Is Stoicism Pragmatic in A Society Devoid of Goodness?
A Reinterpretation Of Stoicism In The Modern-day Context
The philosophy of Stoicism bears no meaning in the absence of suffering. Suffering is the basic human condition. There are two sources of human sufferings: Tragedy and Evil. No amount of discussion on suffering can be valid without defining and understanding these terms.
The moment one is born, one starts to experience the world through sensory perception. This introduces the dichotomy of known and unknown. Everything known is perceived as safe and everything unknown is perceived as dangerous. As the circle of known widens, one starts to think one can accurately predict the future and therefore, is in-charge of their own destiny. However, this is a naïve phase in one’s perceptual understanding of the world. Soon one starts to realize how limited are one’s perceptual capabilities and how enormous & complex are the intricacies of the world. The more one tries to grasp, the more the world slips away. This awareness of limitation makes life tragic by its very nature. The interaction of limitations and vastness of the universe is what makes human life tragic. Most of the works in existential philosophy address this theme of human suffering.
There is another form of suffering which is enforced by one human on another. This is different from tragedy in that it requires an intent and a conscious choice. Some of the examples of such evil manifestations are wars, holocaust, and genocide. It is a deliberate and unnatural act of bringing suffering for great number of people. It is this kind of suffering which makes one question about the validity of Stoic principles and their effectiveness. When all the power is stripped away from a person, the dichotomy of control vanishes, there only exists a unilateral power of oppression. Even the concepts such as a stoic mental fortitude seems to appear implausible as brain is an embodied entity.
Just like a plant needs a certain kind of environment for its nourishment, prosperity and growth, every philosophical framework requires amicable culture, acceptance, and practice by majority. Stoicism is no exception, in-fact the true benefits of Stoicism can only be realized when it is adopted and practiced by the masses. The concept of Stoicism in many ways is like the ‘Dao’ in the ancient Chinese philosophy. The central theme of ‘Dao’ depends on the inherent goodness that is assumed to exist in the individuals of the society. This goodness is named differently in different Asian cultures; Dharma in Indian, Chinese and Buddhist cultures and Soul/Spirit in the Abrahamic religions. This fundamental assumption about the human nature is crucial for philosophies to realize specially the ones which aim to bring about social cohesion.
The philosophy of Stoicism deals with the tragic nature of reality and human condition. However, it has not been proposed to handle the problem of evil. In-fact the early Stoics didn’t acknowledge this distinction because they lived in a society that either justified evil (e.g. by imposing institutionalized slavery) or ignored that difference between intentional imposition of suffering vs natural suffering. Therefore, a common critique for Stoicism is that it doesn’t solve or in some ways reinforces the evils such as systematic oppression.
The social fabric of the society has been shattered by the technological advancements most notably by the ‘social media’ (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.). Social media doesn’t just give voice to the evil doers, but it promotes and incentivize the harmful behavior. The Business Model of Likes/Dislikes & Tweets/Retweets incentivize the Narcissistic behavior. The youth that gets raised using the social media technologies acquire traits of dark-triad and contribute in social destruction. This evolution of evil results in Dharma or the intrinsic goodness replaced by social evils.
Therefore, one needs some clarifications/interpretations regarding the Stoic Philosophy for it to be more pragmatic given the context of modern-day society.
$tocism is not Stoicism
We live in a society of hyper-capitalism which benefits from commercialization of everything. Stoicism is not exception. The philosophy that was originally aimed at social cohesion and wellbeing of the people in the society has become a practice of self-help and a business strategy. From rich billionaires to social media celebrities—lacking moral virtues, are declaring themselves as “stoic” and appear to preach the stoic ideals. This can’t be further from the truth; there is no dichotomy of control when power distribution is unequal. This $tocism might be beneficial for individual motivation but it can’t be called really a Stoic Philosophy and people who practice this are not living in a Stoic society.
Apparent Good is Not Real Good
“Rationality is the quality of seeing past appearances to discern the true nature of things. We call a person rational who is evenhanded and unprejudiced.” — Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations
We live in a hyper-reality where symbols and images have taken over the real lives. This has resulted in appearances to dominate and being perceived as real. A person with the right appearance is more important than the one with actual moral goodness. A rich philanthropist is perceived as better than a poor academic scholar. Exhibition of virtue is more rewarding than a silent act of compassion. Social Rhetoric is more important than genuine acts which lead to betterment of individual lives. It is therefore, high time that we start distinguishing what is good and what appears to be good.
“When one sort of person does a good deed, they mark it down as a favor to be repaid. Another sort of person doesn’t seek a reward, but they take satisfaction in knowing that they’ve acted generously. A third sort of person doesn’t even know what they’ve done; they bear good deeds as a vine bears grapes—naturally, without thinking about it.”
“Don’t judge others based on outward circumstances and appearances. Difficult circumstances can befall anyone—what is telling is how a person responds to their circumstances.” — Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations
Goodness is Not Passivity
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” John Stuart Mill
It is often true that an inaction is better than a bad action. However, there is one caveat that inaction is also an action in the context of sufferings imposed by evil. Inaction is just a facilitator which allows whatever is already inherent in society to become prevalent. An inaction in a society where most of the people practice goodness can lead to eventual goodness however, if the society is dominated by evil forces, then the inaction would further exacerbate the problem.
“In the face of suffering, one has no right to turn away, not to see. In the face of injustice, one may not look the other way.” — Elie Wiesel
This is also in accordance with the Stoic virtue of Courage and Justice. Courage is not always physical courage and sometimes just speaking against the evil practices requires an act of courage specially when the oppression and subjugation is the norm of the society. Justice can’t be achieved by mere feeling Just but it is inherently an active pursuit of a better society for everybody that lives in it.
Responsibilities & Rights Are Intertwined
It is true that Stoics stress a lot on responsibilities and duties however, these responsibilities are only practical when a person has enough agency. If the power dynamics in the society strip all the rights from an individual or a group of individuals, then the concept of duty doesn’t work. The prisoners of the holocaust didn’t have a duty towards their prison guards. The duty that Stoics preach is towards fellow men who are equal but if there is lack of equality then the concept of duty doesn’t apply. For somebody to be responsible one should have the agency of responsibility.
“The prisoners of the holocaust didn’t have a duty towards their prison guards.”
Indifference is Not Acceptance of Oppression
Stoic indifference is a very powerful concept, and it is indeed necessary for a harmonious and cohesive society. However, like any other Stoic virtue it can be misused as well. The whole aim of Stoic indifference is to reduce the unnecessary suffering and therefore, any attempt that uses it to justify inequality and oppression can’t be right. The ‘Fate’ that Stoics talk about is just a synonym for cause-and-effect and is only applicable in a natural and good society and not in a socially engineered one.
“While “Fate” might sound spooky or superstitious at first, it merely refers to the chains of cause and effect that exist in nature, which modern scientists also believe in.” David Fideler, Breakfast with Seneca
Weakness is Not Virtue
“There are misfortunes which strike the sage – without incapacitating him, of course – such as physical pain, infirmity, the loss of friends or children, or the catastrophes of his country when it is devastated by war. I grant that he is sensitive to these things, for we do not impute to him the hardness of a rock or of iron. There is no virtue in putting up with that which one does not feel.” – Seneca
One of the common misconceptions about Stoic virtues is that it is equivalent to inability to feel or lack of power to do otherwise. However, this can’t be further from the truth. Some of the Early Stoics were very powerful people of their time (e.g. Marcus Aurelius and Seneca). They could decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of people and yet they practiced Stoic virtues. In-fact the concept of Virtue is only practical when one has the agency to do both the good and the harm. If one lacks the agency to do neither and/or is unable to feel, then there is no virtue regardless of whether one pretends to practice a virtue.
Conclusions
Stoicism is a valuable philosophy of life however, like any other ancient source of knowledge, it must be adapted and analyzed through the lens of modern-day context. If the evil is not static and evolves then the good can't be static either. The act of goodness is an ever-changing act, however, its goal remains the same which is to reduce the unnatural and unnecessary suffering. So, to put it in a nutshell, Stoicism is pragmatic, and it can have a therapeutic effect for individuals who are downtrodden however, it is not a solution to the underlying problem.