37. Let us return to our topic. We can try to limit suffering, to fight against it, but we cannot eliminate it. It is when we attempt to avoid suffering by withdrawing from anything that might involve hurt, when we try to spare ourselves the effort and pain of pursuing truth, love, and goodness, that we drift into a life of emptiness, in which there may be almost no pain, but the dark sensation of meaninglessness and abandonment is all the greater. It is not by sidestepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed, but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love.
A much needed article. It is absurd when these stoic preachers of masculinity tell men that feelings don't matter and at the same time that they need improve themselves. Moreover, these preachers attract an audience of men who are feeling bad and keep those who get emotional relief from their content.
Stoicism is a tool to be used not a doctrine to live by.
This is not true. They do not condemn all emotions.
Infact only bad emotions such as complete anger or rage or fear are dismissed as unneccessary but Joy and love are embraced . They also embrace prefeelings such as those that arise before fullblown fear sets in.
Also Stoics believe men and women are entirely equal as humans despite their differences.
It's correct that Stoics said feelings don't matter. 'Characteristic of the Stoic ethic is their doctrine in regard to the passions and affections. These—pleasure, sorrow or depression, desire and fear—are irrational and unnatural; and so it is not so much a question of moderating and regulating them as of getting rid of them and inducing a state of Apathy.'
- Copleston, A History of Philosophy: Volume 1, Greece & Rome, Part 2 (Garden City, N.Y. : Image Books), 1962, p. 144
Right, here we go. I will do my best to keep it concise but there's a few topics to cover. This is just a critique/objection to the article and I have not gone into further comments we made on YouTube such as Petrarchs letters on Seneca, but I am happy to address any concerns you have with the humility of Stoics in the reply here.
Objections to the Article:
"Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men, sees Stoicism as an antidote"
Jack Donovan is a very masculine writer of Stoicism and definitely doesn't have the general view of Stoicism that other Philosophers have maintained outside of 'Broicism' where they ignore the teachings of people like Epictetus on the subject of Men and Women being equals, ontop of Zenos Republic painting The Stoic Utopia as a place where women are educated to the same standards men are.
It has a large focus in what is valuable and what is not valuable, what is nature and what isn't. By the merit the hyper-focus on Masculinity can be attributed to Stoicism but only if you seek to alter the foundations of Stoicism, ignoring the equality doctrine pushed by Stoic Philosophers .
Stoicism as described on Britannica is as such;
"Stoicism, a school of thought that flourished in Greek and Roman antiquity. It was one of the loftiest and most sublime philosophies in the record of Western civilization. In urging participation in human affairs, Stoics have always believed that the goal of all inquiry is to provide a mode of conduct characterized by tranquillity of mind and certainty of moral worth."
And as described on the Stanford website as;
"When considering the doctrines of the Stoics, it is important to remember that they think of philosophy not as an interesting pastime or even a particular body of knowledge, but as a way of life. They define philosophy as a kind of practice or exercise (askêsis) in the expertise concerning what is beneficial (Aetius, 26A). Once we come to know what we and the world around us are really like, and especially the nature of value, we will be utterly transformed."
Next I'll address Safe Spaces within Stoicism;
"But this view is superficial. Rightly understood, stoicism - as Hadot’s islet image implies - is really about turning the mind into the supreme safe space."
Safe-space has a very misleading meaning when applied to Stoicism. A room acting as a 'safe-space' but the Stoic intends to mould his mind into a fortress of solitude, not a 'safe-space.' They seek to not only be able to endure long suffering but also to do so without complaint, or whining, or acting as if their cries would alter the event for the better. Using habitual actions following the virtues of Stoicism, one finds reason for everything that he endures out of his control and as such, accepting the lack of control frees your mind to be applied to events within our control.
This is largely highlighted in current social media as some sort of ability to never feel pain or suffering but this is completely incorrect, as Stoicism does not dismiss the idea of suffering, or evil. It just seeks to eliminate what is called unneccessary suffering, which is described as suffering we have the control to avoid.
Next I will address the comments from Augustine, as I think they need to be challenged properly;
'‘Life eternal is the supreme good,’ Augustine says, and ‘death eternal the supreme evil’'
This premise implies that eternal life, if actual, is the eternal good. That is such a large presupposition that you must be a dedicated Christian to believe life is eternal, and achieving eternal life is possible, and achieving it is the ultimate good. In the same sentence we see the Christian ideal of 'eternal death' being evil, which is why I would call the Christian view of death immature and childish, seeking external promises of forever to satiate the fear of eternal nothing, as is the most likely outcome when we die.
If you can provide me with any sort of explanation why you think life eternal is the good and death eternal is the evil, i'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject, especially if you think I'm wrong in my assumption of life eternal and death eternal.
"‘to obtain the one and escape the other we must live rightly.’ But we do not, he warns, have ‘in ourselves power to live rightly’ unless we pray."
This quote from the article also stands out as the presupposition is the idea of praying is the only way to eternal life, with no evidence of it even existing apart from pure faith and belief in the Christian religion.
So, I would like to break-down what praying is, it's the act of repetition to influence your sub-conscious narrative and as such is meant to instill habitual practices that influence your access to life eternal. Following that line of thought then we can look at the repetition within Stoicism, the Journaling and the constant pressure to make sure you examine your choices with logic and reason, with the aim to achieve right-actions guided by the virtues of Stoicism. If we ignore the content of the praying, which usually ends up being a kind of hypnotic mantra, the act within it's self is very similiar to Meditation in Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, thus begging the question: Why are we holding Stoicism against Christianity and acting as if Christianity is the foundation of truth that all other philosophies should be measured against when Seneca lived in the same period as Jesus and Stoic philosophy, such as soft-determinanism, ended up influencing and becoming fundamental to Christian teachings?
I understand you feel me bringing up Christianity might be a subject you'd like to avoid but upon recommending not just St. Augustine but Petrarch, you have only seemingly found Christian critiques of Stoicism which rely on the premise you believe Christianity is the only true ideology to follow.
This time I'm going to be talking about the idea of Stoic Sages and Dave Stove;
"‘with a marvellous shallowness, sought to find blessedness in this life and in themselves’."
St. Augustine seems to be implying that life is not blessed until you die and life eternal is the only object to strive for. So we sacrifice our current to obtain the promise of a future we don't know if exists or not, doesn't seem to land as a critique of Stoicism and ends up reading to me as a warning to Christians who find Stoicism alluring. As we both know, the point of Christianity is to spread the Gospel, it exists to perpetuate it's self and as such only serves it's own purpose. Everyone who pushes the Gospel becomes a slave to the words on the page, and exudes little self control or independence as questioning the word of the Lord, by definition is heresy.
‘Is the body of the wise man exempt from any pain which may dispel pleasure, from any disquietude which may banish repose?’
No, but we find pleasure and meaning within suffering, by enduring suffering and taking on responsibility we transcend the hedonistic impluse to persue happiness as a means to an end and instead persue the actions that inevitably lead to happiness, quoting Viktor E. Frankl, an Austrian Jew who survived the Holocaust, Psychologist and Philosopher;
A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life. He knows the 'why' for his existence, and will be able to bear almost any 'how.' - Viktor E. Frankl
And
If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and death, human life cannot be complete.
- Viktor E. Frankl
This line of thought is present within Stoicism and rings true throughout the ages. 'Right suffering' or Suffering with purpose, is honorable, couragous and full of virtue. Suffering unneccessarily and without reason is cowardace, stupidity and ignorance.
Secondly you mention Stoic Sages. This is a very weird thought for me, as you talk as if there are Stoic sages we can follow and learn from, people who had actually mastered their minds and as such wrote the Philosophy to teach us the right way. This is a misconception. Stoicism believes in Sages but as an ideal to achieve, similar to Jesus but without having lived. They put the ideal Stoic in the form of the Sage as the unobtainable endgoal to constantly strive for.
"What then? Shall I not follow in the footsteps of my predecessors? I shall indeed use the old road, but if I find one that makes a shorter cut and is smoother to travel, I shall open the new road. Men who have made these discoveries before us are not our masters, but our guides. Truth lies open for all; it has not yet been monopolized. And there is plenty of it left even for posterity to discover." - Seneca.
Next is addressing the mess with David Stove. Firstly to put it lightly, he wasn't a Stoic and had nothing to do with Stoicism. Just because he committed suicide and it's permitted in Stoicism doesn't mean he's a representation of a failure within Stoicism. Just as Christianity permits only sex within marriage but doesn't mean everyone who gets married and has a horrible time is an example of Christianity being wrong in it's premise of marriage.
Secondly the letter you're writing from is written by his son, so we can presume it's got some artistic liberty within it, not withstanding the son himself admits David was an alcoholic - which is fundamentally a vice in stoicism, especially due to his inability for temperance. Ontop of his abusive behaviour and inability to take responsibility for his own life, refusing to speak truth and living selfishly without virtue, gives me little reason to take anything about him as a slight against Stoicism.
Third, he wished himself stoic, not believed he was 'A Stoic'. The two terms aren't the same and the need for capitalisation is how we make the difference noticed between the verb stoic and the noun Stoic. His cries against the Psychologists for not having read Socrates and Descartes just comes across as his arrogance and ego bleeding through, as a man who started as a Marxist and later focused on 'Empirical Idealism' which means yes he did believe in the power of the mind but he was approaching it from schools of thought such as Plato and Berkley. Berkley notably saying “to be is to be perceived” echoing sentiments of earlier mentioned Descartes in 'I think therefore I am'. which happens to be one of the philosophers he is upset the Psychologists have not read. Ontop of the fact he has no Stoic works written and his Daughter does write about Stoicism but has not openly said she was influenced by her father and such a claim would be speculation on anyones part.
Right, now we can talk about Suicide;
"Stove was not the first Stoic suicide. ‘Was it, I would ask, fortitude or weakness which prompted Cato to kill himself?’"
In a word - Autonomy. He raised an army and went to war against Julius Caesar.
First saying before the war:
“I would not be beholden to a tyrant, for his acts of tyranny. For it is but usurpation in him to save, as their rightful lord, the lives of men over whom he has no title to reign”
And then reportedly just before his death, saying;
“Now, I am master of myself”
He absolutely chose death over living under a Tyrant and it took great courage for him to opt out of the unneccessary suffering which would later become tantamount to Caesars rule.
What else needs to be said about this man? He went to war, accepted his defeat with grace and decided to not suffer without reason under the rule of a Tyrant, as had already been experienced in Rome, there's a lot of reasons why someone would feel this way (Nero and Caligula come to mind).
I know you also brought up Seneca as a sage, for which I have just this quote to leave you with from a tutor of classics at Oxford, talking about why they read Seneca and Stoicism..
"Seneca (c. 4 BC – AD 65) was a Stoic, and so thought that virtue is the only thing that matters for a truly good life. Nothing else – including health, wealth, possessions, and family – makes any contribution to happiness. This may sound austere, and indeed there was a certain unrelenting quality to Stoic ethics, but the Epistles are not an austere work by any measure. Across 124 letters, in which the narrative exploration of life is generally preferred to abstract theorising, Seneca engages in a deep and intimate evaluation of what it means to be good, discussing at length, and with much wit and uncompromising self-scrutiny, his own faltering moral progress."
"These early Senecan letters appeal to me in several ways. Partly it’s the elegance, wit and economy of his Latin style; partly it’s the thoughtful depiction and exploration of the didactic process, which interests me as someone who, being a teacher, spends a lot of time helping others to develop and cultivate their intellectual interests and values; partly it’s simply the richness and depth of the discussion; and partly it’s the sense of Seneca’s own flawedness and failure – these are not the writings of a moral saint."
Now then I would like to address your attitude towards Suicide as a cowards way out, exuding weakness and only being sought after when they felt life was too much to bear.
Well firstly we can look at the lives of each Philosopher who killed themselves and see they endured a lot, for a long time without wavering, all the time time they openly talked about being willing to die instead of bending the knee or giving up their control over themselves and their minds to someone else.
“Were all the geniuses of history to focus on this single theme, they could never fully express their bafflement at the darkness of the human mind. No person would give up even an inch of their estate, and the slightest dispute with a neighbor can mean hell to pay; yet we easily let others encroach on our lives—worse, we often pave the way for those who will take it over. No person hands out their money to passersby, but to how many do each of us hand out our lives! We’re tight-fisted with property and money, yet think too little of wasting time, the one thing about which we should all be the toughest misers.” —Seneca
“Stop whatever you’re doing for a moment and ask yourself: Am I afraid of death because I won’t be able to do this anymore?” —Marcus Aurelius
“No evil is honorable: but death is honorable; therefore death is not evil.” —Zeno of Citium (and before you say it, this doesn't mean that killing someone is not evil, it merely states Death on it's own is honorable. It doesn't excuse killing as honorable, merely Death as a natural process.)
“I cannot escape death, but at least I can escape the fear of it.” —Epictetus
(People afraid of death don't kill themselves. In my experience they turn to theories of eternal life or immortality to avoid dealing with it's looming reality)
And then you get certain quotes, mantras or prayers, depending on how you want to percieve them such as 'Amor Fati' and 'Momento Mori' being huge roles in the Stoic ideal of death. Suicide is not meant to be a scapegoat to avoid purposeful suffering, or suffering that can be endured, but as a reason to find peace in lifes ills, for if it becomes unbearable you always have a way out. but if you choose to stay as Epictetus says 'Do not complain about what happens after that'.
Complaining, whinging, seeking outside attention and sympathy are all pointless exercises in futility and as such are to be avoided in Stoicism.
It’s better to conquer grief than to deceive it.” —Seneca
And lastly, I'll address this closing comment:
"To watch the beloved suffer while maintaining inner tranquility is not to love at all."
Depends on who you quote. Earlier Philosophers like Seneca has it's roots in Cynicism which saw people as inherently good but completely decieved from reality and as such ignorant fools. We know Jesus expresses love by telling the truth, so then why can't a Stoic express love by speaking his truth?
Epictetus has the most notable ideals behind death being something to be indifferent towards and even happy about the death of a loved one, because he viewed God as the cosmos, to him they were returning to the greater good, similar to Christianity, so mourning their death would actually be contradictory.
Can you truly believe in a forever-after or a greater power that we transcend to when we die, and still grieve the death of our loved ones? Either they go to somewhere better and we're happy for them or we come to terms with the fact it's a lie and mourn the loss of their only life.
I did have other comments to raise in relation to your replies to me on YouTube but I feel this should suffice for an objection to the article. I have a feeling with the current situation of lockdowns and suicides increasing by a lot, that you may have gone through losing someone close to you and as such feel preaching suicide as an option might lead to more people close to you dying, but that doesn't change the fact you want them to live because you want them to live, and not because that is whats best for them.
I hope you find some peace in life and I'd love to explore these topics more with you but understand if it's too much to reasonably reply to, any thoughts where you find I am wrong are welcomed.
Thanks,
Adam.
“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”
" If the Christian follows self destructive habits, the Christian will also find life to be tormenting. If the Christian walks across a busy highway without looking the Christian has the same chance of being hit by a vehicle than anyone else." This is addressed in Ecclesiastes.
"I think Christianity has (wrongly) taught us that joy, the antidote to suffering, can only be found in Jesus." Christianity doesn't teach that joy is the antidote to suffering, rather love; which, tbf, is the source of joy. Moreover, as Jesus is the Son of God, and hence a part of the Trinity, thereby being God, he is the creator of all things. Thus, God is the source of love (Remember also that God is Love) and hence the source to the antidote to suffering. Now, being THE only source of the antidote to suffering? That would be a yes. Jesus's own words are, "I am the way, the truth and the life"
"The apostle Paul seems to have encountered the stoics" Yes, he was familiar with them, being a giga nerd in Jerusalem, he would have been familiar with both the Hellenistic world and the Jewish world. Some akin to stoicism is found within Christianity (Matthew 6, for instance), however, I would argue it goes beyond stoicism, and the tradition also predates it, meaning it is more fundamental.
2nd: The Beatitudes alone, (Not even mentioning the Gospel of Matthew as a whole, or the Gospels.) Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Romans, Galatians, etc etc etc. Even books that aren't seemingly as obvious on it are full of good stuff for living a good life. For instance, Genesis may not seem like such a book, but one need only watch a few episodes of JBP's talk on it to see the value in the book. Ultimately, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Thus, one lives a good life.
"no great war, no great depression" Lol, nice Fight Club reference. For the Christian, he is always at war, the greatest war, so that's covered.
"I argue that it's the fault of the church why people have turned to stoicism." Although, I definitely agree there is/has been abysmal Church leadership, that is heartbreaking/disgusting to witness. I would argue that proper Christianity does fully provide what young men seek, having within it elements of stoicism, whilst going beyond it. Perhaps it is because there seems to be a severe lack of the og proper Christianity, (Ye know, the classic St Anthony ballsy living in a cave sort of stuff. Or the St George warrior slaying a dragon, sort of thing) leaving instead the sort of "beta" stuff, like women priests, or gay marriages in Church's, or the Church of England in general, (Lol) or the sort of protestant meme with what is essentially pop music, or joel osteen, etc etc. Thus, as Christianity seems to have become this monstrosity people, and especially young men, look elsewhere. Thankfully, its stoicism that has come up, and not so much the practices of the Carthaginians or someone else. No baby sacrificing, lol. However, I would say, that og, proper Christianity does still exist (The kind that has aspects of stoicism in, but goes beyond it. The proper cave dwelling, dragon fighting sort), although probably not as well known in the popular imagination. For instance, the cave in which St Anthony was living is still dwelt in by Father Lazarus, and the likes of Jonathan Pageau, Jordan Peterson and others are elucidating upon the symbolic world. One just needs to look a bit harder to find og Christianity, I would argue.
I would say, that rather than "Christianity evolve to meet everyday challenges" we have a full return to og Christianity. The likes that can be found in Orthodoxy, or Catholicism.
37. Let us return to our topic. We can try to limit suffering, to fight against it, but we cannot eliminate it. It is when we attempt to avoid suffering by withdrawing from anything that might involve hurt, when we try to spare ourselves the effort and pain of pursuing truth, love, and goodness, that we drift into a life of emptiness, in which there may be almost no pain, but the dark sensation of meaninglessness and abandonment is all the greater. It is not by sidestepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed, but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love.
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
SPE SALVI
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
A much needed article. It is absurd when these stoic preachers of masculinity tell men that feelings don't matter and at the same time that they need improve themselves. Moreover, these preachers attract an audience of men who are feeling bad and keep those who get emotional relief from their content.
Stoicism is a tool to be used not a doctrine to live by.
This is not true. They do not condemn all emotions.
Infact only bad emotions such as complete anger or rage or fear are dismissed as unneccessary but Joy and love are embraced . They also embrace prefeelings such as those that arise before fullblown fear sets in.
Also Stoics believe men and women are entirely equal as humans despite their differences.
It's correct that Stoics said feelings don't matter. 'Characteristic of the Stoic ethic is their doctrine in regard to the passions and affections. These—pleasure, sorrow or depression, desire and fear—are irrational and unnatural; and so it is not so much a question of moderating and regulating them as of getting rid of them and inducing a state of Apathy.'
- Copleston, A History of Philosophy: Volume 1, Greece & Rome, Part 2 (Garden City, N.Y. : Image Books), 1962, p. 144
Ye guys need to check out some Jonathan Pageau
Right, here we go. I will do my best to keep it concise but there's a few topics to cover. This is just a critique/objection to the article and I have not gone into further comments we made on YouTube such as Petrarchs letters on Seneca, but I am happy to address any concerns you have with the humility of Stoics in the reply here.
Objections to the Article:
"Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men, sees Stoicism as an antidote"
Jack Donovan is a very masculine writer of Stoicism and definitely doesn't have the general view of Stoicism that other Philosophers have maintained outside of 'Broicism' where they ignore the teachings of people like Epictetus on the subject of Men and Women being equals, ontop of Zenos Republic painting The Stoic Utopia as a place where women are educated to the same standards men are.
It has a large focus in what is valuable and what is not valuable, what is nature and what isn't. By the merit the hyper-focus on Masculinity can be attributed to Stoicism but only if you seek to alter the foundations of Stoicism, ignoring the equality doctrine pushed by Stoic Philosophers .
Stoicism as described on Britannica is as such;
"Stoicism, a school of thought that flourished in Greek and Roman antiquity. It was one of the loftiest and most sublime philosophies in the record of Western civilization. In urging participation in human affairs, Stoics have always believed that the goal of all inquiry is to provide a mode of conduct characterized by tranquillity of mind and certainty of moral worth."
And as described on the Stanford website as;
"When considering the doctrines of the Stoics, it is important to remember that they think of philosophy not as an interesting pastime or even a particular body of knowledge, but as a way of life. They define philosophy as a kind of practice or exercise (askêsis) in the expertise concerning what is beneficial (Aetius, 26A). Once we come to know what we and the world around us are really like, and especially the nature of value, we will be utterly transformed."
Next I'll address Safe Spaces within Stoicism;
"But this view is superficial. Rightly understood, stoicism - as Hadot’s islet image implies - is really about turning the mind into the supreme safe space."
Safe-space has a very misleading meaning when applied to Stoicism. A room acting as a 'safe-space' but the Stoic intends to mould his mind into a fortress of solitude, not a 'safe-space.' They seek to not only be able to endure long suffering but also to do so without complaint, or whining, or acting as if their cries would alter the event for the better. Using habitual actions following the virtues of Stoicism, one finds reason for everything that he endures out of his control and as such, accepting the lack of control frees your mind to be applied to events within our control.
This is largely highlighted in current social media as some sort of ability to never feel pain or suffering but this is completely incorrect, as Stoicism does not dismiss the idea of suffering, or evil. It just seeks to eliminate what is called unneccessary suffering, which is described as suffering we have the control to avoid.
(cont in replies)
Next I will address the comments from Augustine, as I think they need to be challenged properly;
'‘Life eternal is the supreme good,’ Augustine says, and ‘death eternal the supreme evil’'
This premise implies that eternal life, if actual, is the eternal good. That is such a large presupposition that you must be a dedicated Christian to believe life is eternal, and achieving eternal life is possible, and achieving it is the ultimate good. In the same sentence we see the Christian ideal of 'eternal death' being evil, which is why I would call the Christian view of death immature and childish, seeking external promises of forever to satiate the fear of eternal nothing, as is the most likely outcome when we die.
If you can provide me with any sort of explanation why you think life eternal is the good and death eternal is the evil, i'd love to hear what you have to say on the subject, especially if you think I'm wrong in my assumption of life eternal and death eternal.
"‘to obtain the one and escape the other we must live rightly.’ But we do not, he warns, have ‘in ourselves power to live rightly’ unless we pray."
This quote from the article also stands out as the presupposition is the idea of praying is the only way to eternal life, with no evidence of it even existing apart from pure faith and belief in the Christian religion.
So, I would like to break-down what praying is, it's the act of repetition to influence your sub-conscious narrative and as such is meant to instill habitual practices that influence your access to life eternal. Following that line of thought then we can look at the repetition within Stoicism, the Journaling and the constant pressure to make sure you examine your choices with logic and reason, with the aim to achieve right-actions guided by the virtues of Stoicism. If we ignore the content of the praying, which usually ends up being a kind of hypnotic mantra, the act within it's self is very similiar to Meditation in Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, thus begging the question: Why are we holding Stoicism against Christianity and acting as if Christianity is the foundation of truth that all other philosophies should be measured against when Seneca lived in the same period as Jesus and Stoic philosophy, such as soft-determinanism, ended up influencing and becoming fundamental to Christian teachings?
I understand you feel me bringing up Christianity might be a subject you'd like to avoid but upon recommending not just St. Augustine but Petrarch, you have only seemingly found Christian critiques of Stoicism which rely on the premise you believe Christianity is the only true ideology to follow.
This time I'm going to be talking about the idea of Stoic Sages and Dave Stove;
"‘with a marvellous shallowness, sought to find blessedness in this life and in themselves’."
St. Augustine seems to be implying that life is not blessed until you die and life eternal is the only object to strive for. So we sacrifice our current to obtain the promise of a future we don't know if exists or not, doesn't seem to land as a critique of Stoicism and ends up reading to me as a warning to Christians who find Stoicism alluring. As we both know, the point of Christianity is to spread the Gospel, it exists to perpetuate it's self and as such only serves it's own purpose. Everyone who pushes the Gospel becomes a slave to the words on the page, and exudes little self control or independence as questioning the word of the Lord, by definition is heresy.
‘Is the body of the wise man exempt from any pain which may dispel pleasure, from any disquietude which may banish repose?’
No, but we find pleasure and meaning within suffering, by enduring suffering and taking on responsibility we transcend the hedonistic impluse to persue happiness as a means to an end and instead persue the actions that inevitably lead to happiness, quoting Viktor E. Frankl, an Austrian Jew who survived the Holocaust, Psychologist and Philosopher;
A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life. He knows the 'why' for his existence, and will be able to bear almost any 'how.' - Viktor E. Frankl
And
If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and death, human life cannot be complete.
- Viktor E. Frankl
This line of thought is present within Stoicism and rings true throughout the ages. 'Right suffering' or Suffering with purpose, is honorable, couragous and full of virtue. Suffering unneccessarily and without reason is cowardace, stupidity and ignorance.
Secondly you mention Stoic Sages. This is a very weird thought for me, as you talk as if there are Stoic sages we can follow and learn from, people who had actually mastered their minds and as such wrote the Philosophy to teach us the right way. This is a misconception. Stoicism believes in Sages but as an ideal to achieve, similar to Jesus but without having lived. They put the ideal Stoic in the form of the Sage as the unobtainable endgoal to constantly strive for.
"What then? Shall I not follow in the footsteps of my predecessors? I shall indeed use the old road, but if I find one that makes a shorter cut and is smoother to travel, I shall open the new road. Men who have made these discoveries before us are not our masters, but our guides. Truth lies open for all; it has not yet been monopolized. And there is plenty of it left even for posterity to discover." - Seneca.
Next is addressing the mess with David Stove. Firstly to put it lightly, he wasn't a Stoic and had nothing to do with Stoicism. Just because he committed suicide and it's permitted in Stoicism doesn't mean he's a representation of a failure within Stoicism. Just as Christianity permits only sex within marriage but doesn't mean everyone who gets married and has a horrible time is an example of Christianity being wrong in it's premise of marriage.
Secondly the letter you're writing from is written by his son, so we can presume it's got some artistic liberty within it, not withstanding the son himself admits David was an alcoholic - which is fundamentally a vice in stoicism, especially due to his inability for temperance. Ontop of his abusive behaviour and inability to take responsibility for his own life, refusing to speak truth and living selfishly without virtue, gives me little reason to take anything about him as a slight against Stoicism.
Third, he wished himself stoic, not believed he was 'A Stoic'. The two terms aren't the same and the need for capitalisation is how we make the difference noticed between the verb stoic and the noun Stoic. His cries against the Psychologists for not having read Socrates and Descartes just comes across as his arrogance and ego bleeding through, as a man who started as a Marxist and later focused on 'Empirical Idealism' which means yes he did believe in the power of the mind but he was approaching it from schools of thought such as Plato and Berkley. Berkley notably saying “to be is to be perceived” echoing sentiments of earlier mentioned Descartes in 'I think therefore I am'. which happens to be one of the philosophers he is upset the Psychologists have not read. Ontop of the fact he has no Stoic works written and his Daughter does write about Stoicism but has not openly said she was influenced by her father and such a claim would be speculation on anyones part.
Right, now we can talk about Suicide;
"Stove was not the first Stoic suicide. ‘Was it, I would ask, fortitude or weakness which prompted Cato to kill himself?’"
In a word - Autonomy. He raised an army and went to war against Julius Caesar.
First saying before the war:
“I would not be beholden to a tyrant, for his acts of tyranny. For it is but usurpation in him to save, as their rightful lord, the lives of men over whom he has no title to reign”
And then reportedly just before his death, saying;
“Now, I am master of myself”
He absolutely chose death over living under a Tyrant and it took great courage for him to opt out of the unneccessary suffering which would later become tantamount to Caesars rule.
What else needs to be said about this man? He went to war, accepted his defeat with grace and decided to not suffer without reason under the rule of a Tyrant, as had already been experienced in Rome, there's a lot of reasons why someone would feel this way (Nero and Caligula come to mind).
I know you also brought up Seneca as a sage, for which I have just this quote to leave you with from a tutor of classics at Oxford, talking about why they read Seneca and Stoicism..
"Seneca (c. 4 BC – AD 65) was a Stoic, and so thought that virtue is the only thing that matters for a truly good life. Nothing else – including health, wealth, possessions, and family – makes any contribution to happiness. This may sound austere, and indeed there was a certain unrelenting quality to Stoic ethics, but the Epistles are not an austere work by any measure. Across 124 letters, in which the narrative exploration of life is generally preferred to abstract theorising, Seneca engages in a deep and intimate evaluation of what it means to be good, discussing at length, and with much wit and uncompromising self-scrutiny, his own faltering moral progress."
"These early Senecan letters appeal to me in several ways. Partly it’s the elegance, wit and economy of his Latin style; partly it’s the thoughtful depiction and exploration of the didactic process, which interests me as someone who, being a teacher, spends a lot of time helping others to develop and cultivate their intellectual interests and values; partly it’s simply the richness and depth of the discussion; and partly it’s the sense of Seneca’s own flawedness and failure – these are not the writings of a moral saint."
Now then I would like to address your attitude towards Suicide as a cowards way out, exuding weakness and only being sought after when they felt life was too much to bear.
Well firstly we can look at the lives of each Philosopher who killed themselves and see they endured a lot, for a long time without wavering, all the time time they openly talked about being willing to die instead of bending the knee or giving up their control over themselves and their minds to someone else.
“Were all the geniuses of history to focus on this single theme, they could never fully express their bafflement at the darkness of the human mind. No person would give up even an inch of their estate, and the slightest dispute with a neighbor can mean hell to pay; yet we easily let others encroach on our lives—worse, we often pave the way for those who will take it over. No person hands out their money to passersby, but to how many do each of us hand out our lives! We’re tight-fisted with property and money, yet think too little of wasting time, the one thing about which we should all be the toughest misers.” —Seneca
“Stop whatever you’re doing for a moment and ask yourself: Am I afraid of death because I won’t be able to do this anymore?” —Marcus Aurelius
“No evil is honorable: but death is honorable; therefore death is not evil.” —Zeno of Citium (and before you say it, this doesn't mean that killing someone is not evil, it merely states Death on it's own is honorable. It doesn't excuse killing as honorable, merely Death as a natural process.)
“I cannot escape death, but at least I can escape the fear of it.” —Epictetus
(People afraid of death don't kill themselves. In my experience they turn to theories of eternal life or immortality to avoid dealing with it's looming reality)
And then you get certain quotes, mantras or prayers, depending on how you want to percieve them such as 'Amor Fati' and 'Momento Mori' being huge roles in the Stoic ideal of death. Suicide is not meant to be a scapegoat to avoid purposeful suffering, or suffering that can be endured, but as a reason to find peace in lifes ills, for if it becomes unbearable you always have a way out. but if you choose to stay as Epictetus says 'Do not complain about what happens after that'.
Complaining, whinging, seeking outside attention and sympathy are all pointless exercises in futility and as such are to be avoided in Stoicism.
It’s better to conquer grief than to deceive it.” —Seneca
And lastly, I'll address this closing comment:
"To watch the beloved suffer while maintaining inner tranquility is not to love at all."
Depends on who you quote. Earlier Philosophers like Seneca has it's roots in Cynicism which saw people as inherently good but completely decieved from reality and as such ignorant fools. We know Jesus expresses love by telling the truth, so then why can't a Stoic express love by speaking his truth?
Epictetus has the most notable ideals behind death being something to be indifferent towards and even happy about the death of a loved one, because he viewed God as the cosmos, to him they were returning to the greater good, similar to Christianity, so mourning their death would actually be contradictory.
Can you truly believe in a forever-after or a greater power that we transcend to when we die, and still grieve the death of our loved ones? Either they go to somewhere better and we're happy for them or we come to terms with the fact it's a lie and mourn the loss of their only life.
I did have other comments to raise in relation to your replies to me on YouTube but I feel this should suffice for an objection to the article. I have a feeling with the current situation of lockdowns and suicides increasing by a lot, that you may have gone through losing someone close to you and as such feel preaching suicide as an option might lead to more people close to you dying, but that doesn't change the fact you want them to live because you want them to live, and not because that is whats best for them.
I hope you find some peace in life and I'd love to explore these topics more with you but understand if it's too much to reasonably reply to, any thoughts where you find I am wrong are welcomed.
Thanks,
Adam.
“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Thanks for taking the time to comment. My response is in a new post to make it easier to follow.
" If the Christian follows self destructive habits, the Christian will also find life to be tormenting. If the Christian walks across a busy highway without looking the Christian has the same chance of being hit by a vehicle than anyone else." This is addressed in Ecclesiastes.
"I think Christianity has (wrongly) taught us that joy, the antidote to suffering, can only be found in Jesus." Christianity doesn't teach that joy is the antidote to suffering, rather love; which, tbf, is the source of joy. Moreover, as Jesus is the Son of God, and hence a part of the Trinity, thereby being God, he is the creator of all things. Thus, God is the source of love (Remember also that God is Love) and hence the source to the antidote to suffering. Now, being THE only source of the antidote to suffering? That would be a yes. Jesus's own words are, "I am the way, the truth and the life"
"The apostle Paul seems to have encountered the stoics" Yes, he was familiar with them, being a giga nerd in Jerusalem, he would have been familiar with both the Hellenistic world and the Jewish world. Some akin to stoicism is found within Christianity (Matthew 6, for instance), however, I would argue it goes beyond stoicism, and the tradition also predates it, meaning it is more fundamental.
"My point here is that Christianity lacks the tools to make a good life here on earth." Not so. 1st: At the very least, actively Religious people in general do tend to live better lives, thereby indicating there are "tools" found in religion "to make a good life here on earth". https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/
2nd: The Beatitudes alone, (Not even mentioning the Gospel of Matthew as a whole, or the Gospels.) Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Romans, Galatians, etc etc etc. Even books that aren't seemingly as obvious on it are full of good stuff for living a good life. For instance, Genesis may not seem like such a book, but one need only watch a few episodes of JBP's talk on it to see the value in the book. Ultimately, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Thus, one lives a good life.
"no great war, no great depression" Lol, nice Fight Club reference. For the Christian, he is always at war, the greatest war, so that's covered.
"I argue that it's the fault of the church why people have turned to stoicism." Although, I definitely agree there is/has been abysmal Church leadership, that is heartbreaking/disgusting to witness. I would argue that proper Christianity does fully provide what young men seek, having within it elements of stoicism, whilst going beyond it. Perhaps it is because there seems to be a severe lack of the og proper Christianity, (Ye know, the classic St Anthony ballsy living in a cave sort of stuff. Or the St George warrior slaying a dragon, sort of thing) leaving instead the sort of "beta" stuff, like women priests, or gay marriages in Church's, or the Church of England in general, (Lol) or the sort of protestant meme with what is essentially pop music, or joel osteen, etc etc. Thus, as Christianity seems to have become this monstrosity people, and especially young men, look elsewhere. Thankfully, its stoicism that has come up, and not so much the practices of the Carthaginians or someone else. No baby sacrificing, lol. However, I would say, that og, proper Christianity does still exist (The kind that has aspects of stoicism in, but goes beyond it. The proper cave dwelling, dragon fighting sort), although probably not as well known in the popular imagination. For instance, the cave in which St Anthony was living is still dwelt in by Father Lazarus, and the likes of Jonathan Pageau, Jordan Peterson and others are elucidating upon the symbolic world. One just needs to look a bit harder to find og Christianity, I would argue.
I would say, that rather than "Christianity evolve to meet everyday challenges" we have a full return to og Christianity. The likes that can be found in Orthodoxy, or Catholicism.