4 November 2023
This week we do what we’ve been preparing to do for six weeks: explore what the Stoics called the indifferents. Those values not deemed virtues or vices were called indifferents. Those values were thought to neither add to, nor subtract from, well-being. If you are indifferent toward a thing, you are “unconcerned, uninterested, uncaring…uninvolved…” (Barber, 2004, p. 374).
Within the cluster of indifferents, were preferred and dispreffered categories. Preferred indifferents are “according to nature” which I understand to mean in accord, or in harmony, with nature. Dispreffered indifferents are described as being “contrary to nature” (Stephens, 2023, 3. Good, Evil, and Indifferents). Stephens preceded these definitions with a clarification of the unique Stoic position in which they “maintained…that the only thing that always contributes to happiness, as its necessary and sufficient condition, is virtue” (Ibid).
Those readers finely attuned to the language of argument may have noticed two absolutes in that short clarification: only and always. Absolutes often raise a red flag on which is emblazoned: proceed with extreme caution. I’ll show you why in the quote that makes up most of the next paragraph.
Preferred indifferents are “according to nature.” Dispreferred indifferents are “contrary to nature.” This is because possession or use of the preferred indifferents usually promotes the natural condition of a person, and so selecting them is usually commended by reason. The preferred indifferents include life, health, pleasure, beauty, strength, wealth, good reputation, and noble birth. The dispreffered indifferents include death, disease, pain, ugliness, weakness, poverty, low repute, and ignoble birth. While it is usually appropriate to avoid the dispreferred indifferents, in unusual circumstances it may be virtuous to select them rather than avoid them. The virtue or vice of the agent is thus determined not by the possession of an indifferent, but rather by how it is used or selected. It is the virtuous use of indifferents that makes a life happy, the vicious use that makes it unhappy (Stephens, 2023, 3. Good, Evil, and Indifferents).
In plainer language, the preferred indifferents (life, health, pleasure, beauty, strength, wealth, good reputation, and noble birth) were thought to promote the natural condition of people, so pursuit of these indifferents was in accord, or harmonious with, reasoned behaviours. Let’s take the first of the listed preferred indifferents, life. To be scrupulous, what the Stoics are arguing is that in most cases the pursuit of life is not an absolute virtue but a preferred indifferent, or sometimes-virtue. As the Fates would have it, I recently purchased a lovely used copy of Edith Hamilton’s Plato: The Collected Dialogues and have recently begun rereading The Apology.
The Apology is one of the most disheartening (and simultaneously inspiring) stories I’ve encountered. It is Plato’s recollection of the trial of Socrates, the conclusion of which sees that man, most deserving of the title of the father of philosophy, drinking suicidal poison by order of the state of Athens. (If that doesn’t tell you something about the viciousness of humans in groups, I don’t what will.) Socrates died surrounded by admirers and students whom he comforted and encouraged to turn to their own philosophy rather than plead, beg, moan…or refuse to accept.
I raise this as an example in which I would probably agree with the Stoic ethical system in affirming that such an honourable and admirable death is of greater virtue than clinging to life at the cost of hypocrisy or refusing to be who and what you are to appease mediocrity. But what a price. And what a man.
It is death that has brought me to examine Stoic indifferents. More precisely, it is a quote from our beloved Epictetus that I still have difficulty with:
“Never say about anything, I have lost it, but say I have restored it. Is your child dead? It has been restored. Is your wife dead? She has been restored…But what is it to you, by whose hands the giver demanded it back? So long as he may allow you, take care of it as a thing which belongs to another, as travelers do with their inn” (Long, 1991. Epictetus, Enchiridion, XI).
I continue to fight this response but, having examined the Stoic metaphysics (last six blogs), the systemic nature of Stoic virtue is more transparent. When Epictetus spoke (we don’t have his writings but transcriptions of them from one of his most loyal students, Arrian) of the giver, above, he was speaking of his conception of the ultimately creative G-d. It is no coincidence that that conception feels Christian as both Stoicism and Christianity came to be—with known mutual dependencies—at roughly the same period, the period of Jesus. How different is Epictetus’ idea from that once omnipresent expression of Job, “…the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away…” (Holy Bible, KJV, Job 1:21). As earlier, I’m not buying it.
Particularly in the blog Stoic Values III (here), the argument was made that reason and evidence-based thinking show that chance seems the most authoritative author of life on Earth. If you need numbers, to help with a sense of proportion, Wordsmith’s A Thought for Today has furnished one: “For all our conceits about being the center of the universe, we live in a routine planet of a humdrum star stuck away in an obscure corner...on an unexceptional galaxy which is one of about 100 billion galaxies…That is the fundamental fact of the universe we inhabit, and it is very good for us to understand that. —Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (9 Nov 1934-1996) in Garg (2021) Wordsmith.org.
We’ve travelled some distance in this blog so let’s recap. First, the definitions of preferred and dispreffered indifferents were set out. These are categorized as lesser Stoic virtues and vices both of which were explicitly identified by the Stoics. The preferred indifferent, life, was used as an example of a value not always of primary placement. The example was the suicide of Socrates seen as more noble than self-abnegation. Finally, the issue in debate is the death of children, spouses, and other loved ones as preferred indifferents about which we should, per the Stoics, practice radical acceptance and move on.
There is no record of Epictetus fathering children, but research indicates that Marcus Aurelius had a few children and Seneca possibly one son, who preceded him in death. I can see that if I could believe in an omnipresent and omniscient G-d, it would seem more natural to lose a child or a spouse before they had reached the average lifespan of their time. As Epictetus and Job so eloquently indicated, those loved ones were only loaned to us and the loan was called in by the creditor. But…if one agrees with Sagan (above) and evidence-based reason, then each child and spouse is an amazing opportunity presented to us by chance. Once love has taken root, to see that chance eradicated—forever—is not something most of us see as indifferent; and I’m grossly understating this for impact. Such losses change lives. Such losses can shatter faith. Such losses matter to well-being.
Finally, as a psychotherapist, it becomes obvious that there are basic requirements for a life of well-being. As a minimum, perhaps capacity, people, purpose, and productivity is a reasonable start. To elaborate, by nature we require the company of others who care (people); we need a chosen direction in order to self-actualize (purpose), and we need to know we are contributing and earning our proverbial daily bread as part of our communities (productivity). But for any of those to happen we first need the capacity to understand reality and to communicate with reasonable accuracy.
Those fortunate enough to have these four requirements aligned and firing are arguably thriving. If such a person loses a child or spouse or dear friend, any or all four of those eudaimonic requirements can be broken. If it took a minor miracle of chance to bring that child or spouse to life, what are the chances this can happen again (zero, as each soul is unique), or, that I can stop mourning that profound loss long enough to resume self-actualization? In short, lost lives of loved ones are difficult to perceive as preferred indifferents. Even by those of us who revere Stoicism.
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
Barber, K. (2004). Oxford Canadian Thesaurus, Oxford University Press, Canada.
Holy Bible, King James Version. (1957). Collins’ Clear-Type Press.
Long, G. (Tr.). (1991). Epictetus’ Enchiridion. Prometheus Books.
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.
Wordsmith, (2021, 9 November). https://wordsmith.org/words/attrite.html
Comments