PART I. THE PRAGMATIC OUTLOOK

The Squirrel that Wouldn’t Sit Still

William James, philosopher and psychologist, was on a camping trip in the mountains. On returning from his walk, he noticed his friends engaged in a heated debate.ⁱ Here is what they were arguing about.

A man and a squirrel were on opposite sides of a tree. Every time the man tried to get a look at the squirrel, it darted around to the far side. The man kept circling the tree, and the squirrel kept pace. So: did the man go around the squirrel?

James thought about it for a moment and came up with this: It depends on what you mean. Yes, if you mean he passed from north to east to south to west and back again; but no, if you mean moving from the squirrel’s front to its back, since the squirrel always faced him.

More to the point: Does it matter?

If the answer changes nothing—if it doesn’t affect how you live, choose, or understand anything that matters—then maybe the question is empty. Not every question is worth answering. Not every truth is worth the trouble. James’s observation wasn’t about clever logic. It was about usefulness: Does solving this problem have any practical use? If not, why worry about it?

“Contrary to what recent generations of thinkers have preached, the grand task of philosophy remains the exploration and recommendation of sensible ways of life.” — John Lachsⁱⁱ

If the grand task of philosophy is “the exploration and recommendation of sensible ways of life,” then,

“[T]here is no distinction of meaning so fine as to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice.” — Charles Peirceⁱⁱⁱ

Or as John Lachs said,

“Philosophy becomes marginalized only when it distances itself from the problems of life.” — John Lachs^iv

This sentiment goes back to ancient times, and it was succinctly expressed by the much-maligned Hellenistic philosopher, Epicurus:

“Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man. For just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body, so there is no profit in philosophy either, if it does not expel the suffering of the mind.” — Epicurus^v

Not everyone, including many modern academic philosophers, would accept this, but a pragmatist would. If the purpose of a eudaimonic philosophy like Stoicism is flourishing, then anything that does not contribute to this end is of no consequence to a pragmatist. (For an excellent and readable exposition of pragmatism, see Michael Bacon^vi or Talisse and Aiken^vii.)

“Physics envy” of Academic Philosophers

How did philosophy move away from its earlier goal of being relevant to everyday life? I am no expert on the subject but, citing John Lachs’ Stoic Pragmatism in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Douglas McDermid has this to say about the modern-day academic philosophers:

“[They] are afflicted with “physics envy” (p. 61; cf. p. 13^viii).  Impressed by science’s magnificent achievements, they assume that philosophy ought to follow its lead, and they think of themselves primarily as professional researchers engaged in purely theoretical pursuits… for them, philosophy is essentially an agreeable way of earning a living, not a way of life which makes special moral demands on souls who feel called to follow it.”

The result?

“[T]heir highly technical work offers little sustenance to a non-academic audience hungry for insight into the human condition.” –Douglas McDermid^ix

From Intellectual Excitement to What Works

In college, I loved philosophy like one loves a rich dessert. Zeno’s paradoxes, the Ship of Theseus, the mind-body problem—they dazzled me. They still do. But they do not help me live better or solve any real-life problem I face. That’s not to say they aren’t beautiful and worth thinking about. But knowledge does not morph into wisdom except through application of what works.

This is where pragmatism comes in. Charles Peirce sketched it, William James fleshed it out, and John Dewey expanded it. The core idea? If a belief makes no difference in action, then the debate over it is moot. Truth is what works. A belief is “true” not if it corresponds to some perfect vision of reality, but if it helps us live better, choose wisely, endure difficulty, or find meaning. There is no harm in inquiring into things that are pleasant to know as long as we don’t confuse them with what is important to know.

Why does this matter? Because it saves us time and unproductive arguments. It lets us skip long debates that never lead anywhere. It enables us to see the futility of many never-ending religious and political arguments and to be tolerant of other people’s views—no matter how bizarre. A “truth” is of little value if it does not help us live better, solve problems, or be useful in some way.

Avoiding Distinctions without a Difference

Take the question of free will, for example. Philosophers have been debating for thousands of years whether we have free will or not. Will the answer, even if it can be found, make any meaningful difference to the way we choose, plan, regret, and hope? If our choices are not predetermined, we choose our actions as we see fit. If they are, we still choose our actions as we see fit, except we assume that they are predetermined. The answer, whatever it may be, doesn’t change anything. From a pragmatic point of view, the truth doesn’t matter if it changes nothing.:

“It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence.” — William James^x

When a distinction makes no difference to anything related to our lives, the distinction is of no interest to the pragmatist. Pragmatism is a philosophy with boots on the ground. Stoicism, when viewed from a pragmatic perspective, becomes a kind of rational operating system for the mind: light, efficient, durable, not a dogmatic set of principles.

“Truth happens to an idea—it becomes true, is made true by events.” — William James^xi

Truth is not a stagnant property but a lived verification. A belief only earns its truth when it works for us, shapes our actions, and proves useful in experience. The pragmatist doesn’t care about distinctions that make no difference. The purpose of this paper is to show how filtering Stoicism through the lens of Pragmatism creates a streamlined, modern philosophy adapted for daily use.

Murder of a Beautiful Theory by a Brutal Gang of Facts

The pragmatic approach is simple: keep what’s useful in real life, discard the rest. Revisiting William James recently, I realized how deeply my perspective of Stoic minimalism^xii is shaped by pragmatism. I don’t ask, “Is it true with a capital T?” I ask, “Does it have any implications for how I should live my life? Does this make my life better or provide a foundation for it?” Does it help me flourish? If a Stoic principle helps me keep my cool, stay fair, avoid needless worry, or help me in any other concrete way, it’s worth holding onto. If not, I let it go. Yes, it is sad to kill a beautiful theory, but a ruthless pragmatist chooses to live with this “tragedy.”

One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts.^xiii

 

PART II. STOICISM THROUGH THE PRAGMATIC LENS

The Criteria

Since a pragmatist aims is to identify the practical relevance of an idea, they would apply some consistent criteria (such as what is outlined below) to sort out the relevance of any Stoic proposition.

1. Can this be verified?

Not all questions have answers. “How long is a piece of string?” or “What is the color of this song?” illustrate the limits of language and categorization—a theme explored by the Stoics in their studies of logic.

A pragmatist would reject questions without answers — propositions which cannot be verified.

2. If there is an answer, can we know if it is true?

Suppose there is an answer. For a Pragmatist, the next criterion is, can it be shown true or false with generally agreed-upon standards (deductive logic, empirical evidence)? Is there a generally accepted way of refuting the answer?

“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” – Karl Popper^xiv

The Stoics similarly sought truth through evidence and reason. Chrysippus thought,

“The criterion of truth they declare to be the apprehending presentation (phantasia kataleptikē)…” — Diogenes Laertius^xv

If we cannot even attempt to determine a statement’s veracity, the debate becomes “empty” or academic in the negative sense.

3. If it is true, would it matter whether it is true or false?

Even if the proposition can be proved either true or false, would it make any difference for the purposes we have in mind? If the answer is no, the answers to the first two questions are irrelevant. This is the pragmatic perspective. If the answer does not matter, as William James pointed out, the argument “collapses into insignificance.”

To these, I add fourth criterion derived from Occam’s razor:

4. Is there a simpler explanation?

For example, a pragmatist would prefer simpler physical explanations to complex metaphysical assumptions, when both are plausible.

The first three criteria can be reduced to two simple questions:

1. Is it true?
2. If true, does it matter?

For a pragmatist, the second question—whether something matters—is more important than the first question, whether it is true. A pragmatist focuses less on matters of little importance, thus avoiding unanswerable questions, questions for which the answers do not matter even if they can be found, and unhelpful debates.

Given the about criteria, which parts of ancient Stoicism would they retain, and which parts would they reject?

1. Unanswerable Questions

We can generally identify unanswerable questions by these criteria:

• People have been debating them for millennia with no universally accepted answer.
• People on one side of the spectrum are generally convinced that their answer is the right one.
• Neither answer is falsifiable.

Unanswerable questions are not true scientific questions and therefore not capable of being disproved.

It also so turns out that answers to unanswerable questions won’t matter even if they can be answered.

Many traditions, especially religions, treat scientifically unanswerable questions as answered by taking a position. They work in their contexts. However, Stoicism claims to be based on rationality and logic. Stoicism explicitly and repeatedly states that our unique and most precious quality is rationality.

For what is a man? A rational, mortal animal, someone says.  — Epictetus^xvi
Let us therefore not follow, like beasts, but rather govern ourselves by reason.— Seneca^xvii
… women have received from the gods the same reasoning power as men …— Musonius Rufus^xviii
“If thou workest at that which is before thee, following right reason seriously, … thy life will be happy” — Marcus Aurelius^xix

Ancient Stoics considered rationality so critical that they developed their own version of logic and taught it to their students as a part of the Stoic curriculum. Let’s look at some of the unanswerable questions that formed a part of ancient Stoicism.

a. Does God Exist?

“Does God exist?” may be a question to us, but in ancient times God was not a question but the answer.^xx “Why does it rain?” Because of the rain god. “Why is there sunshine?” Because of the sun god. People created several gods to explain the phenomena they didn’t understand. Early Stoics were thought to be pantheists. They equated nature with God. But even as Stoicism moved from Athens to Rome, the concept of God gradually started to resemble our current conception of God, divorced from nature, having his own separate existence, ruling over our lives.

It started with Epictetus. God was not simply nature or the presumed rationality inherent in nature anymore. God was an entity separate from nature who controlled and commanded it.

“When He bids the plants flower, they flower; when He bids them put forth shoots, they put them forth; when He bids them bear their fruit, they bear it; when to ripen, they ripen; when again He bids them drop their fruit and let fall their leaves and gather themselves together and remain quiet and take their rest, they remain quiet and take their rest. And how else comes it that at the waxing and waning of the moon and at the approach and recession of the sun we see among the things that are on earth so great an alteration and change to the opposite?” — Epictetus^xxi

The pantheistic concept of God as the rational order of the cosmos, not distinct from it, gradually started losing its hold, probably starting with Epictetus. As science progressed and kept explaining natural phenomena, the number of gods kept dwindling until we were left with mostly a single God in modern times, although every religion has its own concept of who that God might be.

From a pragmatist’s point of view, whether God exists or not, whether there is one God or many, immanent in nature or directing nature, are unanswerable questions and, even if they can be answered, have no bearing on Stoic practice. A pragmatist, therefore, treats the existence or non-existence of God as irrelevant to the practice of Stoicism.

b. Does Free Will Exist?

According to Stoic theory, the universe as we witness it is the result of an endless succession of cause and effect. The idea of this inexorable movement is theoretically elegant and sounds profoundly logical. But there is a problem. If everything is cause and effect, there is no point in our doing anything because what is going to happen is going to happen anyway. So, for example, why bother being virtuous? Why bother practicing Stoicism or any other philosophy? Why do anything? When this challenge, known as the Lazy Argument, was presented to Chrysippus, he countered with the “compatibilist” argument. While, in the external universe, things are decided by the inexorable succession of causes and effects, every individual is free to act depending on their nature.

The argument sounds elegant, but it could mean different things. Let’s unpack it.

1. It could mean that we are totally free to respond to anything that happens to us. If this is the case, then it is, for all practical purposes, free will. We can choose to respond in any way we like.
2. It could mean you can respond in one way based on your “nature” and someone else can respond differently depending on their nature. For example, if you push a cylinder it rolls; if you push a cone, it spins. Pushing is the external cause. But the effects are not the same. The nature of the thing pushed is the internal cause. So the argument goes that while the cause-and-effect chain is not broken, individuals act as an internal cause to react with the external cause. Here is the problem with the argument: Even though the cylinder and the cone act differently, they don’t have any freedom—the cylinder can only roll, and the cone can only spin. Because they don’t have the choice, their response is predetermined. What will be pushed is determined by an external cause, and how the pushed object will respond to the push is also predetermined. Neither the cylinder nor the cone has any choice over how they would respond. From a pragmatist point of view, compatibilism is determinism in disguise.
3. It could mean that an individual can choose to be a certain way: a ‘cylinder’ or a ‘cone.’ The individual provides internal assent, judgments, and choices (“prohairesis”). If this were the case, then the question is, where does the prohairesis come from? If we say it is because of prior causes such as a person’s genetics or experiences, clearly these externals are not under our control. The choice is again an illusion because the choice is determined by prior causes.

I could continue such arguments (and people far more capable than I have done so for millennia without reaching consensus), but it would be unproductive. More importantly, for a pragmatist, it wouldn’t matter which way the chips fall. A pragmatist would go on acting, like everyone else, as though they have free will. Whether they have it or not does not affect their actions. The “Truth” has no bearing on their decisions.

c. Is the Universe Rational and Benevolent?

Ancient Stoics considered the universe (cosmos) as rational and benevolent.

“[The Stoics] say that God is an animal immortal, rational, perfect, and intellectual in his happiness, unsusceptible of any kind of evil, having a providential care for the world and all that therein is…” — Diogenes Laertius^xxii

He further explains that the world’s soul, or Logos, is a rational, organizing principle, and the universe is governed according to a rational and providential law—which is the basis for the Stoic belief in the harmonious, ordered, and beneficent character of nature.

Even Massimo Pigliucci, who says, “The ancient Stoics, in my opinion, got a lot right in their science and metaphysics,” has this to say:

“The big thing the Stoics got wrong in their science-metaphysics is the notion of the cosmos as a living organism endowed with reason (the famous logos). There simply is no such thing, according to modern physics and biology.” — Massimo Pigliucci^xxiii

Pigliucci considers it a decided issue and states that the Stoics were wrong. What is of interest to a pragmatist is that it makes no difference to the practice of Stoic ethics one way or the other.

2. Questions for Which Answers Don’t Matter

The second set deals with questions we don’t know the answer to. We have tentative answers, but we cannot be totally certain. They may eventually be answered as our knowledge expands. However, some of these problems are such that, even if we could answer them (as with unanswerable questions), they won’t make any difference to our lives.

All the same, ancient Stoics believed they had the right answers to many of these questions, when they, in fact, didn’t. Stoic physics dealt with such questions. Modern science has proven many aspects of Stoic physics wrong.

Early Stoics believed that their answers on the subject provided the foundation for Stoic ethics. Let’s look at some of these questions.

a. The Origin of the Universe

Stoics spent considerable time and effort debating the origin of the universe and how it developed. Much of their theory is not compatible with modern physics. Epicurus proposed his own theory, different from that of the Stoics. The Epicurean theory of “swerve” is perhaps more compatible with modern particle physics than the Stoic theory.

We currently accept the Big Bang theory as the most plausible explanation, but we cannot be certain that it is true. But let’s assume that, at some point, we have enough evidence to decide how the universe came about. So what? Which aspect of Stoic ethics could it possibly overturn? A pragmatist cannot think of any, and so, for the pragmatist, in practicing Stoicism, how the universe originated, developed, and will end is of little relevance.

b. Epistemology, Development of Thoughts, Speech, and Impulses

Modern logic deals with the truth value of things using formal systems and symbolic reasoning. While Stoic logic also deals with the truth value of things using syllogistic reasoning, modal and propositional logic, it goes beyond these and includes epistemology, development of thoughts, speech, and impulses. Some aspects of Stoic logic are useful, some are questionable, and the rest share aspects of developmental psychology that are subject to change when contradictory new evidence is found.

Stoic formal logic has withstood the test of time. Other parts of Stoic logic have been less robust. But, from a pragmatist’s perspective, the non-formal aspects of Stoic logic are not necessary to practice Stoic ethics. While formal systems are useful, they are not needed to understand Stoic ethics either. Just as we can understand subjects like economics, physics, or psychology without having studied formal logic, we can understand Stoic ethics without having studied Stoic logic.

What about formal Stoic logic, which has stood the test of time? Stoic ethics does not require formal training in Stoic logic, valuable as it may be. The logic we use to understand other subjects such as psychology, philosophy, or algebra is quite adequate to understand and follow Stoic principles.

So, a pragmatist does not believe Stoic logic is essential to understand and practice Stoic ethics.

3. Unhelpful Debates and Time-related Views

The third category is Stoic concept that add nothing to the practice of Stoicism. A few examples:

a. The Existence of the Stoic Sage

Is it possible to practice Stoicism to perfection? If you can, then you are a Stoic sage. But can we find a Stoic sage? Not at all likely, said the Stoics. Your chance of finding a Stoic sage is as good as finding a phoenix, which doesn’t exist except in myths. What does this mean to a pragmatist? Just this. Either it is impossible to practice all aspects of Stoicism (we haven’t found anyone who did that), or some Stoic claims are exaggerated and do not work 100% of the time. If, on the other hand, the debate on the existence of a Stoic sage does not relate to any practical issues, the entire debate is irrelevant.

b. Binary Views on Virtue and Happiness

Conceptually, this idea is related to the existence of the Stoic sage. Only a sage is 100% virtuous. The rest are vicious. Since being virtuous in Stoicism is synonymous with being happy, no one can be happy except a Stoic sage, who, for all practical purposes, doesn’t exist. All of humanity is vicious and unhappy? An academic can make an elegant case to support these views. Many have. But in what way is this helpful in real life? If someone acts wisely all their lives but has a single lapse, does it make them vicious? Will they be, by definition, unhappy? Are they in the same group as someone whose entire life is a series of unwise, foolish, excessive, and unjust acts? A Stoic would say yes. A pragmatist would find such a binary view of human endeavour misleading, discouraging, and unhelpful.

c. Time-dependent Views

No matter how much we try, our views will be inevitably colored by the period we live in. So, when we read in Stoic literature about people reading birds’ entrails or looking for omens, a pragmatist would not do the same. Neither would they accept that Seneca’s version of slaves or of women. The pragmatist knows that people who will be living 100 years from now may consider many of our views as unenlightened.

 

PART III. PRAGMATIC STOICISM: FIT FOR PURPOSE

The pragmatist ignores Stoic concepts that are not provable, avoids Stoic arguments whose outcomes have no practical implications, and glosses over those aspects of Stoicism that are time-dependent. So what is modern Stoicism from a pragmatist’s perspective?

1. Physics

Many ideas of Stoic physics have already been proven wrong by scientific advances over the past 23 centuries or will have no implications for Stoic practice even if found to be correct. Many eminent Stoic scholars accept the irrelevance of Stoic physics to modern life.

“Ancient Stoic physics, then, is clearly obsolete and no reasonable person can believe in it anymore.” – Brad Inwood^xxiv

“We have no support for the claim that Stoic ethics can only be understood in terms of the concepts of Stoic physics.” – Julia Annas^xxv

Although it is no true concern of a pragmatist, it is good to know that the pragmatist’s view of Stoic physics is also supported by some mainstream academic Stoic scholars.

Consequently, the pragmatist does not consider Stoic physics relevant to modern Stoicism.

2. Logic

While the pragmatist agrees that the formal logic developed by the Stoics is useful and valuable, Stoic logic does not have any direct bearing on understanding Stoic ethics. A person with no exposure to Stoic logic can understand Stoic ethics as well as someone who is exposed to Stoic logic, just as a person not exposed to any formal logical training can understand subjects like psychology, philosophy, or mathematics, all of which presuppose logical thinking. Aspects of Stoic logic that do not deal with formal arguments are not needed to understand Stoic ethics either.

Consequently, the pragmatist does not consider Stoic logic especially relevant for practicing Stoicism.

3. Excluded Aspects

The pragmatist separates certain aspects from Stoic ethics. These include aspects that are time-dependent (such as attitudes towards slaves and women, acceptance of superstitious beliefs) and those that are philosopher-dependent (such as vegetarianism). A pragmatist does not believe that these aspects are part of Stoic ethics, although one can make a case for some of them.

In short, from a pragmatist’s point of view, modern Stoicism is Stoic ethics after clearing the irrelevant parts.

Stoicism, Fit for Purpose

Traditional Stoicism holds that Stoic ethics is based on Stoic physics (how the universe supposedly works) and Stoic logic (how we can understand what is true). Here we have argued that the essence of Stoicism is Stoic ethics and that neither Stoic physics nor Stoic logic is necessary to practice Stoicism. A pragmatist is not against physics or logic or will minimize their importance. All that a pragmatist claims is that the knowledge of physics is and logic, as expounded by the Stoics, is not necessary to understand and practice Stoicism. The pragmatist considers them as not “fit for purpose” in the context of Stoic practice. Neither Stoic physics nor Stoic logic can get us to the purpose of Stoic practice, a life worth living. On the other hand, Stoic ethics, once stripped of its obsolete and non-essential aspects is fit for purpose, even if it does not “offer a perfect method for dealing with the baffling complexity of our problems.”

Stoic pragmatism stands out among these as perhaps the best approach to a satisfying existence. It may not offer a perfect method for dealing with the baffling complexity of our problems, but for thoroughly limited beings such as ourselves, it is good enough. — John Lachs^xxvi

Stoicism is a resurgent practical philosophy. But it needs updating for our times. Filtering Stoicism through the lens of Pragmatism creates a streamlined, modern philosophy adapted for daily use, fit for purpose.

 

Chuck Chakrapani is the Editor-in-Chief and publisher of THE STOIC; The Journal of The Stoic Gym and the author of many books on Stoicism including The Power to Change and Unshakable Freedom. He serves as Distinguished Visiting Professor at Toronto Metropolitan University. His weekly blogs can be accessed on https://thestoicgym.substack.com/

 

References