Dr. John Sellars is Reader in the History of Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London, and Director of its Centre for the Study and Application of Stoicism. A veteran scholar with a PhD in Philosophy, he is a founding member of the London Centre for Ancient Philosophy, a Member of Common Room at Wolfson College, Oxford, and Associate Editor of the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project at King’s College London. Beyond academia, Sellars is dedicated to public philosophy as a co-founder of both Modern Stoicism and the Aurelius Foundation. His works include The Art of Living, Lessons in Stoicism, and the newly released Stoicism Is Not What You Think.
Tell us about Stoicism Is Not What You Think.
The aim of the book is to challenge a number of common and stubbornly persistent misconceptions about Stoicism. The idea came out of a conference we had in London where a number of participants commented that even among generally well-informed groups of people there is often a suspicion about Stoicism - that it is unhealthy in some way or politically suspect; stiff upper lip and macho resilience. In our discussions at the event someone commented that it would be really useful if there was a book that addressed all these misconceptions in one place. This is my attempt to provide just that.
The ancient Stoics didn’t see any important difference between humans, whether men or women.
You directly address the modern misconception that Stoicism is an aggressively masculine philosophy. How do the ancient texts and historical practice challenge this gendered, ultra-individualistic caricature?
I think we can challenge that common stereotype in two ways. First, we can look at some of the core general claims in Stoic ethics. The defining characteristic of human beings is being rational and other things such as nationality, race, and gender are of no consequence in comparison. So, the ancient Stoics didn’t see any important difference between humans, whether men or women. In this they were following Socrates as he is portrayed in some of the Platonic dialogues. Second, we are fortunate to have texts by the later Roman Stoic Musonius Rufus that explicitly address this issue. Musonius is quite clear that women too can become philosophers and that girls should receive the same education as boys, being equally rational. This was of course a radical idea in the period. Musonius makes a point of saying that even the seemingly male virtue of courage (andreia, in origin ‘manliness’) can be seen in women too, such as when defending their young. Donna Zuckerberg suggests in her book Not All Dead White Men that this could be seen as the imposition of a male set of values onto women, expecting them to conform to a male conception of virtue. That seems to me to be an uncharitable way to read what Musonius was saying, based merely on the etymology of the word. Of course women can be brave and courageous in all sorts of ways, and I don’t think saying this is implicitly expecting women to conform to a male version of virtue.
There’s nothing wrong with taking a cold shower every morning if that is your thing, but I don’t see it having anything to do with Stoicism.
Aside from what could be considered ‘broicism’, what is a key misconception/oversimplification that well-meaning practitioners fall into when trying to apply Seneca, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius to daily life?
That’s a really interesting question. People are often keen to stress that Stoicism is a practical philosophy that you live, and don’t just talk about. Epictetus repeats this again and again. But sometimes this can drift into what we might call an anti-theoretical attitude, to the point that they are not really interested in trying to understand the details of the philosophy that stands behind the practice. But Stoicism is not just a set of practices or things to do - it is first and foremost a set of ideas. Yes, you ought to put the ideas into practice and make use of them, but first you have to understand them. Not only that, you ought to think through the arguments that the Stoics give and decide if you think they add up. The theory comes first, and then the practice. I think too many people want to jump straight to the practice. In the process they risk missing the philosophy altogether. To put this into context, it is worth remembering all the obscure technical topics that early Stoics like Chrysippus discussed at great length - logic, grammar, epistemology, and more. And it is worth stressing that this was the material that Epictetus was probably reading with his students.
Closely related to this are the types of things that some people tend to think of as Stoic practices. There’s nothing wrong with taking a cold shower every morning if that is your thing, but I don’t see it having anything to do with Stoicism. Someone might come back and say it is good because it builds up resilience. That would make sense for someone who does not like cold showers, but has one from time to time to remind themselves that it is not the end of the world if the hot water fails. But if you make it a daily habit that just becomes a preference, not training. Similarly Marcus Aurelius reminds himself to get up early in the morning and face the day. That’s not bad advice, but it has nothing to do with Stoicism, in the sense that it isn’t really grounded in any key Stoic ethical ideas. Marcus says lots of things that people want to take up as ‘Stoic practices’ but just because he says them does not make them Stoic in any meaningful sense. For that to be the case they would have to derive from the philosophy, not just Marcus’s personal preferences. I have nothing at all against cold showers and early mornings - and these may well both be very sensible things to do - but there’s nothing Stoic about them.
So, what would genuine Stoic practices look like? Well, given this is philosophy and the Stoics think that the goal is to become a better rational animal, anything that improves our rationality - and so our ability to make good decisions in our daily lives - must surely be key. Chrysippus was one of the foremost logicians of his day (indeed, of any day) and Epictetus too insists on the necessity of the study of logic. Perhaps aspiring Stoics in the twenty-first century should drop their mindfulness and their gratitude journals and instead take up the study of formal logic. Again, by all means be mindful and grateful, but one also needs to be able to think through complex problems clearly and rationally. This is what the Stoics advocate and it’s the skill we all need to work on.
I suppose the only really contentious issue in all this is the notion of divine providence.
Modern self-help often strips Stoicism down to actionable tools but often discards its broader framework, such as Stoic logic and living in accordance with Nature.
This is a really complex issue and there’s been a good deal of discussion about it. I touch on it in the book, although I’m not sure if I come to a definitive solution. Let me say two things. The first is that it seems quite clear from the ancient evidence that the Stoics saw their philosophy as a systematically inter-related combination of logic, physics, and ethics. As I’ve just tried to say, the logic really is indispensable. The same must surely apply to the physics. The key idea that we ought to live in agreement with Nature involves a range of assumptions about what nature is like and our relationship to it. Most important of these is that we are all parts of Nature and cannot exist independently.
However, having said that it also seems clear to me that there was plenty of debate within the ancient Stoic tradition about the details of physical theory. They didn’t all share exactly the same set of beliefs and they argued among one another. In short, there is not one clear definite statement of what Stoic view is. As philosophers, each ancient Stoic came to their own view and took their own position. What I take away from this is the thought that, yes, Stoic physics is indispensable, but at the same time Stoic physics is malleable and it is entirely within the spirit of ancient Stoicism to reject some bits and update others as we see fit - using our reason and being philosophers.
I suppose the only really contentious issue in all this is the notion of divine providence. There’s a line of thought that says Stoic consolation depends on believing in divine providence, and so if you reject it you lose something important in Stoic ethics. But in my experience not many people drawn to Stoicism today are looking for that kind of theological consolation. Most seem to be far more interested in managing emotions and thinking about what has most value in their lives. Just as Cicero did in antiquity there doesn’t seem to be any philosophical problem or contradiction in embracing these aspects of Stoicism while at the same time suspending judgement about providence and other aspects of Stoic physics. If you do this are you really a Stoic? That strikes me as an uninteresting question, unless you are really hung up on embracing a label. What matters is whether there are ideas here that are plausible and that work.