Before I get started, the following episode concerns the Stoic approach to personal conflict which is, in most instances, to not engage in conflict. I believe that a different position exists concerning defense of others, rather than ourselves, but that is not what I will be discussing. Also, this episode is, like all Good Fortune episodes, short, and therefore will not cover all aspects of Stoics versus conflict, even the personal conflict that I’m addressing. So if you are now, or are ever, in a situation of abuse of any kind, please understand that you are valuable and that your physical and emotional well-being is worth protecting. Seeking safety and defending yourself in such circumstances is just, wise, courageous, and Stoic. Be well.
[Raven Caw]
My new book, The Beginner’s Guide to Stoicism is available wherever books are sold and has just been released as an audio book. A second book, The 5-Minute Stoicism Journal, is also available now. As my publisher puts it, “Want to remain focused, content, confident―even joyful―no matter what challenges life throws your way? The 5-Minute Stoicism Journal can show you how to develop emotional resilience and cultivate a positive mindset by focusing your attention on what you can control in your life.” You can find links to both of these books as well as to The Good Fortune Handbook on ImmoderateStoic.com. Thanks.
[Raven Caw]
"Consider the things that people think injure them when they are experienced; none of these things will in fact injure them or cause them shame. These things include being jeered at, beaten, or spat upon, with assaults being the worst of these outrages...If a philosopher cannot scorn blows or jeering, they are useless, inasmuch as a philosopher must make it clear that they scorn even death." (Musonius Rufus, from the lecture on whether a philosopher will file a suit against someone for assault)
Throughout the surviving literature we find, again and again, that Stoics do not engage in retribution, tit for tat strategies, nor even self-defense. This is consistent and it is difficult. How are we supposed to let slights go, or moreso, injuries? Why would we? And didn’t the Stoics use the Spartans, Hercules, and other warriors as examples of wise behavior? Certainly they took the offensive, so what gives?
Hi, I’m Matt Van Natta and this is Good Fortune.
Today’s questions:
What is the Stoic view of personal conflict?
How does a Stoic respond to conflict?
How does this radical viewpoint apply to life today?
Alright, let’s get started.
[Raven Caw]
What is the Stoic view of conflict?
Last episode I mentioned that the teacher Musonius Rufus claimed a philosopher would never take a person to court for assault. That’s a big idea to mention offhandedly, so I thought I’d deal with it now. After all, isn’t Stoicism a strong philosophy? Aren’t Stoics stand on your own two feet types? Why is Musonius letting people slap him around? Well, let’s hear what he has to say.
In the third line of his lawsuit lecture, Musonius says, "Those who do not know what is really good and what is really shameful, and those who are overly concerned with their own fame - these people think that they are being injured if someone glares at them, laughs at them, hits them, or mocks them. But a person who is thoughtful and sensible - as a philosopher should be - is disturbed by none of these things. They believe that the shame comes not in being insulted but in behaving in an insulting manner. What wrong does the person who experiences wrong do? The person who does wrong, however, is thereby shamed."
This is both straightforward and a lot to unpack. As a kid I heard that sticks and stones might break my bones but words would never hurt me. Musonius not only places words in the category of things that don’t hurt but he includes the sticks and stones. This is because the only harm he is concerned with is the moral harm that comes from a lack of personal virtue. Again, “what wrong does the person who experiences wrong do?” Nothing. The only person morally harmed by jeers, mocking, even assault, is the person who does those shameful things. In Musonius’ view, the only way he could be harmed in such a situation (again, he means morally harmed) would be if he were to respond inappropriately to the situation; if he were to repay vice with his own viciousness. He goes on to say, (line 5) "and I could name many other men who were targets of abuse, some verbally attacked and others injured by physical attacks. They appear neither to have defended themselves against their attackers nor to have sought revenge." I can’t say if he’s drawing this list of men from stories or from Stoics that he knew, but he is claiming that his point of view is practical in that it has been practiced; others have walked this path and we too can choose to not be harmed and to not do harm.
Before I move on, I want to point out that the adversary in question does offend. The phrase, “what wrong does the person who experiences wrong do,” explicitly states that a wrong was experienced. Stoicism is not absolving the offender from wrongdoing.The point is that you need not respond in kind, or even need to respond at all.
So the Stoic answer to most conflict is, “what conflict?” From our viewpoint, the only thing we control in a conflict is our own actions, and we are aiming for excellence. Marcus Aurelius said that the proper response to a person who means us harm is, “No, no, my friend. That isn't what you're here for. It isn't me who's harmed by that. It's you.” (Meditations 11:18) Stoics choose to not engage in conflict, in fact, we attempt to turn conflict into cooperation. We want the absolute best for others, and that includes our adversaries. Yes, there are times where we must defend things vehemently, for the good of all, but when it comes to attacks on our individual character and even our body, we can choose to be Stoically invincible.
[Raven Caw]
How does a Stoic respond to conflict?
"What then has been given to you with which to meet this attack? If you seek to act like a wolf, you can bite back and throw more stones than your neighbor did. but if you seek to act like a human, examine your store, see what faculties you brought into the world? You brought no faculty of brutality, did you? No faculty of bearing grudges, did you? When then is a horse miserable? Not when he can't sing "cuckoo!" but when he can't run...Does it not follow then, that on the same principles a human is wretched, not when they are unable to choke lions...but when they have lost their kindness and faithfulness?" (Epictetus 4:5:12-14)
In any challenge, we should look for our capacities to face it. When stuck in traffic we draw on patience. If good work requires a long commitment, we test our endurance. What tools do we have during personal conflict?
Epictetus listed in that last quote, both kindness and faithfulness as faculties that meet the challenges found in conflict. Further, he states that drawing on these tools is as fulfilling to our humanity as running is to a horse! This is important. Stoicism doesn’t recommend a subdued approach to conflict as an exercise in masochism and it certainly doesn’t seek to subject us to abusers. No. We Stoics act as we do because it allows us to thrive and it is when we are thriving that we are most capable of making this world better.
We are not asked simply to disengage from conflict. Musonius, for instance, suggests that we model a better way of life. (line 6) "It is characteristic of a civilized and humane temperament not to respond to wrongs as a beast would and not to be implacable towards those who offend, but to provide them with a model of decent behavior."
Epictetus agreed with his teacher, Musonius, and added that we should work to diffuse other people’s conflicts, when possible. In Discourses Book 4:5:1 he says, "the good and excellent person does not contend with anyone, nor, as far as they have the power, do they allow others to contend."
Marcus Aurelius echoed these views as well. In Meditations 11:18, point 9 of a 10 point list says that, “kindness is invincible, provided it's sincere - not ironic or an act. What can even the most vicious person do if you keep treating him with kindness and gently set him straight - if you get the chance - correcting him cheerfully at the exact moment he's trying to do you harm. "No, no, my friend. That isn't what you're here for. It isn't me who's harmed by that. It's you."
To the Stoic, being wronged is just another opportunity to make things right. Epictetus listed kindness as a core human faculty. Marcus says that kindness is invincible, provided it is sincere. The Stoics viewed all humans as part of a single organism and viewed discord between people as a wound that affects all of us. The Stoic attempts to remain undisturbed by our adversaries, not as a feat of strength, but so that we can use our healthy mind to heal the division between ourselves and others, if at all possible.
I was recently reminded of advice given by the English evangelist John Wesley that could easily have come from a Stoic teacher,
"Do all the good you can.
By all the means you can.
In all the ways you can.
In all the places you can.
At all the times you can.
To all the people you can.
As long as ever you can."
[Raven Caw]
How does this radical viewpoint apply to life today?
We certainly do not have to agree with everything any particular ancient Stoic says, not even if you consider yourself, like I do, a practicing Stoic. Sometimes we’re just looking at one individual’s opinion. Sometimes we’re looking at an opinion based on flawed reasoning, or on a set of “facts” that have been superseded by later learning. Beyond that, in the end we have to act according to our own reason and moral conscience.
What I find important about Musonius Rufus’s hard line concerning personal defense is that he rests his arguments in the core beliefs of Stoicism. He claims that internalizing the values of the philosophy will naturally lead us to accept jeers and blows as inconsequential and that our response to such events will be one of love and reasoned instruction for our adversary rather than any form of retaliation. Musonius was not just a Roman Stoic, he ran the school in Rome. His students were primarily young Roman men; sons of the elite. This is who he was talking to when he said defending yourself is a form of philosophical cowardice. His words would have been received as an attack on their sense of what it meant to be a man. Musonius new what he was doing. He liked to say that people should leave his lectures not pleased, but pained. He was challenging his students to follow Stoic beliefs to their logical end. He was showing them that the philosophy reshapes the people that practice it, assuming that they are making progress. I think that it is necessary to wrestle with this Stoic viewpoint for the same reason that Musonius presented it to his students. If we aren’t consistently challenging our own definitions of self and identity, as well as our considerations of how to act in this world, I don’t know how we could claim to be progressing in our own journey. The three Stoics we’ve just looked at, Musonius, Epictetus, and Marcus, all saw the role of a Stoic in conflict to be one of restoration. I agree wholeheartedly. Our adversary is making a mistake, and their choices are creating division. Embracing the Stoic viewpoint frees us to refuse to perpetuate that harm and to instead actively seek something better. I also agree with Musonius’s radical position that a Stoic might accept physical harm rather than return violence with violence. I don’t expect all modern Stoics to land in the same place concerning self-defense; but the viewpoint I’ve expressed is the natural outcome of the Stoic approach to the world, so I would hope dissenters have a clear reason for what they believe. Stoicism is a philosophy that asks us to embrace the world and that is difficult to do with a closed fist.
A key Stoic virtue is courage. And Stoic courage is shown by acting with excellence no matter what the world has in store. In the same discourse that I’ve already drawn from, Epictetus defines the character of a Stoic. "They are gentle, generous, patient, affectionate.’ Give this person to me, I accept them, I make them a citizen, I accept them as a neighbor and a fellow-voyager." I would like to be accepted into this fellowship as well. I hope you can be a fellow-voyager as well.
[Raven Caw]
Thank you for listening to Episode 18 of Good Fortune. You may have noticed a change in the interstitial caws. Last month my old computer died and presently the old episode files are stuck on an inaccessible hard-drive. I had to recreate a few things.
Good Fortune is hosted on SoundCloud and can be found on iTunes, Stitcher, and many other places. If you are willing to leave reviews on those services, they are always appreciated. The music is by Tryad off of their album Public Domain.
And finally, always remember, 'misfortune born nobly is good fortune.' And therefore, I wish you all good fortune until next time.
[Raven Caw]
