God, Meaning, and Stoicism

First a caveat:  I've been fairly sick the last few days, so please pardon me if this doesn't make a lot of sense.

I've been thinking quite a bit about god, meaning, and Stoicism lately.  Truth be told, it's something I've thought about for about as long as I've considered myself a Stoic, and probably before that.

Does Stoicism require that 1.  we believe something specific about the existence of god (pantheism, theism, deism, atheism, agnosticism, etc) and 2. we believe there is an intrinsic, true 'M'eaning to life (the capital 'M' is critical here)?

These are pretty difficult questions, not the least of the reasons being that they've been talked about for ages with no incontrovertible answers.  I certainly am not smarter than those before me, nor do I pretend to have come across or been given any special insight.

In the end, I believe the answer to BOTH questions is....NO.  I do NOT believe that we need to have any specific belief about god nor do we have to believe there's an intrinsic, verifiable 'M'eaning to life.

As a matter of fact, I don't even believe that we need believe the ancient Stoics were saying anything 'T'rue about life.

What I DO believe Stoicism does is say a lot of things that are 't'rue about human beings, our psychological make-up, and creating a well-rounded 'm'eaning of life.

First, I think it's absolutely true that most, if not all, human suffering comes from our false beliefs about our control over external things.  So many of our 'woes' come from believing that this or that external thing is a.  under our control and b. necessary for our tranquility.

Upon investigation, neither of those are usually true.  Except for our own choices, actions, and beliefs, we have little control over what goes on around us.  Additionally, those things are rarely critical for our happiness.  Ever seen someone with a disability or someone in difficult circumstances who nonetheless was tranquil and happy?  I sure have.   That PROVES to me that it's not the circumstances themselves but our response to them that defines our happiness.

Second, Stoicism in it's many forms provides some pretty amazing pieces of advice for living a good life.  From our duty to the human community to the focus on the really important things (family, friends, internal things), the Stoics understood that living the good life required both internal and external virtues.  Not only must we understand that externals are not the arbiters of our happiness, but we must also recognize that we can not achieve our internal virtues without acting in a certain way toward those things outside of us.  Epictetus talks about how to approach the things outside us:  with care and consistency.  There MUST be an outside manifestation of our internal virtues.

All of this comes together to create a unique way of living that engenders a deep and lasting happiness:  a happiness not dependent upon what happens around us and which issues forth in productive social actions.  Sure, we may not be able to pin these beliefs/practices to what's 'R'eal, but we can certainly see that they definitely create 'm'eaning (notice the lower case m).  Meaning doesn't need to be 'R'eal in order to be 'r'eal.  The act of living the Stoic life will create a 'r'eal, 'm'eaningful life, even if it doesn't mimic a 'R'eal  'M'eaning.

God.  This is a tricky subject.  It certainly appears that the Ancient Stoics believed in a pantheistic metaphysic.  My contention is that it's pure infancy to believe we have to mimic and parrot the beliefs of any group or person.  This is especially true of the Ancient philosophers.

While the Stoics had a lot of right things to say about internal 'reality', they appear to have said a lot of uninformed, ignorant things about external reality.  Sure, you can twist, turn, reinterpret, etc ANYTHING to mesh with modern knowledge, but that is usually a disingenuous attempt at revisionist philosophy.  Let's just admit up front that the Stoics had cultural/intellectual biases that showed up in their philosophy.  So what?   It doesn't change one bit the power of their psychological and social beliefs.

In the end, what I'm proposing appears to be a post-modern version of Stoicism.  In some ways, it probably looks that way and might even be a fair assessment.  However, in the end, I'm more inclined to call it a 'Modern Stoicism':  a Stoicism that takes what makes sense for us Moderns, and leaves behind commitments that appear to be idiosyncratic and cultural from Ancient times.  Unfortunately, it's impossible to escape our cultural trappings and surely my version of Stoicism will smack of American Pragmatism, Modern Scientific Positivism, and European Post-Modernism.  So be it.

I intend to continue this Stoic path and to see where it goes.  I'll leave behind what doesn't work toward the goal of human happiness--true lasting happiness--and keep what does achieve the goal.

Even without God and 'M'eaning, I'm completely satisfied with the power and genuine happiness/tranquility that embracing the core of Stoic philosophy brings.  Frankly, that's enough for me.

take care,

brett