Self-Leadership and the Irrationality Dilemma COSP
- Disponibilité
- Texte consultable
- Qualité du texte
- Contrôles automatiques réussis
- Format du texte
- Texte numérique extrait du document
- Type de document
- Ressource pédagogique
- Droits d’usage
- Utilisation autorisée pour ce projet
- Extraits
- 28
page 1
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
Self-Leadership and the Irrationality Dilemma
Ian Roth
Stoicism and Modern Psychology
Despite the considerable age of the philosophical system, much of the Stoic model of the
human mind aligns with theories accepted by contemporary psychology. In fact, some of the most
influential therapeutic approaches in use today - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and offshoots like
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy - are based on
and remain largely in agreement with Stoic teachings and practices (Robertson, 2018). For those
familiar with Stoic thought and, in particular, with the practical motivations underpinning it, the utility
of this philosophy in therapeutic and clinical settings should be unsurprising. To acknowledge these
successes, however, is not to suggest that Stoicism and contemporary psychology enjoy perfect
alignment. Quite to the contrary, there is a central belief of Stoicism that seems to stand at odds
with much of what modern scientific literature suggests about the human mind.
(Ir)rationality
Stoicism holds that, at their core, humans are rational beings. “…if something is a man,
then that thing is a rational animal,” (Sellars qtd Chrysippus, 2006, p. 85). It further argues that,
since rationality is a defining characteristic of humanity, behaving rationally is our moral
responsibility. Since we are uniquely capable of rationality, the argument goes, that rationality is
central to our teleological path - the one we are intrinsically drawn to follow. Rationality
characterizes us just as blooming does a flower. Provided the environment is
supportive enough, a flower can be reasonably relied on to bloom. Likewise,
given a supportive enough environment, humans
page 1
gravitate towards rationality.
Our teleological capacity is greater than that of a flower, though, since we enjoy
the autonomy to choose rationality regardless of external realities. And yet, we
so often fail to do so.
While the Stoic account seems theoretically plausible, it is
at odds with much of the empirical evidence being produced by
modern psychology. In particular, researchers like Ariely (2010)
and Kahneman (2013) have made celebrated careers out of
demonstrating that humans not only behave irrationally, but often
do so in predictable ways. We regularly make choices that do not
serve us or those we care about. We defend our position more
vociferously the less well-founded it appears to be. We follow the
crowd even when it is headed straight for an obvious cliff.
1
page 2
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
It is necessary, at this point, to establish that the Stoic position on human rationality is not
that we are unerringly rational but, rather, that we are essentially so. They claim rationality is the
essence of humanity because it is what distinguishes us from other forms of life. But, this is not
meant to suggest that all people behave rationally all of the time. Much of our rational capacity
depends upon the degree to which we are actively engaged with the present moment. The core
Stoic practice of prosoche is an admixture of mindfulness and rationality. Without the former, it is
too easy to find oneself wrapped up in a story, disconnected from reality and, thus, unable to make
a rational decision. Over time and with dedicated practice, proper attention and rationality come to
characterize us. That is, they become ever more influential aspects of our character. This is the
endless path of Stoic development - the following of our telos.
The Irrationality Dilemma
Contrary to the Stoic characterization of humans as essentially rational creatures whose
irrational choices are mere stumbles attributable to inattention or insufficient development of
character, the portrait painted by mainstream psychology is that of a thoroughly emotional creature
disguising itself behind a veneer of rationality. Haidt (2006) uses the analogy of an elephant and
rider - a relationship wherein the rider’s control extends only as far as the elephant permits, and
when that control is revoked, the rider’s only recourse is to hold on for the ride and apologize for the
damage inflicted. Similarly, Robson (2021) offers the analogy of an unreasonable client and the
lawyer whose job it is to rationalize, cover up, and excuse
page 2
their many misdeeds. According to these
researchers, we are no more rational in our motivations than any other apes, and what rational
capacity we do possess evolved, not to guide us, but to disguise our true nature so that we might
get along in the company of other highly intelligent apes. Rationality, in their view, does not help us
choose well, it only helps us rationalize effectively. It provides us with persuasive reasons to follow
the call of our emotions. It manufactures plausible, seemingly reasonable explanations for choices
whose true motivations could be problematic if made apparent.
Clearly, this picture is a problem for Stoicism both in its seeming incompatibility and in its
supporting base of research. The likely reaction of those with knowledge of both depictions, even if
they are attracted to Stoicism, would be to label its worldview idealistic. They might reach a position
of compromise according to which we would be well-served by striving to behave rationally, but that
striving will always be at odds with our innate irrationality.
From the perspective of the Stoic philosophical system, this is not an acceptable
compromise. If the task of behaving rationally is Sisyphean in nature, with the gravitational pull of
our irrational core acting as a constant threat, the Stoic ethical system - the central tenet of which is
‘act according to nature’ - becomes untenable. This tenet would either be instructing us to behave
irrationality, which is clearly contrary to Stoic teachings, or it would be asking that we reject our
actual nature in favor of an idealized one. The problem with this second interpretation is twofold.
First, it raises the question of why the core ethical tenet of Stoicism, repeated ad nauseum
throughout its foundational texts, would be so
page 2
misleading. If the central ethical principle was actually
‘act in accordance with what your nature would ideally be’, we must assume that is what the Stoics
would have said.
2
page 3
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
The second problem with the ‘nature actually means ideal nature’ interpretation is how
unrealistic it is. Granted, Stoic ethics are strident. They do not recognize ethical gradients,
classifying any given choice as either ethical or unethical and similarly refusing to distinguish
between more or less unethical acts. This conception is workable, though, precisely because what
is ethical is also what is natural. If the Stoics are suggesting that, to behave ethically, we must resist
our irrational nature, unethical behaviors become the default. The Stoic sage is recast as a figure
resisting nature rather than embodying it and an individual can rightfully expect and, perhaps,
excuse their ethical lapses. They are, after all, working at odds with their own nature. To expect a
human to consistently operate contrary to how they are construed is akin to expecting a dog to go
through life only ever walking on its hind legs. It having the capacity to perform this feat says
nothing about whether such a prolonged performance would be natural for it. It should be clear this
is not what the Stoics had in mind.
Nor did the Stoics ignore this apparent irrationality. “…our senses inform us about the world
in a fairly reliable fashion, and most of our beliefs about medium-size objects are true…. However,
the Stoics postulate pandemic error when it comes to matters of evaluation: all of the individuals
around us, as well as our cultures, laws, and institutions, are wildly misguided in our assessments
of what is good and bad (Brennan, 2003, p. 264). While our senses seem to work as one might
expect, when it comes to matters of deep and abiding importance, the rationality of our nature fails
us. Brennan goes on to
page 3
point out that, although emotions “…are anomalous and flawed as
examples of human motivation, they are also the most familiar form of impulse, and - by some sort
of irony - we have significantly more evidence from Stoicism about these vicious motivations than
we do for any of the virtuous motivations that the Stoics espoused” (2003, p.264). While the theory
states that we are rational and virtuous by nature, the evidence points to our being abysmal judges
motivated by brutish emotions.
This leaves the Stoic enthusiast with an apparent dilemma. Either they admit that the central
tenet of Stoicism must, considering the mounting scientific evidence to the contrary, be incorrect, or
they ignore and explain away the scientific evidence in an effort to defend their preferred theory. To
choose the first option is to renounce Stoicism. To choose the second is to refute it, for it is a
philosophy that values the development of ever greater objectivity - an aspect of the Discipline of
Assent - in those who would practice it. There is, however, a third option: one that relies on
understanding the concepts of self-leadership and healthy psychic multiplicity.
Psychic Multiplicity
“You know, you’re a little complicated after all.”
“Oh no,” she assured him hastily. “No, I’m not really - I’m just a - I’m just a
whole lot of different simple people.”
– F. Scott Fitzgerald, Tender is the Night, 1962, p. 292
In hopes of navigating the potential contradictions and inconsistencies previously outlined, I
will be drawing on Internal Family Systems (IFS). This therapeutic model not only has a
3
page 4
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
well-established history of success in clinical settings, it is increasingly well-researched and
supported (Catanzaro, 2016; Geib, 2016; Haddock et al, 2016).
To provide a basic outline of this model, it portrays the individual human psyche not as a
singular entity, but as one comprising many parts. These parts are themselves personalities with
their own priorities, memories, and default strategies. Each was created by the individual to deal
with a perceived threat that person faced, often during childhood. Those that have proven useful in
the past likely enjoy greater status in the psychic hierarchy and, as a result, take the lead more
often. Those that produced unwanted outcomes in the past are often suppressed and, in IFS
terminology, ‘exiled’. But, regardless of their current status, all of these parts remain present and on
alert for their associated triggers - the ones that will set their response strategy in motion.
This model of the human psyche is useful for several reasons. First, it aligns with the
intuitive sense most people have of their inner world. Even those with no knowledge of IFS will
naturally speak in the language of parts (e.g. ‘A part of me is actually looking forward to this’).
People talk of experiencing inner conflict - of debating what to do. Who, it is reasonable to ask, are
the parties participating in this debate if not distinct parts of the person’s psyche?
Second, when applied, this model can facilitate human development. According to the
psycho-philosophical metamodel of Integral Theory (Wilbur, 2000; Wilbur, 2007) which, among
other things, synthesizes the developmental models of researchers, religions, and philosophers
from around the world and throughout history,
page 4
development from one stage to the next takes place
in three distinct movements to be described hereafter.
Development and Parts
During the first movement, the individual is melded with their current state. That state,
phenomenologically speaking, is inseparable from them. This might be an emotional state such as
when people say ‘I am angry’, a phrase which equates their entire existence to a single emotional
experience. Or, the state in question might be a role played by the person. Regardless, for
development to occur, that state must go from subject to object. That is, it must go from being lived
to being observed as the individual becomes cognizant of the space between themselves and the
state. Anger becomes an emotional experience the individual is aware of having.
The second movement consists of identifying what is possible now that the state has been
objectified. This may mean exploring the cause of the state to determine whether it is warranted. It
may lead to an acknowledgement of the state that allows it to pass without incident. For those
practicing Stoicism, distance from one’s current state creates the space needed to reconnect with
rationality and virtue. One cannot use impressions properly until they have been identified as such.
Through the exploration and discovery of other options, the individual does more than merely
distance themselves from that state. They transcend it.
Finally, the state is reintegrated by the individual. This involves accepting the state,
recognizing it as one aspect among many, and placing it into the service of the individual so it
becomes useful. Anger - once it has been made an object of experience rather than a pervasive
quality of existence - can be transmuted into something productive rather than destructive. The
4
page 5
ISSUE 60
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
same emotional impulse, with the infusion of virtue, ceases to be anger becoming, instead, a quality
such as resolve, resilience, or forthrightness. The individual has gone from being angry, to
experiencing anger, to harnessing or aligning the energy of anger.
This tripartite movement - distance, transcendence, and integration - is how development
takes place. The parts-based language of IFS facilitates development by providing a convenient
and intuitive language that allows the individual to accept the nature of their subjective experience
without being subsumed by it. This language compliments the Stoic practice of prosoche in that the
latter function allows one to go from being the experience to recognizing the experience, while the
former provides the means to accept the reality of that experience while simultaneously creating
distance from it.
Dealing with the Dilemma
With respect to the irrationality dilemma previously outlined, the IFS model provides a
solution. According to this model, it is possible for an individual to be rational by nature despite
behaving in a seemingly irrational manner. This is because the various parts that wield influence
over a person are behaving rationally according to their often-outdated model of the world and of
the individual nested within it. These parts were formed at an earlier time, often during childhood.
As a result, they possess a child’s rationality and worldview. These parts are doing what they
believe necessary to protect an earlier version of the individual - exhibiting not a lack of rationality,
but a lack of awareness. A part that responds to the individual’s frustration by getting angry might
do so because responding with anger resulted in the
page 5
10-year-old version of the individual achieving
their desired outcome. Anger, then, is a proven, useful strategy and employing it seems, to this part,
entirely rational. In other words, the parts are trying to help, but do not know conditions have
changed. They do not know that the individual is more capable now than they once were or that
these learned strategies are no longer viable in the world that individual has come to inhabit.
Were rationality limited to this function, the IFS model would provide a pyrrhic solution to
Stoicism’s irrationality dilemma. What would it say, after all, for a philosophy to position rationality
as its highest ideal if the meaning of rationality encompassed such misguided, childish
applications? But, IFS also places a distinctly Stoic element - the Self - at the center of its model.
This Self is described as the seat of consciousness (Schwartz, 2023b). It is something we are each
gifted with at birth and, while our many parts may develop over the course of our lives, our Self
does not. Rather, development happens by ever more closely and consistently aligning ourselves
with our Self.
The Self is always accessible and, for those who know what to look for, it is apparent when
someone - oneself included - is living connected to the Self. This is because such connection not
only changes the quality of a person’s presence, but is characterized by eight resources of the Self.
These are
●
●
Calm- resilience and equanimity; the tendency to avoid being emotionally overwhelmed
Curiosity- inquisitiveness, lack of defensiveness; the tendency to avoid hasty
judgments
5
page 6
ISSUE 60
●
●
●
●
●
●
A publication of the College of Stoic Philosophers
December 2024
Confidence- groundedness, solidity; the stable platform from which we face life’s
challenges
Connectedness- an echo of our shared divinity; the widening of the circle of concern;
the ‘I am you’ realization
Clarity- objective perception; seeing through the extreme beliefs and emotions
characteristic of our parts
Creativity- connection to the source of inspiration; replacing ‘I don’t know’ with ‘I’ll try
this’
Courage- independence, proactiveness; the willingness to do what needs doing
Compassion- feeling for, the desire to help (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020).
While these eight resources are not exactly the four Stoic virtues, it is easy to see many
Stoic themes present in them and even to map them onto those core virtues. Such an effort might
look something like this:
Not only does the Self have access to these resources, it also has the capacity to heal the
parts, turning them from well-meaning but misguided challenges to the individual’s integrity, into
valued contributors acting in alignment with the whole individual. This is how an angry part is
transformed into one that bolsters resilience or determination. In explaining this transformation, it is
helpful to remember that there is rationality operating behind even the most seemingly irrational
decisions. The parts are rational by nature, but limited in their options and mistaken in their
assumptions. That is, they demonstrate internal consistency. They were created to address what
was, at the time, perceived to be a threat beyond the individual’s capacity. That they continue to
function in this way regardless of how things have changed is to be expected since, as Marcus
Aurelius puts it, “Everything has to do what it was made