The last episode closed with a thought-provoking passage from the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius that places our human reason into the proper Stoic perspective. It reads:
to have the intellect as a guide towards what appear to be duties is something that we share with those who do not believe in the gods, with those who betray their country, with those who will do anything whatever behind locked doors. (Meditations 3.16)
As a transition to this episode, I will highlight the important point Marcus makes in this passage for a second time. Human reason is not the ultimate guide for ethical behavior in Stoic practice. On the contrary, universal Reason—cosmic Nature—is the sole arbiter of good and bad in Stoicism. Chrysippus, the third scholarch of the Stoa, argued this point when he wrote:
For there is no other or more suitable way of approaching the theory of good and evil or the virtues or happiness than from the universal nature and from the dispensation of the universe… For the theory of good and evil must be connected with these, since good and evil have no better beginning or point of reference and physical speculation is to be undertaken for no other purpose than for the discrimination of good and evil.[1]
Again, in his book titled On Ends, Chrysippus argued:
And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature, or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common to all things, that is to say, the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus.[2]
In this passage, Chrysippus makes it quite clear a “life in accordance with nature” is one lived in agreement with “the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus” (emphasis added). The Greek word translated as “reason” in this passage is logos. According to the Stoics, every entity that exists is comprised of a mixture of matter (the passive principle) and pneuma(the active principle). Humans are unique among all existing entities because the pneuma within us comprises our soul (psyche) and “constitutes itself as reason, logos.”[3] Seneca articulated this as follows:
What, then, is the distinctive property of a human being? Reason. It is by reason that the human surpasses animals and is second to the gods. Therefore perfected reason is the human’s distinctive excellence; everything else is shared with animals and plants. (Letters 76.9)
As A.A. Long emphasizes, “The [goal-directed] assumptions which this argument requires for its validity are too obvious to need discussion.” Accordingly, “'the goodness of living according to reason' is derived from, and not the grounds of, 'living according to Nature'.” In other words, any “goodness” we can attribute to living according to human reason is due solely to the fact that human reason is derived from cosmic Reason (logos). Therefore, the Stoics looked to Nature for ethical norms to guide our lives and society. Chrysippus articulated this in his“third book on the Gods,” where he wrote:
It is not possible to discover any other beginning of justice or any source for it other than from Zeus and from the universal nature, for thence everything of the kind must have its beginning if we are going to have anything to say about good and evil.[4]
In his paper titled The Logical Basis for Stoic Ethics, the renowned scholar of Stoicism A.A. Long points out:
Nature is available to all people as a moral principle through the 'impulses towards virtue' which human beings have as a Natural endowment. The wise man is marked out by his voluntary submission to what Nature wills; he chooses, in some sense of choice, to act according to Nature. The actions of bad men are necessarily contrary to Nature's will… By giving human beings reason, Nature provides the necessary conditions of good or bad actions; for actions are good or bad if and only if the reason of their agents accords with or fails to accord with Nature. By endowing man with 'impulses towards virtue' Nature provides conditions sufficient to direct him towards what accords with Nature.[5]
In the conclusion of this paper, A.A. Long argues against the circular reasoning that “life according to nature must be followed because it is the reasonable life or life according to reason.” He refutes the idea that “the reasonable life” constitutes living according to Nature[6] and maintains:
That is a complete misrepresentation of the logical basis of Stoic ethics. Life according to reason is entailed by life according to Nature; but life according to Nature is not obligatory because it accords with reason. Nature stands to human beings as a moral law commanding him to live by rational principles, viz., those principles of thought and action which Nature, a perfect being, prescribes to itself and all rational beings.[7]
Stoic theory and practice rely on the premise that each human mind is a fragment of the universal, divine mind that permeates and orders the cosmos. Therefore, our ultimate human good is developed by bringing our human reason and will into agreement with universal Reason (cosmic Nature, Logos). Again, in the conclusion of his masterful study of Marcus’s Meditations, Pierre Hadot points out:
What defined a Stoic above all else was the choice of a life in which every thought, every desire, and every action would be guided by no other law than that of universal Reason[8]
Additionally, Hadot contends,
all the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[9]
It is simply impossible to make Stoic ethical theory and practice fully coherent if we begin with the modern scientistic assumption that human life and human reason are accidental byproducts of a random universe.
We make a serious mistake when we unseat cosmic Nature from its rightful place as the supreme guide for human action and rely solely on our human intellect to guide us towards what appears to be good. This is true of Stoicism and ancient virtue ethics in general. As A.A. Long argues, if we ignore the “symbiosis of cosmic and ethical perspectives” in ancient ethics “we shall not only misrepresent one of its most basic features; we shall also fail to understand why ancient philosophers were so absolute in their claims about the power of reason to guide human life and to deliver prosperity.”[10] Thus, Marcus highlights the fact that using human “intellect as a guide towards what appear to be duties” makes us no different from those who are impious toward divine Nature, disloyal to their country, and engage in soul-destroying behavior. Again, the evil in the world is committed by humans who are using their intellect; they are using their human reason to accomplish their vicious ends. Unfortunately, their human reason is not in agreement with universal Reason. The ancient Stoics understood human reason alone—disconnected from cosmic Reason—is insufficient to guide us toward virtue. Why? Because human reason can be easily corrupted by errant assents to impressions, and desires and aversions that create impulses to act contrary to the will of Nature. The path to virtue requires more. It requires harmony between human reason and cosmic Reason. It requires an understanding and appreciation for universal Reason as the source of our human reason.
The Special Characteristic of the “Good Person”
With that in mind, we can move on to Marcus’ list of characteristics of those who do use their capacities appropriately. He writes:
If you share everything else with those whom I have just mentioned, there remains the special characteristic of a good person (Meditations 3.16)
Love of Fate (Amor Fati)
First on Marcus’s list of characteristics of the good person is the fact they will “love and welcome all that happens to him and is spun for him as his fate.” In his commentary on this passage, Pierre Hadot wrote:
We have already seen that, for the Stoics, what is present for me is that which is currently happening to me: in other words, not merely my current actions, but also the present event with which I am confronted. Here again, as in the case of the present in general, it is my thought and my attention which singles out from the flux of things that which has meaning for me; at which point my inner discourse will declare that such-and-such an event is happening to me. Moreover—whether I know it or not—the overall movement of the universe, set in motion by divine Reason, has brought it about that I have been destined, from all eternity, to encounter such-and-such an event.[11]
I dealt with love of fate extensively in previous episodes, so I’m not going to say much about it here. However, I will remind you of the difference between bowing to the necessity of fate and the Stoic practice of loving every event of Nature. As I have noted in a previous episode:
Bear and Forbear Only Gets Us Half the Way There.
Care of the Daimon
Next, Marcus suggests the good person will exhibit three characteristics with regard to their daimon—the guardian spirit within:
They will not defile the guardian spirit within.
They will not trouble it with a host of fancies.
They will preserve it in cheerful serenity.[12]
Marcus focuses on the care of his inner daimon throughout his Meditations. This daimon is the guardian or inner “genius” that must be cared for lest it becomes corrupted by incorrect assents to impressions and desires and aversions that lead to impulses to act contrary to the universal law of Nature. In Meditations2.13,
