Is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity

Ross

Christianity is the most popular religion and set of values in the world with 2 billion followers worldwide. Stoicism which was one of the most popular philosophies in the ancient world is today a small fringe movement, although a growing in popularity. It had a significant influence on Christianity and the most famous Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas adopted many of the Ancient Greek virtues in his Philosophical writings , a blend of largely Aristotelian and Stoic thought. But he added his own purely Christian virtues to the list including faith, hope, love and charity. But these are then combined with the teachings in the gospels.
Cognitive behavior therapy , the most common form of psychotherapy today for emotional problems was actually inspired by Stoicism, and has swept the world in recent decades. So it would seem that modern psychotherapy has more in common with Stoicism than Christianity and yet the values that permeate western culture are largely based on Christianity even for those who don't believe in God. So I put the question for debate is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity and should it replace the latter as a set of values to live by?

praxis

... the values that permeate western culture are largely based on Christianity even for those who don't believe in God. — Ross Campbell

If true that would be a sufficient condemnation for me.

is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity and should it replace the latter as a set of values to live by? — Ross Campbell

Religion is for those who, for whatever reason, are not inclined towards self-actualization and religion could be rather superfluous for the self-actualized. The fundamental incompatibility is that stoicism relies on reason whereas religion relies on faith. The former leads to independence and the development of virtue and the latter to dependence and “the values that permeate western culture”.

tim wood

Christianity is the most popular religion and set of values — Ross Campbell

Two different things or one thing?

baker

↪Ross Campbell

Is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity?

For whom, in what circumstances?

Ciceronianus

So I put the question for debate is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity and should it replace the latter as a set of values to live by? — Ross Campbell

It isn't clear to me that Christianity has ever been adopted as a guide to living by any significant number of people calling themselves Christians if the directives of Jesus as set forth in the New Testament constitue Christianity. Christians have hated, killed, and oppressed each other and non-Christians since it was founded, and avarice is more characteristic of Christians than charity.

The fact that what Jesus advocated is and has been largely ignored suggests to me it is not a usable guide for living. It would be nice if we all loved one another, but we never have and I suspect never will.

Stoicism presents a more useful guide regarding how to live, and has none of the theistic baggage true Christians must always carry. There's no requirement that we love one another in the Christian sense, but respect for each other and acknowledgement that we are part of a community is something achievable, as are efforts at controlling negative emotions, desires (for riches and fame and power, things indifferent) and fears. Great effort and discipline may be required, but it is no impossible task.

Apollodorus

So it would seem that modern psychotherapy has more in common with Stoicism than Christianity and yet the values that permeate western culture are largely based on Christianity even for those who don't believe in God. — Ross Campbell

One objection to that statement is that since most people believe in God, there can be no harm following a system that believes in God, like Christianity.

Christianity does have a code of moral conduct for normal people. Psychotherapy is largely for people with psychological issues. That's why it's called therapy.

So, it depends on whether you want a spiritual and moral guide to living or a clinical therapy method.

baker

One objection to that statement is that since most people believe in God, there can be no harm following a system that believes in God, like Christianity. — Apollodorus

There can be such harm, for those who don't already believe in God and Christianity. Said harm comes from trying to make oneself believe something that one simply has no inclination to believe. For such a person, harm also comes from trying to follow the Christian code; for such a person will seek to follow the code by the letter (they know no other way), instead of being selective the way Christians are. Meaning such a person will be naive and easy to exploit and get themselves into a lot of trouble due to trying to be honest and truthful at all times, turning the other cheek, loving their neighbor etc.

Tom Storm

So I put the question for debate is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity and should it replace the latter as a set of values to live by? — Ross Campbell

You don't need either.

TheMadFool

Stoicism strikes me as resignation to one's circumstances as encapsulated in its spirit of acceptance - to not grieve over one's misfortunes and not rejoice over one's fortunes. The idea behind stoicism seems to be to keep things the way they are and simply adapt yourself to them.

Christianity, on the other hand, despite its alleged links to stoicism, is about bringing about change - getting one's hands on a ticket to heaven seems to be what all Christians aim for. In other words, Christianity, though it seems to be fully aware of the "human condition, doesn't accept the status quo and wants change, change for the better, heaven being the goal.

baker

Stoicism strikes me as resignation to one's circumstances as encapsulated in its spirit of acceptance - to not grieve over one's misfortunes and not rejoice over one's fortunes. The idea behind stoicism seems to be to keep things the way they are and simply adapt yourself to them. — TheMadFool

I think this is a modern rendition of stoicism. The original one had methapyhsical underpinnings which are unpalatable to many modern people, but which made all the difference and prevented stoicism from being merely a quetism.

TheMadFool

The original one had methapyhsical underpinnings — baker

And they are...?

180 Proof

↪Tom Storm

:up:

baker

↪TheMadFool

From Wiki:

The Stoic ethic espouses a deterministic perspective; in regard to those who lack Stoic virtue, Cleanthes once opined that the wicked man is "like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes".[11] A Stoic of virtue, by contrast, would amend his will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy",[12] thus positing a "completely autonomous" individual will, and at the same time a universe that is "a rigidly deterministic single whole".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#:~:text=Stoicism%20is%20a%20school%20of,views%20on%20the%20natural%20world.

And then all that about being part of the world and so on. The Stoics were by no means advocating passivity in terms of action, as some modern usages of the term indicate.

TheMadFool

The Stoics were by no means advocating passivity in terms of action, as some modern usages of the term indicate. — baker

Oh! If stoicism recommends acceptance of one's cricumstances, how would we explain such an attitude? It could be, other reasons being possible, that there's nothing we can do to change our condition. What are these "...other reasons possible..."?

baker

Oh! If stoicism recommends acceptance of one's cricumstances, how would we explain such an attitude? It could be, other reasons being possible, that there's nothing we can do to change our condition. What are these "...other reasons possible..."? — TheMadFool

Can you imagine a military general, out on the battle field, who is a Stoic?

praxis

↪baker

You believe that pantheism somehow prevents stoicism from being quietism?

Outlander

Some theories or systems of belief that are inherently lacking or otherwise missing something another inherently has can often be implemented in a more effective or successful way as far as desired results and eventual outcome. Not always. One man's version, interpretation or best or "intended" approach to a philosophy, school of thought, or even if not especially a religion is not always the same as that of another. Doesn't have to mean anyone is more right or wrong, though certain dogmas or "prescribed information" are clearly defined.. though semantics and the use of literary devices often blur these lines and create vast amounts of space for debate of even the most absolute of statements.

180 Proof

Can you imagine a military general, out on the battle field, who is a Stoic? — baker

Well, let's see ... other than the old adage (I can't source it at the moment) 'Epicurean during peace, Stoic during war', what do you make of these reputed 'Stoic warriors' ...

ancients:

Marcus Aurelius (emperor)
Scipio Africanus the Younger (general)
Augustus Caesar (emperor)
Cato the Younger (tribune / general)

moderns:

US Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
US Adm. James Stockdale (POW)
US Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis

Ciceronianus

↪180 Proof

Also Lucius Flavius Arrianus, student of Epictetus (to whom we owe the Enchiridion and the Dialogues), governor of Cappadocia who defended his province in the field against the Alani.

180 Proof

↪Ciceronianus the White

:up: Yes, there's really too many to name, but the objection stands with less than ten names.

praxis

Marcus Aurelius (emperor) — 180 Proof

Does standup too...

baker

Can you imagine a military general, out on the battle field, who is a Stoic?
— baker
Well, let's see ... other than the old adage (I can't source it at the moment) 'Epicurean during peace, Stoic during war', what do you make of these reputed 'Stoic warriors' ... — 180 Proof

Thanks for illustrating my point! The modern day stoic is a passive-aggressive wimp, while there is nothing in the original Stoicism that would stand in the way of being proactive.

You believe that pantheism somehow preventsStoicism from being quietism? — praxis

Of course, because pantheism gives one a definitive sense that one is part of divinity, and that as such, one's life is worth living, that life is a big and worthy project worth striving for, all taking place in a big and worthy universe.

Major personal monotheisms operate from the notion of separation between man and god, and of the fallen nature of man. This gives rise to despondence, guilt, demoralization, hopelessly trying to (re)establish the bond between man and the divine. Pantheism doesn't throw a person into such an abyss, so the person has more energy and can utilize it proactively.

180 Proof

↪baker

Care to elaborate on how you got this "passive-aggressive wimp" from my 'stoic warriors' post?

Valentinus

↪Ross Campbell

@Outlander makes a good point about how the emphasis in one argument does not connect easily with the emphasis in others. It is not like they share the gaps between them. We, as readers supply the gaps. I think comparisons need more specificity than comparing "schools of thought."

So it might be more engaging to compare Kierkegaard's Works of Love with Epictetus's Enchiridion. Or some other specific sets of instruction on doing what is best.

praxis

You believe that Pantheism somehow prevents Stoicism from being Quietism?
— praxis

Of course, because pantheism gives one a definitive sense that one is part of divinity, and that as such, one's life is worth living, that life is a big and worthy project worth striving for, all taking place in a big and worthy universe. — baker

You haven’t shown how this prevents Quietism. Actually I might assume the Pantheist to have quietist tendencies, wanting to contemplate and commune with God at the expense of all worldly concerns.

baker

Actually I might assume the Pantheist to have quietist tendencies, wanting to contemplate and commune with God at the expense of all worldly concerns. — praxis

No, there is no personal god to commune with in pantheism.

baker

Care to elaborate on how you got this "passive-aggressive wimp" from my 'stoic warriors' post? — 180 Proof

*sigh*

I was trying to explain a point about S/stoicism to TheMadFool, in line with the discussion that far. So I asked him a question about a type of profession that probably most people nowadays do not associate with S/stoicism. I wanted to saliently make the point that being a military general (a characteristically proactive profession where there is a lot at stake) is not in conflict with being a Stoic. And then I wanted to elaborate why this is so, depending on how TMF would reply, addressing his further questions or concerns.

*sigh*

praxis

No, there is no personal god to commune with in pantheism. — baker

Right, a God without personality. That being the case, communing with nature (or literally whatever) could be seen as communing with God. Doesn’t seems there’s any point to pantheism without experiencing the “sense that one is part of divinity”. I formally submit that the pantheist could become lost in this sensing and unwittingly become quietist. Stranger things have happened.

frank

I don't think Christianity tells the average person how to live. It's for people who are so consumed by bitterness that they've become complete assholes. It's about freedom.

Fooloso4

Which is the better guide to living depends on the individual, her capacities, desires, and inclinations. Some people want be shown the way and would otherwise be lost. Others are motivated by inquiry and want to find their own way.

god must be atheist

↪Fooloso4

I would not be so specific. I just finished firing off a letter (personal email) to a friend, who says she keeps herself grounded or level-headed by meditation. I replied that in my opinion Buddhism is just as faulty as a philosophy as Christianity is, but for some reason they work for people. Then I said I am an atheist and that works for me -- in conclusion, human beings are such, that everything works for them to maintain their mental-emotional balance. Stoicism is just one more thing on the pile that works, despite its best efforts.

Is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions