I think I said my main arguments against stoicism in some of my longer posts. I see no reason to continue this. I think at this point, I see how this is going to draw out. I think I made some sufficient points that pointed to why I think stoicism is deficient in solving problems of suffering, and at best can be used in cognitive behavioral therapy for some long term issues. However, i don't see it in its pure form as anything that is practical in practice nor desirable in theory. I also explained how I think pessimism sees that the problems exist in the first place, that compassion and recognition of fellow-suffering is the way to go and is more in tune with how things are. There is no need to rely on baseless virtue theory, no need to accept something because it is given. You can continue to make some quips and defenses, but I am done since I said a great deal here and it is just going to become ad hominem stuff and anecdotal evidence.

What is the motivation to "do something"? The assumption is.... — schopenhauer1

I think it's the opposite.

The motivation is really nothing at all. Motivation cannot be separated form doing the action. It doesn't take any from between thinking banquet an action and performing it. There can't be no pre-existing reason to take any action. You are either doing and motivated or you are not. When someone is motivated, there is no reason to do anything, nothing to be obtained, for one is already where they want to be in that moment. Instead of any sort of assumption or plan of a worthwhile end, there is just a person acting.

Nailed it. Great post, couldn't have said it better.

What a load of rubbish. tgw, it's not arrogant to claim a position is wrong, nor is it arrogant to claim is position is right (stop martyring yourself). This is a philosophy forum for Pete's sake. It's only arrogant, no, silly, to claim a position is wrong without any real arguments. — darthbarracuda

I never said that. I was mocking the post that I quoted, which you would know if you read the thread instead of jumping on things to quote and then respond to.

Except that it is impossible to argue with you. You do not make any claims which can be falsified by reasonable argument — Agustino

Here's an exercise for you: look for one claim in the wall of text you posted that can be falsified by reasonable argument, or even one that says anything other than 'I'm right, you're wrong.' I'll wait.

Here's an exercise for you: look for one claim in the wall of text you posted that can be falsified by reasonable argument, or even one that says anything other than 'I'm right, you're wrong.' I'll wait. — The Great Whatever

Which "wall of text"?

I think a much more productive discussion whose potential lies hidden is that of Stoicism against that of Buddhism. There are many family resemblances amongst the two, however Buddhism does seem to have a more this-worldy pessimistic attitude combined with a more other-worldly open attitude. Thus I argue that while Buddhism may reduce suffering, it may also promote a retreat from this world, thereby somewhat diminishing flourishing. Stoicism on the contrary encourages a return to the day to day problems of life combined with a different attitude which gives more strength and power.

As such, while I can easily imagine an athletic champion being a stoic, I can barely imagine him being a buddhist. Of course there are exceptions (thinking of the Japanese samurais here, or chinese martial artists). But it seems to me that Buddhism does require the pursuit of enlightenment (transcending this world) as opposed to flourishing within the world. What do you think @darthbarracuda?

I also explained how I think pessimism sees that the problems exist in the first place, that compassion and recognition of fellow-suffering is the way to go and is more in tune with how things are. There is no need to rely on baseless virtue theory, no need to accept something because it is given. — schopenhauer1

The quote above is another example of the way in which you've persistently framed these two positions in a misleading way, as if certain features are mutually exclusive, when they aren't, and as if an adherent of one position does not - or cannot - acknowledge and accept features of the other, when they can and do.

And this talk in terms of -isms can be counterproductive, as if we must rigidly conform to a preexisting set of propositions under a certain label, rather than finding our own way, and perhaps reaching a middle ground.

Seems like it would be an interesting idea to compare the two philosophies. But I dislike these MMA championship-like smackdowns of other philosophies, the "my philosophy's better than yours'". It's not very productive.

But yes, Stoicism and Buddhism are very similar, I would even say they might be compatible in some areas. But Stoics traditionally argued for a teleology of the universe, and that rationality led to flourishing. While Buddhists (philosophically) don't argue for any teleological things (they leave that alone), and think that more emotional thinking is the path to contentedness (that's not to say Buddhists can't do philosophy, they just don't think reason will inherently lead to happiness).

Hello everyone, it's nice to see your posts again.

I'm nine months late so I'll just leave my notes here to organize my thoughts. Most are critiques of Stoicism -- these are heavily biased against stoicism (relative to pessimism) and reflects my current inclinations on this topic that I all gathered from reading this thread.

1. Stoicism fails to provide a solution to the prevention of future suffering.

Sure, stoicism works for some but only in the context of suffering-management and not suffering-prevention. It can work in the context of overcoming ongoing suffering but provides limited to no answer to prevent future suffering from occurring in the first place. "Future" in this context means (a) suffering of existing people and (b) suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.

Both Stoicism and Pessimism recognize the inevitability of suffering of existing beings. Stoicism's answer to (a) is to endure/overcome suffering when it comes. Pessimism's answer is similar but attempts to also minimize suffering via asceticism or repression of one's desires.

Stoicism doesn't answer (b), at least that's what I get from this thread. Pessimism's proposed answer to (b) is the anti-natalist stand.

2. Stoicism fails to establish a convincing rationale for how to behave/live.

Stoicism takes the stoic values as inherently good or desirable. One's actions take into account these values.

Pessimism views suffering as inherently bad or undesirable. One's actions take into account the (reduction of) suffering of others.

There is a comment in the "Is Stoicism fatalistic" thread that stoicism "needs to be animated by compassion" and "it's hard to see what the source of that compassion is in the traditional stoic accounts".

3. Stoicism downplays the gravity of the problem of human suffering.

There is one post reading along the lines of "if it works, then what's wrong with believing/practicing it"? If it works, then good for you but it is also good to point out that it works with a caveat. And I think that the caveat is downplaying the severity of the problem of human suffering.

While stoicism acknowledges that suffering is part of human life, it viewed as just something to be overcome or maybe even ignored, e.g. "just move on" from death of a loved one, physical pain, angst, dread, boredom, etc. and "don't bother" with these problems because these are natural phenomena and "out of one's control". It is placed on the sidelines, which is useful in coping/dealing with suffering, but in doing so, fails to see suffering for what it is -- something undesirable. It also blinds one to potential solutions to prevent future suffering simply because it is out of one's control.

Pessimism acknowledges the gravity of the problem of human suffering, sees it as something undesirable, and proposes ways to minimize suffering for existent people and prevent suffering of currently non-existent people.

NOTE: I might update this post later after I re-read the thread.

3) How might a Philosophical Pessimist's answer to solving life's sufferings be different than a Stoic's? — schopenhauer1

That Stoics deny suffering and/or problems in general, seems to be a common misconception. From what I can tell, Stoics acknowledge there is a problem, and then look for a rational solution. Sometimes the solution is to reframe the problem in terms of "what judgments am I making?" But, sometimes the solution is to realize that there is a problem and that we can do something about it. The Stoics have been accused of being fatalistic. I guess I just don't see it.

Marcus Aurelius didn't say "well, the Germanic tribes are attacking... I guess it's meant to be."

it's hard to see what the source of that compassion is in the traditional stoic accounts". — OglopTo

How about, all of mankind are brothers, and it is to our advantage to work together and to look out for each other?

I'm not really familiar with traditional stoicism or its evolution throughout history. I just tried to summarize what I understood from this thread; of course filtered though my own biases and preconceptions.

I quoted the specific clause you quoted from @Wayfarer in the "Is Stoicism fatalistic?" thread. Maybe we can invite them to elaborate. :-)

The quickest way to dispel incorrect beliefs about Stoicism is to acknowledge what beliefs one currently has about the philosophy, and then check to see if those assumptions agree with what is the case.

For instance. What in fact, do the Stoics believe about emotions? I don't know that they had any issues with emotions, as we generally think of them. They have an issue with the passions

Stoicism and Emotion.

On the surface, stoicism and emotion seem like contradictory terms. Yet the Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome were deeply interested in the emotions, which they understood as complex judgments about what we regard as valuable in our surroundings. Stoicism and Emotion shows that they did not simply advocate an across-the-board suppression of feeling, as stoicism implies in today’s English, but instead conducted a searching examination of these powerful psychological responses, seeking to understand what attitude toward them expresses the deepest respect for human potential.

In this elegant and clearly written work, Margaret Graver gives a compelling new interpretation of the Stoic position. Drawing on a vast range of ancient sources, she argues that the chief demand of Stoic ethics is not that we should suppress or deny our feelings, but that we should perfect the rational mind at the core of every human being. Like all our judgments, the Stoics believed, our affective responses can be either true or false and right or wrong, and we must assume responsibility for them. Without glossing over the difficulties, Graver also shows how the Stoics dealt with those questions that seem to present problems for their theory: the physiological basis of affective responses, the phenomenon of being carried away by one’s emotions, the occurrence of involuntary feelings and the disordered behaviors of mental illness. Ultimately revealing the deeper motivations of Stoic philosophy, Stoicism and Emotion uncovers the sources of its broad appeal in the ancient world and illuminates its surprising relevance to our own.

From the OP:

[Stoicism] taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

I should also add that the name of divine Reason was also frequently referred to as the Logos.

I think this entails a somewhat religious concept of reason. It's not 'religious' in the theistic sense, but closer to the sense of Buddhism or Taoism - 'harmony with nature', 'harmony with the great way'. It's also religious in the sense of abduring the 'lower' - that being the domain of sense-impressions, sensations and passions - in favour of the 'higher' - that being governed by reason.

But unlike today's conception of 'reason', theirs was not tied to the sensory domain ('empiricism'). I rather like this passage in the New Advent encyclopedia:

God, according to the Stoics, "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He is the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). Conformably to their exegetical habits, the Stoics made of the different gods personifications of the Logos, e.g. of Zeus and above all of Hermes.

I think the biggest problem with stoicism is the absence of an exemplar, the legendary sage or teacher who embodies the philosophy in the way the (apocryphal?) Lao Tzu embodied the Tao. As well as that, I think the sense of relatedness to the 'governing principle' was somewhat bloodless.

@Wayfarer
The Stoics may not have had the name of a sage in mind (some suggest that perhaps Socrates or Diogenes were examples), but they did know what qualities a sage required.

The article on Stoicism in the Stanford Encyclopedia gives rough idea of what an ideal Stoic sage would be like.

I don't know that they had any issues with emotions, as we generally think of them. — anonymous66

As I understand, the issue is not with the misconception that stoics practice the suppression of emotions.

The issue is where they derive motivation for the actions they do in everyday life. As I see it, in traditional stoicism, stoic actions are motivated by the pursuit of virtues/reason -- virtue/reason which is taken as good in themselves so no further justification needed. This idea that something is a good in itself does not sit well with me. For me, there should be purpose why this good ought to be pursued and this lack of narrative of purpose is what is being critiqued.

The following idea sits better with me: Life has suffering, suffering is undesirable and inherently bad, and we have to sympathize with another with their suffering. For me, it is easier to accept something as inherently bad versus accepting something as inherently good. Discussing purpose is not critical in the former while I think it is critical for the latter.

How about, all of mankind are brothers, and it is to our advantage to work together and to look out for each other? — anonymous66

This sounds nice but what is the Stoic motivation behind this? Is it because brotherhood as a virtue is simply inherently good in itself?

-----

I know that it's unrealistic to ask to not take this personally given that something at your core is critiqued, but please don't as much as you can.

I don't want to depreciate stoic principles, but it is a matter of historical fact that stoicism died out in part because of its lack of vitality - and because of the immense charisma of a certain Galilean.

Although I was interested in the above comment about the connection of stoicism and Hermes, which, I presume, was retained in the hermetic tradition. I have acquired a few books on the hermetics recently and they're very interesting in their own right.

I don't want to depreciate stoic principles, but it is a matter of historical fact that stoicism died out in part because of its lack of vitality - and because of the immense charisma of a certain Galilean. — Wayfarer

It is a historical fact that it did die out, and that Christianity became popular. Is anyone in a position to say they know for a fact why that happened? The term "underdetermination" comes to mind.

This idea that something is a good in itself does not sit well with me. — OglopTo

I don't share your conviction. I think we just disagree about what is good in and of itself.

I think the historical reasons for the decline of the stoics are pretty clear, really, but would probably constitute at least a long essay, if not a book.

And for what it's worth, I don't think you're being 'pushy' at all, you're just expressing your enthusiasm for the subject. But there's no reason not to consider objections also, it is quite a good discipline in its own right. After all a stoic ought not to be too moved by criticism ;)

I think the historical reasons for the decine of the stoics are pretty clear, really, but would probably constitute at least a long essay, if not a book. — Wayfarer

I don't doubt that people have opinions about what caused its decline.

But there's no reason not to consider objections also, it is quite a good discipline in its own right. After all a stoic ought not to be too moved by criticism ;) — Wayfarer

You don't have to look very hard to find people critical of Stoicism.

Of course, there are responses, as well.

Still, the intellectually serious, and in fact Stoic, thing to do is to take a look at what an unsympathetic commentator has to say about the philosophy and use the occasion to reflect and learn.

For many of the people on this forum, Stoicism is a stock answer to how people handle life faced with conditions that a Philosophical Pessimist might enumerate upon. Since Stoicism keeps coming up, I'd like to know what some users on here think of Stoicism in regards to it being an answer to the problems posed by the Philosophical Pessimist. — schopenhauer1

I wasn't aware that there were others besides myself who have an interest in Stoicism.

1) Does the Stoic ethic provide an answer to the existential boredom/instrumentality/annoyances/negative experiences/desire/flux/becoming-and-never-being, etc. that the Philosophical Pessimist poses?

2) Is Stoicism a kind of Philosophical Pessimism or at least close cousins? If it is not a kind of Philosophical Pessimism, how might they differ?

3) How might a Philosophical Pessimist's answer to solving life's sufferings be different than a Stoic's?

For the purposes of this thread, the definitions of Philosophical Pessimism is this:
Either existence:

-contains much suffering (empirical), and thus not good. (negative contingent pain, negative experiences in general, etc. (pace Benatar and partly Schopenhauer)

-The world is suffering (metaphysical) and thus not good (the ceaseless striving and emptiness of the self-reflecting human animal). (pace Schopenhauer and some Eastern philosophies).


The definition of Stoicism is: an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Also included in the definition is anything related to these definitions that are not included but are implied. Clearly, one can write a thesis just on the definitions and specifications of thought on each school of philosophy, but obviously I just needed it as short as possible.

The Stoics believed that the world was created by a Benevolent Creator and that it is possible to see life as a festival. So, the short answer is "no" they weren't pessimists.

Here's my response to the question, "is Stoicism fatalistic?"..

Stoicism is about pursuing Eudaimonia (flourishing as a human). So in that way it's anti-fatalistic. Unless one considers the pursuit of Eudaimonia itself to be fatalistic in some way.

I've been reading through Epictetus' Discourses, I've read most of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, I've read the Enchirdion, and I've read Musonius Rufus' fragments, and I've read many of Seneca's letters. I've also read Cicero's comments about Stoicism. I don't see Stoicism as fatalistic. They do believe the universe is deterministic in nature, but take comfort that one does have control over one's attitudes and one's actions and reactions. I've read about Seneca and Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, and I don't see a fatalistic attitude.

The Stoic attitude was such that they suggested if you saw something that needs to be changed, then you should do something about it. Their attitude toward friendship is such that, they said if you see a friend screwing his life up, you should say something. Epictetus was an influential head of a school, Seneca was a wealthy and successful businessman, Marcus Aurelius was one of the best Emperors of the Roman Empire, and he fought off the Germanic tribes. I know a modern-day Stoic blogger and podcaster who is involved with the Black Lives Matter movement. If that's evidence of fatalism (or pessimism) then I wonder how it is being defined. — anonymous66

That Stoics deny suffering and/or problems in general, seems to be a common misconception. From what I can tell, Stoics acknowledge there is a problem, and then look for a rational solution. Sometimes the solution is to reframe the problem in terms of "what judgments am I making?" But, sometimes the solution is to realize that there is a problem and and that we can do something about it. The Stoics have been accused of being fatalistic. I guess I just don't see it. — anonymous66

One of the reasons for the thread was that Stoicism could be used to deny that we have to "deal" with suffering in the first place by being born at all. Stoicism seemed to be a sort of stock answer, like a salve that could be used to justify the fact that we suffer. "Look, we can all act as Stoics, and the problems of life are solved". Maybe it is not put in such Pollyanna terms, but that was/is basically the gist. My point was to to point out that there are problems which Stoicism does not solve as well as the fact that suffering, by existing in the first place, bypasses the "Stoicism" as answer-to-suffering response.

If you're a Stoic and you're in denial... then you're doing it wrong.

I think it could be argued that Stoicism, like all the ancient philosophies, was developed as a response to an obvious issue. Life can be difficult. Philosophies are therapeutic. Stoicism is one proposed solution to the reality of human suffering (it does promise to be a path to Eudaimonia).

If not difficulties, then not philosophy (as a solution.)

Stoicism is one proposed solution to the reality of human suffering — anonymous66

There's no denying that Stoic principles help some people in dealing with life's difficulties.

The issue being raised is on the scope of the solution proposed. See Critique #1 in this post.

1. Stoicism fails to provide a solution to the prevention of future suffering.

Sure, stoicism works for some but only in the context of suffering-management and not suffering-prevention. It can work in the context of overcoming ongoing suffering but provides limited to no answer to prevent future suffering from occurring in the first place. "Future" in this context means (a) suffering of existing people and (b) suffering of the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.

Both Stoicism and Pessimism recognize the inevitability of suffering of existing beings. Stoicism's answer to (a) is to endure/overcome suffering when it comes. Pessimism's answer is similar but attempts to also minimize suffering via asceticism or repression of one's desires.

Stoicism doesn't answer (b), at least that's what I get from this thread. Pessimism's proposed answer to (b) is the anti-natalist stand. — OglopTo

The proposed Stoic solution is limited to managing present suffering, after the fact that we are already alive and is bound to suffer some time in the future. Suffering is taken as a fact of life, deemed out of one's control, and dealt with after the fact, i.e. once you're already suffering.

It's not that suffering-management is bad but Stoicism's response ends here. It stops short of proposing ways to prevent suffering to occur in the first place.

The proposed Stoic solution is limited to managing present suffering, after the fact that we are already alive and is bound to suffer some time in the future. Suffering is taken as a fact of life, deemed out of one's control, and dealt with after the fact, i.e. once you're already suffering. — OglopTo

Is Eudaimonia compatible with suffering? I don't know that I agree that suffering is out of one's control.

Every heard of negative visualization?

Here is more...

Can you elaborate?

How does the concept of Eudaimonia relate to the prevention of suffering in the future for (a) existing people and (b) the next generation of (currently non-existent) people.

There's not much to elaborate on. My premises are 1. the ancient philosophies promised a path to Eudaimonia and 2. Eudaimonia is not compatible with suffering.

I think I see this thread as the assertion that "while Stoicism does promise a path to Eudaimonia, many of you are doubtful that Stoicism will actually lead to Eudaimonia."

Is that the message you mean to convey?