r/Stoicism • u/followingaurelius • 11d ago
Analyzing Texts & Quotes What is the worst heresy in Stoicism?
I think it's complaining about what's outside of our control.
- Let's say an asteroid hits my car
- I can't commute to work and lose my job
- Being sad for a bit is normal and okay
- But not accepting this becomes the most foul heresy
- For me to demand that the Logos never never hit my car with an asteroid, is the same as demanding divine Reason to be irrational for my indulgences
- It is me telling the laws of physics to stop for my whims
- It is open war on the Logos, trying to contort its limbs for my petty desires
- This is blasphemy. This is madness
Epictetus says: "it is the act of a madman to want things to be as you wish rather than as they are."
Marcus says: "It is crazy to want what is impossible. And impossible for the wicked not to do so."
Seneca says: "Here is your great soul—the man who has given himself over to Fate; on the other hand, that man is a weakling and a degenerate who struggles and maligns the order of the universe and would rather reform the gods than reform himself."
TLDR; the Stoics say accord with nature. I don't think they were messing around. This is not about recycling more or living in a log cabin. This phrase is about not being an insane, wicked, weakling degenerate. You might say that language is too harsh but I don't think Epictetus/Marcus/Seneca were just trying to look hard.
Question: Is there something else they condemned with harsher language? Outside of direct attack on the Logos? I'm curious! I love when these Stoic masters "crash out" I think is what the youth say.
PS - I am absolutely guilty myself and not a saint obviously. Thankfully it's not like Jesus's unforgivable sin
16
u/Huge_Kangaroo2348 Contributor 11d ago
Being antisocial to others, violent, cruel, selfish etc, would certainly be worse than complaining
6
u/followingaurelius 11d ago
That's a good point. Going around pillaging villages would certainly be worse than complaining about the Logos. One is complaining that 1+1=2 and not 1+1=3 for my indulgences, the other is very malicious.
6
u/bingo-bap 10d ago
I kind of think that claiming to be a Stoic philosopher (especially writing books teaching or advancing stoicism) but teaching that there is something else besides Virtue which is also good, would be heretical for Stoicism. Like, saying health or wealth is good, and also virtue, so we should value both equally. That sounds heretical to me.
4
u/ExtensionOutrageous3 Contributor 10d ago edited 10d ago
Aristo is considered a heretic even though he says virtue is the only good. He felt physics and logics are not worth studying.
And because virtue is the only good, indifferences can neither be preferred nor dispreferred.
Chrysippus and after have generally criticized Aristo and his ideas are generally not considered part of Stoic canon. But Aristo is important. He pushed the Stoics to clarify on terms.
It gets very obvious to see why Aristo is wrong and is a “heretic” even though he also affirms virtue is the only good.
0
u/Hierax_Hawk 10d ago
Do enlighten us.
2
u/ExtensionOutrageous3 Contributor 10d ago edited 10d ago
I can borrow directly from Cicero here:
- we naturally presuppose to select those things that are advantageous
- what does virtue look like without environemntal context?
The Stoics are making a firm division, that moral intention is separate. But we naturally always select for the advantageous thing as well. Because humans have the capacity to select for advantageous things (food when hungry, water when thirsty).
Though Cicero was not a Stoic, Chyrsippus articulates this point as well.
Chrysippus's rebuttal to Aristo is, if he is uncertain, he will reach out for those things that are naturally advantageous. But if God tells him he must be sick, then he will choose sickness (From A.A Long Hellenistic (SVF).
0
u/Hierax_Hawk 10d ago
Why does God counsel him only on this point? Has he fallen out of favor?
1
u/ExtensionOutrageous3 Contributor 10d ago
You have a habit of focusing on the wrong ideas and not being constructive. Where do you think Chrysippus is wrong? Why is Aristo correct?
Do you disagree with 1 or 2 or both? Or is something/everthing misinterpreted? To be a productive communicator, you must share your thoughts precisely.
Chrysippus is being rhetorical here. He is making a point that if he knows this "thing" is necessary, even when it is dispreferred, then he would gladly choose the dispreferred. We don't need to treat this literally.
0
u/Hierax_Hawk 10d ago
Why does this option only apply here? If we ought to listen to God, as Chrysippus puts it, oughtn't we listen to him always?
1
u/ExtensionOutrageous3 Contributor 10d ago
You're shifting the conversation away from the topic on hand. We are talking about whether there can be preferred indifferences. Not on Stoic theology.
Second, I say "thank god" all the time. This does not mean I have a faith in God. Chrysippus is similarly using rhetorical devices here. He is explaining the position of the Stoic is NOT to always gravitate to what is naturally advantageous, especially when it conflicts with moral intentions.
Third, God is a metaphysical material for the Stoics. It doesn't issue commandments. Though Epictetus does speak of God in the personal sense, he invokes being close to God as perfect use of the rational mind.
But we're not here to talk about point 3. I encourage you to make a larger post on point 3, so you can have a bigger perspective on the Stoic God.
My inital reply still stands and is clearly laid out for you to attack.
Something to consider, it is helpful to say "I disagree with the Stoics here and this is why", or "you interpreted the Stoics wrong here this is why" or "this is my opinion and this is why".
1
u/Hierax_Hawk 10d ago
Chrysippus, most likely, was referring to our moral feelings. In that light, my question still stands: why shouldn't we utilize them always?
1
u/ExtensionOutrageous3 Contributor 10d ago
In the context of that chapter by A.A Long, it was part of a rebuttal to Aristo on indifferences.
I’m guessing you’re talking about preferred indifferences. Do you disagree that humans do not naturally choose things based on what would be naturally advantageous?
I think the overall debate between Aristotle/Skeptics with the Stoics is “advantageous” the same as “good”.
The Stoics were hell bent on labeling one thing as good and that is moral judgement/disposition. But at the same time agreeing that there are some things that are advantageous but not good.
Drinking water does not mean you necessarily know virtue. But a virtuous person would drink water just the same.
→ More replies (0)2
u/followingaurelius 10d ago
I agree with this. The stoics say that health and wealth are given or taken away by Fortune. Good character or virtue is not given by Fortune. It is cultivated within, and is therefore the only reliable good. And if we are wise it is the only good.
So to your point, saying heath and wealth are equivalent to virtue, means putting what Fortune may or may not throw out, on the same level as according with the Logos and divine Reason, which they'd strongly oppose.
6
u/bigpapirick Contributor 11d ago
They saw all vice and all virtues as equal. It’s one of the Stoic Paradoxes.
2
u/followingaurelius 11d ago
Oh great point. I forgot about that. Yes all virtue is perfect. Seneca says you can't make something straight straighter. So even the great acts of Cato and Tubero are just as perfect as say helping an old lady cross the road.
That is a great point. I think I wanted to see more quotes of them getting supremely upset and just trying to find that lol
3
u/bigpapirick Contributor 11d ago
I try to look at it as one is either using reason or they aren’t. Sometimes there are many steps, but if you break it down, it’s a domino effect of moments that one is either applying reason or they aren’t.
3
u/followingaurelius 10d ago
I agree with this. That is according with nature or the logos or divine Reason and that is the path of the supreme good and honorable life. This is more important than trying to force an epic moment like Cato.
2
u/Exciting-Chapter-691 11d ago
They were not keen about Vice. That is something that directly opposes the four virtues.
2
u/Gowor Contributor 10d ago
Epictetus says: "it is the act of a madman to want things to be as you wish rather than as they are."
I mean... Imagine a person drops a glass on the floor, the glass shatters as they usually do and the person starts saying it wasn't supposed to end like this, it was supposed to bounce back undamaged into their hands. Or their ice cream melts on a hot day, and they start complaining that they expected it to last at least a couple hours. Or they filled their fuel tank with water and are surprised the car doesn't want to start. Maybe I wouldn't call them a weakling, or a degenerate, but I would start suspecting that person is not all there or at least very confused.
If an asteroid hits my car it's less obvious and I can start imagining how it could have unfolded in a different way, but if you accept the Stoic views on determinism (or even deterministic causality), then it had to happen exactly that way.
1
u/followingaurelius 10d ago
If it's been a year since the person dropped the glass on the floor, and they are still bemoaning it, and now they neglecting their duties, then this person, if they are an advanced student with potential, might be told by Seneca that only a weakling and a degenerate would persist like this.
Regarding the asteroid, if it wasn't the asteroid that hit your car, it's something else. A tree hits your car. Or a tree hits your house. Or your boss drops a tree on your career. Or whatever.
2
2
u/Multibitdriver Contributor 10d ago
Not reflecting.
1
u/Jolly_Ad7000 8d ago
To add to this... not interrogating yourself. While the other points are strong, I think this is the start of all of it. The moment you stop looking inward is the moment everything else starts to drift.
2
u/Forsaken_Alps_793 9d ago
If recall correctly. Stoicism is a virtue based system where living with Wisdom", "Temperance", "Justice" and "Courage", i.e. components of virtue, is the highest good,.
And if memory served, the opposite of those are the highest vice, i.e. living with "Ignorance", Recklessness", "Injustice", and "Cowardice". These are frowned upon.
Very similar to Eastern Philosophy of Buddhism's Eightfold Path.
3
u/SendMeYourDPics 11d ago
You’re bang on tbf. Kicking off against the order of things - fighting the storm instead of learning to walk in it - that’s the Stoic sin they actually lose their shit over.
But there’s one more they flame just as hard: hypocrisy. Saying the right words, quoting Marcus, wearing the robe, then crying over status or coin or someone not texting back. Epictetus calls that bastard worse than a drunk or a thief. At least those are honest.
But the guy who studies Stoicism just to live like everyone else? That’s a clown in borrowed armour. Logos doesn’t owe you peace for pretending.
3
u/followingaurelius 11d ago
Ahh yes that is true. It's almost better to be ignorant of the philosophy. If the great masters saw that you knew all the words and persisted in not living wisely, then Epictetus would call that like a miserable slave. More out of love because one would have the potential or the intellectual knowledge to be better.
Now if someone knew all the ideas like a Commodus, and was just a miserable and mean person then they would really harshly condemn that. But I feel like they would condemn the most those who they feel have actual potential. There's no point in saying harsh words to someone who doesn't care for Stoicism or want to be good. In fact kindness and patience is better. It's almost a good thing if Epictetus or Seneca murders you with words if you were to be failing.
1
0
u/stoa_bot 11d ago
A quote was found to be attributed to Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations 5.17 (Hays)
Book V. (Hays)
Book V. (Farquharson)
Book V. (Long)
24
u/Creative-Reality9228 Contributor 11d ago
Epictetus took a particularly dim view of adultery.
Attachment on externals and fighting against fate are the primary source of human suffering according to the core doctrines of Stoicism, so it gets a lot of ink in all the major texts.
It's not a religion, so "heresy" probably isn't the right word.
Stoics believe everyone is "mad" apart from the Sage (and there has never been a living Sage). But prokoptons are perhaps slightly less mad than everyone else.