Chapter One: A Brief Look Into Stoicism

Buddhists and Stoics have quite radically different approaches to living and how to live correctly. A significant part of Buddhist beliefs is rebirth and nirvana, which is the end of suffering and exiting of rebirth. Rebirth has six forms, humans, gods, titans, animals, hell, and ghosts, which are determined by karma although ultimately, exiting the cycle of rebirth requires transcending karma (Lecture [Oct 24], Slide #5-6).“Kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.” (BR1), explaining how in order to transcend karma you must eliminate the craving so karma is unable to grow. Buddhists live to eliminate suffering, a by-product of ignorance of dependent arising which causes craving, allowing you to enter nirvana which could be a total extinction of your person or existence in a realm without craving (Lecture [Oct 24], Slide #16).

We have noted how Epictetus admonishes us to concentrate all our efforts on our will, on the way we make choices and decisions. The goodness or quality of people is a matter of the good-ness or quality of their will. To be good the will has to be such that it accords with nature, that is to say, it has to be such as it is intended to be by nature or God. But by nature, we are told, the will is intended to be free. Epictetus claims that he wishes it to be his main concern, up to the very last moment of his life, that his will be free. What is it for the will to be free?

Stoics have been criticized for neglecting their virtue of justice in lieu of the other virtues. Their principles can make them less inclined to actively work toward a better world. This makes sense, seeing as how the Stoics explicitly attempt to develop an indifferent attitude to things that are external to themselves, for which they have no control. There are glimpses, within Stoicism, that express a more nuanced view. Something that is implicit in the teaching is an understanding that, while we may not have full control over things beyond ourself, we certainly do have some influence. Both the criticisms, and the view of one's potential for influencing the world are also seen within Buddhism.

Stoic ethical theory starts with the interpretation of what Zeno, the founder of the Stoics, describes as ‘living in agreement’ or ‘living in agreement with nature’ (Inwood). Later Stoics have changed this original meaning to various wording such as ‘selecting the greatest most important things in accordance with nature, not being able to overcome them’ (Barney). But to spell out the theory, they say people are naturally programmed by oikeiōsis which appears in Cicero’s On Ends as well as Diogenes Laertius’ account of Stoic ethics (Fin. 3.16, DL 7.85). This is the idea that the dearest thing to every animal, and human, is its own constitution and its consciousness (DL 7.85). In that way, we naturally do things for self-preservation or what we think will be good for us and avoid what we think will be bad for us. However, since human beings are not just animals and have rationality, they must also pursue things that preserve their rationality as well as goods taking care of the body. Many people become confused because they have heard about Stoics committing suicide, which seems on the surface to go against what they believe. Yet, Stoics in certain situations can commit suicide and not go against their philosophy because even though killing oneself may not contribute to self-preservation in the sense that they are a living animal, it could preserve the independent rational being that is more important to what humans

Zeno was a pre-socratic greek philosopher of Magna Graecia and member of the Eleatic School founded by Parmenides. Magna graecia, meaning “Great Greece”, is the name of the coastal areas of southern Italy on the Tarentine Gulf. The Eleatic School was a pre-socratic school (the period of the Ancient era of philosophy refers to Greek philosophers to being active before Socrates) of philosophy in the early fifth century B.C. in the ancient town of Elea.

among our actions themselves, in making up our lives, taken one by one … all the daily round of activities and interests that constitute the basis of our lives… fit together and produce… a maximally well-ordered and beautiful unity,” (Cooper PW 187). It is through this unity that we achieve aretē thus leading us to a good life. I also do agree with virtue being a good and vice being a bad, but I don’t agree with the Stoics Logic of considering all of life and death, heath and disease, pleasure and pain, beauty and ugliness, strength and weakness, wealth and poverty, good reputation and bad reputation, and noble birth and low birth to be indifferent. I think for someone to consider something indifferent is based on their on morals, and the value that these factors may hold in their lives. Since each human being constitutes an independent mind and mentality, different factors will hold different significance. With our individual ways of thinking and reasoning we may consider different actions to be rational. Ultimately, an individual will only attain a good life, in so far that they act in harmony with nature, in other words with

Stoicism rose during a time of chaos and uncertainty during the Hellenistic Age, and it filled the role of Christianity, until it came along at a much later time. Stoicism answered the desperate calls of help of the people. It offered the people “spiritual liberation” and a “sense of fatedness” during harsh times. Stoics believed the world they were living in, although it seemed chaotic, was in fact an ordered world; that it had structure and was governed by a Divine Reason, Law, or God. They believed everything and anything was structured, “from the smallest worm to the human intellect.” This gave way to a law called Phusis, which simply mean the law of growth of Nature. This law is what shaped all living things. It stated that each living thing had Divine Logos, or

Around the fourth century BCE, philosophy in Ancient Greece arose rapidly. This early form was speculative, so it was based entirely off the reasoning process without any factuality involved. While the Hellenistic Era approached, philosophy was taken to a whole new level. During Greece’s Golden Age, Socrates emerged expanding on these basic beliefs by using his inquisitive mind. Although Socrates’ ideology set the basis for western thought, his dedication to his beliefs brought him about as a polarizing figure in Athens.

The Romans often applied the philosophy of Stoicism to their way of life due to heavy influences by Greek traditions. The philosophy of the Stoic tradition comes from a Greek philosopher named Epicurus, who taught in Athens. He believed that those who believed that fear, practically fear of death, was responsible for all human misery, and that the gods played no part in human affairs. He argued, “All things are driven by the random movement of atoms swirling through space”.

The first clear reference to Marcus’s Meditations was made around 300 AD by Themistius in his speech to the eastern emperor Valens. He calls Marcus’s aphorisms ‘exhortations’. From then on, the Meditations has been translated hundreds of times from Ancient Greek. Marcus never titled his notes, they were just ‘jottings’ in his journal. There are multiple titles for them, but the one that has stuck the most is, of course, his Meditations.

There are three different areas that are a part of Stoic philosophy: logic, physics, and ethics. The Stoics believed that everything in the world was corporeal, or material, even the soul and God, because there were interactions between the soul and body, God and man, and this could not happen if some things were immaterial and others were not. Another philosopher, Heraclitus,

Both Stoicism and Epicureanism were concerned with the well-being of the individual, and in response to the new cosmopolitan age, they promoted universal values in which they recognized no distinctions between Greeks and the peoples hitherto known as “barbarians.” Moreover, Stoicism believed that misfortunes are merely incidents that will lead to the final perfection of the universe; therefore, they should acknowledge that whatever happens must be for the best. Yet, Epicureanism did not agree with the Stoicism perspective of life. Epicurus suggested

Presocratics opened a period of creative thinking to which succeeded a period of skeptical reflection. It is with the Sophists that this era of the critical reflection started. They were paid teachers in the ancient Greece who moved from city to city according to people demand. They developed some theories that were criticized, especially by Socrates (470 BC). One of their big differences concerns the essence of Truth. Whereas Socrates endeavored to find true and universal definitions of virtues such as justice; The sophists, on the contrary, maintained that "truth" is relative, believing that all opinions are valid, since they all reflect in their own way a complex and peculiar set of what is lived; for the sophists that the truth does

In the early days of the United States, Jefferson laments to his friend Thomas Paine “many of the high and important characters are in need of learning the lessons of republicanism.” Jefferson encourages Paine to “Go on then in doing with your pen what in other times was done with the sword” (Jefferson). Echoing the adage “The pen is mightier than the sword”, this proverb is the basis of Bernays’ philosophy. When Bernays revolutionized public relations, he did so by operating on the mind. His legacy is prevalent to this day, as displayed by the seemingly limitless amounts of advertisements seen daily. Since it is intellectually lazy to fall victim to propaganda, adopting a practical philosophy such as Stoicism can serve to resist those who wish to manipulate.

The stoic worldview that is presented in Epictetus’s Handbook is considered a divergence from Socrates’s conception of philosophy. According to Epictetus’s Handbook, he was as a firm believer that emotions would result in errors of judgement which would essentially lead to an unhappy life. To live a happy and well life one must be emotionless and should be absent. Epictetus’s ultimate telos was virtue, which has to do with doing right and abstaining from doing wrong, would essentially achieve one’s good life. Whereas Socrates’s conception of philosophy consisted of only the truth. His ultimate telos was eudaimonia, which is happiness. He was willing to die in the name of philosophy because of how strongly he felt about it. Socrates believed that in order to have a good life one had to do good. Although both of their end purpose consisted of happiness, they still differed.