Stoicism's Appeal as a Coping Mechanism and Its Paradoxes - Episode Hero Image

Stoicism's Appeal as a Coping Mechanism and Its Paradoxes

Cost of Glory · · Listen to Original Episode →
Original Title:

TL;DR

  • Stoicism's popularity surged during the Roman Empire's loss of freedom, offering a framework to embrace uncontrollable external circumstances, making it a compelling philosophy for those feeling a loss of agency.
  • The core Stoic tenet that virtue alone is sufficient for happiness implies that external factors like wealth or status are irrelevant, a radical claim that challenges conventional notions of a good life.
  • Stoicism's ingenious "coping mechanism" allows adherents to pursue external goods as "preferred indifferents" while maintaining an outward appearance of invincibility, enabling a low-cost adoption that resonates with consumer culture.
  • The Stoic justification for suicide, based on the premise that the length of a virtuous life does not matter, reveals a potential contradiction where external outcomes like avoiding vice become paramount.
  • Figures like Seneca, despite advocating for indifference to wealth, amassed vast fortunes, highlighting a practical tension between Stoic theory and the pursuit of "preferred indifferents" even among prominent adherents.
  • Cato the Younger's austere and disagreeable life, while admirable, did not attract many followers, suggesting that the extreme tenets of Stoicism, particularly its rejection of conventional happiness, are not universally emulated.
  • The Stoic paradoxes, such as the equality of all vices, served as a form of provocative marketing, challenging societal norms and appealing to those who perceived fundamental flaws in the world.

Deep Dive

Stoicism, often perceived as a philosophy of emotional resilience and rational detachment, is critically examined through the lens of Cato the Younger, revealing its complex appeal as a coping mechanism rather than an inherently truthful doctrine. While Roman Stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius adapted the philosophy for practical application, particularly during periods of political instability, their teachings--and Cato's embodiment of them--reveal inherent tensions and paradoxical outcomes. This analysis suggests that Stoicism's modern resurgence, driven by a desire for control in an uncertain world, often overlooks its radical tenets, presenting a diluted version that prioritizes convenience over philosophical rigor.

The enduring popularity of Stoicism today stems from its perceived utility as a framework for navigating modern anxieties, a function amplified by its historical association with figures who faced immense personal and political turmoil. Johnathan Bi argues that Stoicism's initial appeal, especially to younger individuals experiencing suffering, lies in its promise of liberation through reason, specifically the concept of "assent" -- the idea that suffering arises from our judgments about events, not the events themselves. However, Bi contends that this rationalist account misrepresents human irrationality and that Stoic masters like Epictetus, who reportedly giggled while being tortured, exemplify an unattainable ideal. He posits that philosophies like Girard's mimetic theory or Buddhism offer a more compelling diagnosis of suffering's origins, focusing on social dynamics or lived experience rather than abstract propositions.

A significant critique, particularly highlighted by Nietzsche and echoed by Bi, is Stoicism's function as an "ingenious coping mechanism." This perspective suggests that Stoicism attracts those facing adversity by devaluing external circumstances -- wealth, health, reputation -- as "preferred indifferents." This allows individuals to maintain their desires and pursuits while feigning invincibility, a stark contrast to more demanding philosophies like Christianity, which require significant lifestyle changes. The paradox emerges when examining figures like Seneca, who amassed immense wealth while espousing the indifference of money, or Cato, whose ostentatious austerity drew attention, a form of social recognition. These examples suggest that even the most ardent Stoics struggled to reconcile theory with practice, often bending the doctrine of indifference to accommodate personal or political goals, thereby making Stoicism a low-cost, flexible philosophy for modern consumerism and anxiety.

The Stoic justification for suicide, particularly evident in Cato's death at Utica, further exposes the doctrine's underlying contradictions. While Stoics argue that virtue alone ensures happiness and that the length of a virtuous life is irrelevant, this premise is necessary to rationalize self-destruction. Bi argues that if externals like life itself truly didn't matter, suicide would be unnecessary. However, the Stoic stance on suicide, exemplified by Seneca and Cato, often hinges on the idea that continuing to live would constitute an act of vice, such as accepting clemency from a usurper like Caesar, thereby betraying one's principles. This suggests that for figures like Cato, the "preferred indifferent" of political ideals and personal integrity ultimately outweighed the indifference of life itself.

Ultimately, the discussion underscores that while the Roman Stoics, particularly the later practitioners, offer valuable ethical maxims and practical guidance, their doctrines contain inherent logical inconsistencies and potential for self-deception. The appeal of Stoicism, especially in its popularized, less extreme forms, lies in its capacity to offer comfort and a sense of control without demanding radical personal transformation. However, a deeper engagement reveals that a consistent adherence to Stoic principles, particularly regarding the absolute sufficiency of virtue for happiness and the equality of vices, is fraught with paradoxes that even historical exemplars like Cato and Seneca struggled to navigate, suggesting that modern interpretations often embrace an Aristotelian-like pragmatism rather than the strictures of true Stoic dogma.

Action Items

Here are five action items based on the provided text:

  • Analyze the core tenets of Stoicism and compare them to alternative philosophies like Buddhism and those of thinkers like Nietzsche and Girard, identifying potential psychological or philosophical shortcomings in the Stoic approach to suffering.
  • Evaluate the concept of "preferred indifferents" in Stoic philosophy by examining historical examples like Seneca's wealth accumulation and Cato's public persona, assessing the potential for hypocrisy or practical divergence from theory.
  • Develop a framework for distinguishing between genuine Stoic practice and its modern popular interpretations, focusing on identifying the core, non-negotiable principles of Stoicism versus those that are often diluted or misunderstood.
  • Investigate the Stoic justification for suicide, particularly concerning the idea that the length of a virtuous life is irrelevant, and analyze how this concept might lead to contradictions or unintended consequences.
  • Research the historical context of Stoicism's rise in popularity, specifically during periods of political instability and loss of personal control, to understand its appeal as a coping mechanism for societal anxieties.

Related Episodes

Key Quotes

"And so stoicism was actually one of my first forays into philosophy I was 18 19 started in school dropped out my second semester to run a startup that had ended up failing you know I was in this in the city with no friends all alone the regular growing pains plus all that struggle and I fell fell in love or I thought at the time with ryan holiday and his works which was a great natural entry way and then marcus aurelius but very quickly I I kind of left stoicism"

Jonathan Bi explains that his initial engagement with Stoicism was during a difficult period in his life, finding it a common philosophical entry point for those experiencing hardship. He notes that while figures like Ryan Holiday and Marcus Aurelius provided an accessible introduction, he eventually moved away from Stoicism, seeking other philosophical frameworks.

"The stoic answer for why we suffer is essentially a rational answer it's because we make what they call the wrong assent okay so in assent is a proposition you kind of agree to or you subscribe to even if subconsciously okay so if alex pushes me on the sidewalk and I get angry the stoics think it's because I'm assenting to you know getting shoved is bad when you're in presence of a bad it is good to feel anger and therefore I've just been shoved which is a bad and therefore it's it's valid for me to feel angry very very much in this kind of syllogistic style that's what assent is that's how rational the stoics think the human mind is"

Bi highlights the Stoic explanation for suffering, which centers on the concept of "assent"--agreeing to propositions that lead to negative emotions. He illustrates this with an example of anger arising from being pushed, explaining that Stoics believe the suffering comes from accepting the premise that being pushed is inherently bad and warrants anger.

"And the answer I found in Nietzsche this is in the gay science was that they subscribe to it as a coping mechanism that stoicism appeals to people like I was like my friends were who were just recently down on their luck and stoicism comes to these people and it says look you just lost a lot of money your friends abandoned you your girlfriend cheated on you you lost your honor well here's the good news okay none of these things matter for your happiness"

Jonathan Bi introduces Nietzsche's critique, suggesting that Stoicism's popularity stems from its function as a coping mechanism for those experiencing misfortune. He explains that Stoicism offers solace by asserting that external setbacks like financial loss or betrayal do not impact one's happiness.

"The second move of stoic ethics is to say well hold on yep yes wealth health good looks noble birth is indifferent but they're preferred indifferents so there's another school by the way that breaks with Aristotle and Aristotle again right thinks that again I'm going to quantify it 95 of the good life is about virtue 5 is about external goods the stoics say no no no it's 100 virtue but there's another school that follows the stoics in saying this and those are the cynics"

Bi elaborates on Stoic ethics, explaining their concept of "preferred indifferents" which are external goods like wealth or health, considered less important than virtue but still desirable. He contrasts this with Aristotle's view, which allows a small percentage of happiness to come from external factors, and notes that Cynics share the Stoic stance on the primacy of virtue.

"What's ingenious about the stoics is that right as they take away all these externals that are harming you with your left hand they then gives you full license to pursue them with your with your left and they call these things preferred indifferents okay so so so the first move of stoic philosophy is to say what matters for happiness virtue only matters for happiness that sounds great and cicero says this is in de finibus this sounds great on a first like this sounds like super cool but but think about the implications that means the outcome of your actions completely do not matter for the good life"

Jonathan Bi argues that Stoicism's ingenuity lies in its dual approach: it diminishes the importance of external factors while simultaneously allowing their pursuit as "preferred indifferents." He points out that this leads to the implication, as noted by Cicero, that the outcomes of one's actions are ultimately irrelevant to a good life, as only virtue matters.

"And the answer is because the stoics have another premise hidden inside their philosophy of suicide which is that the length of a virtuous life does not matter so remember how we said all these like crazy equalities of the stoics draws like the outcome of your actions don't matter the type of vice doesn't matter the length of your virtuous life does not matter so if you become a stoic sage the first one in history by the way congratulations and you get like an asteroid just kills you one millisecond versus if you lived this thriving life you teach other people how to be sages no difference in happiness and how well lived that life was it's only because of this one claim that the stoics are able to kind of kill themselves"

Bi explains that the Stoic justification for suicide hinges on the premise that the duration of a virtuous life is inconsequential to happiness. He argues that this radical idea, which equates a sage's life ending instantly with one lived for decades, is what enables their acceptance of suicide, as it implies that the length of life itself is an indifferent.

Resources

The provided text does not contain any explicit mentions of external resources such as books, articles, websites, or specific individuals that fit the criteria for inclusion in the requested categories.

---
Handpicked links, AI-assisted summaries. Human judgment, machine efficiency.
This content is a personally curated review and synopsis derived from the original podcast episode.