and effect only. Some causes and effects are seemingly random and have been attributed to gods and divine providence, adequate study and scientific reflection show a rational course of causes and effects. Even miracles (things that are apparently outside the realm of natural laws and observations) have to have a cause.
However, until physics can adequately explain the "Uncaused First Cause" of Greek philosophy that set it all in motion (I.E. "the Big Bang"), I am not ready to discard the possibility that there is a supreme intelligence behind it all.
You did concede that the fine tuning of the universe to support life is a "Problem".
Jim, fine tuning is a problem in the same sense in which gravity was a problem before Newton. Or biological diversity before Darwin. Invoking god didn't help then and it won't help now, for the simple reason that "god did it" is not an explanation. It's a fancy and unnecessary label for something we (currently) don't understand.
Let's say there really was an intelligence behind the Big Bang. Then the obvious question is: what was behind that intelligence? If you say another intelligence, we are going off into an infinite regress. If you say nothing, then why not reply in the same way as far as the Big Bang is concerned?
Thank you Massimo for your clear arguments showing how the three fields of study: physics, logic and ethics can be updated to achieve a modern Stoicism which honours the original, especially because it has inspired humans for two and a half millennia. May Seneca’s immortal words continue to provide you with inspiration. Who knows, they may also have inspired Newton to say: “If I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." We all need guides and role models to invigorate our practice of applying philosophy to everyday life.
I appreciated your thoughts about human exceptionalism providing a rationale for reducing the suffering of animals and being stewards of the environment precisely because we are the only animals that can reflect on the consequences of our actions. I look forward to how you’ll expand on this. I also found the table at the end of your article a valuable summary for your suggested updates.
Im trying to say that I think having it somehow takes away from self reliance all in effort to try reason more about the importance of proper use and achieving of non preferred indifference such as social status.
I feel pretty lucky, really I cant complain Im confident in some ‘innate’ ability and my circumstances have allowed me to live a fairly fruitful life so far. Been taught, as most I think, to always TRY to treat others as you expect to be treated, what goes around comes around - pretty well that somehow good behaviour is noticed by at least something and a possibility of rewards will follow.
So if above is valid, in a way what I trying to say, then there is alot of background conditioning that lead to patter creation to maximize rewards. Then when experiencing some initial benefit from this idea, function of providence appears more true and benefits which can be retained, to me, seem only have the ability to reinforce the validity for established patterns in judgment.
So what works for me is that when something unexpectedly pleasant happens, thank ‘god’ is often the thought, and in difficultly maintain goodwill with it so grace will follow. This perceived benefit of consideration is less religious as I experience more, but this patter of judgment is hard to get away from.
Maks, providence does not oppose self reliance. The Stoics said that it may be "fated" that you get well and recover from an illness, but in order to get well you still have to go to the doctor and take your medicines. That is, fate is not a substitute for your own decisions and actions.
I get thanking "god" when something pleasant happens. But do you also blame god when something unpleasant happens? If not, why not?
I see, it looks like my previous attempt at describing my thought process was pragmatic without thinking it through.
So yes I do happen to blame ‘god’ initially, but there is a point of realization that my feeling of helplessness isn’t real. Now I think that maybe that what I am after is to learn how to shorten the time between blame and realization. Thank you
Hello Massimo, if you so fancy could you do more on providence? Somehow it feels like the idea of providence conditions and takes away from self reliance for proper reasoning about interactions of internal and external desires, and besides the habit of the mind to work less through pattern creation it is always less resistant to blame the external. Not sure about the coherence, but having such thoughts on it I am still reluctant to discard the notion.
Maks, let's unpack this a bit. You say you are reluctant to discard the notion of providence. But you also say that it takes away from self reliance, which is not good. So what works does providence do for you, exactly?
Interesting, as always. Just finished listening into the Zoom discussion, 8-10 on 9DEC. Agree it would be nice to have Arrian’s biography on Epictetus; recently re-read his on Alexander, and Cyrus…a real loss not to have it. :) Arrian, and Xenophon are “underrated”, imo.
"The Stoics were determinists, meaning that they believed that everything is the result of cause and effect. They were also naturalists: not supernatural stuff, no miracles. Again, exactly right, on both counts. "
There is a notion in Quantum Mechanics of Quantum Indeterminancy:
"Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics. Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that
(a.) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and
(b) conversely, the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable."
If the universe is inherently random when it comes to quantum processes, then this complicates a simple, straight-forward deterministic cause-and-effect. Now, the Stoic physics (both ancient and modern) may just be saying that there are no supernatural causes at work but there could be a stochastic component to this determinism: the cause "probably" results in effect A or it could be effect B. Or, you could go the route that Bohm did which put all of the "randomness" into the initial state of the universe and the indeterminancy we observe is mostly due to ignorance of the initial conditions.
So, in light of Quantum Mechanics, how do you define "determinism" and "cause-and-effect"?
Antony, good question, but I don't think quantum indeterminacy matters for the sort of things we are interested in, that is, decision making about medium-level objects and phenomena.
No matter which interpretation of QM you pick, things are not indeterminate for objects like human beings, balls, airplanes, and so forth. They follow straightforward cause-effect.
Moreover, it is my understanding that physicists themselves have not really decided which interpretation of QM they favor, with diverging opinions that cannot be settled by empirical data. They haven't even decided, as you point out, whether quantum indeterminacy is ontological or epistemic.
I would just caution you to keep your options open - don't base things on a hard determinancy. I give two reasons: (1) chaos theory has that lovely image of the butterfly -> hurricane. So this essential randomness may have a significant outcome on the classical level. (2) there are some speculations about consciousness and human cognition such as Penrose
that hypothesize that quantum indeterminancy could play a part in the way we think. Penrose even speculated about how consciousness could arise from quantum effects in "microtubles". Personally, I don't buy into this viewpoint, but it could turn out to be correct after all.
Any conclusions you come to based on your notion of determinancy will have to be qualified. Or invalidated if countervailing evidence comes to light.
Antony, I certainly try to keep an open mind about these things. That said, chaos theory is entirely deterministic. It is true that complex systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions, but given certain conditions the system behaves deterministically. Indeed, chaos theory is a great example of the difference between ontology and epistemology: ontologically speaking, chaotic systems are deterministic; but epistemically they are not predictable.
As for QM and consciousness, I’m very skeptical, as you seem to be, of Penrose. I’m a biologist, and no biologist I know thinks that microtubules have anything to do with consciousness. But we’ll see. Maybe.
Well done. May I make a few (almost trivial) comments
The universe certainly contains consciousness, doesn't it? Or we wouldn't be discussing these things.
Is there a civilisation that has explained itself with propositional logic. Seems to me narrative comes more often (Thanks Plato and Homer)
Determinism confuses me. There seems to be too many variables to ever know what comes next. Every morning I read science fiction. Some call it a weather prediction.
Ron, yes the universe contains consciousness. But that doesn't license the inference that the universe itself is conscious. That's a known fallacy, known as the fallacy of composition: attributing a characteristic to the whole just because it belongs to some of the parts, or vice versa. (For instance, water is wet, but individual molecules of water are not.)
Determinism in this context just means that everything happens by cause and effect. No exceptions. No miracles.
Massimo, you raise the point about our relationship with other living things and the environment at large; should we be considering ourselves as stewards of the environment?
I have recently been mulling over a different approach based on self interest.
There are three three ideas that I am trying to weave together. 1. From an evolutionary perspective the "purpose" of every living things is to live long enough to pass on their genes. 2. the cradle argument and oikeiosis are reasonable descriptions of an individual's development and 3. We are social animals and have responsibilities to others. However, we also have a responsibility to ourselves and if I don't look after myself, then I am not going to be of use to others.
These seem to me to be sound naturalistic arguments for why we should take very good care of the complex ecosystems that support life on earth. Self interest is not selfish or utilitarian, it is common sense!
This is an impressive foundation for modern Stoicism. I think you are entirely correct. My only suggestion for future consideration would be to include a more thorough treatment of Stoic providence, especially the modern take on Fate. Fate is an essential part of Stoic thought, even though it has changed from "that which the gods have given" to "that which happened and now we have to deal with it." "Fate willing" still means something to me and helps me to give up the idea that I can control the outcomes of whatever I may be attempting.
Unfortunately, I think that the word "fate" has too many associations with the idea of destiny. On the other hand we do say things like, "just my luck" and "shit happens" that better capture the idea of randomness. Should we say, "luck permitting" rather than "fate permitting? It doesn't have quite the same clout does it? Or is that a matter of habit?
Patricia, I hear you. I'm not bothered by "fate," despite the connotations you mention. "Luck" seems to imply randomness, which doesn't go well with a deterministic understanding of the universe like the Stoic one. Then again, sometimes I do say to myself "if Fortuna allows." Whatever works!
Doesn't deterministic mean that something happens because it was caused by something. It doesn't mean we can necessarily point to a one to one relationship. I don't understand why an event in the web of cause and effect can't be triggered randomly. The same way we think of gene mutations as being random
Patricia, there are two distinct meaning of "random," which, interestingly, already Seneca distinguished in one of his letters to Lucilius.
Random may mean without any pattern, possibly because the phenomenon is uncaused. Or it may be that there is a pattern, and a cause(s) but we just can't see it (them). The first is ontological determinism, the second one epistemic.
If by "random" we mean that there are causes but we may not be able to figure them out, then yes, things can happen randomly. Mutations are like that: they are caused by a number of phenomena, but we cannot predict when a particular mutation will occur. Quantum phenomena may be of the ontologically random type, which is why there is not much use for causal talk in quantum mechanics.
Absolutely. I use the phrase "fate permitting" all the time. But I interpret that as "given the structure of the cosmic web of cause-effect," with obviously no providential undertones.
Same, but it helps to say it like that. The alternative for the modern Stoic is to follow William Irvine's process of attributing challenges to the will of deliberately imagined Stoic gods. A useful allegory, but weaker than the alternative.
Hi Massimo, thanks for this! I like a lot how you manage to update Stoicism for our changed world view, while keeping the effects on its ethics minimal.
As a side note though, I was surprised to learn about the ancient Stoics’ denial of akrasia. (can you point me to some quote?) I wonder how they would then explain the need for Marcus to write his meditations. Why would he have to admonish himself to get out of bed? Because he “forgot” about virtue? The line between talking to your emotions and overcoming akrasia seems pretty blurry here. Or is it that only sages would be free of akrasia?
Daniel, good question. The apparent contradiction can be resolved in the way you suggest: only the sages truly do not suffer from akrasia. As for specific quotes, I'm not aware of mention of akrasia in the Stoic texts, the term is an Aristotelian one. But they clearly insist on what scholars call "Socratic intellectualism," the notion that people do bad things only out of ignorance.
All of that said, at a recent workshop I organized in Athens both John Sellars and Rob Colter suggested that there is less difference, in this respect, between Aristotle and the Stoics than some people think. We in fact do only what we think is good for us, but our ignorance makes us discount future benefits (or negativities) in favor of current ones. I think there is even a specific quote by Socrates where he says that, though I don't have it handy.
Thanks for the elaboration, Massimo! Indeed I've read about the idea of "hyperbolic discounting" which is sometimes listed as one of our cognitive biases.
I am wondering whether akrasia would then always have to include some measure of incorrect value judgements, as in "it is good to stay in bed a few more minutes" (not a true Stoic good). In that sense it could be framed as ignorance.
Daniel, right, that would be a good way to reconcile Socratic/Stoic intellectualism about virtue with Aristotle's observation about weakness of the will. The basic Stoic assumption is sound, I think: nobody (except for mentally ill people) wants to do things that go against their own wellbeing. So if they do it, it must be because their judgment about such things is mistaken.
An updated Stoicism for the 21st century and beyond. Very convincing. Excellent. What more can I say?
I don't know, you tell me... 😃
Looks like a great blueprint for a New Stoicism. Ticks all the boxes for me. Looking forward to your further thoughts on Stoicism as applied to the environment and non humans who share our special planet with us.
Merry Xmas to you and best wishes for 2024.
Happy holidays to you as well!
Massimo,
A very clear conceptual map. I do agree that we have to disregard the notion that the universe itself is a sentient organism. And that it operates on cause and effect only. Some causes and effects are seemingly random and have been attributed to gods and divine providence, adequate study and scientific reflection show a rational course of causes and effects. Even miracles (things that are apparently outside the realm of natural laws and observations) have to have a cause.
However, until physics can adequately explain the "Uncaused First Cause" of Greek philosophy that set it all in motion (I.E. "the Big Bang"), I am not ready to discard the possibility that there is a supreme intelligence behind it all.
You did concede that the fine tuning of the universe to support life is a "Problem".
Jim, fine tuning is a problem in the same sense in which gravity was a problem before Newton. Or biological diversity before Darwin. Invoking god didn't help then and it won't help now, for the simple reason that "god did it" is not an explanation. It's a fancy and unnecessary label for something we (currently) don't understand.
Let's say there really was an intelligence behind the Big Bang. Then the obvious question is: what was behind that intelligence? If you say another intelligence, we are going off into an infinite regress. If you say nothing, then why not reply in the same way as far as the Big Bang is concerned?
Thank you Massimo for your clear arguments showing how the three fields of study: physics, logic and ethics can be updated to achieve a modern Stoicism which honours the original, especially because it has inspired humans for two and a half millennia. May Seneca’s immortal words continue to provide you with inspiration. Who knows, they may also have inspired Newton to say: “If I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." We all need guides and role models to invigorate our practice of applying philosophy to everyday life.
I appreciated your thoughts about human exceptionalism providing a rationale for reducing the suffering of animals and being stewards of the environment precisely because we are the only animals that can reflect on the consequences of our actions. I look forward to how you’ll expand on this. I also found the table at the end of your article a valuable summary for your suggested updates.
Im trying to say that I think having it somehow takes away from self reliance all in effort to try reason more about the importance of proper use and achieving of non preferred indifference such as social status.
I feel pretty lucky, really I cant complain Im confident in some ‘innate’ ability and my circumstances have allowed me to live a fairly fruitful life so far. Been taught, as most I think, to always TRY to treat others as you expect to be treated, what goes around comes around - pretty well that somehow good behaviour is noticed by at least something and a possibility of rewards will follow.
So if above is valid, in a way what I trying to say, then there is alot of background conditioning that lead to patter creation to maximize rewards. Then when experiencing some initial benefit from this idea, function of providence appears more true and benefits which can be retained, to me, seem only have the ability to reinforce the validity for established patterns in judgment.
So what works for me is that when something unexpectedly pleasant happens, thank ‘god’ is often the thought, and in difficultly maintain goodwill with it so grace will follow. This perceived benefit of consideration is less religious as I experience more, but this patter of judgment is hard to get away from.
It think right now best I can explain. Thank you
Maks, providence does not oppose self reliance. The Stoics said that it may be "fated" that you get well and recover from an illness, but in order to get well you still have to go to the doctor and take your medicines. That is, fate is not a substitute for your own decisions and actions.
I get thanking "god" when something pleasant happens. But do you also blame god when something unpleasant happens? If not, why not?
I see, it looks like my previous attempt at describing my thought process was pragmatic without thinking it through.
So yes I do happen to blame ‘god’ initially, but there is a point of realization that my feeling of helplessness isn’t real. Now I think that maybe that what I am after is to learn how to shorten the time between blame and realization. Thank you
Hello Massimo, if you so fancy could you do more on providence? Somehow it feels like the idea of providence conditions and takes away from self reliance for proper reasoning about interactions of internal and external desires, and besides the habit of the mind to work less through pattern creation it is always less resistant to blame the external. Not sure about the coherence, but having such thoughts on it I am still reluctant to discard the notion.
Maks, let's unpack this a bit. You say you are reluctant to discard the notion of providence. But you also say that it takes away from self reliance, which is not good. So what works does providence do for you, exactly?
Interesting, as always. Just finished listening into the Zoom discussion, 8-10 on 9DEC. Agree it would be nice to have Arrian’s biography on Epictetus; recently re-read his on Alexander, and Cyrus…a real loss not to have it. :) Arrian, and Xenophon are “underrated”, imo.
:( -not :)…
Thanks for coming to the event! Yes, both Arrian and Xenophon are way underrated.
A clarification, please. You write:
"The Stoics were determinists, meaning that they believed that everything is the result of cause and effect. They were also naturalists: not supernatural stuff, no miracles. Again, exactly right, on both counts. "
There is a notion in Quantum Mechanics of Quantum Indeterminancy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
"Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics. Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that
(a.) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and
(b) conversely, the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable."
If the universe is inherently random when it comes to quantum processes, then this complicates a simple, straight-forward deterministic cause-and-effect. Now, the Stoic physics (both ancient and modern) may just be saying that there are no supernatural causes at work but there could be a stochastic component to this determinism: the cause "probably" results in effect A or it could be effect B. Or, you could go the route that Bohm did which put all of the "randomness" into the initial state of the universe and the indeterminancy we observe is mostly due to ignorance of the initial conditions.
So, in light of Quantum Mechanics, how do you define "determinism" and "cause-and-effect"?
Antony, good question, but I don't think quantum indeterminacy matters for the sort of things we are interested in, that is, decision making about medium-level objects and phenomena.
No matter which interpretation of QM you pick, things are not indeterminate for objects like human beings, balls, airplanes, and so forth. They follow straightforward cause-effect.
Moreover, it is my understanding that physicists themselves have not really decided which interpretation of QM they favor, with diverging opinions that cannot be settled by empirical data. They haven't even decided, as you point out, whether quantum indeterminacy is ontological or epistemic.
I would just caution you to keep your options open - don't base things on a hard determinancy. I give two reasons: (1) chaos theory has that lovely image of the butterfly -> hurricane. So this essential randomness may have a significant outcome on the classical level. (2) there are some speculations about consciousness and human cognition such as Penrose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind
that hypothesize that quantum indeterminancy could play a part in the way we think. Penrose even speculated about how consciousness could arise from quantum effects in "microtubles". Personally, I don't buy into this viewpoint, but it could turn out to be correct after all.
Any conclusions you come to based on your notion of determinancy will have to be qualified. Or invalidated if countervailing evidence comes to light.
Antony, I certainly try to keep an open mind about these things. That said, chaos theory is entirely deterministic. It is true that complex systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions, but given certain conditions the system behaves deterministically. Indeed, chaos theory is a great example of the difference between ontology and epistemology: ontologically speaking, chaotic systems are deterministic; but epistemically they are not predictable.
As for QM and consciousness, I’m very skeptical, as you seem to be, of Penrose. I’m a biologist, and no biologist I know thinks that microtubules have anything to do with consciousness. But we’ll see. Maybe.
Well done. May I make a few (almost trivial) comments
The universe certainly contains consciousness, doesn't it? Or we wouldn't be discussing these things.
Is there a civilisation that has explained itself with propositional logic. Seems to me narrative comes more often (Thanks Plato and Homer)
Determinism confuses me. There seems to be too many variables to ever know what comes next. Every morning I read science fiction. Some call it a weather prediction.
Ron, yes the universe contains consciousness. But that doesn't license the inference that the universe itself is conscious. That's a known fallacy, known as the fallacy of composition: attributing a characteristic to the whole just because it belongs to some of the parts, or vice versa. (For instance, water is wet, but individual molecules of water are not.)
Determinism in this context just means that everything happens by cause and effect. No exceptions. No miracles.
I've decided to be a compatibilist. Until something changes my mind. It probably won't be Sapolsky.
Good choice! 👍
🤣
Massimo, you raise the point about our relationship with other living things and the environment at large; should we be considering ourselves as stewards of the environment?
I have recently been mulling over a different approach based on self interest.
There are three three ideas that I am trying to weave together. 1. From an evolutionary perspective the "purpose" of every living things is to live long enough to pass on their genes. 2. the cradle argument and oikeiosis are reasonable descriptions of an individual's development and 3. We are social animals and have responsibilities to others. However, we also have a responsibility to ourselves and if I don't look after myself, then I am not going to be of use to others.
These seem to me to be sound naturalistic arguments for why we should take very good care of the complex ecosystems that support life on earth. Self interest is not selfish or utilitarian, it is common sense!
Patricia, exactly right, as far as I can see.
Predecessor footsteps worth retracing--and a retracer worth reading. Thanks, massimo.
Glad you enjoyed it!
This is an impressive foundation for modern Stoicism. I think you are entirely correct. My only suggestion for future consideration would be to include a more thorough treatment of Stoic providence, especially the modern take on Fate. Fate is an essential part of Stoic thought, even though it has changed from "that which the gods have given" to "that which happened and now we have to deal with it." "Fate willing" still means something to me and helps me to give up the idea that I can control the outcomes of whatever I may be attempting.
Unfortunately, I think that the word "fate" has too many associations with the idea of destiny. On the other hand we do say things like, "just my luck" and "shit happens" that better capture the idea of randomness. Should we say, "luck permitting" rather than "fate permitting? It doesn't have quite the same clout does it? Or is that a matter of habit?
Patricia, I hear you. I'm not bothered by "fate," despite the connotations you mention. "Luck" seems to imply randomness, which doesn't go well with a deterministic understanding of the universe like the Stoic one. Then again, sometimes I do say to myself "if Fortuna allows." Whatever works!
Doesn't deterministic mean that something happens because it was caused by something. It doesn't mean we can necessarily point to a one to one relationship. I don't understand why an event in the web of cause and effect can't be triggered randomly. The same way we think of gene mutations as being random
Patricia, there are two distinct meaning of "random," which, interestingly, already Seneca distinguished in one of his letters to Lucilius.
Random may mean without any pattern, possibly because the phenomenon is uncaused. Or it may be that there is a pattern, and a cause(s) but we just can't see it (them). The first is ontological determinism, the second one epistemic.
If by "random" we mean that there are causes but we may not be able to figure them out, then yes, things can happen randomly. Mutations are like that: they are caused by a number of phenomena, but we cannot predict when a particular mutation will occur. Quantum phenomena may be of the ontologically random type, which is why there is not much use for causal talk in quantum mechanics.
Absolutely. I use the phrase "fate permitting" all the time. But I interpret that as "given the structure of the cosmic web of cause-effect," with obviously no providential undertones.
Same, but it helps to say it like that. The alternative for the modern Stoic is to follow William Irvine's process of attributing challenges to the will of deliberately imagined Stoic gods. A useful allegory, but weaker than the alternative.
Oh I do occasionally tell myself "here goes a challenge from the Stoic gods!," but of course it's in (self) jest.