The Coarsening of Stoicism

Stoicism is ubiquitous.  All want to be, or profess to be, a Stoic, or so it seems.  Stoicism is touted as the guide to a good life; but not merely a good one, a successful one.  After all, the ancient Stoics maintained that we may live a good life without being successful.  But who now would want to be good without being successful?  There are books, lectures and no doubt podcasts on how Stoicism may benefit entrepreneurs; may make us leaders; make us rich and powerful, make us efficient.  Marcus Aurelius is the Dale Carnegie of these times.  Reading him, we learn how to win friends and influence people.  

Stoicism is said to be desirable even when shorn of what was thought by ancient Stoics to be essential to it.  For example, the Stoic belief in a Divine Reason that is the generative and guiding force of the universe is said to be unneeded by the modern Stoic, according to Lawrence Becker and Massimo Pigliucci.  Mr. Becker goes so far as to refer to himself and others as Stoics despite the fact he (and presumably the others he refers to when stating what "we" Stoics think) don't accept the divinity of the ancient Stoics.

As Stoicism is claimed to exist without a divinity, without Providence, why should it be necessary that it retain the other characteristics of ancient Stoicism?  Why should the modern Stoic disdain the acquisition of wealth and power, which requires that we pursue things beyond our control, and concern ourselves with them closely?  Why shouldn't the modern Stoic seek fame and fortune by making use of the skills which are developed through Stoic practice?  Why try to act virtuously--why, indeed, think that virtue is the only good, and the only thing needed for happiness?

Those of us who admire Stoicism as taught and practiced by the ancients may feel gratified that it has become so popular.  Stoicism is a form of practical wisdom, and can help us in many respects just as CBT may be of assistance in addressing disquiet or psychological difficulties.  But is there a point where its popularity debases it?

Stoicism has seen resurgences in the past, but I doubt there has ever been a time before this when it was considered beneficial and admirable for reasons which seem to me to be at best tangential, at worst contrary, to what it was developed to be; a philosophy of life.  A way of achieving tranquility and equanimity.  Not a method by which to be successful in business or in other pursuits which are unrelated to virtue.  

Perhaps it's the case that coarseness is an essential component of our culture and society.  What is arguably good because it achieves virtue is accepted only to the extent that it serves another purpose, one worldly.  That's necessary to popularity, here and now.  That's been the case with Christianity for quite some time, in fact.  The moral teachings of Jesus are honored in word, but it's claimed that Jesus will assist us in this life by making us prosperous.  He'll take care of his own.  

So will Zeno, or Chrysippus, or Cleanthes, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and others, perhaps.  But I'm inclined to think that most of Stoicism will fade away as it increases in popularity, and it will become yet another self-help craze, but one which those who popularize it (and make money doing so) can claim is entitled to added dignity as being based on ancient philosophy.  

 

Removing Jefferson

In Gore Vidal's novel Burr, Thomas Jefferson is sometimes referred to as "Massa Tom" by some of his contemporaries who were not his admirers (most notably Alexander Hamilton).  I don't know whether he truly was called this by anyone, but clearly the reference made is to his ownership of slaves.  He apparently owned many.  

The fact he was a slave owner is, presumably, the primary reason for the decision made by a committee of the New York City Council to remove his 7 foot tall statue from New York's City Hall.  New York City's local government must struggle along its way without its presence in the future.

If memory serves, I wrote a post on the fairly recent urge of some in our Great Republic to remove statues of historical figures from the various locations in which they've been placed.  It's something which seems to concern many who declaim for or against it, and is like so much else in these sad times a cause for outrage, real or pretended.  It's something I think shouldn't be of much concern, though it may be in some circumstances.

The circumstances I think would make removal of a statue a cause of concern are very limited.  I don't particularly care if statues of presidents or kings or others are raised or razed.  Normally, they're not history or parts of history except in the most broad sense (they were raised or razed sometime).  Sometimes they are a part of history, due primarily to their age and their place in historical events.  A statue can be a work of art, in which case there's an argument it should be preserved.  But I confess that generally it's difficult for me to maintain that statues should or should not be placed or removed.  It may not be to my credit, but I'm generally indifferent to statues.

In many respects Jefferson was flawed.  Among the Founding Fathers I personally prefer John Adams, who was less a hypocrite.  But Adams had his faults as well.  The institution of slavery was loathsome, and is in a sense a taint or curse on the nation still.  I doubt this or any other statue of Jefferson is intended to be a monument to slavery, or to commemorate him as a slave owner.  Statues don't fill me with revulsion normally, so the existence of this particular one doesn't cause me pain or concern.  But it isn't clear to me that he, or anyone else for that matter, should have a statue made of him and displayed somewhere, nor is it clear to me that once a statue is made, it should not be unmade or removed.  

The reasons for removing or destroying a statue are sometimes considered good or bad, however, even if the statue itself is neither.  For example, ISIS or whatever it may now be called, and other religious zealots now and in the past, have destroyed statues (some of great antiquity) because they believe them prohibited an affront to God or to represent demons.  There is no reasonable basis for that belief.  A statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled at the end of the Iraq War.  Nazi symbols and Nazi inspired statutes were destroyed at the end of the Second World War.  

So, it's possible that the motivations for removal or erection of a statue may be subject to judgment.  That would seem to me to be the only thing of significance in the fight over statues in which we seem to be engaged.  What are the reasons for the removal of the statue in question?  What are the reasons for maintaining the statue where it is now?  What difference does it make if the statue is removed?  It will make no difference at all to Jefferson's achievements.  As to those, no statue is required.   If those are what he's to be honored for, the statue is unnecessary, and its removal isn't a cause for outrage or anger.