Short is life. There is only one fruit of this terrene life, a pious disposition and social acts.

This quote sounds very Christian to me. It seems to frame life on this Earth as just temporary waypoint. It also places an emphasis on doing right by others. Stoic philosophy was influencial on early Christian writers so I shouldn’t be surprised.

I appreciate this snippet because so far, most of the quotes I’ve posted have focused on “how one ought to feel” and not on “what one ought to do.” Though vague, there’s an absolute focus on being virtous and doing things for the benefits of others.

This reveals the main problem I have with Stoicism though. The Philosophy has a strong focus on how to feel but not on what one should do. Obviously that’s more in the vein ethics but I would still appreciate more focus on ethics from Stoic POV. I mention this because I believe that (and the science is pretty clear here) we are driven by emotion first and then apply ration after the fact. Our decisions are based on a ton of unconscious bias and instinctual thinking. On one hand, we manage to get through the day without every little thing becoming a pondering session but on the other hand, we are apt to make bad decisions based on bad information and then “stick to our guns” as it were. I know I do this and I see it in a lot of my family too, especially men and especially as they’ve gotten older.

If you also believe that we’re driven by emotion and that we’re not cursed, wretched, and evil then you’ve got to believe that emotion is not necessarily a bad thing. Even emotions that we generally try to suppress and minimize can, at times, be helpful. Things like angry, sadness, dread, fear are all emotions that people generally try to avoid but these can be saviors even in modern day society. On the other hand, emotions we choose to maximize like happiness can backfire or lead us astray as well. I mention this because Stoicism is, to me, the act of controlling and even pausing your wavering emotional state. If you believe that we’re driven by emotion then what drives you without emotion? What’s moving you towards or away from various things? What is truly wrong and unjust and should be stopped if you don’t feel that it’s wrong? What tells you it IS wrong? Again, these questions are answered (and surely posed better) by ethical philosophers.

Imagine you witness a mugging. You probably feel a flash or anger or frustration. This needs to be stopped. It’s not right, it’s not okay. That anger, to me, is appropriate. Your emotional system is behaving normally and this signals you to jump into action. Even if you do not jump into action you’ve still surmised from your emotions that something is wrong. This is not correct behavior. To this, humans have build complex systems of courts and laws to deal with this behavior. Humans have surely taken a basic instinct and converted it into specific language that defines it’s wrongness and the punishment for committing this act.

I can recognize that our emotional systems can be as wrong as they can be right and they’re not the core basis of how we ought to behave but I still wonder in the wisdom of suppressing your emotional state. Does it mar ones ability to surmise right from wrong? If you choose not to feel a particular way about a particular thing, how can you still determine whether or not something is okay or ought to be done?

As someone who was raised without religion and continues to abstain, I can see why religion is such a compelling package. It provides people with how they ought to feel, how they ought to conduct themselves, and assurance that life beyond death exists which probably dampens the blow of injustice, our finite existence, and just plain bad luck. It provides concrete answers to al ot of things which are otherwise nebulous. It provides absolute dos and don’ts and a mechanism to enforce (though it is fear based). Finally, it provides community, rituals for dealing with major life events, and private social safety net.

I’ve have wanted to write about this topic for awhile. I feel like this area of moral uncertainty should be more concerning to the non-religious and anyone subscribes to Stocism and/or mindfulness. I see the same core issue in both: They teach you how to cope with the troubles that come your way but do nothing to help determine the rightness of factors/thinking that lead to that a clear understanding of right and wrong nor how to improve those issues overall. Coping and reducing the need to have to cope need an intersection that appears missing in these two traditions but is clear in religion.