Can Stoics Be Activists? | Q&A #5 | July 2019
Hello everyone! Welcome to the fifth Einzelgänger Q&A. Before the weekend, I reached the 50,000 subscriber mark on this channel. When I started back in January, I’d never had expected that this channel would reach this magic number so quickly or, at all. I just want to say thanks for your views, likes, shares, hitting that subscribe button and bell, and donating through Patreon and PayPal.
Speaking of which… I want to thank William, Emma, Ömer, and Video Insights for supporting me on Patreon. This helps me to keep this project sustainable, and I appreciate it very much. I will dedicate this public Q&A to a question I got from Juansaman, who is a Patreon supporter. He asked me if it makes sense to be politically active, vote, participate in pacifist strikes, or aggressive revolts. After all, Stoicism teaches us not to focus on things that are not in our control. So, how do Stoics deal with politics, social dilemmas, injustices, et cetera?
This is great material for further investigation. For simplicity’s sake, I’ve narrowed it down to one simple question: can Stoics be activists? I think it’s important to mention that Stoicism is more than being “indifferent” or “detached” and “not caring what other people think.” Although reaching a state of equanimity is a part of the Stoic experience, the intention of the philosophy is not to be indifferent towards injustices or to be fatalistic. Stoicism keeps morals and ethics in high regard.
Leaving our surroundings at the mercy of injustice, even though we have the possibility to intervene, is quite immoral and not a Stoic thing to do. My apologies if I’m getting too theoretical here, but I need to clarify a few things in order to come up with an answer. The goal of Stoicism is happiness (also called eudaimonia), which consists of living in agreement with nature, which equals living a life of virtue, thus a moral life.
According to the Stoics, eudaimonianism, naturalism, and moralism are inseparable; the one requires the other. So, we could say that doing the right thing makes one happy, and being happy is in agreement with nature, and is the right thing. The question I’d immediately ask is: what is the right thing? And why is this important?
16th-century Dutch jurist, historian, and author Hugo de Groot, also known worldwide as ‘Grotius’, had a keen interest in Stoicism. Grotius also believed in a ‘natural right.’ A natural right means that we, as human beings, have a natural tendency to know what is morally appropriate and what isn't. According to Grotius, this is what the Stoics mean with oikeiosis, that we can translate as appropriation, which means that humans are naturally inclined to certain actions and goals that mainly revolve around the preservation of themselves and their surroundings.
If, from this inclination, we see certain actions as morally right, we have a natural basis for justice. Simply put: according to Grotius, it’s in our nature to act in ways that are just, and thus, the Stoics considered justice as in agreement with nature. Therefore, it’s not surprising that justice is one of the four cardinal virtues in Stoicism, together with moderation, courage, and wisdom.
So, if we go back to the question, it seems that being politically active, voting, and even participating in pacifist strikes is quite in line with Stoicism when it supports justice. Injustice is a Stoic vice: it’s an evil against humanity, so taking a stance against injustice is a Stoic thing to do.
In regards to violent strikes as an answer to injustice, I’m a bit reserved. Let’s say that violence is used against humanity from a place of injustice. When it comes to justice, it probably isn’t a good idea to harm other people according to the Stoics. At least, this is what I concluded after consulting the literature. Stoicism has its roots in the philosophy of Socrates.
In the first book of Plato’s Republic, Socrates argues that it isn’t just to treat anyone badly, even when we consider them as enemies. True justice should be beneficial to all, including the person who is just. Harming others, therefore, isn’t just. That’s why I don’t think that participating in violent riots is a very Stoic thing to do. But, let me know in the comment section what you think about this.
Also, if we’d go along with Grotius and his belief in a natural basis for the pursuit of justice, we can say that we, as human beings, are naturally inclined to engage in the actions listed by Juansaman. Grotius believed that humans are social and political animals, and it’s in our nature to be politically active and pursue the right thing for ourselves and our fellow human beings.
When we look at what’s happening all around the world all the time, I think he has a point. Human beings seem to be natural activists. But I should add that this doesn’t mean that all activism is just. Now, the next question is, of course: how do we unify activism with the Stoic pursuit of caring less about the things that are not in our control?
Let’s take a look at Epictetus’ famous quote from the Enchiridion: “Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.” End quote.
In regards to justice, I think the focus should be our own actions - acting in a way that is just or in the favor of justice - without attaching too much to the outcome and keeping a calm mind during our pursuits. 'Amor fati' is the love of fate; embracing whatever the outcome is, which also leaves room to continue living virtuously. It’s a middle way between the pursuit of what’s right and the detachment from what’s wrong and not up to us.
Even though these are opposites; they don’t exclude each other. I believe that if we don’t get struck by hardship, we’re actually more resilient in the pursuit of justice. I hope this answers your question, Juansaman. Again, thanks everyone for the 50,000. For the Patreon Edition of the Q&A, you’ll find a link in the description. Thank you for watching.