Modern View on Stoic’s Passion and Dispassion
Stoicism is an ancient school of thought that stresses the value of rational thinking, self-control, and willingness to accept the reality of one's life. From the Stoic's point of view, it is always better to let go, it is always better not having any fixation on anything that you have no control over. Instead, you should always aim for happiness that comes from within. The Stoics believe that by cultivating inner values, such as wisdom, courage, and self-control, anyone can figure out the meaning of life.
The internal locus of control, which is central to the stoic philosophy, maintains that you are capable of directing your ideas, feelings, and actions. The way you respond to external circumstances is up to you, even though things may be out of your control sometimes. Stoics generally believe that people can respond to life's obstacles sensibly and productively by practicing self-discipline and self-control, rather than being swayed by their feelings.
The foundation of stoicism is their view on ethics, which places a significant value on leading a moral life that is consistent with stoic virtues. Prudence, justice, courage, and temperance are the virtues of stoicism. Making wise choices and sound judgments are components of prudence. Justice is all about treating others with fairness and respect. The ability to act honorably despite hardships is what it means to have courage. Self-control and moderation are key components of temperance (Inwood and Gerson 125) We can have a happy and purposeful life by acting in accordance with these virtues.
The Stoics believed in the idea that not everything has an intrinsic good or evil quality. Certain things, like money or physical well-being, are indifferent, which means they are of little moral value. Indifferent things are then further divided into preferred and non-preferred groups (Inwood and Gerson 117)
Things that could improve our overall well-being and happiness, such as financial stability or optimal health are preferred indifferent things (Inwood and Gerson 117-118) While they are ideal, they are not something we have control over. On the other end, non-preferred indifferent things like poverty or sickness are generally unpleasant, but they have little to no effect on our moral nature or potential to lead decent lives (Inwood and Gerson 118)
The Stoics believed that passions were erroneous judgments based on incorrect assumptions and assessments of the outside world. There are four different kinds of passions: pain, fear, desire, and pleasure (Inwood and Gerson 118) Every kind of passion can take on various shapes, including pity, grudging, dread, doubt, want, hatred, enchantment, malicious satisfaction, and many more (Inwood and Gerson 119-120) The Stoics held that our ties to things outside of ourselves are what trigger our passions, which may distract us from the right road toward virtue and reason.
The Stoics advise against being overly invested in these things and accept that they are beyond our control since they hold the view that our state of happiness and general well-being are derived from our inner ideals and virtues, never from external conditions. The Stoics thought that by learning to differentiate what is good, what is bad, and what is indifferent, we could cultivate a sense of balance and peace of mind that is unaffected by events that are beyond our control (Stoicism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Modern research in the fields of neuroscience and behavioral science raises questions about the Stoic philosophy, namely their emphasis on the suppression of feelings to achieve Apatheia. Contrary to the Stoic philosophy's belief in Apatheia, they have learned that emotions play a crucial role in decision-making.
One of the first criticisms is that, because human brains are not always equipped for precise math, statistics, and probability (Damasio 172), the emphasis on pure rationality can be too simplistic. Furthermore, even when we try to be rational, cognitive biases may contribute to poor decision-making. Thus, the Stoic reliance on logic alone may not be the best course of action.
What the Somatic Marker Hypothesis suggests is that emotions are necessary for decision-making because they produce physiological reactions associated with certain experiences, experiences that guide decisions that follow (Damasio 174-175) For example, when we experience fear, our body goes through a physiological reaction that gets us prepared to face any potential danger. This response allows us to identify potential risks and react to them more quickly and successfully than if we used rational reasoning alone.
We often believe that the rational brain ought to take precedence while making decisions. Yet, Damasio argues that emotions are fundamental to how we make decisions. Patients with injuries to the prefrontal cortex, like Phineas Gage, did not display IQ or moral reasoning problems, but instead made poor decisions or made none at all (Damasio 178) These individuals were devoid of emotion and were unable to feel anything, which made it challenging for them to make informed choices.
According to Damasio's research, thinking and decision-making are both useless without emotions. Furthermore, Jonathan Haidt explains that decision-making without emotions is catastrophic in practice because emotions are a kind of information processing.
In his book “The Righteous Mind”, he used a rider and an elephant as analogies to describe the interaction between the rational mind and emotions. According to Haidt. The elephant stands in for automatic cognitive functions like emotions and intuitions, while the rider represents controlled cognitive functions like logical reasoning. Although it serves as an intermediary for the elephant without necessarily understanding its thoughts, the rider can assist the elephant in making better decisions today and in picking up new talents. (Haidt 53-54)
What Jonathan Haidt argues is not that emotions are dumb, the point he is trying to make is that while the rider may be able to make good decisions, it is ultimately the elephant that drives our behavior, which is illustrated in the case of psychopaths. Haidt contends that psychopaths lack moral feelings like empathy, guilt, humiliation, or embarrassment (Haidt 72) It is not difficult for psychopaths to trick, deceive, and harm those around them because “psychopaths don’t show emotions that indicate that they care about other people.” (Haidt 72) As a result of this lack of emotional input, they may find it easier to tell lies and cause harm to others, which goes to show that the lack of emotions, even to a limited extent, is not a desirable condition.
Perhaps the takeaway from modern behavioral science is not that the stoics are entirely wrong in their view on Passion, but that they have a false understanding of human emotions, which leads to an erroneous belief that the solution is to suppress those specific emotions. And the overall takeaway should be the idea that decision-making and cognition both depend on emotions. Those who have suffered from prefrontal cortex damage have shown that suppressing emotions can result in bad decision-making. Therefore, it is vital that we strive for healthy emotions that are consistent with our ideals and objectives rather than dispassion, as the Stoics say.
It would appear from these findings that it is not only foolish but also impossible to completely transcend our emotions. As an alternative, we should work on cultivating a positive relationship with our emotions, acknowledge their role in decision-making, and strive to make choices that strike a good balance between reason and emotion. In doing so, we can achieve peace and equilibrium without ignoring the importance of emotions in our life.
Does this mean that the stoics are wrong about the potential perils of Passions, even if it does suggest that they've been wrong about the nature of emotions in general? Although I've never considered myself a stoic or adhered to any other particular philosophical creed other than having a strong leaning toward libertarian principles, I do agree with their assessment of passions, particularly the issue of unchecked passions.
Some modern thinkers may contend that passion—a form of desire—can be an asset in our lives. There is a case to be made for the idea that, when properly channeled, desire can lead to higher objectives like the search for truth, beauty, and justice. The argument is that the problem is not about desire, but rather the way people use desire.
Nevertheless, Stoicism is correct in that, to find inner peace and happiness, it's important to accept reality as it is and minimize desires. According to Naval Ravikant, when we offer counsel to others, we aren't going through their pain or their suffering, which enables us to recognize the truth, because we are not the ones involved, we have no skin in the game. But when we are the ones in pain, when we are the ones who are suffering, we can be blinded by our own desires and fail to see reality for what it is (The Knowledge Project Podcast) He points out that “Desire is a contract you make with yourself to be unhappy until you get what you want.” (Jorgenson 138) This is consistent with the Stoic principle that we ought to learn how to control our passions like desires because they may lead us towards pain and suffering.
I'm reminded of the passages from Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy while analyzing the Stoic's passions. In the book’s introduction, he wrote: “Science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in war; but only wisdom—desire coordinated in the light of all experience—can tell us when to heal and when to kill.” (Durant) He contends that science can provide us information and abilities in both curing and killing. But we can only know when to cure or to kill when we have wisdom, which is the coordination of desire with experience and perspective. To put it another way, science on its own is unable to provide us the wisdom necessary to navigate all the hardships in life. Without context and evaluation, information might leave us feeling disoriented or unguided. Philosophy, on the other hand, offers us the perspective that is needed to make wise judgments and develop a sense of internal peace and satisfaction, especially when it is combined with science.
While emotions like pain, fear, desire, and pleasure are a normal part of the human experience, they may also be disruptive and even dangerous. By establishing dispassion and balance, one can harness their passions to encourage constructive behaviors and live life to its fullest. As Durant would have put it, philosophy is where we discover the perspective and knowledge required to strike this equilibrium.
Work Cited
Damasio, Antonio. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Penguin, 2005.
Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy. Courier Dover Publications, 2022.
Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Vintage, 2012.
Inwood, Brad, and Lloyd P. Gerson. The Stoics Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia. 2008, ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA87924986.
Jorgenson, Eric. The Almanack of Naval Ravikant: A Guide to Wealth and Happiness. Magrathea Publishing, 2020.
Stoicism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. iep.utm.edu/stoicism.
The Knowledge Project Podcast. “The Full Story of Naval Ravikant | the Angel Philosopher.” YouTube, 17 Aug. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGY2To_HW98.