Is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity
Christianity is the most popular religion and set of values in the world with 2 billion followers worldwide. Stoicism which was one of the most popular philosophies in the ancient world is today a small fringe movement, although a growing in popularity. It had a significant influence on Christianity and the most famous Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas adopted many of the Ancient Greek virtues in his Philosophical writings , a blend of largely Aristotelian and Stoic thought. But he added his own purely Christian virtues to the list including faith, hope, love and charity. But these are then combined with the teachings in the gospels.
Cognitive behavior therapy , the most common form of psychotherapy today for emotional problems was actually inspired by Stoicism, and has swept the world in recent decades. So it would seem that modern psychotherapy has more in common with Stoicism than Christianity and yet the values that permeate western culture are largely based on Christianity even for those who don't believe in God. So I put the question for debate is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity and should it replace the latter as a set of values to live by?
Cognitive behavior therapy , the most common form of psychotherapy today for emotional problems was actually inspired by Stoicism, and has swept the world in recent decades. So it would seem that modern psychotherapy has more in common with Stoicism than Christianity and yet the values that permeate western culture are largely based on Christianity even for those who don't believe in God. So I put the question for debate is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity and should it replace the latter as a set of values to live by?
Comments (55)
If true that would be a sufficient condemnation for me.
Quoting Ross Campbell
Religion is for those who, for whatever reason, are not inclined towards self-actualization and religion could be rather superfluous for the self-actualized. The fundamental incompatibility is that stoicism relies on reason whereas religion relies on faith. The former leads to independence and the development of virtue and the latter to dependence and “the values that permeate western culture”.
For whom, in what circumstances?
It isn't clear to me that Christianity has ever been adopted as a guide to living by any significant number of people calling themselves Christians if the directives of Jesus as set forth in the New Testament constitue Christianity. Christians have hated, killed, and oppressed each other and non-Christians since it was founded, and avarice is more characteristic of Christians than charity.
The fact that what Jesus advocated is and has been largely ignored suggests to me it is not a usable guide for living. It would be nice if we all loved one another, but we never have and I suspect never will.
Stoicism presents a more useful guide regarding how to live, and has none of the theistic baggage true Christians must always carry. There's no requirement that we love one another in the Christian sense, but respect for each other and acknowledgement that we are part of a community is something achievable, as are efforts at controlling negative emotions, desires (for riches and fame and power, things indifferent) and fears. Great effort and discipline may be required, but it is no impossible task.
One objection to that statement is that since most people believe in God, there can be no harm following a system that believes in God, like Christianity.
Christianity does have a code of moral conduct for normal people. Psychotherapy is largely for people with psychological issues. That's why it's called therapy.
So, it depends on whether you want a spiritual and moral guide to living or a clinical therapy method.
There can be such harm, for those who don't already believe in God and Christianity. Said harm comes from trying to make oneself believe something that one simply has no inclination to believe. For such a person, harm also comes from trying to follow the Christian code; for such a person will seek to follow the code by the letter (they know no other way), instead of being selective the way Christians are. Meaning such a person will be naive and easy to exploit and get themselves into a lot of trouble due to trying to be honest and truthful at all times, turning the other cheek, loving their neighbor etc.
You don't need either.
Christianity, on the other hand, despite its alleged links to stoicism, is about bringing about change - getting one's hands on a ticket to heaven seems to be what all Christians aim for. In other words, Christianity, though it seems to be fully aware of the "human condition, doesn't accept the status quo and wants change, change for the better, heaven being the goal.
I think this is a modern rendition of stoicism. The original one had methapyhsical underpinnings which are unpalatable to many modern people, but which made all the difference and prevented stoicism from being merely a quetism.
And they are...?
From Wiki:
And then all that about being part of the world and so on. The Stoics were by no means advocating passivity in terms of action, as some modern usages of the term indicate.
Oh! If stoicism recommends acceptance of one's cricumstances, how would we explain such an attitude? It could be, other reasons being possible, that there's nothing we can do to change our condition. What are these "...other reasons possible..."?
Can you imagine a military general, out on the battle field, who is a Stoic?
You believe that pantheism somehow prevents stoicism from being quietism?
Well, let's see ... other than the old adage (I can't source it at the moment) 'Epicurean during peace, Stoic during war', what do you make of these reputed 'Stoic warriors' ...
ancients:
Marcus Aurelius (emperor)
Scipio Africanus the Younger (general)
Augustus Caesar (emperor)
Cato the Younger (tribune / general)
moderns:
US Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
US Adm. James Stockdale (POW)
US Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis
Also Lucius Flavius Arrianus, student of Epictetus (to whom we owe the Enchiridion and the Dialogues), governor of Cappadocia who defended his province in the field against the Alani.
Does standup too...
Thanks for illustrating my point! The modern day stoic is a passive-aggressive wimp, while there is nothing in the original Stoicism that would stand in the way of being proactive.
Quoting praxis
Of course, because pantheism gives one a definitive sense that one is part of divinity, and that as such, one's life is worth living, that life is a big and worthy project worth striving for, all taking place in a big and worthy universe.
Major personal monotheisms operate from the notion of separation between man and god, and of the fallen nature of man. This gives rise to despondence, guilt, demoralization, hopelessly trying to (re)establish the bond between man and the divine. Pantheism doesn't throw a person into such an abyss, so the person has more energy and can utilize it proactively.
@Outlander makes a good point about how the emphasis in one argument does not connect easily with the emphasis in others. It is not like they share the gaps between them. We, as readers supply the gaps. I think comparisons need more specificity than comparing "schools of thought."
So it might be more engaging to compare Kierkegaard's Works of Love with Epictetus's Enchiridion. Or some other specific sets of instruction on doing what is best.
You haven’t shown how this prevents Quietism. Actually I might assume the Pantheist to have quietist tendencies, wanting to contemplate and commune with God at the expense of all worldly concerns.
No, there is no personal god to commune with in pantheism.
*sigh*
I was trying to explain a point about S/stoicism to TheMadFool, in line with the discussion that far. So I asked him a question about a type of profession that probably most people nowadays do not associate with S/stoicism. I wanted to saliently make the point that being a military general (a characteristically proactive profession where there is a lot at stake) is not in conflict with being a Stoic. And then I wanted to elaborate why this is so, depending on how TMF would reply, addressing his further questions or concerns.
*sigh*
Right, a God without personality. That being the case, communing with nature (or literally whatever) could be seen as communing with God. Doesn’t seems there’s any point to pantheism without experiencing the “sense that one is part of divinity”. I formally submit that the pantheist could become lost in this sensing and unwittingly become quietist. Stranger things have happened.
I first encountered the expression "self-actualization" when learning about Maslow's pyramid of needs. But at that time I thought it was a neologism with no meaning, it's just that Maslow needed to put the dot on the i, and say something that happened when someone got all his needs met. Fueling my suspicion, to my knowledge then (and actually now, too) M never explained in any detail what he meant by self-actualization. So M coined this phrase, I suspected, in order to finish the the thought process like every goal-oriented person does, and he carefully chose an expression that sounds meaningful while completely devoid of the same.
In the intervening 40 years I focussed every waking moment of my life to find an actual, should I say, actualized meaning to "self-actualization" but so far I failed.
I suspect the problem is that you’re a visual learner so I’ve taken the liberty to literally draw it out for you. Enjoy...
If self-actualization is a goal - what if your best self is as an efficient serial killer?
Okay, let's try a different image. Think of reality as a giant puzzle and you represent one puzzle piece. There is only one place in the puzzle where you fit, despite whatever other people or you yourself think you fit. Self-actualization is fitting the place were you fit yourself. That sounds awkward because you only fit one place regardless of who does the fitting and the fact that you were never out of place. It is all an illusion.
Quoting Tom Storm
It's not about being the best at anything, it's about well-being.
Isn't this completely lacking specificity? 'Wellbeing' is one of those dreadful marketing words, suitable for bookshop shelving. What constitutes 'wellbeing' and please no Sam Harris... :wink:
Sam Harris is a stoic?
Well-being in the stoic sense is often referred to as eudaemonia.
Quoting praxis He's a millionaire celebrity influencer, isn't he?
I think they call it utilitarianism.
You are going form the general and non-specific to be absolutely lost, aimless and incapable.
Okay, so that's what self-actualization means. Got it. Check.
Then you'd make a great team with those whose self-actualization goals are to be victims of serial murderers.
It resembles utilitarianism but it is not the same. Nuances.
Becoming a tree hugger is just at one end of the pantheist spectrum. A fascination with power and being active is on the other end.
The way I understand his approach is that we can itemize our limitations but not what being bound by them permits to exist. So the "actualization" regards being able to be an agent more than making whatever that "self" may be come into existence ex nihilo.
I admire the way in which you have understanding. What you wrote is completely incomprehensible to me. Interesting though, that this is what you call understanding.
Call me a bizarre person, but when I understand things, I link knowledge and logic and new knowledge to alter by rectifying, or else to validate my already existing internal conceptual model of the outside world.
How would you describe the process that you undergo when you practice "understanding"?
Well, the jibe aside, I meant to say, as you noted, that Maslow did not describe what "self-actualizing" meant as a quality in itself. My comment was only to remark that perhaps he was aware of that shortcoming. It is one way to read him. There are others.
The pleasure is mine.
A better question would be: Do we need faith, gospels, fantasy, belief in God/Gods, prayers, rituals etc. in order to have guidelines to live by? Why is there a need for something that doesn't really relate to guidelines of living?
Um, sorry, but this is a ridiculously warped, hopelessly simplistic interpretation of Christian culture.
It would be fair to state that such crimes have existed in Christian culture, and to some degree still do, no complaint there. But then such phenomena exist in every culture. So, Christians are human, no surprise in that. More to the point, hate, murder and oppression are not words which accurately describe Christian culture as a whole.
The vast scale of Christianity in particular, and religion in general, make it impossible to describe them with simplistic labels such as good or bad, right or wrong, just or evil etc. Any attempt to do so immediately identifies the speaker as an ideologue, not a person of reason. All the major religions are like reality itself, containers for all that is beautiful and ugly about human beings, but mostly the overwhelming mediocrity almost all of us suffer from.
I would agree that few if any Christians live up to the teachings of Jesus in every regard. Christians are typically entirely willing to agree with this, which is why they are always calling themselves sinners.
Christianity is probably best considered on a moment to moment basis. There are moments when all of us act in a manner that represents Christian ideals, and moments when we don't. Even Hitler loved his dogs.
The best Christians are typically invisible, as they are typically too busy serving to have time for giving sermons.
I wasn't aware Jesus loved dogs, too, thereby making it one of those Christian ideals you reference.
But certainly, ideals of any kind are ideals. What distinguishes Christianity and Christians, though, I believe, is the extent to which the ideals are promoted and relentlessly expounded as peculiarly
Christian while they're being ignored so blithely. Self-righteousness, exclusivity and intolerance make hypocrisy particularly notable, and while Christians may be no more prone to sin than others, they enjoy the pretense of sinlessness.
In actual real world fact, it is extremely common for Christians to refer to themselves as sinners.
I get that some Christians can be pompously sanctimonious, and agree that is annoying. When my wife and I want to mock insult each other we sometimes say "Have a blessed day!" in a sing song voice, while the receiver scowls in defiance, "No I will not!!" :-)
We're not Christians by the way.
Oh yes. Some of them revel in being sinners, in fact, following the example set long ago by Augustine of Hippo. The more they sin, the more remarkable it is that they repent and are forgiven, and the more significant they become according to strange logic of the zealous. "Let he who is without sin....."
Quoting Foghorn
I was one, as you might guess. I enjoy reading of the transition from the ancient Greco-Roman pagan world to the Christian West. It's an amazing story, but knowing it and knowing what I learned in life as a Catholic makes it difficult for me to admire Christianity the religion.
Quoting Ancient Rome Will Never Get Old. Take It From Mary Beard. - NYT
:snicker:
(If you want to read the full interview and run into a paywall, open link in a private/incognito window. But this is the only bit that is relevant to Stoicism.)