The Laughing Stoic COSP
- Availability
- Text available
- Text quality
- Automatic checks passed
- Text format
- Digital text extracted from the document
- Document type
- Educational resource
- Usage rights
- Authorized for this project
- Excerpts
- 7
page 1
THE STOIC PHILOSOPHER
An eJournal published by the
College of Stoic Philosophers
Jan/Feb/Mar 2012: Issue #1
MISSION STATEMENT: A Stoic philosopher has the right to investigate and experiment with life in any and all
forms and ways as long as he or she preserves a noble character while doing so.
That's the vision. That's what we will attempt to do with every issue we publish. We will always attempt to
feature the kind of wisdom content that you can use today and refer to tomorrow as you become the Stoic
philosopher you know that you can be. That's what we are here for. This is what we do. Welcome to our first
issue. The Stoic philosopher is here again.
Erik Wiegardt, Scholarch
College of Stoic Philosophers
*
Dr. Barnett is a member of the Stoic community and was one of the first tutors for the College of Stoic
Philosophers. He has a Ph.D. in Applied Experimental and Human Factors Psychology from University of Central
Florida and currently works as a research psychologist for the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI). John retired
from the US Air Force in 1996 where he was a navigator, electronic warfare officer, staff officer for the Strategic
Air Command, and a Defensive Systems Officer in B-1B bombers. Outside of work his main interest, other than
Stoicism, is military history and collecting bits of militaria from time to time.
“The Laughing Stoic”
John Barnett, PhD
Chrysippus of Soli was the third head of the Stoic school. Legend has it that when he was 73 years old, he saw
a donkey eating a plate of figs from a table in a garden. When the lady of the house came out and saw the
donkey had eaten her figs, she was understandably outraged. Chrysippus, on the other hand, saw the humor in
it, and said to her “He’s waiting for his wine!” Chrysippus thought this incredibly
page 1
funny - he laughed so hard he
died.
I often read that Stoics are supposed to be unemotional people. They are supposed to learn to suppress their
emotions so as to weather life’s hardships. Often, writings that are critical of Stoicism say the philosophy trains
people to be unfeeling automatons. Even respected academic authorities on philosophy suggest the goal of
Stoicism is to forgo all emotions.
I disagree with this view. Obviously Chrysippus, one of the early heads of the Stoic school, had a sense of
humor (although laughing yourself to death is a bit extreme – it certainly violates the virtue of moderation). I
page 2
do not believe that the original Greek Stoics meant for those who practice Stoicism to forgo all emotions. As
Erik Wiegardt reminds me, Epictetus says that we are not to be as unfeeling as a statute (Discourses, book 3,
chapter 2). I think their idea was to learn to deal with negative emotions, but also take advantage of positive
emotions. I believe it is possible to practice Stoic philosophy and still experience the joys that Fate allows us.
I believe that the idea of the Stoic as completely unemotional is a misunderstanding, brought about by a
number of misinterpretations of terms and ideas (and possibly some bad press). One of these
misinterpretations may be an incomplete understanding of the Greek language. For example, the Greek term
pathos is often translated into English as “emotion.” In English, the term “emotion” is value-neutral; emotions
can be positive or negative. In Greek, pathos seems to be more about negative emotions. The Greeks also
have a term for good emotions, eupathos, the “eu-“ denoting “good.” This suggests to me that pathos refers
mostly to negative emotions.
Therefore, the Greek Stoics would encourage students to work towards a state of apathos, (“a-” = “without”)
which sounds much like the English term “apathy” (not surprising, since “apathy” is derived from apathos). In
English, “apathy” is usually understood as “uncaring” or “unfeeling.” However, although pathos can be
translated into English as “emotion,” it can also be translated as “suffering.” Thus, I believe the better
understanding of apathos is “without [emotional] suffering.”
I apologize for this journey into semantics, but I think it is necessary to appreciate a possible misunderstanding
– that Stoics aren’t supposed to be uncaring, unfeeling automatons. Instead, they (we) are
page 2
supposed to allow
their emotions to mature to the state where their logic manages their emotions, rather than allowing oneself to
be at the mercy of the whims of unrestrained passions.
Another possible cause for believing Stoics shouldn’t embrace positive emotions is a common belief in western
society about what is known in game theory as the zero-sum game. Many of our experiences in life involve the
zero-sum principle, that is, to get something valuable, you have to give up something valuable (so that the total
sum is zero). Most daily economics is based on this. To buy something you want, you give money, which you
get by working. Thus, to get something someone has worked to produce, you have to work to produce
something that someone else wants, and use a medium (money) to make the exchange work out. However,
although many things in life are zero-sum, not everything is. Sometimes it works out that everyone wins (plussum or “win-win”), or unfortunately, everyone loses (a no-win situation).
I think that some people feel that to gain peace from letting go of negative emotions, you must also let go of
positive emotions. I feel that in this case they are applying the zero-sum principle unnecessarily. I believe it is
possible to let go of negative emotions, yet still experience the joy of positive emotions. There does not seem
to be any negative outcome to this win-win situation.
The test of whether it would be inappropriate for someone who follows the philosophical life (a Stoic) to apply
win-win to emotions would be if doing so would be counter to virtue. If we use the four foundation virtues
(wisdom, courage, justice, moderation) as our benchmarks, would it be unwise, cowardly, unjust, or excessive
to let go of negative emotions yet experience positive emotions? I
page 2
believe not.
Instead, my personal opinion is that positive emotions should fall in the same category as “preferred
indifferents” (wealth, fame, power, etc.) in that they are not in-and-of-themselves virtues or vices, but can be
virtuous or immoral depending on how they are expressed. For example, feeling admiration for an aesthetically
pleasing object (or person) is not contrary to virtue, but obsessing over the object or person would be contrary
to the virtue of moderation. Or, feeling satisfaction when a miscreant is sentenced to perform community
service as restitution for committing an offense would be acceptable, because justice is being served. However,
gloating over the misfortune of others (epicaricacy or “Schadenfreude”) would be a violation of the virtue of
page 3
justice, since, except in rare cases, the victims most likely did nothing to warrant the misfortune. It is therefore
unjust, and feeling joy at injustice is counter to virtue.
In addition, used appropriately, positive emotions can provide motivation for following virtue (although a true
Sage may not need such motivation, it might be useful for those of us who have not reached sagacity). For
example, if a person feels satisfaction when justice is seen to be done, or pride at acts of courage, it can be an
encouragement to further these virtues. Feelings of gratification when wisdom triumphs over foolishness, or
when modesty overcomes conceit can promote further expressions of those virtues. Of course, if these feelings
are used inappropriately, they can also encourage vices as well. Such is the nature of indifferents, in that they
can be used for good or evil. However, I believe that positive emotions should be considered like preferred
indifferents, that is, preferred because they can motivate people to act more virtuously, when used
appropriately.
Epictetus often uses attending a banquet as a metaphor for Stoic behavior (Enchiridion, chap. 15). At a
banquet, we wait patiently for dishes to come to us, and take what the host serves to us. We don’t jump up
and run around to take food from others, nor do we ask the host for special dishes. We take what is served and
accept it with grace.
Following this metaphor, when dishes are passed to us, we take what we’re given. If it’s a dish we don’t
especially like, we take a little anyway so as not to embarrass the host, and eat it with grace. If a dish we like
comes by, we take a full portion (but not more than our share), and enjoy it. Similarly, when life presents us
with misfortunes, we deal with our misfortunes with as much
page 3
grace as we can muster. However, I believe that
when Fate presents us with good fortune, we should ladle our fair share on our plate and thoroughly enjoy it.
If a Stoic is expected to weather the misfortunes Fate brings their way with grace, then it is only just (keeping
with the virtue of justice) that the Stoic should also experience joy at the beneficial gifts Fate gives.
Perhaps the perfect Stoic, the Sage, may mature to the point of letting go of all emotions, positive as well as
negative. However, I believe for most of us, the journey to perfect Sagacity is a destination we may never reach
in this life. I believe while we are on our journey to Sage-hood we should use good emotions to help us along
our way.
Therefore, I say to my fellow followers of Stoic philosophy; as you go about your life preparing to meet
hardships with grace, also make sure you talk and laugh with friends, view sunsets, play with children and pets,
and love those close to you. Even as you remind yourself that Fate can take them away without warning, for
now, you should thoroughly enjoy these gifts that Nature has allocated to you.
(I’d like to thank Erik Wiegardt for reviewing this article and for his valuable comments. I sincerely appreciate his
guidance.)
* *
NOTICE TO OUR READERS:
If you wish to publish comments about this essay, please email cyberstoic@aol.com and use “SJ Editor” in the
subject heading. Please be brief, editing may be required. Thank you. EW
* * *