A new Stoicism

LISTEN. We conclude our short intro to Stoicism today in Happiness. For the Stoics, humans are endowed by nature with "innate inclinations which we are programmed to follow and which we must follow and perfect if we are ever to be fully successful versions of ourselves (that is, to achieve our goal, happiness)."

In what sense should we construe our "program"? Is it a solecism, or even an anachronism, to think of it by way of analogy to computing? If so, may or can we defy the program? Is it deviancy, perversity, or creativity to want to defy those innate inclinations? Is it freedom? Is happiness our proper primary goal? And is it ours? Are we in fact programmed for virtue, social solidarity, rationality, and truth, with respect to all of which these truly are times that try our souls... or, if you will, that challenge the integrity of our program.

The Stoics thought of the world and (therefore) ourselves as rationally ordered and infused with divine purpose. Let's grant the order of nature, but admit the central concern of our times: we humans have too frequently been monkey wrenches in the Nature machine, a source of unreason and deranged disorder. "Great and unmatched wisdom" is on occasional but rare display. More frequent is arrogance, hubris, and megalomaniacal insanity. Real wisdom eludes us, some more than others.

And yet... the Stoic call to hone our reason, harmonize with Nature, "proceed on to something higher than just opinion" and thus attain our personal and species perfection, our arete, is seductive. The promise of an equanimity in the face of natural necessity (as we noted in connection with Spinoza's pantheistic version of stoic fatalism), that we need "never be upset," is powerful.

But, the old concern with this philosophy: is it sternly suppresive of the best and most humane part of us, our capacity to care and feel and  love? Does it threaten to turn us cold, distant,  and indifferent? Is it a Vulcan philosophy, but not so appealing as IDIC? Would it make us Spocks? Or would it simply mask an underlying but undemonstrative "constant joy and tranquility," the ethos of "completely rational people"?

And so, the penultimate chapter is devoted to Stoic logic. "Illogical, Captain"-if he said it once he said it a thousand times. "Defensive wall," indeed. He meant irrational, but even at age ten we knew what he meant. "The ability to give or withhold assent" based on reason and evidence, not arbitrary preference or whim, is what makes rational animals potentially logical. Exclusive devotion to logic, though, can seem to deny our humanity. All of us, like Spock, are at least half human. (But some humans ain't human, says John Prine.) We must cultivate our emotional intelligence too. As young Josiah Royce learned, "emotion cannot be deleted from life, even the coldest opinions are motivated by feelings... the life of reason is partly emotional."

Is now the time for a new Stoicism? (Do some of us want to read and report on Lawrence Becker's book, class? g'r) A "grand, integrative vision of a good human life" that honored the entirety of our thinking-and-feeling natures would be welcome. If "following nature means following the facts," the time is overripe. Might just be our salvation. Live long and prosper.