1. Introduction

Stoicism is a school of thought that was born and developed in the ancient Greco-Roman world. After centuries of little discussion outside academic circles, its popularity has recently resurfaced, with the term stoic now usually understood as meaning “patiently enduring life´s adversities”¹Harper, Douglas (2001). “Stoic”. Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com).
. Due to this newfound popularity, Seneca and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius are two authors still commonly read in our times.

The Stoics believed that the only prerequisite to lead a well-lived and fulfilling life (Eudaimonia) is the practice of virtue and having our will attuned to nature. Virtue, in their opinion, is the only good worthy of pursuit, with external goods (e.g., wealth and pleasure) seen as morally neutral but with the potential to be used in a virtuous way.

2. Main Metaphysical Beliefs of Stoicism

Nowadays, Stoicism is popular with a subset of the population that is searching for a meaningful way of living, although not necessarily a religious or spiritual one. The feeling that hard times are coming is looming in the horizon, and the philosophy of Stoicism seems like a good tool to have under our belt in order to be able to navigate the storm. Classical Stoicism, however, was not an irreligious
school of thought.

Stoicism can be mainly characterized by three marks: Monism, Materialism and Dynamism.²Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, pp. 942–951.

2.1. Stoic Monistic Thought: A Pantheist God

Stoicism is a pantheistic and naturalistic philosophy, since its immanent God is identified with the whole Universe and nature.³Algra, Keimpe (2003). “Stoic Theology”, in Inwood, Brad (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 167. The Universe is seen as a single and cohesive entity⁴Sambursky, Samuel (1959). Physics of the Stoics, Routledge, p. 5., with the principle of Reason (Logos)⁵Long, A.A. (1996). “Heraclitus and Stoicism”. Stoic Studies. University of California Press, p. 45. as the underlying reality behind any particular manifestation.⁶Ibid., p. 46.

The Logos is the creative force or law animating (Anima Mundi) and providing the seminal reasons (Logos Spermatikos) for the whole cosmos. It was thought of as a material entity that impregnated all creation, at first as intelligent Aether or primordial fire, later as breath (Pneuma). From it everything is believed to proceed and to it everything returns.

“The universe itself is God and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world’s guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality that embraces all existence; then the foreordained might and necessity of the future; then fire and the principle of aether; then those elements whose natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air; then the sun, the moon, the stars; and the universal existence in which all
things are contained.”

— Chrysippus.
In Cicero, De Natura Deorum, i. 39

“Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things that exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the thread and the structure of the web.”

— Marcus Aurelius.
Meditations, iv. 40

In addition, classical Stoicism attempted to integrate traditional Polytheism into its philosophy.⁷Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica.
Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, p. 947. God, for example, was identified with Zeus as both a universal ruler and a cosmic law.⁸Frede, Dorothea (2003). “Stoic Determinism”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The CambridgeCompanion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 201-202. Divinity could manifest in many ways, including as impersonal heavenly bodies, forces of nature and even deified humans.⁹Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, p. 947. This is coherent with Greek Henotheism, especially supported by educated persons in Late Antiquity. This vision considered all divinities as different parts, aspects or descriptions of the One God, similar to Hindu thought.¹⁰Kahlos, Maijastina (2007). Debate and Dialogue: Christian and pagan cultures. Ashgate Publishing, c. 360–430.

2.1. A Dual Universe: Dynamism

As we have seen, Stoic thinking is mostly monistic, since they believe in a classical pantheist version of God. However, they differentiate all that exists into two principles: the active and the passive. The former is God or the Rational Principle (Logos), while the latter is matter, a subordinate principle.¹¹Algra, Keimpe (2003). “Stoic Theology”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 167.

This is similar to the Hindu thought of the Samkhya school, which divides ultimate reality into Spirit (Purusha) and matter (Prakriti). It is also similar to any other tradition that conceives reality as an interplay of the complementary masculine principle of reason or potentiality (e.g., the passive Shiva) and the feminine principle of energy or actuality (e.g., the active Shakti).¹²The adjectives active and passive are not homogeneously assigned to the same sex in different traditions, with the female consorts being sometimes the active aspect of the totality (e.g., Tibetan Buddhism).

The position of Classical Stoicism regarding the relationship between these two principles is not clear. Given their previously discussed pantheistic vision, it is likely they saw them as two aspects of the same unified ultimate reality.¹³Sellars, John (2006). Ancient Philosophies: Stoicism. Acumen, p. 90.

2.3. On Creation and Time

Mankind, similar to Lurianic Kabbalah and Gnostic creation myths, is conceived as possessing a fragment of the Logos in them. Also similar to the myth of Narcissus, this portion is seen as immersed in nature itself.¹⁴Karamanolis, George E. (2013). “Free will and divine providence”. The Philosophy of Early Christianity. Ancient Philosophies. New York and London: Routledge, p. 151.

This, in turn, is believed to make humans capable of achieving divine rationality and to attune their will to the natural law of the Universe, which is the Logos itself.¹⁵Tripolitis, A. Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, pp. 37–38.

Regarding the soul, it is thought to be material. In this way it is able to have extension in space and animate physical bodies. The only non-material aspects of reality accepted by classical Stoicism were: time, place, void and sayable.¹⁶Sextus Empiricus. Adversus Mathematicos, 10.218 (chronos, topos, kenon, lekton).

As for the creation of the Universe, Stoicism believes in the theory of emanations from the Logos. Cosmology and time, similar to Indian thought, are considered cyclical and infinite. Universal cycles repeat themselves and are separated by a period of destruction (Ekpyrōsis, not universally accepted) and re-creation (Eternal Return).¹⁷Lapidge, Michael (1978). “Stoic Cosmology”. In John M. Rist, The Stoics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–183.

During this conflagration period, things are believed to be gradually dissolved into their constituent elements, until everything is re-absorbed into the One God. The Logos becomes, then, the only existing being until a new cycle of creation (Palingenesis) begins.¹⁸White, Michael J. (2003). “Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology)”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 137. No beginning and no end are conceived for time and space.¹⁹Ferguson, Everett (2003). Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Eerdmans, p. 368.

2.4. On the Problem of Evil

Stoics primarily believe that, given that God is the Universe itself and the Principle of Reason, this is the best of all possible worlds.²⁰Frede, Michael (1999). “On the Stoic Conception of the Good”. In Ierodiakonou, Katerina (ed.), Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford University Press, p. 75.

The goodness of the cosmos shows itself in the rational order in which everything is arranged.²¹Brennan, Tad (2005). The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate. Oxford University
Press, p. 239. Therefore, no natural event is seen as being intrinsically bad, including sickness and death. They are just conceived as morally indifferent. Their value resides in giving us the possibility of living a life in tune with the natural order.²²Christensen, Johnny (2012). An Essay on the Unity of Stoic Philosophy. Museum Tusculanum Press. University of Copenhagen, p. 70.

The only inherent evil conceivable for a classic Stoic was willing human irrational behaviour. This way of acting was seen as madness and the consequence of the alienation of the rational principle inside us.²³Ibid., p. 64.

2.5. On Determinism and Free Will

The tension between Fate and free will is deeply felt by Stoics. For them, the Principle of Reason (Logos) is present everywhere in nature. Due to the cohesive unity between everything that exists, this implies determinism.²⁴White, Michael J. (2003), “Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology)”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 139.

However, Stoic determinism is characterized as a “soft-determinism” that tries to make it compatible with free will. It allows humans to be moral agents responsible for their own behaviour, instead of puppets of a pre-determined Fate.²⁵Sambursky, Samuel (1959). Physics of the Stoics. Routledge, p. 65.

This is achieved by positing that each individual will is a causal factor participating in a complex network of interactions with each other inside the general framework of Fate. The result is a multi-faceted law of causality composed of freely willed actions that come together to form a pre-determined chain of events.²⁶Ibid., p. 77.

The practice of virtue and being attuned to nature and to one´s internal Logos, in fact, is viewed as the best way to achieve the maximum degree of freedom and autonomy in this deterministic world. If not in a physical or external way, at least internally, as Epictetus expressed when he defined the free virtuous man as “sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy.”²⁷Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. Simon & Schuster, p. 264.

A passion-bound man, in contrast, is considered as “[…] a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes.”²⁸Ibid., p. 254.

The deterministic aspect of Stoic thought allowed for the practice and rationalization of divination techniques, common to all Greek traditions.

3. The Stoic Path: Virtue Ethics

Stoicism emphasizes the pursuit of ethics and virtue as the main focus of human activity. Virtue is defined, like in Taoism, as a will that is in agreement with nature and its underlying rational order.

The path to achieve virtue and to become a wise man includes the development of fortitude and self-control in order to be free of passions (Apatheia). In turn, this would allow one to become a clear thinker able to understand the Logos and its universal order.²⁹Inwood, Brad (1999). “Stoic Ethics”. In Algra, Keimpe; Barnes, Johnathan; Mansfield, Jaap; Schofield, Malcolm (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, p. 705.

Prayer for divine intervention was not favoured, since the work needed was mostly of an intellectual nature.

Notes

1. Harper, Douglas (2001). “Stoic”. Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com).
2. Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, pp. 942–951.
3. Algra, Keimpe (2003). “Stoic Theology”, in Inwood, Brad (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 167.
4. Sambursky, Samuel (1959). Physics of the Stoics, Routledge, p. 5.
5. Long, A.A. (1996). “Heraclitus and Stoicism”. Stoic Studies. University of California Press, p. 45.
6. Ibid., p. 46.
7. Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica.
   Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, p. 947.
8. Frede, Dorothea (2003). “Stoic Determinism”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The CambridgeCompanion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 201-202.
9. Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, p. 947.
10. Kahlos, Maijastina (2007). Debate and Dialogue: Christian and pagan cultures. Ashgate Publishing, c. 360–430.
11. Algra, Keimpe (2003). “Stoic Theology”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
    to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 167.
12. The adjectives active and passive are not homogeneously assigned to the same sex in different traditions, with the female consorts being sometimes the active aspect of the totality (e.g., Tibetan Buddhism).
13. Sellars, John (2006). Ancient Philosophies: Stoicism. Acumen, p. 90.
14. Karamanolis, George E. (2013). “Free will and divine providence”. The Philosophy of Early Christianity. Ancient Philosophies. New York and London: Routledge, p. 151.
15. Tripolitis, A. Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, pp. 37–38.
16. Sextus Empiricus. Adversus Mathematicos, 10.218 (chronos, topos, kenon, lekton).
17. Lapidge, Michael (1978). “Stoic Cosmology”. In John M. Rist, The Stoics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–183.
18. White, Michael J. (2003). “Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology)”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 137.
19. Ferguson, Everett (2003). Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Eerdmans, p. 368.
20. Frede, Michael (1999). “On the Stoic Conception of the Good”. In Ierodiakonou, Katerina (ed.), Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford University Press, p. 75.
21. Brennan, Tad (2005). The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate. Oxford University
    Press, p. 239.
22. Christensen, Johnny (2012). An Essay on the Unity of Stoic Philosophy. Museum Tusculanum Press. University of Copenhagen, p. 70.
23. Ibid., p. 64.
24. White, Michael J. (2003), “Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology)”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 139.
25. Sambursky, Samuel (1959). Physics of the Stoics. Routledge, p. 65.
26. Ibid., p. 77.
27. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. Simon & Schuster, p. 264.
28. Ibid., p. 254.
29. Inwood, Brad (1999). “Stoic Ethics”. In Algra, Keimpe; Barnes, Johnathan; Mansfield, Jaap; Schofield, Malcolm (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, p. 705.

Recommended Reading

Disclaimer: the following recommendations may contain affiliate links, which means that we may receive a small commission, at NO additional cost to you, if you decide to make a purchase through them. By doing so, you will be supporting us and allowing this website to remain ad-free.

1. Meditations. Marcus Aurelius.
2. Discourses and Selected Writings. Epictetus.
3. Letters from a Stoic. Seneca.
   
   
   
   

• 1
  Harper, Douglas (2001). “Stoic”. Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com).
  
• 2
  Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, pp. 942–951.
• 3
  Algra, Keimpe (2003). “Stoic Theology”, in Inwood, Brad (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 167.
• 4
  Sambursky, Samuel (1959). Physics of the Stoics, Routledge, p. 5.
• 5
  Long, A.A. (1996). “Heraclitus and Stoicism”. Stoic Studies. University of California Press, p. 45.
• 6
  Ibid., p. 46.
• 7
  Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica.
  Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, p. 947.
• 8
  Frede, Dorothea (2003). “Stoic Determinism”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The CambridgeCompanion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 201-202.
• 9
  Hicks, Robert Drew (1911). “Stoics”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25. Cambridge University Press, p. 947.
• 10
  Kahlos, Maijastina (2007). Debate and Dialogue: Christian and pagan cultures. Ashgate Publishing, c. 360–430.
• 11
  Algra, Keimpe (2003). “Stoic Theology”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 167.
• 12
  The adjectives active and passive are not homogeneously assigned to the same sex in different traditions, with the female consorts being sometimes the active aspect of the totality (e.g., Tibetan Buddhism).
• 13
  Sellars, John (2006). Ancient Philosophies: Stoicism. Acumen, p. 90.
• 14
  Karamanolis, George E. (2013). “Free will and divine providence”. The Philosophy of Early Christianity. Ancient Philosophies. New York and London: Routledge, p. 151.
• 15
  Tripolitis, A. Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, pp. 37–38.
• 16
  Sextus Empiricus. Adversus Mathematicos, 10.218 (chronos, topos, kenon, lekton).
• 17
  Lapidge, Michael (1978). “Stoic Cosmology”. In John M. Rist, The Stoics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–183.
• 18
  White, Michael J. (2003). “Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology)”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 137.
• 19
  Ferguson, Everett (2003). Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Eerdmans, p. 368.
• 20
  Frede, Michael (1999). “On the Stoic Conception of the Good”. In Ierodiakonou, Katerina (ed.), Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford University Press, p. 75.
• 21
  Brennan, Tad (2005). The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate. Oxford University
  Press, p. 239.
• 22
  Christensen, Johnny (2012). An Essay on the Unity of Stoic Philosophy. Museum Tusculanum Press. University of Copenhagen, p. 70.
• 23
  Ibid., p. 64.
• 24
  White, Michael J. (2003), “Stoic Natural Philosophy (Physics and Cosmology)”. In Inwood, Brad (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge University Press, p. 139.
• 25
  Sambursky, Samuel (1959). Physics of the Stoics. Routledge, p. 65.
• 26
  Ibid., p. 77.
• 27
  Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. Simon & Schuster, p. 264.
• 28
  Ibid., p. 254.
• 29
  Inwood, Brad (1999). “Stoic Ethics”. In Algra, Keimpe; Barnes, Johnathan; Mansfield, Jaap; Schofield, Malcolm (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, p. 705.