“ ’Are Stoics Ascetics?’ A rebuttal.”
by Kevin Patrick
Editorial Note: This piece has been written as a response to the previous post by Piotr Stankiewicz. The numerals in square brackets refer to the author’s footnotes.
In an article previously posted by the Stoicism Today blog [i], Dr. Piotr Stankiewicz makes his case for a modern, hedonic Stoicism by asserting the ancient Stoics were not ascetics. I will be rebutting that claim as ungrounded in the Stoic literature by showing that in fact the opposite was argued by our classical sources, and more specifically that the ideas contained in Dr. Stankiewicz’s article are a divergence from the Stoicism of Musonius, Epictetus, and Marcus. I suspect that his position also entails a misunderstanding of the purposes of ascetic practice as an end in and of itself, rather than as a means to an end.
Stankiewicz’s argument lies in something which he calls the “ascetic misinterpretation.” While he is correct that there are several stereotypes of Stoicism, he misidentifies those stereotypes and uses that as an argument. Since nowhere does he actually support this ascetic misinterpretation, at best it’s an unsubstantiated assertion. The most common stereotype of Stoics is that they are emotionless and unfeeling, not that they were ascetics. It’s incorrect to call the asceticism of the classics a stereotype, as I will support, because it was a stated truth.
Stankiewicz states that modern Stoics have not “done all that is possible” to combat these stereotypes. Contributors to this blog and others have made an effort to discuss eupathe [ii] and focus on the actual doctrinal positions of impressions, judgments, and emotions. While is probably true that not “all that is possible” has been done, a good faith effort has been made by modern Stoic writers to combat the stereotype of the unfeeling philosopher. But ultimately, the views of others are not “up to us,” and we live our lives and follow our philosophy attentively regardless of the stereotypes… or at least we should.
“Stoicism is often (way too often!) perceived as a philosophy of frugal, simple or even austere life. A Stoic, according to this view, is someone who quashes their earthly desires and imposes significant restrictions upon themselves when it comes to food, drink, sex, rock and roll, spending money and other pleasures of life. In a word, a Stoic is someone who refrains from indulgence.”
Setting aside that such rhetorical flourishes (like parentheticals!) are not an argument; why might this be the common conception of Stoicism? I would suggest, in this specific case, that it is because this is precisely what the classical Stoics themselves have told us it is. Let’s look at some examples in the order Dr. Stankiewicz lays out. We will first start out with Musonius Rufus. Additionally, there is no quashing of proto-impressions, but the assent to adequate impressions and thus judgments according to our nature, an important distinction. On to the rigors of the philosophic life…
Musonius’ suggestions are the end-result of a process through which he attempted to apply his philosophy to real issues of human life. It is not mere academic musing, but the process of “doing” philosophy as a way of life. This process of training for virtue carries through from Musonius, to Epictetus, to Marcus; and, if we’re open to it, down to the modern Stoic prokopton as well.
In Lectures XVIII A [iii] and B [iv], Musonius lays out clear prescriptions for philosophers. They include abstaining from the consumption of animal-flesh, eating foods which are simple, inexpensive, easy to acquire, and fitting for humans. The issues with food are paramount, since we are presented with this choice several times a day. Unlike some of the other, less frequent pleasures of life, this one is ever-present and so require extra diligent attention.
“Thus the oftener we are tempted by pleasure in eating, the more dangers there are involved. And indeed at each meal there is not one hazard for going wrong, but many.”
Not only is the danger of immoderation present, but there is also the danger of not acting in accordance with nature. While the specifics of what that means are debatable, it is fair to say that the manner, the material, and the setting of our eating are all opportunities for non-virtuous habits to be formed. Musonius is particularly concerned with the formation of habits, so something we engage in twice or three times a day is ripe for his notice.
Musonius also counsels us on the virtuous use of human sexuality, which is best put in context of seeing the family unit as foundational to society. Musonius was living in a decadent and turbulent time, not too unlike ours. For him, a bolstering of the family has consequences in the community, the state, and the world. Musonius’ ethics are often communitarian in focus, and noting that context often shows his suggestions in a slightly different light than at first glance they might appear to be. Musonius argues for what likely seems to us a very socially conservative view of virtuous sexual practice in Lectures XII [v] and XIII A [vi] and B [vii]:
“Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage.”
Musonius doesn’t have much to say about rock ‘n roll, he does mention frugal living in Lecture XIX [viii] and XX [ix]. The following well captures the spirit of the piece:
“[I]t is possible for us to eat quite safely from a wooden table without longing for one of silver.”
It may even be safer, as Epictetus would learn latter in regards to his lamp [x].
Epictetus picks up in this vein in Book III, Chapter 1[xi], as noted in Arrian’s Discourses. Epictetus argues against finery in dress, and even uses his own bearded, cloaked figure as a counter-example to the figure cut by the dapper and fashionable young man in question. While Musonius offers the most explicit suggestions, Epictetus takes up the motivation behind Musonius’ suggestions: training.
To say that the Stoics were not ascetics, when their primary ethical focus was on training seems off to me. Asceticism comes from the Greek ἄσκησις (áskēsis) meaning training [xii]. The Stoic philosopher is called προκοπτόν (prokoptôn)[xiii] or the ‘one making progress.’ Stoic asceticism is not an end in and of itself, but a means whereby one inculcates virtue. As Dr. Stankiewicz notes, these things are external to us and necessarily indifferent from our moral will. Yet, as those making progress, we train and make progress in part by manipulating those very indifferents[xiv].
Epictetus advises us to, “Practice yourself, for heaven’s sake in little things, and thence proceed to greater.” In situations where we are not yet up to snuff, such as in weighing certain judgments and impressions, he advises us to abstain from those judgments all together. There’s a lesson here. We train by manipulating our externals, and we delay or abstain in situations above our practice.
Marcus notes in Book I of his Meditations[xv] that he is explicitly thankful for the opportunity “to have desired a plank bed and skin, and whatever else of the kind belongs to the Grecian discipline.” Grecian discipline likely refers either to the paideia [xvi] or the agoge [xvii]; both of which contained clearly ascetic practices. Despite living in a palace as emperor, the ascetic rigor of his youth, until the intervention of family member, stuck with Marcus for the rest of his life.
It is a far more arduous task to mine the Stoic sources for evidence of hedonism and sensuality than it is for asceticism. The message of Stoicism for personal development, which is not a misinterpretation, is that even while engaging in the world and exercising our social roles that we can live conformably to nature. We can be just, self-controlled, courageous, and wise in the here and now. That does not mean that all of the trinkets, sweet and soft foods, luxurious items and decorations should be taken up by philosophers. Just the very opposite! While living in the world, we can dress for protecting of the body and modesty, not vanity. We can eat healthy, natural, and fitting foods, not for the pleasure of the tongue but nourishment of the body and training for the soul. We can exercise justice in our lives, not bend to political or social pressures. We can be courageous every day in the practice of becoming better people, not coast on a misapprehension of indifferents.
We inculcate the virtue of self-control (σωφροσύνη/sophrosyne) [xviii] by actually regulating our passions [xix], i.e. saying ‘no’ to some things and using moderation for others. How can we learn to be just unless we practice justice? How can we learn to be courageous unless we face down our fears relative to moral issues? We must actually practice denying the impressions that indifferent things are goods by denying them. It is one thing to say, “I don’t value all these adornments of sensuous living;” but the possibility for self-deception in that is high if one doesn’t also practice not-valuing them. The Stoic Sage may be able to indulge in every earthly pleasure and maintain a philosophical outlook and a soul in a state conformable to nature. But we are not Sages: and our methods as prokoptontes are necessarily designed towards our own state.
In Enchiridion 34 [xx], Epictetus gives us nothing else but an endorsement to ascetic practice:
“[T]hink of the two periods of time, first, that in which you will enjoy your pleasure, and second, that in which, after the enjoyment is over, you will later repent and revile your own self; and set over against these two periods of time how much joy and self-satisfaction you will get if you refrain.”
Stankiewicz’s position falls into the more common trap and misinterpretation, that since externals are indifferent to us, we should go ahead and indulge in all of those things for which we have a proclivity. Yet, indulgence also trains our moral will, and we must ask ourselves what that training is getting us. Is it conducive to Stoic virtue, or is it conducive to something else entirely? Is it within the rigors of the Stoic school, or is it merely a cover for our vices? The Stoic conception of preferred indifferents are preferred insofar as they are conducive to virtue, not our mere liking or vicious desire.
The purpose of these examples is to show the tip of the ice berg relating to the advocacy for strict training in classical Stoic sources. While it is possible to live well in a palace, it might not be advisable. To suggest that since it is possible there is an open permission for the sensuous enjoyment of luxury misses the point entirely. It’s possible to live well in a palace, only because living well has nothing to do with the palace. It is only by training our ruling faculties to live in accordance with nature that we can have a flourishing and excellent life.
Stankiewicz’s article asked a core question, “Are Stoics Ascetics?”
That answer, for most modern Stoics, is “no.”
But they ought to be.
Kevin Patrick is a Tutor and Mentor at the College of Stoic Philosophers, and runs mountainstoic.wordpress.com. When he’s not philosophising, he is a Statistician attached to the US Navy and a writer.
[i] https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/10/03/stoic-avoidance-of-asceticism-by-piotr-stankiewicz/
[ii] http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2012/10/18/the-system-of-stoic-philosophy/
[iii] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/18-0
[iv] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/18-1
[v] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/12
[vi] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/13-0
[vii] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/13-1
[viii] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/19
[ix] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/20
[x] http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.mb.txt
[xi] http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.3.three.html
[xii] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a)%2Fskhsis&la=greek&prior=ai(/resis
[xiii] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=prokopto%252Fn&la=greek
[xiv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiaphora
[xv] http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.mb.txt
[xvi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paideia
[xvii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge
[xviii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophrosyne
[xix] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/musonius-rufus/lectures/06
[xx] https://sites.google.com/site/thestoiclife/the_teachers/epictetus/the-manual/34
[…] http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/10/07/are-stoics-ascetics-a-rebuttal-by-kevin-patrick/ […]
Very nice Kevin
I agree with Kevin that the ancient Stoics were indeed ascetics, but I’m not sure I understand his conclusion. When does he mean when he says that modern Stoics “should be” ascetics too? Should we forsake our beds to sleep on the floor? Should we only eat and drink the bare minimum we need to survive? Should we only engage in sexual activities for procreative purposes? I myself do not believe that reviving ancient Stoic asceticism is either necessary or desirable. The basic beliefs of Stoicism and the enjoyment of material goods are compatible. And let’s not forget that not all ancient Stoics shared the severe asceticism of Musonius Rufus. Seneca was one of the richest men in Rome. As he often said, wealth was preferable to poverty. The key was to achieve a state of mind in which one would not be disturbed by the loss of that wealth. Modern Stoics can eat, drink and be merry with a clear conscience. (Just as long as they do it in moderation.)
“Modern Stoicism – just like real Stoicism, but without all those hard bits.”
I think the conclusion is that if you want to practice Stoicism, then you should practice Stoicism the way it was actually practised by Stoics. And citing from Seneca a minor detour away from an overwhelming consensus of other Stoics as a counter-example hardly counts – there is a great deal in his writings that is non-Stoic in nature. If I recall correctly, Seneca was the only major Stoic philosopher who did not have completely positive things to say about asceticism (I believe he advised it only one day per month). That Seneca was one of the richest men in Rome might be a reason for one to be sceptical, or even cynical, about his lack-lustre ideas on asceticism. The same opulence didn’t seem to influence Marcus.
If the reasons for including asceticism are better than the reasons for omitting it, then you ought to be ascetic if you want to practice Stoicism. The case for asceticism is a fairly easy one to make; it was actually part of the theory and practice as evidenced by this article, unnecessary and wilful material austerity builds resilience in times of necessary austerity, and it prevents a dependency upon pleasure and luxury. Put it this way, if you cannot immediately give up one of your luxuries when challenging yourself to, you’re being controlled by it.
The reasons for omitting it are what, exactly? It isn’t desirable? Well isn’t that exactly the point? As for it’s not being necessary, no part of Stoicism is necessary if you want remake it in your own image. The point is to practice Stoicism as a philosophical way of life on the path to eudamonia, and this is how the Stoics said it was to be done, not necessarily to merely reinforce old habits you want to keep (unless those habits complement the philosophy).
The last bit is something that goes conspicuously unmentioned in some modern Stoic discourse; people tend to (conveniently?) forget that Stoicism is as much about not becoming overwhelmed or controlled by worldly pleasures as by worldly sufferings. It’s not enough just to profess independence from material goods (it’s like the smoker who says he could quit at any time, he just chooses not to), plenty of people are moderate and still too much influenced all the same. Moderation isn’t enough to achieve indifference.
If Stoicism is practised sincerely then an ascetic way of life is it’s logical consequence; Marcus Aurelius often took to contemplating the value of objects and pleasures by reducing them to their most basic material descriptions. Doing this makes clear the value and emptiness of material possessions and pleasures, and once this becomes obvious, what need is there to pursue them any longer?
From Wikipedia we have, “For the Cynics, the purpose of life was to live in virtue, in agreement with nature. As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans, rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. Instead, they were to lead a simple life free from all possessions.”
Well, if they rejected sex no wonder they died out.
We Stoics are not Cynics – we are not the extremists they were. Zeno rejected the Cynic extremism and set up his own more rational path which then became the Stoicism we have come to know and love.
Read all of the writings and it will be seen that Rufus was offering some ideas that were not main stream Stoicism. So can we get back to looking at Stoicism and not at the false ideas this article attributes to Stoicism. Some of the wording used by the Cynics may be similar to that used by Stoicism, but the path is entirely different.
If you want to be a Cynic follow the arguments in this post. If you want to be a Stoic follow the moderation that our teachings lead us to.
Nigel
A nearly identical argument flares up from time to time in the Buddhist world. On one hand are those who insist that ascetic practices are ennobling trainings, and on the other are those who say it’s the attitude that counts. So you the strict, traditional Theravadins, whose monastics keep a strict lifestyle with over 200 rules to follow, and whose lay people deliberately deprive themselves regularly (including sleeping on the floor!) on the one hand, up to the Pure Land devotees, who leave it to the Amida Buddha and others to handle enlightenment for them. There’s plenty of territory between, too.
I have to agree with the Theravadins and the ancient Stoics, and therefore Mr. Patrick’s well-spoken view. It is easy to say that we could be parted from our comforts without complaint, but if we’d like to really be confident of that, and to armor ourselves against fate, then we should do without at least sometimes. Some may make ostentatious shows of their privation, but that’s no reason not to try it on one’s own or with understanding fellow-travelers.
I don’t think Kevin is advocating Cynic style asceticism; he is drawing attention to the physical disciplines prescribed by Musonius, and Epictetus to a lesser degree. Physical discipline, which avoids extremes, can be beneficial to any form of spiritual practice. While the Stoics never advocated living in a barrel, there is a vast open space between that and the modern desire for McMansions (just one example). In my opinion, Kevin is drawing much needed attention to the the physical aspect of the Stoic discipline of desire. He and I may disagree on exactly were that line is drawn; however, that is not the point. Most of us moderns can can take several steps toward ascetic practices without any worry of approaching anything like an extreme.
As a modern Stoic I turn to my relatively modern dictionary were we have ‘ascetic’ as being: “one who rigidly denies himself ordinary bodily gratification for conscience‘s sake; one who aims to compass holiness through mortification of the flesh; one who lives a life of austerity.”
We are not talking about someone who undergoes an element of training – we are talking about the extremes of ‘training’, just as body building can get out of hand. To recommend that the modern Stoic ought to be an ascetic is to misunderstand Stoicism.
We aim to live in accord with Nature and we have been designed by Nature to thrive if we can achieve a level of sufficiency. We are not preparing ourselves for some future life after death or to get off the cycle of life. We are trying to live this life well both physically and mentally. If we succumb to the madness of asceticism we will spend all of our time supposedly preparing ourselves for life and never get around to living it.
Asceticism is not the aim of the Stoic teachings. Stoic teachings is mostly about achieving moderation and avoiding the extremes if possible. If one is faced with a hard life then out of necessity the Stoic will cope. But such would not be the Stoic’s preferred life. At the same time a life of hedonism and debauchery is also not the preferred life of the Stoic. Moderation is the path we are guided to.
OK, just in case the whole system suddenly collapses, ensure that you are as fit as you can be; go camping occasionally to ensure that you can survive without all of your technology; learn some dying skill that will aid the survival of you and your community should any collapse last a long time – be prepared. (We Stoics had that mantra long before the Boy Scouts.)
But please, whatever you do, live this life you have been gifted and don’t confuse any Stoic newbie with unnecessary talk of asceticism.
Nigel
Nigel, did you read the first paragraph? Misinterpreting that ascetic practice is the goal was one of the points I was challenging; you simply have restated that misconception. You also redefined the word asceticism, and argued against that. The ‘talk of asceticism” isn’t unnecessary: it’s entirely necessary. Today, there is a hedonistic thread of internet Stoicism, and pointing out the degree which the ancients went to show these practice is necessary to disabuse “newbies” of the problems with this modern interpretation.
We’re advised by Epictetus to moderation where moderation is appropriate, and abstinence where that’s appropriate. Not moderation in all things. There’s no appropriate level of moderation for recreational heroin use, for instance.
You also seems to be misunderstanding preferred indifferents, it’s a preference based on conduciveness to virtue: not because certain things are “nice to have.”
Kevin,
You say, “We’re advised by Epictetus to moderation where moderation is appropriate, and abstinence where that’s appropriate. Not moderation in all things. There’s no appropriate level of moderation for recreational heroin use, for instance.”
I did not use the words “moderation in ‘all’ things” – you have misrepresented what I have said in order to defend you indefensible position that Stoics ought to be ascetics. What you say of Epictetus is a statement of the moderation I have talked of. He does not advocate abstinence in ‘all’ things, hence asceticism (as understood today) is not a Stoic proposition. Suitable training is Stoical, but Cynic refusal to partake in the pleasures of life is not.
You also say, “You also seems to be misunderstanding preferred indifferents, it’s a preference based on conduciveness to virtue: not because certain things are “nice to have.””
Seneca says, ‘Be attentive to all the advantages that life presents to you, but with over much love for none – the user, but not the slave, of the gifts of Fortune.’
I do not “misunderstanding preferred indifferents” (in fact in my other responses on this post I do not even mention them so it is likely that you have made a ‘false judgement’) but I hold to the moderate idea that we can have those things in life that are ‘nice to have’ provided we do not become “slaves to the gifts of Fortune”.
Many people miss the fact that Stoicism is not just about the reasoning faculty being kept ‘pristine and free from outside influences’ so as to be able to make sound judgements that ensure a person can lead a life of virtue. It is about living life well and within life, within our various roles, what is ‘indifferent’ to the reasoning faculty still has value to our lives. As an upholsterer I had a preference for well-designed tools that helped me perform my role as a worker as best as I was able, rather than poorly designed tools that would possibly have led to my work not being up to standard.
But not all preferred indifferents are so mundane. I prefer a beautiful sunrise than an overcast and dull greeting to the day. There is no “conduciveness to virtue” in this. It is simply a nice thing to wake to. Stoicism does not deny such pleasure.
At a point, we need to move on from the training (‘áskēsis’ as you explain it) of the mental processes to the actual living in tune with the ‘smooth flow of life’ – eudaimonia.
Nigel
Have you noticed that all of the sources for the hedonistic Stoicism come from Seneca? Interesting, that he seems to be an outlier. You call this position indefensible, which is a bit hyperbolic. As I’ve made a well-rounded argument based in multiple sources just for that.
Your argument redefines the term, contains a single source, and personal anecdotes.
Which of these is more defensible?
We’re not talking about the practices like one sees in India, with matted hair ascetics who hold one up for twenty years until it withers.
If you were able to flip a switch and go from the normal life a non-philosopher to that of eudaimonia, that’s amazing and more power to you.
Most of us are not so lucky, and requiring training to fully inculcate those lessons. We are not talking about destroying the body for some mystical purpose.
For instance, look at Buddhist monks, others would call them ascetics, they restrict their food, dress, activities, etc. But they argue that what they are doing is the middle path you are speaking of, whence comes that phrase.
If my position isn’t true for you, that’s fine. But it’s true for me, and others would benefit from the being exposed to the perspective.
I’m content to end the discussion with the statement that you are making a divergence from the traditional perspective, and no value judgment is being applied there.
Be well, best of luck in you practice, Nigel.
Kevin,
It is difficult to respond to your two rather garbled comments.
I would however remind you of the fact that I suggested that my definition of an ascetic was what the modern day reader would understand by the word. This was useful background as to what else I had to say. A perfectly reasonable approach to any debate.
I would also repeat what I had to say about both sides of the argument:
“Asceticism is not the aim of the Stoic teachings. Stoic teachings is mostly about achieving moderation and avoiding the extremes if possible. If one is faced with a hard life then out of necessity the Stoic will cope. But such would not be the Stoic’s preferred life. At the same time a life of hedonism and debauchery is also not the preferred life of the Stoic. Moderation is the path we are guided to.”
I offer a balanced view that, like Zeno, rejects the asceticism and the hedonism of other schools. What of this is the “divergence from the traditional perspective” that you accuse me of?
Nigel
Nigel,
“Asceticism is not the aim of the Stoic teachings. Stoic teachings is mostly about achieving moderation and avoiding the extremes if possible.”
Sorry, but I’m going to have to call your bluff on the second point and ask for some evidence for this claim. Stoic teachings are ALL about virtue, virtue, and virtue. The rest of it is in service of virtue. Moderation is in no way “the path we are guided to”. You live a life according to nature, which is virtuous, not according to moderation. Moderation has nothing to do with it except some out of tune quotes from Seneca, who is evidently at odds with all other Stoic philosophers. The preferred life is a life according to nature.
In fact, in all the books I’ve read on Stoicism, I cannot think of an example where moderation is even really mentioned as a fringe topic, let alone proposed as being the thing which Stoicism is “mostly about”. Moderation is not at all what the Stoics had in mind when they talked about living according to nature.
“Many people miss the fact that Stoicism is not just about the reasoning faculty being kept ‘pristine and free from outside influences’ so as to be able to make sound judgements that ensure a person can lead a life of virtue. It is about living life well and within life, within our various roles, what is ‘indifferent’ to the reasoning faculty still has value to our lives.”
Living life well IS leading a life of virtue. This is fundamental to Stoicism, the two cannot be separated because they mean the same thing. Eudaimonia consists in acting virtuously, that is to say that by acting virtuously, you will be happy. To put it a bit more technically, in Stoicism, virtue is the sine qua non of eudaimona. What is “indifferent to the reasoning faculty” does not have value, that’s why it is called an indifferent. If a thing is instrumental in acting virtuously, then it is a preferred indifferent. If a thing is not instrumental in acting virtuously, then it is simply an indifferent. The only thing that has value is virtue. The Stoics already modified their philosophy to account for a way of procuring certain things in spite of their proclaimed valuelessness, you don’t get to do that any further to extend to things that are nice to have. They saw that being indifferent towards certain things was simply at odds with even a cursory understanding of human nature, so they added preferred indifferents to reconcile this fact.
“I prefer a beautiful sunrise than an overcast and dull greeting to the day. There is no “conduciveness to virtue” in this. It is simply a nice thing to wake to. Stoicism does not deny such pleasure. ”
And the Stoics would say you are foolish for having such a pointless preference, because it is completely out of your control what the sunrise looks like. There is in fact a “conduciveness to virtue”, as I pointed out previously. Actually, it was Cynicism which does not deny such pleasure, if you recall Diogenes asking Alexander the Great to step out of the way because he was blocking the light of the sun.
“We are not talking about someone who undergoes an element of training – we are talking about the extremes of ‘training’, just as body building can get out of hand. To recommend that the modern Stoic ought to be an ascetic is to misunderstand Stoicism.”
No, you are the insisting on one using a modern understanding of asceticism and at the very same time saying it doesn’t fit with Stoicism. Of course it doesn’t! The asceticism we are talking about is nothing other than áskēsis.
Mr Patrick is absolutely correct in saying you are arguing from an incorrect definition. It is not perfectly reasonable to use common-usage or modern definitions in philosophical discourse in place of the original definitions. To say that we should use modern definitions of words in a technical discussion of Stoicism on behalf of modern readers is to actively promote a misunderstanding of the philosophy. You will be using words in a way that was not meant by the original philosophers. It seems to me as though you are a victim of this exact error – which is probably why you are so opposed to the asceticism that is very well argued by Mr. Patrick as a part of Stoicism.
It’s like saying that a modern reader, when coming across the word ‘God’ in Stoicism, should think of the Judeo-Christian God as opposed to nature, because that’s how us moderns understand the word. This would immediately render any talk of Stoicism incoherent and the whole system will fall apart. You say we should use modern definitions on for the benefit of new readers, but you’re intentionally leading them into a misunderstanding if you do this. That’s counter-productive. It does the newcomer no favours when learning about Stoicism, you’ll just end up filling their heads with disinformation instead of misinformation.
“At a point, we need to move on from the training (‘áskēsis’ as you explain it) of the mental processes to the actual living in tune with the ‘smooth flow of life’ – eudaimonia.”
Here again you misunderstand Stoicism. The training, áskēsis, is what allows one to live in accordance with nature. You don’t give one up in order to pursue the other. The training is the very practice that puts one in a life lived according to nature – eudaimonia. You only cease the training when you become a sage, which IS a life lived as in accord with nature as is possible.
Look, if you don’t agree with Stoic talk of asceticism, that’s fine – it’s not for everyone. But instead of trying to twist the philosophy to fit you and your preferences, just politely disagree, pick and choose what you like from various philosophies, and stop calling yourself a Stoic. You can’t just waltz into a well-established school of thought and start moving things around as you see fit and still call it by the same name, nor can you honestly call yourself by it. There are plenty of books about living in moderation, if that’s how you want to live.You don’t need Stoicism for that. You have clearly misunderstood it on some pretty fundamental levels and I recommend you read The Inner Citadel by Pierre Hadot just to start with. You probably wont find a better book on Stoicism.
Steve,
Wow, am I getting some backs up. Would I get the same reaction if I was instead talking in Swahili where all the words and phraseology would be different but still had the same intent as what is taught as Stoicism in English?
To start at the end of your comments, you say, “You can’t just waltz into a well-established school of thought and start moving things around as you see fit” – I have been studying Stoicism itself since about 1989. According to you, how long do I have to study and practice it to get beyond the word ‘just’?
Here and elsewhere I am attacked by atheists on the one side who want to change the whole nature of Stoicism and those on the other side who refuse to allow any changes whatsoever despite advances in knowledge and the changing use of language since people started translating the old works into English.
I am not so extreme in either direction. I follow the path of moderation as guided by Stoicism. However, I am happy to stir up matters if it will get people thinking and not just quoting ‘But our master said…’
Stoicism is not just about the ‘training’ – it is about moving beyond training in the ‘mental gym’ of philosophical study and debate into putting Stoicism into use in the real world.
As to some of your points, I look at most of what you are saying, supposedly in contradiction to what I have said, and I find that you are saying the same as I have said but in different words or you are talking about a point that does not arise in what you quote as being what you are disagreeing with.
It is difficult to respond when I see that we are in agreement. It is impossible to respond when we are talking of two different points.
I am often reminded by others of just how little we have of the original writings. However, in what we have, there is enough to see the big picture if one follows the Stoic guidance to think for oneself and not just follow the words of others. Moderation in life is one of the clear threads that runs through all of the teachings. Seek and you will find.
Finally, I am not wrong when I state that the modern definition of Asceticism is not what Stoicism is all about. I am not wrong when I say a call to Stoics to be ascetics can lead to misunderstanding. So why do you argue against these point unless you are trying to load up ever more disagreement so as to give the impression that you have made a relevant point elsewhere.
Try looking for agreement between what we have said rather than just looking at the differences in the use of words.
Nigel
“Would I get the same reaction if I was instead talking in Swahili where all the words and phraseology would be different but still had the same intent as what is taught as Stoicism in English?”
Yes, you would get the same reaction IF and only if you started applying incorrect meanings to very specific technical terms. Definitions are everything in philosophicla systems. Think of the philosophy as a house of cards. Once you start changing it, it falls apart. You are not using the same “intent”, you’re using a definition of asceticism that befits early Christian monasticism far more than Stoic asceticism. Literally, you are. You defined it exactly as that.
“To start at the end of your comments, you say, “You can’t just waltz into a well-established school of thought and start moving things around as you see fit” – I have been studying Stoicism itself since about 1989. According to you, how long do I have to study and practice it to get beyond the word ‘just’?”
The length of time is irrelevant. You can be studying anything since ’89 and still be wrong, this doesn’t persuade me in the slightest. You can’t start changing the core concepts of a philosophy as you see fit, with little to no reason, and still call it by the same name without very good reasons for doing so. Unless you provide the evidence I asked you for, you should not carry on believing this moderatioin business. The word “moderation” in the sense you are using it isn’t even anywhere on the Stanford IEP Stoicism Page! According to the IEP, moderation in Stoicism is “the science (epistêmê) of what is to be chosen and what is to be avoided and what is neither of these”. This has nothing to do with some ‘Goldilocks’ balance of neither too much nor too little, but is explicitly about using reason to discriminate between what is acceptable, what is not, and what is not applicable to either of these categories. Under this (correct) definition, this has far more to do with the discipline of desire (what is to be chosen) and aversion (what is to be avoided). This is what I mean about the error in using modern meanings over original ones, but of course you knew this, because you’ve been studying Stoicism since ’89.
You get past the word “just” when you start producing some serious scholarship or literature on why your changes should be accepted (and one of the reasons for this MUST be that it is more in accord with original Stoicism than a modern understanding, that is to say, a modern MISunderstanding). That is what Mr Patrick has done here. He’s used the words of the Stoics themselves to show their agreement with his claim.
“Here and elsewhere I am attacked by atheists on the one side who want to change the whole nature of Stoicism and those on the other side who refuse to allow any changes whatsoever despite advances in knowledge and the changing use of language since people started translating the old works into English.”
What has someones irrelegion got to do with anything? Their wanting to change the whole nature of Stoicism is just as misguided as yours when it is devoid of any evidence or argumentation. Language can change all it likes, but we should never retroactively project our common-usage meaning of words back into an historical era. We can use the same or different words, hell, we can make up a whole new lexicon, as long as the MEANING of the words remain true to their original understanding. Even the meaning of the word “stoic” has changed from it’s original meaning as late as the 20th century, do you mean to say that we should describe Epictetus as a “person who represses feelings or endures patiently”?
“I am not so extreme in either direction. I follow the path of moderation as guided by Stoicism. However, I am happy to stir up matters if it will get people thinking and not just quoting ‘But our master said…’”
You’re not getting people thinking in a positive, constructive way. You’re not even getting yourself thinking, instead you’re wasting peoples time trying to correct your misunderstandings which you have closed yourself off to.
“Stoicism is not just about the ‘training’ – it is about moving beyond training in the ‘mental gym’ of philosophical study and debate into putting Stoicism into use in the real world.”
None of this is a reason to cease any or all all of the mental exercises involved in Stoic askesis. You’re saying you come to a point where you stop doing one in order to do the other. This is incorrect. You continue to do one in order to continue to fascilitate the other. I’ve already argued this, but you insist on restating groundless assertions instead of producing a counter-argument.
“As to some of your points, I look at most of what you are saying, supposedly in contradiction to what I have said, and I find that you are saying the same as I have said but in different words or you are talking about a point that does not arise in what you quote as being what you are disagreeing with.”
‘It’s the same, but in different words.’ With comments like this it’s no wonder you have no capacity for nuance in understanding precise but subtle differences in the meaning of words.
“Moderation in life is one of the clear threads that runs through all of the teachings. Seek and you will find.”
No, this falls under the burden of proof. You are claiming that Stoicism is “mostly about moderation” so you have to produce the evidence to prove it. If you assert it without evidence, it can be dismissed as easily.
“I am not wrong when I state that the modern definition of Asceticism is not what Stoicism is all about. I am not wrong when I say a call to Stoics to be ascetics can lead to misunderstanding.”
I apologise, it seems I’ve somehow walked into a George Orwell novel by mistake. There’s some doublethink going on here. I am the one who is not wrong “when I state that the modern definition of Asceticism is not what Stoicism is all about”. You are the one who has been arguing for using modern meanings to as not to confuse new readers of Stoicism. Calling Stoics to asceticism will without a doubt be misleading, if you do not tell them what the Stoics meant by that word. If you give them a modern dictionary definition, then they will be misunderstood.
But don’t just adamantly claim you aren’t wrong, you have to prove it. So far all you’ve offered is a quote from Seneca that can hardly be said to be evidence of what you claim: “Be attentive to all the advantages that life presents to you, but with over much love for none – the user, but not the slave, of the gifts of Fortune.” This doesn’t actually have anything to do with moderation. He’s talking about living in accord with nature, of conforming your will to exactly whatever nature gives or takes away. He’s saying that you use whatever nature gives you, and when she takes it away, you see it as an opportunity to seek an advantage for yourself. He’s also saying don’t become too attached to the gifts of fortune. No Goldilocks ‘not-too-little-not-too-much’ here.
“Try looking for agreement between what we have said rather than just looking at the differences in the use of words.”
The use of words is the philosophy. Different use of words, different philosophy.
By heck Steve, you are not willing to give an inch.
You say, “The use of words is the philosophy. Different use of words, different philosophy.”
I thought that the wisdom was in the teachings, not in the words that one uses. You are saying that we must study Stoicism in ancient Greek for that is the language it was devised in – no English allowed. You are wrong. Stoicism is Stoicism no matter what language you say it in.
I hope you can see what I have just done. I have mirrored what you have been doing – refusing to look at the intent of what is said and so misrepresenting what was meant.
I am not going to bother to answer every point you make but as an example of the standard of your comments you say, “You are not using the same “intent”, you’re using a definition of asceticism that befits early Christian monasticism far more than Stoic asceticism. Literally, you are. You defined it exactly as that.”
Up front I stated just this, only in different words. I set the context in which I was discussing matters. I have said nothing that disagrees with what you say above. So what are you saying that is different to what I said? What is your point? All that I said regards the definition in the dictionary and how someone may not understand the usage of the words in the article was correct.
Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the situation and to make your statement a matter of confrontation? Mountains and molehills comes to mind.
I do not expect an answer to any of these questions, let alone want one – it would no doubt involve yet more misrepresentation of what I have said.
You stick to what your master has said and I will be a Stoic and think for myself.
Ouch, did I just say that. 🙂
Nigel
[…] However, the current society (and in the eyes of the classics, theirs as well) is so indulged that true moderation appears to be tortuous. But that is a wrong understanding. Moderation is not a torture or mortification of the […]
I would have to disagree with a comment or two above. Stoicism is all about virtue, but it’s also about erasing impressions, God and yes, moderation. Temperance means ‘moderation, self-restraint’, and ‘abstemiousness’, however the Marcus Aurelius Stoic abstains from enjoyments, wealth, reputation and so-called reasoning, except the reasoning told repeatedly in the work of the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy on the internet. The virtue is itself moderate, Marcus’s teachings are simple, and the Stoics lived an austere ascetic life. Marcus Aurelius was in favour of helping mankind in the cosmopolis, for we’re part of this cosmic city called a universe. God gives providence, and a toga would be the appropriate clothing, although I don’t have to wear it.
That’s a typo, I meant the virtue isn’t itself moderate.
I’m beginning to see that Stoicism is not ascetic or non-ascetic, it is moderate and practical. Asceticism is used as a tool to establish the opposite habit, but it isn’t valued in and of itself. OK, I’ll admit the term “hedonic Stoicism” sets my teeth grinding, but now I’ve thought about it so does ‘ascetic Stoicism.’ In my opinion, “ascetic Stoicism” is called Cynicism and is a short cut to virtue, but it seems Stoicism proper is not about short cuts (or about extremes either). By the way, I’ve got an addiction to hedonistic food consumption, so the predictable Stoic antidote would be the opposite habit, which is fasting, which is ascetic, but would be pursued not because it is virtuous in and of itself, but as a means to the end of moderate (i.e. virtuous) food consumption.
[…] Here’s an article by Kevin Patrick on Stoic asceticism (a rebuttal to another article by Piotr Stankiewicz): https://modernstoicism.com/are-stoics-ascetics-a-rebuttal-by-kevin-patrick/ […]