Thanks Donald, for a cogent summary of a position I have long taken to be reasonable. I finished Chris Gill's book last year. It would be foolhardy to question the rigor with which he approached this question. His conclusions make room for those who apply a more spiritual lens to the Stoic worldview as well as those for whom providence and design are incompatible with a Physics that includes over 2000 years of scientific advancement. While I find spiritual arguments fail to meet the standard of plausible explanation based on evidence and reason that I require, I have no problem sharing a table with those who see otherwise, particularly when there is so much within Stoicism on which we can agree. I've yet to read a foundational text that lists zealous intolerance as a virtue.
Good read! I concur with this. While getting rid of Divine Providence may reframe certain ancient Stoic ideas such as “everything that happens in the world is good”, I don’t think that means Stoicism in general has to depend on such things. I think we can have Stoicism without the idea of Providence since much of the framework still holds.
I think this is basically what you say at the end about ethics and physics being related, but I do think ethics depends on physics in some sense—if we are to follow human nature, we ought to know what human nature is.
It doesn’t have to depend on any particular ideas about human nature or especially any particular ideas about modern chemistry, physics, etc.
I found this article very informative in a number of ways, thank you. The part that I found most interesting is the suggestion that because some believe ethics is justified in physics, it follows that they think you are not a Stoic if you do not. If this were the case, then, as you correctly suggest, it would put barriers up for many, and that would raise concern for me as well. Stoicism would be limited and we would endanger the benefit it has given and continues to give, to so many.
What is a little ironic is that this itself is actually the problem. I think it is hard to dispute that many early Stoics saw Stoicism as a holistic system. Whether or not they saw ethics as grounded in physics is neither here nor there. For me personally, there is some direct evidence that we could interpret in different ways. But more importantly, there is really no other answer to the question of why virtue is perfect knowledge. From this alone, I would conclude that it is enough to suggest the majority of early Stoics would have believed that. With partial information left open to wide interpretation, we will never know for certain.
For me, the key issue I believe arises from what I am guessing is your main concern: the peddling of the idea that the practice of Stoicism is not open to all unless we follow some ancient doctrine which is not even proven. With this concern, I am in total agreement.
What I find interesting is that often the message we are pushed toward, especially from Seneca and Rufus, emphasise that the door to virtue is always open. Rufus even goes as far as to say that we are born with an inclination towards virtue itself. Yet this is in direct conflict with the necessity that we must follow some doctrine in order to be a Stoic.
The idea is that Stoicism is a practical philosophy that makes us better people and happier, and maybe one day we will even see the “Stoic City”. I cannot imagine that the early Stoics were naïve to the idea that doctrine could be an obstacle. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they were acutely aware of it, and that the dangers you reiterate here would not have been alien to them.
Maybe the counter to this is what we are reading when we see a gap created in their writings between physics and ethics. So no, you do not need physics to be a Stoic. But this does not reject the idea that ethics is grounded in physics, or that many of the early Stoics accepted it. Rather, it is an explanatory logical necessity to understand the system, not a requirement to practise it.
I have often come across people who blend their religion with Stoicism, and for them physics becomes a bridge to practice. There is, I believe also some evidence that some of the Stoics also did this whether as a cultural duty or as a belief, I do not know.
Ultimately, I think Stoicism is a broad school, and that any forceful and rigid defence of either side of this discussion is unhelpful. My personal defence of physic is more of a defence that virtue is not subjective but absolute. That we are part of the same whole of a purposeful and rational cosmos and part or that lives in all of us. But we are all Stoics progressing towards virtue, the exact type of people I would prefer to surround myself with.
Thanks Donald, for a cogent summary of a position I have long taken to be reasonable. I finished Chris Gill's book last year. It would be foolhardy to question the rigor with which he approached this question. His conclusions make room for those who apply a more spiritual lens to the Stoic worldview as well as those for whom providence and design are incompatible with a Physics that includes over 2000 years of scientific advancement. While I find spiritual arguments fail to meet the standard of plausible explanation based on evidence and reason that I require, I have no problem sharing a table with those who see otherwise, particularly when there is so much within Stoicism on which we can agree. I've yet to read a foundational text that lists zealous intolerance as a virtue.
Good read! I concur with this. While getting rid of Divine Providence may reframe certain ancient Stoic ideas such as “everything that happens in the world is good”, I don’t think that means Stoicism in general has to depend on such things. I think we can have Stoicism without the idea of Providence since much of the framework still holds.
I think this is basically what you say at the end about ethics and physics being related, but I do think ethics depends on physics in some sense—if we are to follow human nature, we ought to know what human nature is.
It doesn’t have to depend on any particular ideas about human nature or especially any particular ideas about modern chemistry, physics, etc.
I found this article very informative in a number of ways, thank you. The part that I found most interesting is the suggestion that because some believe ethics is justified in physics, it follows that they think you are not a Stoic if you do not. If this were the case, then, as you correctly suggest, it would put barriers up for many, and that would raise concern for me as well. Stoicism would be limited and we would endanger the benefit it has given and continues to give, to so many.
What is a little ironic is that this itself is actually the problem. I think it is hard to dispute that many early Stoics saw Stoicism as a holistic system. Whether or not they saw ethics as grounded in physics is neither here nor there. For me personally, there is some direct evidence that we could interpret in different ways. But more importantly, there is really no other answer to the question of why virtue is perfect knowledge. From this alone, I would conclude that it is enough to suggest the majority of early Stoics would have believed that. With partial information left open to wide interpretation, we will never know for certain.
For me, the key issue I believe arises from what I am guessing is your main concern: the peddling of the idea that the practice of Stoicism is not open to all unless we follow some ancient doctrine which is not even proven. With this concern, I am in total agreement.
What I find interesting is that often the message we are pushed toward, especially from Seneca and Rufus, emphasise that the door to virtue is always open. Rufus even goes as far as to say that we are born with an inclination towards virtue itself. Yet this is in direct conflict with the necessity that we must follow some doctrine in order to be a Stoic.
The idea is that Stoicism is a practical philosophy that makes us better people and happier, and maybe one day we will even see the “Stoic City”. I cannot imagine that the early Stoics were naïve to the idea that doctrine could be an obstacle. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they were acutely aware of it, and that the dangers you reiterate here would not have been alien to them.
Maybe the counter to this is what we are reading when we see a gap created in their writings between physics and ethics. So no, you do not need physics to be a Stoic. But this does not reject the idea that ethics is grounded in physics, or that many of the early Stoics accepted it. Rather, it is an explanatory logical necessity to understand the system, not a requirement to practise it.
I have often come across people who blend their religion with Stoicism, and for them physics becomes a bridge to practice. There is, I believe also some evidence that some of the Stoics also did this whether as a cultural duty or as a belief, I do not know.
Ultimately, I think Stoicism is a broad school, and that any forceful and rigid defence of either side of this discussion is unhelpful. My personal defence of physic is more of a defence that virtue is not subjective but absolute. That we are part of the same whole of a purposeful and rational cosmos and part or that lives in all of us. But we are all Stoics progressing towards virtue, the exact type of people I would prefer to surround myself with.