Walden

I finished reading Walden lately:



Thoreau seems to be a natural Stoic, or at the least a Cynic.  A true Cynic.  Cynicism, like Stoicism, has come to mean something quite different.  Today it signifies a distrust of everything, a certain sourness and a relentless pessimism.  Modern cynicism is an easy stance, requiring no thought and not involving any mental risk.  It's impossible to be pleased with modern cynicism, but also impossible to be hurt.  I don't recommend it.

But the classic Cynicism wasn't like that.  Epictetus writes:

Suppose we sent you as a scout to Rome.  But no one ever sends a timorous scout who, when he hears a noise, or sees a shadow, runs back frightened, and says "The enemy is at hand."  So now, if you should come and tell us, "Things are in a fearful way in Rome; death is terrible, calumny terrible, poverty terrible; run, good people, the enemy is at hand;" we will answer, Get you gone, and prophesy for yourself; our only fault is that we have sent such a scout.  Diogenes was sent as a scout before you, but he told us other tidings.  He says that death is no evil, for it is nothing base; that calumny is only the noise of madmen.  And what account did this spy give us of pain, of pleasure, of poverty?  He says that to be naked is better than a purple robe; to sleep upon the bare ground, the softest bed; and gives a proof of all he says by his own courage, tranquility, and freedom, and, moreover, by a healthy and robust body.  "There is no enemy near," he says; "all is profound peace."  How so, Diogenes?  "Look upon me," he says, "Am I hurt?  Am I wounded?  Have I run away from any one?"  This is a scout worth having.  But you come, and tell us one tale after another.  Go back and look more carefully, and without fear.

The description of Diogenes seems much like Thoreau.  In Walden, he lives a life that to most would be abject poverty, but turns it into a glorious experience, recording his experience with Walden Pond and the surrounding areas throughout the seasons, along with friends who visit, his bean field, animals that he sees, and other recollections.   He writes:

I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of.  Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in.

Thoreau seems to be a natural Cynic.  The very opposite of a modern-day cynic.  Someone who says that you can be happy with nothing.  The book is a beautiful meditation on life, philosophy, and nature.  When reading it, keep in mind that to read it you don't need to possess it: it is free to all and not under any copyright.  Also keep in mind Thoreaus's advice:

To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will task the reader more than any exercise which the custom of the day esteem.  It requires a training such as the athletes underwent, the steady intention almost of the whole life to this object.  Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written.

Quotes from Coaches

For some reason, great coaches tend to give Stoic-like advice.  Here's a quote from the book Born to Run by Christopher McDougall, from Dr. Joe Vigil, running coach:

There are two goddesses in  your heart ... The Goddess of Wisdom and the Goddess of Wealth.  Everyone things they need to get wealth first, and wisdom will come.  So they concern themselves with chasing money.  But they have it backwards.  You have to give your heart to the Goddess of Wisdom, give her all your love and attention, and the Goddess of Wealth will become jealous, and follow you.

Recently I also saw a few interesting Stoic-like quotes from UCLA basketball coach John Wooden:

Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.

Some criticism will be honest, some won't.  Some praise you will deserve, some you won't.  You can't let praise or criticism get to you.  It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. 

It's quite interesting that coaches, who have jobs that are all about maximizing performance, encourage that laser-like focus on being good.  Not succeeding, just being the best you can be.  It must be more than just true, it must also be effective advice to focus on those things that are under our control.  Worrying about things that are out of our control is merely wasted effort.

Should modern society be commenting and improving on Stoicism?

From Walden:

Some are dinning in our ears that we Americans, and moderns generally, are intellectual dwarfs compared with the ancients, or even the Elizabethan men.  But what is that to the purpose?  A living dog is better than a dead lion.  Shall a man go and hang himself because he belongs to the race of pygmies, and not be the biggest pygmy that he can?  Let every one mind his own business, and endeavor to be what he was made.

This is a pretty persuasive argument for us moderns to be intellectually bold.  I'd go further: we have the advantage of large amounts of science, history, and literature to help us along.  I think we have a good chance of advancing Stoic thought, ridding of it's ancient superstitions, putting it on a solid footing, and mass-communicating the message.

Of course, it could go wrong too.  With the modern emphasis on productivity, we might just corrupt Stoicism to be merely another one of the "habits of effective people", and reduce it to a life-hack.  That would be useful, but a great disservice to the main message of Stoicism, which is to make us morally better.

A Stoic Blog

These musing of mine are suitable for a very limited audience.  I don't put much as much time into this as I should, and I don't write nearly as well as I need to.  See, there?  I just ended a sentence with a preposition.  I'm ashamed of myself.  But I'm working on getting better, and certainly I hope this blog will improve.

In the meantime, this is certainly not the only Stoic blog out there.  There's not many, but there are a few, and they tend to be pretty good.

One I've been reading lately is Letters From a Stoic, which offers modern retellings of Seneca's advices.  It's written in a particularly thoughtful way, with a dreamy sort of style.  The blog has been in existence since 2008, and is still being updated.  Check it out for some nice meaty thoughts to chew on.

Conservatives love Stoics, Part 2: On Foreign Policy

A continuation of Part 1.

One of the hallmarks of conservative thought has been a tough foreign policy.  Since there seems to be some admiration of Stoic thought from conservatives, I'm interested in thinking through what Stoic thought would be about foreign policy.

Stoicism is about morality first and foremost.  With the Stoic, if there is a choice between doing the right thing and benefitting yourself, then we must always just do the right thing.  The "right thing", though, is open to debate.  Maybe peace is always the right thing.  But it didn't seem so in WW II.  Maybe aggressive protection of allies is.  But that was a catastrophic failure for Europe in WW I.  This stuff is hard to judge accurately at the time.

Marcus Aurelius was the only Stoic that I know of that actually could make foreign policy decisions.  He did defend Rome in the Marcomannic Wars.  I never got the impression from his writings, however, that he tried to apply Stoicism to foreign policy.  But I would assume he brought the same logical thinking to foreign policy that he brought to his personal philosophy.

Imagining international relations as interpersonal relations is a good exercise, though, even if it is over-simplifying.  Would a Stoic attack another except as a defense of themselves or others?  It seems unlikely.  He certainly wouldn't attack someone because he feared an attack on his own.  Nor would he meddle in other's lives as the U.S. has meddled in the politics of countless countries around the globe.  But, as I stated, perhaps this is an over-simplification.  Maybe we can't think at that level, and can only think in terms of how we should think about philosophy as citizens.

As a citizen of a country, a Stoic should not be swayed by emotion or illogical arguments.  Many of the arguments used to support aggressive foreign policy are based on fear (such as fear of terrorism), or demonization (of the current enemy).  Stoicism is a logical philosophy as well as a moral one.  It's hard to see a Stoic supporting an aggressive foreign policy, since that requires both illogical emotions to sustain, as well as being ethically dubious.

Remember, for the Stoic, death was preferable to the compromising of principles.  Maybe conservatives see that as warlike: I'll fight to my death for this country.  And there might be truth to that.  But another interpretation is: I'd rather let myself and my country die rather than fight an unjust war.

Veterans Day

Today is Veterans Day. Our veterans, and the military in general, certainly trend to have part of the Stoic thing down pat. They do what is needed to be done, and they don't complain. There is more to being a Stoic than that, of course, but the willpower and toughness are probably the hardest part of Stoic practice.

Thanks, guys, for the sacrafice. 

Conservatives love Stoics, Part 1: On small government

I'm guessing it's because of Stockdale.  Or because of the overt religiosity in Stoic writings.  Or maybe it's the emphasis on personal responsibility.  Whatever the reason, conservatives loves Stoics.

This may be a mistake, I think.  But I want to write a few blog posts to help me think through this.  To start, my view of the hallmarks of modern American conservatives are a preference towards small government, aggressive foreign policy, pro-religion and anti-environmentalist.

To keep this blog post short, lets just talk about small government.

I don't believe any of those positions really align with Stoic philosophy, and some outright violate it.  Small government can be argued: certainly a Stoic wouldn't demand a bunch of government programs to help him.  On the other hand, Epictetus did state that it's sometimes necessary to comfort and sympathize with non-Stoics.  In the face of suffering, you can't just insist everyone become Stoics.  And, let's face it, just about everyone is a non-Stoic.

There is a world of difference in insisting that Stoics should bear sufferings in a certain way and insisting that it's acceptable for those sufferings to occur in general because everyone should be able to bear it.  I haven't seen any evidence yet that Stoics felt that their philosophy was anything else that a private philosophy, to be taken up by free choice.

Just because I haven't seen evidence, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I haven't actually read that much Stoic writings yet.  I'm working on it.  Let me know if I get this wrong.