Stoicism & Buddhism Similarities, Stoicism As A Religion & More! | Q&A #2 | April 2019

Hello everyone! Welcome to the second edition of the monthly Idol Ganger Q&A. Like last month, I've searched the comments for questions and interesting remarks that I will answer and talk about a bit more. This is a public video in which I will touch on two topics: the similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism, and Stoicism as a religion. The patron edition of the Q&A will contain topics like Sigma males, stoic virtues, boomers and bloomers, Marcus Aurelius, and I will say a few words about the Delta male. This version is accessible on my Patreon page, and I would be very happy if you're willing to support my work so I can keep creating content.

[Music]

First topic is more of a generic reply to several comments that pointed out the same thing. These are three of them: the first one is from Erin Stoner, saying "Stoicism is in many ways similar to Buddhism." The second one is from Formless 7 7 7, saying "Stoicism derived from Hellenic Buddhism. Buddhist missionaries even came West and taught during the Roman Empire, and the Stoics were the result." And the last one is from Sam Ergun, saying "Stoicism: the Buddhism of the West."

So these were the quotes. I agree that Buddhism and Stoicism have similarities. Both are directed towards achieving and maintaining a mental state that we could call equanimity. Someone in a comment section below one of my Stoicism videos says that equanimity is perhaps a better word to describe this sense of detachment that the Stoics are looking for than the words "indifference" that I used, which is different from the Greek word "apathia."

The mind state that the Buddhists want to achieve is called nirvana, which is similar to apatheia because both point to peace of mind, being free of worry and rumination. Buddhist and Stoic ways to deal with external things that disturb us are quite similar. I can't fully explain this in a few minutes, but I'll give you an idea.

The Stoics use rational thinking to determine what things are up to us and what things are not up to us, and then decide that we shouldn't worry about the things that are not in our control. The Stoics try to transcend what we call a value judgment, saying that we aren't harmed by the situation itself, but by our judgments about that situation.

An example: someone yells at you or insults you. What aspect of this event hurts you? The insult or the way you process the insult? According to Stoicism, it's the latter, and thus we can choose to feel offended or choose not to feel offended. In other words, we experience someone insulting us, then we judge the event and attribute a value to it. For example, an insult experienced as unpleasant and hostile gives us the urge to punch that person in the face. Then we make a conscious decision: for example, that person is being an ass because he or she is ignorant, possibly miserable, whatever the reason is. This person isn't worth my time and energy, and I will let it pass.

The Buddhists have a similar approach. The Buddha said that we have a choice to receive or reject an insult. One day, when a man angrily insulted the Buddha, he asked the man, "If you buy a gift for someone and that person does not take it, to whom does that gift belong?" The man answered, "It would belong to me because I bought the gift." So the Buddha answered, "That is correct, and this is the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger returns to you. Then you are the one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself."

So Buddhists, as well as Stoics, are aware that we can choose to be disturbed by something. Both Stoicism and Buddhism are geared towards acceptance and not desiring things to happen otherwise than they will happen. Buddhists say that everything is impermanent, so whatever will happen will cease to exist anyway. We don't have problems outside ourselves; it's just what the mind makes of it. We can't control the future, so why worry about it?

The Stoics have a concept called Amor Fati, which is the love of fate, meaning that we should embrace whatever happens. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for anything; we should actually strive for things that are virtuous, but we shouldn't attach to the outcome. Attaching to the outcome will make us worry, and worry is detrimental to our health.

The Stoics and Buddhists agree that the best thing we can do is to live in the present moment. When we live in the present moment, we don't ruminate about the past and don't worry about the future. The present moment is all we have; furthermore, it's the place where the future is made. By the way, I'm currently writing a book on insults and how to deal with insults based on philosophy, mainly Stoic philosophy, and I'll keep you updated about it. If you would like me to make a video about the similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism, please let me know.

The second question was asked in Dutch and is about Stoicism again, and was placed below the video about the three pillars of Stoicism. I translated this quote into English and here it comes: "In regards to the mentioned religions, is Stoicism in this interpretation just an inspiration for this, or can a Stoic basically be called religious?"

I like questions like these, especially because I have a background in religious studies, during which I've not only studied many religions and philosophies but also became aware of a phenomenon called religiosity. Religiosity is basically what makes something religious or not. Religiosity can manifest in many different ways, and according to the soft science of the humanities, there doesn't have to be a god for human activities to be called religious.

The Stoics did worship gods, however, which you will see for yourself when you read the Stoic works. Modern Stoicism seems to be more secular, and when I observe contemporary Stoics, I suspect them to approach Stoicism in a secular way, mainly focusing on the wisdom and logic part of the philosophy.

Anyway, I answered the question in a comment section and I will translate it here: "It depends on what definition of religion you start with. In ancient times, Stoicism went hand-in-hand with the polytheism. Back then, if you read "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius, you'll see this as well. But if you exclude this, you can render some sort of Supreme Being from the Stoic physics: the Logos. In other words, a Stoic who believes in Logos could be considered religious by most definitions of religion. Also, religion often goes together with an ultimate concern, which is living in accordance with nature for the Stoics. I do see overlap with religion, but modern Stoics will probably be reluctant in regards to this question, especially because contemporary Stoicism is some kind of secular alternative for conventional religion."

What I would like to add is that the word religion stems from the Latin word "religare," which can be translated as connect or reconnect. Although there aren’t Stoic temples, there are some active groups for Stoics in existence on the internet. Some people in those groups might treat Stoicism religiously, using it as social cement, connecting with like-minded people in order to achieve a common goal like living virtuously or reaching a state of apathy, especially when a sense of community is involved. People are getting terms like "memento mori" and "amor fati" tattooed on their bodies.

We could say from a religious studies perspective that there's a bit of religiosity going on among some modern Stoics. In other words, people make religion, and Stoicism can be practiced religiously by some people, but that doesn't make it a religion per se. In the same reasoning, soccer can be practiced religiously by some people, but that doesn't make it a religion per se.

An argument against Stoicism as a religion is that Stoicism was and is rather a philosophy that is compatible with existing religions, like it was syncretized with Greek polytheism and can now be synchronized with, for example, Christianity. Unlike most religions, Stoicism isn't really concerned with the afterlife; it's more concerned with our lives here and now, in this world.

In a patron edition of the Q&A, I will talk about more topics, which are the three pillars of Stoicism, the Sigma male, what's important to Stoics, the Delta male, Marcus Aurelius as a Sigma male, and boomers and bloomers. Thank you for watching!

[Music]