Stoicism and Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanSobieskiIII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JanSobieskiIII

Guest
Anyone else here a big fan of the classic Stoics and see it as a good compliment to Catholicism?

Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations is easily one of the most influential books I’ve read.
 
I have read many books of Seneca. I heard that them were highly appreciated by Church Fathers. They are very interesting.
 
a podcast I listen to did an introduction to them… I like the general gist of them.
 
What are the beliefs of stoicism?

It was founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in the early 3rd century BC The Stoics taught that emotions resulted in errors of judgment which were destructive, due to the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in …
Click to expand...
Anyone who believes that the spiritual life is absent of emotions, is delusional.

Emotions are part of being human.

The key is not to allow emotions to control reason.

Jim
 
That’s the whole point of stoicism. They acknowledge they happen, but that a well disciplined mind takes all things in stride and doesn’t let overly negative or positive emotions dictate the path.

For example, something happens. You’re walking along a road you fall and break your leg. Rather than lamenting about your broken leg, be thankful that you didn’t fall to your death.

Or if you experience a sudden good fortune, like winning a lottery, remember that anything that comes to can also be lost, so don’t stake your happiness in things like money. Instead always be content with what you have but not attached so strongly that losing it causes inordinate amounts of suffering.
 
Definitely read Meditations. It’s not a long read, and is actually Marcus Aurelius’ personal journal/letters written to others, it’s a great look at him as an individual because it wasn’t meant for general audience.
 
But detaching from emotions doesn’t remove the pain of having a broken leg, just as winning the lottery doesn’t remove the foy of the good fortune.

Stoicism is detachment from all human emotions as they’re viewed as destructive toward judgment and sound reasoning.

This is true with uncontrolled emotionalism, but emotions can never be totally detached from unless you’re seeking to have a false piety akin to a statue of St Anthony or the likes.

Jim
 
They do not advocate total detachment from them, but steering them to better responses.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I suppose the question that I’m now asking myself is, is detachment as taught by St John of the Cross the same as Stoicism ?

Not sure of the answer around that.

So, I’ll watch what other’s have to say.

Jim
 
I think Catholicism’s view of the emotions is slightly different from Stoicism’s.

Catholicism’s view of the emotions is “emotions were created by God, so they, therefore, are very good. But they need an “owner”, which is the role of the intellect and the will…otherwise (as a priest once told me) they make messes wherever they go like untrained or unowned dogs”.

So emotions are good, need to be controlled and put to good use, not disparaged, ignored.

They need to be “sanctified”, rectified with the good, which takes constant training.
 
I think you’re correct. I don’t think stoicism is a replacement for Christianity, but it certainly has elements that complement it in a practical way, and many early church writers recognized that.
 
There may be some good things in stoicism to a degree like denying oneself certain things, but one has to be careful not to fall into palegianism. Stoicism can’t save you. Only Jesus can. We are not saved by philosophy but through God’s grace.
 
Last edited:
The stoics thought the passions were bad. Christianity on the other hand recognizes that our passions were given to us by God and are therefore good. However, because of original sin and the loss of original grace there was an imbalance created between the intellect, the will and the passions. Aquinas thought of our passions like horses that needed to be controlled by the intellect. He uses the illustration of a charioteer. The chariot driver is the intellect and the horses the passions. As long as he has his hands on the reigns he can keep his passions in control. But when he lets go of them the horses run out of control.

For example, eating ice cream. If the control is let go the horses run free and you have gone through an entire tub of ice cream. It’s ok to enjoy ice cream, but in moderation. 🙂

Aquinas describes the virtues as good habits we form. The virtues can be developed, like the virtue of Temperance to help keep our passions in control like from eating too much ice cream. Similarly, a bad habit can be formed and this is called a vice. Like eating too much ice cream on a regular basis. The 4 Cardinal virtues are Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance. These help to keep our passions in check. Also, anyone can develop them, Christian or not. However, the theological virtues, the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and love can only come from God’s grace.
 
Last edited:
We all need a healthy dose of stoicism to have a healthy adult life.
 
Lots of people are saying that the Stoics thought emotions were bad. That is not Stoicism, at all. The Stoics were fine with emotions of all sorts, in themselves. They were concerned primarily with two things: desire and aversion. They thought desiring anything beyond your control sets you up for misery. And they thought being averse to anything that might in fact happen to you also sets you up for misery.

The one thing you can control: virtue. Being virtuous IS within our power, at all times.

So yes, I guess the Stoics were against one emotion: misery. So are Christians, I would hope! Also, I suppose they are against fear – unless it is fear of losing virtue. But emotions like joy and grief and wonder and the like are fine, for Stoics. I think Stoicism is almost entirely compatible with Christianity.
 
Last edited:
fisherman_carl said:
Aquinas thought of our passions like horses that needed to be controlled by the intellect. He uses the illustration of a charioteer. The chariot driver is the intellect and the horses the passions. As long as he has his hands on the reigns he can keep his passions in control. But when he lets go of them the horses run out of control.
Click to expand...
This metaphor is actually endorsed by Seneca, I believe. It seems completely compatible with Stoicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top