Recently,
I’ve been working on not only gaining a deeper understanding of
Stoicism, but also how to use in modern life, as well as attempting
to figure out if there is anything of the modern world that could be
of some use to Stoicism. This attempt, of course, has me seeing
Stoicism of today as two different schools: New Stoicism and
Traditional Stoicism. The following, of course, may be a gross
generalization that could be dispelled with a little work, but I find
that the best way to find answers is to sometimes be wrong on the
internet.
Traditional
Stoicism
I
also call this “religious” Stoicism, not because Stoics from this
camp follow one faith or another, but rather they’re attempting to
keep the physics side of Stoicism alive. This means keeping the idea
of Providence going.
To
the Traditional Stoic, dropping this aspect of Stoicism effectively
changes it from a philosophy to a form of CBT psychology. You won’t
find anyone (that I can tell) arguing that this isn’t useful, but
rather that it just isn’t Stoicism.
This
school, as far as I can tell, is attempting to fit
new ideas into the framework of an old philosophy. They don’t
ignore science or anything like that, but
they also don’t ignore the physics of Stoicism. Providence is real
and, through the use of both science and philosophy, attempt to prove
this.
This
school’s biggest challenge is overcoming the skepticism of most
modern people. Providence, seemingly, plays no part in today’s
world. Atheists find no need to for it and it seems a lot of theists
see divinity more as a form of prosperity (“Pray to God for x,
and pray like you mean it, and you’ll get x
in
some form or another!”).
New
Stoicism
If
Traditional Stoicism is about fitting
new ideas into an old philosophy, New Stoicism is about
fitting
an old philosophy into new ideas. The Roman Stoics all but abandoned
the logic side of Hellenistic Stoicism, and New Stoics abandoned the
physics
side.
A
majority of New Stoics are atheist or agnostic (and before that
debate starts, yes, I’m aware you can be both). For
them, divinity just simply isn’t needed for Stoicism to exist. If,
after all, an atheist derives the same benefits from Stoicism as one
that believes in Providence, at what point did it stop being a valid
philosophy?
This
school’s biggest challenge is accounting for individual suffering.
It can be hard to take Stoicism’s “medicine” about evil and
overcoming it when the big Doctor in the sky isn’t around to
dispense the treatment. When you try to take the cosmos as a whole,
the atheist perspective can leave it a little cold whereas with the
Providential view, the universe “provides” for you.
Final
Thoughts
This
is, as stated, my starting thoughts in this new understanding of
Stoicism. I want to explore the way of the old schools and see if
they can withstand the test of time. Personally, I think both schools
have valid points about the other: I’m leery about outright
ignoring one aspect of Stoicism, but it’s also hard to accept that
the universe is looking out for us.
