Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Seneca

Mind-hacks?  Stoicism? What’s that for both questions?

How Indifference can become source of power?

‘People are disturbed Not by things but by their view of things.

If you consider that you have no choices, forget it and let go?

We do this to our philosophies. We redraft their contours based on projected shadows, or give them a cartoonish shape like a caricaturist emphasising all the wrong features.

This is how Buddhism becomes, in the popular imagination, a doctrine of passivity and even laziness, while Existentialism becomes synonymous with apathy and futile despair.

Something similar has happened to Stoicism, which is considered a philosophy of grim endurance, of carrying on rather than getting over, of tolerating rather than transcending life’s agonies and adversities.

No wonder it’s not more popular. No wonder the Stoic sage, in Western culture, has never obtained the popularity of the Zen master.

Even though Stoicism is far more accessible, not only does it lack the exotic mystique of Eastern practice; it’s also regarded as a philosophy of merely breaking even while remaining determinedly impassive. What this attitude ignores is the promise proffered by Stoicism of lasting transcendence and imperturbable tranquility.

It ignores gratitude, too. This is part of the tranquility, because it’s what makes the tranquility possible.

Stoicism is a philosophy of gratitude,  rugged enough to endure anything. Philosophers who pine for supreme psychological liberation have often failed to realise that they belong to a confederacy that includes the Stoics.

‘According to nature you want to live?’ Friedrich Nietzsche taunts the Stoics in Beyond Good and Evil (1886):

O you noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being like nature, wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purposes and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile and desolate and uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power – how could you live according to this indifference?

Living – is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature?

Is not living – estimating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different?

And supposing your imperative ‘live according to nature’ meant at bottom as much as ‘live according to life’ – how could you not do that? Why make a principle of what you yourself are and must be?

This is pretty good, as denunciations of Stoicism go, seductive in its articulateness and energy, and therefore effective, however uninformed.

As legions of warriors and prisoners can attest, Stoicism is not grim resolve but a…|By Aeon

Which is why it’s so disheartening to see Nietzsche fly off the rails of sanity in the next two paragraphs, accusing the Stoics of trying to ‘impose’ their ‘morality… on nature’, of being ‘no longer able to see [nature] differently’ because of an ‘arrogant’ determination to ‘tyrannise’ nature as the Stoic has tyrannised himself.

Then (in some of the least subtle psychological projection you’re ever likely to see, given what we know of Nietzsche’s mad drive for psychological supremacy), he accuses all of philosophy as being a ‘tyrannical drive’, ‘the most spiritual will to power’, to the ‘creation of the world’.

The truth is, indifference really is a power, selectively applied, and living in such a way is not only eminently possible, with a conscious adoption of certain attitudes, but facilitates a freer, more expansive, more adventurous mode of living.

Joy and grief are still there, along with all the other emotions, but they are tempered – and, in their temperance, they are less tyrannical.

If we can’t always go to our philosophers for an understanding of Stoicism, then where can we go?

One place to start is the Urban Dictionary. Check out what this crowdsourced online reference to slang gives as the definition of a ‘stoic’:


Someone who does not give a shit about the stupid things in this world that most people care so much about. Stoics do have emotions, but only for the things in this world that really matter. They are the most real people alive. (Question: what could be “what matter”? Is that a personal selection of what is important?)

Group of kids are sitting on a porch. Stoic walks by.

Kid – ‘Hey man, yur a fuckin faggot an you suck cock!’

Stoic – ‘Good for you.’

Keeps going.

You’ve gotta love the way the author manages to make mention of a porch in there, because Stoicism has its root in the word stoa, which is the Greek name for what today we would call a porch. Actually, we’re more likely to call it a portico, but the ancient Stoics used it as a kind of porch, where they would hang out and talk about enlightenment and stuff.

The Greek scholar Zeno (From Tyr in Lebanon) is the founder, and the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius the most famous practitioner, while the Roman statesman Seneca is probably the most eloquent and entertaining. But the real hero of Stoicism, most Stoics agree, is the Greek philosopher Epictetus.

He’d been a slave, which gives his words a credibility that the other Stoics, for all the hardships they endured, can’t quite match.

He spoke to his pupils, who later wrote down his words. These are the only words we know today as Epictetus’, consisting of two short works, the Enchiridion and the Discourses, along with some fragments.

Among those whom Epictetus taught directly is Marcus Aurelius (another Stoic philosopher who did not necessarily expect to be read; his Meditations were written expressly for private benefit, as a kind of self-instruction).

Among those Epictetus has taught indirectly is a whole cast of the distinguished, in all fields of endeavour.

One of these is the late US Navy Admiral James Stockdale. A prisoner of war in Vietnam for 7 years during that conflict, he endured broken bones, starvation, solitary confinement, and all other manner of torture. His psychological companion through it all were the teachings of Epictetus, with which he had familiarised himself after graduating from college and joining the Navy, studying philosophy at Stanford University on the side.

He kept those teachings close by in Vietnam, never letting them leave his mind even when things were at their most dire. Especially then. He knew what they were about, those lessons, and he came to know their application much better than anyone should have to.

Stockdale wrote a lot about Epictetus, in speeches and memoirs and essays, but if you want to travel light, the best thing you could take with you is a speech he gave at King’s College London in 1993, published as Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus’s Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior (1993).

That subtitle is important. Epictetus once compared the philosopher’s lecture room to a hospital, from which the student should walk out in a little bit of pain. ‘If Epictetus’s lecture room was a hospital,’ Stockdale writes, ‘my prison was a laboratory – a laboratory of human behaviour. I chose to test his postulates against the demanding real-life challenges of my laboratory. And as you can tell, I think he passed with flying colours.’

Stockdale rejected the false optimism proffered by Christianity, because he knew, from direct observation, that false hope is how you went insane in that prison.

The Stoics themselves believed in gods, but ultimately those resistant to religious belief can take their Stoicism the way they take their Buddhism, even if they can’t buy into such concepts as karma or reincarnation.

What the whole thing comes down to, distilled to its briefest essence, is making the choice that choice is really all we have, and that all else is not worth considering. ‘Who […] is the invincible human being?’ Epictetus once asked, before answering the question himself: ‘One who can be disconcerted by nothing that lies outside the sphere of choice.’

Any misfortune ‘that lies outside the sphere of choice’ should be considered an opportunity to strengthen our resolve, not an excuse to weaken it.

This is one of the truly great mind-hacks ever devised, this willingness to convert adversity to opportunity, and it’s part of what Seneca was extolling when he wrote what he would say to one whose spirit has never been tempered or tested by hardship:

‘You are unfortunate in my judgment, for you have never been unfortunate. You have passed through life with no antagonist to face you; no one will know what you were capable of, not even you yourself.’

We do ourselves an immense favour when we consider adversity an opportunity to make this discovery – and, in the discovery, to enhance what we find there.

Another shrewdly resourceful Stoic mind-hack is what William B Irvine – in his book A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy­ (2009)– has given the name ‘negative visualisation’. By keeping the very worst that can happen in our heads constantly, the Stoics tell us, we immunise ourselves from the dangers of too much so-called ‘positive thinking’, a product of the mind that believes a realistic accounting of the world can lead only to despair.

Only by envisioning the bad can we truly appreciate the good; gratitude does not arrive when we take things for granted. It’s precisely this gratitude that leaves us content to cede control of what the world has already removed from our control anyway.

How did we let something so eminently understandable become so grotesquely misunderstood? How did we forget that that dark passage is really the portal to transcendence?

Many will recognise in these principles the general shape and texture of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Indeed, Stoicism has been identified as a kind of proto-CBT. Albert Ellis, the US psychologist who founded an early form of CBT known as Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) in 1955, had read the Stoics in his youth and used to prescribe to his patients Epictetus’s maxim that ‘People are disturbed not by things but by their view of things.’ ‘That’s actually the “cognitive model of emotion” in a nutshell,’

Donald Robertson tells me, and he should certainly know, as a therapist who in 2010 wrote a book on CBT with the subtitle ‘Stoic Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy’.

This simplicity and accessibility ensure that Stoicism will never be properly embraced by those who prefer the abstracted and esoteric in their philosophies.

In the novel A Man in Full (1998), Tom Wolfe gives Stoicism, with perfect plausibility, to a semi-literate prison inmate. This monologue of Conrad Hensley’s may be stilted, but there’s nothing at all suspect about the sentiment behind it. When asked if he is a Stoic, Conrad replies: ‘I’m just reading about it, but I wish there was somebody around today, somebody you could go to, the way students went to Epictetus. Today people think of Stoics – like, you know, like they’re people who grit their teeth and tolerate pain and suffering. What they are is, they’re serene and confident in the face of anything you can throw at them.’

Which leads us naturally to ask just what it was that was thrown at them.

We’ve already noted that Epictetus had the whole slavery thing going on, so he checks out. So does Seneca, in spite of what many have asserted – most recently the UK classicist Mary Beard in an essay for the New York Review of Books that asks: ‘How Stoical Was Seneca?’ before providing a none-too-approving answer.

What Beard’s well-informed and otherwise cogent essay fails to allow for is just how tough it must have been for Seneca – tubercular, exiled, and under the control of a sadistically murderous dictator – no matter what access he sometimes had to life’s luxuries.

It was Seneca himself who said that ‘no one has condemned wisdom to poverty’, and only an Ancient Greek Cynic would try to deny this. Besides, Seneca would have been the first to tell you, as he told a correspondent in one of his letters: ‘I am not so shameless as to undertake to cure my fellow-men when I am ill myself. I am, however, discussing with you troubles which concern us both, and sharing the remedy with you, just as if we were lying ill in the same hospital.’

Marcus Aurelius lay ill in that hospital, too. As beneficiary of the privileges of emperor, he also endured the struggles and stresses of that very same position, plus a few more besides.

I know better than to try to improve on the following accounting, provided in Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life:

He was sick, possibly with an ulcer. His family life was a source of distress: his wife appears to have been unfaithful to him, and of the at least 14 children she bore him, only six survived. Added to this were the stresses that came with ruling an empire. During his reign, there were numerous frontier uprisings, and Marcus often went personally to oversee campaigns against upstart tribes. His own officials – most notably, Avidius Cassius, the governor of Syria – rebelled against him. His subordinates were insolent to him, which insolence he bore with ‘an unruffled temper’. Citizens told jokes at his expense and were not punished for doing so. During his reign, the empire also experienced plague, famine, and natural disasters such as the earthquake at Smyrna.

Ever the strategist, Marcus employed a trusty technique in confronting the days that comprised such a life, making a point to tell himself at the start of each one of them:

‘I shall meet with meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people.’ He could have been different about it – he could have pretended things were just hunky-dory, especially on those days when they really were, or seemed to be. But how, then, would he have been prepared to angle both into the wind and away from it – adapting, always, to fate’s violently vexing vicissitudes? Where would that have left him when the weather changed?

Note: If you consider that you have no choices, forget it and let go? Then studying and acquiring knowledge is to extend more choices to events. A stoic must seek ways to expand his choices, the hardest of work to select among many possible choices and work on the choice.

Hero in two continents and of 3 revolutions: General Gibert du Motier de La Fayette (1757-1834)

Marie Joseph Paul Roch Yves Gilbert Motier de La Fayette.

Born in the castle of Chavarin, at the Velay in Haute-Loire in the mountains of Auvergne.

The story of another kid orphaned at an early age. La Fayette was 2 when his father was killed at the battle of Minden and 13 when his mother died.

Ï blame anyone who has not even 50% of Fayettism in his heart” Joseph Delteil

At the age of 13, both his mother and grand father Marquis de la Riviere (his mother side) died and he inherited a fortune of a yearly income of $500,000 from rent and dividends on properties and wealth.

Gilbert was tall, strong, svelte, blue-eyed, red-headed, a cold exterior, looking serious and kind of a typical Scots.

He married at an early age of 16 with Adrienne, aged 14, and daughter of Duke of Ayen (Vergenne) who will become France foreign minister under king Louis 16.

In 1775, he is assigned as officer of the grenadiers at Metz and was initiated to Franc Masonry in Paris in the same year and he stayed an active member all his life, as were George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and established a couple centres himself with his own money.

In that year, Duke of Gloucester, brother of England king George III, stayed overnight in Metz on his journey to Italy. Marshal de Broglie through a sumptuous dinner in his honor. The Duke talked frankly and candidly of the insurgencies taking place in America and the Tea Party revolt. Captain La Fayette was bold and contrary to protocol, asked plenty of questions.

Later, La Fayette wrote: “That night I fell in love with America and knew that my mission was to come to aid to the insurgents in America

Go figure, how circumstances oriented the destiny of a person.

In 1777, La Fayette, barely 19, purchased a ship with his own fund, equipped it and sailed  surreptitiously to Charleston (South Carolina) via a Spanish port against the orders of the king and his father-in-law.

He joined the commander of the insurgents Gen. George Washington by land because the British ships were patrolling the coast. Gilbert and his companion volunteers needed 15 days by bad roads to reach destination up north and by August 1777, he lived in the entourage of Washington, who became his spiritual father during his life and both had abundant letters exchanged.

The US insurgents were initially successful adopting the guerrilla tactics, but they quickly suffered defeat after defeat as they tried to confront the British troops in regular conventional formations.

When La Fayette joined Washington, the British were getting ready to attack Philadelphia, the Capital of the insurgents, and they did enter this city on Sept. 16 after the British Gen. Burgoyne descended from Canada and defeated Horatio Gates at Ticonderoga.

To make matters worse, the British navy was amassing troops in Chesapeake Bay and the insurgents were about to be encircled by Gen. Howe.

The battle of Brandywine was a success story in orderly retreat to Valley Forges, close to Philadelphia, thanks to the intervention and organization of La Fayette.

La Fayette was now commanding the 9,000 insurgent troops of Virginians, rough, brutal, uncouth, ready to fight with one another, and lacking every thing in cloth and footwear. This troop quickly constructed a large camp of tents and civilians flocked into it for the harsh winter season.

La Fayette was to take command in Albany (NY State) of 3,000 troop to capture Canada. Instead, he was given 1,000 insurgents and little ammunition and foodstuff. And he turned down the mission.

The alternative action was for him to meet with the Indian tribes who were meeting all together at their annual ceremony. He was successful in rallying the 6 tribes to the cause of the American insurgency. The Oneidas, Cayuga, Mohawks, Tuscarora, Seneca and Iroquois.

The Indian tribes gave him the name of Gen. Kayewla  (Intrepid Knight)

Luckily, in May 1778, France recognized the independence of the US after the insurgent victory of Saratoga

When La Fayette returned to Paris, the kind restricted his movement in a castle for 10 and all Paris noble people flocked to see him and pay their respect.

La Fayette was adulated and loved as a hero at the age of 20 by the French and the Americans, even before he participated in the victory of Yorktown 4 years later.

France sent twice its navy to support the insurgents. The first mission was a failure and barely engaged the British. The second fleet was crucial in forcing the surrender of the British in Yorktown as the 26 British ships were chased out of the area.

The French Gen, Rochambeau managed to convince Washington and his staff to change their strategy of attacking New York and to get instead focused moving the troops to the weaker soft flank of the British down south.

La Fayette was commanding the Virginian troops down south and avoided any frontal attack with the regular British troops and even vacated Richmond in order not to be trapped.  He figured out that the US strategy has changed and he met the descending insurgent troops, strong with 8,000 French soldiers.

Until the British Gen. Clinton ordered from New York for the southern British commander Cornwallis to concentrate their forces in Yorktown.

La Fayette was the first commander to attach a forward fort and insured close bombardment of Yorktown in 1783.

In 1789, La Fayette was appointed by the National Assembly as general in chief of the National Guards. That was a hard task insuring the safety of the royal family from the mob and he managed to lead the royal family back to Paris where it was held practically locked in by the insurgents for a couple of years.

He again insured their safety after the royal family escaped from Paris and were captured. The rumors spread that La Fayette knew of this escape and he lost the confidence of many patriots.

In 1790, La Fayette was the main figure who was honoured during the historic Federation Day in the Champ-de-Mars where the King swore to defend the new Constitutional monarchy.  In that day, La Fayette had no enemies but Marat and Mirabeau if he had any plans to take over power.

La Fayette speech said: “I swear to be always loyal to the nation, the law and the king. To uphold the constitution of the national Assembly which was accepted by the king. To protect the security of people, their properties, the free circulation inside France of substances and the collection of taxes. To stay united with the French in their indissoluble links of the Fraternity

In 1791, the king appointed La Fayette to head the East Army against the advances of the Prussian and Austrian armies

In 1792, the Convention ordered Gen. Dumouriez to apprehend and detain La Fayette in order to bring him to trial. In these years of terror, Gilbert decided to go to the next down occupied by the Prussian troops and flee to a neutral nation. He was captured and the Austrian monarch Francois II opted to consider Gilbert as war prisoner. La Fayette was the most hated French by all European’s monarchs but adulated by the people.

While La Fayette was incarcerated The French army won the critical battle of Valmy. Apparently, the Prussian monarch Frederic-Guillome ordered his Marshal Duke of Brunswick to retreat against any rational logic, as Napoleon later stated.

La Fayette wrote: If I was leading this army at Valmy, this victory would have surpassed all my military campaigns, including the surrender of Cornwallis in Yorktown.

It was in his prison at Olmutz where he suffered abject indignities that La Fayette learned of the horrible reign of terror during Robespierre. Most of the revolutionary leaders whom he had no esteem for have been decapitated at the guillotine, the new instrument of quick death. Among these personalities were Brissot, Desmoulin (best friend of Robespierre), Danton, Herault de Sechelles, Andre Chenier, the king and the queen Marie-Antoinette, and most members of his wife’s family.

La Fayette spent the worst incarceration for 5 years. When his wife decided to join him in the prison of Olmutz, she and her two daughters succumbed to the harshest treatments, humiliation and indignities.

In 1797, Napoleon had defeated the Austrian troops in many battle and a peace agreement was being considered. Napoleon demanded the release of La Fayette who went into exile to Germany and the Netherlands.

Napoleon was not excited for any quick return of La Fayette and George Washington refused permit for La Fayette to find refuge in the American territories, although La Fayette was a US citizen and wore the US military tunic in all his displacement as the best representative of US interests overseas. The US was not in good terms with France in that period.

Although Napoleon refused La Fayette to return to France, he did return to Paris in 1799 and Bonaparte had to swallow his fury and try to bribe him to side completely with him.

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson asked La Fayette to become Governor of the Louisiana Territories. La Fayette declined. He must have been furious with Napoleon who sold this vast territory to the US with British loans. The British didn’t want France to stay in America as they were kicked out of it.

In this year, Napoleon was amassing his troops and navy in Bois de Boulogne on the assumption that he was getting ready to invade England and he needed money very badly. Obviously the British were not taking this threat seriously. The British had already convinced and bribed 3 European monarch (Prussia, Austria and Russia) to attack Napoleon by land.

Napoleon defeated the armies of the 3 monarchs who were participating in person at the battle of Austerlitz. Bonaparte said to his soldiers after the victory:

You have already gained glory for the remainder of your life. All you have to say is “Ï participated in Austerlitz

Napoleon won an important battle that humiliated 3 monarchs but had lost the prize colony in America that changed the course of history.

Adrienne died in 1807 and La Fayette was inconsolable of losing the most steadfast ally to his principles and decisions.

In 1815, La Fayette was appointed by the National Assembly to receive the abdication of Napoleon after the French defeat at Waterloo. Napoleon knew that it was La Fayette who was behind the steadfast decision of the Assembly.

La Fayette is elected deputy of the Sarthe in 1818.

In that period, France was flush with all kinds of secret and cultist movements trying to usurp King Charles 10 power. La Fayette was appointed by the Carbonari movement to be one of its highest leaders. This secret movement was inherited from Naples and implanted in France by Joubert and Dougier.

The armed insurrection called Saumur and Belfort failed and La Fayette accepted the invitation of President James Monroe to visit the US and arrived in a US commercial ship Cadmus at the largest port of New York. No dignitary ever got this massive acclamation at the port.

He had a triumphal return to the USA in 1824 and the crowd that came to welcome him in every city was the biggest in all US  history.

La Fayette stayed an entire year and was invited and honoured in 132 municipalities, met with Thomas Jefferson twice, met with four former presidents and was officially invited by Congress and the Senate. He visited the battle fields and brought with him a ton of dirt from Brandywine to be thrown over his tomb.

Napoleon offered La Fayette many positions to gain him over, but La Fayette turn them all down because Napoleon was not serious in extending Liberty to the citizens and allow free press.

During the battle of Marengo in 1800 against the over-numbered Austrian army in Italy, Napoleon was about to be defeated when Gen. Desaix came to the rescue at the nick of time and changed the course of the battle. Napoleon had confided in these dark hours: “I  can see but Carnot or La Fayette to succeed me in ruling France“. Carnot was the mastermind in equipping and organizing the French army and was minister of war, and he opposed Napoleon dictatorship as was La Fayette.

Napoleon said in 1812: “Everyone in France has been corrected (totally agreeing with him), except La Fayette. He has Not retreated from a single principle. La Fayette acts as a private citizen and looks tranquil, but I know that he is ready to pounce and start all over again at the first opportunity

Since 1803, when Napoleon was appointed Consul for life, La Fayette stopped any contact with him. La Fayette will see Napoleon again in 1815 to accept his abdication after the disaster of Waterloo.

After Napoleon fled from the Island of Elba in 1814 and retook power, La Fayette refused the new reforms of having two kinds of representations, one elected and one appointed by peers. Only universal voting system by all the citizens suited his principles of democracy and liberty.

He aided Louis-Phillip to accede to the throne in 1830. La Fayette was appointed chief of the National guard and was the leader in the National Assembly and the only person to give credibility to any acceding to power. Apparently, the American ambassador didn’t encourage La Fayette to proclaim the Republic since it was 40 years late and Europe was not ready for another upheaval.

La Fayette had no rival if he decided to gain power and declare the Republic: He was more interested in popular glory than in power.  La delicieuse sensation du sourire de la multitude.

La Fayette was the staunch enemy of intolerance and violence. He fought for Liberty, the emancipation of the slaves, universal education, and universal election by all the citizens.

Nothing is constitutional and democratic unless elected by the people and universally.

Let’s summarize:

1. La Fayette was orphaned as kid

2. He was a tall, attractive and strong guy. And a Nature Boy to boot it.

3. Was filthy rich and inherited the millions of his grand father marquis de la Riviere from his mother side

4. He was well politically connected. His father-in-law, Duke of Ayne was the closest friend of the previous king Louis 15, and he was a respected military man (later Marshale) and the foreign minister during king Louis 16 and organized two expedition campaign to aid the American insurgents

We are how we are born. It is up to us to act according to our potentials.

Note 1: After la Fayette died, many illustrious personalities had statements on that occasion.

Madame de Stael wrote: “La Fayette spent all his fortune on his opinions with the utmost generous indifference. He was unshakable in his principles during the best and worst moments

President John Quincy Adams wrote: We will always look up to you as one of us

Stendhal, author of La Chartreuse de Parme and Black and Red wrote: La Fayette is a hero of Plutarque.  A very high esteem and admiration

Odilon Barrot said:

If we may reproach anything to La Fayette are his exaggerated qualities. If he lived in the Middle Ages he would have instituted a religious cult based on his fixated moral ideals

Chateaubriand  (a monarchist) who loathed La Fayette in his life as he despised Napoleon had this to say:

It took me 40 years to recognize the many qualities of La Fayette, qualities that we obstinately refused him. He was fluent as an orator in the assembly and no dirt were attached to his life

Their said:

The factions accused La Fayette for lack of cunning simply because they could not touch his character and incorruptible nature.

Rivarol was the most brutal of all critics:

La Fayette (Philarete) managed to convince himself as the author of 2 revolutions. He takes noise for glory, an event for a success, a sword for a movement, a compliment for immortal title, graces for recompenses and valor for heroism

Note 2: La Fayette humbly said to Napoleon relating to his victory in Yorktown: “Ce furent les plus grand interets de l’univers, decide par des rencontres de patrouille”An accurate historical account for events.

Note 3: In the US, 40 cities, 7 counties and even a mountain bear his La Fayette name. The US embassy maintains his castle in France and renovate it on a yearly basis.

La Fayette defined democracy as election by universal voting, and any institution of peers appointment is an oligarchic system.

Note 4: In a letter to his spiritual father George Washington, La Fayette who fought for a Constitutional monarchy wrote:

Our king Louis 16 enjoys Oriental power: he has the means to restrict, punish and corrupt…

“Sophie’s World” on Hellenism; (Dec. 11, 2009)

After Alexander of Macedonia defeated the Persian Empire around 335 BC, the entire region in the Middle East and Egypt became Hellenistic; which means the elite and public servants learned to speak and write in the Greek language and to study Greek philosophies.

Athens got a new life as center of philosophical schools, and the newly built city of Alexandria in Egypt flourished as the center of sciences and medicine.

Four major philosophical schools captured the interest of the people and had repercussions in Rome till the year 400 AC, as the Christian Church got established as the State religion after the defeat of the last Germanic Emperor in Rome.

1. The Cynics school was founded in Athens by Antisthenes, a disciple of Socrates in 400 BC. The frugality of Socrates was the guiding idea as he wondered before a stall: “So many things that I never used or needs”.

The dogma of this school is that happiness is learning to feel independent (detached) from external advantages such as material luxuries or political power.

Happiness is in the reach of everyone if he so desired, and it can be lasting. Suffering and death should not be disturbing events. Feeling concerns for other people should be overcome.

Diogenes is the best representative of the Cynics; he lived in a barrel and carried no belonging but a stick. It is reported that he asked Alexander to step aside for he was blocking the sun rays as he was asking him what he can do for him.

The Church of Rome coined the pejorative term “cynical” referring to individual who exhibits a sneering disbelief in human sincerity, with penchant insensitivity to people’s plights: The Church was competing with all the Hellenistic schools of philosophy and religions.

2. The Stoics school was founded by Zeno in Athens around 300 BC. Zeno was not Greek by origin but from the Phoenician city of Sidon, and he studied in Alexandria before he landed in Greece following a shipwreck. Socrates and Heraclitus were his favorite philosophers and he used to teach under a portico (stoa).

Zeno dogma was that each individual is a complete microcosms reflected in the macrocosms.

First, there was a universal rightness or natural law based on human and universal reason that didn’t alter with time or place.

Second, there is no conflict between spirit (ideas) and matter; this concept was coined “monism” in contrast to Plato dualism of the two worlds of ideas and matter.

Third, sickness and death are within the natural law phenomena and must be accepted since everything happens out of necessity.

Fourth, happy events and moments should be received in natural composure with no undue exhilaration.

Stoics got involved in politics and social problems.

Cicero, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca were staunch stoics. Seneca wrote “mankind is holy”; thus, considering individual dignity and well being as goal for improvement and care.

The Roman Christian Church coined the connotation stoic for individuals who do not let their feeling take over.

3. The Epicurean school was established by Aristippus, another disciple of Socrates. Epicurus founded this school around 300 BC in Athens. He developed the pleasure ethic of Aristippus and adopted the “atom soul” theory of Democritus which says that after death the soul disperses in all directions.

The story goes that Epicureans lived in gardens (safe-harbors): a notice hanged at the entrance said: “Stranger, here you will live well. Here pleasure is the highest good

The dogma of the Epicureans was:

First, pleasurable results of an action is always counterbalanced with side effects that we need to mind of;

Second, short-term pleasurable results should be analyzed compared to the potential longer-term alternative pleasures if we control our actions;

Third, pleasure is appreciation of values in friendship, art, and self control in sensual tendencies.  Epicurus summed up his doctrine in 4 “medicinal” treatments: first, the gods are not to be feared; second, Death is nothing to worry about since when we die then we no longer exist; third, Good is easy to attain; and fourth, the fearful is easy to endure.

Epicurus advice was to learn to live in seclusion.  Epicureans had little concern for politics and community services.  The roman Church coined a bad connotation such as “Indulge in or enjoy the moment

4. The Neo-Platonist school was founded by Plotinus (205-270 BC) and he was from the Near East and studied in Alexandria and settled in Rome.  Plotinus doctrine was influenced by Plato.

The world span two poles:

The One that constantly shines and the World that does not receive the light.  The immortal soul (concept of salvation) is the world of ideas that is illuminated by the One (or God), it is “a spark from the fire”.  The material world has no real existence until the light reaches it. Plotinus experienced mystical moments of fusion with the world of spirit.

The Roman Christian Church had a hard struggle with this powerfully competing school of Neo-Platonism and ended up adopting most of its concepts.




January 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,516,082 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 822 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: