Is Stoicism a self-centered philosophy? 

Does Stoicism really teach us to care for others except in so far as it is in our own interest to do so? Why should we care for the community? Here is one explanation: 

What is not good for the beehive is not good for the bee. 

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 6.54 

Marcus seems to be saying that we should care for the community (the beehive) because it is good for us (the bee). 

For the past two months, we have been running pictures of social situations with the question What would a Stoic do? inviting readers to respond. How many of our thousands of readers were moved to respond? Exactly zero. 

The Stoics did not seem to be major players for changing society or reducing inequality. 

Tim Lebon (See page 8 of this issue) 

Would things like violence, poverty, and social inequality have meant anything to the ancient Stoics? If so, did the Stoics practice the virtues to make other people’s life better or to achieve personal eudemonia? 

We assume that Stoicism cares about others and the world in general. Why wouldn’t it ? The ancient Stoics did say that we should do our duties and give others their due. This is justice, a cardinal virtue in Stoicism. But why? Why should we be just? There is very little in the surviving Stoic literature about why we should be just. The only surviving discussion of substance is by Cicero, a non-Stoic who interpreted the early Stoics centuries after they were all gone. Diogenes Laertius came a couple of centuries later. 

And then there is oikeiosis (affinity) and the famous Hierocles circles. Hierocles asserted that we have a ‘natural affinity’ to those closest to us and this is expanded to include a wider and wider variety of people: relatives, friends, country men, and then everyone else. The explanation relates to why we are so rather than to why we should be so. The concentric circles are an illustration of the self-centered approach—both figuratively and literally. 

The ancient Stoics lived in violent times, subject to autocratic and often cruel rulers, surrounded by slavery, arbitrary punishments, threats of exile, and death. The Stoics did not protest or take any concerted action. They did not teach how to break free of the shackles—either theirs or others. They did not protest (not too loudly in any case) or rebel. Instead, they taught themselves and others how to remain unscathed, no matter who did what. 

This is not to say that the Stoics were not compassionate or did not protest. Epictetus is said to have married in his old age to give a home to an orphaned child. Cato killed himself as a form of political protest. Marcus Aurelius gave away the entire share of his inherited fortune to his sister. But, if they had not done these things, would we consider them less Stoic? What is there to attribute such compassionate acts to Stoicism itself? 

Epicurus also emphasized a life of virtue. His telos—pleasure —is the sole rationale for being virtuous. Virtues are the means. In Stoicism, it seems to me, virtue is its own reward and are not a means for achieving the Stoic telos. Epicurus explained why justice and friendship are good. They are means to an end. Stoics seemed to say that justice is good because it is a virtue and virtue is good. 

The Stoics gave the gift of the good life to anyone who may need it. It is a timeless gift. But it is far from clear if that included a rationale for caring for others except that it is in our interest to do so. 

---

Dr. Chuck Chakrapani Editor-in-Chief

 

 

---