A Critique of the Stoicphere

My first reading of the Stoics was back when I was still an Evangelical Christian, studying theology in undergrad in a suburb in the norther outskirts of the Metro-Detroit area. I'd been working to expose myself to a variety of new ideas, both religiously and philosophically when I stumbled upon The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. The effect the work had on me was so profound that I had to put it down. I was still a very conservative Christian at the time, but it was clear to me in a way that I wasn't willing to admit that Aurelius was much wiser than Solomon - in fact, I felt seduced by his moral perspective. Looking back, I realize that this is because his perspective appeals to me more than anything in Christian scripture, which is why I identify as a Stoic Humanist today, instead of as a Christian. 

Even though I identify as a Stoic, I'm disappointed by what I see in most of the Stoic communities that I observe. While I do see a lot of good things, I notice a few things seem to be missing. I see a lot of Stoics focused on resolve, being undefeatable, not caring what the world thinks. All of these are great aspect of Stoicism, but without the important other elements, they are incomplete at best and potentially even toxic. 

Here's what I think is missing. The Stoics focused on community. Stoicism isn't an individualistic ethical philosophy - they believed that humans are social creatures, that we are our best selves when we're both giving to and receiving from the community. We aren't doing all of the things we do only for ourselves. We are supposed to care about the world around us. We're supposed to work to resolve injustices and improve our communities. We might fail - humans and their societies are innately unjust. We're not going to create a utopia that has humans in it. But perfection isn't the point. Doing our part is. This is more about virtue that it is about results, which leads right into the next problem.

A lot of Stoic communities don't seem to be heavily focused on virtue. What I see instead is ego. Don't get me wrong. I don't see this nonsense from many of the great Stoic teachers of our day, folks like Ryan Holiday and Robert B. Irvine. They're teaching against ego, but in the online communities and even in some of the in person communities, something different is going on. Stoicism isn't a fight song. It isn't toxic positivity. It doesn't begin by telling us that we can win. In fact, it begins by telling us that we're going to lose. One of the foundational ideas of Stoicism is that we're all going to die and who knows if there's an afterlife. It not just that we're going to die, but that we die moment by moment. The most of that last sentence has past and the Jon who wrote it is gone too. We are temporary - there's no such thing as winning. Enjoying the moment and being the best we can be for the people around us is the closest we get to winning. Cultivating the virtues, the character that help us do that - that's the closest we get to winning.

Words