A Philosophical Study of Stoicism
On the basics of Stoicism...
This is an introduction to the basics of Stoicism. As with all my philosophy articles, I'll start with the fundamentals and gradually dive into various branches of the philosophy and key thinkers associated with it.
Stoicism was everywhere a few years ago. Everyone was preaching about living a stoic life. But how practical is such a lifestyle? Stoicism the basics will inform you of the foundations of Stoicism, as well as the pros and cons of practising such a philosophy.
Self Preservation
At its core, Stoicism is about self-preservation. Unlike the hedonists who see pleasure as our primary drive, Stoics argue that our first instinct is actually to preserve ourselves—what they call "oikeiosis." From this, they build a naturalist basis for their ethics.
Their reasoning? Our instinct to survive is present from the moment we're born. Think of a newborn crying out when it’s hungry—it’s a drive for survival, not pleasure.
In Stoic thought, then, what is "good" aligns with nature and supports self-preservation. It’s about safeguarding reason and mental health, a kind of cathartic care and maintenance of virtue. Conversely, anything that threatens this self-preservation is considered “bad.”
This foundation is both empirically grounded and comprehensive, providing a strong framework for Stoic ethics.
The Stoic shift from instinctual, animal pleasures to something more rational might seem like a positive move. However, it also opens the door to colonialist and elitist biases. It raises complex questions: When do we actually become adults? And what about those who, for various reasons, might not develop the same capacity for self-preservation? Stoicism, in this sense, already leans toward being an exclusionary, elitist theory.
Cosmopolitanism
The Stoics hold that every person has the potential for virtue because we each play a unique role in the larger cosmos. According to Stoic thought, when we live in harmony with our human nature, our animal instincts, and the broader natural order, society as a whole can flourish and function smoothly.
Achieving this balance relies on our capacity for reason, which, they believe, unites us all in a shared rationality. Through reason, we not only understand our place within the universe but also our duties toward others.
This perspective aligns with Hierocles’ “circles of concern,” a Stoic framework that illustrates how we expand our moral obligations outward from ourselves.
At the centre of the circle lies the individual, followed by family, then our community, and ultimately the wider society and humanity as a whole. The idea is that, by extending our empathy and responsibilities to each successive circle, we cultivate a society that honours both personal and collective well-being, bound together by rationality and mutual respect.
Determinism
The Stoics also subscribe to determinism, believing that many events are beyond our control and are best met with indifference, leaving judgement behind. “Don’t be angry” is the familiar Stoic refrain—advice that has a certain appeal on its own.
The Stoics argue that situations unfold according to fate (or physics), an unbroken chain of cause and effect. While we may not change the outcome, we can always adjust our attitude. Their ideal is to suspend judgement, step back, and reflect.
At times, this advice can be useful. But in my view, Stoicism's focus on passivity can also foster an oppressive mindset. There are times when anger and action are both necessary—think protests or social movements. Expression through language and behaviour is a form of freedom, yet Stoicism, in its extremes, risks stifling this. If we adhere too strictly to Stoic detachment, protests and activism lose meaning, reinforcing Stoicism’s underlying elitist tone.
So, my thoughts on Stoicism? I find its emphasis on passivity and acceptance ill-suited to today’s world. It becomes impractical, even obstructive. Stoicism assumes an ideal society—one that, for many, will never exist. The same goes for Stoic cosmopolitanism and determinism, both of which can be misused to reinforce hierarchies. While Stoics may have intended a calming, reflective philosophy, it ends up sparking the very passions it aims to subdue.
Additionally, some Stoic concepts—like the “slave dialectic”—carry problematic, even harmful, implications. There’s value in critique and evolution, especially for a philosophy so often framed as timeless. While it would not work as a universal philosophy, I do think we could all benefit from suspending judgement and taking a step back to remain calm now and then.
What are your thoughts on Stoicism?