Relationship between Platonism and Stoicism
In Ethics and political philosophy, stoicism and Platonism seem to be quite close to one another, and yet the schools remained quite distinct historically. Stoics did not call themselves Platonists, nor Platonists called themselves Stoics.
The main similarities seem to be in the role that both Plato and the Stoics attribute to the importance of society for the individual (namely that the quality of society is determined by the quality of individuals "society is man writ large", but at the same time the individual ought to serve the interests of society), the centrality of virtue to happiness, and the idea that the good man will benefit both in this world and in the next.
So what are the significant differences that stopped a closer relationship between the two schools when it came to ethics?
The main similarities seem to be in the role that both Plato and the Stoics attribute to the importance of society for the individual (namely that the quality of society is determined by the quality of individuals "society is man writ large", but at the same time the individual ought to serve the interests of society), the centrality of virtue to happiness, and the idea that the good man will benefit both in this world and in the next.
So what are the significant differences that stopped a closer relationship between the two schools when it came to ethics?
Comments (26)
Well, apart from the people I already mentioned (Arcesilaus and Karneades where scholarchs of the Academy), Cicero also went to the Academy during his time in Athens. Cicero wasn't exactly a platonist though.
With my utmost respect, are you even serious about asking this question?
Esoteric vs exoteric
What's wrong with asking that?
What about, for ex. Plutarch?
I doubt that - if you read Plato's works, most of them have a fair balance between the esoteric and the exoteric. And there are Platonists like Plutarch who are very much focused on social issues.
Every narrative is a mix, but Plato never suggested a set rules for behavior like some of the Stoics. The substance of Plato's dialogues is between the lines, and not in the lines. Plato teaches how to think, not what to think.
Which do you think was more accessible to those that followed?
Uh, sure. I don't know much about that dude so didn't mention him. :)
Okay, so then on ethical matters, do you agree more with the Platonists or the Stoics?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/149344
Classical scepticism/daoism. I'm basically against prescriptive ethics, dualistic value judgement systems etc. 8-)
Quoting Agustino
I was wondering why not ask, why had Stoicism been adopted as a practical philosophy and practiced in everyday life? (Stoicism was purported to be the basis of Christianity). And meanwhile, you could also argue that Platonism was truly a scholastic endeavor.
As was Platonism for that matter, in fact, more so in the case of Platonism.
Quoting Caldwell
What's the significant difference between this question and mine?
You blurred the difference between the two, instead of highlighting it. Short of saying you didn't know the significant difference, I suspect you were eating a really good sandwich when you blurted out this thread, no?
Kay.
Hope there is no problem in arriving late at the debate but the two philosophies are considerably different and seem to agree only that virtue is the way to happiness. One possesses dualism between matter and spirit, as far as I know it was not dogmatic, it is strongly based on logic and has math as necessary in its curriculum, its members were practicing vegetarians and animal rights activists. The other is a non dualist and dogmatic, mainly ethical, philosophy with little logical requirements and advocating flesh eating.
Why did one not seem to produce important politicians and the other did? I honestly don't know if it did or not but except for some branches of Stoicism there doesn't seem to be a bias about a philosopher engaging in such an activity while you can see that it was not the ideal occupation in Platonism.
It might be helpful to consider Plotinus as a self-identified follower of Plato who disagreed with his Stoic contemporaries. I would like to draw more lines from actual texts but that is an academic endeavor I cannot take on at the moment. Consider the following paragraph from SEP:
Didn't know Musonius was vegetarian, only that he advocated eating like slaves did which I imagine meant little or no meat. It is possible that some stoics and cynics were vegetarian as a matter of frugality or even for other reasons.
Zeno in his polemic Republic seems to have advocated even cannibalism, probably in justifiable situations.
The Stoics conception of an immanent divinity also sets them apart from Plato, and served to prevent them from flying off into the Never-Never Land of Platonism and Neo-Platonism and their offshoots and, of course, Christianity to the extent it borrowed from Plato than Aristotle and others of the ancient schools.