Scan barcode
A review by bittersweet_symphony
How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life by Massimo Pigliucci
3.0
I sprinted through this over 24 hours, so I'm still ruminating over it. It communicates Stoicism well, so my dissatisfaction isn't necessarily with the writing. Massimo writes quite clearly. I suppose my disagreements regard the philosophical orientation that informs his presentation of Stoicism.
It very well could be quite historically accurate, in that How to Be a Stoic reflects how the ancient Stoics understood their philosophy of living. However, I found Massimo's perspective too scientistic or not sufficiently postmodern. Meaning, his presentation would have made more sense written before the linguistic turn.
In other words, and this could be, in part, because it's popular philosophy (nothing wrong with that!), but his portrayal of Stoicism lacks an awareness around the subjective or perspectival nature of language. Most things are presented as if language maps onto reality in a one-for-one relationship and presumes we can even know how well our language hooks up to reality when he asserts that Stoics "live according to nature," as if there is an essential nature to reality. Maybe there is! And maybe we can! Perhaps language isn't just a tool for coping with our environments but truly reflects some mind-independent reality "out there," unchanged by human experiences of it!
In simple terms, too often he leans on contemporary empirical research to suggest X "proves" this claim about Stoicism, or "as the evidence shows," or "an indisuptable fact," and so on. This could be Stoic metaphysics showing through, and maybe I just don't have much time for Stoic metaphysics. It's too static or fixed for my liking.
Furthermore, I realize I'm not particularly compelled by Stoic ethics or the obsession with virtue, at least in the way conceived by Stoics. Stoic virtue reads too essentialist for me. Sure, developing a sense of moral character is a wonderful enterprise. It's important. However, I'm not convinced one should or can build a life philosophy where everything is subsumed under the individual persuit of developing a virtuous character. It's just too rationalistic. I want the messy, moral-tragic portrayal of reality! Let me have my muddy, untidy pragmatist ethics, or terrifying but thrilling existential "leaps of faith."
Stoicism presents a world more orderly than my experiences would suggest.
However...
With the criticisms out of the way. The thing I appreciate the most about Stoicism is the "dichotomy of control," which is echoed in the "Serenity Prayer," and that is: focus on what you can control, let go of what you can't, and develop the ability to discern the difference between the two. It's this realm of psychological insight and ancient wisdom that makes Stoicism so worth it.
I can take or leave Stoicism's ethics and metaphysics, again, too rationalistic or Enlightenment-era-like in it's view of reason (this could just be Massimo's take).
Nonetheless, I think it's a worthwhile read and will benefit a lot of people. There's much to be gleaned from a Stoic mindset, and most of the daily practices are incredibly fruitful (speak without judging, remind of the impermanence of things, choose your company well, and pause and take a deep breath).
Just look to its descendants today: cognitive behavior therapy and logotherapy. CBT appears to be one of the most effective short-term interventions for addressing depression and anxiety.
I'd recommend Stoic Pragmatism by John Lachs for those who had disagreements similar to my own.
It very well could be quite historically accurate, in that How to Be a Stoic reflects how the ancient Stoics understood their philosophy of living. However, I found Massimo's perspective too scientistic or not sufficiently postmodern. Meaning, his presentation would have made more sense written before the linguistic turn.
In other words, and this could be, in part, because it's popular philosophy (nothing wrong with that!), but his portrayal of Stoicism lacks an awareness around the subjective or perspectival nature of language. Most things are presented as if language maps onto reality in a one-for-one relationship and presumes we can even know how well our language hooks up to reality when he asserts that Stoics "live according to nature," as if there is an essential nature to reality. Maybe there is! And maybe we can! Perhaps language isn't just a tool for coping with our environments but truly reflects some mind-independent reality "out there," unchanged by human experiences of it!
In simple terms, too often he leans on contemporary empirical research to suggest X "proves" this claim about Stoicism, or "as the evidence shows," or "an indisuptable fact," and so on. This could be Stoic metaphysics showing through, and maybe I just don't have much time for Stoic metaphysics. It's too static or fixed for my liking.
Furthermore, I realize I'm not particularly compelled by Stoic ethics or the obsession with virtue, at least in the way conceived by Stoics. Stoic virtue reads too essentialist for me. Sure, developing a sense of moral character is a wonderful enterprise. It's important. However, I'm not convinced one should or can build a life philosophy where everything is subsumed under the individual persuit of developing a virtuous character. It's just too rationalistic. I want the messy, moral-tragic portrayal of reality! Let me have my muddy, untidy pragmatist ethics, or terrifying but thrilling existential "leaps of faith."
Stoicism presents a world more orderly than my experiences would suggest.
However...
With the criticisms out of the way. The thing I appreciate the most about Stoicism is the "dichotomy of control," which is echoed in the "Serenity Prayer," and that is: focus on what you can control, let go of what you can't, and develop the ability to discern the difference between the two. It's this realm of psychological insight and ancient wisdom that makes Stoicism so worth it.
I can take or leave Stoicism's ethics and metaphysics, again, too rationalistic or Enlightenment-era-like in it's view of reason (this could just be Massimo's take).
Nonetheless, I think it's a worthwhile read and will benefit a lot of people. There's much to be gleaned from a Stoic mindset, and most of the daily practices are incredibly fruitful (speak without judging, remind of the impermanence of things, choose your company well, and pause and take a deep breath).
Just look to its descendants today: cognitive behavior therapy and logotherapy. CBT appears to be one of the most effective short-term interventions for addressing depression and anxiety.
I'd recommend Stoic Pragmatism by John Lachs for those who had disagreements similar to my own.