Questioning Stoicism

[SamueLSD]

This is a very broad question, as I am open to ANY answers or ideas. 

Is anyone aware of potential limits to stoicism, in terms of self actualisation and enlightenment? 

Or is it a philosophy that integrates seamlessly with these?

[IJB063]

Hello @SamueLSD

I'm glad you referenced Stoicism

And questioning it as a philosophy

It is a very broad question & yes Stoicism does have its limits

Stoicism I believe is not mutually exclusive to self actualisation and enlightenment

The fundamental ethos of Stoicism is to live in accordance with nature

Now I have just finished reading Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche

And in Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche also in his first chapter 

"On the prejudice of Philosopher"

I'll find my notes on this chapter and bring them up later

I've been meaning to write about Nietzsche questioning of Stoicism

Particularly Stoicism Vs Existentialism

Existentialism from my perspective being Stoicism truly taken to an extreme 

 

So to begin with questioning Stoicism 

I'm going to start with a epistemological questioning of truth

Nietzsche has a theme of life requiring illusion

Here's a amazing lecture by Professor Ken Gemes

(There are many others of his lectures on Youtube if you're interested)

Ken Gemes is a student of Nietzsche

[Now I also want to note hat Amor Fati (Love of fate) is in essence a stoic philosophy]

So basically, from my knowledge, Nietzsche fundamentally questions a metaphysical presumption that most philosophers take for granted about truth. That the grandfather to knowledge is not actually a drive to knowledge but in fact is a drive to power.

What Nietzsche referred to as the "will to power" - Schopenhauer similarly referred to as the "will to life".

"For every drive is tyrannical: and it is as such that it tries to philosophise"

So how does this relate to Stoicism?

So going back to the main ethos of Stoicism

"To live in accordance with nature"

"According to Nietzsche, Stoicism teaches the philosopher to escape from life into commerce with the Stoa, suppressing ones passions and will-to-power. Stoicism is therefore a life-denying philosophy using reason as a weapon against the realities of being alive. Additionally, I think Stoicism generally involves an acceptance of material determinism, and Nietzsche fought against all previous forms of determinism. Determinism for Nietzsche is seeing the future, which is the realm of the will, through the lens of rational thought for which everything is thought in its essence, categories and concepts. Thinking of the future as if it is already determined seriously undermines the efficacy of the Will, and human beings enjoy being efficacious through the faculty of the will even if all is determined in the end." 

Why is this a life denying philosophy according to Nietzsche - because it pedestalizes indifference

And is also turns into a virtue what Nietzsche refereed to as "self tyranny"  

So basically Stoicism takes the life out of life

Being wrapped up in our existences, to be different to lifes events

That's the art of life - which Stoicism sucks out

Life cannot escape life

Nature cannot escape nature

Here's the quotation from the book

"You want to live "according to nature" O you noble Stoics what fraudulent words! Think of being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or injustice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: think of indifference itself as a power (going back to truth here) how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than is nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative "live according to nature" meant at the bottom the same thing as "live according to life" - how could you not do that? Why make a principle of what you yourselves are and must be? (perhaps this links to reaching enlightenment) The truth of it is this, however quite different: while you rapturously pose as deriving the canon of you law from nature, you are self decievers!  Your prides wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature, yes to nature itself, and incoprate them in it; you demand that nature should be nature "according to the stoa" and would like to make all existence exist only after your own image - as a tremondous eternal glorifiacation and universalisation of stoicism! All your love of truth not-withstanding, you have compelled yourselves for so long and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to view nature falsely, namely stoically, you are no longer cable of viewing it any other way - and some abysmal arrogance infects you at last with Bedlamite hope that, because you know how to tyrannise yourself - Stoicism is self tyranny - nature too can be tyrannised over: for is the stoic not a piece of nature? But this is an old an never ending story: what formerly happened with the stoic's still happens today as soon as a philosophy begins to believe itself. It always creates the world in its own image, it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, to "creation of the world""

Anyway I recommend watching the lecture

Although I still believe personally Stoicism is one of the best philosophies

I also recommend reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (one of my favourite books)

This is one of my favourite lectures on stoicism, if not ever by Prof Michael Surge who is also great

Heighly highly recommend watching it

 I might make a post of my own on Amor Fati eventually

I can't be bothered to write anymore

Hope this post was of help to your question

Godspeed

[SamueLSD]

@IJB063 Thanks for the detailed answer  

If I am understanding correctly, Nietzsche is essentially saying the stoics in denial of being alive...?

Interesting, definitely. It also seems like he is misinterpreting some of the stoic teachings. Of course all that we are is nature, you cannot escape it, but to live in accordance with nature more so means to be in control of ones impressions and desires / impulses.

Also, self tyranny I believe is a misinterpretation. To be a "tyrant" over our desires, impulses, etc... is not SELF tyranny, as those things do not make up the self! Those things are not what our true nature consists of. 

If I am missing your point let me know

[IJB063]

@SamueLSD

3 hours ago, SamueLSD said:

Thanks for the detailed answer  

No Problem

3 hours ago, SamueLSD said:

If I am understanding correctly, Nietzsche is essentially saying the stoics in denial of being alive...?

I just reread over the passage and the context related and also discovered this video

I agree, Nietzsche is misinterpreting some of the stoic teaching in this passage

Particularly he redefines "nature" away from the stoic perception of "nature" 

Nietzsche also argues that Stoic philosophy is vacuous 

 

"Live according to life" - how could you not - an example of a vacuous statement

But again this is likely a misinterpretation of "live according to life" on Nietzsche part

Proving your point

3 hours ago, SamueLSD said:

Interesting, definitely. It also seems like he is misinterpreting some of the stoic teachings. Of course all that we are is nature, you cannot escape it, but to live in accordance with nature more so means to be in control of ones impressions and desires / impulses.

This is what the Stoic meant - that I would argue Nietzsche agrees with - E.g. the idea of the Ubermensch 

3 hours ago, SamueLSD said:

but to live in accordance with nature more so means to be in control of ones impressions and desires / impulses.

The main point is that Nietzsche accuses the stoics of projecting onto nature what they then claim to find there

I think there is validity in this - but this I also think applies to most philosophies - which Nietzsche goes into more detail about throughout this part of the book

Back to your main point

3 hours ago, SamueLSD said:

Nietzsche is essentially saying the stoics in denial of being alive...?

I think that is what Nietzsche is trying to say about Stoicism, but the more I think about it, he has most likely misinterpreting Stoic doctrine - so hes wrong about it being a life denying philosophy 

But he does make some points that I agree with

As it uses reason as a weapon against the realities of being alive

Actualised.org video below about implicit vs explicit understadning

I'd argue that Stoic philosophy is a very explicative ideology 

https://youtu.be/Y9d0tOpL8ZU

3 hours ago, SamueLSD said:

Also, self tyranny I believe is a misinterpretation. To be a "tyrant" over our desires, impulses, etc... is not SELF tyranny, as those things do not make up the self! Those things are not what our true nature consists of. 

This ties back into your previous point - where Nietzsche misinterprets the Stoic ethos

So I agree the passage I linked doesn't really challenge or refute the Stoic doctrine

The Stoic doctrine is in many ways a Western version of Zen & Taoist Philosophy

I think it would be difficult to find anything that really challenges Stoic philosophy

[RichardY]

On the flip side I think it's a bit like with Libertarians(replace Stoics) and the NAP(replace Stoa).  

Stoic quote: Neither fear nor desire. - Seneca.