No Stoicism Without God?

Nigel Glassborow has written what is to my mind the best summary of the ancient Stoic view of the Divine that I've read. See for yourself at Stoicism Today.

Even if you are an atheist the article is worth your time as a history lesson, if nothing else. Glassborow tells us that for the ancient Stoics God was everywhere and everything. The Cosmos itself is alive, and we are all a part of it. Each of us are a little piece of God looking to the larger whole. We are the Logos, the divine reason of the universe. For the ancients Stoicism was a way to live more in accord with Nature, and for them "Nature" signified the Divine Fire, or the Logos, or Phusis, or the gods, or God. It's all one and the same. Glassborow himself seems to prefer "Phusis," which describes an intelligent and purposeful universe.

I had never seen it put so cleanly before. I've had ill-defined thoughts and half-formed opinions, but I've always been uncomfortable with them. This piece of writing has allowed me to put words to my own intuitions of the Divine. I am extremely grateful to Professor Glassborow for providing me with the opportunity.

He doesn't stop with definitions and a history lesson, though. He asserts that if we do not accept the Divine we are not Stoic at all.

We've heard this assertion before; it's a well-worn subject in Stoic circles, but the way that Glassborow puts his case gives it new life..

Glassborow's view is that Stoicism without God misses the point. The entire reason why Stoicism exists is because ancient Stoics wanted to live in accord with the "Divine Fire," the God of Stoicism. They wanted to live in accord with a living thing, or perhaps rather a "reasoning" thing. No Divine Fire, no Stoicism.

There are some very interesting ideas about quantum physics rolled into the argument. The very reason why the universe exists at all, he says, is because a consciousness was able to observe it. The passive principle, or disorganized matter, was organized by the active principle, or the consciousness of the universe. It is this active principle that we want to be in accord with. If you reject the active principle, or "God," what exactly are you trying to live in accord with? Random chance? Mutation? What?

My own opinion is that other Stoics may view the divine however they like. I've had enough heartache wrestling with the issue myself; I don't need to take on somebody else's struggles, not that my opinion of another person's Stoicism means anything anyway. Not so Glassborow.

"So it is not the case that ‘people are free to incorporate theism," he tells us, "but rather that they are free to delude themselves by omitting it, which raises the question as to if they can then still call what they then follow Stoicism or call themselves Stoic if they reject the Divine Fire."

By all means use Stoic techniques, he says, but don't call it Stoicism. Stoicism without the Divine is "dumbed down."

I haven't done his argument justice; he is a far more eloquent man than I am, as are his detractors (the comment section bears this out).

I don't know. I'll be thinking about this for awhile. I think that there is a Divine presence in the universe. I think there is something to what Glassborrow calls "The Wisdom of the Ages," the common thread which winds through most religious traditions. I'm not sure that Stoicism is rendered null without God, though. Take as your example the gentlemen who run The Painted Porch, of whom I believe that at least two are atheists. They seem pretty Stoic to me...

Something to think about, anyway.

And the idea that the universe is infused with a Divine Fire is lovely.

* * *

Edit:

I had a very interesting conversation with UnlimitedRed on the Stoic Reddit. I'll post it here:

UnlimitedRed: I think the quote that is often attributed to Marcus Aurelius but also seriously questioned sums up the whole god thing perfectly.

"Live a good life. If there are Gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are Gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

Also the movie Kingdom Of Heaven has a reasonable view of god. That view is that If god is indeed god, it would understand all our hardships and be completely reasonable unlike how all the fanatics portray god as; a wrathful jealous being.

So back to your question, No Stoicism without god?

God does not make you act virtuously, although if there is a god, it would certainly hope you would try your best to be noble. Whether there is or is not a god though has no effect on your ability to improve yourself and act as a good person should. As a Stoic should.

Me: "Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm."

Glassborow tells us that when the ancient Stoics advise us to act in accordance with Nature they mean act in accordance with the Logos, or the Divine Fire, or Phusis... They mean that we are each a spark of a Divine whole. [Edit: For ancient Stoics, in other words, the Universe is alive and conscious and we are a part of it].

UnlimitedRed: Enlightening. I understand your question fully now. However one can still act or be virtuous regardless of their belief in god. Maybe that individual isn't an exact kind of Stoic that perhaps Marcus Aurelius was but is still nonetheless a Stoic.

Me: I think that I agree. There are a lot of Stoic atheists on this sub and I've benefited from speaking to them. They seem like real philosophers to me. And I don't think that Stoicism should be a philosophy that remains frozen in time. That said, for me there is something to this "Divine Fire" idea. Something strikes a chord. Also, hearing Michio Kaku say that we have a candidate for the mind of God in string theory has to give a person pause... I don't know.

* * *

Image, by Awesomoman, is public domain

A Public Face And A Private Face

One of my favorite books of all time is The Compleat Gentleman, by Brad Miner, now Senior Editor of The Catholic Thing. In his book Mr. Miner spends one of his chapters discussing a manual for courtiers written during the Italian Rennaissance by Baldassare Castiglione, who coins what I think is a very useful term: Sprezzatura. I am forever in Mr. Miner's debt for this (and for a number of other ideas of his that I've incorporated into my life).

Sprezzatura is the art of concealment. It is doing difficult things and making them seem easy. In Castiglione's own words it "conceals art, and presents what is done and said as if it was done without effort and virtually without thought."

Consider this scenario: You're eating a picnic lunch by the river. A truck pulls up and a man lumbers out, trips on a rock and staggers to the back. He drags out a canoe and drops it on his foot, swearing. He hauls the canoe over rocks, scraping and sliding, until he plops it in the water. It starts to drift away. He swears again and wades in, and perches the canoe half up on the bank. He looks around, confused, and then wanders back to the truck. He rummages around for a paddle, finds it, lumbers to the canoe, plops in and almost capsizes it, and then paddles off, the little boat zig-zagging with every stroke of the paddle.

Now this: a man pulls up in a truck, lifts a canoe out of the back, perches it on the bank, returns for a paddle, sits down and effortlessly slides off into the current with a low "swish."

The second man exhibited sprezzatura.

Now as Stoics should it matter? No... I suppose not. On the other hand we're not Cynics. We aren't throwing lentil soup on people to make a point, as Crates did to Zeno.

I submit that since the Renaissance saw a resurgence of interest in Stoicism, and since virtue involves becoming an excellent human, we might consider doing what we do with a little style.

"But all is opinion."

True, but that statement is NOT synonymous with "It doesn't matter what other people think."

If a Stoic takes part in public life, for example, what other people think "matters" a great deal, since the Stoic is attempting to influence them. Remember that we are not meant to sit alone on our mountain tops in quite contemplation. We're meant to be serving our brothers and sisters, down in the belly of society. To do that it may be useful to be thought of as dignified and competent.

Take as your example our very own philosopher king. I suppose that Marcus Aurelius probably appeared in public in tunic AND toga, the formal garment. He certainly appeared so for his bust. Why bother? Because he wasn't a Cynic. He was the Emperor of Rome. He had a role to play. He LOOKS like an emperor.

Now he did this simply and modestly. He sold off imperial treasures to fund wars rather than raise taxes. He avoided gaudy display. He was both aware of his image and he was stoic about it. He controlled how he presented himself and other people controlled how they percieved him.

He also displayed Sprezzatura in his philosophical life. He doesn't seem to have been a Stoic evangelist. He was widely admired for being the same at the end of his reign as he was at the beginning. He had a reputation for fair play and magnanimity. He concealed the source of his excellence: Stoicism. His great work was meant to be destroyed with him. Had his friends not disobeyed him The Meditations wouldn't exist. That, friends, is sprezzatura. That's style.

Take as another example that descendant of the Roman emperor: the Pope. One thing that Pope Francis has been widely praised for is his simple dress. Notice, however, that he still looks like the Pope. He's dressing to be seen, but he dresses simply. Sprezzatura.

* * *

All images are public domain

Would Rufus Wear Tshirt and Jeans?

Musonius Rufus was very utilitarian in his dress, and he advises us to be as well. I'll take my lesson from "Musonius Rufus, translated by Cynthia King," Lecture 19.

Rufus tells us that we should wear a chiton and a himation and call it good (he lived in Rome a good part of his life, so I think he may be referring to the tunica and the toga). In fact, if we can manage it, Rufus says that it's better to go about in a himation alone.

We should never wear two chiton, and we should only wrap up in shawls if we are ill. It's good to get a little cold in the winter.

And no shoes, if possible; shoes hamper agility.

Here is how that would look (sans sandals... this gentleman lives in luxury!):

Rufus tells us not dress to attract attention. Rather, "...one should use clothing and footwear in the same way that one uses armor: to defend the body, not to show off."

If I walked around in a tunic and toga I would most certainly attract attention. So what to do? What is the modern day equivalent of a tunic and toga?

The tunic was worn informally, either indoors or for rough work, while the toga was seen as more of a public garment. With that in mind, I propose two configurations. Please note that I am NOT saying that Neo Stoics will wear this and only this, or that they will even wear this at all. Dress how you like. I'm just saying that I've been doing this lately as a Stoic exercise and to me it seems worthwhile.

First, for informal wear, I submit to you the humble T-shirt, jeans and windbreaker:

Second, for more formal occasions, I suggest the chino trouser (or "khaki"), button-up sport shirt and sport jacket:

Suggesting this uniform isn't at all revolutionary, and that's the point. These clothes are seen everywhere, all the time. They don't attract attention. And where I live if you go to a wedding in shirt, trousers and sport coat you'll present a more formal appearance than at least half the men there, so I imagine that these clothes could suit a person for most occaisons, most of the time.

Rufus advises us to buy cheap as well, because it will free up money to "...help many people, both publicly and privately. "...isn't it more praiseworthy to help a lot of people than to live expensively?"

Fair enough. If you were to buy the T-shirt and jeans at Walmart you'd spend $17. You'd spend another $25 for the windbreaker. Sport Shirt and Chinos would run you $25-30 and a sport coat can be obtained from a thrift shop for $10-20. Job done. Or is it?

"Cheap" might be a relative term here, because in Rufus's time clothing was not cheap. It was hand woven and hand stitched, often by slaves. Sweatshop labor in our terms. How can clothing produced by slaves, or by virtual slaves, be worn ethically?

Here is what Walmart claims about its overseas factories:

• They meet or exceed our requirements
• All labor is voluntary
• Children aren’t used in the production of merchandise for Walmart
• Workers are properly paid for all hours worked
• Hours aren’t excessive and are consistent with local laws or regulations
• Factories provide safe and healthy working conditions

They claim that all of this is verified by an independent auditing organization. Then there's this:

That's not good. So what to do?

The Ethical Consumer scores clothing manufacturers on five criteria:

1. Is the manufacturer good to the environment?
2. People? Is it fair trade?
3. Animals?
4. Does the manufacturer respect democratic principles?
5. Is the product sustainable?

Of course we could debate all of these points. If you are going to "score" ethics numerically you are going to have to draw some arbitrary lines in the sand. Leave that for another day... who scores highest according to TEC?

People Tree Organic Cotton Clothing, scoring a 16 out of 20.

Simple Men's T-shirt: $42 US

Ewan Trousers: $120 US

We haven't even contemplated underwear, socks and shoes yet.

OK, is there a more affordable option? How about Cock & Bull? They score lower at 14.5, but maybe that means that they are more affordable?

Persian Easy T-shirt: $37.50 US

Hemp Jeans: $180

Nope.

How about American Apparel? Made in the USA? Sweatshop free? I don't know how they score, but I like "sweatshop free."

Fine Jersey Short Sleeve T-shirt: $7-18 (Now you're talking!)

Regular Fit 100 Jeans: $92 (um...)

Here is a page which tells us where to buy fair trade clothing. The list seems populated by hip 20 year olds in $40 T-shirts. Skinny T-shirts. Not for me.

Ah, I know! Carhartt!

Relaxed Fit 5 Pocket Jean: $39.99

Maddock Non Pocket Short Sleeve T-shirt: $15.99-$17.99

So far so good, but you'd have to check the label because apparently some of their clothing is made in Mexico.

So I don't know. It's hard to find fair trade clothes that are also cheap, but then on the other hand what is "cheap" to an ancient Stoic? $100 jeans might very well have been cheap.

I have some thinking to do.

As a post script, how do the Stoics of Stoic Week dress? Pretty much how I've laid it out here.

And a final post script: I'm a man and my article is clearly geared towards members of my own sex. I would not presume to advise women on how to dress.

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the New York Public Library.

T-shirt, jeans and windbreaker are from Wikimedia Commons and attributed, respectively, to Camisetas, Juanmac, and Ingolfson

Sport shirt, sport coat and chinos are from Wikimedia Commons and attributed, respectively, to ChristianGlaeser, PKM and Ed Yourdon

Stop When You're Comfortable

Gluttony is a vice. I believe this. I believe that a virtuous person is not a glutton.

I'm a glutton.

I started overeating in the sixth grade. I remember that grade very well; it's when I realised that there were cool kids and uncool kids, and I was in the latter category. Or rather I thought that I was. Turns out thinking a thing like that tends to influence reality, rather than the other way around. Anyway...

I dealt with it by overeating. Why overeating? People who specialize in food addiction tell us that it's the dopamine. When you eat a piece of fruit or meat your brain releases a moderate amount of dopamine to reward you for feeding your body. When you eat a candy bar your body dumps dopamine into your system as a super reward for finding a rare high-calorie treat.

Problem is that, in the past, finding a high calorie treat meant raiding a bee hive. Nowadays it involves swiping a plastic card.

I had a handle on the overeating thing for awhile, but in times of stress I revert. I'm in a stressful situation now and I'm reverting. I eat past the point of comfort. I eat until I'm NOT comfortable. It actually hurts.

"First decide what you would be; then do what you have to do."

I would be a man in control of his appetites. How to do that?

Authority Nutrition has a post describing food addiction. It details how the brain becomes tolerant of dopamine and how breaking the addictive cycle means that there will be a withdrawal process. I've been "withdrawing" for three days now, and I don't feel anything, but I do think that there's something to this idea of dopamine use. Why else would I eat to the point of discomfort?

The idea that we can become "addicted" to food seems silly at first glance. It seems like psychobabble designed to reinforce the idea that we are all victims. When I think like this, though, what I'm really doing is worrying that I am weak, that if I submit myself to this it will chip away at my confidence.

So when I think about overeating I will remind myself that I'm craving dopamine. I'll do something else. Pushups are good; writing is good. Yoga is good. These are positive uses of time. How good does soda taste, anyway? Tastes salty and rusty.

Look, if overeating is an addictive process then it is. If it is simply a bad habit then it is. I can worry about my confidence or I can do something about it. I can worry about what YOU, gentle reader, will think of me and my weakness or I can accept that I am a flawed human being and I can improve myself.

I will cheerfully confront my problem and defeat it with a glad heart. Or not. Maybe I'll white-knuckle it and fail a hundred times before I beat it, and then appreciate my victory later. It is what it is. The main thing is that I don't want to be a glutton anymore.

First decide what you would be; and then do what you have to do.

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the New York Public Library


Post Script: Step 1 is to cut out sugar... No soda, no sugar in my coffee (yes I'm addicted to coffee... one at a time, people, one at a time)

Randall Carlson: Renaissance Man

We Stoics are philosophers who continue the tradition of the ancients, and in their time ancient philosophers studied everything. Absolutely everything. Every discipline, every science, every piece of literature... "Philosophy" itself means "the love of knowledge." They were generalists. Maybe we should be as well.

Randall Carlson is such a man. He has spent his life as a generalist. According to his website he is an architect, a master builder, a teacher, a geological explorer, and an independent scholar. His public work focuses on the idea that human beings had an advanced culture before a massive global flood wiped it out about 12,000 years ago, and that flood may have been caused by an asteroid strike.

That's strange.

He's also a Free Mason, which for many will place him in the realm of the looney fringe, and they will dismiss him. There's one problem; he has evidence.

Real, scientific evidence.

I'm not saying that you have to accept his ideas, but if you want to approach Mr. Carlson like an adult you certainly have to defeat his arguments, and his arguments are reasonable. He knows what he's talking about. You will have an uphill fight.

What Mr. Carlson really excels at is bringing together seemingly disparate information into a cohesive whole. He has found evidence for his theory in the following disciplines, among others:

History: hundreds of flood stories about throughout human culture, and those stories tend to be set about 12,000 years ago. One ancient Greek philosopher actually dates it to that period.

Geology: Geologists are now finding evidence that there was a massive flood 12,000 years ago. They can see shorelines etched into mountains. Also scientists have found melt glass all over the world. It's 12,000 years old and it's the result of a meteor shower.

Archeology: The Sphinx shows signs of water damage... in a desert. Gobleki Tepe, an ancient civilization discovered in Turkey in 1994, dates to, perhaps, 12,000 years ago, and then it seems to have been buried. That's 6,000 years before Ur. In other words the first city is as far away from Gobleki Tepi as it is from us. That staggers the imagination. Add to that the fact that the Gobleki Tepe site rests in the shadow of Mount Ararat... you get the idea.

Anthropology: Australian Aborigines have passed along stories of flood heroes for at least 10,000 years. In fact many cultures do. Here's a list, courtesy of The Omni Report:

Sumer: King Ziusudra
Babylon: Utnapishtim
Greece: Deucalion
China: Yu
India: Manu
Scandinavia: Bergelmir
Welsh: Dwyfan
East Africa: Tumbainot
Mongolia: Hailibu

Carlson reminds us that we have gone from riding horses to sending rocket ships to other planets in about 4-5 generations. What if we've done it before?

I know, I know, it's bizarre, and I don't accept it whole heartedly. I don't think that we were flying airplanes and using nuclear reactors 20,000 years ago. On the other hand humans made a massive monumental stone structure 6,000 years before they were supposed to. That actually happened. There was a time when most people thought that the idea that Vikings colonized North America was silly. Then we found their long houses. The world can be a surprising place. Listen to the man and form your own conclusions (language warning):

There is a lesson to take from Mr. Carlson beyond his theory: he is a generalist, in the vein of the great scholars of the ancient world and of the Enlightenment. He sees the world as a whole and he glories in all of it. He is a multidisciplinary human of the world, and this allows him to live life on a higher plane than the rest of us. 

I always liked this quote by Robert Heinlein: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Socrates was like this. Benjamin Franklin was like this. We could be like this as well.

Check out Mr. Carlson's website here.

* * *

Image of a bull, a fox and a crane from Gobleki Tepe by Teomancimit is, I believe, public domain... please contact me if it is not

If you really want your mind blown, google "100,000 year old South Africa gold mines..."

Forgive Them, Father...

...for they know not what they do.

-Jesus of Nazareth, Luke 23:34


In his Meditations Marcus Aurelius reminds himself to practice the following:

"Say to yourself in the early morning:

I shall meet today inquisitive, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men.

All these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill.

But I, because I have seen that the nature of good is right, and of ill the wrong,
and that the nature of the man himself who does wrong is akin to my own
(not of the same blood and seed, but partaking with me in mind, that is in a portion of divinity),

I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong,
nor can I be angry with my kinsmen or hate him;
for we have come into the world to work together,
like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth.

To work against one another therefore is to oppose Nature,
and to be vexed with one another or to turn away from him is to tend to antagonism."

Marcus Aurelius - Meditations as translated by A.S.L. Farquharson

This seems to be very similar to what Jesus said as he waited to be nailed to the cross. Jesus asks his father to forgive Jesus's murderers and reminds his Father that they do what they do because they are ignorant of the good.

Aurelius reminds himself of the same thing, that the people around him are ignorant rather than evil. He also reminds himself that it is natural for him to work with his fellow humans despite their poor behavior because ultimately we are all of one body. It is the will of the Logos that we work together. Maybe it would be better to say that it is the WAY of the Logos.

Aurelius's thought and Jesus's thought are different in one critical way, though: for Jesus his tormentors require forgiveness from God. For Aurelius his tormentors don't require anything. He must reconcile himself with their behavior. Aurelius must change himself, while God must forgive wrongdoers. To take it a bit further, Aurelius saves himself while Christians are saved by another. For a Christian God is external. For a Stoic we are all a part of God, or the Logos. In this way a Stoic is his own savior, maybe.

It's a beautiful thought either way, and it put me in mind of this excellent essay by Jules Evans entitled "Stoicism and Christianity."

Evans tells us that Stoicism anticipated Christianity* in the following ways:

1. Christians serve the will of God and Stoics serve the will of the Logos (they were also monotheists after the teaching of Heraclitus). Evans notes a unique distinction, though; where Christianity has an opposing force in Satan and his demons and God has heavenly followers in the angels, for Stoics there is only the Logos. Evans also notes that the Logos is used in the book of John.

2. Christians are taught that they can serve God or money, but not both. Stoics are taught that they can serve the Logos or public approval, but not both.

3. Both Christianity and Stoicism advise followers not to be ostentatious in their practice. We shouldn't make a big show of it.

4. Both the early desert fathers and the Stoics believed in askesis, or the deliberate training of the mind.

5. Christians shared the Stoic idea of the Cosmopolis, or City of God. We should serve humanity first and our tribe second.

Evans then goes on to highlight some differences between the two traditions (and Christianity does not compare favorably in the author's opinion), but I'll leave that to you to discover.

An interesting line of thinking, anyway.

* * *

* I am not claiming that Stoics should be Christian or that Christians should embrace Stoicism, or that a Stoic must believe in a God at all. That's really none of my business.

Image is public domain