|
STOICISM, THE PHILOSOPHY OF ROME
|
|
As Alexander swept across the known world, he founded Greek cities which helped to spread Hellenistic ideas throughout the world. The most important of these cities was Alexandria in Egypt. After his death his successor in Egypt, Ptolemy I, made Alexandria his capital. As a result it became one of the Hellenistic periods major centers of culture and learning. Of particular importance for our investigation of the evolution of western society was that the population of Alexandria included a large contingent of diaspora Jews. Diaspora Jews are the descendants of those who were driven out of Israel. Though by this time they were heavily Hellenized, they yet maintained a loyalty to their homeland and their religion. These Jewish citizens of Alexandria spoke and wrote in Greek. They translated the ancient Jewish books into Greek and formed the Greek bible called the Septaugent. The term is derived from the method of determining the validity of the translations. They were translated by a committee of seventy scholars who had to agree on the translations. Greek philosophy was debated in the market places, became part of the everyday language of the Greek people. The pooling of religious and philosophical ideas that the Hellenistic era is noted for is now called Syncretism. The lack of a single overriding cultural structure led to an eclectic approach to both religion and philosophy. The Greek Gods took on Roman names. The Romans adopted Greek philosophy. The Stoics called themselves "citizens of the world." Stoicism followed from the cynics. It was founded by Zeno after the death of Aristotle. The Epicureans derived their concept from Democritus' atoms. The stoics borrowed from Hericlitus for them a soul of fiery atoms existed in a materialistic universe conceived as reason and occasionally described as God. Drawing inspiration from Semitic sources, stoicism became a new religion growing out of the ashes of a failed polytheism. The best life, said the stoics, is a life in harmony with nature. However little it gives him, man can be resigned to his world for it is the best that can be. This makes the stoic ideal, in Zeno's words, "Life in agreement with nature." Living virtuously is equivalent to living in accordance with experience of the actual course of nature. Chrysipus said that this nature included both universal nature and the nature of man. The Romans were a far more practical people than the Greeks, and more skilled at governing. Stoicism became the strongest force in Roman life. The two best known Roman Stoic writers were Epictetus, a slave, and Marcus Aurelius, an Emperor. Perhaps we could best get a feel for their attitudes by reading their words directly for once truth becomes of secondary importance to living then it is feelings and not logical order which tell us the real meaning of a culture.
This is not a search for truth, it is a search for an ideal life in a world where the forces that mold your environment beyond your understanding. It is one final answer to the ultimate question of life and happiness. It is the refuge of the total skeptic. But most of all it is a way of life that avoids contention and searches for total quietude of the mind.
The rejection of desire has always been considered a trait of eastern religions. But unlike the east, the Stoics were living and breathing members of a culture dedicated to a rational world. If the source of all evil lies in man himself, then it is here that it can be cut out. And who better to tell us how than the magnificent slave.
To live rationally, that was the goal of all Roman philosophies. The Greeks believed that within each man was a spark of the divine, a touch of the unchanging and eternal. But if the soul is nothing but a particular arrangement of senseless atoms which upon death would simply disintegrate leaving nothing, then to live rationally is to live with the full knowledge that the world and all that is in it is ephemeral.
Even in our twentieth century culture we recognize people who maintain what we are likely to call a "stoic" attitude. But to us it is unique. It takes more than a moment of thought to realize that given the underlying skeptic attitude of the period the stoic attitude is a rational approach to a changing world.
Given the lack of truth in the Hellenistic period, opinion is a poor substitute. But to know it is only an opinion is to have taken a step closer to truth.
In Aristotle's ethics, happiness is derived from actions which develop ones own self. The virtue of a given act was particular to the specific act itself and to the specific individuals involved in it. Stoics were unaware of Aristotelian philosophy because during the roman period Aristotle's works were lost to the world. However, we can see that much of his thought would have been very much in line with the stoic attitude.
Once you accept the idea that the world around you as well as much of what you are faced with in your everyday life is determined by a nature you have no control over, it is a small step to being ready for whatever it calls upon you to experience.
But the life of the self is not the life of the body for the self is what you do have control over. To forget this is to lose sight of the advantages of the stoic attitude.
Like Aristotle, the Stoic is committed to direct willful rational acts, and not to arguments concerning the nature of the acts.
The idea of a philosopher as one who presents a way of life rather than a searcher after truth was a natural outcome of a culture where truth is something that is unattainable. Epictetus was a slave who earned his freedom and went on to become a great teacher. Marcus Aurelius was an emperor whose brooding and melancholy treatises still have inspirational ideas to bring us. Stoicism prepared the world for the coming of neoplatonism, but what aspect of it played the most important part? Was it its simple beauty? Or perhaps its impracticality. When we think about Zeno dreaming of a world not of separate states but of one city where all citizens were members of one another bound together not by human laws but by their own willing consent, by their mutual love, it makes us think of a beautiful but impossible dream. It is difficult in our twentieth century thought to pin down the real essence of stoicism. However, a few of the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius might suffice to put our minds in a condition to understand the neoplatonist fascination. To begin with he said to throw away thoughts concerning how we are seen by others. He told us to do what our nature requires. Alexander and Gaius Caesar and Pompeius, he said, to how many things were they slaves? Compare them with Diogenes, Heraclitus, and Socrates, they were acquainted with things, their causes, and their matter. He called on us to ask ourselves concerning any act, " How does this affect me? Shall I repent of it?" If I am now doing the work of an intelligent being living in society under a common law of God, what more do I seek? "Be not perturbed," he said, " all things are according to the universal and in a little time you will be nobody and nowhere." The ultimate striving of the stoic is for a life in harmony with a natural universe. The unique potentiality of man is his reason. This makes the goal of man the achievement of perfect reason. Considering the disintegration of society that was occurring during the third century, this must have required a tremendous amount of devotion.
Although these two schools were the most influential throughout the Hellenistic period, they were not alone. The differences between them expresses what we have been discussing since the beginning of this work, that is the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Both the Stoics and the Epicureans were simply convinced that truth was nature and one needn't search for it, simply learn to live with it. Another group, called the Academicians, claimed that truth was completely unattainable. The skeptics, of whom we have spoken of concerning their founder Pyrhho, as you may recall, called both dogmatists because one claimed they new the truth and the other that they could not. The skeptics claim was that to assert either was foolish because one can never know whether he knew the truth or not. Sextus Empiricus, said, "We assert still that the skeptic's end is quietude in respect in respect of matters of opinion and moderate feeling in respect of things unavoidable. For the skeptic, having set out to philosophize with the object of passing judgement on the sense-impressions and ascertaining which of them are true and which false, so as to attain quietude thereby, found himself involved in contradictions of equal weight, and being unable to decide between them suspended judgement; and as he was thus in suspense there followed, as it happened, the state of quietude in respect of matters of opinion. For the man who opines that anything is by nature good or bad is forever being disquieted: when he is without the things which he deems good he believes himself to be tormented by things naturally bad and he pursues after the things which are, as he thinks, good; which when he as obtained he keeps falling into still more perturbations because of his irrational and immoderate elation, and in his dread of a change of fortune he uses every endeavor to avoid losing the things which he deems good. On the other hand, the man who determines nothing as to what is naturally good or bad neither shuns nor pursues anything eagerly; and, in consequence, he is unperturbed." From this we can see that the ultimate aim of all of these Hellenistic philosophies is quietude of mind at the cost of a search for truth.
|