Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
~ Robert Frost[1]
I love those lines from Robert Frost’s timeless poem The Road Not Taken. As a practicing Stoic, they take on new meaning because of the importance of choice. Robert Frost’s traveler stands at a fork in the road, and he must choose—path A or path B. During his contemplation, he acknowledges that he cannot travel both paths. Then, in these closing lines, Frost highlights the obvious—the chosen path, whatever it may be, will make a profound difference in one’s life. So why choose the Stoic path? Why did you choose the Stoic, if you’ve already made that choice? Why not Epicureanism, Scepticism, Platonism, Cynicism? Why a philosophical path at all?
In this podcast, I’m going to argue that if you did choose the Stoic path, you may not have made that choice for the reasons you think you did. If you haven’t chosen a path yet, I’m going to give you some things to consider before you choose a path. As much as I personally love Stoicism and believe everyone can benefit from familiarity with its ethical principles, I do not believe the Stoic path is for everyone. The Stoics teach three natures:
- Universal Nature
- Human nature
- And our individual nature—we might call that your psychological makeup of personality.
There is a good reason why we have a variety of philosophical paths—its call human variety. The first choice is for a philosophical life; an examined life. Sometimes, that choice is made when external circumstances force a reevaluation of our life.
Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, faced one of those unexpected life events and the subsequent fork in the road as a shipwrecked merchant in a foreign city—Athens. According to Diogenes Laertius, Zeno used his downtime wisely; he stopped in an Athenian bookstore and read about the life of Socrates. A new path opened in Zeno’s mind—a fork in the road—and he faced a choice. The choice he made not only changed his life, but it is also fair to say it profoundly changed Western thought and impacted history in ways he could not have conceived. Frost’s famous traveler only faced two choices. We face a multitude of paths and numerous forking roads as we travel through our lives. Today, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, there is renewed interest in ancient wisdom and the philosophical way of life many lived at the time Zeno made his life-changing choice. I am going to focus on those options available in Hellenistic times when philosophy was practiced as a way of life, and consider why a person who has committed themselves to philosophy as a way of life might choose any of the schools available to them. Then I will offer some reasons why they might choose Stoicism.
As Frost’s imaginary traveler considered his options, he knew two things. First, his choice would make a “difference” in his life. Second, knowing how “way leads on to way,” he understood it was unlikely he would ever make it back to explore The Road Not Taken. In other words, the choice was profoundly important and deserving of careful consideration. Moderns who are intrigued by virtue ethics and interested in philosophy as a way of life will likely find themselves facing a similar choice. Faced with several viable philosophical ways of life—Stoicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism, and Cynicism—which to choose?
Unlike modern academic philosophy, ancient philosophy practiced as a way of life was not primarily intellectual; it was transformative. Its goal was not mere knowledge; instead, it intended to cure the soul of the practitioner by unburdening their mind of mistaken notions about the nature of reality and human nature and developing within them a state of moral excellence. This endeavor required more than philosophical discourse. That is why, as French philosopher Pierre Hadot so eloquently points out, ancient philosophical discourse and practice were intertwined and considered inseparable aspects of a way of life.[2] During Hellenistic times, philosophical schools created holistic systems of thought and practice designed to transform the practitioner through the practice of a prescribed way of life. The ancient philosophers were physicians of the soul (psyche), and their prescriptions were intended to heal. Nevertheless, they were not painless and easy methods. As Epictetus pointed out,
A philosopher’s school, man, is a doctor’s surgery. You shouldn’t leave after having had an enjoyable time, but after having been subjected to pain. For you weren’t in good health when you came in; no, one of you had a dislocated shoulder, another an abscess, another a headache. (Discourses3.23.30)
While philosophical theory was an essential part of practice for all ancient philosophical schools, it was not the primary motive that drove people to philosophy in general nor to any particular school. Instead, students were attracted to the philosophical way of life as a quest for wisdom, then they made a “specific existential choice”[3] to follow the path prescribed by one of the schools.
Zeno’s Path to Stoicism
While shipwrecked in Athens, Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, went to a bookseller’s shop and began reading Xenophon’s Memorabilia.Zeno was so impressed by the life of Socrates he asked the bookseller where such men could be found. As Diogenes Laertius tells the story, Crates the Cynic happened to walk by at that time, so the bookseller pointed him out and said, “Follow that man.”[4] Zeno did follow Crates and that was the beginning of his philosophical quest. Ultimately, Zeno left Crates and studied under Polemo at Plato’s Academy, and then under Stilpo at the Megarian school. Zeno borrowed elements from each of these schools and ultimately blended them with the concept of a conscious and providential cosmos to create the holistic philosophy of Stoicism. A close look at this story of Zeno and the Athenian bookseller, reveals several interesting things.
First, it is fair to ask why Zeno was so impressed by the life of Socrates he found in Memorabilia. As Scottish philosopher William Leslie Davidson points out while highlighting “The Socratic Impulse” in Stoicism, “we can hardly question that the historical Socrates reasoned on Theistic lines, basing his conception of God and God’s providence on teleology or the marks of design manifest in the universe…”[5] Therefore, within Xenophon’s Memorabilia, we see “the Socrates” who “was characterized by religious reverence and personal piety” and inspired Zeno to follow the path of philosophy.[6] Interestingly, Diogenes Laertius makes a specific note of the fact that Zeno was reading Book II of Memorabilia at the time he asked where men like Socrates could be found. We do not know if Zeno already completed Book I, which highlights the piety of Socrates and defends him against the charge that he did not believe in the gods of the city. Throughout Book I, Socrates counsels his companions to discipline their desires for externals like food, drink, sex, and wealth. Likewise, the opening lines of Book II take up that same theme:
He turned his companions toward training themselves to be continent in their desire for meat and drink, and in regard to lust, sleep, cold, heat, and labor. (Memorabilia II.1.1)
According to Diogenes Laertius, Zeno must have read those lines and then continued through Book II to an unknown place where his admiration for the life of Socrates inspired him to ask where he could find such men. We do not need to read much farther to find a good cause for Zeno’s enthusiasm. In Book II, chapter 1, verse 21, Xenophon retells Prodicus’ story of Heracles (Hercules) and his fateful choice between two paths.
When Heracles was starting to enter adolescence from childhood—when youths, since they are already becoming their own rulers, make clear whether in life they will take the road through virtue or that through vice—going out to a quiet spot, he sat down perplexed as to which of the roads he should take.
This story of Heracles is worth reading. I provide more details in previous blog post titles, Choosing The Stoic Path. Or, you can read the entire story here:
The Memorabilia: Recollections of Socrates, Xenophon
French philosopher Pierre Hadot argues that ancient students of philosophy chose the school they would follow in ancient times because of a “way of life” it offered. I find this argument convincing, and this podcast is based on his idea. He writes:
The philosophical school thus corresponds, above all, to the choice of a certain way of life and existential option which demands from the individual a total change of lifestyle, a conversion of one’s entire being, and ultimately a certain desire to be and to live in a certain way.[7]
Therefore, when moderns are considering which philosophical path to follow, they should keep several things in mind. First, all the Hellenistic schools claimed to provide a path to eudaimonia (happiness), even though they offered profoundly different paths to achieve it. Second, to argue that one school is better than another is somewhat meaningless. It is reasonable to assume there are examples of people from each school who did achieve that goal. In the end, it may be a matter of individual personality that inspires a person to prefer one school’s path over another. It may be that Epicureanism, Scepticism, Cynicism, and Stoicism all provide viable paths to eudaimonia. This is not an argument for subjectivism; it is an argument for tolerance. Philosophical discourse between schools remains a healthy part of the philosophical way of life. Nevertheless, none of these philosophical paths can be “proven” effective for everyone. Each may work quite well for a subset of humanity, and a little bit of humility amidst the inter-school rivalries and debates will serve us all well. Third, none of these philosophical paths offers a quick fix for psychological angst. Each philosophical path provides a way of life designed to bring about the transformation of the whole person, and that takes time and effort.
Epicureanism, Cynicism, Scepticism, and Stoicism, each appear to have worked for some people in the past and there are good reasons to believe each may still work in the present. The existential choice of a path is up to the individual, who, like Zeno, may need to explore several paths before committing to one or developing their own as he did when he formulated Stoicism. The ancient paths are well defined for anyone willing to make the effort to explore them. Each offers a way of life supported by philosophical doctrines.
Choosing a Way of Life
What was it about the Stoic way of life that attracted people to Stoicism? Like all the Hellenistic schools, it was a life in search of eudaimonia(happiness). So, what was it that differentiated one philosophical way of life from another? In an admittedly oversimplified manner the differences can be expressed as follows:
Skepticism– an intellectual way of life focused on philosophical dialogue, and opposed to orthodoxy and dogmatism. Peace of mind is achieved by freeing oneself from the disturbances caused by holding false opinions. Socratic intellectualism provides the path to virtue and eudaimonia.
Cynicism– an ascetic way of life that denounces all social conventions and recommends a return to life in conformity with nature. Peace of mind is achieved by abandoning social mores and conventions and living as simply as possible.
Epicureanism– a pleasant life of tranquility in the garden amidst a society of friends, free from civic responsibility and interference by the gods. Peace of mind is achieved by abandoning false pleasures and seeking appropriate pleasures.
Stoicism– a life of human excellence, which entails moral duty and social responsibility, within a cosmopolis that includes all of humanity. A self-coherent, rational life lived in constant recognition of the relationship between human nature and the divine Nature of the cosmos. Peace of mind and happiness (eudaimonia) are achieved by abandoning desires and aversions for things and events that are “not up to us” and seeking only virtue (an excellent character), which is “up to us.”
Obviously, these brief descriptions are simplistic. The essential doctrines of each school are far more complex. However, the point of these descriptions is not doctrinal accuracy. Instead, these are provided to paint a picture of each way of life as it would appear to potential students who are choosing between them. All these paths are reasonable and still viable for moderns with only a minimal amount of modification. As classical scholar A.A. Long points out, all the Hellenistic schools “shared the view that philosophy should provide its adepts with the foundation for the best possible human life—that is to say, a happiness that would be lasting and serene.” He argues the choice between Stoicism and Epicureanism was primarily a choice of worldview (physics and theology) and “systematic training and the study of language.”[8] A.A. Long writes,
To put it another way, the choice of Stoicism over another philosophy depended not on its promise to deliver an admirable and thoroughly satisfying life (that project would not distinguish it from rival schools) but on its detailed specification of that life and on the appeal of its claims about the nature of the world and human beings.[9]
In other words, the distinction between Stoicism and the other Hellenistic schools was not limited to their ethical theory and practice. In fact, Stoic ethics was so close to Cynicism in many aspects that Aristo steered his followers away from the Stoa and back to the Cynic roots of Stoicism by rejecting Stoic logic and physics. What set Stoicism apart was its holistic nature where logic and physics are interdependent with ethics. Therefore, the Stoic ethical way of life did not stand alone. In fact, the holistic nature of Stoicism extended its ethical theory and practice beyond what is typically conceived of as “ethics.” As William Leslie Davidson points out, ethics was “the crown and glory of the Stoical sciences.” As a result,
Philosophy was to them a substitute for religion, it was, above all things, their aim to make it a rule of life, “a way of living”—not merely, as now, a necessary part of a University curriculum, but a power operative for good in daily action.[10]
Choosing a Path
The popularization of Stoicism has led some people to believe it is a philosophy for everyone; it is not, and it never was. Certainly, anybody can borrow Stoic ethical principles and apply them to their life. However, that is not the same as living the Stoic way of life. Arguing that Stoicism is for everyone and therefore should be practiced by everyone is to limit the variety of human nature. In Discourses3.7.19, Epictetus mockingly asks,
In God’s name, I ask you, can you imagine a city of Epicureans? ‘I shan’t marry.’ ‘Nor I, for one shouldn’t marry.’ ‘Nor should one have children; nor should one perform any civic duties.’ So what will happen, then? Where are the citizens to come from? Who’ll educate them? Who’ll be superintendent of the cadets? Who’ll be director of the gymnasium? And then, what will the young men be taught?
It is reasonable to believe that Epicurus, or any other capable Epicurean, could have offered a diatribe every bit as cutting if he asked us to imagine a city of Stoics. We moderns are blessed to have access to knowledge about each of these philosophical paths. It appears many moderns are open to considering the ancient philosophical ways of life because we have reached a point in our secular age where people are searching for some sense of meaning in their lives. There is no point in arguing Stoicism is better than Epicureanism, Scepticism, Neo-Platonism, Cynicism, et al. Each of these paths has produced persons of exceptional character in the past and it seems reasonable to assume they can still do so today. To argue that Stoicism is the only viable path to well-being in modern times is exclusionary. It is the best path for some, not for all. Those who feel compelled to convert the entire world to Stoicism—something the ancient Stoics never did—are likely to create the same arrogant, holier than thou, self-righteous attitude and the judgmental environment they reject in religion. What is a modern to do then?
Consider all the paths, then pick the one that resonates with you and follow it for a while. If you like it, stay on it. If you don’t, pick another and follow it for a while. If you feel a strong affinity for one path then you may want to self-identify as a Stoic, Epicurean, Sceptic, or Cynic. However, that is certainly not necessary. Even if you commit to one path, you can still borrow from other schools like Seneca did and remain true to the fundamental doctrines of a specific school. If you like elements from several paths you may choose to create something new. That is what Zeno did to create Stoicism. Maybe you too will become a founder of a new school of philosophy. Some choose an eclectic approach and cherry pick what they personally like from a variety of schools. There is nothing wrong with eclecticism if you are intellectually honest about it and recognize an eclectic approach is still a choice—a commitment—and therefore does not grant immunity from criticism. If you want to mix Epicureanism, Stoicism, Buddhism, and Zen and identify as an EpiStoBuZen, go for it. Years from now, historians of philosophy may be touting a syncretism like that as the breakthrough for philosophical practice in the twenty-first century.
However, I will encourage you to refrain from muddying the path of any school to accommodate your own personal biases. Each path includes essential doctrines left behind by those who originally blazed that trail. Those doctrines define and distinguish that path from the other paths. If you find a path is not to your liking pick another. Several paths lead to the summit of eudaimonia. If you do choose to blaze your own trails, please make a new trailhead sign to distinguish the new path from those which already exist. That is only fair to those who may wish to follow the old path later.
So where does that leave those in the twenty-first century who are looking for a philosophical way of life and are considering Stoicism? It leaves them in the place Robert Frost’s famous traveler stood, where two roads diverged. One road it that of modern Stoicism and the other is of traditional Stoicism. Both may be equally viable; however, the traveler must pick one. That does not mean the same traveler cannot garner benefit from both versions of Stoicism. Nevertheless, in the case of traditional Stoicism, the path is made distinct by assent to a divine and providential cosmos. Therefore, it is unlikely an atheist or agnostic will be interested in traveling that path. What do I recommend? Do what Frost’s traveler did. Look down both paths as far as you can see. Then pick the one that has the way of life you find most appealing. However, please leave the other road visible for those who may find it appealing. Please don’t switch the road signs or put up danger signs on the other path simply because you think it is an unreasonable path for moderns. Keep. Finally, keep this in mind:
Whichever path you choose, it is the path that makes all the difference.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken
[2] Pierre Hadot, What Is Ancient Philosophy?(Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2002), 174.
[3] Ibid., 102.
[4] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of eminent philosophers, n.d.7.2-3
[5] William Leslie Davidson, The Stoic Creed(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), 9.
[6] Ibid., 10.
[7] Hadot, What Is Ancient Philosophy?, 3.
[8] A. A Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 18.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Davidson, The Stoic Creed, 48.
