[Alkman]

6

The Stoic feet that the human body and its demands are on a lower level than the mind. Epictetus constantly compares the mind to God and the body to animals. I don't fully understand what he means by various words like body, soul, mind, and spirit. Perhaps if I read his work in Latin the matter would be clearer to me; perhaps his ideas would be as vague as they are in English. My ideas on the subject are not very precise. I believe that a human has a nonphysical component. I argued this point from a subjective point of view in "The First Paradox."
Christian thinkers tend to divide a person into mind, body, and soul.

Freud created the categories of id, superego, and ego. These divisions are neat and precise but I can't accept them as real. Many modern thinkers are materialists and they have a much simpler idea. They believe that nothing exists but matter; therefore the mind is the brain. There's an obvious problem with this theory. If it's true, everything we think and say is nothing more than the movement of atoms and molecules. The person who says we are nothing but matter says so because of certain movements of material in his body. If we accept or deny what he says, we do so because of the movement of material in our bodies. Thoughts and ideas are no different from rocks or sticks to him, and rocks or sticks cannot be true or false. They just are. Materialists like to compare the human mind to a computer. They don't understand what a mind is. They don't understand electricity. They don't understand computers; and so they wrap their ignorance into one big ball and call it mind.

Even if the materialists are correct, they lead us into a dead end. What are we to do with this truth of theirs? They tell us that the study of mankind can be a science, like entomology. This claim makes no more sense to me than a psychic's claims. I will guarantee you that no psychic can tell whether I am thinking of a spade, heart, diamond, or club. The same is true for psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. Perhaps materialists can tell what human beings in groups will do. Even this claim is silly. If they could predict group behavior, they would pick stocks in the stock market and become rich.

If the mind is physical, the materialist's mind is also physical and merely reacts to physical forces. The quarrel I have with materialists is that they act as though their minds could reason and decide when they deny these abilities to everyone else. They keep anthropomorphizing themselves. Archimedes invented a compound pulley and declared, "Give me a place to stand on and I will move the world." The mistake of the materialist is that he puts himself outside the material world to make his statements. He assumes that he is standing above the world of matter even though he denies that such a place exists.

In my own subjective philosophy, I assume that truth is impossible for me to know; but I can discover what is useful to me. Utility, for me, is analogous to truth. Materialism is not useful to me because it leads me to a dead end. Unfortunately, I don't know what mind is, or will, or soul. Memories may be physical and thoughts may not be. I simply don't know. I act as though some part of me exists as a non-material being controlling a material body and I act as though I make decisions.
Like the Platonists, the Stoics emphasized the nonmaterial parts of a human being at the expense of the physical parts. Epictetus says, "The good of man is in the will, and the evil too, and everything else does not concern us." Marcus Aurelius describes himself as "a little flesh, a little breath, and a Reason to rule all." Historically, the Stoics believed themselves to be materialists and reasoned that God and will and reason were material. They obviously did not appreciate the limitations of material objects and treated minds as though they had the supernatural power to make decisions. From our point of view, they did believe in nonmaterial objects or at least material objects that had non-material characteristics.

The Stoics constantly tell us that we have no power over the physical world and that we will be unhappy if we try to control it. In fact, we can often control or at least influence the events in our lives. If I want a hamburger for lunch I can usually get one. I rarely have to eat a fish. It's also true that we cannot completely control our own emotions or even our thoughts. The Stoics tell us that what goes on in the physical world will not affect our happiness at all, and yet material reality can certainly contribute to happiness or misery.

Even though Epictetus instructs us how to rise above material concerns and Marcus Aurelius is always trying to convince himself to think correctly, they tacitly admit that the physical world can be important. Epictetus longs for pupils who understand Stoicism well enough to say, "We can no longer endure being bound to this poor body, and feeding it and giving it drink, and rest, and cleaning it, and for the sake of the body complying with the wishes of these and of those. Are not these things indifferent and nothing to us, and is not death no evil. . . .Allow us to be released from these bonds (the body). . .Permit us to show them that they have no power over any man." Even though Epictetus found suicide acceptable and correct at times, he would say to such pupils, "Friends, wait for God. . .but for the present endure to dwell in this place where He has put you." He goes on to say that the evils of the physical world can be borne by the strong. Still, a Stoic may commit suicide "when He shall give the signal." Apparently, there is a limit to what a Stoic is expected to bear.

You would think that Stoicism appealed to the downtrodden, to slaves and the impoverished. The opposite is true. Epictetus himself was a former slave, but he was the exception. Stoicism appealed to the rich, the noble, and the educated. Christianity, which promised a glorious future, was the religion of the oppressed. Here's how I understand this paradox. Those who have experienced material well-being are the most likely to preach against it. After all, physical comfort and riches did not give them perfect happiness, therefore it must be of no worth. This seems to be an overreaction to me.

Stoics and Platonists drew a clear line between the mind and body. Suppose, as most modern people think, that this line is much fuzzier. Why did they Stoics keep insisting that there was a "great gulf fixed" between body and mind? I believe that their world view was influenced by their psychological desires. They speak as though their psychological prescriptions were derived from obvious truth; but it's more likely that their obvious truth had its origins in their psychological inclinations. The rich, the comfortable, and the powerful are acutely aware that material riches do not lead to complete happiness. The Stoics held out a hope to them: power over one's emotions. This would be the most fantastic power of all. Imagine that you could be happy simply by willing it. We live in a world of fantastic material riches, but we dare not imagine that we could have the power to control our own thoughts and emotions. Who has attempted this feat? Those who turn to alcohol and drugs. They try to maintain a constant sense of happiness. If any of them has succeeded, I haven't heard about him.

Epictetus realized what a daunting task exerting complete self control would be. He and Marcus Aurelius constantly compared the aspiring Stoic to an athlete in training or a soldier in battle. They knew that the task was not easy. Their philosophy told them that they could not control the physical world. They admited that they could not completely control their own emotions but they held out the hope that they could master their own wills and perhaps influence their desires. Suppose that you could actually decide what you wanted, what your desires would be. You know that you can't always have what you want except in one case. Let's say you wanted whatever was about to happened, that you wanted what would be. Then every moment would be like Christmas Eve.

The Stoics' dream is to enjoy what is and to desire what will be. Epictetus speaks of this state of mind as freedom; "For he is free to whom everything happens according to his will." The Stoic is always striving to make his will agree with reality. He speaks of God, the body, the mind, the pneuma, etc., but I see such talk as the tools he uses to achieve his ultimate aim: the control of his desires.

7

A baby has simple desires and a simple way to handle them. It wants to be warm, dry, well-fed, and loved. If it doesn't get what it wants, it cries. As we grow older, our desires and the means we use to realize them become more complex. We often see this complexity as a problem and long for simpler times. Our increased intelligence, however, could be a new source of happiness. Imagine a man taking pleasure in eating a steak. The pleasure is not confined to the literal tasting and chewing of the meat. The man enjoys the sight of the steak as he cuts it. He feels a certain happiness in cooking it and even in buying it. If he had a completely positive attitude, he would take pleasure in waking up on a cold, dreary day in order to spend his time at a boring job to earn the money to buy the steak.

The human mind should always be filled with happiness. Not only do we usually have the power to achieve simple desires, but we can make our own long range plans. All our actions, however unpleasant to perform at the time, can be seen as steps in realizing our future desires. If our minds were positive, we would stroll from happiness to happiness while a thousand small pleasures delight us on the way. I have not observed that this is the common state of mankind. Robert Burns describes the negative mind in "To a Mousie." After accidentally destroying a mouse's nest, Burns philosophizes on the tragedy for a while and then concludes,

Still, thou art blest, compar'd wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e'e,
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess and fear.

The Stoics are more interested in overcoming this negativity than in achieving a state of positive joy. Their aim is to achieve a state we might call contentment, freedom, or serenity. Perhaps they thought that a person could have no more. Epictetus encourages us "to study how a man can rid his life of lamentation and groaning, and saying, 'Woe to me,' and 'wretched that I am,' and to rid it also of misfortune and disappointment, and to learn what death is, and exile, and prison, and poison." He seems to have a rather gloomy view of existence. The Christian is not satisfied with merely enduring the challenges of life. Jesus proclaims, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." He claimed that his mission was to "to preach the gospel to the poor . . . to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised."

The Stoics tell us that we can achieve their limited aims only by a constant application of reason. Epictetus asserts that a man's purpose is "contemplation and understanding, and in a way of life conformable to nature." Of course, he understands nature to be divine nature, not the nature of plants and beasts. He tells us to "take care then not to die without having been spectators of these things." In a sense, we are born to be pilgrims or tourists, and he makes the analogy clearer. "You take a journey to Olympia to see the work of Phidia, and all you think it a misfortune to die without having seen such things." Even the tourist must endure unpleasant things. "Are you not scorched? Are you not pressed by a crowd? Are you not without comfortable means of bathing? Are you not wet when it rains? Have you not abundance of noise, clamor, and other disagreeable things?" We put up with these inconveniences merely to view the works of man, and so we ought to regard ourselves as tourists visiting God's work and count sickness, pain, and poverty as the necessary price.

Marcus Aurelius's work is one long pep talk, but we get the feeling that it is not always successful in convincing him that his Stoicism is correct. He has to encourage himself not to fall back into what we would call a natural way of thinking. "It will tend to avert complacency if you remember that any claim to have lived as a philosopher all your life, or even since reaching manhood, is now out of the question; indeed, it is evident . . . that even today philosophy is still far beyond you." He recalls that casuistry of logic, wealth, celebrity, and worldly pleasures have not led him to a good life. He tells himself that the only way he can this goal is "by adopting strict principles for the regulation of impulse and action."

It seems fairly obvious to me that a person can not change his entire way of looking at the world without intellectual effort and practice. The Christians, however, tell us that if we merely accept Jesus into our hearts, we will become new creatures with a new outlook. Born-again preachers, in particular, like to point out the conversions of drug addicts, prostitutes, and violent criminals as evidence of Jesus's miraculous power to change people's lives. Of course, these are the very people who are searching for any way out of the lives they have made for themselves. Christians have a much harder time converting virtuous people who have given some thought to religious questions.

The Stoics promise us no more than serenity with constant effort as the cost. Perhaps they are correct in offering so little; perhaps we can achieve no more. But we want more. Stoicism has disappeared from the planet while religions that promise us eternal bliss have flourished. Suppose that Stoicism will give us as much as we can possibly attain. Epictetus suggests why people do not embrace this philosophy even if it is correct. "In theory it is easy to convince an ignorant person; but in the affairs of real life, no one offers himself to be convinced, and we hate the man who has convinced us."

8

Suppose that you were the only person in the universe. You could exist in the most perfect paradise without reflecting on your good fortune. You could suffer hunger, thirst, and pain and not complain about the "unfairness" of existence. Notions of good and evil, just and unjust, cannot exist unless there are other people and other lives. When we judge these matters, we usually look no further than our neighbors. Americans call people poor whose standard of living would be considered quite high in China. They take for granted luxuries that were unimaginable 200 years ago. A time may come when our descendants will consider our lives horribly brutal and short, but we do not complain so long as we live about as well as those we see frequently or know about.

It would be simple to understand the Stoics' view of reality if we didn't have to deal with other people. But people can steal from us, make demands on us, depend on us, and interact with us in thousands of ways. The question of our relations with other people is the most complicated one in any religion or philosophy. Epictetus explains how a Stoic can maintain his serenity in the face of obviously predatory people. He cites the case of a thief who steals your clothes. "Do not admire your clothes and then you will not be angry with the thief. Do not admire the beauty of your wife, and you will not be angry with the adulterer." He reasons that the thief "does not know wherein man's good consists, but he thinks that it consists in having fine clothes, the very thing which you also think." The Stoic knows that a man's good is in his will and character and not in anything external to him.

His logic is an example of a greater truth: Inequality leads to harmony; equality leads to conflict. We are constantly told that the opposite is true, but we should consider the relations between people. Trade and commerce depend on the fact that individuals place a different value on money. If the grocer didn't value the bag of flour less than the customer, he wouldn't sell it. Suppose the bag were worth a dollar to the grocer and a dollar to the customer; then the grocer would have no incentive to sell it. But the grocer values the bag at less than a dollar and so both the grocer and the customer can increase their wealth by the trade of one dollar for one bag of flour. Or suppose a rich man wants to hire a person for a job and two qualified applicants apply. The applicants are not in conflict with the rich man but with each other. Or suppose a man is in love with a beautiful woman. He is in harmony with other women and with homosexuals because they do not value the woman the way he does. Their feelings toward her are completely different from his. He feels the most hatred and ill-will toward another man who also loves the woman. Conflict is in direct proportion to equality. Of course, politics turns everything on its head. Groups of similar people with similar values combine to exert pressure to achieve political ends. But even in this case, the group is simply trying to obtain something from the government at the expense of other groups who want the same thing.

Since the Stoics put no value on anything external and called it indifferent, they could believe anything about human relations that was consistent with the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, however, are essentially conservative. Epictetus goes so far as to chide men for shaving their beards, expaining that God gave men beards for a purpose. Here's his general prescription for interpersonal relations: "Next to this, if you are a senator of any state, remember that you are a senator: if a youth, that you are a youth: if an old man, that you are an old man; for each of such names, if it comes to be examined, marks out the proper duties." Epictetus seems to be saying that we should look to those "wretched laws of dead men" for guidance in our conduct toward each other.

A magistrate visited Epictetus and complained that his family was making him unhappy. He cared so much about his little daughter that when "she was sick and supposed to be in danger, I could not endure to stay with her, but I left home until a person sent me the news that she had recovered." In the course of the conversation, Epictetus asks, "Would you wish to be so loved by your own that through their excessive affection you would always be left alone in sickness?" This sarcastic question makes sense only if the speakers agree with the dictum: "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you." Epictetus's must have believed that the roles of father, senator, old man, young man, etc. in Roman society were derived from this general rule. He never questions whether the very structure of his society might violate the rule and the concepts of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Twentieth century Americans would come to very different conclusions than Epictetus.

"For each of such names, if it comes to be examined, marks out the proper duties." Does Epictetus mean to include the names of woman, slave, and barbarian? St. Paul makes certain reactionary pronouncements in his letters. He suggests that slaves ought to remain slaves and that "it is a shame for women to speak in the church." But we must remember that he thought the present world was evil (and about to end) and that he was writing to specific churches about specific problems. The Stoics claimed that they were in possession of universal truth. Epictetus often remarks about different nationalities and belief systems: "As to Jews and Syrians and Egyptians and Romans, is it possible that the opinions of all of them in respect to food are right?" He answers no and searches for universal answers. We expect a person with such a cosmopolitan outlook to examine the axioms that uphold his society; but he seems content to accept the Roman way as correct.

The writings of Marcus Aurelius make it clear that he believes that women are incapable of Stoicism. He does not say so explicitly, but his use of language makes his attitude clear. "Hour by hour resolve firmly, like a Roman and a man, to do what comes to hand with a correct and natural dignity." He condemns sins of desire as showing "a more self-indulgent and womanish disposition." He tells himself that he should be "virile and mature, a statesman, a Roman, and a ruler." In an outburst that Marcus Aurelius may be directing against himself, he raves, "A black heart! A womanish, willful heart, the heart of a brute, a beast of the field; childish, stupid, and false; a huckster's heart, a tyrant's heart." He also groups homosexuals with tyrants, and in a moment of Stoic clarity, he wonders "In what extraordinary pleasures do robbers, perverts, parricides, and tyrants find their enjoyment!"
Why exactly can't a woman be a Stoic? What prevents a homosexual from understanding universal truth? Epictetus attacks an adulterer as "a wolf or an ape," and suggests that he ought to be pitched "somewhere on a dung heap, as a useless utensil, and a bit of dung." At times I get the feeling that the Stoics are absolutely committed to upholding the social structure. They seem to find it much easier to forgive thieves and murderers than men whose conduct might challenge accepted social norms.

9

Since the Stoics believed that nothing external to a person's mind affected his ultimate happiness, they had a great deal of scope in deciding what sort of government would be the best. Government itself deals with material reality and so is an "indifferent" from their point of view. Nevertheless, I would guess that many Stoics believed in stoicacracy.

Epictetus generally examines the negative power that government can exert over the individual. At one point, though, he parallels my thinking in Laws of the Jungle. I wrote: "And just what is this government? It's a man-made invention. It's not some natural phenomenon or a special creation of God. Government's an invention, just like the light bulb or the radio." Epictetus creates a dialogue in which a tyrant proclaims, "All men pay respect to me." His answer puts government in its proper perspective. "Well, I also pay respect to my platter, and I wash it and wipe it . . . Well then, are these things superior to me? No, but they supply some of my wants, and for this reason I take care of them. When the ruler proclaims that all men serve him, Epictetus replies, "Well, do I not attend to my ass? Do I not wash his feet? Do I not clean him? Do you (the tyrant) not know that every man has regard to himself, and to you just the same as he has regard to his ass?"

Epictetus always accents the negative in the material world, and so it is with government. "When a tyrant says to a man 'I will chain your leg,' he who values his leg says, 'Do not; have pity': but he who values his own will says, 'If it appears more advantageous to you, chain it.'" He amplifies his remark, "Zeus has set me free: do you think he intended to allow his own son to be enslaved? But you (the tyrant) are master of my carcass: take it."

I have previously said that the material world has an effect on the mind and the will, but I didn't explain. Imagine a person who sustains a brain injury and cannot understand what the Stoics are saying. Now suppose that modern medicine is able to restore the person's mental faculties. Or take the case of a baby whose brain development would be impaired without the proper prenatal treatment. In these extreme cases, we see that the material world has an effect on the brain; and we know that, whatever the mind is, it cannot function properly in a severely damaged brain. Now the only question is where we draw the line.
I certainly agree with Epictetus that people in the most extreme circumstances can still exert their wills. Marcus Aurelius puts the matter plainly: "True, others may hinder the carrying out of certain actions; but they cannot obstruct my will, nor the disposition of my mind." But he speaks as one who has already discovered the truth.

Unless one has time, inclination, and a certain degree of comfort, he is not likely to seek his or any other truth. I believe that material well-being does have an effect on inner happiness, even if only an indirect one; and it's for this reason that the question of government is relevant to human happiness. Of course, my thinking is completely different from that of the Stoics, "The state was invented for me, to make me happier, but a funny thing has happened: If I don't want this invention, people are outraged. No one calls me unpatriotic for refusing to buy a light bulb. If I don't choose to spend my money on a radio, no one says that I'm immoral. Why should anarchy upset everyone?"
At first glance, it appears that Marcus Aurelius believed that government was wholly beneficial to human happiness. Whereas Epictetus believed that man existed to be a spectator of God's works, Marcus Aurelius emphasized man's duty to his fellow man: "Men exist for each other." He says, "What is no good for the hive is no good for the bee," implicitly inviting us to think of people as social insects. Such a saying would make a good motto for a totalitarian regime. Marcus Aurelius is constantly encouraging himself to do his duty. "If you are doing what is right, never mind whether you are freezing with cold or beside a good fire; heavy-eyed or refreshed from a sound sleep; reviled or applauded; in the act of dying, or about some other business." We keep remembering that his duty was to rule the Roman Empire.

At times, though, Marcus Aurelius hints at something greater than Rome. A poet, now unknown, referred to Athens as "Dear city of Cerops!" (its legendary founder). Marcus Aurelius asks whether we might not exclaim, "Dear city of God!" "Civitas Dei" is the same phrase that St. Augustine took as the title of his work. Marcus Aurelius probably saw himself and Rome as a metaphor for man in the universe. No doubt, he regarded the duty he was performing for Rome as duty to his fellow man, but it was also symbolic of the duty that any person in any circumstance owed to those around him.

If we inquire into this metaphor a little more deeply than Marcus Aurelius intended, we see that he regards government itself as good and beneficial to humans, at least on the material level. Pushing the metaphor to the extreme, we find a psychological basis for Stoicism. The Stoics did put themselves above other people. It is quite natural for a Stoic to compare himself to an emperor of the universe. Epictetus referred to himself as Zeus's own son, just the sort of talk that put Jesus in so much trouble. Milton identified this characteristic of the philosophers when he wrote, "The Stoics, first in philosophic pride."
Ultimately, the Stoics believed that governments were "indifferent" to human happiness because they dealt with the material world. Their conservatism was not like the Christians'. The Christian conservatives reason that man is naturally evil and needs to be reigned in by the state, that any attempt to improve the state will be doomed by man's evil nature. The Stoics regard the state as diversion from man's real business, improving his will and character.

10

Epictetus, as the professional Stoic, was indifferent to death. In fact, he felt the need to make arguments against suicide. He quotes Socrates approvingly, "if one of our commanders has appointed me to a certain post, it is my duty to keep and maintain it, and to resolve to die a thousand times rather than desert it." But suicide is always a possibility for him; or, as he says several times, "the door is open." He puts his dignity above everything and reminds us that Euripides wrote, "Not death is evil, but a shameful death."

Marcus Aurelius's view of death was bound up with his idea of mutability. "Moreover, what keeps the whole world in being is Change: not merely change of the basic elements, but also change of the larger elements they compose." Still, as in other matters, he feels the need to convince himself that death is no evil. "You embark; you make the voyage; you reach port: step ashore, then. Into another life? There are gods everywhere, even yonder. Into final insensibility? Then you will be out of the grip of pains and pleasures, and thrall no longer to this earthen vessel."

In this uncertainty, Marcus Aurelius differs from other Stoics. He often show a kind of agnosticism that Epictetus never does. "As for truth, it is so veiled in obscurity that many reputable philosophers assert the impossibility of reaching any certain knowledge. Even the Stoics admit ... that all our intellectual conclusions are fallible."

Nevertheless he remembers that everything is God's will and so must be good, "Everything that happens is as normal and expected as the spring rose of the summer fruit; this is true of sickness, death, slander, intrique, and all the other things that delight or trouble foolish men." He defines death simply: "Death: a release from the impressions of sense, from twitchings of appetite, from excursions of thought, a from service to the flesh."

For the Stoics, the desire for life is like other material desires, unworthy of a philosopher. In this point, they are reminiscent of the Buddhists, who equate desire with suffering. Marcus Aurelius states the matter differently. He suggests that we are in a great flowing river with everything constantly changing. Desire for material things simply makes no sense. "It would be like setting the affection on some sparrow flitting by, which in the selfsame moment is lost to sight."
With my subjectivist point of view, I like another quote that I believe came from a Stoic, "Where I am, there is no death." Once I have settled the question of what I am, it doesn't make much difference where I am. I think there is much in what the Stoics say, particularly about everything's being God's will. If the universe is the work of God, there must be no evil in it. But what of our own foolishness and ignorance? Is that not a part of the universe too? I say that I am not evil. I am as perfect in this second as the perfect world is. In that case, I won't trouble myself about the matter further. And if I fall in love with a sparrow that is out of my sight before I blink, well then, that must be good too. I just don't understand why.




Allen Thornton