Get best of the week

The appeal of stoicism to the rich and influential

Ada Palmer is a historian, novelist, composer, and professor of history at the University of Chicago. She studies heterodox, heresy, free thinking, censorship and information control, the revival of classical thought after the Middle Ages and its impact on science, religion and atheism, as well as the history of book writing and printing.


Recently I was interviewed for an article in the Times ( Russian translation ) about why the philosophy of Stoicism has become very popular in the technological hangout of Silicon Valley. Only a fraction of my thoughts got into the article, but the question by Nelly Bowles was very exciting, so I wanted to tell more.

To begin with, like any ancient philosophy, Stoicism has physics and metaphysics - how he imagines the structure of the universe - and separately ethics - how he recommends living and evaluating good and evil deeds. Ethics is based on physics and metaphysics, but can be separated from it, and ethics has long become much more popular than metaphysics. This largely explains why the Stoic texts that have come down to us from antiquity are devoted to ethics; manuscript writers were more interested in them than others. And that is why thinkers from Cicero to Petrarch and to this day glorify the moral and ethical principles of Stoicism, while following completely different cosmological and metaphysical directions. (For serious acquaintance with stoic ontology and metaphysics, you need Spinoza.) Today's passion for stoicism,like all past hobbies of stoicism (except Spinoza), comes down to ethical aspects.

Thinking spots: stoic metaphysics and ontology


Stoic ontology and metaphysics are fascinating enough to give them a couple of paragraphs before moving on to ethics, even if ethics today has become the basis of the popularity of stoicism. The Stoics were monists ; if dualists like Plato and Descartes believe that there are essentially two things (matter and intangibility, for example), then monists believe that there is essentially one thing. Not just one category of things (Epicurean atomists, for example, believe that there is only one type of thing: atoms), but in fact there is only one single thing. The Stoics argued that the universe is one enormous integral object. Its various parts exhibit different properties.but are one. Just as polka-dot fabric can show blueness here, and whiteness there, but remains the same thing, so the part of the universe that your hand is shows elasticity, warmth and opacity, and the part that is air shows imperceptibility and transparency, but they are one and the same thing. And when you seem to move your hand, in fact there is no movement, but just that part of the universe that previously showed transparency and imperceptibility of air, now shows elasticity and opacity of the hand, and vice versa. Imagine the pixels of the screen: what looks like moving objects is actually changing colors one by one (i.e. changing the property) parts of the screen, which creates the illusion of movement, while in reality there is only a change in the surface of the object. (So ​​Stoicism solves the Zeno movement aporias discussed here ). Thus, the stoic living universe is in some ways similar to the skin of a mimic octopuscapable of appearing as myriads of different things, while remaining the same. And besides the blueness, and whiteness, and opacity, and warmth, other attributes that the universe manifests in some places more than in others include what we in modern terms call consciousness, self-consciousness and reason - that is, a person is a spot of reason on the background of a less intelligent substance, like a white spot on a blue background. But, according to the Stoics, the whole possesses any property that this part possesses, therefore, although consciousness and mind are concentrated in those places that are living people, everything is generally a huge, rational, rational whole; and when we die, we again merge into this whole. Thus, there is no personal immortality, but we are all part of something greater - eternal, wise and infinite.

Stoicism, apparently, was influenced by Buddhism through contacts with India during the wars of Alexander the Great, and has much in common with Buddhism: the whole universe is one huge, living, divine whole. Life is full of suffering, but this suffering is the path to understanding a greater good. And there is universal justice on a scale that exceeds what a person with our limited point of view can understand. In Buddhism, this is karma, and for the Stoics, it is Providence; the very concept of Providence, which Christianity later borrowed, which claims that everything that seems bad in the world is actually good, but in a sense that we cannot fully understand due to our limited perception. We are like the tip of a finger: we cannot understand why we are forced to suffer multiple blows on a hard, unyielding surface,because we don’t have the ability to understand that a larger organism is publishing a blog post about stoicism; but if we had the ability to understand, we would see that on a large scale it is worth it. In stating that the universe is perfect, stoicism leads the patterns that we see in nature: trees have roots to drink water; woodpeckers that eat beetles have beaks of the desired shape; forest animals have a forest disguise; desert animals have a desert camouflage - everything converges into one huge, practical whole, which (in the absence of Darwin, who would offer an alternative), the Greeks agreed to consider reason - either in the creator (Demiurge of Aristotle), or in the source (Plato's Good), or, for Stoics, in the universe itself.we would see that on a large scale it is worth it. In stating that the universe is perfect, stoicism leads the patterns that we see in nature: trees have roots to drink water; woodpeckers that eat beetles have beaks of the desired shape; forest animals have a forest disguise; desert animals have a desert camouflage - everything converges into one huge, practical whole, which (in the absence of Darwin, who would offer an alternative), the Greeks agreed to consider reason - either in the creator (Demiurge of Aristotle), or in the source (Plato's Good), or, for Stoics, in the universe itself.we would see that on a large scale it is worth it. In stating that the universe is perfect, stoicism leads the patterns that we see in nature: trees have roots to drink water; woodpeckers that eat beetles have beaks of the desired shape; forest animals have a forest disguise; desert animals have a desert camouflage - everything converges into one huge, practical whole, which (in the absence of Darwin, who would offer an alternative), the Greeks agreed to consider reason - either in the creator (Demiurge of Aristotle), or in the source (Plato's Good), or, for Stoics, in the universe itself.forest animals have a forest disguise; desert animals have a desert camouflage - everything converges into one huge, practical whole, which (in the absence of Darwin, who would offer an alternative), the Greeks agreed to consider reason - either in the creator (Demiurge of Aristotle), or in the source (Plato's Good), or, for Stoics, in the universe itself.forest animals have a forest disguise; desert animals have a desert camouflage - everything converges into one huge, practical whole, which (in the absence of Darwin, who would offer an alternative), the Greeks agreed to consider reason - either in the creator (Demiurge of Aristotle), or in the source (Plato's Good), or, for Stoics, in the universe itself.

The Stoics also claimed (and after them some Christian thinkers) that self-determination did not exist. In the end, all of us, in spite of everything, will go where the Plan will lead us, and the only thing we have power over is our own internalreactions to the path given to us by fate: do we curse, complain, fight, shake our fists at heaven, or do we rise, accept, relax and look with happy reverence at the vastness of which we are a part? The classic stoic image (and after that I will move on to ethics and technical hangouts) is that a person looks like a dog tied to a cart. The cart goes somewhere and the dog can do absolutely nothing to change the route along which the cart goes. A dog has free will only in one thing: it can fight, growl, pull a collar, nibble a rope, bury its claws in the ground until it starts to bleed, and wash itself out with a fight, or it can quite go and trust the driver.

Ethics of action


Most of the surviving stoic works are devoted not to metaphysics, but to a practical conclusion: considering all this, how to learn to accept? How to become a contented dog that trusts Providence enough to follow where our paths lead, without experiencing unhappiness from anxiety, fear and resistance? The Stoics therefore teach self-control and detachment: you cannot prevent terrible things, but you can control your own internal reaction to them and work to protect yourself from being suppressed by them. Waking up in the morning, you are faced with terrible news; Does it bother you all day and you lose productivity and balance, or do you take control of yourself and move on?

Many of the surviving Stoic writings are aphorisms, short passages for reflection, designed to help you be less burdened by bad things; they are sometimes more figurative than reasoned. Imagine - for example - that life is like being a guest at a banquet. Around the dishes are passed and people are drawn to them and take what they are offered. Some dishes reach you, and you take them; other dishes never reach you, or reach already empty. But you are a guest, all of these were not yours, it was offered as gifts, so you have no reason to be angry, that you can only taste some of the dishes - it’s better to enjoy the dishes that reach you and remember that the host who offered them is kind .

Here, stoicism is very similar to a book of self-help, or more generally to philosophical therapy, which classical philosophies have largely sought to give. The recommendations of stoicism on how to resist pain are elegant, as in this example from Reflections. And metaphysics manifests itself mainly as a way to justify advice:
Xxv. How small is that part of the vast and infinite eternity that is given to each of us, and how quickly it returns to the general eternity of the world; from common matter, and from a common soul too - what a small part is given to us; and on what small patch of whole land (roughly speaking) should you crawl. Having properly thought over these things to yourself, do not imagine that anything else in the world is any significant and important, except to do only what your own nature requires and adapt to what the general nature gives.

Ontology helps therapy here. Did you lose the election? Have you been promoted? Got a bad review? These things are small and fleeting within a larger whole; all wealth will disappear in infinity, all fame will fade, nothing substantial has actually been lost. Did you lose your arm due to illness? So she was not originally yours, she was lent to you by a good universe, which has the right to take her back. Have you lost your best friend? Again, this was a short blessing that the universe lent to you; do not get hung up on it, but rather look at the other goods that still surround you. The benefits are real, the disasters are illusory, and if you can believe it, then - the Stoics promise - it becomes easier to let go. This approach sometimes works. Scientific studies say that pain is emotionally stronger when we know / believe that it really hurts us, i.e.triggering the same number of nerves is more frustrating when we think it will permanently injure a part of the body than when we know that it is hot wax or electric shock, and the effects will not last long. So if you can really convince yourself that nothing really important was destroyed when something affects your fame or fortune, then it hurts less. And millions of people for millennia have found comfort in stoicism in the troubled sea of ​​life.then it hurts less. And millions of people for millennia have found comfort in stoicism in the troubled sea of ​​life.then it hurts less. And millions of people for millennia have found comfort in stoicism in the troubled sea of ​​life.

Ethics for the rich and powerful


Here I want to remind the reader that I personally love Stoicism. He is beautiful. He's great. Returning to him, I find that he always makes me think about my ideas, encourages me to adhere to high standards, and gives me new ideas for thought. His main texts - Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca - this is what I like to teach, I like to re-read, I like to review again and again. I will continue to extol, teach, write, read and use the stoic approach all the days of my life.
But…

The current popularity of Stoicism in the technological community, as well as on Wall Street - another place where Stoics have been read recently and something is named after them - is strikingly similar to the popularity of Stoicism among the powerful elite of Ancient Rome. In Hellenistic Greece, Stoicism was one of several popular philosophical schools, along with Platonism, skepticism, Pythagoreanism, cynicism, Aristotelianism, hedonism, etc. And like all these ancient schools, Stoicism was aimed at eudaimonium, that is, for happiness or a prosperous life, for the conviction that the goal of philosophical knowledge was not so much to comprehend everything, or to achieve power through knowledge, but to achieve personal happiness - usually due to inner peace and fencing of the soul from shells and arrows of unbridled fate (for more details see my essay on eudaimony ). Stoicism was one of a number of methods aimed at this, therefore, like all ancient schools, it combined in one function a self-help book and an elementary textbook on natural science.

But in Rome, the popularity of stoicism compared with all other systems rapidly jumped up, because it was the only Greek ethic that was well suited to wealthy and influential people. Other schools, such as Platonism, cynicism, and Epicurianism, warned followers that involvement in politics and the pursuit of wealth, power, or reverence only lead to stress and danger, and are incompatible with happiness. Epicurus said that a happy life can be achieved by leaving the political urban world, so that, sitting in a secluded garden, eat simple food and chat with good friends. Cynicism advocated a more radical approach - to renounce personal property and live like a stray dog ​​scrambling along a road that is not afraid to be robbed or lose status because it has nothing to lose.The Pythagoreans and many other sects lived in isolated communities that did not differ from monastic orders, and adhered to strict diets, ascetic clothing standards, even vows of silence. Plato also noted that the philosophical rulers of the republic are unhappy due to the stress caused by the need to rule, and some ancient figures even referred to the stress of government to explain that the gods cannot listen to human prayers and answer them, otherwise the gods will be forever persecuted and unhappy .that the gods cannot listen to human prayers and answer them, otherwise the gods will be forever persecuted and unhappy.that the gods cannot listen to human prayers and answer them, otherwise the gods will be forever persecuted and unhappy.

Stoicism, on the other hand, emphasized the idea that everyone is part of a great ideal whole and therefore everyone is obliged to fulfill the role determined by fate. In nature’s arrangement, the woodpecker must peck, the deer must graze, the bee must pollinate, and the wolf must hunt and kill. We, as humans, are also obligated to fulfill our roles, be they servants, merchants, slaves or rulers. Some Stoic authors themselves were slaves, such as Epictetus, the author of the excellent stoic directory Enkhiridion, and many Stoic works devoted to methods of strengthening the inner self from such evils as physical pain, illness, loss of friends, dishonor, and exile. But other Stoic philosophers were great state leaders, including prominent statesmen like Cicero and Seneca, as well as Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

Stoicism took root among the Roman elite, because it was the only kind of philosophical education that did not call them to renounce wealth or power. Politics is stressful, but instead of abandoning it in order to live like a monk or a dog, stoicism says that you should continue to work hard to achieve an internal way in which you will not suffer when you fail, when you lose the election, you come across criticism, encounter obstacles, experience the blows of fate. Stoicism alone recommended internal detachment instead of withdrawal. For Roman patrician personalities with long family traditions of political leadership, avoiding civic activism was initially impossible (especially considering the fact that worshiping ancestors in Rome impliedthat achieving recognition in politics was also a religious duty on which your whole afterlife depended!). Stoicism finally gave a philosophical ethic convenient to a statesman; that’s why Cicero - a skeptic who was carried away by many philosophical trends - speaks to him more often in his dialogues than to any other movement (this may not seem like much recognition, but it’s highvery high bar for Cicero . And Cicero is a very serious figure ).

So, answering the questions that Nellie asked me for her article, when I see the addiction to Stoicism among the current rising rich, I see both the good and the bad side. The good side is that stoicism, having much in common with Buddhism, says that the only true values ​​are internal values: dignity, self-control, courage, mercy - and that everything that exists is part of one good, divine and sacred whole - a position, which can counter selfishness and intolerance, maintaining self-discipline and reminding us to love and value every stranger just as we love our families and ourselves. But on the negative side, the provocative statement of Stoicism that everything in the universe is already impeccable and that what seems bad or unfair in the depths is good (statement,which Christianity borrowed from stoicism) can be used to justify the idea that the rich and influentialdestined to be rich and influential, that the poor and oppressed are destined to be poor and oppressed, and that even the worst deeds are actually good in an incomprehensible and enduring sense. Such statements can be used to justify complacency, social callousness, and even exploitative or destructive behavior.

Having accepted it in the best sense, a wealthy man, inspired by stoicism, is looking for a philosophy that helps the mind to withstand greed and the capitalist rat race and gives a wiser attitude and inner happiness; in the worst sense, it can serve as a means to justify the preservation of one’s wealth and power, and not to try to help others. In that sense, he reminds mewealth therapists who help super-rich people get rid of guilt for spending $ 2,000 on bedding or millions on a mega-yacht. Wealth is accompanied by real emotional experiences, but as society more and more calls for radical transformations in order to narrow the wealth gap and reduce the influence that 1% has, building a relationship in support of the status quo can also help deflect pressure. aimed at eliminating the misfortunes of society.

Seneca, the author whom I love infinitely, wrote amazing aphorisms about selflessness and virtue, which served as the basis of moral and political education for two millennia. His arguments are so strong that Petrarch, comparing the merits of the ancient Romans and ancient Greeks in different areas (Homer and Virgil in poetry, Demosthenes and Cicero in rhetoric, Thucydides and Livy in history, etc.), concluded that Seneca alone provides complete the superiority of the Latins over the Greeks in matters of ethics. Seneca also risked his life in trying to curb the tyranny of Nero, and eventually died for it. But with all Seneca’s weighty advice about the global picture and the meaninglessness of wealth, he was also a slave owner, who, having learned that his male slaves sexually tortured his female slaves, set up a brothel on his estate,to charge male slaves for the right to torture his female slaves is not exactly the behavior we present when Seneca says that money is meaningless and that all living beings are sacred. But stoicism encourages us to direct our critical gaze inward and improve ourselves, rather than turning it outward and improving our world. He gave Seneca courage and determination every day to overcome the threat of Nero's deadly whims in order to fulfill his duty to the Roman political elite, but he did not make him doubt his world order.He gave Seneca courage and determination every day to overcome the threat of Nero's deadly whims in order to fulfill his duty to the Roman political elite, but he did not make him doubt his world order.He gave Seneca courage and determination every day to overcome the threat of Nero's deadly whims in order to fulfill his duty to the Roman political elite, but he did not make him doubt his world order.

Stoicism is an intellectually rich and developing system, as well as an excellent therapy for sadness, focusing on failures, drowning in the race for fame and fortune, and dazzling rat race. He reminds us that we need to move away from the world of praise, condemnation, status, cruelties expressed by people on Twitter, and from the rivalry in who sold the most, or got the most views, or received the greatest gain - from everything that can be - truly emotionally destructive if we allow ourselves to get carried away too much. In all these senses, stoicism is a wonderful find for Silicon Valley, for Wall Street, as well as for my academic world and my work, and for the stresses and injustices associated with them. It is also a great find for congressmen, authors, journalists, actors, entrepreneurs - everyone,whose life contains stresses and failures, as well as moments when we need help to take a deep breath and let go. But Cicero was not Voltaire, and did not look at the evil and injustice surrounding him and did not conclude that he should use his strength to create a fundamentally better world - he limited himself only to survival in the world as it already is and to fulfillment in it their duties. Stoicism precedesconcepts of progress made by mankind for more than a millennium. He does not teach us how to change the deplorable sides of the world; he teaches us how to adapt to them and accept them, implying that in principle they cannot be fixed. But we have two millennia more experience than Seneca. We know that many of the evils of life cannot be solved, but we also know that with the help of human teamwork, the scientific method and a serving of Bacon and Voltaire, some of them can be solved.

That is why when I hear that rich, influential people are addicted to stoicism, I think it's great that people are inspired by the idea that we should consider our whole lives sacred and look for meanings beyond wealth and worldly power. I think this is a great philosophy for anyone, and of course, for those who need help to get out of a highly stressful, highly competitive world, to think about a big picture of humanity and humanity, and to pay more attention to caring for themselves and love for others . But it also makes me somewhat wary. Because I think it’s important to add a little Voltaire to our Seneca and remember that the invaluable message of Stoicism is to better take care of yourself inside, maybe - if we do not mix it with other ideas - leave us a big blind spot regarding the outside world and whether we should change it. An activist can be a Stoic - activism definitely needs some way to overcome the pain when we put our soul and time into trying to help someone, or adopt a new law, or confront something and fail. At such moments, stoicism is an invaluable remedy for despair and burnout, but in itself it does not initially give us an impetus for activism and resistance. We need to take it somewhere else.

More articles:


All Articles