The Best Reply I've Ever Seen...

...on an internet forum....

Zotoaster said this on the Stoic Subreddit four days ago:

I used to imagine a future-version of myself.

That future-guy that I was imagining always had one thing in common. He wasn't thinking about the future. He was enjoying himself where/when he was, in his own time.

I guess I am older now, so in a sense, I have a duty to my past-self to live in the moment, otherwise, I will never become that future-self.

That, friends, is a full-blown Stoic maxim. Well done, Zotoaster.

Preferred Indiferents: The Folding Blade Box Cutter

My grandfather gave me my first pocket knife. It was a massive Swiss Army knife with a Ford Model T on the side. I treasured that knife. I still have it and it's a very nice reminder of him, though my memories of him are far more precious (thanks, Stoicism!).

These days, for everyday use, I carry a folding blade box cutter. I got mine from Harbor Frieght for something like $5. I've had it for awhile and it still works great.

It has some advantages over a pocket knife:

1. The blade is always sharp (just replace it when it's not)
2. It's cheap, so if I lose it I don't much care (check out Musonius Rufus for more on this)
3. It does everything I would do with a pocket knife (I cut things and whittle the occaisional pencil)

The only disadvantage I've found thus far is that it isn't as useful as a pry bar. The blade tends to break.

* * *

I hereby release the above image into the public domain

She's The Answer To All Your Problems

No she's not. None of them are.

Somewhere I saw Russell Brand in an interview. He said something like "In this post Christian world we look for our savior in romantic love." I think there's something to that. I've known a lot of people who think that in the first rush of love they've found the answer to all their problems... in another person. They have found "the one."

Russell Brand will be disappointed. Anybody who thinks this way will be disappointed.

Now I'm not saying that "the one" doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that "the one" is built, not found, and "the one" is a companion, not a savior.

In a world of 7 billion people I'm positive that at least 1,000,000 of them are "perfect" for you. Any one of them will do. What happens is you find one, you build a life together, and now that person is The One. You can't replace your mutual history with somebody else, especially if you meet as young adults. It's precious beyond all money.

You go through a process of deep conversion, and so does the other person, until life is unimaginable without them. As Stoics we imagine it anyway, we imagine losing this person, and this prepares us for when it happens, but there is a deep sense of permanence built over time that cannot be denied.

Even then she (or he, depending on your preference) isn't the answer to all your problems, but she is a great source of comfort, stability and joy. There is a reason why only half of us get divorced. In these times of sexual openness half of us stay married anyway. Why is that? Because marriage, for a large number of people, is a good thing. We'd call it a preferred indifferent.

So how is such a relationship built? That is a vast topic, but for starters you work on you. You develop your character, your discipline, your mercy. Help yourself first and then you can help other people, but "helping" doesn't mean "get rich." Helping yourself means developing your virtue, at least for a Stoic. That's what Aurelius was doing in his Meditations. That's what Epictetus was doing with his teaching. Epictetus especially; he achieved mastery and then he helped the people around him. He's been dead for a couple thousand years and I've never paid him a dime, but he helps me every day.

So she isn't the answer. You are.

Listen to the lyrics of this very lovely song and see if you agree with them:

I don't. It's still a nice song, though.

EDIT:

I found this quote in an interview with Hozier, who I have to say is an extremely eloquent young man. I look forward to listening to more of his work:

"Take Me to Church" is essentially about sex, but it's a tongue-in-cheek attack at organizations that would … well, it's about sex and it's about humanity, and obviously sex and humanity are incredibly tied. Sexuality, and sexual orientation — regardless of orientation — is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things. But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation — that it is sinful, or that it offends God. The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love. Turning your back on the theoretical thing, something that's not tangible, and choosing to worship or love something that is tangible and real — something that can be experienced.

"But it's not an attack on faith. Coming from Ireland, obviously, there's a bit of a cultural hangover from the influence of the church. You've got a lot of people walking around with a heavy weight in their hearts and a disappointment, and that shit carries from generation to generation. So the song is just about that — it's an assertion of self, reclaiming humanity back for something that is the most natural and worthwhile. Electing, in this case a female, to choose a love who is worth loving."

So he views the replacement of a holy savior with his girlfriend as a "tongue-in-cheek" attack on organizations. He's not literally worshipping her. For him this song is far more about the Church than it is about a lover. That bit about worshiping or loving "something that is tangible and real" is problematic for me, but I don't think I gave the man enough credit.

So there you go!

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the completely absorbing Public Domain Review

Do We Have Souls?

Do we have souls?

For me, whether it's true or not I have a sense of my own soul and I have a sense of a Divine presence. Maybe it's an evolutionary trick; some psychologists who investigate this stuff say that many of us believe in a separate soul because our minds cannot comprehend non-existence.

On the other hand maybe there's something to it... Michio Kaku, one of the founders of String Theory, is comfortable with a "non-personal" God, and if that God exists Its mind is made of cosmic strings. The strings vibrate in a cosmic symphony and they play out existence. It almost sounds like a Greek myth.

And time isn't linear, right? It folds around itself. In that sense we are immortal, whatever that means.

Or we're not. So to paraphrase Aurelius very liberally and probably badly...

What is it to us if there are no gods? Will we do anything differently? But there are gods, and they have given us all the tools we need to become more like them. That's my own interpretation of what he says, anyway, or rather that is the sense I get from it. Here is the actual quote:


"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."

Does my belief in Divinity and the soul motivate me to do anything evil? I don't think so. I would say the opposite; we are taught as Stoics that our fellow humans are pieces of a Divine whole. They are our brothers and sisters in that sense. We are to love them and be patient with them, and when they do bad they do it because they are ignorant of the good. This applies to me as well. When I do bad it is because I am ignorant of the good. Other people ARE us and we ARE them. I find that meditating on the Divine helps me to put my thoughts about this into practice. It makes me more forgiving and understanding.

* * *

Image, "Dying Bacchante," courtesy of the New York Public Library, is public domain

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