Stoicism and Liberalism
philosophy ·Originally published on my tumblr.
Boing Boing recently ran some essays by William Irvine (see the first, second, and the third) which purport to offer the teachings of the Stoic philosophers as relevant to the modern world. I think there’s something to that: I know I have come back many times in the last few years to Epictetus’ insight on how essential it is to know the difference between the things we can control and the things we can’t. Drawing a connection between seemingly opposed traditions like Stoicism and Zen Buddhism, as Irvine does, is also illuminating.
But there’s a problem, I think, with any attempt to appropriate an ancient belief system, practice, &c. (and yes, I include religion in that as well), for modern use. Namely, that it’s hard, and maybe impossible, to fit an ancient belief system into a modern sensibility. In Hegelian terms, we’re a little too far into the historical-philosophical dialectic to simply lift Epictetus or Lucretius or Laozi off the shelf and be on our way. This is especially the case in the West, where the spirit of Christianity and its model of personal struggle suffuses the entire culture. (St. Paul: “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.”)
Modern liberal society, a descendent of Christianity, is predicated on the idea than men and women have rights, that government should act to secure those rights, and that people both can and should fight for the preservation of their rights. In other words, ours is a society in which being frustrated with the things we cannot control is not only normal, but expected. Irvine presents Stoicism as a way of escaping the unhappiness that comes with chasing social status, but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that it would also dissuade you from political activism as well – which is also a kind of status-seeking, if you think about it. Fighting for the rights of workers, or religious freedom, or the environment – those are tough battles, in which your losses will likely outnumber your victories, and any progress you do make will be incremental, at best. It certainly helps to have some equanimity about it all, but I doubt you would be a good activist if you didn’t feel unhappy about the way things are and didn’t believe that you had the power, however illusory, to make things better.
Could a Stoic feel that way and believe that sort of thing, and still be stoical? Maybe. It’s a mistake to think that Stoicism implies becoming a hermit – Marcus Aurelius was an emperor, after all, and Seneca was, I believe, one of the richest men in Rome in his day. But to retain the (quite valid) insights of the Stoics and still be a modern shouldn’t end with just rehashing the teachings left to us. It might, for example, be fruitful to connect Stoic thought with the belief, found in some strains of existentialism and pragmatism, that life (political life in particular) is irrational and meaningless – and yet, you have to go on living and participating in society. How would you find equanimity in a world like that?