Talk:Stoicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Harmony with nature?

I am confused by the the statement that Stoics believed in living in harmony with "nature". What is the Stoic definition of nature? Does this have ecological implications? When I web searched for environmental stoicism and eco-stoicism, the pages I came across did not seem to imply a positive connection between the stoic concept of nature and the environment. 76.23.153.173 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)R.E.D.

[edit] Stoic ethics and virtues

The statement comparing some Stoic ideas to Buddhist and Hindu ideas, is interesting but there is nothing to support that either of these Asian religions actually influenced Stoicism, or that Stoicism influenced either of them. If no support is forthcoming I might remove that statement. Kwork 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, you might take a look at WP:TALK: you've created a new section on the top (whereas we traditionally do it at the bottom, you confused me! :), & you give a misleading title for a topic already covered in Talk:Stoicism#Buddhism. Not a big deal (:), but it doesn't help for organization of talk page, nor for later browsal. I hope that didn't sound too patronizing, cheers ! Lapaz 20:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Influence of Stoicism

I was wondering if instead of having "Stoicism's influence on Christianity" as a separate section, it might be better to have a section entitled "The Influence of Stoicism", which could also include Renaissance and Enlightenment thought, and the current resurgence of interest in Stoic ideas. Solri 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ok

[edit] Passions, Reason and Virtue

"Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous." Maybe I'm quibbling, but I think the important point in Stoicism is that passions are the result of incorrect reasoning (although once activated, of course they tend to produce further error). Similarly, while it is trivially true that the pursuit of truth is virtuous for the Stoics (as for almost all classical and Hellensitic philosophers), the uniquely Stoic doctrine is that correct judgment is identical to virtue (which in turn is necessary and sufficient for happiness). Solri 13:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to humanism?

When I read the "brotherhood" section of this article, I instinctively thought of a clear link to the central ideas of humanism, but this is absent from the article. I've not contributed to this article yet, and I'm reluctant to just start editing, so I just want to post the question for input from other people. So; am I wrong here?

Cheers, flnielsen 10:12, April 22, 2006

You might have a point. So certianly more reading will be neccesary to improve the article, as if you are confused, the it needs fixing. It also seems like few people watch this page, so it's kind of out of the spotlight. Feel free to start editing and know that it's for the best and that at least one member of the WP:HEC is ready to help! -- ∞Dbroadwell 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what kind of humanism you're talking about. Stoicism can be regarded as a humanistic philosophy because of its cosmopolitanism and the idea that all adult humans are sparks of the "artistic fire" (pyr technikon - the translation is Long's) a.k.a. Zeus. More specifically, Stoicism places humans in a unique position because of their faculty of language and hence reason (this radical division between humans and opther creatures is explained well in Nussbaum, Martha Craven, The Therapy of Desire: theory and practice in Hellenistic ethics Princeton University Press 1994). On the other hand, the degree to which renaissance and modern ideas of humanism were influenced by the Stoics is a matter of much disagreement. Solri 13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i don't understand

I don't understand, wouldn't "living according to nature" INCLUDE living according to love, pain, feelings, etc? Why is only reason part of nature?

-dan_d4n@hotmail.com

Yes--for the Stoics, reason / nature included feelings. In modern times, the word "reason" has a more restricted definition ("rational thought"). Stoic "Reason" was more like "cause and effect" (the "reason" behind things)--much more like concepts of Tao or Logos.

Stoic Reason IS the concept of Logos. Reason is one common translation of this word, and logos is preserved in some translations. Whilst nature included feelings, this does not necesitate either an emotional or physical response to them. Reason allows us to understand WHY we feel what we feel, and react rationally.

[edit] Moving this section to the talk page

[edit] Stoicism and Altruism

Which stoic held that stoicism "teaches that altruism is the primary good in life and is all that is required for happiness"? Does anyone have a source to cite?

Cheers, barce 12:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could change the word "altruism" to something else. I don't think Stoicism advocates martyrdom, which altruism means to some. Still, generosity, kindness, compassion, service to the community and duty to others are all basic tenets of the philosophy and are mentioned by many Stoics. The happiness of one is linked to the general well-being of all, so "self" and "other" hold equal priority. This is especially true in a material sense--you might as well be generous, since the only "real" possessions a Stoic has are reason, choice, and virtue--everything else is fleeting. Some passages from Marcus Aurelius:
"What does not benefit the hive is no benefit to the bee"--Meditations VI:54
"All things are woven together and the common bond is sacred, and scarcely one thing is foreign to another, for they have been arranged together in their places and together make the same ordered universe." --Meditations VII:9
(sorry, the meditations is all I have handy--if someone has some other sources, that would be ideal).--Pariah 19:28, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is the Stoic perspective on happiness and the Good?

The Stoics believe in a process of virtue accompanied by reason in order to seek happiness. They argue that if you do this you will lead a good life. They also believe that power breeds non virtue. A stoic must also seek an attunement with nature. An example of a stoic would be Seneca, a Roman advisor to an emperor. Although he was a stoic he was forced to commit suicide. Many people in power, especially emperors, did not like stoics, because they did not like that they had the ability to control their emotions, even before the throne of power. The Stoic view of the search for happiness is similar to Aristotle’s view in that a person must seek virtue with the aid of reason and virtue. An example of a stoic philosopher king was Marcus Aurelius, but he was not a good king, although he is considered by many people to be a very good emperor. The reason that he is not a good king is because he sought knowledge for itself, like Prospero in the Tempest. A king should not primarily be concerned with seeking knowledge; they must concern themselves more with ruling. I admire Marcus Aurelius, but I would have preferred that he had restored order to his house (especially with his son Comates) instead of seeking knowledge for itself. Nature has a lot of irony; the philosopher king has a very vulgar son.

Doesn't seem like it belongs in the article. --128.138.169.68 21:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't but it was an interesting read, if true Piepants 20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants

[edit] Stoic Spiritual Ethics

Added descriptions of Stoic concept of passion, as well as some notes on Stoic Spiritual Exercises. --Pariah 03:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Pariah. The Stoic Spiritual Exercises is a good addition to this article. I took the liberty of changing Stoic Spiritual Exercises to a heading level within Stoic Ethics. Following Zeno of Citium, most Stoics categorized philosophy broadly into concepts they called Logic, Physics, and Ethics. (These terms being, of course, not exactly what we'd use to call those concepts today.) So, to preserve their categories, I thought that the present two headings for Ethics and Physics ought to be at a level where a third heading for Logic could be added later. I hope this change makes sense to you and is OK. --Tregonsee 21:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stoicism: past versus present

Is it an oversight or intentional that some parts of the article refer to Stoicism and Stoics in present tense (eg. Stoicism is a school of philosophy which teaches... and A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its...) while other parts make it sound like Stoics and Stoicism either no longer exist or have changed (eg. Stoicism was not just a set of beliefs, it was about... and Philosophy for a Stoic was... ). Thoughts? --Ds13 08:42, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

It's an oversight; the inevitable product of multiple authors. There are certainly modern Stoics. We should edit the document to be in the present tense.--Pariah 23:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
When you say that there are certainly modern Stoics, what are your grounds? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll yield to Pariah's answer to the question addressed to him/her (him --Pariah), but here are my $0.25... There are books on Stoicism (at least one that I'm aware of, the one referenced in the article by Lawrence Becker) that show how Stoicism is separate from its naturalistic assumptions and is used in life today. (That modern author calls himself a Stoic, for what it's worth.) Anyways, if I remember correctly, his claim is that the credo of Stoicism from Zeno right through today hasn't changed at all (i.e. that virtue alone is the key to living) and that the naturalistic stuff was just window dressing for the times. --Ds13 15:01, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
In answer to Mel, I guess it'd be more accurate to say there are people today who consider themselves Stoics. I'd consider myself one, but I'm half a dozen other things too, and my inner-Cynic hates labels ;)
Adding to Ds13's comment, there's been a lot of recent interest in Stoicism (and virtue ethics in general). Stoic works and academic commentaries are easier to find than a few years ago. Some good discussions include Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot, and The Courage to Be by Paul Tillich, where he argues that Stoicism is the best alternative to Christianity in the western spiritual traditions. There's a little Stoic reasoning embedded in modern Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, too; and further back, the Transcendentalists were at least somewhat influenced by the Stoics.
Theatrical Stoics--Terence Stamp's character in Red Planet was undeniably Stoic. Also, in an unnamed chunk of recent made-for-TV movie, a woman trapped in an elevator claimed to be a Stoic, which she summarized: "Realize what you can and cannot control, and take responsibility for your actions." Of course, there's the most famous & quintessential Stoic, Spock; though more recent Vulcans are definitely NOT Stoics.
Out of curiostiy, can you elborate on the separation of Stoicism and its naturalistic assumptions mentioned in the articles?
--Pariah 19:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for the book references. The main naturalistic assumption I'm referring to is belief in the Logos. I don't claim to be a Stoic and my study of them is not comprehensive, but more than one source (e.g. the Becker book) argues that Stoicism does not need the Logos to remain Stoicism. This is significant to modern people interested in Stoicism, I think, because they may be dedicated to virtue but find the Logos hard to swallow because it requires faith in an invisible, animating force of the universe (reason- and knowledge-based as it may be). That's all I know! --Ds13 20:29, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Thanks DS--I was just curious. I guess it all depends on how Logos is defined. Christian scholars often identified Logos with God, and originally was rooted in Greek physics. Presumably modern scholars wish to break these associations. I always figured the logos was not so much an animating force, but the totality of everything animated, leaving it compatible with modern science. If that's true, Stoic ethics simply spring from the logical implications of a complex, dynamic world, just as they do in many Eastern philosophies. No matter. Virtue for its own sake is still a good thing--Pariah 22:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
As for whether there are still modern, practicing Stoics, take a look at James Stockdale, who has written, among other Stoic works, Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot, ISBN 0817993924. This is a collection of his essays and speeches. It'd be a worthwhile read for anyone interested in Stoicism's application to life today.--Tregonsee 12:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow--yeah, 7 years in a vietnamese prison does wonders for your perspective.--Pariah 14:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Tregonsee. I've added that book and others by Stockdale to his entry. Another title that sounds very on-topic is: Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus's Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior, ISBN 0817936920 (apparently a short essay). --Ds13 23:01, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
You're welcome, Ds13. Nice to meet you. It is on topic. Courage Under Fire is also contained in Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot, as well as being, as you noted, published separately. A quick Google search also turned up a couple of Stockdale's other papers, which appear to have been part of an ethics course taught at the US Naval Academy, Stockdale on Stoicism I: The Stoic Warrior's Triad and Stockdale on Stoicism II: Master of My Fate.
As for other modern, practicing Stoics, some of 'em seem to be hanging out on the Web. I once found a website by some fella offering a correspondence course on Stoicism, I believe for a fee. There's a website still up, Stoic Voice, although it hasn't been updated in awhile. It's a source of older and contemporary writings re: Stoicism, overall decidedly from a Stoic POV. And there's a Stoic discussion group on Yahoo, International Stoic Forum. Me mentioning these sites here doesn't constitute an endorsement or recommendation of their respective POVs. Just continuing the conversation, trying to answer Mel's question. --Tregonsee 23:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"In Tom Wolfe’s latest novel, A Man in Full, Epictetus’ Stoicism provides the deliverance of two different male characters" -- http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Stephens/HRS-PHL-403-Honors-Stoicism.htm
The fact that some people considers themselves, today, as Stoics or as sharing the philosophy of Stoicism, and, among them and first of all, Stoic scholars, should not lead to the categorization of Stoicism as an anhistorical school of thought or as a timeless philosophy. If references are to be made to "modern Stoics", it should be done in a section dedicated to "Modern appropriations of Stoicism" and not confused with (classical) Stoicism, which is a very historical school. Reading end of §76 of Sein und Zeit, I see once again the wise statement that philosophy without history is senseless. I do not wish to argue the case of historicism, but please do not deshistoricize Stoicism. Lapaz 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table

I think this thing is ugly. I want to incorporate the information without it.

  • Old Stoa: Zeno of Citium to Antipater (d.129 BCE)
  • Middle Stoa: Panaetius of Rhodes (185–109 BCE)
    Posidonius of Apamea (c.135–51 BCE)
  • Late or Roman Stoa: Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius

Apollomelos 04:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say go for it, unless there's a way to make it better--Pariah 05:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
If you can, do. I only included it in a box because I couldn't see how to incorporate it smoothly into the article. I'll have another look, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I waited for over a month, but as the table was removed but the information still hasn't been incorporated, I've replaced the table until some other way can be found. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

I agree that it doesn't fit here; if there are parallels, which there do seem to be, it should be up to the individual scholar to make the connections. It seems like it editorializes the article. It's a good discussion point, but I don't think it fits in an encyclopedia entry on Stoicism.Throwingjuly 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It feels like it doesn't fit here, but I'd like to see if there's concurrence before I go ahead and remove it. UnDeadGoat 00:44 08 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should keep the Buddhist references--the two philosophies are different, but they're also very similar in the aspects mentioned in the article, and it helps to get that perspective. Perhaps we can qualify the references a bit (e.g. Buddhism generally doesn't emphasize duty or discipline the same way as Stoicism) but I think we should definitely keep some mention of the similiarities.--Pariah 14:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
It is remarkable how close Taoism and Stoicism are. They are nearly identitical and were formed around the same time. Apollomelos 13:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
...Right down to conceptions of Logos & Tao. Taoists always remind me of the Cynics--ready to thumb their noses at social convention and tell it like it is, while Buddhism & Stoicism seem more reserved & concerned with politeness. I guess it's like Epictitus' outrageous social comments, and Marcus Aurelius on the deep solace & discipline of philosophy. It's all great--I wish we had more of it in these days of confusion--Pariah 01:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think we absolutely should keep parallels with other religions. --Amit 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting stuff. But it's a theory. (And maybe a good one.) So we need to be careful that this article isn't the first to present such a theory, since WP has a strict no original research policy. Parallels and analogies can become dangerously subjective and POV. So consider, if at all possible, attributing any such theories or analogies to previously published reputable sources that can be verified. Have Buddhist-Stoic analogies been commented on or published elsewhere to anyone's knowledge? --Ds13 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A Google search on stoicism buddhism, etc. yields links to several articles indicating parallels between stoicism and Eastern religions. I of course haven't researched any of those articles/publications, but it seems quite fair to say that analogies exist. --Amit 05:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Amit. It sounds promising, then. My sole intent was to point out that when claims of analogy or parallel are given in a WP article, they should be cited so future readers (like myself) don't question them as possibly original or made-up and have to go a-Googling for supporting evidence. --Ds13 06:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I do agree. --Amit 12:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

All of these religions and philosophies have a natural law basis, which is why they seem (and actually are) quite similar. They are all based on the notions of philosophical realism and a morality based on human nature; that is, the beleif that an objective reality exists independent of our senses, and that humans are basically good but flawed. The first notion makes all of these philosophies sound kind-of religious, while the second notion makes them highly concerned with morality. Modern philosophical systems tend to be highly skeptical and deny a fixed human nature, and therefore tend to be irreligious and amoral. --Marcusscotus1 10:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Stoicism was completely opposed to philosophers withdrawing from the world's activities. This was fundamental in Stoic arguments against the Epicureans, and they would have been all the more opposed to the withdrawal of philosophers into monasteries characteristic in both Buddhism and Daoism. If there was an Asian philosophy Stoicism was close to, it was Confucianism. Kwork 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Early Stoicism is VERY similar to Theravada/Gandharan Buddhism (the ascetic, desire denying ethic especially) and its probable that Zeno of Citium was influenced by the Buddhist monks sent out from the Mauryan Empire during his time. Baalhammon 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Baalhammon
Although some traits may relate Buddhism to Stoicism, Kwork makes a very good point here. All of this is unreferenced, and if a parallel is to be made, it should not be only by Wikipedia prose. Lapaz
Check this link out: [1]. As someone who identifies himself as a Stoic Buddhist I see a lot of similarities between the two philosophies. Stoicism calls for a transcendental equality of man - as does Buddhism. Stoicism and Buddhism are both centered around the removal of desire and an austere ethical system that is not unlike Cynicism. Stoicism teaches detachment from emotion and a sober, scientific, (for lack of a better word, Socratic) worldview, as does Buddhism. If I really had to I could dig up some quotes, but a google search will probably do just as well. Baalhammon 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Baalhammon
I have know people to make arguments comparing Stoicism to Christianity, to Judaism, to Islam, to Buddhism, to Daoism, and to Confucianism. All this says more about that individual's personal preferences than it does about Stoic philosophy. Certainly Stoicism is far from Buddhism in its goals, and I think Stoics would have shared some of the criticism of Buddhism made by the Neo-Confucists. My worry is that making strong comparisons between Stoicism and any other philosophy will distort the image we have of Stoicism, and that is not helpful. Kwork 11:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. See also comment on section above on "Buddhism: Present & past". Let's not confuse classical Stoicism, a school born in Ancient Greece and continued in the Roman Empire (certainly not a detail that one of its representant was an emperor, and another a slave, nor that it advocated cosmopolitism), with the "ideology of Stoicism" or, rather, modern re-appropriations of Stoicism (in a necessarily different context, which is not that of the Roman Empire). If there is grounds to distinguish early Stoicism & latter Stoicism, than the case for "modern Stoicism" should be self-evident. Lapaz 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that you think there should be a separate article for modern efforts to bring Stoicism back to life? That might be a better idea than trying to incorporate our historical understanding together with a diversity of modern views. The problem is that the modern views are mostly original research. Kwork 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps modern Stoicism warrants a separate section within the article, or perhaps a separate article of its own. However, in regards to Kwork's earlier comment: "Certainly Stoicism is far from Buddhism in its goals," I must disagree. Many of the methods and details of the two philosophies may disagree, but their ultimate goals are identical--the end of suffering and anguish (through meditation and self-dialogue). I can understand if many may not find this appropriate for Wikipedia, but there is no denying the similarity. I'm not convinced a statement of similarity qualifies as original or controversial research.--Pariah 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The goal of Stoicism is to end suffering and anguish?! Where did you read that? I would like to see a quote from a Stoic primary source that supports that. I recall seeing that statement in the article too, and I think it does not belong there. Kwork 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, Chapter 5: Be not disgusted, nor discouraged, nor dissatisfied, if thou dost not succeed in doing everything according to right principles; but when thou bast failed, return back again, and be content if the greater part of what thou doest is consistent with man's nature, and love this to which thou returnest; and do not return to philosophy as if she were a master, but act like those who have sore eyes and apply a bit of sponge and egg, or as another applies a plaster, or drenching with water. (http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.5.five.html)
In other words, Stoic Philosophy is a remedy for a sore soul, just as sponge and egg are a remedy for sore eyes. The goal of stoicism is to end Passion--a word which literally means "suffering" in Greek. The method for doing this was Apatheia, which translates roughly to objectivity, or non-attachment. The Roman Stoics, at least, are clear about this. They are constantly referring to freedom from passion and desire--as you may find in many of the quotes near the bottom of the article. They weren't just Stoics for kicks, you know.
Modern Scholars Pierre Hadot and Paul Tilich confirm this. In Tilich's The Courage to Be, Stoicism is referred to as the only viable spiritual alternative to Christianity in the western philosophical tradition--with the goal of such spirituality to be an end to Nihilism and sickness of the soul (i.e. suffering and anguish). --Pariah 06:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


In the Marcus Aurelius quote (V.9) that you give he is saying only not to get discouraged in the face of difficulties, and to bare with failures patiently and stoically. That method of proceeding in life will certainly reduce suffering; but the Stoic focuses is on virtue.
In Diogenes Laërtius VII.88 says this about Zeno (the founder of Stoicism): "...Zeno was the first (in his Human Nature) to call our aim "living in agreement with nature", which is the same as living in accordance with virtue, since nature draws us toward it.....For our natures are parts of the nature of the universe. Hence our aim becomes living consistently with nature, that is in accordance with one's own nature and that of the universe, being active in no way usually forbidden by the law common to all, which is right reason, which pervades everything and is the same as Zeus, lord of the ordering of all that exists. And this is the same as the virtue of the happy person, and a smooth flow of life, when everything is done in accordance with the agreement of each person's daimon (guardian spirit) with the will and order of the universe."
In The Inner Citadel, p.185, Pierre Hadot summarizes this buy saying: "...the goal of our actions must be the good of the community, and the discipline of action will therefore have as its domain our relations with other people. In turn, these relations will be ruled by laws and duties imposed by human rational nature and reason, which are fundamentally identical to universal Nature and Reason."
In other words Stoicism requires action within the community, because service is (in the Stoic view) required by Reason, by God and by Nature....which are, fundamentally, the same. If you say that Buddhism is in harmony with this, I will be happy to hear that. If you tell me Buddhism and Stoicism are the same, you are mistaken. I certainly have no objection to comparisons, but such comparisons apply equally to Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam, to Daoism, and others. Why not just let the Stoic article present Stoicism as clearly as possible on its own terms? I would not object to your supplying a link to a comparison with Buddhism. Kwork 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


I certainly am not saying Buddhism and Stoicism are the same--there are many important differences. I also agree that similar comparisons can be made to other spiritual and philosophical traditions. Perhaps the Buddhism references can be replaced with a comment to that effect--i.e. that Stoicism is not just a set of comments about nature but a spiritual path requiring constant practice (askesis).--Pariah 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Christianity

The reference to Christianity is justified because (unlike either Jews or Buddhists) Christians made claims similar to those mentioned, and have assumed that such ethical views originated with them (hence the common description in Christian mediæval writings of Plato and Aristotle as "Christians before Christ"). Stoic writings had an effect on Christian thought that they certainly didn't on Jewish or Buddhist thought. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


Bhuddists had the same or similiar ethical theories well before or parallel to stoicism. The fact that Christianity claims Plato and Aristotle as Christians before Christ makes no difference. Aristotle and Plato influenced Judaic and Islamic thought in many ways. If what you say has a historic basis, I suggest you clear it up. I suggest touching upon how stoicism influenced Christianity, where such influence can be found, through other articles or otherwise, and in what way Christianity draws from Stoicism to make it have a distinct claim as a promulgator of its tenants.

Guy Montag 23:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm unaware of Buddhist claims that all men are brothers, etc. Could you give references? The central problem, though, is that you mention two groups of religions: those that were influenced by Stoicism and those that shared some of its ideas. Is there one beside Christianity that falls into both groups? (And the point about claiming originality of such ideas is also important.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, if that is what you meant, that it shared some ideas and was influenced by stoicism, it should be made clear. "Even before Christianity" is very vague. I suggest you clear it up because it is confusing.

Guy Montag 21:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not what I meant, as I didn't add the comment; I'm just pointing out that it was justified. I don't really see its vagueness (it made the claims before Christianity did, and that seems clear enough), but it's true that it could be more detailed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

In the section of the article about the Stoic influence on Christianity: "...a true stoic would have relied on the cultivation of serenity, courage and wisdom through practise and meditation, rather than through the grace of an external agency." I thought that God was an internal, not external, agency. Is that how Christians view God, as an external force? I am not Christian, and do not know. Epictetus refers to each individual's self as an internal fragment of God, and it is that which is the foundation of Stoic virtue because it is that self which has the power of choice. Kwork 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Epictetus continually petitions and praises God throughout his recorded sayings. He also would appear to believe that virtue is less what you "develop", but a gift God has already given to and resides within all men. I could reference many supporting points, but I think that the first paragraph of section XX from "The Golden Sayings of Epictetus" should suffice for the time being http://www.gutenberg.org/files/871/871-8.txt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.169.190.103 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that some of the Church Fathers, including Augustine of Hippo, were influenced by Stoicism, as WP articles mention. Others opposed the influnce of Stoicism, as WP article mention. Those are points of history. It is a matter of literary criticsm to analyze the Serenity Prayer to draw out the Stoicism. It is not obvious; it is arguable. Therefore it needs citations or else it ought to be removed. Can someone find a reputable citation for an analysis of the Stoicism of the Serenity Prayer? DCDuring 05:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make some changes to the first paragraph of the stoicism and Christianity. It states and alludes that Christianity borrowed terminology from Stoicism and incorporated it into its religion (i.e. logos). It then cites a source. I have the book referenced and the quote was wrongly quoted. the statement reads

"Christianity used some of the same terminology that was at home in stoicism: Spirit, sconscience, Logos, virtue, self-sufficiency, freedom of speech, reasonable service, etc." Ferguson, backgrounds of early Christianity, 368.

As well, the quote on the page right now seems to imply that Christianity borrowed beliefs rather than just a term.

Contradictory to what is stated by Ferguson The word logos was used in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament which was created in 200 BC.) to refer to the 10 commandments (Grk. dexalogous; from logos). Fatherabraham92823 (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)fatherabraham

I think you would be entirely justified in changing the first paragraph. I'm hardly an expert, but everything I've seen on the subject suggests there is very little evidence for any direct borrowings from Stoicism to Christianity.
As to your final point it would hardly be surprising if the word logos appeared in earlier texts, because it had an everyday, mundane, meaning (word, statement, account, etc.). Christianity may have borrowed the special meaning of the word (divine reason) from Stoicism, although I think this use of the word had already been incorporated into Platonism as well. Singinglemon (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eupatheia and propatheia

Would a brief discussion of eupatheia clear up some of the questions about reason and emotion? The introductory paragraph uses the word "emotion" as synonymous with "pathos", whereas the patheia only include disturbing emotions.

I'm also wondering if it might be worth mentioning propatheia. Solri 10:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea. I hadn't heard of these terms before, but if there are stoic terms to distinguish reason, emotion, and disturbing emotion, I'm all for mentioning them. Are you still interested in adding this, Solri?--Pariah 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, done. Sorry about the year-long delay! Solri 13:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jainism

I moved this to the talk page...

"The followers of Jainism, a classical religion of India, now reduced to a tiny minority, still follow codes that confirm with stoic ideas."

This didn't seem relevant to the section of the article (Spiritual descendants) where it was placed, but I do find this kind of interesting and don't object to this sort of thing in the article. We've already mentioned Buddhism and Taoism. Would it be possible to elaborate on how Jainism and Stoicism might be similar, with specific examples? --Pariah 22:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Perhaps the quotes section should be moved to Wikiquote and only a link to them should remain in this article. --Jjhake 19:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the quotes are an excellent addition to the article and I would like to see them remain - they complete the article in a very comprehensive way. Since Stoicism is such a huge philosophy with so many different facets to it, I think producing some first hand readings is a good idea so that the reader can better get an idea of what it's about, especially the writing style/aphorism Baalhammon 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Baalhammon

[edit] Flattery

Wasn't flattery considered to be a vice by early stoics? My understanding is that early stoic scholars regarded flattery as actually degrading to the person who was being flattered. But the following excerpt instead shows that the reason that flattery wasn't so popular, was because it borders lying.

In the third discourse Dio praised Trajan but argued that he was not flattering him, claiming he was the only one bold enough to risk his life in telling the truth to Domitian when others thought falsehood necessary. Flattery he considered outrageous because it gives to vice the rewards of virtue. Such a perverter of truth lies to the very persons who know best one is lying. Unless the object of flattery is a fool, one appears more odious than pleasing. When flatterers are discovered, they are hated and mocked.

I know that it is a very minor subject and of little importance to many, but does anyone care to indulge me by discussing this? Stoa 05:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] capitalisation

What's the difference, if any, between stoicism and Stoicism? The word is capitalised in the article. But so is the word altruism. Why? Paul Beardsell 12:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So, I'll wait another day or so for comments failing which I'll uncapitalise the words as appropriate. Paul Beardsell 00:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)



Dear Mr. Beardsell,


"stoicism" is defined by the dictionary as "n. an indifference to pleasure or pain". It is also not a proper noun.

"Stoicism" is a philosophical belief. It would be capitalized for the same reason that the words Christianity, Bhuddism,or Hinduism would be, because they are all proper nouns.


                                                                                                            Yours Truly,

                                                                                                                  Octavianus II

[edit] awkward phrasing

"Thus, before the rise of Christianity, Stoics recognized and advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings."

This is unclear. It suggests one of two things. Either that the Stoics advocated brotherhod before the Christians did. Or that they advocated brotherhood until the Christians did. Should be clarified.

[edit] Atheists

Atheists tend to be against stoicism, this should be mentioned, they are against it because they are for people giving in completely to their desires, Nietszche was for this, Atheists believe in a 'morality' that makes man no better than beast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talk • contribs)

Please, if I didn't assume bad faith from your past history right from the start [2] to make the generalization saying all atheists adhere to that particular atheist's position is ludicrous, and they don't, if you would care to educate yourself on the subject before making such claims, that would be more productive. Stop trolling, I am soon to report you to the admins if this crusade of yours keeps going. Star Ghost 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure where you got this idea from, but most stoics were atheists, pantheists or deists. The few who concerned themselves with gods talked in very nebulous terms. A central concept within stoicism is not attempting to control things which are not in your control - anything besides your own actions, decisions and judgments is worthless to a stoic, including the belief in gods. A belief in a divine force behind physics, geometry and the greater happenings of the universe the stoics called the Logos (this is not unlike Thomas Paine's deism). Beyond the Logos, the stoic philosophy cares little for personal gods. Also within stoicism is a nihilistic world view best summed up by Marcus Aurelius in Meditations:
"Like seeing roasted meat and other dishes in front of you and suddenly realizing: This is a dead fish. A dead bird. A dead pig. Or that this noble vintage is grape juice., and the purple robes are sheep wool dyed with shellfish blood. Or making love - something rubbing against your penis, a brief seizure and a little cloudy liquid.
Perceptions like that - latching onto things and piercing through them, so we see what they really are. That's what we need to do all the time - all through our lives when things lay claim to our trust- to lay them bare and see how pointless they are, to strip away the legend that encrusts them." Baalhammon 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Baalhammon

[edit] Passions

Perhaps it would improve this article to place the Stoic's definition of passion in the opening paragraph. Although it is stated later on that Stoics used the term passion to roughly mean "anguish" or suffering, the initial paragragh seems to infer that the idea of "distancing one's self from passions" means to repress one's emotions, where in fact this statement is used to mean "removing one's own suffering". It seems that adding this into the opening paragraph would help to clarify and, although it does state later on the use of the terms "passion" and "apathy" in Stoicism, clarifying the opening paragraph would prevent one from forming a misconception of what the actual philosophy of Stoicism teaches. --66.24.229.7 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno

May I insert a

(Not to be confused with Zeno of Elea)

on the fisrt line after the word Citium. Ozone 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under the "History" heading:

"Another tenet was the emphasis placed on love for all other beings."

What is the reference for this assertion?

67.164.12.38 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under the "Brotherhood" heading:

"All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another."

I would really like to know what reference was used to make these rather broad assumptions concerning ancient Stoic philosophy. How did the ancient Stoics view love? Eros, philia, or agape? Is this insertion perhaps a bit anachronistic? If not, perhaps someone could provide me with the reasoning behind these assertions?

67.164.12.38 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why were my edits undone?:

Without any sort of discussion or even a edit description several of my contributions to this article which I consider beneficial were removed. I will be reverting the page back to my last edit/reincluding information from my last edit unless someone has a reason to contest this. Also, why were the quotations removed without deliberation? People should stop removing chunks of this article without stating why. Baalhammon

I second this, and will re-add the quotations, which I notice are now missing again. Whilst this is an encyclopedia style article, carefully chosen quotations make the stoic position far more understandable than paraphrased, often imprecise, prose. As long as the quotations describe common tenets of stoic philosophy, they have a place here. Before people make wholsale deletions to article content, there should indeed be a discussion posted Tobermory 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have readded all the quotations. However clearly there are curently more than are necessary for an article, and indeed some do not illustrate mainstream (or even relevant) stoic positions. Rather than having the entire block simply deleted again, could they be thoughtfully considered and trimmed please ? :) Tobermory 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think my revision of this article is the best - the current revision is weak and doesn't have as much information; it is basically a stub. Boo to the users who removed things I wrote for apparently no reason and axed entire paragraphs - the urge to revert is high but no one cares apparently about anonymous edits so I will refrain. Baalhammon —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Quotations

The quote list should indeed be trimmed. sbd should select a couple "major" quotes and link back to wikiqoute for the rest of the list

I have removed any quotations that express duplicate ideas. I think the remaining ones all say something different, or are too famous to remove. There are still too many for the article imo, but at least those there now do not repeat themselves. Any more to remove ? :) Also, it would be good if each of the quotations remaining in the article can get a textual reference - anyone so interested can then check context and translation Tobermory 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to see references on the quotes. It makes sense and would be quite useful for further exploration. Nachtkrieger 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
you should just put the quotations into wikiquote, the sister project of wikipedia, then link to that. --Buridan 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contridictions

Within the opening paragraph and section on Basic tenets, this article seems to describe the modern understanding of the word 'stoic', that is, a lack of emotions or a restrained expression of them:

"Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy, founded by Greek philosopher Zeno of Citium (333 BC - 264 BC) in Athens, and which became popular throughout Greece and the Roman Empire that focused on reason and detachment from feeling."; "Stoicism teaches the development of self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions; the philosophy holds that indifference to pleasure or pain allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased. A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual’s spiritual well-being."

However, the section on Stoic ethics and virtues presents an entirely different and contradictory account in regards to the teachings of Stoicism:

"The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word stoic has come to mean unemotional or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from passion by following reason. But the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles by developing clear judgment and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration."; "Borrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of passion was "anguish" or "suffering", that is, "passively" reacting to external events — somewhat different to the modern use of the word. A distinction was made between pathos (plural patheia) which is normally translated as "passion", propathos or instinctive reaction (e.g. turning pale and trembling when confronted by physical danger) and eupathos, which is the mark of the Stoic sage (sophos). The eupatheia are feelings resulting from correct judgment in the same way as the passions result from incorrect judgment."

Whereas their are some similarities between this definition of Stoicism and the former, it would seem, at least in my interpretation, unencyclopedic to start an article off by giving a summary of a school of though that somewhat distorts what beliefs were actually held within this philosophy. 66.24.231.57 02:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell's Stoic God

Basic tenets (in end of first part) there is a reference (4) to Russells words: "equals of other men, because all alike are sons of God.". From my understanding the word "God" used here actually must be related to the Stoic view of Logos, as they didn't use the word "God" in the Stoic history. Am i correct? Should this be pointed out in the article? --Roberth Edberg (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this almost certainly wrong or taken out of context. It is exceedingly unlikely that the author of "Why I am not a Christian" would have said such a thing in the sense indicated here currently. Don't have time to mess with it myself but somebody should clean that out. Lycurgus (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I retrieved the work by Russell and as expected the text current is both misquoted and taken out of context. Here is the full sentence on page 263:

Slaves are the equals of other men, because all alike are sons of God.

Already in this survey by Russel it's out of context because Russell is quoting Marcus Aurelius who in turn is quoting Epictetus (note the epigrammatic style of the complete sentence). Obviously neither M. Aurelius nor Epictetus are referring to the Abrahamic god. I considered doing something about this but there really doesn't seem to be a point. If you are looking for info on Stoicism I recommend an encyclopedia of Philosophy such as that of MacMillan and Free Press or the online one Stanford has. Lycurgus (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, Russell does define the stoic god in this passage:

... The supreme Power is called sometimes God, sometimes Zeus. Seneca distinguished this Zeus from the object of popular belief, who was also real, but subordinate.

God is not seperate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. In one sense, every life is in harmony with Nature, since it is such as Nature's laws have caused it to be; but in another sense a human life is only in harmony with Nature when the individual will is directed to ends which are among those of Nature. Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature. The wicked, though perforce they obey God's law, do so involuntarily; in the simile of Cleanthes, they are like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes. - p. 254

Lycurgus (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4 Maccabees

Perhaps under the Christianity section there should be some reference to 4 Maccabees. It was (until fairly recently) considered Canonical by the Orthodox branch of the faith, and Apocryphal by the others. The contents of the text is very stoic in nature. 68.116.99.77 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emotions

"But the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles by developing clear judgment and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration."

Can I get any citation on the claim that the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions? Martha Nussbaum certainly seems to disagree: From "The Therapy of Desire", Chapter 10 (The Stoics on the Extirpation of the Passions): "Interpreters sometimes point to passages such as this in order to argue that Stoic extirpation is not the radical move against our emotional life that we might initially think. For though tumult is undone, much happy affect still remains. But I believe we should not be lulled by this sort of Stoic rhetoric into thinking that extirpation will leave much of Nikidion's happiness where she is accustomed to find it. (...) It is a change that leaves no part of life untouched. (...) Indeed, it is not modification at all. It is what the Stoics said it was. It is extirpation." This is talking about wiping out emotions entirely, yet this article argues that the Stoics did not seek to exinguish emotions. DDSaeger (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you mean by emotions. The entry goes on to point out that the passions (pathos) are considered bad and should be rooted out, but that there are good feelings (eupathos) which are the result of Right Reason. Diogenes Laertius says:

There are also three good dispositions of the mind; joy, caution, and will. And joy they say is the opposite of pleasure, since it is a rational elation of the mind; so caution is the opposite of fear, being a rational avoidance of anything, for the wise person will never be afraid, but will act with caution; and will, they define as the opposite of desire, since it is a rational wish. As therefore some things fall under the class of the first perturbations, in the same manner do some things fall under the class of the first good dispositions. And accordingly, under the head of will, are classed goodwill, placidity, salutation, affection; and under the head of caution are ranged reverence and modesty; under the head of joy, we speak of delight, mirth, and good spirits.

Cicero (Tusc. iv. 6) also describes these three Stoic good feelings in similar terms. Singinglemon (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that those remain, I don't think it's a counter-example of actual emotions: it seems to be the exact same rhetoric that Nussbaum warned against. Naturally, it all depends on how you define emotions, but I think that we should emphasize the average person would not recognize these good feelings as emotions. DDSaeger (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to note here that for the Stoics, passion did not refer to emotion in general, but to suffering / anguish--a specific kind of emotion. The extirpation of passion is the end of suffering, not the end of emotion. The Stoics were not Vulcans.--Pariah (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The Stoic passions are delight, longing, distress and fear. That is not just "suffering" as we understand it. The average person does not consider delight and longing to be suffering, but the Stoics seek to cut them out anyway. And why is that? Because all passions are connected. Nussbaum: "What this schema implies, among other things, is that Nikidion cannot have one emotion without letting herself in for many others: perhaps even, given the fullness of time, all the others. (...) Just as there is a unity among the virtues, all being forms of correct apprehension of the self-sufficient good, just so there is a unity to the passions - and also to their underlying dispositional states." —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDSaeger (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It sounds to me from the quotes like Nussbaum is grinding some kind of axe. She makes it sound (especially using the term "rhetoric") like the Stoics were violently opposed to emotion, when in fact if you read them--especially Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus, they are nothing but moderate and serene. Just because the average person doesn't consider delight and longing to be suffering doesn't mean the Stoics didn't understand those emotions perhaps more deeply. Delight can be dangerous; it is often a kind of high that leads to an inevitable crash--delight can be a gateway to disappointment. And longing definitely is suffering--the kind of deep ache it brings, the distraction, the personality destabilized in constant want of what it does not and perhaps cannot have... If that isn't suffering, I don't know what is.
The Stoics didn't want people to cut emotions out, like some kind of malignant tumor--they only suggest that we can reframe happiness such that it does not depend on our emotions. They're talking about a lasting sense of satisfaction or meaning, independent of fleeting emotions like joy, fear, or despair. Sorry for all the speechifying, but from the qutoes provided, Nussbaum seems frightened by something she has misunderstood. If you still feel strongly that something should be said in the article about the Stoics seeking to destroy (extirpate) their emotions, then feel free to add a sentence or two explaining her position, but the original statement should also remain in the article (i.e. that the Stoics sought balanced objectivity from their emotions, not to destroy them utterly).--Pariah (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)