Read on Twitter
Two of my favorite Twitter people have a wide ranging discussion on the ethics of modern combat - @PeteATurner interviews @KaurinShanks on the @BreakItDownshow https://www.breakitdownshow.com/episodes/pauline-shanks-kaurin-the-ethics-of-modern-combat
Early in the episode @KaurinShanks expresses her reservations of Stoicism, especially some of the more inane pop versions floating around. But her primary criticism of historical stoicism is on the individual self improvement focus (if I have inferred correctly)
This is interesting. I’m sure @DonJRobertson who has also been on @BreakItDownshow has some views but here’s my take:
Stoicism was influential in Greco-Roman times, esp among the elite but it never became a mass based belief system (unlike say Christianity or Platonism). Why?
Stoicism was influential in Greco-Roman times, esp among the elite but it never became a mass based belief system (unlike say Christianity or Platonism). Why?
Well I think part of it was that @KaurinShanks is correct that Stoicism, practiced faithfully tends to turn the moral eye inward, at least until self-mastery was achieved. Something that is no mean feat. And not easily consistent even for Stoic philosophers
Which does not mean it is not useful. It really is. Much like Zen meditation, albeit with some opposite psychological practices, stoic exercises imparts self discipline. It calms the sturm and drang of rage and anxiety and allows for concentrated observation of the world. In time
In ancient times the luxury of self reflection either required considerable economic surplus to indulge in - so Cicero, Cato, Seneca - or oddly enforced poverty. So you see stoicism among the rich and educated political elites and the learned slaves like Epictetus.
The broad mass of Greek thetes and Roman plebeians & freedman didn’t really have that kind of time. Agricultural labor, handcrafts or soldiering preclude that as does the limits of mass literacy (25%-40% of the population). So if you wanted to be a stoic you needed a stoic
There’s a real hard cap then on the ability to proselytize a semi-meditative philosophy. And the competition, notably mystery religions were a lot more exciting to be initiated into
There’s also what I call “the paradox of Marcus Aurelius”. He grew up in the court of Hadrian who was a good Emperor but often a bad man - cruel, giving to fits of temper and jealousy that led to injustices he afterward regretted.
Marcus set out to be a good man and with dedicated stoic practice ended up a great Emperor. Probably the best ruler after Augustus and without question the most just.
But stoicism that helped him rule the empire saw Marcus Aurelius fail with his own son
But stoicism that helped him rule the empire saw Marcus Aurelius fail with his own son
Commodus was not a monster, not exactly, but he was a tyrant and a megalomaniac whose character was more or less the opposite of nearly every value that Marcus Aurelius championed. The stoicism did not take or transmit despite being reared in the household of a philosopher king
How then could such a philosophy become a state religion? Stoicism cultivated virtue as Romans understood it and produced wise political leaders but not a wise people. It couldn’t. Wasn’t built for it. By design
Therefore should we ignore stoicism? Only if we should ignore self improvement. So no. It will help you with self-mastery & there’s even some ethics about dealing justly with others in classical stoicism. But once you have self control, what do you do with it? More tool than end
End rant
