FREE ESSAY ON STOICISM

STOICISM

Stoics
The point of being independent and not needing things is so that your happiness will not
be destroyed by some accident outside of your control or by the malice of other human
beings. The more your happiness depends on anything someone else can destroy, the less
freedom you have - you are vulnerable to threats. In late antiquity many people felt
insecure; governments were tyrannical, there was a lot of illegal violence, people died
suddenly of disease or poison or through witchcraft or the malice of the gods. According
to Aristotle, happiness consists primarily in worthwhile activity, but it does have some
need of the goods of fortune. 'The good is something of one's own, that cannot easily be
taken from one' (E.N., I.5 , 1095 b25). The Stoics, wanted to find something that could
not possibly be taken away. Yet they did not want to live 'like dogs'. The solution is
this: The good is to live in accordance with reason, and the power to do this cannot be
taken away. Our external circumstances may be the result of accident or the malice of
others, but whether we act rationally given the circumstances is up to us. As for
physical things, it is in accordance with reason to use them when they are available and
useful, but not to become attached to them so that their loss causes distress.
Possessions do not make you vulnerable unless you become attached to them. To live in
accordance with reason is the Stoic conception of the good for man. The Stoics seem to be
aware of Aristotle, borrowing and changing his ideas. 
Tyranny, slavery, freedom were important concepts in Stoic thought (see Epictetus).
Freedom is not poverty, it is being able to give up external possessions and external
freedom without distress. According to the Stoics the essential human freedom is inward:
the ability to give or withhold assent to representations (thoughts) that come before my
mind - to assent or not to the representation that something is so, or that the act it
represents is to be done, or that the state of affairs represented is a good or an evil.
I can always withhold my assent to such a representation - that is a power that cannot be
taken away. I cannot prevent the removal of my property, the loss of a limb, the
sensation of pain; but I can withhold by assent from the mental representation of these
things as evils. Someone living perfectly in accordance with reason would feel the pain
and perhaps some psychological disturbance, but would remain tranquil at the centre.
Equanimity is the ideal. Emotion, or at least undue emotion, is to be repressed. 
No one lives perfectly in accordance with reason: the 'wise man' is an ideal. The wise
man is happy, i.e. is in possession of the good, no matter what happens to his
possessions or body, because he would refuse to regard as really an evil anything but
failure to act in accordance with reason. (The Stoic paradoxes - 'the wise man is happy
on the rack', or in the bull of Phalaris: he feels the pain, and cries out, but knows all
the time that this is not an evil.) 
When Demetrius the city-sacker came upon the philosopher Stibo emerging from the flames
of his city in which his wife and children had just died, he asked 'Did you lose
anything?' Answer: 'No, all I possessed I have with me': 'meaning by this', Seneca says
(Letter 9), 'the qualities of a just, a good and an enlightened character, and indeed the
very fact of not regarding as valuable anything that is capable of being taken away.' 
What does the wise man do when he is acting in accordance with reason? His actions aim at
the same sorts of things as other people aim at, but he does ordinary things differently.
According to the Stoics human beings all begin by seeking food, drink, and other things
relating to self-preservation, but may come to make it a goal to seek these things 'in
accordance with nature' or 'in accordance with reason'. This may become the over-riding
goal (see Cicero, De Finibus, III.vi.21), so that we will endure the loss or frustration
of the original self-preservation goals rather than do anything contrary to nature - i.e.
would rather die than do anything contrary to nature. Seeking the original goals in
accordance with nature or reason means seeking them in accordance with the individual's
place as a part of the larger whole - of the human race, of the whole universe. Nature,
for the Stoics, as for Aristotle, is a functional whole, with each part assigned its
special role. Perhaps we can interpret the phrase 'act in accordance with nature, or
reason' as 'act in accordance with the rules of morality', understanding that morality
spells out the role human beings have to play in the system of nature. (The Stoics held a
'natural law' conception of morality.) So the Stoic seeks the same sorts of things as
everyone seeks, but in accordance with the rules of morality; and his overriding goal is
to act that way - if he does not attain the things he seeks, but has sought them
properly, then he has all the same attained his goal. 
According to the Stoics, actually to attain external things is not part of the good; the
good is wholly to seek such things rationally. In Aristotle we can always substitute the
term 'goal' for the term 'good' used as a noun - anything we aim at is a good, in
Aristotle's terminology; but not in that of the Stoics. To express the point that the
overriding goal is to act rightly even if we do not attain the things action aims at, the
Stoics restricted the term 'good' to the goal of acting always in accordance with nature
and would not apply the term to the things action aims at; they said that these things
were 'to be preferred', but not that they were 'good'. Thus to stay alive is to be
preferred, and the Stoic's actions will aim at keeping him alive, but not at any cost -
only when that can be done in accordance with reason. Staying alive is not part of the
good, though it is to be preferred. The good is something which cannot be taken away, as
your life can be; the good is independent of outward circumstances; the things action
aims at are not independent, but to act in accordance with reason is wholly within our
power, and that is the good. The Stoics could perhaps have said that the ethical good is
to act rightly, while success is good in some other sense; but to call both sorts of
things good might suggest that they can be added together or subtracted - that right
action with success is more good than unsuccessful right action. On the contrary, if a
person always acts as he should as part of the larger whole - the human race, the
universe - then his life is perfectly good, even if his outward circumstances are such
that he does not achieve what is preferable. If his life is perfectly good, then he is
happy - even if what he tries to do is not achieved. 
The Stoics did not, like the Epicureans, seek security in the quiet, apolitical life.
Stoic doctrine encourages political activity even in difficult circumstances. Even if
success is improbable, the Stoic will engage in political action if that is the right
thing to do. Of course reason may suggest that where there is little chance of doing any
good in politics it would be better to turn to something else; but while political action
seems for any reason to be his duty (e.g. to bear witness to principles or values), the
Stoic will engage in it without being put off by lack of success. 'The wise man does not
pity, but he helps' (i.e. he does not allow himself to become upset, since that would
impede action, but helps in an unemotional way). Politics is one way of helping the human
race (recall Plato's philosopher coming back down into the cave). Stoics sought political
power, as other people did, but were resolved to use it rightly, in accordance with
reason. Reason itself may dictate compromise, tact, avoidance of confrontation, etc.; but
when it became clear that further compromise will do no good (rather, will not lead to
anything 'preferable'), the Stoic will with equanimity lose his power and even his life.

According to the Stoics reason permits suicide, when there is no good to be achieved by
living on. Socrates was one of the heroes of the Stoics: 'You are mistaken, my friend, if
you think that a man who is worth anything ought to spend his time weighing up the
prospects of life and death. He has only one thing to consider in performing any action -
that is, whether he is acting rightly or wrongly, like a good man or a bad one' (Apology,
28b). 
So Stoicism provided a doctrine of conscientious, principled, flexible, and resolute
action in politics, in the face of danger. 
In politics, as in ethics, freedom was a major value for the Stoics. They especially
valued freedom in the sense of doing and saying what you think should be done and said
(parrhesia, freedom of speech in the sense of outspokenness); under a tyranny, the only
people free in this sense are those prepared to die - under any social arrangements, the
free in this sense are those who are prepared to fail. But the Stoics also valued other
sorts of political freedom; they supported monarchy, but not tyranny. Outward freedom is
'to be preferred', but is not essential to the good life. External enslavement cannot
destroy the freedom everyone has to give or withhold assent and to live in accordance
with reason. Whereas the good life as Aristotle conceived of it could be lived only by
someone with freedom and leisure, not by slaves, artisans, women, barbarians, the Stoics
taught that anyone can live the good life now, wherever he or she may be, and can
continue living it no matter where - on the rack, in the bull of Phalaris.