Hello, I’m relatively new to philosophy and recently picked up A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton as part of a pre-university reading list. The book has had me thinking seriously about what happiness means and how we should live.
My question concerns stoicism. I read that we shouldn’t let external circumstances beyond our control affect us but I’ve been wondering: to what extent? Is pure stoic detachment genuinely virtuous, or does it risk becoming passivity? Would a true stoic forgive everyone who wronged them and simply move on, or is there a threshold beyond which some form of response,even revenge becomes justified?
Keen to hear what the forum thinks. Any reading recommendations are welcome.
Classic question with lots of practical implications. I’m not sure since I’ve not read too much on stoicism, but I don’t think stoicism is about endless forgiveness.
But it’s also not about holding grudges or taking revenge. I think it’s about not letting emotions get the better of us, solving problems through wisdom and understanding instead.
If a person wrongs me, I’ll not hold a grudge against them or seek revenge. But I WILL evaluate what my next steps could be and what their respective outcomes might be. Sometimes a bit of retaliation can show that I’m not to be messed with so easily, keeping them away in the future. And so, from a rational standpoint rather than an emotional one, I might go for a bit of revenge. But of course there are other reasonable solutions as well. For instance, I might simply avoid that person in the future knowing they’ve violated my trust before.
So I think ultimately it’s about using wisdom rather than emotion to make these kind of choices. Let me know what you think and feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.
A framework for your thinking. Whereas a tyrant rules by fear and self-interest, the good Rex rules with love and the welfare of his people at the fore.
I don’t know much about stoicism. It seems like a wonderful philosophy. About 5 or so years ago there were reports of a rise in its popularity in certain parts of the world. Its premises seem to be well-founded; there’s stuff we have no control over, there’s determinism, but we have free will. Virtue is the summum bonum. There is a passivity to stoicism and that may not appeal to everybody. Some like to act, these are the eager types and you meet plenty of them in life. All in all, stoicism is a philosophy that still packs a punch.
Just a heads up… Stoicism has been terribly bastardized in the past decade; hollowed out by commodification and consumerism. Broicism is a more apt name for it now.
Since Warburton wrote his book in 2011 he probably couldn’t have foreseen the way our culture would perversely co-opt and misinterpret Stoic principles.
Just something to keep in mind while reading. Stoicism needs quite a bit of proper context to be understood correctly and it’s very easy to misinterpret through our individualist, transactional lenses.
The Stoics would say that nobody can truly harm them because virtue is the only good and you can’t harm someones virtue ( their ability to live rationally).
However, Stoics are also committed to fulfilling their roles as humans beings. Stoicism does not have any rules about forgiveness. What matters to a stoic is that their actions are rational and social. If you have to consider an act of forgiveness are there good reasons for that act of forgiveness and is it just.
The Stoics were very clear on what they considered external circumstances that should not affect their moral principle. Health and security are external. Natural processes such as aging, weather, and criminals are external. A stoic’s response is not revenge or holding grudges.
It’s hard for us contemporaries to stomach it, but there were true practitioners of this philosophy during their time. Death was not to be thought of as unfortunate so long as their internal stability was maintained during the course of their passing.