FREE ESSAY ON EXPLANATION AND ANALYSIS OF STOIC PHILOSOPHY

EXPLANATION AND ANALYSIS OF STOIC PHILOSOPHY

Stefano R. Mugnaini
Dr. Ralph Gilmore
Introduction to Philosophy
26 April 1999
Explanation and Analysis of Stoic Philosophy
Stoicism is, without a doubt, one of the most widely misunderstood schools of Philosophy
ever established and followed by a wide number of people. The common opinion of Stoic
adherents is that they are merely cold, somber individuals dedicated to the idea that
happiness is evil, emotion is to be avoided at all costs and pleasure is wicked. Although
they do stress control over strong emotions and that pleasure is not the sole end of
life, this is a gross misunderstanding of Stoicism. According to Dr. Zeno Breuninger,
Stoics believe a person is born with everything he needs. The Stoic seeks to lead a life
at peace with himself and the world around him, governed at all times by moderation and
Virtue.
Stoicism was founded by Zeno of Citium ? 331-232 BC), who was a merchant until a
shipwreck found him in Athens where he began to study many schools of philosophy(Fieser).
He was followed By Cleanthes ? 331-233 BC) who, originally an athlete, was considered not
brilliant but hardworking. Neither of these, however, left any surviving writings. It is
only due to the writings of Chryssipus ? 281-208 BC), the third head of the ancient
Athenian Stoics, that we have any knowledge of the teachings of the early Stoics(Ecole;
Mining Co.) Later Stoics include the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Seneca, and these
have left several works that outline Stoic philosophy, especially Ethics. Perhaps most
well known are the Meditations of Aurelius, one of the most well known of Stoic writings.
Stoicism is still alive today, revived by men such as Dr. Breuninger, who strive for
virtuous life through Stoic teachings(International). 
The Stoics, especially Chryssipus, altered the very logical form commonly used by
Aristotle and others. The If-Then statement used by the Stoics was a replacement of the
form used by Aristotle. Where Aristotle would say, All humans are mortal, the Stoics
would phrase it If some person is human then that person is mortal(Fieser). This method,
later developed by modern logicians such as Bertrand Russell, is the logic of
propositions, where a statement is true if it can be reduced to one of the five in
demonstrable forms of the If-Then statement, and is considered one of the greatest Stoic
contributions(Stanford;Ecole). 
In the realm of Metaphysics, Stoics were essentially materialists(Ecole). They adopted
from Plato the idea that reality is marked by the ability to act or be acted upon. To
this they added that only a body can do this. Thus, only bodies exist(Stanford). God
must, then, be material. The Stoic vision of God is as a Cosmic order, also referred to
as Reason, Logos, and a Creative Fire(Ecole). The Stoic God is, then, Pantheistic, one
with the universe. Matter is inert, there to be acted upon by this universal plan. This
plan is crafted from the inside, and God acts not as external deity but as a living seed
from which the universal order is grown(Stanford). 
The Stoics identified with the belief, in vogue at the time, that matter is composed of
four elements: earth, fire, air, and water. Fire and air were considered to be active,
whereas water and earth were labeled passive. Fire and air, the active elements, combine
to form pneuma or breath. This pneuma has a constant simultaneous inward and outward
movement that holds matter together and yields it the qualities which it possesses.
Pneuma is an interesting concept: It acts upon things, so must be a body, yet it is one
with other bodies in the same place at the same time. This blending was apparently
allowed by Stoic philosophy, and was necessary as the Pneuma also seemed to serve the
function of the soul in higher animals, and take care of bodily functions in both plants
and animals(Stanford) thus the soul was both material and one with the physical body.
Another concept set forth in Stoic metaphysics is known as eternal recurrence. This is
the idea that the universe repeats itself, that everything is a continuous cycle that
completely and exactly repeats. One will, in each successive cycle, be the exact same
person he is in the current cycle. Each cycle will begin and end with the same creative
fire that began the process, and the other three elements are added into the creation
process accordingly(Fieser).
When considering Stoicism, it seems epistemology is generally grouped with logic.
According to Fieser, this was the way Zeno considered that they should be. This idea is
echoed by other sources as well by the organization of their research. Stoics did not
believe in abstract universals such as those proposed by Plato and Aristotle. Only
particular things exist, and our knowledge of them is based on impressions they make upon
the soul(Ecole). Thus, knowledge depends on sensation, for the soul is material.
Knowledge comes from giving assent to a cognitive impression. This is an impression
stamped by something that must exist, for it could not leave its mark if it did not.
According to Zeno, there are four levels of deepening knowledge. On the surface is the
cognitive impression. This is followed by casual assent, a mere acknowledgment of the
idea. Then comes comprehension, marked by a deep understanding. Lastly, Science is the
strongest degree of conviction that the perception is right. Zeno illustrated this as a
tightening fist that eventually grabs one and drags him to assent(Fieser). Due to
arguments from Skeptics about the possibility of being grabbed by false impressions,
later Stoics stated that cognitive impressions command assent if there is no impediment
to their acceptance(Stanford). 
Stoicism was concerned primarily with Axiology. More, specifically, most Stoic teachings
dealt with Ethics and the search for the most noble life. The first question faced was
that of what is happiness? Unlike the Epicureans, peers and rivals of the Stoic
adherents, pleasure was not seen as the fastest way to happiness or the goal of
life(Stanford). As having what is really good in one's life defines happiness, the
question of what good is comes to light. The Stoic view of good, then, defines what they
saw as the path to happiness.
Stoics taught that there is only one good. That is Virtue. There are many virtues, of
which there are four cardinal, or chief virtues. From this spring the four Cardinal
Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance(Stoic). Only through living a
virtuous life, then, can happiness be attained. Likewise, there is but one evil, that
being Vice. However, not all things are virtues or vices. All other things were
considered indifferent by the Stoics(White). This stance was, though, altered slightly.
How can all else be indifferent? Herein lies, at best, a paradox. For example, the Stoic
would say that both poverty and wealth are indifferent. Is not plenty better than
destitution(White)? This is explained by the idea that, although wealth is not good and
poverty bad, wealth does have some value that makes it preferable to poverty. This value
does not deal with its goodness, however. Thus, there are positive, negative, and truly
indifferent indifferents. Positive indifferents are positive because they are fitting or
suitable to us. Plenty is more suitable to us than poverty. Health is more suitable than
sickness. Pain is less suitable than the absence of it. So, although some indifferents
are preferable to others, it is only the virtues that make one's life good.
Stoics believe that a life in harmony with nature requires these virtues. Their view that
the universe is driven in a fixed cycle by the creative fire-reason-God leads them to a
logical outcome that the things that happen to them are predetermined and
unavoidable(Fieser). Thus, it makes little sense to try to avoid the inevitable. 
We believe that we are born without the ball, and we will die without it. It is only here
for us to use for a short time, so why cry when we have to give it up or use it
later(International)? 
This is in reference to an example of a child crying when a toy is taken by another
child. The Stoic learns to accept their situation and live according to nature: that is,
accepting what happens to them, and not trying to change their fate. 
Everywhere and continuously it is in your power to be reverently content with your
present circumstance, to behave to men who are present with you according to right and to
handle skillfully the present impression, that nothing you have not mastered may cross
the threshold of the mind(Aurelius 139).
The only acceptable actions to be taken are those that function according to nature and
are virtuous, such as caring for one's body(Stanford). The presence of virtues allows the
Stoic to be content with his situation as he learns to want nothing more than what he
has. Love only what falls to your lot and is destined for you; what is more suited to you
than that(Aurelius 139)? 
This is the goal of the Stoic, as virtue has become happiness in the sense that he is now
in possession of this, the only good.
When the Stoic view of good and the soul are understood, then can their views on emotion
be conceived. There is no Stoic teaching that all emotion is bad. They, more accurately,
warned against yielding to passions. The Stoics labeled these passions as appetite and
fear(Stanford; Aurelius 25). They saw passions as leading one to actions which are
irrational, and therefore, wrong. If one is overtaken by strong, overwhelming emotions,
then he cannot live according to natural law and virtues(Stoic). Thus, it is true that
the Stoics have always taught restraint, but not complete abstinence from emotion.
Stoicism has been much criticized and misunderstood due to its teachings about emotion
and virtue. It is true that the Stoic view of Virtue and Vice leaves a rather obvious
question about indifferents that is rather weakly explained by later Stoics. Also, the
whole concept of the four basic elements of matter are obviously contrary to current
scientific truth. Furthermore, their concept of God as a creative fire is totally
inconsistent with Christianity and many other world religions. Despite these weaknesses
in Stoic thought, there are many ideas expressed by the Stoics that are applicable, even
beneficial to our lives today. How the world is in need of leadership concerned with
virtuous living and leading! Who would not benefit by exertion of some greater control
over their passions and fears? Although no philosophy seems to have a grasp on exactly
what man's purpose is and the way he is to go about achieving that end, Stoics seem to
have grasped a few concepts that all would do well to emulate. 
Bibliography
Works Consulted
Aurelius, Marcus. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. 
Trans., ed. A.S.L. Farquharson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. 1-130. 
Breuninger, Dr. Zeno. Email to Researcher. 21 March 1999.
International Stoic Society. International Stoic Society. 
18 March 1999. 
Moore, D.J.H. Home Page. 18 March 1999.
Philosophy 110-Fieser. U.T. Martin. 18 March 1999.
Stoics and moral Philosophy. Miningco.com. 18 March 1999.
Stoic Philosophy. Geocities. 18 March 1999. 
Stoicism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. March 1999.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 18 March 1999.
White, Nicholas. Stoic Values. Monist Jan90: 42-59. 
Academic Search FullTEXT Elite. EBSCO publishing. 25 April 1999. 
Works Consulted
Aurelius, Marcus. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. 
Trans., ed. A.S.L. Farquharson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. 1-130. 
Breuninger, Dr. Zeno. Email to Researcher. 21 March 1999.
International Stoic Society. International Stoic Society. 
18 March 1999. 
Moore, D.J.H. Home Page. 18 March 1999.
Philosophy 110-Fieser. U.T. Martin. 18 March 1999.
Stoics and moral Philosophy. Miningco.com. 18 March 1999.
Stoic Philosophy. Geocities. 18 March 1999. 
Stoicism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. March 1999.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 18 March 1999.
White, Nicholas. Stoic Values. Monist Jan90: 42-59. 
Academic Search FullTEXT Elite. EBSCO publishing. 25 April 1999.