The Stoics believed in a deterministic universe where everything follows a set course and as such, to live a good, right and proper life is to live in accord with Nature, God and the Universe (which to them were synonymous), by accepting one’s fate. In doing this you would become calm and harmonious with Nature rather than resisting what cannot be changed and thus risking disappointment or anger at your lack of control (“like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes” Cleanthes). Instead one should accept that external situations are out of our control, the only thing we can change is our internal response to these external influences so we should seek self-control through reason, understanding and acceptance of fate.
It is easy to think that this would lead to lazy behaviour, because if everything is predestined, why bother doing anything at all, but the Stoics did not believe in non‑action, merely that our actions were preordained so what we choose to do has already been laid out for us by nature or God.
What would be the political implications of these views on the state? The Stoics could be considered as natural followers so this characteristic would be well suited to a tyranny where one leader rules over the masses (so long as the tyrant in question wasn’t also a Stoic, which would be unlikely as Stoics did not hold ambition in high regard and thus would not follow along this political path). However, in a democracy where leadership is voted on and directed by the masses, would society reach an impasse? Who would the Stoics follow? One may say, they would follow the majority view, or would their apathetic nature mean that they would abstain from voting all together? In a world dominated by Stoicism, would nothing change, just like the laissez-faire era?
When can apathy be regarded as a good quality? In modern society, we consider apathy and laziness as one and the same, but Stoics did not believe themselves lazy, they were passive through reason, not ignorance or carelessness, so the meaning of apathy has changed somewhat. If we are truly apathetic and free from emotion through acceptance, i.e. “comfortably numb”, is this really the way to achieve a good life? This view may well lead to a form of contentment once people have acceptance of their circumstances as they will be free of the frustrations, anger or sadness that may come from feeling a lack of control or wronged in some way, but is contentment and happiness really the same thing? The Stoics didn’t aim to reach pleasure through hedonistic means which may give rise to ephemeral “happiness”, to them this was not the indulgent state they were aiming for. Perhaps contentment, if not as gratifying as an “indulgent happiness”, is more long lasting, i.e. if you allow yourself to be led by your emotions you may have short periods of excessive happiness followed by periods of not being happy at all (negativity or pain) and life would be an undulation between the various states of happiness or sadness (pleasure or pain), whereas if one steers towards a reasoned, acceptive lifestyle such as the Stoics, one would maintain a feeling of unwavering contentment throughout life. The question is, which is really better?
No comments:
Post a Comment