The God of Stoicism and Us

 Chrysippus was the third leader of the school of Stoicism, after Zeno and Cleanthes.  It's said that he died while laughing at his own joke.  It seems he made the joke after drinking unmixed wine, and that it related to a donkey eating, or trying to eat, figs from a tree.  Chrysippus supposedly suggested the donkey be given wine to wash down the figs.  

Perhaps this is humorous when rendered in ancient Greek, or perhaps you had to be there, as drunk as Chrysippus is said to have been.  Or, perhaps, the story is apocryphal.  I think it's most likely he died in some other manner, though I admit that the thought of a renowned Stoic philosopher dying while laughing at his own joke has a certain appeal.

I think the story shows Chrysippus to be human, even endearingly so given his reputation as the rigorous thinker who gave Stoicism a firm, rational foundation shorn of the vagaries indulged in by Cleanthes, an inspiring but, it seems, "warm and fuzzy" kind of thinker.  Chrysippus is credited with developing the tools by which Stoics could defend their philosophy from followers of rival schools, quick to chop logic and split hairs in the rough and tumble world of the philosophers of Athens and their students.  

The quote of Chrysippus at the head of this post is one that interests me, as it addresses more or less directly what I think is an issue in Stoicism which isn't addressed much in the popular interest in Stoicism which we see these days.  Some modern proponents of it who take it more seriously, I think, than those who claim it will make us better capitalists or better something or other in a Dale Carnegie fashion and so should be ignored, feel that God need have no place in it.  Think of Lawrence Becker or Massimo Pigliucci.  To a certain extent I think they're correct.  The Epicureans thought of God or the gods as existing but largely irrelevant.  We may look on Stoicism as a source of practical wisdom without considering the ancient Stoics conception of the deity based solely on the fact that it's directives regarding attaining tranquility are effective.

But it seems clear that the ancient Stoics accepted a God of sorts, and why they did so and what sort of God it was/is are legitimate avenues of exploration.  It seems that there are few exploring them, though, at least to the extent that can be judged by what is readily available on these subjects.  I'm currently reading Roman Stoicism by Edward Vernon Arnold, and its seem based on what I've read so far that he intends to explore them, but what I've read has involved a rather breezy discussion and comparison of Stoicism and other religious or quasi-religious movements of antiquity that hasn't (yet) been very enlightening.

I was told by someone on a philosophy forum that a God which isn't personal, which doesn't respond to prayers and petitions and doesn't intervene in our lives and the world is less reasonable than a God which is and does those things.  That isn't at all clear to me, but it may be that more people would find such a personal God more desirable than an impersonal God.   A more desirable (to us) God isn't necessarily reasonable, though.

The God of Stoicism doesn't seem to be a personal God if such a God watches over us (noting and judging our deeds and thoughts), responds to our prayers and petitions, works miracles by altering nature and punishes or rewards us based on our conduct and intentions.  The God of Stoicism isn't Big Daddy, which is what the God of an Abrahamic religion appears to be.  If the universe is God, or God is immanent in the Universe and the creative and intelligent spirit which infuses it, what we may think is contra mundum is necessarily contrary to God.  Earthquakes and natural disasters are not evils, and God, being the universe in which such things take place, isn't going to alter the universe to assure such things don't take place no matter how much we beg and plead.

As may be expected, then, by living "in accordance with nature" we live in accordance with God.  If we fail to do so, however, the God of Stoicism doesn't punish us as would Big Daddy or his equivalent.  What results is bad for us in the sense that it disturbs us, makes us anxious, slaves to our passions, discontented, miserable, covetous, murderous, but not as a result of any action on the part of God/Universe.

If this is the God of Stoicism, leaving aside the question whether it makes any difference, is this God one we would think to be good?  Does it inspire reverence, joy, bliss, awe, love and all the other feelings we associate with God, traditionally and typically?  If it does, how and why?  If it doesn't, can it be considered God?

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.  

 

The Race Regarding Critical Race Theory

Truth be told, I was unaware of Critical Race Theory ("CRT") until recently.

It seems it developed not in the Academy, where we expect theories to be raised, but in the legal academy.  That's right, in law school.  Perhaps the fact it originated in law schools explains why I've been ignorant of it--I'm a practicing lawyer, and so have been ignoring my law school days for many years.  Law school as I experienced it had very little to do with the practice of law.

I became aware of CRT when glancing through Google News and saw a headline about it being banned from public schools by the State of Idaho.  Bans imposed by government always interest me.  Bans applied to what is taught in schools are especially intriguing.  When legislatures seek to limit what is learned, red flags should fly.

In fact, flags have been flying, but of a different sort--flags of the chattering armies of what has been called the Culture War.  This is the sort of thing pundits (and pulpits?) delight in, and though I avoid them (both!) I can't help but hear or read of what they say.  What they say about CRT is, like all they say, predictable.  It continues to baffle me that people are paid large sums of money for telling us exactly what it may be expected they will tell us, but it seems we so enjoy people telling us things, in particular things we like to think, that they will continue to do so.

I read on some of the websites dealing with this issue claims to the effect that CRT is somehow based on or related to Marxism.  Idaho in its zeal to ban, or perhaps we should say purge, certain ideas from its schools has also apparently banned Socialism and Marxism.  I don't think Communism was mentioned, but there's time enough to ban many ideas if its legislature is so inclined.

I wonder sometimes what people think Socialism to be.  I doubt they think it has much to do with the government owning the means of production.  What it is imagined Marxism consists of I cannot say.  These are words regularly used to inspire fear in our Great Republic, and have been for some time.  For all I know, CRT may share certain characteristics with the theory behind Marxism.  Whether it does or does not will, of course, depend on what it is, but in the realm of the media and cyberspace, where taking the time to think is discouraged, the tendency is exclaim and declare.  Generally, what is proclaimed is left unchallenged or if it is challenged then we can't be bothered to expend the effort to decide what actually is the case.

It seems that CRT involves the claim that racism is a feature of society, and is embedded in our political and social institutions, including the legal system, resulting in the perpetuation of racial inequality.  In other words, it encompasses the view that racism is systemic in our society.  It seems that it makes the same or similar claims regarding sexuality and gender identification.  Unsurprisingly, it rejects claims that racism is in the nature of an aberration and that acts of racism are isolated events, unrepresentative of society as a whole.

When it comes to the legal system, a legal realist would accept that the laws, their enactment, interpretation and enforcement are influenced by race and other considerations, social and economic.  It seems naive to think otherwise.  For my part, I think it's apparent that racism is a feature of our society.

What seemingly raises concerns in the State of Idaho and elsewhere, however, is the perception that what CRT means in practice is the active denigration of our society, our religion, our government, our nation, and white people in particular.  It's claimed that white students come home or will come home from school wondering if something is wrong with them for being white and therefore oppressive and bigoted, or claiming that their parents are, or belittling our nation.  It's said that CRT generates a kind of reverse racism and condemns efforts made in the law and society to promote equality as inadequate or worse. 

There's nothing more disturbing to a parent than what's taught to their children in school, if it conflicts with what the parent believes.  But it isn't difficult for me to imagine proponents of CRT making such claims, in and out of schools.  Righteousness and zeal are characteristics of those of us who believe they perceive a great injustice and vow to eradicate it, as is the demonization of opponents to the cause.  Such claims are bound to anger and infuriate people who, while trying to live their lives, find themselves considered the successors of evil people, and perpetuators of the terrible consequences of their acts.

It must be acknowledged that it's quite possible to overstate such claims and make generalizations which have little or no basis in fact when it comes to racism, when it comes to most anything for that matter.  Take the 1619 Project, for example.  Personally, I find it unreasonable to assert that  racism and slavery in North America arose when 20 or so enslaved Africans were snatched from a Portuguese ship and brought to what is now Virginia.  Also, I think it unreasonable to claim that slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon. 

It's nice to think the very real problem of racism in our society could be acknowledged and addressed intelligently.  Whether it is the nature of the times or there are other reasons, though, we seem incapable of thoughtfully and pragmatically addressing anything serious.  Resentment and rage are reactions to be expected whenever a criticism is made that suggests there are problems to be solved, or that we're at fault or deficient in some sense.

Which brings me to the figure appearing at the top of this post.  Represented there are Achilles and his nemesis, the tortoise.  The philosopher Zeno imagined a race between the hero and a humble tortoise.  Confidant that he'll win the race, Achilles gives the tortoise a head start.  Zeno claimed that Achilles would never reach the tortoise, however.  Achilles must first reach the spot where the tortoise started.  However, when he does the tortoise has move forward.  However small a distance it has moved, Achilles must reach that point before passing it.  But the tortoise will have moved again before Achilles gets there.  So, he'll never even catch up to the tortoise.  Zeno is famous for his paradoxes, and this is one of them.

Where racism is concerned, are we Achilles pursuing the tortoise?  Will it always be there in front of us?  It has a head start. 

 

Acropolis Now

Above is a picture I took of Athens, on a full moon night last month.  You can see the Acropolis in the distance.  You can see moonlight on the sea.  I'm rather fond of the picture, taken with a cell phone in the early morning.

I've been away from the blog for some time.  I've lacked the energy, perhaps, but also the interest.  It's difficult to be interested in these times, though they're no doubt interesting to some, and will be interesting to historians of the future.  I nearly wrote "if there is a future."

I'm being over dramatic, of course.  There will be a future.  We go on and on, and are none the better for it if I am any judge. There is something remarkable about us.  We don't change but we survive.  We don't adapt, we don't learn, we simply still are here, and will be here until our unchanging nature exhausts the world.

I've now been to many places.  I've walked where Cicero, Cato, Augustus and Caesar walked when I visited the Roman Forum.  More recently, I walked where Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes and Zeno walked when I visited the Agora of Athens. It's unfortunate to live in this time, when there are no people comparable to those who went before.  Is anyone now living who can be described as great, or noble, or heroic?  Is there anyone who will be worth remembering or studying when this time is past?

If the Pythia was still sitting on her tripod at Delphi, which I was also fortunate enough to visit, perhaps she could answer such questions.  I suspect she could and even would, but in no clear manner, as it seems was her practice in ancient times.  She could also be quiet droll, as Croesus learned.  Any answer would do, comforting or not.  Delphi's magic is long gone but we still strive to learn the future in ways not all that different from consulting oracles.

In this disturbing, dull and shabby age, it's particularly pleasurable, to me at least, to see the ruins of the ancient world.  As unremarkable as we are, the achievements of the ancients were remarkable.  I cannot imagine how the Parthenon and the other structures were built on the Rock, as it was called by one of our guides.  Nor can I imagine how the great temples were built in the mountains at Delphi, or how it was that so many traveled so far and so slowly to reach the oracle.  Were they actually better than we are now, in many ways?  Perhaps we do change then....for the worst.

Moralists and the religious enjoy declaring that we become decadent over time.  I don't think we're more decadent than those who lived in the past, though.  I think that we're merely more stupid than they were.  How else explain how a prosperous people and nation have come to be ignorant, bigoted,  petty and cruel?  A certain degree of dullness is required.  The bovine are self-satisfied, fearful of change, content with what is, resentful of what is not, is different.

Well, let's carry on.  Stoicism is not a philosophy of the status quo, as some have said.  It is a philosophy, instead, which grants us a measure of peace and serenity when the status quo is deplorable.