Is the popular, modern conception of stoicism equivalent to the actual philosophy espoused in books like Epictetus' The Discourses? How are they different, and what might we misunderstand without historical context?
For example, do the ideas circulated in Reddit's https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/ forum lead to an accurate understanding of stoicism as the chroniclers of the stoic school intended it?
Thank you.
This is a source of fantastic frustration for me. Some modern Stoics are materialists, yet materialism is a point-blank rejection of the Unity of the Universe, which is a central plank of Stoic doctrine. Modern Stoicism seems to be fad for anti-religious folk who nevertheless want some meaning in their life. It makes no sense whatsoever in the hands of 'Stoics' like Massimo Pigliucci and becomes a muddle of poor thinking. Not at all what its founders intended.
The doctrine is being betrayed by people who don't understand it but want to bend it to their purpose. To understand it I would suggest studying Buddhist ethics and ontology and then comparing it to that of Stoicism. It can be seen that the latter is just a less well-explained and less well-informed version of the former. Both declare the Unity of the Universe, and both declare, 'only those who know they are not free know they are free'. This can hardly be a coincidence and it shows that Stoicism was well thought-out by its founders.
I have great sympathy for Stoics trying to make sense of the bowdlerised modern form often promoted. It's a lost cause. It does not make sense.
Contemporary Stoicism builds upon the foundations laid by classical Stoicism, adapting its principles to modern contexts and challenges. The essence of Stoicism, both ancient and modern, centers on focusing on what we can control—our reactions and attitudes—while accepting what we cannot control. This philosophy also emphasizes the development of personal virtues like wisdom, justice, courage, and self-discipline to live a fulfilled and ethical life.
Modern adaptations of Stoicism have expanded its applications to everyday challenges, promoting resilience and mental clarity in high-stress environments such as business and the military. This practicality has contributed to Stoicism's resurgence in popularity, making it relevant for addressing contemporary issues like emotional management and ethical leadership.
Contemporary Stoicism retains the core ethical and philosophical objectives of its ancient counterpart. Stoicism's integration into cognitive behavioral techniques and its use in therapeutic contexts are also noteworthy developments that highlight its practical utility in modern mental health practice.
Stoicism is being sold as "opium," or a luxury good for the masses. I would observe that contemporary Stoicism has indeed become widely accessible and commercialized, diverging in some ways from its classical roots. Classical Stoicism, founded in ancient Greece and developed in Rome, was a philosophy deeply concerned with virtue, wisdom, and the art of living in accordance with nature. It emphasized personal ethics informed by a system of logic and its views on the natural world. it was Philosophy as a Way of Life (PWL).
In contrast, contemporary Stoicism often appears in the form of self-help books, online courses, and seminars that focus on resilience, emotional control, and personal success. Including an overemphasis on individualism and its utility in achieving personal goals, which can be seen as a departure from the communal and ethical focus of classical Stoicism.
I observe Contemporary Stoicism operating in the following ways:
Mass Production and Commercialization: The essence of Stoicism is often simplified to catchy slogans and quick fixes, losing the depth and complexity of the original teachings. The market-driven approach may prioritize profit over philosophical accuracy, leading to a diluted version of Stoicism that is more palatable for mass consumption.
Performative Ethics: There is a risk that Stoicism becomes a performative act, where individuals display Stoic traits not as a genuine pursuit of virtue but as a means to be perceived as resilient or wise. This performative aspect can lead to a superficial engagement with Stoicism, where the focus is on external appearances rather than internal moral development.
Individual vs. Communal Good: Classical Stoicism placed great importance on the betterment of society and the individual’s role within it. Contemporary interpretations may overemphasize self-improvement at the expense of the collective well-being. The commodification of Stoicism can encourage a mindset that is more self-centered and less aligned with the Stoic ideal of living in harmony with the community.
Lack of Depth of Philosophical Engagement: The commercialized versions of Stoicism may not encourage the deep, critical engagement with the philosophy that is necessary for true understanding and transformation. The rich tradition of Stoic thought, including its complexities and nuances, is often overshadowed by oversimplified principles that are easier to market and sell.
