Stoicism 1 - A Critique

[From Frank Schulwolf] On Friday, July 7th, at The Villages (FL) Philosophy Club, we were offered up the philosophy of stoicism. By contemporary standards stoicism is perhaps not seen as a major philosophical movement—it is none the less deserving of a more thorough examination than the one presented.

A philosophy should deliver a good deal more than a disconnected set of floating bromides, clichés

or homilies. Philosophy studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence. Philosophy’s

task is providing man with a comprehensive view of life, which in turn provides a comprehensive

reference for all his action—mental or physical, psychological or existential.

Stoicism as presented was bereft of intellectual content. We learned nothing of its structural workings

as a system. No raison d'être. We are instead given selected chestnuts of wisdom (I paraphrase) “Stoics do not respond to anger with anger." Perhaps a useful tool when backed by rationale. Unanchored it is without value.

If we set aside the lighter than air presentation, we find that Stoicism holds specific views on the

nature of the universe and mans place within it. A number of these are problematic positions—

many of which if verbalized in presentation would not be likely to attract adherents. Some so repugnant, all but the numbest would head for the exits.

Stoicism is a by design/determinist philosophy, with all that implies. The philosophical equivalent of

(the movie) Ground Hog Day. In the Stoic universe, all has happened before. Because the universe

is eternal it will happen endlessly again and again. It is therefore futile and a waste of time

bemoaning ones fate. Realize instead, an unlimited acceptance of “reality” because it was all

meant to happen. That in turn means emotions are irrelevant because it was supposed to happen.

So, why not be good boys and girls, follow the rules and control your emotions. They are worse

than useless. They are irrational and therefore counter productive. Such a simplistic proposition

disregards the nature of emotions.

Emotions are the product of man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly. Man’s emotional mechanism is very important component of the computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses. Its main function being the integration of ideas.

If you consign your emotions to the dustbin, your disciplined emotional repression will deny your conscious mind the tools necessary to reach firm convictions. It is your conscious mind that programs the computer. If you default, if you cannot reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no need to repress them.

Interestingly, while the Greeks idealized man, The Stoics degraded him by calling for the suppression

of emotion.

The philosophy of Stoicism produces the antithesis of what our founding fathers had in mind—the

individual pursuing his happiness. Determinism recognizes no individuals. A position antithetical to

our Bill of Rights. What is more, determinisms flaws lead to nightmarish ethical issues.* This from

a philosophy which proudly proclaims its dedication to reason.

Frank Schulwolf

* See Ivan’s argument in The Brothers Karamazov