I'm going to be the unbiased Stoic commenter for you. The other Stoics are going to come in and tell you you are totally wrong. Here is the truth. Stoicism can lead to passivity and one who follows or lives in a culture fraught with Stoic teachings is at a far greater risk of that passivity than the average person, however Stoicism doesn't explicitly state or even imply that passivity is a worthy reaction to injustice or needless suffering. The Stoic principle of futility goes like this: "Agents should not make direct attempts to do (or be) something that is logically, theoretically, or practically impossible." This seems to prescribe futility, especially when it comes to things that seem impossible, however, the principle permits agents to attempt to make things possible that aren't. For example, you may not be able to build a brick house on your own, so there is no utility in trying, but there is utility in attempting to get others to teach or help you to complete such a project.
So in short, Stoicism says not to do the impossible, and while this can lead to passivity, a strict interpretation does not suffer from such weaknesses.
There's a rather pervasive assumption in people, especially political activists, that people's sole motivation to do anything is emotional. If they see injustice, but aren't enraged, they won't do anything about it. Therefore, Stoicism leads to passivity. Fair enough for the syllogism, but the premises are incomplete. Stoicism encourages people to become motivated by their reason rather than their passion. I think this is often missed by most surface reading commentators. And since injustice can be rationally examined it can indeed form a motivation to action against it. If anything it is a better source of motivation since passions can often deceive us and tell us something that isn't unjust is, which would be a second offense.
Good catch! It's entirely my fault for being a bit too trusting of some online resources without first verifying them against the literature, haha.
The quote you may be referring to is ‘Everything We Hear Is An Opinion, Not A Fact,’ which is indeed apocryphal--it seemed to me while writing this to be a perfect encapsulation of how Stoicism has been quipped and quoted into chunks which distort its message and can be used to justify some less than desirable ways of thinking. I think it may be a corruption of this part of Meditations 4.3:
"But among the things readiest to thy hand to which thou shalt turn, let there be these, which are two. One is that things do not touch the soul, for they are external and remain immovable; but our perturbations come only from the opinion which is within. The other is that all these things, which thou seest, change immediately and will no longer be; and constantly bear in mind how many of these changes thou hast already witnessed. The universe is transformation; life is opinion."
The original author may have created the misquote by combining "things do not touch the soul, for they are external and remain immovable; but our perturbations come only from the opinion which is within" with "life is opinion," but this, to say the least, does a great disservice to the passage as a whole and is very one sided.
I can see how someone could play fast and loose with the translation into english to create this 'quote,' but obviously it doesn't capture all of the subtleties in what Aurelius intended to convey in this passage; one reading could point out that his argument here differs from the misquote in some respect since he appears to be remarking on the constancy of change in the universe, and the tendency of mortal beings to try and comprehend it in terms of finite and static elements, not that there is no distinction between fact or opinion.
I appreciate you calling me out on this! This quote appears on several online sites and kept cropping up in searches while I was writing this article, and seemed to encapsulate perfectly what is wrong with the way Stoicism is presented in online spaces today; if anything, the fact that it was seemingly formed by an either criminally negligent translation or fabricated out of thin air goes to show just how far from an honest and well-founded engagement with Stoicism can be when it's reduced to a collection of mantras.
I think there is still a case to be made that this quote is useful to gauge a problem with how Stoicism is presented in its popular form. For example, if someone was seeking to get the gist of the Meditations and searched up quotes from it, they would find this misquote as the fourth most liked quote (allegedly) by Marcus Aurelius on goodreads.com. I can see that it's also utilized by some youtube videos, self-help sites, other quotation pages, and is even the title of a book on Amazon attributing it to Marcus Aurelius!
Once again, thank you for bringing this to my attention-- it's important to be cognizant of how the pitfalls I criticized other people of missing are ones I can also miss!
I want to believe that this was written by someone who never got deep into the Stoic philosophy, because is full of flaws and things that objectively isn't true. The worst take of this I think is that for the author the Stoics are like passive individuals with no will at all to make changes by themselves, which is a big lie.
I'm not a native English speaker, so bear with me. My comment is not an ad hominem fallacy; I just wrote that I would like to believe that this article was written by someone who has not deeply studied the Stoics, because once you delve even a little into this philosophy, you might realize the amount of false information the article presents to prove its points.
First of all, it's important to clarify that the quotes attributed to Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Zenon are false; they never said any of that. Secondly, Seneca was never a slave. He was a high-class noble, a banker, philosopher, and advisor to the Roman emperor. The Stoic who was a slave was Epictetus.
Speaking more about Stoic philosophy itself; in your article, you mention that Stoics practice indifference to the external, and yes, it's true that they do, but not in the way you've interpreted. They are not passive beings who get trampled by the world while practicing this indifference. One of the fundamental pillars of Stoicism is that you should not focus on what you cannot control (the external), you should focus on what you can control (your judgments, your reactions, and your actions—or better said, your prohairesis). Epictetus says in his manual this, basically what really belongs to oneself is one's own prohairesis, which can easily be understood as the process of examining, reasoning, and choosing.
In simple words, for you to easily understand, an event occurs: for example, you are insulted and spit on your face. This event is not inherently good or bad; that is something one attributes to it with a judgment.
Faced with this event, the examination process begins: the Stoic receives the insult and the spit. Notes the sensory events and initial reactions of his body (for example, muscle tension, accelerated pulse). Recognizes any automatic judgment that may arise, such as the tendency to feel offended or angry.
Then comes the reasoning stage: The Stoic remembers that insults and spitting are external events and therefore, have no intrinsic power over his character or happiness. As Epictetus teaches, "It is not the things themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of them." (by the way, a phrase really attributable to Epictetus). Then, the Stoic analyzes the situation distinguishing between what is under his control (his own reactions, thoughts, and actions) and what is not under his control (the actions and words of the other person).
At this point, the Stoic considers the opportunity to exercise his capacity to choose how to react without being dominated by instinctive emotions, that is, to react based on reason and virtue: justice, courage, moderation, and wisdom. He weighs what action would be consistent with virtue. Here, wisdom involves understanding that one's own dignity and worth do not depend on the opinions of others; justice suggests not returning evil for evil; courage demands maintaining composure and moderation invites not reacting impulsively. Finally comes the action choice process: Decides to respond in a way that demonstrates rational indifference, an attitude that recognizes the irrelevance of the insult to his internal state. This could be a calm and unemotional response, or even silence. Chooses to act with compassion towards the aggressor, understanding that their behavior may be motivated by ignorance or suffering. May consider saying something like: "I'm sorry you feel that way," without sarcasm or resentment. Focuses his mind on maintaining serenity and not allowing external disturbance to penetrate his inner calm. Remembers that true strength lies in self-mastery and imperturbability. The wise Stoic will try to talk the situation through with his aggressor to resolve any possible conflict peacefully and if the aggressor becomes more violent, he will withdraw peacefully.
This has absolutely nothing to do with being a passive individual who lets himself be trampled. It demonstrates greatness as a person by not falling to the same level as the aggressor by reacting instinctively and a beautiful power to control emotions and instinctive reactions, maintaining serenity in the face of adversity, with the best possible disposition, love and understanding for all human beings and remaining firm to his morals.
Is it more clear for you now, Isaac? I hope you learned something today.
see now this is not ad hominem. i will let the author respond if he chooses so, though if you see his comment reply above it addresses at least some of what you say.
I'm going to be the unbiased Stoic commenter for you. The other Stoics are going to come in and tell you you are totally wrong. Here is the truth. Stoicism can lead to passivity and one who follows or lives in a culture fraught with Stoic teachings is at a far greater risk of that passivity than the average person, however Stoicism doesn't explicitly state or even imply that passivity is a worthy reaction to injustice or needless suffering. The Stoic principle of futility goes like this: "Agents should not make direct attempts to do (or be) something that is logically, theoretically, or practically impossible." This seems to prescribe futility, especially when it comes to things that seem impossible, however, the principle permits agents to attempt to make things possible that aren't. For example, you may not be able to build a brick house on your own, so there is no utility in trying, but there is utility in attempting to get others to teach or help you to complete such a project.
So in short, Stoicism says not to do the impossible, and while this can lead to passivity, a strict interpretation does not suffer from such weaknesses.
There's a rather pervasive assumption in people, especially political activists, that people's sole motivation to do anything is emotional. If they see injustice, but aren't enraged, they won't do anything about it. Therefore, Stoicism leads to passivity. Fair enough for the syllogism, but the premises are incomplete. Stoicism encourages people to become motivated by their reason rather than their passion. I think this is often missed by most surface reading commentators. And since injustice can be rationally examined it can indeed form a motivation to action against it. If anything it is a better source of motivation since passions can often deceive us and tell us something that isn't unjust is, which would be a second offense.
Using fake quotes from Aurelius is not a good look for the validity of the paper...
Good catch! It's entirely my fault for being a bit too trusting of some online resources without first verifying them against the literature, haha.
The quote you may be referring to is ‘Everything We Hear Is An Opinion, Not A Fact,’ which is indeed apocryphal--it seemed to me while writing this to be a perfect encapsulation of how Stoicism has been quipped and quoted into chunks which distort its message and can be used to justify some less than desirable ways of thinking. I think it may be a corruption of this part of Meditations 4.3:
"But among the things readiest to thy hand to which thou shalt turn, let there be these, which are two. One is that things do not touch the soul, for they are external and remain immovable; but our perturbations come only from the opinion which is within. The other is that all these things, which thou seest, change immediately and will no longer be; and constantly bear in mind how many of these changes thou hast already witnessed. The universe is transformation; life is opinion."
The original author may have created the misquote by combining "things do not touch the soul, for they are external and remain immovable; but our perturbations come only from the opinion which is within" with "life is opinion," but this, to say the least, does a great disservice to the passage as a whole and is very one sided.
I can see how someone could play fast and loose with the translation into english to create this 'quote,' but obviously it doesn't capture all of the subtleties in what Aurelius intended to convey in this passage; one reading could point out that his argument here differs from the misquote in some respect since he appears to be remarking on the constancy of change in the universe, and the tendency of mortal beings to try and comprehend it in terms of finite and static elements, not that there is no distinction between fact or opinion.
I appreciate you calling me out on this! This quote appears on several online sites and kept cropping up in searches while I was writing this article, and seemed to encapsulate perfectly what is wrong with the way Stoicism is presented in online spaces today; if anything, the fact that it was seemingly formed by an either criminally negligent translation or fabricated out of thin air goes to show just how far from an honest and well-founded engagement with Stoicism can be when it's reduced to a collection of mantras.
I think there is still a case to be made that this quote is useful to gauge a problem with how Stoicism is presented in its popular form. For example, if someone was seeking to get the gist of the Meditations and searched up quotes from it, they would find this misquote as the fourth most liked quote (allegedly) by Marcus Aurelius on goodreads.com. I can see that it's also utilized by some youtube videos, self-help sites, other quotation pages, and is even the title of a book on Amazon attributing it to Marcus Aurelius!
Once again, thank you for bringing this to my attention-- it's important to be cognizant of how the pitfalls I criticized other people of missing are ones I can also miss!
I want to believe that this was written by someone who never got deep into the Stoic philosophy, because is full of flaws and things that objectively isn't true. The worst take of this I think is that for the author the Stoics are like passive individuals with no will at all to make changes by themselves, which is a big lie.
ad hominem + a slurry of grammatical errors
I'm not a native English speaker, so bear with me. My comment is not an ad hominem fallacy; I just wrote that I would like to believe that this article was written by someone who has not deeply studied the Stoics, because once you delve even a little into this philosophy, you might realize the amount of false information the article presents to prove its points.
First of all, it's important to clarify that the quotes attributed to Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Zenon are false; they never said any of that. Secondly, Seneca was never a slave. He was a high-class noble, a banker, philosopher, and advisor to the Roman emperor. The Stoic who was a slave was Epictetus.
Speaking more about Stoic philosophy itself; in your article, you mention that Stoics practice indifference to the external, and yes, it's true that they do, but not in the way you've interpreted. They are not passive beings who get trampled by the world while practicing this indifference. One of the fundamental pillars of Stoicism is that you should not focus on what you cannot control (the external), you should focus on what you can control (your judgments, your reactions, and your actions—or better said, your prohairesis). Epictetus says in his manual this, basically what really belongs to oneself is one's own prohairesis, which can easily be understood as the process of examining, reasoning, and choosing.
In simple words, for you to easily understand, an event occurs: for example, you are insulted and spit on your face. This event is not inherently good or bad; that is something one attributes to it with a judgment.
Faced with this event, the examination process begins: the Stoic receives the insult and the spit. Notes the sensory events and initial reactions of his body (for example, muscle tension, accelerated pulse). Recognizes any automatic judgment that may arise, such as the tendency to feel offended or angry.
Then comes the reasoning stage: The Stoic remembers that insults and spitting are external events and therefore, have no intrinsic power over his character or happiness. As Epictetus teaches, "It is not the things themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of them." (by the way, a phrase really attributable to Epictetus). Then, the Stoic analyzes the situation distinguishing between what is under his control (his own reactions, thoughts, and actions) and what is not under his control (the actions and words of the other person).
At this point, the Stoic considers the opportunity to exercise his capacity to choose how to react without being dominated by instinctive emotions, that is, to react based on reason and virtue: justice, courage, moderation, and wisdom. He weighs what action would be consistent with virtue. Here, wisdom involves understanding that one's own dignity and worth do not depend on the opinions of others; justice suggests not returning evil for evil; courage demands maintaining composure and moderation invites not reacting impulsively. Finally comes the action choice process: Decides to respond in a way that demonstrates rational indifference, an attitude that recognizes the irrelevance of the insult to his internal state. This could be a calm and unemotional response, or even silence. Chooses to act with compassion towards the aggressor, understanding that their behavior may be motivated by ignorance or suffering. May consider saying something like: "I'm sorry you feel that way," without sarcasm or resentment. Focuses his mind on maintaining serenity and not allowing external disturbance to penetrate his inner calm. Remembers that true strength lies in self-mastery and imperturbability. The wise Stoic will try to talk the situation through with his aggressor to resolve any possible conflict peacefully and if the aggressor becomes more violent, he will withdraw peacefully.
This has absolutely nothing to do with being a passive individual who lets himself be trampled. It demonstrates greatness as a person by not falling to the same level as the aggressor by reacting instinctively and a beautiful power to control emotions and instinctive reactions, maintaining serenity in the face of adversity, with the best possible disposition, love and understanding for all human beings and remaining firm to his morals.
Is it more clear for you now, Isaac? I hope you learned something today.
see now this is not ad hominem. i will let the author respond if he chooses so, though if you see his comment reply above it addresses at least some of what you say.