31.10.2008
In an earlier post I discussed the
relationship between certain characteristics of projects and certain
emotions involved in our pursuit of them. The particular aspects of
projects I focused on were their time structure, that is, their consisting
in sequences of events, and the inevitable uncertainty about most of these
events during a project. The emotions I considered were mainly hopes and
fears, which also have a time structure: they are directed at future events
which may or may not happen. I noted that there would be a problem for a
Stoic theory that would aim to eliminate these emotions, since they are
constitutive for our ability to carry out projects of the sort considered.
Since then, I have learned a good deal more about the historical Stoic
theory, and in the light of this I think I can now revise that criticism.
1) In Stoic theory, there are future-directed, evaluative attitudes
of two sorts. Both sorts include the relevant belief about the (uncertain)
future event, and both are seen as driving towards a certain action. They
differ, however, in how the evaluative component is understood. On the one
hand, the uncertain event may be considered to be something genuinely good
or bad; in this case we are dealing with an emotion. On the other hand, the
uncertain event may be considered an 'indifferent' - something that may be
preferable for some reasons, but isn't a genuine good (or, similarly, it
may be dispreferred, but isn't genuinely bad). What makes something a genuine
good or bad thing is not how it makes one feel, but rather what the impact
is that it has on the overall success of the agent's life. For the Stoics,
that is what it means to play a role for the agent's happiness, or
eudaimonia. Happiness, in their view as much as in other ancient
philosophical outlooks, isn't a psychological state. It's rather a measure
of how well one is doing in leading a good life. The Stoics thought that
the only thing that can have an impact on that is, roughly, how reasonable
your beliefs and actions are.[1]
2) With this distinction between goods and indifferents available,
we can revisit the hopes and fears I claimed would inevitably be part of
driving any project in a reasonable way. I said that they would each have
to consist of a belief about possible future situations, along with an
evaluation of them. But would that be an evaluation on the good/bad scale,
or rather on the preferred/dispreferred indifferents scale? Only if we apply
the former, and take those future situations to bring some genuine good or
bad into our life, we would have an emotion at hand. From a Stoic point of
view, that would be an error of judgment - events that just happen in an
unpredicted way can never be genuinely good or bad for us. Thus having an
emotion (i.e. something with the belief-plus-good/bad-evaluation structure)
about them is what we should learn to avoid - and that is the Stoic
notion of eliminating emotions.
On the other hand, if we use an evaluation on the preferred/dispreferred
indifferents scale, then there is no problem for Stoicism. On the contrary:
a Stoic would maintain that getting clear about the possibilities, knowing
what to expect, and then choosing the right course of action is a way of
exercising rationality, and doing that is good (in the strict sense I've
used above), while acting irrationally would be bad (also in that strict
sense).
3) There is, however, still an interesting complication when we
think about life-defining
projects: hopes and fears about events which are crucial for a
life-defining project arguably have a relevance for the agent's whole
life.
And it is clear that, in effect, the Stoic recommendation is one for such
a project. What are Seneca's letters to Lucilius, if not precisely a
personal guide to carrying through exactly a life-long project of (Stoic-
style) self-examination and self-improvement? Seneca emphasizes that
one should view it as the most important project at all, and be prepared
to give it the highest priority in any situation. Moreover, even when Stoics
use the language of final ends and virtue, that is, even when they describe
what a good way of living is according to their view, it is also clear
that rarely anybody actually reaches the level of virtue which that view
describes as the goal. As far as practical matters in one's life are concerned,
virtually everybody is in the early stages of the project of getting there
- i.e. the life-defining project I described. (Of course only if they
actually accept this a project for themselves.) So there is no way to lead
a Stoic life without being on such a project.
__
[1] On the understanding of eudaimonia as having a whole
life in view, see Julia Annas, The Morality of Happiness, Oxford:
Oxford University Press 1993, 27-46. Tad Brennan's The Stoic Life.
Emotions, Duties & Fate. Oxford: Clarendon 2005 is an exceptionally
good introduction to Stoic philosophy; see esp. chapter 8 for more about the
concepts of good, bad and 'indifferent'.
