I can’t make my mind up about Stoicism. I’ve studied it a number of times since first encountering it freshman year in Search, but I still cannot categorize it. Is it a philosophy of cowardice or of bravery and enviable strength? The fact that I’m considering both extremes speaks to how undecided I really am. Perhaps if I write my thoughts down here you all will be able to help me reach a conclusion.
Cowardice:
As Epictetus makes clear in his Encheiridion, Stoicism is, at least in its ethics, a philosophy of distancing oneself from the external world. I suppose that that is a somewhat debatable claim, so let me explain what I mean. Perhaps the best example of this characteristic Stoic aloofness can be found in section 7, the metaphor of the boat. Here, Epictetus tells us that we must always be prepared to leave behind life and the all the things that most people cherish in it. He even goes so far as to compare one’s wife and child to a vegetable and a small shellfish, declaring that “if the captain calls, let all those things go and run to the boat without turning back.”
It is self-evident to me that in order to constantly treat one’s wife and child this way, one must stay distanced from them; one must not really love them at all. I have great respect for Stoicism’s disdain for material goods such as money, clothing, food, etc, although I certainly don’t live according to these tenets, but I wonder how a person could be happy without any love. In fact, I am always left wondering if the base fear of getting hurt is all that lies behind Epictetus’ lofty exhortations to remain aloof from the external world. Life IS sometimes painful when we fully invest ourselves in it, but it seems to me that to avoid a full life for this reason might be nothing else than cowardice.
Bravery:
On the other hand, I have to admit that it would be terribly difficult to be a Stoic. Think of American culture and the consumerism which lies behind even that loftiest of goals: the American Dream; and then think about Stoicism and its focus on the internal at the expense of everything external. They are complete opposites! I’ve been trained since youth not to be a stoic, so to become one would take an amazing amount of strength and courage.
That is a basic run-through of my thoughts on this issue. What do you guys think?
Colin, you bring up some great points here. There are some parts that Epictetus brings up in the reading that I just can’t get past. For example, “If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset.” (pg. 55) In the society we live in, saying something like that is extremely bold and not generally accepted. Although I admire the fact that stoics don’t depend on material goods, I cannot accept the fact that they condone viewing people, for example, a wife or a child, with such little connection that they talk about them in dispensable ways. I don’t think it’s brave to not get attached to people. In fact, in some ways it seems cowardly since the reason for doing it seems to be to ensure you will not be upset if something bad happens. This method of not being vulnerable and self-preservation against pain doesn’t seem brave to me. Especially in our society, it would most likely be viewed as not really living since part of life is pain and vulnerability.
ReplyDelete