Stoicism In Our Time

Speaking of Roman philosophy, “In Our Time” - the BBC’s great radio show / podcast - filed its 899th episode this week, a sharp foray into the thought of Marcus Aurelius. With this they achieve the Triple Crown of Stoicism, having previously done one on Seneca and another on Stoic philosophy in general (all linked below).

We are, of course, Stoics out here in Silicon Valley. The 2016 book The Daily Stoic encouraged us 21st-century drones to get more Roman in our approach and attitude, and we’re doing it. We’re focusing on what we can control, and ignoring what we can’t. We’re understanding that it is what it is. We’re tending to our assigned tasks, and working diligently to get our in-boxes down to zero. In the process, we’re also learning what’s missing.

The commentators on this week’s show properly called out Marcus Aurelius for the disparity between his idealism and the fact that, as Emperor of Rome, he fought wars that killed people by the tens of thousands.

Be a good man.  Move fast and break things.  Also, kill all the Parthians.

Be a good man. Move fast and break things. Also, kill all the Parthians.

Panelist Simon Goldhill approaches the Meditations with skepticism, calling it “[o]ne of the best publicity documents for power there’s ever been.”

Still, Stoicism does have its uses. Working as I do in a hierarchy that would put Imperial Rome and the Catholic Church to shame, I have taken a Stoic dram now and again. I wish some of my colleagues had taken Marcus Aurelius’ maxim more seriously: “if it is not right, do not do it; if it is not true, do not say it.”

“Our life is what our thoughts make it,” says the great man, and he invites us to not worry over things that do not concern us. I tried this and found the experience quite liberating…for about a week. Since I control virtually nothing, this meant I hardly worried at all. But then it became apparent that while you’re not worrying about problems they’re getting worse, and even if you can’t control them you may need to manage their consequences. And, the panelists on “In Our Time” note, the things you can’t control - from climate change to the prevailing system of government - may nevertheless be things you should care passionately about.

Most importantly, Stoicism’s emphasis on rationalism and self-interest means that short shrift is given to human nature, particularly the ubiquitous longings for love and meaning. Ask anyone about the most significant times of their life, and they will talk about moments of great emotional intensity: triumph, passion, rage. And shared joys and sorrows, love.

The Stoicists do not approve. They would instead have us reflect, in these moments of emotional intensity, on our personal shortcomings, the transient nature of life, or the importance of maintaining a rational outlook. They would have us ignore our questioning, yearning selves, and the emotional needs of loved ones.

This is an error. I’ve always appreciated the scene in A Serious Man where Larry visits Rabbi Nachtner:

Screen Shot 2021-03-06 at 3.19.24 PM.png

Rabbi Nachtner : These questions that are bothering you, Larry - maybe they're like a toothache. We feel them for a while, then they go away.

Larry Gopnik : I don't want it to just go away! I want an answer!

Rabbi Nachtner : Sure! We all want the answer! But Hashem doesn't owe us the answer, Larry. Hashem doesn't owe us anything. The obligation runs the other way.

Larry Gopnik : Why does he make us feel the questions if he's not gonna give us any answers?

Rabbi Nachtner : He hasn't told me.

But, as Larry notes, the yearning remains. An empty in-box won’t answer it. I personally find one clue provocative, the finding that modern soldiers (and presumably Roman ones as well) don’t fight for ideals, flag, or country. According to a widely-reported study in Military Review, “[t]he strongest motivation for enduring combat, is the bond formed among members of a squad or platoon.” They fight not for a cause, but for each other.

Stoicism doesn’t get this, nor would it get Rabbi Nachtner’s prescription, which is nevertheless spot-on:

“The teeth? Don’t know.  Sign from Hashem? Don’t know.  Helping others?  Couldn’t hurt.

“The teeth? Don’t know. Sign from Hashem? Don’t know. Helping others? Couldn’t hurt.

There is possibly a deeper level of understanding beyond this. The Stoics would likely not acknowledge it, and I would guess Wittgenstein and Rabbi Marshak have the right idea in maintaining a principled silence about it. Whatever it is, it’s not something that’s easily described, and it’s not something that would come up in normal conversation. But for those pursuing such things, it’s pretty clear that just knocking down your deliverables and ignoring other people’s problems won’t be enough to get you there.

  • “Marcus Aurelius” - In Our Time (link)

  • “Seneca the Younger” - In Our Time (link)

  • “Stroicism” - In Our Time (link)

  • The Daily Stoic (link)

  • Confronting the Tiger: Small Unit Cohesion in Battle - Military Review (link)

  • ‘The Goy’s Teeth’ - A Serious Man (link)

UPDATE (3/16): Gregory Hays, who produced a popular 2002 translation of The Meditations, has written an excellent essay on all of this for The New York Review of Books:

  • “Tune Out & Lean In” - The New York Review of Books (link)

Previous
Previous

Cat and mouse with a master

Next
Next

Mood stabilizers without side effects