I like that fact that you are not bending over backwards to try to keep every single concept from ancient Stoicism as part of the modern take on it. With reason at the core it only makes sense to adapt our understanding of the wisdom of these elder statesman of the philosophy into a more modern view based on what has been learned over the centuries.
Massimo, well-argued thanks for sharing your views. Here's what Tony (A.A.) Long wrote in a book I have (he admittedly wrote it a while ago):
“There is no modern counterpart to the Stoic’s conception of the world as a vitalist and completely rational system, causally determined by a fully immanent and providential god. If, as I think, these concepts are fundamental to the grounding of Stoic ethics, there can be no fully authentic Neo-Stoicism that dispenses with this… Without those underpinnings the Stoic conditions for happiness and a good life will hardly seem rationally and emotionally compelling.”
I see your argument, and I agree that Stoicism wasn't religious (but it does have theological underpinnings) but I do also agree with the point above (even if Long doesn't any longer). To me, "underpinnings" is the key word. My mission is to not necessarily to substitute the theology out but to say "well, the cosmos is self-evidently coherent and whole and necessary even if we don't have any idea how it came into being" so we can believe what we like about cosmological matters and still be Stoic (so I sort of agree with you on the ecumenical point, but: from a different angle)
Steven, thanks for your thoughtful comments, as usual.
Regarding Tony's comment, well, all I can say -- with all due respect -- is that he's wrong, and I tried to explain why in the post.
I wouldn't call what the Stoics had a "theology," since they were not theists. They certainly had a metaphysics. But that doesn't come even close to make them a quasi-religion, particularly because their god was made of matter, did not answer prayers, and did not do miracles. It was a living organism intent in pursuing its own wellbeing, and we were the equivalent of cells in its body, doing our duty, trying not to become cancerous, and dying when the time comes.
The cosmos is certainly coherent, otherwise we could not understand it scientifically. But that really doesn't get you much in terms of Providence, I think. And no, we shouldn't believe what we like. We have a moral duty to believe what is most likely to be true.
Good read. I agree with you. While rejecting theism does lead us to rejecting the part about Stoic ethics that involves “loving our divinely-ordained Fate”, I don’t think that has to mean we can’t be Stoic at all. The philosophy still seems consistent without that. Of course, it can boil down to semantics, and at the end of the day I just think I hold enough tenets of the philosophy to call myself a Stoic. (I also think this is why Marcus Aurelius actually appealed to me less than Epictetus & Seneca—I find that he talks about Fate more than the others.)
Right, who decides whether one can or cannot himself a Stoic? If my philosophy has a family resemblance to Stoicism and I wish to honor that tradition by using the word, then...
To the Stoic physics. I think what some bother is to get in modern Stoicism a cut or crushed/crooked Stoicism. (Loosing Stoic physic as 1/3 of the philosophy and other aspects in the other fields of study)
The cornerstone is that the theories are reasonable ( Stoic logic).
But it also helps I think to emphasize all the other aspects of Stoic physic.
I see these good/ reliable / valid aspects for today (modern) Stoics for Stoic Physics / Cosmos:
- It is Naturalistic
- It is dynamic
- Determinism (kind of )
- Causality (most important law of nature, and with what everything is connected )
-laws / patterns of nature and their forces
- kind of stability
- predictable in a degree (when parameters / laws of nature are known) no technical device would work otherwise. (I think tis lead some Stoics to divination )
- Seamless cosmos ( recently learned that particles can be knocked out of "empty" space in matter and anti-matter)
- Maybe born through kind of natural selection in a multiverse
- Connection of all parts in cosmos ( there is no thing which could be isolited completely from all laws of nature.
- Connection of humankind and living beings (cosmopolitism) or life in itself
- Conclusions about speed of light, space and time / eternity
- Conclusions about Quantum theory (but I am carefull with these, it is often misused from pseudo scientists / esoterics.
And maybe many more but I am not a physicist. So I think we can leave the word "God" behind and providence and that it is beneficial to us in a special sense what goes beyond stable patterns of the laws of nature.
Matthias, right, we don't need to throw out all of Stoic physics. That truly would be problematic. We can keep determinism, cause-effect, materialism, laws of nature / ordered cosmos, not to mention much of Stoic psychology (which falls under their "physics"). It's the living cosmos that has to go.
Similarly, much of the ethics stays, except for the notion of loving one's fate. Enduring yes, loving, a bit too much.
Regarding Enchiridion 3 (“you will not be disturbed”...), I like to “defuse” that for myself in the following way:
I think it was in a video interview with you, Massimo, where Tony Long said that the word rendered as “disturbed” could also be translated as “shattered”, which gives this piece a quite different flavor.
Adding to that, even without believing in a Providence for the whole universe, there is the kind of micro-providence in the sense that our life will certainly end in death. If we want to adhere to reason, we’d do better do keep this in mind – along with the fact that death will often come unexpectedly. Perhaps it isn’t for some overarching good purpose, but it is the challenge we all will face eventually. We may not like it (perhaps we’ll even be “disturbed”), but at least we will not be shattered when it eventually happens.
You once wrote to me: “Sounds like Zeus has been having a bit of fun throwing Stoic challenges your way.” Do I actually believe Zeus is doing this to me? No. Do I like saying this to myself and have it bring a smile to me? Yes, absolutely. 😊
Cannot navigate to my Notes comment where you said that you would not see you in the Epicurean Philosophy because of their withhold of politics and they are too strong empiricists and thought the size of the sun is exactly as it is seen.
( You convinced me once to Stoicism and then to Epicureanism with the critics on Stoic physics (Stoic god), ethics ("virtue cannot be the ultimate good") and epistemology (the article with the waxed fruits I cannot find it now) where in the end the senses got the truth ( instead of complex logic or skeptical probability assumptions / techniques ).
But yes with Stoic logic (which I appreciate) I see it the same, that metaphysics and ethics can be modified as long it is logical (and has evidence). Would an ancient Stoic disagree against a statement which has evidence and is logical plausible ? I think not.
Maybe I come back to Stoicism (would like it but searching for good arguments currently)
My response would be to
1) Epicurean politics: Epicureans engage in politics when it is necessary. It is a minimal approach instead of maximal approach ( maybe like in Stoicism).
The reason is that admiration and fame is considered as empty desire. And to let people live their lifes like in liberalism with lead to reduction of world poverty with social contracts for mutual benefits.
Friendship(Philia)/philantropy is seen in a wide sense but not ordered by the cosmos or a logos.
When possible everyone should be integrated as friends and is wished happiness like in Vatican Saying
(VS) 52: Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness.
Or VS 44 (against that Epicurean Philos. is selfish (against altruism):
VS 44. The wise man, when he has accommodated himself to straits, knows better how to give than to receive, so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered.
Or Principal Doctrine 39
"That man has best forestalled the feeling of insecurity from outside who makes relations friendly where possible, where impossible, at least neutral, and where even this is impossible, avoids contacts, and in all cases where it pays to do so arranges for dynastic support." DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 309 (1954)
But yes I think the Stoic Philosophy emphasizes cosmopolitism stronger, the Epicrueans see limits where engagin in people or politics bring harm (like cruel situations in ancient times ).
2) Size of sun:
I think you have it from Cicero who attacks this in Epicurean Philosophy.
The teaching about it is in the letter of Pythocles and it is about multiple possible explanations based on our current sense-data (facts) (appears to be ) but the more data you get the better assuming
But yes conclusions can be false but errors happens also with logic without evidence like in the Stoic physics claims, in the end sense-data and facts comes first, reason/logic second and logic without evidence can be very weak, but ok sometimes there is no other chance, the letter:
"[91] The size of sun (and moon) and the other stars is for us what it appears to be; and in reality it is either (slightly) greater than what we see or slightly less or the same size: for so too fires on earth when looked at from a distance seem to the senses. And every objection at this point will easily be dissipated, if we pay attention to the clear vision, as I show in my books about nature."
Regarding politics: there are some cases of Epicureans engaging in political activity, as you say under extreme circumstances. But by and large they don't, and for what they consider principled reasons. Friendship is a different issue, and does not imply participation in politics.
Regarding epistemology: the Epicureans are explicitly strong empiricists. Epicurus discarded the use of logic, saying that it leads to mistakes. The resulting approach is untenable, regardless of the specific example of the size of the sun, which is good only because it shows clearly the absurdity of strict empiricism. Though there is worse, I guess, like the Cyrenaics, who would not even say "I'm seeing red" but rather "I am experiencing a sensation that I'm perceiving as redness."
Yes, everyone can make mistakes, but strict empiricism, just like strict rationalism, is particularly prone to them. The best way is a balance between theory and empirical data, as practiced by modern science.
With friendship / Philia I´ve meant an positiv attitude towards others and as motivation for politics. But yes politics has more to do with the virtue of justice.
For the strict empiricism I see partly in Epicureanism.
Strict empiricism is there where Epicureans conclude the existence of gods because there is a prolepsis (pre-)conception or intuition and believe in all cultures.
And they think sometimes comes images in dreams from the gods.
Today we would conclude more that these sensations comes from parts of our brains in dreaming.
For their physics they are often not only strict empricists, for example their 12 principles of physics and their theory of atoms are voids are derived from conclusions/ analogies from empirical experiences but are not accessible to the senses.
Or the (pre-)theory in lucretius for natural selection, very astonishing that they came the modern view of nature so near with their principles.
But ok in the details they are often wrong but, hey for their time they have my respect.
And the Epicureans and Stoics are still with many of their views often more modern as many people of today : )
Matthias, don't get me wrong, I have a high respect for the Epicureans. In fact, right now I'm correcting the draft of the chapter on Epicureanism of a new book on practical Hellenistic philosophy I'm co-writing with Greg Lopez and Meredith Kunz, and I'm really enjoying it! Especially their tetrapharmakos!
Reminds me of Seneca who took the best teaching of the Epicureans for his own learning. And I appreciate the acad. Skeptics for the times in life when I cannot decide between Stoics and Epicureans and maybe I find then tranquility with them :)
Maybe identifying with only one wisdom tradition gives unnecessary limitations. But everyone says me Epicureanism and Stoicism are complete opposites of each other.
But modernized they come very close I think.
Modern naturalistic metaphysic
Modern virtue ethics and psychology
Modern epistemology
Seems most reasonable to me. And reason/prudence/virtue was their most precious good (letting out if means or ultimate end here :) )
Names cannot catch always every varieties in reality I think.
Thinking about a name for such thing as "Modern Hellenist" : )
I'm in favor of picking what works. As Seneca says, nobody owns the truth. That said, in terms of the ultimate good, one is either a Stoic or an Epicurean: either virtue supersedes pleasure or the other way around.
Massimo, thank you for another great article! I have a related question: I am assuming that Nietzsche did not believe in God/gods - and yet he promotes love of one's Fate, or Amor Fati, as a type of 'super power'. I wonder how he accomodated this within his non-providential universe belief system?
Stephen, good question! My understanding is that Nietzsche believed in eternal recurrence (which, incidentally, is another Stoic idea), the notion that everything repeats over and over, ad infinitum. If that's the case, then one really has no choice but to love one's fate.
Needless to say, I don't believe in eternal recurrence, for which there is no empirical evidence. (At some point a similar idea was considered in cosmology, but it's not mainstream.)
Sandbach also talks about "world-cycles" in his 1975 book "The Stoics." Of course, you can see this idea repeated in Meditations (particularly in the later books?).
Jim, a good discussion, with references to the ancient texts, can be found in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, edited by Brad Inwood.
While I certainly agree that in the modern age Stoicism does not need religion to back it up, and while I am not a religious person, I would take issue with your rejection of Stoic religious arguments as being disproven. While the universe is certainly not "alive" in the biological sense, and you are better placed than I to judge that, we simply do not know how the universe works, either on a micro or a macro scale, but it has not been created by humans, indeed we have evolved as part of it. We have theories, mathematical models, but any physicist will tell you that they don't tell the whole story and they are still looking for clues. It is perhaps beyond human comprehension. So I certainly agree that a modern (or even an ancient) Stoic does not need to believe in pantheism... although it may be more believable than the anthropomorphic ideas pushed by some modern religions. Stoicism is based on reason and human experience and needs no more.
Michael, we certainly don't know everything. But we know a lot. And everything we know does not go well with that aspect of Stoic metaphysics. So I think my science-based rejection of it is perfectly justified. Should our scientific worldview change dramatically I will again update my metaphysics.
“The authors of the above mentioned book also, surprisingly, state that if one doesn’t accept the Stoic God then one cannot possibly believe that virtue is the only true good, a central tenet of both ancient and modern Stoicism”. By analogy, whoever practices medicine not truly following Galen or Hippocrates is not a true physician. Good luck on your next surgery without analgesia or your next infection without antibiotics. This level of purism is funny. And BTW, if by not accepting the stoic god or any god, we are not true stoics…well, I will not let it ascent. It is in my control to ignore attempts to label me.
(c) Chop and change ancient belief systems, keeping the good bits they like, discarding the bits they reject?
“I am most emphatically not rejecting all of ancient Stoic metaphysics and natural philosophy, only parts of it. I’m still very much good, for instance, with materialism and universal cause and effect. Consequently, I’m not rejecting ancient Stoic ethics either, only modifying it.”
Having just re-read Rob Wright’s “Why Buddhism is True”, I still stumble over his first words on page xiii: “I’m not talking about the ‘supernatural’ or exotically metaphysical parts of Buddhism — reincarnation, for example — but rather about the naturalistic parts…” The rest of the book is fine — at least he left in the Buddha. And I respect (with certain reservations) Massimo’s work towards a new Stoicism.
I’m still waiting on “Christianity without Christ or the Resurrection”. And I trust that whoever produces “Islam Without Allah or the Prophet” has sone excellent bodyguards.
But at some level of “improvement”, Buddhism, for example, has become something else, which I would call Butchered Buddhism. [Theravada Buddhists like me simply call it Mahayana Buddhism] 😀
I respect Bob Wright's attempt with Buddhism, but I think it's more difficult to pull off, because of Buddhism's metaphysics, which is far less science-friendly than the Stoic version.
Here is another point to keep in mind: Stoicism is a philosophy, not a religion, so it is inherently more malleable and less resistant to change.
As for at what point one shouldn't call it Buddhism or Stoicism anymore, who cares? If Bob's philosophy is inspired by the Buddhist tradition and he wishes to call him Buddhism, I see no problem. Let a thousand flowers bloom, as they say!
Bob Wright, quoting William James, says religion is "the belief that there is an unseen order and that our supreme interest lies in harmoniously aligning ourselves with it" - a view that truly resonates with me. It could be that, for Bob, his version of (naturalistic) Buddhism best exemplifies this "unseen order" for him. Similarly, certain insights of cosmic evolution and cosmology resonate for me, insights that are certainly much more science friendly than either Stoicism or Buddhism! That said, I apply this cosmological/evolutionary perspective to Stoicism, updating it (Stoicism) so to speak, in a way that I find inspiring. That said, I agree that Stoicism can/should be updated to a modern version of it, though I do also believe that some sort of connection to an "unseen order" is desirable, if not necessary.
Jim, I get queasy about any talk of "unseen order." We can see the order of the universe: it is described by physics and cosmology. That's more than enough for me. I like Bob and agree with a lot of what he says, but sometimes we have our disagreements, for instance here: https://youtu.be/7iKWoobyYQ0?si=OmJxGsdKXR0Jql_F
Massimo, yes we can see see the order of the universe but there is also much we don't see. I'm talking more about the "why" questions rather than the "how" ones. And even when we look at the how ones....that is, how the universe came to be, others see random/blind chance where others see direction and purpose. And of course I don't mean quacks but reputable persons of science. What I mean to say is that we can at least imagine an unseen order.
Thank you for your link but be assured that I've already watched most if not all of your chats with Bob! 😀
Jim, yes, there is much we don't know, but nothing that hints at the sort of cosmos the Stoics believed in.
Why questions, in my mind, are a category mistake. There is no why when it comes to the universe, only how. Why makes sense only for beings with purpose, like humans. The universe, again as far as I can see, has no purpose. It just is.
Yes, some reputable people of science think otherwise. I shrug that off to the notion that everyone holds onto some irrational or non-rational notion. Former NIH director Francis Collins is certainly a notable man of science. And an evangelical Christian...
Massimo, I hear you loud and clear on your positions. I've read/heard you state them many times before. Far be it from me to challenge your scientific and philosophical expertise. The point I want to make is a minimal one: While the facts are what they are - say, the creation and expansion of the universe - I think differing interpretations can be brought to bear on such facts. Therefore, as I said previously, where one sees blind, random chance, others see direction and sometimes even purpose. At the end of the day, neither side can prove their interpretation is the correct one. At best both sides can provide "reasons to believe" - and that's what they tend to do. Personally I think such reasons to believe can be enough to go on.
Atheist Judaism is a thing, I don’t see why Christianity as a philosophy that rejects the divinity of Christ would be logically impossible. I’m certainly not going to act as the gatekeeper who says who counts as a True Christian and who doesn’t.
I like that fact that you are not bending over backwards to try to keep every single concept from ancient Stoicism as part of the modern take on it. With reason at the core it only makes sense to adapt our understanding of the wisdom of these elder statesman of the philosophy into a more modern view based on what has been learned over the centuries.
John, precisely! And I believe that’s what the Stoics themselves would be doing.
Massimo, well-argued thanks for sharing your views. Here's what Tony (A.A.) Long wrote in a book I have (he admittedly wrote it a while ago):
“There is no modern counterpart to the Stoic’s conception of the world as a vitalist and completely rational system, causally determined by a fully immanent and providential god. If, as I think, these concepts are fundamental to the grounding of Stoic ethics, there can be no fully authentic Neo-Stoicism that dispenses with this… Without those underpinnings the Stoic conditions for happiness and a good life will hardly seem rationally and emotionally compelling.”
I see your argument, and I agree that Stoicism wasn't religious (but it does have theological underpinnings) but I do also agree with the point above (even if Long doesn't any longer). To me, "underpinnings" is the key word. My mission is to not necessarily to substitute the theology out but to say "well, the cosmos is self-evidently coherent and whole and necessary even if we don't have any idea how it came into being" so we can believe what we like about cosmological matters and still be Stoic (so I sort of agree with you on the ecumenical point, but: from a different angle)
Steven, thanks for your thoughtful comments, as usual.
Regarding Tony's comment, well, all I can say -- with all due respect -- is that he's wrong, and I tried to explain why in the post.
I wouldn't call what the Stoics had a "theology," since they were not theists. They certainly had a metaphysics. But that doesn't come even close to make them a quasi-religion, particularly because their god was made of matter, did not answer prayers, and did not do miracles. It was a living organism intent in pursuing its own wellbeing, and we were the equivalent of cells in its body, doing our duty, trying not to become cancerous, and dying when the time comes.
The cosmos is certainly coherent, otherwise we could not understand it scientifically. But that really doesn't get you much in terms of Providence, I think. And no, we shouldn't believe what we like. We have a moral duty to believe what is most likely to be true.
Good read. I agree with you. While rejecting theism does lead us to rejecting the part about Stoic ethics that involves “loving our divinely-ordained Fate”, I don’t think that has to mean we can’t be Stoic at all. The philosophy still seems consistent without that. Of course, it can boil down to semantics, and at the end of the day I just think I hold enough tenets of the philosophy to call myself a Stoic. (I also think this is why Marcus Aurelius actually appealed to me less than Epictetus & Seneca—I find that he talks about Fate more than the others.)
Right, who decides whether one can or cannot himself a Stoic? If my philosophy has a family resemblance to Stoicism and I wish to honor that tradition by using the word, then...
To the Stoic physics. I think what some bother is to get in modern Stoicism a cut or crushed/crooked Stoicism. (Loosing Stoic physic as 1/3 of the philosophy and other aspects in the other fields of study)
The cornerstone is that the theories are reasonable ( Stoic logic).
But it also helps I think to emphasize all the other aspects of Stoic physic.
I see these good/ reliable / valid aspects for today (modern) Stoics for Stoic Physics / Cosmos:
- It is Naturalistic
- It is dynamic
- Determinism (kind of )
- Causality (most important law of nature, and with what everything is connected )
-laws / patterns of nature and their forces
- kind of stability
- predictable in a degree (when parameters / laws of nature are known) no technical device would work otherwise. (I think tis lead some Stoics to divination )
- Seamless cosmos ( recently learned that particles can be knocked out of "empty" space in matter and anti-matter)
- Maybe born through kind of natural selection in a multiverse
- Connection of all parts in cosmos ( there is no thing which could be isolited completely from all laws of nature.
- Connection of humankind and living beings (cosmopolitism) or life in itself
- Conclusions about speed of light, space and time / eternity
- Conclusions about Quantum theory (but I am carefull with these, it is often misused from pseudo scientists / esoterics.
And maybe many more but I am not a physicist. So I think we can leave the word "God" behind and providence and that it is beneficial to us in a special sense what goes beyond stable patterns of the laws of nature.
No claim to completeness and correctness.
Matthias, right, we don't need to throw out all of Stoic physics. That truly would be problematic. We can keep determinism, cause-effect, materialism, laws of nature / ordered cosmos, not to mention much of Stoic psychology (which falls under their "physics"). It's the living cosmos that has to go.
Similarly, much of the ethics stays, except for the notion of loving one's fate. Enduring yes, loving, a bit too much.
Regarding Enchiridion 3 (“you will not be disturbed”...), I like to “defuse” that for myself in the following way:
I think it was in a video interview with you, Massimo, where Tony Long said that the word rendered as “disturbed” could also be translated as “shattered”, which gives this piece a quite different flavor.
Adding to that, even without believing in a Providence for the whole universe, there is the kind of micro-providence in the sense that our life will certainly end in death. If we want to adhere to reason, we’d do better do keep this in mind – along with the fact that death will often come unexpectedly. Perhaps it isn’t for some overarching good purpose, but it is the challenge we all will face eventually. We may not like it (perhaps we’ll even be “disturbed”), but at least we will not be shattered when it eventually happens.
Daniel, yup, I'm good with all of that!
You once wrote to me: “Sounds like Zeus has been having a bit of fun throwing Stoic challenges your way.” Do I actually believe Zeus is doing this to me? No. Do I like saying this to myself and have it bring a smile to me? Yes, absolutely. 😊
Oh I also like to say that the Stoic gods have sent me another challenge! But I take it entirely metaphorically...
Cannot navigate to my Notes comment where you said that you would not see you in the Epicurean Philosophy because of their withhold of politics and they are too strong empiricists and thought the size of the sun is exactly as it is seen.
( You convinced me once to Stoicism and then to Epicureanism with the critics on Stoic physics (Stoic god), ethics ("virtue cannot be the ultimate good") and epistemology (the article with the waxed fruits I cannot find it now) where in the end the senses got the truth ( instead of complex logic or skeptical probability assumptions / techniques ).
But yes with Stoic logic (which I appreciate) I see it the same, that metaphysics and ethics can be modified as long it is logical (and has evidence). Would an ancient Stoic disagree against a statement which has evidence and is logical plausible ? I think not.
Maybe I come back to Stoicism (would like it but searching for good arguments currently)
My response would be to
1) Epicurean politics: Epicureans engage in politics when it is necessary. It is a minimal approach instead of maximal approach ( maybe like in Stoicism).
The reason is that admiration and fame is considered as empty desire. And to let people live their lifes like in liberalism with lead to reduction of world poverty with social contracts for mutual benefits.
Friendship(Philia)/philantropy is seen in a wide sense but not ordered by the cosmos or a logos.
When possible everyone should be integrated as friends and is wished happiness like in Vatican Saying
(VS) 52: Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness.
Or VS 44 (against that Epicurean Philos. is selfish (against altruism):
VS 44. The wise man, when he has accommodated himself to straits, knows better how to give than to receive, so great is the treasure of self-sufficiency which he has discovered.
Or Principal Doctrine 39
"That man has best forestalled the feeling of insecurity from outside who makes relations friendly where possible, where impossible, at least neutral, and where even this is impossible, avoids contacts, and in all cases where it pays to do so arranges for dynastic support." DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy 309 (1954)
But yes I think the Stoic Philosophy emphasizes cosmopolitism stronger, the Epicrueans see limits where engagin in people or politics bring harm (like cruel situations in ancient times ).
2) Size of sun:
I think you have it from Cicero who attacks this in Epicurean Philosophy.
The teaching about it is in the letter of Pythocles and it is about multiple possible explanations based on our current sense-data (facts) (appears to be ) but the more data you get the better assuming
But yes conclusions can be false but errors happens also with logic without evidence like in the Stoic physics claims, in the end sense-data and facts comes first, reason/logic second and logic without evidence can be very weak, but ok sometimes there is no other chance, the letter:
"[91] The size of sun (and moon) and the other stars is for us what it appears to be; and in reality it is either (slightly) greater than what we see or slightly less or the same size: for so too fires on earth when looked at from a distance seem to the senses. And every objection at this point will easily be dissipated, if we pay attention to the clear vision, as I show in my books about nature."
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/lexicon/entry/150-epicurus-letter-to-pythocles/#1.2-The-Letter
Matthias,
Regarding politics: there are some cases of Epicureans engaging in political activity, as you say under extreme circumstances. But by and large they don't, and for what they consider principled reasons. Friendship is a different issue, and does not imply participation in politics.
Regarding epistemology: the Epicureans are explicitly strong empiricists. Epicurus discarded the use of logic, saying that it leads to mistakes. The resulting approach is untenable, regardless of the specific example of the size of the sun, which is good only because it shows clearly the absurdity of strict empiricism. Though there is worse, I guess, like the Cyrenaics, who would not even say "I'm seeing red" but rather "I am experiencing a sensation that I'm perceiving as redness."
Yes, everyone can make mistakes, but strict empiricism, just like strict rationalism, is particularly prone to them. The best way is a balance between theory and empirical data, as practiced by modern science.
With friendship / Philia I´ve meant an positiv attitude towards others and as motivation for politics. But yes politics has more to do with the virtue of justice.
For the strict empiricism I see partly in Epicureanism.
Strict empiricism is there where Epicureans conclude the existence of gods because there is a prolepsis (pre-)conception or intuition and believe in all cultures.
And they think sometimes comes images in dreams from the gods.
Today we would conclude more that these sensations comes from parts of our brains in dreaming.
For their physics they are often not only strict empricists, for example their 12 principles of physics and their theory of atoms are voids are derived from conclusions/ analogies from empirical experiences but are not accessible to the senses.
Or the (pre-)theory in lucretius for natural selection, very astonishing that they came the modern view of nature so near with their principles.
But ok in the details they are often wrong but, hey for their time they have my respect.
And the Epicureans and Stoics are still with many of their views often more modern as many people of today : )
Matthias, don't get me wrong, I have a high respect for the Epicureans. In fact, right now I'm correcting the draft of the chapter on Epicureanism of a new book on practical Hellenistic philosophy I'm co-writing with Greg Lopez and Meredith Kunz, and I'm really enjoying it! Especially their tetrapharmakos!
I'm looking forward to it :)
Reminds me of Seneca who took the best teaching of the Epicureans for his own learning. And I appreciate the acad. Skeptics for the times in life when I cannot decide between Stoics and Epicureans and maybe I find then tranquility with them :)
Maybe identifying with only one wisdom tradition gives unnecessary limitations. But everyone says me Epicureanism and Stoicism are complete opposites of each other.
But modernized they come very close I think.
Modern naturalistic metaphysic
Modern virtue ethics and psychology
Modern epistemology
Seems most reasonable to me. And reason/prudence/virtue was their most precious good (letting out if means or ultimate end here :) )
Names cannot catch always every varieties in reality I think.
Thinking about a name for such thing as "Modern Hellenist" : )
I'm in favor of picking what works. As Seneca says, nobody owns the truth. That said, in terms of the ultimate good, one is either a Stoic or an Epicurean: either virtue supersedes pleasure or the other way around.
Massimo, thank you for another great article! I have a related question: I am assuming that Nietzsche did not believe in God/gods - and yet he promotes love of one's Fate, or Amor Fati, as a type of 'super power'. I wonder how he accomodated this within his non-providential universe belief system?
Stephen, good question! My understanding is that Nietzsche believed in eternal recurrence (which, incidentally, is another Stoic idea), the notion that everything repeats over and over, ad infinitum. If that's the case, then one really has no choice but to love one's fate.
Needless to say, I don't believe in eternal recurrence, for which there is no empirical evidence. (At some point a similar idea was considered in cosmology, but it's not mainstream.)
Massimo, I was not aware of the connection between Stoicism and eternal recurrence! Can you point me to any related passage(s)?
Sandbach also talks about "world-cycles" in his 1975 book "The Stoics." Of course, you can see this idea repeated in Meditations (particularly in the later books?).
Jim, a good discussion, with references to the ancient texts, can be found in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, edited by Brad Inwood.
Ah yes, of course! Thank you!
While I certainly agree that in the modern age Stoicism does not need religion to back it up, and while I am not a religious person, I would take issue with your rejection of Stoic religious arguments as being disproven. While the universe is certainly not "alive" in the biological sense, and you are better placed than I to judge that, we simply do not know how the universe works, either on a micro or a macro scale, but it has not been created by humans, indeed we have evolved as part of it. We have theories, mathematical models, but any physicist will tell you that they don't tell the whole story and they are still looking for clues. It is perhaps beyond human comprehension. So I certainly agree that a modern (or even an ancient) Stoic does not need to believe in pantheism... although it may be more believable than the anthropomorphic ideas pushed by some modern religions. Stoicism is based on reason and human experience and needs no more.
Michael, we certainly don't know everything. But we know a lot. And everything we know does not go well with that aspect of Stoic metaphysics. So I think my science-based rejection of it is perfectly justified. Should our scientific worldview change dramatically I will again update my metaphysics.
I’m going to guess that the book in question is the new one from Kai Whiting and Tanner Campbell?
Was thinking the same!
Good guess...
Oh, god. No, wait....
😆
“The authors of the above mentioned book also, surprisingly, state that if one doesn’t accept the Stoic God then one cannot possibly believe that virtue is the only true good, a central tenet of both ancient and modern Stoicism”. By analogy, whoever practices medicine not truly following Galen or Hippocrates is not a true physician. Good luck on your next surgery without analgesia or your next infection without antibiotics. This level of purism is funny. And BTW, if by not accepting the stoic god or any god, we are not true stoics…well, I will not let it ascent. It is in my control to ignore attempts to label me.
😆
To the diehards’ disdain, we are not required to accept any belief system in its entirety — and I suspect most of us don’t.
I certainly do not…
When philosophers get bored, do they
(a) play cards?
(b) watch tv? or
(c) Chop and change ancient belief systems, keeping the good bits they like, discarding the bits they reject?
“I am most emphatically not rejecting all of ancient Stoic metaphysics and natural philosophy, only parts of it. I’m still very much good, for instance, with materialism and universal cause and effect. Consequently, I’m not rejecting ancient Stoic ethics either, only modifying it.”
Having just re-read Rob Wright’s “Why Buddhism is True”, I still stumble over his first words on page xiii: “I’m not talking about the ‘supernatural’ or exotically metaphysical parts of Buddhism — reincarnation, for example — but rather about the naturalistic parts…” The rest of the book is fine — at least he left in the Buddha. And I respect (with certain reservations) Massimo’s work towards a new Stoicism.
I’m still waiting on “Christianity without Christ or the Resurrection”. And I trust that whoever produces “Islam Without Allah or the Prophet” has sone excellent bodyguards.
But at some level of “improvement”, Buddhism, for example, has become something else, which I would call Butchered Buddhism. [Theravada Buddhists like me simply call it Mahayana Buddhism] 😀
Steve, this is what I do when I can't watch Italy playing in the European championship. (Just as well, given their loss to Spain.)
Christianity without a divine Chris is most definitely a thing, though certainly a minoritarian one. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
I respect Bob Wright's attempt with Buddhism, but I think it's more difficult to pull off, because of Buddhism's metaphysics, which is far less science-friendly than the Stoic version.
Here is another point to keep in mind: Stoicism is a philosophy, not a religion, so it is inherently more malleable and less resistant to change.
As for at what point one shouldn't call it Buddhism or Stoicism anymore, who cares? If Bob's philosophy is inspired by the Buddhist tradition and he wishes to call him Buddhism, I see no problem. Let a thousand flowers bloom, as they say!
Bob Wright, quoting William James, says religion is "the belief that there is an unseen order and that our supreme interest lies in harmoniously aligning ourselves with it" - a view that truly resonates with me. It could be that, for Bob, his version of (naturalistic) Buddhism best exemplifies this "unseen order" for him. Similarly, certain insights of cosmic evolution and cosmology resonate for me, insights that are certainly much more science friendly than either Stoicism or Buddhism! That said, I apply this cosmological/evolutionary perspective to Stoicism, updating it (Stoicism) so to speak, in a way that I find inspiring. That said, I agree that Stoicism can/should be updated to a modern version of it, though I do also believe that some sort of connection to an "unseen order" is desirable, if not necessary.
Jim, I get queasy about any talk of "unseen order." We can see the order of the universe: it is described by physics and cosmology. That's more than enough for me. I like Bob and agree with a lot of what he says, but sometimes we have our disagreements, for instance here: https://youtu.be/7iKWoobyYQ0?si=OmJxGsdKXR0Jql_F
Massimo, yes we can see see the order of the universe but there is also much we don't see. I'm talking more about the "why" questions rather than the "how" ones. And even when we look at the how ones....that is, how the universe came to be, others see random/blind chance where others see direction and purpose. And of course I don't mean quacks but reputable persons of science. What I mean to say is that we can at least imagine an unseen order.
Thank you for your link but be assured that I've already watched most if not all of your chats with Bob! 😀
Jim, yes, there is much we don't know, but nothing that hints at the sort of cosmos the Stoics believed in.
Why questions, in my mind, are a category mistake. There is no why when it comes to the universe, only how. Why makes sense only for beings with purpose, like humans. The universe, again as far as I can see, has no purpose. It just is.
Yes, some reputable people of science think otherwise. I shrug that off to the notion that everyone holds onto some irrational or non-rational notion. Former NIH director Francis Collins is certainly a notable man of science. And an evangelical Christian...
Massimo, I hear you loud and clear on your positions. I've read/heard you state them many times before. Far be it from me to challenge your scientific and philosophical expertise. The point I want to make is a minimal one: While the facts are what they are - say, the creation and expansion of the universe - I think differing interpretations can be brought to bear on such facts. Therefore, as I said previously, where one sees blind, random chance, others see direction and sometimes even purpose. At the end of the day, neither side can prove their interpretation is the correct one. At best both sides can provide "reasons to believe" - and that's what they tend to do. Personally I think such reasons to believe can be enough to go on.
Atheist Judaism is a thing, I don’t see why Christianity as a philosophy that rejects the divinity of Christ would be logically impossible. I’m certainly not going to act as the gatekeeper who says who counts as a True Christian and who doesn’t.
Jefferson came close--sort of--to Christianity without Christ.
Some say Ditto the Reformation 😀
😆