Stoicism as a subversive activity
Stoic philosophy is often presented as “conservative,” yet it is anything but
Is Stoicism a conservative or progressive philosophy of life? To a first approximation, the very question makes no sense. “Conservative” and “progressive” are modern, culturally and temporally specific labels for certain ways of seeing and acting in the world. Nevertheless, it does make sense to ask whether practicing Stoicism leads one to simply embrace the status quo or to consciously attempt to subvert it. Or, perhaps, neither.
Some Greco-Roman philosophies do, I think, inherently favor the status quo. Epicureanism teaches us to disengage from social and political life on the eminently sensible assumption that it is more likely to cause us pain rather than pleasure, and since a life of tranquillity characterized by lack of pain is the goal of the Epicureans, this makes sense.
Similarly, Pyrrhonian Skepticism should be classified as socially “conservative,” since the Pyrrhonists are supposed to suspend judgment on all “non-evident” matters, such as the goal of life, or which society is best, and simply follow the customs prevalent in whatever social milieu they happen to live.
The Cynics, by contrast, were in-your-face subversive, constantly flaunting and ridiculing social customs and reminding people that they were, of their own volition, living meaningless lives. Since Stoicism is a close cousin of Cynicism, we may already have ground to suspect that it is a more radical philosophy than it is often given credit for.
I suggest to proceed by briefly looking at a whopping nine aspects of Stoicism that may be used to build the case that it is a rather subversive approach to living one’s life.
I. No fake news or alternative facts
The Stoics believed that in order to live a good life (ethics) one has to have a minimal understanding of how the world works (science, facts) and has to be able to think well about it (logic, reasoning). One day a student questioned Epictetus about the use of studying logic. Here is what happened:
“When someone in his audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you? — Yes. — Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument? — And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you? — As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?” (Discourses, 2.25)
As I’m sure you know very well, we currently live in a world flooded with fake news and alternative facts, thanks largely to the invention of social media and their cynical (with a small “c”) manipulation by companies like Meta, X, and the like. Moreover, an already awful situation is quickly getting much worse because of the advent of generative AI. There is a real possibility that the internet will soon be entirely useless, which may not be such a bad thing after all.
Here, then, is the first way in which Stoicism goes against the grain of contemporary society: a Stoic has no use or tolerance for made up stuff and bad reasoning.
II. Minimalism about externals
“Externals,” in Stoic philosophy, are all those things that are not up to us, and since the only things truly up to us are our considered judgments, values, and decisions to act or not to act (Enchiridion 1.1), externals comprise most stuff people typically care about, including our health, wealth, reputation, career, relationships, and so forth.
While externals are often classed under things “indifferent,” this doesn’t mean we don’t care about them. They do have value (axia). But that value is not intrinsic, it lies in how we use them. Wealth, for instance, is typically considered a good, but for a Stoic it is such only if the individual uses it to help others and make the world a better place. Otherwise, wealth can actually be bad. In this respect, Epictetus explained that we should all “play ball” like Socrates:
“Socrates … was like a man playing ball. And at that place and time what was the ball that he was playing with? Imprisonment, exile, drinking poison, being deprived of wife, leaving children orphans. These were the things with which he was playing, but none the less he played and handled the ball in good form.” (Discourses, 2.5)
What is truly important is not what we have or what happens to us—much of which is outside of our control anyway—but how we handle such things. While Stoicism (unlike Cynicism) has nothing against owning things, it does tend in the opposite direction to the currently prevailing culture of extreme capitalism and blatant consumerism. Epictetus would be very perplexed by the quintessential American concept of “shopping therapy,” for instance.
III. The emphasis is on virtue
As a corollary of the previous point, Stoicism is most emphatically not a life hack that can be used to be successful at one’s career, or to make money, or to win the Super Bowl. Those are all externals, and very much not the point of Stoic philosophy.
The point is, rather, to act virtuously, even at the cost of suffering in terms of externals (losing money, not succeeding by societal standards, and so forth). Here is how Socrates, the chief inspiration for the Stoics, puts it:
SOCRATES: Doing what’s unjust is actually the worst thing there is.
POLUS: Really? Is that the worst? Isn’t suffering what’s unjust still worse?
SOCRATES: No, not in the least.
POLUS: So you’d rather want to suffer what’s unjust than do it?
SOCRATES: For my part, I wouldn’t want either, but if it had to be one or the other, I would choose suffering over doing what’s unjust.
(Plato, Gorgias, 469)
Why is suffering injustice not as great an evil as committing injustice? Because the most precious thing we have is our character, which expresses itself in virtuous (as opposed to vicious) behavior. So if someone does us an injustice, they are first and foremost hurting themselves. And we don’t want to cause self-harm through committing an injustice ourselves. Hard to imagine something more at odds with the current zeitgeist. And yet, there is more, much more!
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Figs in Winter: New Stoicism and Beyond to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.