Thursday, November 12, 2009

Stoic vs. Spinozan Pantheism

Stoicism is a religious philosophy that concentrates more on how to live your life than on a metaphysical system. However, it does have a metaphysical system, just not one as deeply developed as, say, Plato's.

In the Stoic view, the Greek concept of Logos (divine Reason) is identical with what we think of as the laws of nature. We can puzzle out these laws through the use of our own reason; therefore Reason must be the creator of (or, in the Stoic view, identical with) natural laws.

Because God was identified with the course of nature, the "good life" was one lived in accordance with nature. You didn't try to accumulate more than you needed for a healthy life, nor did you try to prolong your life beyond its natural limits. In fact, good and evil could never happen to you, as all externals were considered valueless. The only good or evil thing was how the Stoic behaved, and how s/he accepted life.

What that means is that, if someone injures or insults me, that's neither good nor evil, because it's external to me. What would be evil is if I fought back through injury or insult in turn--but not necessarily because it would be wrong to injure or insult another person. I would be doing wrong by letting my emotions override my reason; that's the true evil in the human world.

Reason was the driving force behind the Stoic understanding of right and wrong. The Stoic determined right and wrong based on reality (i.e., nature), but also had to filter ideas about nature through reason, rather than emotion. Thus the Stoic would find that, since death is natural, death is not bad--but being overcome with sorrow or fear is. The passions (strong emotions that could cloud judgment, such as anger or lust) were not to be trusted; there were appropriate emotions, such as joy, doubt, or hope. The difference between the two (passions vs. appropriate feelings) is that the passions are not reasonable, whereas appropriate emotion comes out of reasoned thought.

Spinoza similarly identified the laws of nature with divine necessity. Coming out of a Jewish background, he saw the Biblical accounts of God's relationship with Israel as the natural actions of a divine will in connection with a people who understood God in a specific way.

Spinoza, like the Stoics, was a determinist. He may have been an even harder determinist than the original Stoics, since they believed that you were free in your own actions (but you could not affect the actions of others). Spinoza believed that happiness only came to the person who understood that his/her actions were determined by other factors. The greatest good was in understanding God/nature, understanding that events did not happen in a vacuum or by pure chance, and that even your own feelings/thoughts were affected (limited) by things out of human control.

So Spinoza's concept of the "good life" was very similar to the Stoic one, though with some differences.

First, the Stoics allowed for a limited free will--but only those who were truly wise (in the Stoic sense of the morality of reason) had free will. Freedom only came with the mastery of the passions and the proper use of reason. Even then, the only thing you had control of was your own physical and emotional actions and reactions in the world.

Spinoza, on the other hand, declared that only God had free will. Only God was unlimited by externals; everything a human does is limited by the things and events around him/her, so the human can never have true free will. Because God is the only thing which exists, God cannot be affected by something external; therefore, God's actions are truly free.

Both the Stoics and Spinoza did have very similar concepts of the path to happiness. They both believed that the acceptance of life and the realization of the value-neutrality of externals led to inner peace. For both, this acceptance depended on true knowledge of nature, natural law, and the place we have in it.

All of this is quite similar to the Buddhist doctrine of nonattachment. Unlike Buddhism, though, neither Spinoza nor the Stoics acknowledged much in the way of after-death consequences (such as transmigration of souls) of behavior in this life.

6 comments:

DT Strain said...

Nice post, thanks! However, Buddhism does not teach 'transmigration of souls' - that is Hindu *reincarnation*. Buddhist *rebirth* is a bit different. In Buddhism there is no permanent soul. This doctrine of soul-lessness is called "anatta". It states that we are but changing composites of multiple constituents which are impermanent like everything else. So, there is nothing to 'transmigrate'.

Elaine said...

Thanks for clarifying that; I can never quite understand the Buddhist doctrine.

DT Strain said...

Understandable. It also makes it tough that there are multitudes of schools and takes on Buddhism, and folk practices mixed in - some of them actually getting closer to the Hindu interpretation. I've read Buddhist rebirth was analogized to a signet ring on wax - this "molding" is similar to how one life can shape another without anything transferring on. I take that to mean something more like, "we effect our environment (including others), and environment effects who we all become as persons". In any case, I will be referencing your post in my blog today at Examiner.com (Houston Humanist Examiner)

http://www.examiner.com/x-8993-Houston-Humanist-Examiner

Elaine said...

Wow, thank you! I'm quite flattered!

Ben Jamin said...

Interesting connection between Stoic metaphysics and monistic Spinoza. Both were fatalistic, in a sense. Spinoza because God is all there is we are bound by hard determinism; Stoics because nature is created by a divine reason and our will can only change our internal states-- everything else is outside of our control.

Theravada Buddhism has similarity with Stoicism in the sense of not being attached to external reality. They took it a step farther and carried non-attachment to internal states, as well. No need to be attached to anything, since ultimately all the world, including internal states, are deception/illusion. Nirvana is the blowing out of the candle. No more existence. (Or non-existence. Which doesn't make any sense. Which is kind of the point-- at least some kinds of Buddhism try to blow your mind so you realize all your thoughts are maya.)

Spinoza would be pretty philosophically opposed to Buddhism, I would think. For him, God is the ultimate Reality, and God is the same thing as the physical world. God is the ultimate truth, and is not illusion/deception. Definitely not comprehensible, since God is beyond our little brains' conception, but not illusion/deception. In fact, our best way of understanding ourselves is to look to external causes, which come from God, rather than to see all causes as illusion.

Anyway, lots to think about, and fun post. Hope you enjoy some random thoughts from a stranger

thistleknot said...

"Free will is as real as baseball" - Sean Carroll

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/07/13/free-will-is-as-real-as-baseball/

If I create a robot and it destroys things. If we are ignorant of it's master, it still must be held accountable for it's actions.

It's all about processing. If one is aware of one's own actions, one can reflect on the harm it has done. This alone is worthy of dealing with it on it's merit's.

How we treat it (philosophically) is another story as different as Norway is to the US on penal incarceration.