For those not wanting to wade through this, the thesis seems to be "...Stoicism caught on among Roman elites because it was the one form of philosophical guidance that didn’t urge them to renounce wealth or power....can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions are actually good in an ineffable and eternal way. Such claims can be used to justify complacency, social callousness, and even exploitative or destructive behavior."
I love philosophers, history, and philosophy. I consider myself an existential stoic. (How I reconcile these philosophies I will save for another day) The problem I had with this essay is the same problem I have with a lot of philosophy: it takes itself far, far too seriously for my tastes.
Do the rich adapt stoicism because of the underlying metaphysics in much the same way that powerful Romans did? Did powerful Romans even adapt it in this way, or are we left with various interpretations depending on which sources we use? More to the point, when you pick up a philosophy, decide you like it and want to apply it in your life, is this decision akin to adopting a new religion, becoming part of a cult? Or is it more like entertaining some useful concepts that you play on playing with to see how useful they may be to you?
It's not a facile question. If we adopt philosophies in the same we adopt worldviews, then the history and inner conflicts can be quite important. If, however, we adopt philosophies in the same we might pick up a grape Slurpee at the local seven-eleven, then not so much.
Philosophy tends to take itself far too seriously, and it tends to take a few really good ideas and beat the living heck out of them until they don't work anymore. I doubt the thesis here. Or rather, it's overstated by a significant degree.
That is not the thesis of the article, and misrepresenting it that way is doing it a diservice. It would be better to "wade" through it in full than to mis-sumarize it.
In fact it doesn't have a thesis, as far as the question "why does stoicism appeal to modern rich and powerful". The partial quote you posted is part of a musing around that topic, but it only takes reading that paragraph in full to see what you call its thesis is nothing of the sort.
Here it is for the lazy:
"Thus, turning to the questions that Nellie asked me for her article, when I see a fad for stoicism among today’s rising rich, I see a good side and a bad side. The good side is that stoicism, sharing a lot with Buddhism, teaches that the only real treasures are inner treasures–virtue, self-mastery, courage, charity–and that all things in existence are part of one good, divine, and sacred whole, a stance which can combat selfishness and intolerance by encouraging self-discipline and teaching us to love and value every stranger as much as we love our families and ourselves. But on the negative side, stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath (a claim Christianity borrowed from Stoicism) can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions are actually good in an ineffable and eternal way. Such claims can be used to justify complacency, social callousness, and even exploitative or destructive behavior."
The number of times stoicism has come up and I see people allude to practicing stoicism or identifying it by the indifference or complacency of the stoic tells me that people are not adopting it philosophically, but more religiously.
It seems to me that the essay makes a claim about the nature of stoicism and how it could be expected to influence modern fans of the philosophy, and you are making a claim about the magnitude or degree to which modern students of the philosophy actually commit themselves to it. I'm not sure there is a genuine contradiction here. She may be correct in saying that, to the degree that one adopts the precepts stoicism, it will tend to have such and such an effect on you; and you may be correct to point out that modern students of stoicism are not likely to commit themselves to the philosophy with religious fervor.
By the way, I would say a better thesis statement is found in the final paragraph: Because I think it’s important that we mingle some Voltaire in with our Seneca, and remember that stoicism’s invaluable advice for taking better care of ourselves inside can–if we fail to mix it with other ideas–come with a big blind spot regarding the world outside ourselves, and whether we should change it.
I love philosophers, history, and philosophy. I consider myself an existential stoic. (How I reconcile these philosophies I will save for another day) The problem I had with this essay is the same problem I have with a lot of philosophy: it takes itself far, far too seriously for my tastes.
Do the rich adapt stoicism because of the underlying metaphysics in much the same way that powerful Romans did? Did powerful Romans even adapt it in this way, or are we left with various interpretations depending on which sources we use? More to the point, when you pick up a philosophy, decide you like it and want to apply it in your life, is this decision akin to adopting a new religion, becoming part of a cult? Or is it more like entertaining some useful concepts that you play on playing with to see how useful they may be to you?
It's not a facile question. If we adopt philosophies in the same we adopt worldviews, then the history and inner conflicts can be quite important. If, however, we adopt philosophies in the same we might pick up a grape Slurpee at the local seven-eleven, then not so much.
Philosophy tends to take itself far too seriously, and it tends to take a few really good ideas and beat the living heck out of them until they don't work anymore. I doubt the thesis here. Or rather, it's overstated by a significant degree.
reply