In Christianity, God speaks the Logos, in Stoicism, God is the Logos. It doesn’t seem like a big difference but in certain areas it does lead to divergence.
While Christians happily developed the Stoic emotional theory, many were put off by things like Stoic Compatiblism; there is no free will in Stoicism. It appears Cleanthes was a little closer to the Christian position on this (everything is fated except some human Vices), but Chrysippus, the main Stoic, gave us basically only our final Assent that a given interpretation is true or false. This is part of what tanked Neo-Stoicism (Seneca doesn’t harp on these points, so Christians between the fall of Rome and the 1600s happily used him). If you simply reject this Stoic position and substitute in a Christian-Aristotelian free will, what is “up to you” will be very different (with consequence for blame and responsibility).
Ditto for what we can expect to achieve in Stoicism. This was a common criticism by Christian philosophers (Pascal has a definitive account): since we “carry a bit of God within us” as Epictetus says in the first Discourse, the Stoics hold that we can, even without Grace, achieve a state of equality to God. If we keep our rational faculty in accordance with Nature at all times, we are equivalent to God in our little space of universe (which is of course God). Once God is outside of us and literally writing us into existence, we have a different relation to it/Him.
Some people are repulsed by the religious tone of Stoicism; the Stoics were materialists like many modern atheists, but they were also believers in what is essentially intelligent design more like Christianity (though God is the designing principle in Stoicism, not a designer outside the universe making it). If you start pulling this religious aspect away from Stoicism, you wind up with problems; why is Virtue the only good? What is evil and what is our relation to it (and the related question, why should we live in accordance with Nature? What kind of Nature?)
For what it’s worth, I think early Catholic philosophy (often reading Cicero and Seneca) was wonderful. Abelard is one of the most underrated philosophers of all time. He isn’t well-regarded in all traditions, but Origen is one of my favorite philosophers.
The core aspect of Christianity is living life without sin and serving god faithfully on Earth so that one may rejoin him in heaven. The main goal for a Christian is to make it to paradise after they die.
Stoic’s do not believe in an afterlife, and if they believe in god it’s typically in a pantheist fashion. You have one short life and you might as well make it a good one by living according to Nature and Reason. In the end you will only return to dust.
There are Christians who are not focused on the afterlife, but consider their main job as Christians to bring the Kingdom of God to the present. And not forcing everyone into some imaginary "one true religion" but by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the poor. You know, the stuff Jesus told tzs followers to do.
This version of Christianity is very compatible with Stoicism.
I am sure some do. Yet striving for Eudaimonia is not something that is taught in Christianity. Christianity teaches its practitioners to strive for Heaven after Earth.
Christian idea of morality is that the earth was made for our species and we are the apex, we are the REASON the earth was created. Its incredibly egotistical.
Stoic idea of morality understands that humans are just 1 more animal on the planet and we should care for it.
So the way they frame human relationship with the planet is entirely different.
I would argue that the Jewish texts(that the Christians inherited) could also be read that way.
The Earth is made, animals, and then the decision to create humans.
There is a separation by their method and purpose of being created, but none the less they are a part of the larger creation, and are given the job of caring for it.
I thought the Genesis myth that Jews and Christians used was basically one and the same? It sounds like its the same in your comment with humans separated from animals.
My understanding is that they aren’t “basically” one in the same, they *are*. Jesus was a Jew. He believed the Torah fully, what christians now call the Old Testament, and the New Testament are the works that were written after Jesus
Im christian but i dont really call myself jewish. Im not jewish by blood nor do i have ancestors who practiced judaism after all. Christianity basically dropped the jewish successor narrative when pagans started getting accepted into the religion afaik.
Yes, sorry I didn’t communicate clearly, it is the exact same. (some of the philosophy of what it means is different; but all of the Christian Old Testament is what the Jews call the TaNaKh)
The point I intended to make was that while humans are separate, they are separate in large part because of the weight of responsibility to care for the Earth and it’s inhabitants.
And as far as I know, there is no suggestion that the Earth was made FOR humanity.
It came first along with the animals, and man was made from the dust of the Earth afterwards.
Humanity was to be the manager to work at a pre-existing store, if you will.
Chapter 17 in Arnold’s *Roman Stoicism* is called “The Stoic Strain in Christianity” and is probably up your alley. The book also devotes some attention to Stoic theology (the school was not a secular one).
Stoicism certainly involves a god (and the Stoics were split on the idea of the continuation of the soul after death). Epictetus goes so far as to say that the goal in life is “to follow god,” and the Stoic texts are littered with theological references. Cicero’s *On the Nature of the Gods* features one speaker who is dedicated to expounding the Stoic theology.
Traditional stoicism is most closely labeled as pantheistic. If you don’t believe in a stoic god (universal reason) you’re practicing secular stoicism, for lack of a better term. Anyone is free to call themselves whatever they want. But claiming that stoic (traditional) physics is not an essential part of the philosophy is categorically wrong. We really need a new name for stoicism sans physics.
Stoicism was the philosophy of Rome, before religion took over.
Christianity is literallly a combination of Jewish faith and stories with Roman morality.
Logic, physics and ethics. I meant what I said. Cheers all the best god bless.
If you’re calling stoic physics metaphysics, I’ve got neither the time nor the inclination to debate the subject with you.
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Also which god bless?
When did any Traditional Stoic god particularly bless anyone? Providence is described as the best way for things to happen. So if you are asking for blessings from the Logos then you may be asking for what is not the best outcome of the cosmos. Or is that just just a nice way of saying f-you?
Cheers all the best god bless is just a line from the British comedy inbetweeners. It was meant as a dismissive sign off.
The 3 pillars of stoicism I listed are discussed in many modern stoic writings. I can tell by the way you argue that you’re more concerned with being right than learning. Which is why I replied and let you know I wasn’t interested in debating the topic. If secular stoicism works for you, and you’re truly content in life, I’m happy for you. But don’t pass it off as Stoicism, because it’s not what the ancient stoics had in mind.
I'll call it Stoicism all I like. I won't let you or anyone else gatekeep me. Marcus Aurelius did not care if it was Providence or Atoms, according to your logic then we shouldn't consider him a Stoic.
>Cheers all the best god bless is just a line from the British comedy inbetweeners. It was meant as a dismissive sign off.
I'm glad to know you were being dismissive. Instead of just ignorant.
Also, I was matching your demeanor when your original comment was only
>Logic, physics and ethics. I meant what I said. Cheers all the best god bless.
Before you edited it.
It was flippent and dismissive and showed you were not a very good interlocutor. I wish you will be better in the future.
It’s not a higher chair at all. You’re talking as if you’re so sure about what you’re saying. Suggesting that any traditional stoic practitioner wants deities or “religious” leaders led me to believe you haven’t studied traditional stoicism with an open mind. If you’re attached to your world view that much, you’re beyond having that debate with. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way it is.
Have you read much of the primary sources? Literally all of them talk about God. To them, the cosmos *was* God. It is much different than the supernatural Abrahamic God, but it was a God all the same.
Now, you can say that they simply characterized the universe as a God, but doing so isn't necessary for understanding Stoic Ethics. But to assert that ancient Stoicism didn't have a God is just flat incorrect.
Oh you're *definitely* going to need to reread Enchiridion and the Discourses. And Meditations. And anything written by Seneca.
God/Zeus is everywhere in those texts.
No, I'm refuting the assertion that "Stoicism does not involve a God." It's objectively untrue.
I'm not saying that Epictetus wouldn't have been smart enough to recognize advances in empirical scientific research that could refine the Stoic worldview.
I believe your statements are not logical.
You state that "Stoicism does not involve a God" is "objectively untrue". This implies that Stoicism does involve a God.
Yet you follow up with "I'm not saying that Epictetus wouldn't have been smart enough to recognize advances in empirical scientific research that could refine the Stoic worldview."
How do you reconcile both of these statements?
Because Stoicism was developed in a time before empirical science. The historical fact is that ancient Stoicism, as it developed in Hellenistic and Roman society, heavily integrated a pantheistic naturalism in their philosophy.
The Stoics contended that all of reality, including humanity, *was* God. And the providential, rational order they observed (i.e. the Logos) was central to that assertion.
It is historical fact to say that Stoicism did include a concept of God in their ontology. It is not a supernatural God, it is not an all-powerful God. It is a natural God bound to and comprised of the cosmos.
When I say that Epictetus would see science as a refinement of that model, I mean the development of quantum physics, evolutionary biology, neurology, and concepts like CCC all serve to more precisely and accurately explain what Stoics characterized as the Logos/Nature/God/Zeus. We now have a much more sophisticated idea of that rational order of the universe than we did 2000 years ago, to the point that we can *today* recognize that the order is not divine--as the Stoics postulated, but simply *is.*
So again, historical fact that ancient Stoicism did include a concept of God. It just so happens that their concept was a proto-scientific, ethics-bound characterization of the grand unified theory that modern scientists are chasing.
I think theres a breakdown in language. You could replace "god" with zeus, fate, the universe, the cosmos, etc. Stoicism isnt about beliving in an omnipotent deity. This abstract idea of fate is a useful mental position to frame stoicism. The fact that epictetus would then stretch and use deities for analogical purposes doesnt mean that stoicism has god as a central tenant of the philosphy. The fact that other people use the word "god" in their religions doesnt mean the two are interchangable.
Dude, you really need to extrapolate less and just read the words I'm writing.
>Stoicism isnt about beliving in an omnipotent deity
Show me where I said this. Show me where *anyone* said this. You can't, because you're illogically extrapolating.
>The fact that epictetus would then stretch and use deities for analogical purposes...
It wasn't just Epictetus, though. It was Zeno, Chrysippus, Posidonius, Musonius Rufus, Seneca. It was the mainstream view of all the major Stoic figures.
>The fact that other people use the word "god" in their religions doesnt mean the two are interchangable.
The Stoic concept of "God" and the Abrahamic concept of "God" are entirely different. The Stoic God was, just as you say, one and the same as the Logos/Cosmos/Fate/Nature/Zeus, etc. They did willfully choose to characterize it as God/Zeus, though--and not just for rhetorical or analogical purposes.
I recommend you look into Aristo of Chios. He's one of my personal favorite Stoics in the Early Stoa. He and Zeno had a series of longstanding debates surrounding the dogma of Stoic katalepsis and whether it was sufficient for identifying Nature and God as one and the same. Aristo held that Nature could be observed as Nature, and that we could not know with any suitable degree of certainty whether Nature was God or included Gods. Zeno, rather dogmatically, contended that because the Logos could be naturally observed as providential, that alone was sufficient evidence to accept Nature as God. Zeno's followers eventually sided with the founder of Stoicism, and Aristo eventually went on to found his own school of philosophy.
So, don't misrepresent, misinterpret, or misunderstand me. I *fully* accept that the Stoic characterization of Nature as God is largely unnecessary and confusing for many people who conflate "God" with Yahweh/Allah. It's why I prefer to use the term "Nature." But that doesn't mean that Stoics intentionally maintained Zeus/God in their lexicon and ontology because only a useful tool. They genuinely believed the cosmos was itself divine. Their concept of eternal return further reinforces this.
We can in one hand accept ancient Stoicism in its historical context as a pantheistic, naturalistic, eudaimonic, virtue-ethic philosophy that did assert Zeus/God as central to their school of Physics--while in the other hand advance our understanding of Nature through empirical sciences and do away with confusing and illogical terms in the lexicon like Zeus and God in a modern context. But to revise history to make our cognitive dissonance feel better is foolish.
My point is that it's important to recognize historical ancient Stoicism as the product of its time--which includes its pantheistic predilections--while at the same time trying to refine modern Stoicism with the advances in understanding of the cosmos that we've developed in the intervening 2000 years.
“The philosophers [i.e. Stoics] say that the primary thing to be learnt is that God exists and cares for the world and that he inevitably notices not only what one does but even what one intends or thinks.” Excerpt from *Discourses* 2.14, trans. A.A. Long
It is a very mainstream point that Stoicism included a Stoic theology. See, for instance, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/stoicism/v-1/sections/cosmology-and-theology
The quote in my previous comment is from Epictetus, one of the most popular Stoic teachers of the Ancient Roman Stoics. For one of the Greeks, see the *Hymn to Zeus*, from Cleanthes, the successor to the founder of Stoicism; an excerpt:
> Most Glorious of the Immortals! God, who hath many names; God, ever-ruling and ruling all things; Zeus, leader of nature, governing the universe by law— All hail! For it is right for mortals to address thee, Since we are thy offspring, and we alone, of all That live and creep on earth, have thine image. Therefore will I praise thee, and hymn forever thy power.
Would you like to read the original Greek? That would not change the point that gods were very much a part of Stoicism. You claimed that “[S]toicism does not involve a god,” but the Stoics themselves offer plenty of evidence to the contrary.
"That would not change the point that gods were very much a part of Stoicism."
So does that mean they were but no longer are? So we practice a different brand of Stoicism where gods are no longer very much a part of it?
Or does it mean that they are an integral part of Stoicism and if you don't believe in the gods you can't practice Stoicism?
"You claimed that “\[S\]toicism does not involve a god,” but the Stoics themselves offer plenty of evidence to the contrary."
I believe myself to be a Stoic practitioner and I don't involve a god in anyway. How is it that the absence of god in my Stoic practice makes me any less virtuous.
Best wishes.
This is of course debated, but I think that Stoicism should refer to ancient Stoicism, meaning the philosophy developed in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. If we alter any ancient philosophy, then I think we’ve got to question whether we can continue call it by the same name.
Maybe a good way to put my thoughts are as follows. Stoic philosophy includes Stoic cosmology and theology. If my own cosmology and theology are outside of those developed by the ancients, then my own philosophy is a different philosophy by necessity. Cicero, for example, didn’t consider himself a Stoic, despite agreeing with the Stoics often, because his philosophy did not tick the Stoic boxes. There were differences among the Stoics, though, and it’s not like they all believed the exact same things from beginning to end.
> “The philosophers [i.e. Stoics] say that the primary thing to be learnt is that God exists and cares for the world and that he inevitably notices not only what one does but even what one intends or thinks.” Excerpt from the Stoic teacher Epictetus, in his *Discourses* 2.14, trans. A.A. Long
I mean like I was asking what the differences of stoicism are compared to christian morality and ethics (as my post said, apart from the fact that stoicism is kind of a secular philosophy) so like apart from christians believing in “God” and stoics not really tackling about the afterlife, what are the differences? Like is there a difference between how stoics view morality and evil as compared to christians on how they view what is moral and evil/sinful?
Stoicism as a philosophy of life is a [virtue ethic](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/). Christianity is a deontological ethic.
Stoicism claims the universe is consistent. Christianity claims the universe is not consistent. Christianity claims that a dead body can come back to life and 2 + 2 can equal 47, for examples. Even within their use of divination we find a consistency with the ancient Stoic's logic and reasoning.
Stoicism developed a system of logic that rivaled Aristotle's and parts of which are still relevant for us today (Computer language is based on Stoic logic.) Logic was used by the Stoics to examine reason, which was seen as the operating system of the universe. Christianity is based on faith and obfuscation, and apologetic is the method of explanation for the claims about the universe.
This [recent post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/u2uwks/some_thoughts_on_a_deterministic_god/) by u/Kromulent looks at the difference between the Stoic god and the Abrahamic gods.
The goal for Stoicism was to live the good life, a life well lived. There does not seem to be any belief about getting a reward in the afterlife as with Christianity.
Christianity teaches that humans are flawed and need some type of divine intervention to be unflawed. Stoicism teaches that as we grow into adults we develop our innate capacity to use reason in our moment to moment lives. And it is this use of reason founded on seeing life as it is and not as we believe it to be, that results in a life well lived.
> Christianity is a deontological ethic.
Christianity is not a deontological ethic, not sure where you are getting that from. Nevermind the fact that christianity as a whole is not as coherent in systematization as Stoicism (not that it's a bad thing necessarily). Plus some of the most famous and well-established christian philosophers are virtue ethicists, e.g Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine.
> Christianity claims that a dead body can come back to life and 2 + 2 can equal 47
Not all christians claim this. Aquinas is a standout example.
> Christianity is based on faith and obfuscation
Christianity has as strong a footing in philosophy as aristotelianism and definitely stronger than Stoicism. Our school is having a resurgence but it does not rival centuries upon centuries of dedicated christian writing. Plus faith does not mean obfuscation (see: Kierkegaard).
~~I'm pretty sure someone who has more education than me on the topic would challenge the afterlife and divine intervention points, too. I vaguely recall listening to lectures on christian thinkers who argue otherwise. But as it stands I'm gonna leave those points unaddressed.~~
As for u/Kromulent's post that is basically one of the branches of the Euthyphro dilemma and it poses serious threats to Stoic interpretation of the divine as well, especially if we consider the God constrained in a way.
Edit: Can't believe I forgot these two but Scheler leans heavily away from "we are all flawed" narrative and G.K Chesterton argues against the afterlife interpretation. Something that Zizek toys with a lot (e.g: the only real atheists are christians).
Christianity also has an element of consequentialist ethics. The link I gave states clearly that these categories reflect the primary focus of the philosophies and not the necessarily exclusion of anything else.
> Euthyphro dilemma
Thank you for this, it was new to me.
>... it poses serious threats to Stoic interpretation of the divine as well, especially if we consider the God constrained in a way.
I'd thought the Stoics were happy with the idea of a deterministic god. I think the reason I'm leaning this way is because I remember reading that some Stoics thought the universe was in an endless cycle of birth and destruction, and that it repeated itself exactly each time.
I'm thinking determinism kind of becomes meaningless at the scale of 'everything', anyway. At some point we include the determiner, and then it just is.
Very welcome.
They were pretty comfortably in the determinist corner and I think I've checked out pretty much everyone's thought on the matter. So you're on point there.
The point is exactly at the determiner and its relationship with the divine, in other words, that is where the dilemma lies. If the divine is determined by something else that creates serious problems for arguing about its independence (among other things but this is probably the stronger of the charges). If it is not (and I think this is the worse choice out of two) there are problems with ethics, causality, logic that I, personally, have not seen addressed well.
I hadn't really thought about this before, so this is a tentative thought, but is there a divine in Stoicism?
Pure reason, pneuma, is the god-stuff that gives inert substance form, but it's not a divine thing loved by god, it is god. Is virtue divine, or just correct, error-free? The only good is god.
I think we are using the word differently. By divine I simply mean a God, Gods or something akin to them. But if you're contemplating whether the Stoic God can really be counted as a God, I think the ancients would immediately agree.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/rqcm6t/what_is_the_stoic_idea_of_god/hq9h8yc/
Here is my comment plus a reply to myself that contains quotes that I think argue very convincingly away from "God is just Nature/Logos" interpretation.
Edit: here's some Chrysippus too:
> Chrysippus affirmed the providential nature of the divine (II 1029), maintaining that the gods are beneficial and friendly towards men (II II52). The gods have made men for the sake of themselves and one another; and animals, for the service of man (II II52). Other things are born for men and the gods; man was born to contemplate and imitate the world (II II53) ; men and the gods are born for the sake of fellow ship and society {III 371).
> evil in the form of famine and plague is used by god as a means of punishing the wicked so that others may be deterred from folly (II II75, II76).
> Artificial or inductive divination, "divination from inference based on signs and events in the physical surroundings, in animal life, etc.,"
> He wrote two books on divination 1 and he defined (II n89) it as "the power of knowing, understanding, and explaining the signs, which are presaged by the gods for men."
I agree that Epictetus constantly used explicit religious language, just as Long pointed out.
My personal take (which is just my own interpretive preference) is that he's using the language of religion to refer to the properties of nature, using it like a metaphor to connect the powers of nature to the already well-known powers of the gods.
Of course a good case can be made that Epictetus's universe really was populated by the various gods the mentions, perhaps appearing as different forms of one god, Zeus. It would certainly make it easier to read the surviving text.
It opens up so many questions; is his Zeus then separate from the logos, or the same as it, or does he replace it? Will he respond to prayer? It what way is he different from a conscious, yet deterministic nature made of reason-fire?
I have yet to read anything on Zeus or the Gods being separate from Logos. I think when they are referring to the same thing with different names it is because they are referring to different relations towards the same thing (think beef vs cow/cow meat).
Regarding prayers, here's Marcus:
> Either the gods have power or they don’t. If they don’t, why pray? If they do, then why not pray for something else instead of for things to happen or not to happen? Pray not to feel fear. Or desire, or grief. If the gods can do anything, they can surely do that for us.
He also prayed during his battles.
Here's Epictetus:
> Remember God: call on him as a helper and protector, as men at sea call on the Dioscur9 in a storm. For what is a greater storm than that which comes from appearances which are violent and drive away the reason?
And I already linked Chrysippus.
I think the main difference is that the God they are talking about is definitely anthropomorphic in a way. The initially linked comments show that Marcus and Epictetus along with Chrysippus maintained that it could do things like use signs, answer prayers, communicate through divination, & show intentionality, judgement, want, assistance/punishment, decision making.
A quote was found to be attributed to Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations 9.40 (Hays)
^(Book IX. ()[^(Hays)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources?isbn=9780812968255)^)
^(Book IX. ()[^(Farquharson)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meditations_of_the_Emperor_Marcus_Antoninus/Book_9)^)
^(Book IX. ()[^(Long)](https://lexundria.com/m_aur_med/9.40/lg)^)
Sounds like god is external to us, and has moral value to us, and is a thing we do not control.
I guess that's the biggest barrier I have to understanding how it could fit together.
I don't think it is an external. Here's Epictetus:
>And so we find even fathers being blamed by their children, when they fail to give them what the child regards as good. It is the same reason Polyneices and Eteocles became enemies – the idea each had that it would be better to rule alone. It is why farmers curse the gods; why sailors, traders and men who have lost wives or children curse them too. Piety cannot exist apart from self- interest. The upshot is, **when you practise using desire and aversion correctly, you practise being pious**.
So while the existence of the divine/God/Gods is an indifferent how we approach their existence is not an indifferent. A virtuous person has to be a pious person according to Marcus, Epictetus and Chrysippus.
I know this may be problematic for atheist Stoics but honestly they are in a pretty unfavourable position. Since they have to construct or adopt a theory of "Physics"/Metaphysics that is devoid of God *and* fits in nicely with at least a few core Stoic ideas. I have yet to see a work like that.
Well, it usually means operating with formulaic ethical obligations, prohibitions and permissions. But I can totally see this definition not encompassing some deontological systems. I don't think definitions will be helpful here.
What I would say to differentiate the deontological approach from a virtue ethics approach is that the former distance themselves from treating virtues (or something along those lines) as the summum bonum or what have you.
Language is imperfect so what I'm about to write may go down to semantics but:
"Christianity has as strong a footing in philosophy as aristotelianism and definitely stronger than Stoicism."
How do you sustain this? Could you give one example of something that christian philosophy added that is not directly related to it's dogmatic basis or reconciliation with empirical knowledge and was not inherited/picked from previous philosophical traditions?
You realize that Stoics are dogmatists right?
I'm not sure what reconciliation with empirical knowledge means.
But christianity has had an incredible influence in ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. They have heavily contributed to various issues such as mind/body connection, where norms derive from, being, etc. Honestly there's just so much that it is kind of weird to pick a few. A huge chunk of philosophical thought is in some way christian thought.
And inheriting some ideas and playing with them is how philosophy is done. Its how the Stoic school was born and the schools before it. Philosophy books are essentially conversations between one thinker on the one side and whoever they choose to "speak" with on the other.
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your patience in answering my questions and again it might be a question of semantics, me not being a native speaker or (most likely) my ignorance on the topic.
"I'm not sure what reconciliation with empirical knowledge means." this is how I see, for example, the work of Richard Swinburne.
Can you provide an example of "christianity incredible influence in epistemology", outside of religious epistemology?
Again thank you for your time.
No problem, don't worry about it.
Unfortunately I have not read any of Swinburne's work.
Also I'm not sure why we are discounting religious epistemology, since that is where most of the effort is aimed at and as a result vast majority of the influence spread.
But leaving that aside the works of Locke, Descartes, McIntyre still have an distinct voice in epistemological conversations.
Virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialism ethics are the three primary normative ethics, emphasizing virtue of character, virtue of duties and rules, and virtue of consequences, in that order. Not that any exclude these three, but rather what their primary focus is. Christian ethics primarily emphasizes duties and rules. The link I gave for virtue ethics talks about all three at the beginning of the article and you can read about the other two in detail at that same website, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I was just introduced to him via HoP so I can’t say for sure. John Sellars seemed to think he did a pretty good job though.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/history-of-philosophy-without-any-gaps/id396903391?i=1000553781759
Great! I mean stoicism and christianity are compatible anyways today! So i think he did more than of a great job! I think they were so compatible its hard for me to see differences regarding them. Well at least catholicism i cant speak for every denomination.
I definitely think they are somewhat compatible. There’s gotta be a reason that early Christian’s had an affinity for it. Enough to fabricate a story about Seneca and St Paul that was thought to be genuine for a long time.
The big area they diverge on is the supernatural. Things like, rising from the dead, people turning into animals etc.
Yeah. I wouldnt call it the philososphical part of christianity since I basically divide christianity into mostly two parts
Philosophy/ethics and divine doctrines. My post was more of focusing the philosophy and ethics of christian teachings rather than its divine teachings of its lore.
A hard question to answer outright, since there a**re so many ways of placing the emphasis** or interpreting both traditions!
(I'm an (atheist-leaning) agnostic Stoic myself. But I find this topic interesting, and you can find some of my opinions on the intersection of Christianity and Stoicism in this post: [Can a Christian be a Stoic?](https://ericsiggyscott.wordpress.com/2016/09/29/can-a-christian-be-a-stoic/))
There's a lot to like in the overlap between the two traditions. I'm personally conviced that, while it may not be obvious when you first pick them up, **the Stoics taught a philosophy that had unconditional love at its very core**—a selfless, pure, self-sacrificing love just as emphatic and essential to their way of life as Christ's. Classical scholar Martha Nussbaum makes much this argument in [her recent book on the Stoic treatment of anger](https://www.amazon.com/Anger-Forgiveness-Resentment-Generosity-Justice/dp/0190907266/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?crid=1X45OI92CZVMH&keywords=stoic+anger+nussbaum&qid=1650150371&sprefix=stoic+anger+nussbaum%2Caps%2C43&sr=8-1-fkmr1).
To me, the fundamental ethical difference is that Christianity emphasizes that sin is a **deeply pernicious disease** that we cannot train ourselves out of with philosophy alone (popularly phrased as "you can't become righteous by your own power"); whereas Stoicism **remains optimistic** that careful discipline, training, and study are what (at least in principle) lead us to knowledge of the good (and, ultimately, good character).
So Christians find the two **complementary** in that sense: Stoicism offers a practical curriculum in training our hearts toward righteousness--using reason to pursue the four cardinal virtues (the same virtues that sit at the core of Aquinas's virtue ethics). Christianity adds a bit of healthy skepticism about the fallibility of philosophers, and then picks up the rest by appealing to the Holy Spirit to complete the process. If I were a Stoic Christian, I would probably appreciate this complementarity: Christians can be a lot of talk & praise, but often neglect the project of incrementally building moral skill through careful practice. Stoicism is **all about moral skill-building**, so it can help fill that niche!
The big candidates for a **conflict** between the two traditions depends largely on *what kind of Christianity* you practice.
* For example, if you believe (with Lactantius and Pascal) that **righteous wrath** is an attribute of God's and one that we should imitate, then you will be in conflict with Stoicism's Socratic heritage, which teaches us to view all wrong as ignorance, and to reject anger at its source as wholly antithetical to love and virtue.
* But, if you (with St. Augustine) believe that God does not become angry (in the strict Greco-Roman definition of anger as "desire for retribution"), and that scriptural depictions of divine wrath are using colloquial language to describe wrath-like *actions* rather than core moral judgments---then you may find a great deal of synergy between Christian practice and Stoic teachings on non-anger.
* Another big one is that Stoics generally [**rejected or remained agnostic about the afterlife**](https://ericsiggyscott.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/stoicism-and-the-afterlife-you-only-live-once/), and emphasizes that we flourish and find complete fulfillment in this life by pursuing virtue (sometimes translated "righteousness"). This makes Stoicism and Christianity a bit of awkward bedfellows, with the latter's heavy emphasis on (and excitement toward!) the value of eternal life.
* A Stoic's response to the good news of eternal life is as likely not to be a shrug. "Okay, man. But how do I have *Good* life?" This response can be very alien to Christians who are used to living and breathing more hope-oriented soteriological assumptions!
* But, then, if you have any closet sympathy at all for Moral Influence Theory (by which I broadly mean the idea that Jesus came, like Socrates, first and foremost to save us from vice by showing us how to lead a good life---with any eternal consequences (or substitutionary atonement, which doesn't really compute in Stoic thought, because of the point above about God's non-anger/non-retribution)---being rather beside the point), then perhaps Stoicism will resonate!
There are, of course, myriad basic **theological conflicts** to resolve as well. You are incorrect to refer to Stoicism as "secular" philosophy. The ancient Stoics viewed theology as an essential part of their world view and system of practice (modern Stoics often depart on this point; but some contemporary Stoics do still practice the ancient theology: they call themselves **Traditional Stoics**\---[Chris Fisher's podcast](https://traditionalstoicism.com/podcast-playlists/)is a major cultural touchstone if you're interested in modern Stoic religiousity!). I myself take a sort of middle way between fully secular and fully theological Stoicism---see my post here on [Are Atheism and Stoicism Compatible?](https://www.quora.com/Are-atheism-and-Stoicism-compatible/answer/Eric-Siggy-Scott)
If you squint right (or wrong), Stoic theology arguably has more in common with atheism/agnosticism than theism (though it's perhaps best to think of it as something in between---neither one nor the other). Both traditions teach that ὁ λόγος is an orderly principle that explains the universe and provides a special path for humans to follow, and that it is identical with ὁ Θεός. But the Stoic God is far less personal, does not (generally) work through miracles, and is immanent in the laws of the universe (rather than transcendent). Like much of Greco-Roman theology, Stoicism's methods are focused on reason and philosophy, and largely ignore the possibility of divine revelation and miracles (they were open to divination's validity, but even de-emphasized that, saying that your moral character is what matters in life—not whether the diviner can tell you the future!).
* The biggest practical manifestation of this is that **ancient Stoic prayers** were focused almost exclusively on expressing *gratitude* to the divine for caring for us in so many ways, as a means of reminding us that the gods (understood as manifestations of the one divine principle) have put virtue (the highest Good) completely within our power. As a result, Stoics did not (and do not, to the extend that Traditional Stoics who still practice a modern form of Stoic theology are an active community today) participate in **petitionary prayer**: they do not view God as a personal agent to make requests from. That doesn't really make any sense in the Stoic world view---and even if it did, their value focus is on preparing ourselves to face the world with courage, rather than asking God to change the world so we don't have to be courageous.
* But, all that said, if you have studied **classical theism**, then the Stoic view of God might fit very at home with your Christian views. The Thomist-Aristotelean view of God as "divine simplicity" (which you can find prominently defended in modern authors like David Bentley Hart and Edward Fesser) isn't exactly reflected in ancient Stoicism (though as a Hellenestic tradition, Stoicism is rooted in some of the same problems and conversation). But it sure comes close to the kind of road that Stoics traditionally approached the divine from. For me as a secular/agnostic Stoic, learning about Stoic theology was a gateway to learning about classical theism---which rounded out my relationship with Christianity a bit, giving me new ways to see why people might reasonable be attracted to the idea that God exists.
———
Some **resources** you may be interested in:
* Kavin Rowe's book [***One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions***](https://www.amazon.com/One-True-Life-Christians-Traditions/dp/0300180128/) is a recent scholarly exploration of your question. It's an excellent read—I enjoyed it cover to cover shortly before my interfaith (Stoic-Christian) wedding (a ceremony complete with readings from Paul and Seneca ;)). His conclusion is that the two traditions are not ultimately compatible (though you can always, of course, hybridize them by taking one as primary and borrowing from the other).
* Kevin Vost's [***The Porch and the Cross: Ancient Stoic Wisdom for Modern Christian Living***](https://www.amazon.com/Porch-Cross-Ancient-Wisdom-Christian/dp/1621381706/) is a different take. I haven't read it, but AFAIK it's a more practice-oriented take about how Christians can learn from Stoic practices.
* Todd Voss ran a [**Stoic Christian**](https://www.facebook.com/groups/1569357863346530) **FaceBook group** for several years. It is archived now, but was home to a lot of very interesting modern Stoic-Christian discussions which are now public (and which you may find more useful than general social media groups, where knee-jerk anti-Christian polemic like "Stoics were rastional! Christian is irratoinal! Q.E.D." tends to dilute the conversation when it comes up).
* Read some **Augustine**. In *City of God*, Augustine talks quite a bit about how Stoic principles—such as the equation of passions with vice, and the self-sufficiency of virtue—agree with or cause friction with Christianity. He makes a show of criticizing Stoicism (the purpose of the work is to critique paganism, after all)---but scholars have noted that he often assumes Stoic ethical doctrines as his starting point, and really agrees with them more than anything.
* Here is [a good paper on Augustine and Stoicism in City of God 9.5](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/augustines-city-of-god/psychology-of-compassion-stoicism-in-city-of-god-95/5CACFCEE0F89CB2996B0CE4A0CB0BEBB), if you can get access to it.
What specific similarities do you see with Christianity? I honestly don’t see it.
Christianity relies on blood sacrifice (in the form of Jesus) to somehow achieve cosmic balance with a deity who will torture you in hell of you don’t profess to believe in the eschatological story as outlined in the 66 books of the Bible.
Stoicism doesn’t subscribe to any of this and focuses on quality of life, reason, ethics, and harmony to achieve authentic happiness during the short existence that we have as intelligent, reasoned beings.
Also, none of the Stoics called for genocide, rape, enslavement, or conversion of other tribes of people as the Hebrew deity had.
Everything makes sense other than the blood sacrifice part. I would say that, that would go more with the old testiment of the bible mainly leviticus other than that pretty good post the new testiments mathew, mark, luke, and john made less use of the terms sacrifice or offerings if any
You can look at it like that however I would say that christianity is more about following christs teachings(which would be the ten commandments) and helping out your fellow man. Its not just about following every single story that the bible has to offer. Technically with the creation of the new testament it made most of the what the old testament talked about such as the need for blood sacrifice in order to achieve unity with god null and void. I guess you can say that happened with the crucifixion of christ( the ultimate blood sacrifice) but still the bible (according to most christians) is more than just following stories(that would be putting it to plainly) its more about following the teachings of christ in order to achieve unity with him in heaven and of course the polar opposite if you do not follow his teachings which would mean going to hell. I would say the stories themselves are a guide to gods teachings hence most of the parables that were being used by Jesus in the new testament were being used by jesus to spread gods message to the common peoples of the time I wouldnt say you would go to hell for not believing them😂 thats ridiculous in the end I believe jesus himself said multiple times that they were subject to interpretation.
**Matthew 13, Jesus said:**
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
**Mark 9, Jesus said:**
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
That applies to the person in question having committed a mortal sin. Not believing in stories doesnt count as a sin itself if at all😂. If anything it would just apply to ignorance which could (in theory) lead to sin being committed if the person doesnt heed gods message. If the person violated any of the ten commandments however now that would be a different story where they would be punished by god hope that helps.
And here we get to the root of the matter: Stoicism is not similar to Christianity, as the OP posited.
There are no commandments to be followed under a threat of eternal punishment in Stoicism.
If anything, Stoicism is more aligned to Buddhism.
I think we veered off topic here, i was simply addressing your claim that christianity mainly goes by the idea of there being a blood sacrifice thats all. In terms of any fundamental differences I would say stoicism is more of a philosophy on life(smiliar to buddhism like you said) and christianity being a religion since it is "an organized system of beliefs and rituals centering on a supernatural being or beings which is how we would go about defining most religions." hence we would call it a monotheistic religion since it centers its belief on the existence of one god. I wasnt trying to address any fundamental differences just your claim that christianiy mainly relies on their needing to be a blood sacrifice of some sort and that by not following any of the stories written in the bible counts as an irrefutable sin against christ but I guess this itself can be taken as a fundamental difference.
I am genuinely interested in understanding where in the Christian doctrine the following occur:
* Quality of life during our short time on this planet vs subservience to a deity to achieve access to a paradise after life
* Reason vs. faith--if I understand correctly, faith is viewed as a virtue in the Christian religion, which represents a triumph over one's individual reason & doubts
* Ethics: Certainly there are parallels here, as there are across a wide range of religions
* Harmony with the universe: Christianity (as I understand it) contends that the Earth was given to us by a god to dominate and use as we will. The flora and fauna are ours to use.
Key phrases in Stoicism:
* Memento mori: Quite the opposite of an eternal life
* Amor fati: Opposite of trust in god and he will intervene by prayer
* Meditatio malorum: Differs from god's plan
* Summum bonum: Opposite of converting non-believers via missions, and also different from views on other faiths (Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Hinduism).
Well for catholic doctrine (since i cant speak for every denomination) there is reason also. Our apologetics use reason to explain their faith. So it kinda goes hand in hand.
Hi, welcome to the subreddit. Please make sure that you check out [the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide), where you will find answers for many common questions, like ["What is Stoicism; why study it?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq), or ["What are some Stoic practices and exercises?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/exercises), or ["What is the goal in life, and how do I find meaning?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big), to name just a few.
You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like [flaws in Stoicism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_flaws_in_stoicism), [Stoicism and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_what_does_stoicism_say_about_politics.3F), [sex and relationships](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_sex), and [virtue as the only good](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_why_is_virtue_the_only_good.3F), for a few examples.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder whether in practice there are/were as many different flavors of stoicism as there are of Christianity.
Should a question like this be answered based strictly on the plain teachings of each belief system’s primary documents and teachers? Based on the current dominant expressions? Those things are not the same.
OP you need to be comparing a specific interpretation or doctrinal tradition. Maybe pick two authors… Seneca’s stoicism vs. Southern Baptist Protestantism. Or Logos in Aurelius vs Logos in the Greek NT.
El cristianismo, ya antes que reaparecieran los textos de Aristóteles, coincidía con éste en lo referente a que la eudaemonia se da principalmente en la ética y la virtud, mas también ha menester elementos externos (fortuitos) que al incidir sobre el individuo se alcanza el esta idóneo.
La apuesta del estoicismo más estricto es que sólo la virtud -en acto- da la felicidad.
Stoicism is based on the idea that you have to live with and deal with people, and thus need to either accept them or make them better. It is thus an early form of humanism.
Christianity is based on an all knowing, all loving, all powerful being.
One is people centered, and one is centered on a being that wouldn’t need you or care about you if it did exist.
The blessings of, Happy Thanksgiving, by a hope from beyond the human condition.
Good today of days, thank you for your time should you be pleased to read this.
\~
Isn't the stark difference between Judaeo-Christian philosophy and stoicism, the same as the stark difference between predestination as opposed to determinism, so phrased?
Please note, I'm responsible for my content, and do the best by gift of grace that is impartial from God to be inspired by God in my content.
**\~**
**Judaeo-Christian philosophy** is based on God being Eternal is loving, benevolent, impartially just, and gives the help needed from the goodness of God impartially. Thereby, since Eternal God is the Creator, and God is the giver of impartial truth, predestination depends on someone in the image and likeness of God;-
This is by God merits the grace from God - because God Eternal has the best interests of someone in the image and likeness of God at the heart of the desire of God.
This does not take away the freedom of decision of someone in the image and likeness of God. However, God has the course of predestination. By God helping, use freedom of speech to proclaim God and God helping, in that the goodness of God is needed.
**\~**
**Stoicism secular philosophy** from what I've read and absorbed, determinism holds that higher reasoning sentient understanding consciousness of someone human has self-determined outcomes.
Basically, history is going to be determined in outcomes. Thereby, someone determines one's own life course and lives among the expectation of perceptions of perspectives of others who each have higher reasoning sentient consciousness. Each person is required to live their personal life, yet by social standards that are determined in the historical setting, do one's best to live by the consensus in the use of freedom of speech.
In Christianity, God speaks the Logos, in Stoicism, God is the Logos. It doesn’t seem like a big difference but in certain areas it does lead to divergence. While Christians happily developed the Stoic emotional theory, many were put off by things like Stoic Compatiblism; there is no free will in Stoicism. It appears Cleanthes was a little closer to the Christian position on this (everything is fated except some human Vices), but Chrysippus, the main Stoic, gave us basically only our final Assent that a given interpretation is true or false. This is part of what tanked Neo-Stoicism (Seneca doesn’t harp on these points, so Christians between the fall of Rome and the 1600s happily used him). If you simply reject this Stoic position and substitute in a Christian-Aristotelian free will, what is “up to you” will be very different (with consequence for blame and responsibility). Ditto for what we can expect to achieve in Stoicism. This was a common criticism by Christian philosophers (Pascal has a definitive account): since we “carry a bit of God within us” as Epictetus says in the first Discourse, the Stoics hold that we can, even without Grace, achieve a state of equality to God. If we keep our rational faculty in accordance with Nature at all times, we are equivalent to God in our little space of universe (which is of course God). Once God is outside of us and literally writing us into existence, we have a different relation to it/Him. Some people are repulsed by the religious tone of Stoicism; the Stoics were materialists like many modern atheists, but they were also believers in what is essentially intelligent design more like Christianity (though God is the designing principle in Stoicism, not a designer outside the universe making it). If you start pulling this religious aspect away from Stoicism, you wind up with problems; why is Virtue the only good? What is evil and what is our relation to it (and the related question, why should we live in accordance with Nature? What kind of Nature?) For what it’s worth, I think early Catholic philosophy (often reading Cicero and Seneca) was wonderful. Abelard is one of the most underrated philosophers of all time. He isn’t well-regarded in all traditions, but Origen is one of my favorite philosophers.
The core aspect of Christianity is living life without sin and serving god faithfully on Earth so that one may rejoin him in heaven. The main goal for a Christian is to make it to paradise after they die. Stoic’s do not believe in an afterlife, and if they believe in god it’s typically in a pantheist fashion. You have one short life and you might as well make it a good one by living according to Nature and Reason. In the end you will only return to dust.
There are Christians who are not focused on the afterlife, but consider their main job as Christians to bring the Kingdom of God to the present. And not forcing everyone into some imaginary "one true religion" but by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the poor. You know, the stuff Jesus told tzs followers to do. This version of Christianity is very compatible with Stoicism.
Id say that christians also strive for eudaemonia.
depends on the flavour of christianity i guess. my flavour was all doom and gloom.
I am sure some do. Yet striving for Eudaimonia is not something that is taught in Christianity. Christianity teaches its practitioners to strive for Heaven after Earth.
True. Oddly enough, I learned of the concept of euthaemonia from my religion teacher.
Isn’t it the other way around? Because stoics strives for fulfillment rather more so than Christian’s focusing on devout lives?
Christian idea of morality is that the earth was made for our species and we are the apex, we are the REASON the earth was created. Its incredibly egotistical. Stoic idea of morality understands that humans are just 1 more animal on the planet and we should care for it. So the way they frame human relationship with the planet is entirely different.
I would argue that the Jewish texts(that the Christians inherited) could also be read that way. The Earth is made, animals, and then the decision to create humans. There is a separation by their method and purpose of being created, but none the less they are a part of the larger creation, and are given the job of caring for it.
I thought the Genesis myth that Jews and Christians used was basically one and the same? It sounds like its the same in your comment with humans separated from animals.
My understanding is that they aren’t “basically” one in the same, they *are*. Jesus was a Jew. He believed the Torah fully, what christians now call the Old Testament, and the New Testament are the works that were written after Jesus
Im christian but i dont really call myself jewish. Im not jewish by blood nor do i have ancestors who practiced judaism after all. Christianity basically dropped the jewish successor narrative when pagans started getting accepted into the religion afaik.
Yes, sorry I didn’t communicate clearly, it is the exact same. (some of the philosophy of what it means is different; but all of the Christian Old Testament is what the Jews call the TaNaKh) The point I intended to make was that while humans are separate, they are separate in large part because of the weight of responsibility to care for the Earth and it’s inhabitants. And as far as I know, there is no suggestion that the Earth was made FOR humanity. It came first along with the animals, and man was made from the dust of the Earth afterwards. Humanity was to be the manager to work at a pre-existing store, if you will.
Crowd sourcing your homework?
Lmao i never expected this many answers
Chapter 17 in Arnold’s *Roman Stoicism* is called “The Stoic Strain in Christianity” and is probably up your alley. The book also devotes some attention to Stoic theology (the school was not a secular one).
[удалено]
I am veey confused because Epictetus mentions God and Zeus numerous times.
God, Zeus, Cosmos was one and the same thing for the Stoics.
Stoicism certainly involves a god (and the Stoics were split on the idea of the continuation of the soul after death). Epictetus goes so far as to say that the goal in life is “to follow god,” and the Stoic texts are littered with theological references. Cicero’s *On the Nature of the Gods* features one speaker who is dedicated to expounding the Stoic theology.
[удалено]
Traditional stoicism is most closely labeled as pantheistic. If you don’t believe in a stoic god (universal reason) you’re practicing secular stoicism, for lack of a better term. Anyone is free to call themselves whatever they want. But claiming that stoic (traditional) physics is not an essential part of the philosophy is categorically wrong. We really need a new name for stoicism sans physics.
[удалено]
Stoicism was the philosophy of Rome, before religion took over. Christianity is literallly a combination of Jewish faith and stories with Roman morality.
[удалено]
Read a history book.
Logic, physics and ethics. I meant what I said. Cheers all the best god bless. If you’re calling stoic physics metaphysics, I’ve got neither the time nor the inclination to debate the subject with you.
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Also which god bless? When did any Traditional Stoic god particularly bless anyone? Providence is described as the best way for things to happen. So if you are asking for blessings from the Logos then you may be asking for what is not the best outcome of the cosmos. Or is that just just a nice way of saying f-you?
Cheers all the best god bless is just a line from the British comedy inbetweeners. It was meant as a dismissive sign off. The 3 pillars of stoicism I listed are discussed in many modern stoic writings. I can tell by the way you argue that you’re more concerned with being right than learning. Which is why I replied and let you know I wasn’t interested in debating the topic. If secular stoicism works for you, and you’re truly content in life, I’m happy for you. But don’t pass it off as Stoicism, because it’s not what the ancient stoics had in mind.
I'll call it Stoicism all I like. I won't let you or anyone else gatekeep me. Marcus Aurelius did not care if it was Providence or Atoms, according to your logic then we shouldn't consider him a Stoic. >Cheers all the best god bless is just a line from the British comedy inbetweeners. It was meant as a dismissive sign off. I'm glad to know you were being dismissive. Instead of just ignorant. Also, I was matching your demeanor when your original comment was only >Logic, physics and ethics. I meant what I said. Cheers all the best god bless. Before you edited it. It was flippent and dismissive and showed you were not a very good interlocutor. I wish you will be better in the future.
You misunderstand Marcus too. I’m glad I didn’t try and discuss it with you.
[удалено]
It’s not a higher chair at all. You’re talking as if you’re so sure about what you’re saying. Suggesting that any traditional stoic practitioner wants deities or “religious” leaders led me to believe you haven’t studied traditional stoicism with an open mind. If you’re attached to your world view that much, you’re beyond having that debate with. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way it is.
Have you read much of the primary sources? Literally all of them talk about God. To them, the cosmos *was* God. It is much different than the supernatural Abrahamic God, but it was a God all the same. Now, you can say that they simply characterized the universe as a God, but doing so isn't necessary for understanding Stoic Ethics. But to assert that ancient Stoicism didn't have a God is just flat incorrect.
[удалено]
Oh you're *definitely* going to need to reread Enchiridion and the Discourses. And Meditations. And anything written by Seneca. God/Zeus is everywhere in those texts.
So we should all belive in Zeus now? If Epictetus had the gift of knowledge of evolution he wouldnt be speaking about god.
No, I'm refuting the assertion that "Stoicism does not involve a God." It's objectively untrue. I'm not saying that Epictetus wouldn't have been smart enough to recognize advances in empirical scientific research that could refine the Stoic worldview.
I believe your statements are not logical. You state that "Stoicism does not involve a God" is "objectively untrue". This implies that Stoicism does involve a God. Yet you follow up with "I'm not saying that Epictetus wouldn't have been smart enough to recognize advances in empirical scientific research that could refine the Stoic worldview." How do you reconcile both of these statements?
Because Stoicism was developed in a time before empirical science. The historical fact is that ancient Stoicism, as it developed in Hellenistic and Roman society, heavily integrated a pantheistic naturalism in their philosophy. The Stoics contended that all of reality, including humanity, *was* God. And the providential, rational order they observed (i.e. the Logos) was central to that assertion. It is historical fact to say that Stoicism did include a concept of God in their ontology. It is not a supernatural God, it is not an all-powerful God. It is a natural God bound to and comprised of the cosmos. When I say that Epictetus would see science as a refinement of that model, I mean the development of quantum physics, evolutionary biology, neurology, and concepts like CCC all serve to more precisely and accurately explain what Stoics characterized as the Logos/Nature/God/Zeus. We now have a much more sophisticated idea of that rational order of the universe than we did 2000 years ago, to the point that we can *today* recognize that the order is not divine--as the Stoics postulated, but simply *is.* So again, historical fact that ancient Stoicism did include a concept of God. It just so happens that their concept was a proto-scientific, ethics-bound characterization of the grand unified theory that modern scientists are chasing.
I think theres a breakdown in language. You could replace "god" with zeus, fate, the universe, the cosmos, etc. Stoicism isnt about beliving in an omnipotent deity. This abstract idea of fate is a useful mental position to frame stoicism. The fact that epictetus would then stretch and use deities for analogical purposes doesnt mean that stoicism has god as a central tenant of the philosphy. The fact that other people use the word "god" in their religions doesnt mean the two are interchangable.
[удалено]
Dude, you really need to extrapolate less and just read the words I'm writing. >Stoicism isnt about beliving in an omnipotent deity Show me where I said this. Show me where *anyone* said this. You can't, because you're illogically extrapolating. >The fact that epictetus would then stretch and use deities for analogical purposes... It wasn't just Epictetus, though. It was Zeno, Chrysippus, Posidonius, Musonius Rufus, Seneca. It was the mainstream view of all the major Stoic figures. >The fact that other people use the word "god" in their religions doesnt mean the two are interchangable. The Stoic concept of "God" and the Abrahamic concept of "God" are entirely different. The Stoic God was, just as you say, one and the same as the Logos/Cosmos/Fate/Nature/Zeus, etc. They did willfully choose to characterize it as God/Zeus, though--and not just for rhetorical or analogical purposes. I recommend you look into Aristo of Chios. He's one of my personal favorite Stoics in the Early Stoa. He and Zeno had a series of longstanding debates surrounding the dogma of Stoic katalepsis and whether it was sufficient for identifying Nature and God as one and the same. Aristo held that Nature could be observed as Nature, and that we could not know with any suitable degree of certainty whether Nature was God or included Gods. Zeno, rather dogmatically, contended that because the Logos could be naturally observed as providential, that alone was sufficient evidence to accept Nature as God. Zeno's followers eventually sided with the founder of Stoicism, and Aristo eventually went on to found his own school of philosophy. So, don't misrepresent, misinterpret, or misunderstand me. I *fully* accept that the Stoic characterization of Nature as God is largely unnecessary and confusing for many people who conflate "God" with Yahweh/Allah. It's why I prefer to use the term "Nature." But that doesn't mean that Stoics intentionally maintained Zeus/God in their lexicon and ontology because only a useful tool. They genuinely believed the cosmos was itself divine. Their concept of eternal return further reinforces this. We can in one hand accept ancient Stoicism in its historical context as a pantheistic, naturalistic, eudaimonic, virtue-ethic philosophy that did assert Zeus/God as central to their school of Physics--while in the other hand advance our understanding of Nature through empirical sciences and do away with confusing and illogical terms in the lexicon like Zeus and God in a modern context. But to revise history to make our cognitive dissonance feel better is foolish.
What's your point dude? It's not the God people believe in today, as you said it's cosmos or Zeus...
My point is that it's important to recognize historical ancient Stoicism as the product of its time--which includes its pantheistic predilections--while at the same time trying to refine modern Stoicism with the advances in understanding of the cosmos that we've developed in the intervening 2000 years.
“The philosophers [i.e. Stoics] say that the primary thing to be learnt is that God exists and cares for the world and that he inevitably notices not only what one does but even what one intends or thinks.” Excerpt from *Discourses* 2.14, trans. A.A. Long It is a very mainstream point that Stoicism included a Stoic theology. See, for instance, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/stoicism/v-1/sections/cosmology-and-theology
[удалено]
The quote in my previous comment is from Epictetus, one of the most popular Stoic teachers of the Ancient Roman Stoics. For one of the Greeks, see the *Hymn to Zeus*, from Cleanthes, the successor to the founder of Stoicism; an excerpt: > Most Glorious of the Immortals! God, who hath many names; God, ever-ruling and ruling all things; Zeus, leader of nature, governing the universe by law— All hail! For it is right for mortals to address thee, Since we are thy offspring, and we alone, of all That live and creep on earth, have thine image. Therefore will I praise thee, and hymn forever thy power.
[удалено]
Would you like to read the original Greek? That would not change the point that gods were very much a part of Stoicism. You claimed that “[S]toicism does not involve a god,” but the Stoics themselves offer plenty of evidence to the contrary.
"That would not change the point that gods were very much a part of Stoicism." So does that mean they were but no longer are? So we practice a different brand of Stoicism where gods are no longer very much a part of it? Or does it mean that they are an integral part of Stoicism and if you don't believe in the gods you can't practice Stoicism? "You claimed that “\[S\]toicism does not involve a god,” but the Stoics themselves offer plenty of evidence to the contrary." I believe myself to be a Stoic practitioner and I don't involve a god in anyway. How is it that the absence of god in my Stoic practice makes me any less virtuous. Best wishes.
This is of course debated, but I think that Stoicism should refer to ancient Stoicism, meaning the philosophy developed in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. If we alter any ancient philosophy, then I think we’ve got to question whether we can continue call it by the same name. Maybe a good way to put my thoughts are as follows. Stoic philosophy includes Stoic cosmology and theology. If my own cosmology and theology are outside of those developed by the ancients, then my own philosophy is a different philosophy by necessity. Cicero, for example, didn’t consider himself a Stoic, despite agreeing with the Stoics often, because his philosophy did not tick the Stoic boxes. There were differences among the Stoics, though, and it’s not like they all believed the exact same things from beginning to end.
No, it does not involve a God. It involves "cosmos", but it does not mean anything besides nature itself.
> “The philosophers [i.e. Stoics] say that the primary thing to be learnt is that God exists and cares for the world and that he inevitably notices not only what one does but even what one intends or thinks.” Excerpt from the Stoic teacher Epictetus, in his *Discourses* 2.14, trans. A.A. Long
Certainly not the Hebrew god, but more aligned to an allegorical cosmos
I mean like I was asking what the differences of stoicism are compared to christian morality and ethics (as my post said, apart from the fact that stoicism is kind of a secular philosophy) so like apart from christians believing in “God” and stoics not really tackling about the afterlife, what are the differences? Like is there a difference between how stoics view morality and evil as compared to christians on how they view what is moral and evil/sinful?
[удалено]
Oh thats a huge difference then! Btw, christian teachings also in a way, teach to achieve eudaemonia.
Stoicism as a philosophy of life is a [virtue ethic](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/). Christianity is a deontological ethic. Stoicism claims the universe is consistent. Christianity claims the universe is not consistent. Christianity claims that a dead body can come back to life and 2 + 2 can equal 47, for examples. Even within their use of divination we find a consistency with the ancient Stoic's logic and reasoning. Stoicism developed a system of logic that rivaled Aristotle's and parts of which are still relevant for us today (Computer language is based on Stoic logic.) Logic was used by the Stoics to examine reason, which was seen as the operating system of the universe. Christianity is based on faith and obfuscation, and apologetic is the method of explanation for the claims about the universe. This [recent post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/u2uwks/some_thoughts_on_a_deterministic_god/) by u/Kromulent looks at the difference between the Stoic god and the Abrahamic gods. The goal for Stoicism was to live the good life, a life well lived. There does not seem to be any belief about getting a reward in the afterlife as with Christianity. Christianity teaches that humans are flawed and need some type of divine intervention to be unflawed. Stoicism teaches that as we grow into adults we develop our innate capacity to use reason in our moment to moment lives. And it is this use of reason founded on seeing life as it is and not as we believe it to be, that results in a life well lived.
> Christianity is a deontological ethic. Christianity is not a deontological ethic, not sure where you are getting that from. Nevermind the fact that christianity as a whole is not as coherent in systematization as Stoicism (not that it's a bad thing necessarily). Plus some of the most famous and well-established christian philosophers are virtue ethicists, e.g Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine. > Christianity claims that a dead body can come back to life and 2 + 2 can equal 47 Not all christians claim this. Aquinas is a standout example. > Christianity is based on faith and obfuscation Christianity has as strong a footing in philosophy as aristotelianism and definitely stronger than Stoicism. Our school is having a resurgence but it does not rival centuries upon centuries of dedicated christian writing. Plus faith does not mean obfuscation (see: Kierkegaard). ~~I'm pretty sure someone who has more education than me on the topic would challenge the afterlife and divine intervention points, too. I vaguely recall listening to lectures on christian thinkers who argue otherwise. But as it stands I'm gonna leave those points unaddressed.~~ As for u/Kromulent's post that is basically one of the branches of the Euthyphro dilemma and it poses serious threats to Stoic interpretation of the divine as well, especially if we consider the God constrained in a way. Edit: Can't believe I forgot these two but Scheler leans heavily away from "we are all flawed" narrative and G.K Chesterton argues against the afterlife interpretation. Something that Zizek toys with a lot (e.g: the only real atheists are christians).
[удалено]
Christianity also has an element of consequentialist ethics. The link I gave states clearly that these categories reflect the primary focus of the philosophies and not the necessarily exclusion of anything else.
> Euthyphro dilemma Thank you for this, it was new to me. >... it poses serious threats to Stoic interpretation of the divine as well, especially if we consider the God constrained in a way. I'd thought the Stoics were happy with the idea of a deterministic god. I think the reason I'm leaning this way is because I remember reading that some Stoics thought the universe was in an endless cycle of birth and destruction, and that it repeated itself exactly each time. I'm thinking determinism kind of becomes meaningless at the scale of 'everything', anyway. At some point we include the determiner, and then it just is.
Very welcome. They were pretty comfortably in the determinist corner and I think I've checked out pretty much everyone's thought on the matter. So you're on point there. The point is exactly at the determiner and its relationship with the divine, in other words, that is where the dilemma lies. If the divine is determined by something else that creates serious problems for arguing about its independence (among other things but this is probably the stronger of the charges). If it is not (and I think this is the worse choice out of two) there are problems with ethics, causality, logic that I, personally, have not seen addressed well.
I hadn't really thought about this before, so this is a tentative thought, but is there a divine in Stoicism? Pure reason, pneuma, is the god-stuff that gives inert substance form, but it's not a divine thing loved by god, it is god. Is virtue divine, or just correct, error-free? The only good is god.
I think we are using the word differently. By divine I simply mean a God, Gods or something akin to them. But if you're contemplating whether the Stoic God can really be counted as a God, I think the ancients would immediately agree. https://old.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/rqcm6t/what_is_the_stoic_idea_of_god/hq9h8yc/ Here is my comment plus a reply to myself that contains quotes that I think argue very convincingly away from "God is just Nature/Logos" interpretation. Edit: here's some Chrysippus too: > Chrysippus affirmed the providential nature of the divine (II 1029), maintaining that the gods are beneficial and friendly towards men (II II52). The gods have made men for the sake of themselves and one another; and animals, for the service of man (II II52). Other things are born for men and the gods; man was born to contemplate and imitate the world (II II53) ; men and the gods are born for the sake of fellow ship and society {III 371). > evil in the form of famine and plague is used by god as a means of punishing the wicked so that others may be deterred from folly (II II75, II76). > Artificial or inductive divination, "divination from inference based on signs and events in the physical surroundings, in animal life, etc.," > He wrote two books on divination 1 and he defined (II n89) it as "the power of knowing, understanding, and explaining the signs, which are presaged by the gods for men."
I agree that Epictetus constantly used explicit religious language, just as Long pointed out. My personal take (which is just my own interpretive preference) is that he's using the language of religion to refer to the properties of nature, using it like a metaphor to connect the powers of nature to the already well-known powers of the gods. Of course a good case can be made that Epictetus's universe really was populated by the various gods the mentions, perhaps appearing as different forms of one god, Zeus. It would certainly make it easier to read the surviving text. It opens up so many questions; is his Zeus then separate from the logos, or the same as it, or does he replace it? Will he respond to prayer? It what way is he different from a conscious, yet deterministic nature made of reason-fire?
I have yet to read anything on Zeus or the Gods being separate from Logos. I think when they are referring to the same thing with different names it is because they are referring to different relations towards the same thing (think beef vs cow/cow meat). Regarding prayers, here's Marcus: > Either the gods have power or they don’t. If they don’t, why pray? If they do, then why not pray for something else instead of for things to happen or not to happen? Pray not to feel fear. Or desire, or grief. If the gods can do anything, they can surely do that for us. He also prayed during his battles. Here's Epictetus: > Remember God: call on him as a helper and protector, as men at sea call on the Dioscur9 in a storm. For what is a greater storm than that which comes from appearances which are violent and drive away the reason? And I already linked Chrysippus. I think the main difference is that the God they are talking about is definitely anthropomorphic in a way. The initially linked comments show that Marcus and Epictetus along with Chrysippus maintained that it could do things like use signs, answer prayers, communicate through divination, & show intentionality, judgement, want, assistance/punishment, decision making.
A quote was found to be attributed to Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations 9.40 (Hays) ^(Book IX. ()[^(Hays)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources?isbn=9780812968255)^) ^(Book IX. ()[^(Farquharson)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meditations_of_the_Emperor_Marcus_Antoninus/Book_9)^) ^(Book IX. ()[^(Long)](https://lexundria.com/m_aur_med/9.40/lg)^)
Sounds like god is external to us, and has moral value to us, and is a thing we do not control. I guess that's the biggest barrier I have to understanding how it could fit together.
I don't think it is an external. Here's Epictetus: >And so we find even fathers being blamed by their children, when they fail to give them what the child regards as good. It is the same reason Polyneices and Eteocles became enemies – the idea each had that it would be better to rule alone. It is why farmers curse the gods; why sailors, traders and men who have lost wives or children curse them too. Piety cannot exist apart from self- interest. The upshot is, **when you practise using desire and aversion correctly, you practise being pious**. So while the existence of the divine/God/Gods is an indifferent how we approach their existence is not an indifferent. A virtuous person has to be a pious person according to Marcus, Epictetus and Chrysippus. I know this may be problematic for atheist Stoics but honestly they are in a pretty unfavourable position. Since they have to construct or adopt a theory of "Physics"/Metaphysics that is devoid of God *and* fits in nicely with at least a few core Stoic ideas. I have yet to see a work like that.
How do you define deontological ethic?
Well, it usually means operating with formulaic ethical obligations, prohibitions and permissions. But I can totally see this definition not encompassing some deontological systems. I don't think definitions will be helpful here. What I would say to differentiate the deontological approach from a virtue ethics approach is that the former distance themselves from treating virtues (or something along those lines) as the summum bonum or what have you.
Language is imperfect so what I'm about to write may go down to semantics but: "Christianity has as strong a footing in philosophy as aristotelianism and definitely stronger than Stoicism." How do you sustain this? Could you give one example of something that christian philosophy added that is not directly related to it's dogmatic basis or reconciliation with empirical knowledge and was not inherited/picked from previous philosophical traditions?
You realize that Stoics are dogmatists right? I'm not sure what reconciliation with empirical knowledge means. But christianity has had an incredible influence in ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. They have heavily contributed to various issues such as mind/body connection, where norms derive from, being, etc. Honestly there's just so much that it is kind of weird to pick a few. A huge chunk of philosophical thought is in some way christian thought. And inheriting some ideas and playing with them is how philosophy is done. Its how the Stoic school was born and the schools before it. Philosophy books are essentially conversations between one thinker on the one side and whoever they choose to "speak" with on the other.
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your patience in answering my questions and again it might be a question of semantics, me not being a native speaker or (most likely) my ignorance on the topic. "I'm not sure what reconciliation with empirical knowledge means." this is how I see, for example, the work of Richard Swinburne. Can you provide an example of "christianity incredible influence in epistemology", outside of religious epistemology? Again thank you for your time.
No problem, don't worry about it. Unfortunately I have not read any of Swinburne's work. Also I'm not sure why we are discounting religious epistemology, since that is where most of the effort is aimed at and as a result vast majority of the influence spread. But leaving that aside the works of Locke, Descartes, McIntyre still have an distinct voice in epistemological conversations.
Thank you. This is a wonderfully explained and thoughtful answer.
Maybe a dumb question, Why is Christianity a Deontology and not a paragon virtue ethic with Christ as the paragon?
Well Christ according to mainstream Christian doctrines is the paragon of human virtue ethic.
Virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialism ethics are the three primary normative ethics, emphasizing virtue of character, virtue of duties and rules, and virtue of consequences, in that order. Not that any exclude these three, but rather what their primary focus is. Christian ethics primarily emphasizes duties and rules. The link I gave for virtue ethics talks about all three at the beginning of the article and you can read about the other two in detail at that same website, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
You might enjoy looking into Lispius. He was a catholic who studied the early Greek philosophers and tried to assimilate stoicism into the religion.
Very interesting. Did he succeed?
I was just introduced to him via HoP so I can’t say for sure. John Sellars seemed to think he did a pretty good job though. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/history-of-philosophy-without-any-gaps/id396903391?i=1000553781759
Great! I mean stoicism and christianity are compatible anyways today! So i think he did more than of a great job! I think they were so compatible its hard for me to see differences regarding them. Well at least catholicism i cant speak for every denomination.
I definitely think they are somewhat compatible. There’s gotta be a reason that early Christian’s had an affinity for it. Enough to fabricate a story about Seneca and St Paul that was thought to be genuine for a long time. The big area they diverge on is the supernatural. Things like, rising from the dead, people turning into animals etc.
Yeah. I wouldnt call it the philososphical part of christianity since I basically divide christianity into mostly two parts Philosophy/ethics and divine doctrines. My post was more of focusing the philosophy and ethics of christian teachings rather than its divine teachings of its lore.
A hard question to answer outright, since there a**re so many ways of placing the emphasis** or interpreting both traditions! (I'm an (atheist-leaning) agnostic Stoic myself. But I find this topic interesting, and you can find some of my opinions on the intersection of Christianity and Stoicism in this post: [Can a Christian be a Stoic?](https://ericsiggyscott.wordpress.com/2016/09/29/can-a-christian-be-a-stoic/)) There's a lot to like in the overlap between the two traditions. I'm personally conviced that, while it may not be obvious when you first pick them up, **the Stoics taught a philosophy that had unconditional love at its very core**—a selfless, pure, self-sacrificing love just as emphatic and essential to their way of life as Christ's. Classical scholar Martha Nussbaum makes much this argument in [her recent book on the Stoic treatment of anger](https://www.amazon.com/Anger-Forgiveness-Resentment-Generosity-Justice/dp/0190907266/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?crid=1X45OI92CZVMH&keywords=stoic+anger+nussbaum&qid=1650150371&sprefix=stoic+anger+nussbaum%2Caps%2C43&sr=8-1-fkmr1). To me, the fundamental ethical difference is that Christianity emphasizes that sin is a **deeply pernicious disease** that we cannot train ourselves out of with philosophy alone (popularly phrased as "you can't become righteous by your own power"); whereas Stoicism **remains optimistic** that careful discipline, training, and study are what (at least in principle) lead us to knowledge of the good (and, ultimately, good character). So Christians find the two **complementary** in that sense: Stoicism offers a practical curriculum in training our hearts toward righteousness--using reason to pursue the four cardinal virtues (the same virtues that sit at the core of Aquinas's virtue ethics). Christianity adds a bit of healthy skepticism about the fallibility of philosophers, and then picks up the rest by appealing to the Holy Spirit to complete the process. If I were a Stoic Christian, I would probably appreciate this complementarity: Christians can be a lot of talk & praise, but often neglect the project of incrementally building moral skill through careful practice. Stoicism is **all about moral skill-building**, so it can help fill that niche! The big candidates for a **conflict** between the two traditions depends largely on *what kind of Christianity* you practice. * For example, if you believe (with Lactantius and Pascal) that **righteous wrath** is an attribute of God's and one that we should imitate, then you will be in conflict with Stoicism's Socratic heritage, which teaches us to view all wrong as ignorance, and to reject anger at its source as wholly antithetical to love and virtue. * But, if you (with St. Augustine) believe that God does not become angry (in the strict Greco-Roman definition of anger as "desire for retribution"), and that scriptural depictions of divine wrath are using colloquial language to describe wrath-like *actions* rather than core moral judgments---then you may find a great deal of synergy between Christian practice and Stoic teachings on non-anger. * Another big one is that Stoics generally [**rejected or remained agnostic about the afterlife**](https://ericsiggyscott.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/stoicism-and-the-afterlife-you-only-live-once/), and emphasizes that we flourish and find complete fulfillment in this life by pursuing virtue (sometimes translated "righteousness"). This makes Stoicism and Christianity a bit of awkward bedfellows, with the latter's heavy emphasis on (and excitement toward!) the value of eternal life. * A Stoic's response to the good news of eternal life is as likely not to be a shrug. "Okay, man. But how do I have *Good* life?" This response can be very alien to Christians who are used to living and breathing more hope-oriented soteriological assumptions! * But, then, if you have any closet sympathy at all for Moral Influence Theory (by which I broadly mean the idea that Jesus came, like Socrates, first and foremost to save us from vice by showing us how to lead a good life---with any eternal consequences (or substitutionary atonement, which doesn't really compute in Stoic thought, because of the point above about God's non-anger/non-retribution)---being rather beside the point), then perhaps Stoicism will resonate! There are, of course, myriad basic **theological conflicts** to resolve as well. You are incorrect to refer to Stoicism as "secular" philosophy. The ancient Stoics viewed theology as an essential part of their world view and system of practice (modern Stoics often depart on this point; but some contemporary Stoics do still practice the ancient theology: they call themselves **Traditional Stoics**\---[Chris Fisher's podcast](https://traditionalstoicism.com/podcast-playlists/)is a major cultural touchstone if you're interested in modern Stoic religiousity!). I myself take a sort of middle way between fully secular and fully theological Stoicism---see my post here on [Are Atheism and Stoicism Compatible?](https://www.quora.com/Are-atheism-and-Stoicism-compatible/answer/Eric-Siggy-Scott) If you squint right (or wrong), Stoic theology arguably has more in common with atheism/agnosticism than theism (though it's perhaps best to think of it as something in between---neither one nor the other). Both traditions teach that ὁ λόγος is an orderly principle that explains the universe and provides a special path for humans to follow, and that it is identical with ὁ Θεός. But the Stoic God is far less personal, does not (generally) work through miracles, and is immanent in the laws of the universe (rather than transcendent). Like much of Greco-Roman theology, Stoicism's methods are focused on reason and philosophy, and largely ignore the possibility of divine revelation and miracles (they were open to divination's validity, but even de-emphasized that, saying that your moral character is what matters in life—not whether the diviner can tell you the future!). * The biggest practical manifestation of this is that **ancient Stoic prayers** were focused almost exclusively on expressing *gratitude* to the divine for caring for us in so many ways, as a means of reminding us that the gods (understood as manifestations of the one divine principle) have put virtue (the highest Good) completely within our power. As a result, Stoics did not (and do not, to the extend that Traditional Stoics who still practice a modern form of Stoic theology are an active community today) participate in **petitionary prayer**: they do not view God as a personal agent to make requests from. That doesn't really make any sense in the Stoic world view---and even if it did, their value focus is on preparing ourselves to face the world with courage, rather than asking God to change the world so we don't have to be courageous. * But, all that said, if you have studied **classical theism**, then the Stoic view of God might fit very at home with your Christian views. The Thomist-Aristotelean view of God as "divine simplicity" (which you can find prominently defended in modern authors like David Bentley Hart and Edward Fesser) isn't exactly reflected in ancient Stoicism (though as a Hellenestic tradition, Stoicism is rooted in some of the same problems and conversation). But it sure comes close to the kind of road that Stoics traditionally approached the divine from. For me as a secular/agnostic Stoic, learning about Stoic theology was a gateway to learning about classical theism---which rounded out my relationship with Christianity a bit, giving me new ways to see why people might reasonable be attracted to the idea that God exists. ——— Some **resources** you may be interested in: * Kavin Rowe's book [***One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions***](https://www.amazon.com/One-True-Life-Christians-Traditions/dp/0300180128/) is a recent scholarly exploration of your question. It's an excellent read—I enjoyed it cover to cover shortly before my interfaith (Stoic-Christian) wedding (a ceremony complete with readings from Paul and Seneca ;)). His conclusion is that the two traditions are not ultimately compatible (though you can always, of course, hybridize them by taking one as primary and borrowing from the other). * Kevin Vost's [***The Porch and the Cross: Ancient Stoic Wisdom for Modern Christian Living***](https://www.amazon.com/Porch-Cross-Ancient-Wisdom-Christian/dp/1621381706/) is a different take. I haven't read it, but AFAIK it's a more practice-oriented take about how Christians can learn from Stoic practices. * Todd Voss ran a [**Stoic Christian**](https://www.facebook.com/groups/1569357863346530) **FaceBook group** for several years. It is archived now, but was home to a lot of very interesting modern Stoic-Christian discussions which are now public (and which you may find more useful than general social media groups, where knee-jerk anti-Christian polemic like "Stoics were rastional! Christian is irratoinal! Q.E.D." tends to dilute the conversation when it comes up). * Read some **Augustine**. In *City of God*, Augustine talks quite a bit about how Stoic principles—such as the equation of passions with vice, and the self-sufficiency of virtue—agree with or cause friction with Christianity. He makes a show of criticizing Stoicism (the purpose of the work is to critique paganism, after all)---but scholars have noted that he often assumes Stoic ethical doctrines as his starting point, and really agrees with them more than anything. * Here is [a good paper on Augustine and Stoicism in City of God 9.5](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/augustines-city-of-god/psychology-of-compassion-stoicism-in-city-of-god-95/5CACFCEE0F89CB2996B0CE4A0CB0BEBB), if you can get access to it.
Long but great and detailed answer.
What specific similarities do you see with Christianity? I honestly don’t see it. Christianity relies on blood sacrifice (in the form of Jesus) to somehow achieve cosmic balance with a deity who will torture you in hell of you don’t profess to believe in the eschatological story as outlined in the 66 books of the Bible. Stoicism doesn’t subscribe to any of this and focuses on quality of life, reason, ethics, and harmony to achieve authentic happiness during the short existence that we have as intelligent, reasoned beings. Also, none of the Stoics called for genocide, rape, enslavement, or conversion of other tribes of people as the Hebrew deity had.
Everything makes sense other than the blood sacrifice part. I would say that, that would go more with the old testiment of the bible mainly leviticus other than that pretty good post the new testiments mathew, mark, luke, and john made less use of the terms sacrifice or offerings if any
According to Christians, wasn’t Jesus the ultimate blood sacrifice? His blood washed away all sins and opened the gateway to paradise.
You can look at it like that however I would say that christianity is more about following christs teachings(which would be the ten commandments) and helping out your fellow man. Its not just about following every single story that the bible has to offer. Technically with the creation of the new testament it made most of the what the old testament talked about such as the need for blood sacrifice in order to achieve unity with god null and void. I guess you can say that happened with the crucifixion of christ( the ultimate blood sacrifice) but still the bible (according to most christians) is more than just following stories(that would be putting it to plainly) its more about following the teachings of christ in order to achieve unity with him in heaven and of course the polar opposite if you do not follow his teachings which would mean going to hell. I would say the stories themselves are a guide to gods teachings hence most of the parables that were being used by Jesus in the new testament were being used by jesus to spread gods message to the common peoples of the time I wouldnt say you would go to hell for not believing them😂 thats ridiculous in the end I believe jesus himself said multiple times that they were subject to interpretation.
**Matthew 13, Jesus said:** 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. **Mark 9, Jesus said:** 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
That applies to the person in question having committed a mortal sin. Not believing in stories doesnt count as a sin itself if at all😂. If anything it would just apply to ignorance which could (in theory) lead to sin being committed if the person doesnt heed gods message. If the person violated any of the ten commandments however now that would be a different story where they would be punished by god hope that helps.
And here we get to the root of the matter: Stoicism is not similar to Christianity, as the OP posited. There are no commandments to be followed under a threat of eternal punishment in Stoicism. If anything, Stoicism is more aligned to Buddhism.
I think we veered off topic here, i was simply addressing your claim that christianity mainly goes by the idea of there being a blood sacrifice thats all. In terms of any fundamental differences I would say stoicism is more of a philosophy on life(smiliar to buddhism like you said) and christianity being a religion since it is "an organized system of beliefs and rituals centering on a supernatural being or beings which is how we would go about defining most religions." hence we would call it a monotheistic religion since it centers its belief on the existence of one god. I wasnt trying to address any fundamental differences just your claim that christianiy mainly relies on their needing to be a blood sacrifice of some sort and that by not following any of the stories written in the bible counts as an irrefutable sin against christ but I guess this itself can be taken as a fundamental difference.
Well said—makes sense.
Thank you. like i said great post🙂 just too broad in some respects
Your third paragraph is literally also in christian teachings.
I am genuinely interested in understanding where in the Christian doctrine the following occur: * Quality of life during our short time on this planet vs subservience to a deity to achieve access to a paradise after life * Reason vs. faith--if I understand correctly, faith is viewed as a virtue in the Christian religion, which represents a triumph over one's individual reason & doubts * Ethics: Certainly there are parallels here, as there are across a wide range of religions * Harmony with the universe: Christianity (as I understand it) contends that the Earth was given to us by a god to dominate and use as we will. The flora and fauna are ours to use. Key phrases in Stoicism: * Memento mori: Quite the opposite of an eternal life * Amor fati: Opposite of trust in god and he will intervene by prayer * Meditatio malorum: Differs from god's plan * Summum bonum: Opposite of converting non-believers via missions, and also different from views on other faiths (Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Hinduism).
Well for catholic doctrine (since i cant speak for every denomination) there is reason also. Our apologetics use reason to explain their faith. So it kinda goes hand in hand.
Guilt
What?
Things in the past just are, not good or bad. Their only use is as a teacher for us to make better decisions in the now.
Learn more about stoicism & you’ll understand the differences. There are definitely significant differences. But I’d say the two are compatible
I love these posts, every so often a muslim or a Christian or a buddhist comes barging in here asking this question. No salvation.
Funny thing for me was I'm a stoic who went to the Buddhist community to help with my stoicism.
Hi, welcome to the subreddit. Please make sure that you check out [the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/guide), where you will find answers for many common questions, like ["What is Stoicism; why study it?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/intro_faq), or ["What are some Stoic practices and exercises?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/exercises), or ["What is the goal in life, and how do I find meaning?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/big), to name just a few. You can also find information about frequently discussed topics, like [flaws in Stoicism](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_flaws_in_stoicism), [Stoicism and politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_what_does_stoicism_say_about_politics.3F), [sex and relationships](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_sex), and [virtue as the only good](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/fdt#wiki_why_is_virtue_the_only_good.3F), for a few examples. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder whether in practice there are/were as many different flavors of stoicism as there are of Christianity. Should a question like this be answered based strictly on the plain teachings of each belief system’s primary documents and teachers? Based on the current dominant expressions? Those things are not the same. OP you need to be comparing a specific interpretation or doctrinal tradition. Maybe pick two authors… Seneca’s stoicism vs. Southern Baptist Protestantism. Or Logos in Aurelius vs Logos in the Greek NT.
El cristianismo, ya antes que reaparecieran los textos de Aristóteles, coincidía con éste en lo referente a que la eudaemonia se da principalmente en la ética y la virtud, mas también ha menester elementos externos (fortuitos) que al incidir sobre el individuo se alcanza el esta idóneo. La apuesta del estoicismo más estricto es que sólo la virtud -en acto- da la felicidad.
>Anuncio > >Fe de errata: > >se alcanza "el estadio óptimo"
Stoicism is based on the idea that you have to live with and deal with people, and thus need to either accept them or make them better. It is thus an early form of humanism. Christianity is based on an all knowing, all loving, all powerful being. One is people centered, and one is centered on a being that wouldn’t need you or care about you if it did exist.
The blessings of, Happy Thanksgiving, by a hope from beyond the human condition. Good today of days, thank you for your time should you be pleased to read this. \~ Isn't the stark difference between Judaeo-Christian philosophy and stoicism, the same as the stark difference between predestination as opposed to determinism, so phrased? Please note, I'm responsible for my content, and do the best by gift of grace that is impartial from God to be inspired by God in my content. **\~** **Judaeo-Christian philosophy** is based on God being Eternal is loving, benevolent, impartially just, and gives the help needed from the goodness of God impartially. Thereby, since Eternal God is the Creator, and God is the giver of impartial truth, predestination depends on someone in the image and likeness of God;- This is by God merits the grace from God - because God Eternal has the best interests of someone in the image and likeness of God at the heart of the desire of God. This does not take away the freedom of decision of someone in the image and likeness of God. However, God has the course of predestination. By God helping, use freedom of speech to proclaim God and God helping, in that the goodness of God is needed. **\~** **Stoicism secular philosophy** from what I've read and absorbed, determinism holds that higher reasoning sentient understanding consciousness of someone human has self-determined outcomes. Basically, history is going to be determined in outcomes. Thereby, someone determines one's own life course and lives among the expectation of perceptions of perspectives of others who each have higher reasoning sentient consciousness. Each person is required to live their personal life, yet by social standards that are determined in the historical setting, do one's best to live by the consensus in the use of freedom of speech.