14 October 2023
This blog continues the strand begun with explications of the first six points, from the list below. That list is an analysis of a single paragraph provided by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the nature of the ends (telos) or ultimate pursuits of Stoicism. You can read that here, if the background is of interest. Today we look at points 7 and 8.
7. As the universe is determined (unfolds precisely as designed), the universe (life) unfolding means nature and fate are one.
There are two premises in the caption above: 1. The universe is determined [by Zeus]; and, 2. As a determined unfolding, nature and fate are identical. As has been argued in each of the last three blogs, the evidence in favour of the universe, and therefore fate, being random has considerably more evidentiary weight than a universe designed and unfolded per Zeus, or any other god. That evidence was argued to be seen in the evils of the last hundred years including the Holocaust and the intentional government sanctioned purges of “undesirables” in communist Russia and China numbering 10s of millions in both countries. That is, if those evils are a reality designed—and put in motion—by a god, what business do human beings have worshipping such gods?
The second premise of point #7, above, is that because life has been determined, nature and fate are one. As an argument, its logic is impeccable. As a statement of truth, it leaves lived life unaccounted for. Quite simply, if we live in a world where nature and fate are one, we have no choices. If we have no choices, there are no right actions and no wrong actions—all human acts have moral impunity because, per this Stoic tenet, they are all determined, as in an inevitable unfolding. And yet, I love the Stoic ethics precisely because they ignore this metaphysics in favour of making the hard moral choices.
As a final counterargument, if this Stoic metaphysics is accurate, i.e., if nature and fate are determined, what is the point of ethics and what is the point of psychology? In fact, what is the point of medicine or physics? We can safely and accurately land humans on the moon, for goodness’ sake. If you think about the history of technology, and the number of formulas, calculations, inventions, designs, tests, and training, almost every one of those things, to be coaxed into existence, has had to resist the you-can’t-change-things-so-why-bother attitude that is a natural consequence of the premise that nature and fate are one and unchangeable. If my fate were not changeable, what would I have accepted as my lot in life? The whole New World conception of pulling up stakes in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, to come to the broadest conception of the American continent, and start a new life based on merit and freedom, is about resisting fate and determinism. Reduced to its simplest instance of action, every time a person gets up from bed, makes that bed, gets dressed…they are choosing—courageously and wisely—to resist the premise that nature and fate are a determined unity. They are not; nature and fate are malleable resources whose degree of malleability increases in direct proportion to the depth of one’s understanding of each of these phenomena.
This final premise may be the one provoking the least resistance. However, in order to harmonize with that premise, I must first remove the middle assumptions: that Zeus, or any other deity, created a providential and constituted world. Per the earlier three blogs in this series, my experience is that the argument in favour of chaotic chance (as the cause of sustainable life on Earth) is stronger than the argument in favour of divine design—by light years. This is based on my imperfect understanding of physics and evolution and where those two intersect. My means of evaluation is rationality, Aristotle’s differentia between humans and the most capable of non-humans. If another person chooses to evaluate her metaphysics based on faith or belief, reason probably won’t dissuade that person. That issue is the essence of epistemology, the part of philosophy dealing with how we know.
The second part of the middle premise calls for the reader’s acceptance of the Earth as providential and rationally constituted. Providential is taken to mean imbued with opportunity. Rationally constituted is understood to mean an integrated and rationally accessible portion of a larger rational whole. My understanding of this is that the writer, of the original paragraph, perceives the Earth, and life on Earth, as being part of an integrated, rationally accessible universe. That proposition is still being tested as human knowledge of astrophysics itself grows. However, given the age of our planet, 4.5 billion years, and the life of human beings, 300,000 years, my spidey sense tells me something’s amiss in this rationally constituted universe.
Rationality was formally introduced, again to the best of my imperfect knowledge, by perhaps my foremost philosophical hero, Aristotle. He identified rationality as that which differentiates humans from all other known species. Further, Aristotle outlined logic which guides us, to this day, on how to ascertain logically correct propositions and on how to test these. Aristotle was born 2,407 years ago. If we’re inhabiting a rationally constituted universe, why the 4.5-billion-year discrepancy between our ability to even recognize this basic fact? Further, if we are the centre of a universe created by a god, what was s/he doing for most of those 4.5 billion years without our presence at centre stage? In short, what science has been able to tell us about our universe, absolutely demolishes our centrality on this stage. Just comparing 300,000 to 4,500,000,000 (0.000067th of universal time) makes it a bit difficult to accept that this whole thing was properly understood by some hugely talented moral philosophers during the time of Ancient Rome. There’s a perspectival problem here that goes to the heart of self-centredness. We, as humanity, even if we are the most highly evolved species (improbable), we’re a footnote in time.
Finally, we come to the goodness part of the 8th proposition, listed above. I have never been a moral fan of the idea that when one is in Rome one does as the Romans do. For basic etiquette and social ease, yes, do that. For moral issues, evaluate for yourself based on your own highest vision of who you are and wish to be. That said, when on Earth, do as the Earth does, makes eminent sense to me. She is, after all, a bit bigger and more persuasive than any one or even any 8,000,000,000 of us. To ignore the rules of the Earth, gravity, sun, water, air…is to ignore the elements of the fabric from which we evolved. It's disrespectful of our ultimate parent and of our own highest iterations. So, let’s leave it there. In restated terms, the 8th premise makes more sense written as Goodness is living in agreement with the Earth.
Dan Chalykoff is a Registered Psychotherapist (Qualifying). He works at CMHA-Hamilton and Healing Pathways Counselling, Oakville, where his focus is clients with addiction, trauma, burnout, and major life changes. He writes these blogs to increase (and share) his own evolving understanding of ideas. Since 2017, he has facilitated two voluntary weekly group meetings of SMART Recovery. Please email him (danchalykoff@hotmail.com) to be added to or removed from the Bcc’d emailing list.
References
Stephens, W. O. (2023, September 1). Stoic Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/stoiceth/#:~:text=All%20other%20things%20were%20judged,be%20used%20well%20and%20badly.
Even Earth, at 4.5 billion years, is a relative newcomer to the universe, which has been around some 13.8 billion years. And who knows what was in the mind of Zeus before that!
My mistake! Thanks for the correction, Doug. As for Zeus, that’s kinda the point–no one knows or apparently can know. Thanks for reading and responding.