A personal letter and polemic on pop philosophy. Modeled after Seneca’s Letters.

S.R.,

There is a passage of Seneca the Younger’s in which he relates some typical allegations of those who “bark philosophy” (De Vita Beata 17.1), i.e. the Cynic philosophers of his day, the gist of which being this: there are those who profess philosophy without practicing it.

And the Senecan response?

That the paradigm of philosophy (the Stoicsage) is an ideal we may never reach. Despairing of perfection, however, we may settle for progress.

Let me, for a moment, play the Cynic.

A new kind of scandal: pop philosophy

In the act of philosophy there is both discourse and praxis; the two are inseparable, in so far as it is that we are doingphilosophy, rather than studyingit (the latter, I think, is more akin to philology).

I think, however, that we find ourselves in the midst of a different kind of scandal: that there are those who profess philosophy, without knowing much of it. There has been, for example, a recent resurgence of interest in Stoicism. One can find, with a simple search, a plethora of articles and self-help books claiming some profound Stoic insight, or some method of practicing Stoicism, or some commentary (which itself is lukewarm and shallow, and not much more than an ill-researched interpretation) on a passage from some well-known author (as if there wasn’t a Stoa before Seneca, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius).

My qualm is this: there isn’t much philosophy in these works, despite their claims otherwise.

There isn’t much philosophy going on

It isn’t enough to read the primary sources (as if these are even sufficient introductions). One can dedicate a life to Plato alone, let alone the private thoughts of Marcus Aurelius, the surviving notes on Epictetus’ lectures, the fictionalized letters of an aging Seneca. And what about the fragments of Zeno? And of Cleanthes?

What about combing through all of Cicero for his Stoic insights?

Imagine what we could do had all of Chrysippus’ works survived.

To read these texts in insolation is to read them not at all: one might as well not bother, if it’s an understanding you’re after that isn’t superficial. It isn’t even enough, for these same reasons, to read the secondary literature: one could dedicate a life to that alone.

How do we remedy this?

To recreate a feasible philosophy of life (as some attempt to do with Stoicism), there must be a dialogue with the same pressing issues dealt with by those in antiquity, those that plague us even now, e.g., issues of metaphysics (determinism, materialism, etc.), and those of epistemology and ethics (moral psychology, axiology, etc.).

This notwithstanding the fact that even in the time of the Stoics there were rival schools: the Peripatetics, Cynics, Cyrenaics, Epicureans, Skeptics, the mystery religions, etc. This notwithstanding the fact that there is more to philosophy than that which is Western: the Theravada and Mahayana traditions of Buddhism, the Vedanta tradition of Hindu philosophy, Confucianism and Taoism of Chinese philosophy, etc., etc.

Setting all of this aside, there are modest and noble attempts to extract key insights from, and breathe new life into, these texts. One doesn’t need acquaintance with the immense body of philosophy to incorporate morsels of Seneca. The study of philosophy is a leisure afforded to some, of which many are deprived.

Let it suffice for some to take home one or two snippets of Epicurus here, Epictetus there, among others, so as long as they make good use of living it (even as long as they make good use of deriving pleasure from it).The occupation of philosophy is cosmopolitan, and she doesn’t disparage you for your pedigree; she is egalitarian in her prospects.

My qualms concluded

I gripe at those who peddle watered-down versions of what are immensely complex subjects, not at those who attempt to dive into them.The question of virtue isn’t so simple as “Temperance” and “Prudence,” neither in theory nor in practice, though it seems that some advise the practice without having much theory.Go back to Plato and the Euthydemus,or the Meno;the question is unsettled even there.The question of “how to deal correctly with impressions” isn’t so simple as measuring them by the yardstick of “what is (or isn’t) up to us.” Stoic psychology goes much deeper than how Epictetus is represented in the Encheiridion.

The practical aspects of a lived philosophy do not exist separately from philosophical discourse, and those who peddle advice on how to live, without engaging in complex dialogue with this advice, are deceiving themselves as well as others. Then it becomes not philosophical discussion, but distortion.

To top it off, they start their pieces with trashy, clickbait titles like “10 Tips from the Stoics on How to Increase Your Penis Size”.

Farewell.

Sincerely,

George