Is Stoicism a suitable alternative . . . — Ross Campbell

Yes. Stoicism is enjoying a modern revival in the US. This forum recently had philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, as a guest speaker on the topic of Stoicism. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7089/discuss-philosophy-with-professor-massimo-pigliucci

Stoicism 5.0 : https://theconversation.com/stoicism-5-0-the-unlikely-21st-century-reboot-of-an-ancient-philosophy-80986

How To Be A Stoic : https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/massimo-on-stoicism/

"Traditional Christian moral values" owe much to Stoicism and other ancient philosophies; the belief that Christian moral values are unique is absurd. As practical wisdom, Stoicism may provide a "secular" code of ethics, but Stoicism's ethics had its basis in belief in an immanent deity, something that many of its modern proponents (including Pigliucci) prefer to ignore or note only in passing. So I think it's an error to think of Stoicism as secular, although it certainly isn't dependent on belief in a personal, supernatural God.

:fire:

I like the fire. Very fitting.

Kids today use fire instead of "cool" ... which evokes Stoics' "pneuma" and also a certain "weilder of the Flame of Anor". :wink:

Is Stoicism a suitable alternative to traditional Christian moral values for a modern pluralist society? — Ross Campbell

No. Religious moral values are not about developing virtue, they’re about binding a group with a common creed, values, purpose, and so on.

There is no replacement for a sky father. We have to simply grow up.

What are religious moral values?

Traditional, in a word, or emphasizing the moral senses of sacredness or purity, loyalty, and authority/subversion (to ultimate authority).

Interesting. Similar to Roman pietas it would seem, which could be construed to encompass all of those characteristics. A quality thought desirable in legions, e.g. Legio VII, Claudia Pia Fidelis, and Emperors too, e.g. Antoninus Pius.

As practical wisdom, Stoicism may provide a "secular" code of ethics, but Stoicism's ethics had its basis in belief in an immanent deity, something that many of its modern proponents (including Pigliucci) prefer to ignore or note only in passing. — Ciceronianus the White

You might want to clarify that the Stoic deity was Pantheistic, and essentially what we now identify with secular Nature, complete with natural laws. Their Logos was more like a universal principle than a conventional anthro-morphic god. Although Pigliucci is uncomfortable with the notion of the universe as a living organism, there are plenty of practical scientists who have come to that same conclusion. Besides, most modern ethical systems are grounded in the universal laws of Nature, in part because the are perceived to be logical.

Stoic Deity : Stoic physics is the natural philosophy adopted by the Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome used to explain the natural processes at work in the universe. To the Stoics, the universe is a single pantheistic god, but one which is also a material substance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_physics

Pigliucci : Here is the problem: the notion of the cosmos as a living organism, which held pretty well until roughly the 17th century, is not tenable in the face of everything that modern science—both physics and biology—has discovered so far.
https://thesideview.co/articles/the-stoic-god-is-untenable-in-the-light-of-modern-science/

Is the Universe Alive? https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119083-900-is-the-universe-alive-the-radical-idea-that-our-universe-may-be-evolving-like-a-living-creature-is-making-cosmologists-think-like-biologists/

PS__I'm not a Stoic, I just appreciate their practical philosophy

You might want to clarify that the Stoic deity was Pantheistic, and essentially what we now identify with secular Nature, complete with natural laws. — Gnomon

Whatever "secular nature" may be, I don't think it is essentially the Stoic deity. I doubt most of us today would consider nature to be infused with what the Stoics considered the generative, rational aspect of the universe, or its mind as it was sometimes called (also Divine Fire, or pneuma), which though material functioned as something like its soul. Nature, or the universe, isn't governed by natural law; what we might call natural law is the workings of the immanent Stoic deity. But to say their God is pantheistic is correct enough, I think, though some may maintain it's panentheistic. In any case, they avoided the problems I think are inherent in the belief in a transcendent God.

I have to wonder, though, just why Pigliucci claims that this idea of the universe, or of the universe as a "living organism" is not tenable given what we know of from modern science. What does he think a living organism must be? Something, presumably, that isn't the universe, but is nonetheless something that's a part of the universe necessarily, I would think, which we have encountered already. We haven't encountered much of the universe at all, though.

Religious moral values are not just about binding a group they are to offer an ethical code for living. The reason I think Stoicism is a better alternative as an ethical system is because it's values are more conducive to a happy or flourishing life. There is some valuable wisdom in Christianity which was of course influenced by Stoicism but I think it's weakness is that it's not based on the goal of flourishing or excellence.

Religious followers are not free to develop the ethical code being offered. If they do then they’ll no longer be considered part of the tradition. Developing virtue, as stoics do, leads to independence. This is why religions focus on following rules and not developing virtue, and why it doesn’t matter much if the rules are broken. Followers need to be kept dependent.

Whatever "secular nature" may be, I don't think it is essentially the Stoic deity. I doubt most of us today would consider nature to be infused with what the Stoics considered the generative, rational aspect of the universe, or its mind as it was sometimes called (also Divine Fire, or pneuma), which though material functioned as something like its soul. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not an expert on Stoicism, but I get the impression that traditional polytheists would have considered them Secular --- if not Atheists. The difference between then and now is the state of their scientific understanding. They didn't have the modern concept of impersonal Energy and Forces, so any kind of physical change was attributed to various invisible agents. But the Stoic's Logos was more like a universal principle of Reason, serving as an explanation of the natural order that can be recognized by rational humans . Yet, they didn't seem to be as cultish as the Pythagorean Math Cult.

Anyway, modern Stoics are not beholden to that ancient god concept. But I still like the metaphor of the universe as a living & growing & maturing organism. The only divine dictates of that kind of deity are what we now call "Natural Laws". We are obliged to respect & obey them (e.g Gravity), but not to worship & pray to the law-giver in order to obtain special favors and exceptions. :smile:

Logos : "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" ___Eugene Wigner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

I'm not an expert on Stoicism, but I get the impression that traditional polytheists would have considered them Secular --- if not Atheists. — Gnomon

That could be, although it's my understanding that like other ancient philosophers who weren't polytheists, the Stoics tolerated and even honored certain traditional religious practices. So Plato, Socrates and others were initiates of the Eleusinian mysteries, Socrates before his death reminded Crito he owed a sacrifice to Asklepios (Latinized as Asclepius) and Cleanthes, successor to Zeno as head of the Stoa, addressed his famous hymn to Zeus.

Anyway, modern Stoics are not beholden to that ancient god concept. But I still like the metaphor of the universe as a living & growing & maturing organism. The only divine dictates of that kind of deity are what we now call "Natural Laws". We are obliged to respect & obey them (e.g Gravity), but not to worship & pray to the law-giver in order to obtain special favors and exceptions. :smile: — Gnomon

Yes. You might want to read Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism as well as Pigliucci for modern, godless (as it were) Stoicism. For me, the traditional Stoic view of God is appealing, as I can easily think of the universe/nature as something to be revered.

For me, the traditional Stoic view of God is appealing, as I can easily think of the universe/nature as something to be revered. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. I appreciate their pragmatic worldview, but not their religious practices. I find it to be similar to Buddhism, as a practical psychology, but not the later religious trappings added-on after the death of Siddhartha. I have my own personal philosophy, that I call BothAnd, which incorporates various bits of wisdom from over the ages. :smile:

You might want to read Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism as well as Pigliucci for modern, godless (as it were) Stoicism. For me, the traditional Stoic view of God is appealing, as I can easily think of the universe/nature as something to be revered. — Ciceronianus the White

I've only read Pigliucci so am curious how God fits into a Divine Stoicism. If I remember correctly, Pigliucci claims that it can coexist with just about any metaphysics, but that's coexisting and not being integral.

:up:

There certainly are similarities. It's interesting they both arose at around the same time.

I've only read Pigliucci so am curious how God fits into a Divine Stoicism. If I remember correctly, Pigliucci claims that it can coexist with just about any metaphysics, but that's coexisting and not being integral. — praxis

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has its basis in Stoic practical wisdom, as does Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (it's founder, Ellis, noted this in his writings). But for me, it's inappropriate to refer to it as Stoicism, as it merely borrows from it that practical wisdom which the Stoics derived from a system of beliefs regarding people and the cosmos which included, significantly, a belief in a deity. And it's clear that the proponents of these therapies never claimed to be Stoics.

Similarly, what Pigliucci and Becker and no doubt others call Stoicism isn't what was developed and propounded by ancient Greek and Roman Stoics over roughly 700 years. They and others like them might be considered "Cafeteria Stoics" in the same way as certain of those who call themselves Catholics are called "Cafeteria Catholics." Stoicism is enjoying, if that's the word, a kind of revival, but when we see it being recommended to entrepreneurs (not by P and B, but by others) to increase their effectiveness it's clear that Stoicism is being misinterpreted.

:up:

I don't think morality, Christianity as part of it, and stoicism make good bedfellows. The former is about oughts, changing the world into something other than what it is (allegedly into something better) and stoicism is about accepting the world as it is. There seems to be fundamental difference in the approach to reality between the two.

Perhaps, because making a better world is a work in progress, a little of both is in order to help us get through the day so to speak. Be a stoic until such a time when our sense of morality has transformed our world into, let's just say, a heaven on earth.

Stoicism is probably more than simply putting up with hardship as it also calls for moderating our joy and that may come in handy when we draw up the blueprint for our utopia.

In the absence of an explanation for the significance of a belief in a deity, I will assume that it has to do with spirituality/transcendence. I can fully appreciate that if that's the case. Pigliucci's stoicism isn't a problem for me in that regard because I had practice (realizing Buddhist emptiness, to put it plainly) before becoming interested in stoicism.

The capitalistic appropriation of traditional beliefs and practices is apparently a common theme. Buddhists lament mindfulness being used to increase work efficiency, for example. I recently read How to Change Your Mind, by Michael Pollan, and in it he mentions the practice of silicon valley creatives micro-dosing psychedelics to increase their creativity. Shamans have traditionally used psychedelics for spiritual purposes. Micro-dosing is too weak for that purpose.

In the absence of an explanation for the significance of a belief in a deity, I will assume that it has to do with spirituality/transcendence. — praxis

Right, sorry. The Stoics believed that each of us shared in the pneuma, the generative principle which infuses the universe, which they likened to fire. We do so because we have the capacity to reason, and they thought that the Divine Reason enacts with the matter otherwise part of the universe and governs it. We live "in accordance with nature" as they liked to say when we use our reason, as our capacity to reason is what, by nature, is our special characteristic among living creatures.

It's by using our reason that we realize that the highest good is virtue. We're virtuous when, among other things, we don't harm one another, but it's also clear that it would be immoral to do so because each of us carries within ourselves a part of the divinity. The fact that we all share in the divine also means that we're brothers and sisters, equals in our essence, citizens of the world (or cosmos) as opposed to citizens of certain cities or places. Stoic ethics is essentially based on its physics, then, which had as a premise an immanent deity.

My feeling is that one of the maxims of Stoicism, that we should concern ourselves with what is in our control and not allow what is out of our control to disturb us or govern our conduct, serves to mitigate our desire for wealth, power, control or people and things, which in large part motivates misconduct and can encourage tranquility. We can certainly use that maxim as a guide without believing in the Stoic God, but it and other Stoic maxims were thought to result from the exercise of reason, which we have because we have in use a part of the divine.

Long story short, as they say.

Interesting, thanks!

I understand Pigliucci's presentation of the dichotomy of control to be similar to Eastern philosophy in that what we have no control of will ultimately be unsatisfying (life is suffering), and since we have complete (not sure about that) control of developing our virtue it's bound to be satisfying, and it's in accord with our nature, being social and having the capacity of reason.