Report from STOICON 2015 — part II

Sellars-Art of LivingI recently returned from STOICON 2015, a gathering of people interested in learning about, as well as practicing, Stoicism. This is the third such event in as many years, the last two organized by the delightful Jules Evans. (It turns out, incidentally, that STOICON 2016 will be hosted by yours truly, in New York, on 15 October. Mark your calendars!)

The event featured a number of talks in the morning, followed by two series of parallel workshop sessions for smaller groups of people, concluding with a plenary keynote lecture. In the first installment of this series I shared my notes and thoughts about the morning session, while here I am recapping the first workshop I attended. In part III I will tackle the second workshop, ending with the keynote in the last installment. All of this material will be online by the end of this week.

The workshop I went to was John Sellars’ (author of The Art of Living: The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy) “The Stoic world-view: physics, religion, science.” His central concern was the exploration of a standard question often posed to modern Stoics: just how “Stoic” is this thing, anyway?

Turns out that one can ask the same question also about ancient Stoics: when Seneca advices us to sit down in the evening and write about our experiences of the day, this may be good advice in general, but does it come out of Stoicism as a coherent philosophy? How? And what’s all the fuss about Marcus’ and Epictetus’ talk of God and Providence? Do we have to accept it as part of the full package?

In other words, is Stoic philosophy an organic whole, where the ethics really is tightly connected to the physics, say, or can one pick and choose? The Stoics themselves clearly thought that their philosophy was a coherent system, but does that mean that a modern Stoic is then committed to some kind of pantheism, or to specific cosmological notions about the cyclical life of the universe?

Beginning then with metaphysics, the Stoics claimed that everything that exists is tangible: no supernatural, nothing incorporeal. Anything that has causal power must be a physical body. If your “soul” is what makes your body move, then the soul is a material body too (a notion that later Christian thinkers, though influenced by Stoicism, obviously rejected).

The Stoics also rejected Plato’s proposal of universal concepts (“Ideas”), as there are only particulars. So when you talk about virtue — since virtue isn’t a physical body — you are really referring to a state of your physical brain, not to an incorporeal thing.

For the Stoics there were two kinds of physical things: matter and pneuma (“breath”), and they together make up everything that exists. Matter is passive, pneuma is active, is what makes things alive; this in turn implies that everything is alive, but to different degrees. (Incidentally, John pointed out, the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit comes from the Stoic concept of pneuma.)

The Stoics themselves apparently derived the idea that the pneuma permeates all living bodies from (then) contemporary anatomical research: dissection of bodies showed a number of structures permeating them, and initially the functional distinction between arteries and nerves was not clear.

Chrysippus, the third head of the Stoa, famously held that the rational faculty is located in the heart, but later Stoics challenged this, agreeing with others (such as Galen) that it is found in the head. This reflected progress in anatomical research of the time, and Chrysippus himself had said that he was deriving his conclusions from the then current state of knowledge, but that future research may show things to be otherwise. This openness to update one’s beliefs with new empirical evidence (or better arguments) is a characteristic of ancient Stoicism, and it obviously ought to be retained by practitioners of the modern versions.

Interestingly, despite the apparent dualism implied by this general picture, it means that for the Stoics there is a difference only in degrees of organizational complexity between, say, a stone and a human brain — a rather modern concept.

Sellars reminded us that for the Stoics there was ultimately just one physical thing, nature, and we are all parts of it. God then was conceived either as the breath that imbues all of nature, or as identical to nature itself (matter + breath). Either way, nature was thought of as a single, physical, living organism.

So, how seriously should we take this God talk on the part of the Stoics? What are we to make, for instance, of Cleanthes’ famous Hymn to Zeus, which does sound pious and inspired by genuine feeling?

One thing to keep in mind — according to John — is that the early Stoics were known for giving allegorical interpretations of traditional mythology, as in “when you are talking about Zeus doing X you are actually describing natural process Y that causes X.” Accordingly, later on the Neoplatonist Plotinus attacked the Stoics for being atheists, engaging in God talk only to save appearances. The same criticism was eventually leveled at Spinoza, who shared much in common with the Stoics. Sellars paraphrased Cicero to the effect that the Stoics’ Fate is not the Fate of the theologians, it is the Fate of the scientists (meaning the result of universal causal connections).

Incidentally, before making too much fun of the Stoics apparent dualism, let us remember that even in the 21st century we have no clear scientific explanation of either life itself or consciousness. So it’s a bit too much to expect the ancient Stoics to get it right.

Given all the above, again, the question is: how much of the ancient Stoic worldview does one have to buy in order to practice Stoic ethics, and if the answer is “not much,” then is the resulting approach really “Stoic”? This is where John opened up the discussion to the group.

One of the obvious answers here is that “Stoicism” is a family resemblance concept, with a number of connected variants both in the ancient world and between the ancient and contemporary versions. This is true also of other philosophies, for instance Buddhism, and even of religions, like Christianity. The reason modern Stoicism may seem more abruptly different from its ancient predecessor than those other two examples is simply because it was not continuously practiced in the intervening period, and so it evolved by jumps rather than gradually.

Bill Irvine, who was present at the session, gave his favorite example of the history of the use of willow tree extract: we have known that it relieves pain for a long time, but the ancients that started using it didn’t know why, or had strange, pre-scientific ideas about it, which we now reject. And yet, we use aspirin today, and it works just the same.

My currently favorite answer comes from Lawrence Becker’s A New Stoicism: we need to abstract from specific notions in Stoic physics, because like anything in science they quickly become obsolete, but there is value in retaining the overarching idea. That idea is that one cannot do ethics (in the sense of figuring out how to live) and at the same time ignore how the world works. Follow the facts is how Becker rephrases the ancient “follow nature.” For instance, the Stoic ideas of universal causality and materialism — which still hold for modern science — have obvious consequences, respectively, for our concept of free will and for how we see ourselves with respect to the rest of nature (and therefore how we relate to it).

Advertisements


Categories: STOICON & Stoic Week

9 replies

  1. Thank you for the review of John Sellars talk. I cannot wait to see it and the following discussion to be posted online.

    It’s a question I have spent nearly a year arguing about endlessly on the Facebook groups without result.

    John Sellars posted a piece about this question on his site, which lead to some confusion about: whether he was defining Modern Stoicism or not; could an Epicurean take on Dichotomy of Control and therefore call themselves a Stoic; the meaningfulness of the Society of Epictetus’s litmus test; could someone who practiced mindfulness then call themselves a Buddhist; in what manner was he using the term ‘family resemblances’; etc.

    From Traditional Stoic point of view, Big Tent Stoicism is hypocritical as evidenced by them feeling they were run out of the Facebook Group for their point of view (I just learned). From a modern stoic point of view, the traditional Stoic’s litmus test makes Big Tent Stoicism a non-starter.

    Seems to be a bit of a pickle.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Massimo,

    “Stoic ideas of universal causality and materialism — which still hold for modern science…”

    I get that these ideas serve as assumptions for modern scientists, but I also get the sense that they meant more than that to the ancient Stoics…that to the latter these ideas were more like metaphysical convictions. In other words, they did not draw the same distinction that we (assuming that you still do) draw between methodological and metaphysical naturalism (or the distinctions between naturalism, physicalism, and materialism). Yes?

    Like

  3. Thanks Massimo for such a clear and fair report of the session. I hope you enjoyed it. Thanks too Jaycel for your comment. On my other piece (at http://misc-stoica.blogspot.co.uk/), I definitely wasn’t trying to define Modern Stoicism. If anything I was warning against trying to define it. I’m not sure what you mean by Traditional Stoicism here – my piece was effectively arguing that this too is going to be very difficult to pin down. In Hellenistic Athens, a Stoic was a formal member of the school (although we have little idea how ‘formal’ membership was) but ever since there hasn’t really been a clear, external way to define a Stoic; people have just self-identified. Who gets to decide what the core doctrines are? Does Chrysippus have more authority than Aristo, or Seneca more authority than Marcus Aurelius? It’s a rich and varied tradition. If modern admirers of Stoicism turn out to be a diverse bunch who end up arguing among themselves then that strikes me as very much in the spirit of the ancient Stoa!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Thank you for your reply John.

    In the Facebook Group(s), Traditional Stoics are usually defined as those who believe that “The Cosmos is conscious and providential.”

    I agree with your points about it being a ‘rich and varied tradition.’

    One that provides a framework that needs to be continuously updated, a la Becker.

    Enjoyed your previous lectures on youtube and can’t wait to see this one. Got the Routledge on pre-order!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Jaycel,

    “could an Epicurean take on Dichotomy of Control and therefore call themselves a Stoic”

    No, I don’t think so, unless said Epicurean were also willing to abandon pleasure/pain as his criterion for the chief good.

    “could someone who practiced mindfulness then call themselves a Buddhist”

    Again, no. While Buddhism comes in even more varieties than any Hellenistic philosophy (because it has being in existence, and has hence changed and diverged, continuously), I assume there is more to be a Buddhist than just mindfulness, at the very least an acceptance of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.

    “the meaningfulness of the Society of Epictetus’s litmus test”

    Well, if they want to have their private theistic club inspired by Stoic principles I don’t think that’s a problem, though I think the last thing we need is yet another private club, theistic or otherwise.

    But when they call themselves “traditional Stoics” I think they are going way off what is reasonably defensible on the basis of historical evidence and philosophical considerations. As for they been run out of the Modern Stoicism Facebook page, it seems to me they were simply seriously criticized, they are the one who run away.

    “From a modern stoic point of view, the traditional Stoic’s litmus test makes Big Tent Stoicism a non-starter”

    Right, but I think BTS is both more in synch with the ancient Stoic spirit and, more importantly, we what we need today.

    Jason,

    “they did not draw the same distinction that we (assuming that you still do) draw between methodological and metaphysical naturalism (or the distinctions between naturalism, physicalism, and materialism). Yes?”

    Right. Not sure what distinction there is to be made btw physicalism and materialism, but naturalism is certainly broader. The Stoics were clearly what we would today call materialists.

    John,

    “Does Chrysippus have more authority than Aristo, or Seneca more authority than Marcus Aurelius? It’s a rich and varied tradition”

    Indeed, and again I’m more interested in a Big Tent Stoicism than in an exclusionary one. I’ve had enough of both the Catholic Church and the New Atheists…

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Massimo: “Not sure what distinction there is to be made btw physicalism and materialism…”

    I’m guessing that we have both terms because physicalism includes matter plus energy (plus any other object or process in modern physics that doesn’t map so well to pre-modern materialism), but I understand that they are also used interchangeably.

    So, having answered my question on the history, what about the philosophy? Is the Big Tent of Stoicism broad enough to cover a metaphysical skeptic or agnostic like myself? (Note: I’m not saying that I doubt all metaphysical claims equally, only that I try to practice epistemic humility when it comes to ultimate reality…even in regards to modern naturalism, let alone ancient Stoic materialism.)

    Like

  7. Hi Jason,
    I think there are plenty of examples in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius where they display epistemic caution/humility, so you’d be in good company. Although he never self-described as a Stoic, Cicero combined deep respect for Stoic ethics with epistemic humility, and many readers during the Renaissance considered him a de facto Stoic.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Jason,

    “I’m guessing that we have both terms because physicalism includes matter plus energy … but I understand that they are also used interchangeably.”

    Right, and I don’t think that distinction makes much of a difference as far as the ancient Stoics are concerned.

    “Is the Big Tent of Stoicism broad enough to cover a metaphysical skeptic or agnostic like myself?”

    I think so. For instance, Becker re-interprets the Stoics’ “follow nature” as “follow the facts,” which means that any position should be open to revision if and when arguments and facts puts it into question. Of course there would be a point beyond which it wouldn’t make much sense to apply the label “Stoic” anymore, but that point I think hinges much more on the Stoics’ ethics than on their metaphysics.

    Also, what John said about the Stoics’ epistemic humility.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Thanks, Massimo and John.

    Just for the record (as this is a public forum), I’m unconcerned with achieving orthodoxy in Stoicism or in any other philosophy of life (e.g. Buddhism, with which I’m currently more familiar), so (on John’s account) Cicero seems a fine role model for the kind of heterodoxy that I have in mind, much as the Pyrrhonists (e.g. Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, and arguably Hume!) already serve as role models for the kind of skepticism and epistemic humility that I have in mind.

    Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: