Our leaders are either sinister or buffoons, or sinister buffoons (the latter are arguably more dangerous, as it is impossible to take them seriously but they pose a serious threat). Climate change is taking place, and there is little hope it will be remedied. The rich get richer; the poor poorer. Ignorance is not only growing, but is a point of pride. So, for that matter, is stupidity provided it is stupidity in the service of ignorance. Information and disinformation are omnipresent, and we seem to lack the will, or the intelligence, to distinguish between them.
It's unsurprising that we see a resurgence in philosophies or ways of life which promote detachment as a means by which we can obtain happiness, or at least tranquility. Buddhism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Taoism are touted these days in books, articles and websites. Yes, even in self-help books, heaven help us. Each of these paths in various ways, sometimes even similar ways, teach the value of indifference to things which are beyond our control, or are sources of suffering and delusion. Stoicism, obviously, is the path I try to follow, and its similarity to the Buddhist view in several ways has been noted.
I think it clear that there is wisdom in these philosophies, particularly in times like these. But in times like these, is detachment from all the problems, and people, who are the sources of disturbance and suffering moral? Shouldn't we be doing something about them?
If we should be, what is it exactly that we should do? This is what I think has to be considered whenever it's claimed that someone should do something about anything, particularly for ethical reasons. And part of that consideration should include an assessment of what can be done effectively, i.e. what can be done that would actually make a difference? If we do what will make no difference, it strikes me that what we do we do merely to assuage our consciences, or out of vanity. The sad fact is that there is very little we can do that will make a difference, except perhaps voting as is possible in this and some other countries, and speaking, and writing. But most of all in doing those things which are in our control which can make a difference at least in how we and certain others live.
Unlike some other philosophies of detachment, Stoicism at least in ancient times encouraged participation in public affairs. Thus Stoics among Roman Senators would defy emperors, and suffer the consequences. But few are in a position to do much of anything similar to what could be done by powerful men in antiquity, and our politics has so degenerated and has become so utterly dependent on money that the chances someone of honor would rise to levels of political power without being corrupted is most unlikely.
Detachment can be combined with morality. But what can be done morally is limited by what we can or can't do. So we do what Epictetus recommended: do the best we can with what is in our power, and take the rest as it happens. Less and less is in our power, unfortunately, but what we think and how we conduct ourselves is, and it is wisdom to be moral in what we think and do.
