5.1.2009
The Stoics used the concept of a sage, a perfectly wise person, a lot in
their ethical reflections. By definition, a sage never forms any false or
insufficiently supported beliefs, or any belief that conflicts with one of
her other beliefs; she never acts unreasonably; and never responds
emotionally to anything else but her own exercise of rational capacities
(in which case the response is in fact not emotional, but eupathic, as Stoic
terminology puts it). Many discussions were conducted as investigation of
the ways such a person would act in, and respond to, her environment.
Apart from being an instrument in building a philosophical system (where
a description of a sage comes in handily at a very abstract level), what
sort of function could this model have?
First, it may seem that the idea of the sage might have some use in
the process of reflection. Analyzing the responses and actions of someone
in a given situation, we may contrast the description of the actual situation
with a situation that doesn't include responses which a sage would not
exhibit. The technique would be to re-describe the situation in a way that
contains only sensible responses.
But for any given situation, that should be possible without appeal to
a perfected figure. Such a scenario would include a few actions, or
emotions, which are not proper responses (according to Stoic philosophy),
and therefore open the possibility of re-describing it without them. Suppose,
in a scenario we reflect upon, a person gets angry about something. We may
then compare the situation in question with one where the same person
reacts differently, and doesn't enter into an emotional state at all. But
nothing in this procedure requires that we imagine that person to be a
fully perfected agent - as far as our purpose of reflection goes, it is
enough to think of that person as improved just so far as necessary to
not be angered.
Secondly, would the model of a Stoic sage be useful for practical work on
one's character, on optimizing one's responses and striving towards
achieving the best collection of character traits one could have? Suppose
I have identified a character trait, such as a proclivity,[1] which I think
I should get rid of. Let's say, for instance, that I am a timid person, that
I get afraid of all sorts of things, very easily and usually inappropriately,
as I and others who know me well again and again have noticed.
Now I can well describe, to me and others, what the goal of this project
is: I want to change my personality in a way that eliminates the proclivity;
the new personality will include far less episodes of fear, and especially
there won't be any episodes of me being afraid in circumstances that just
don't merit that emotion, at least by any normal standard (if not by the
Stoic standard where that emotion is never merited at all). This
doesn't mean that I am able to imagine my future character in all details.
Very probably my altered responses will change the way the world feels to me,
and typically for the better. (One change that is virtually certain is that
I will feel much more positive about my own responses, which will be more
appropriate, and that alone should make a significant change in my overall
happiness.) But not everything is predictable, and so far I don't know how
the world looks like through the eyes of a person who is not overly afraid
of everything. But still, I have a sufficiently clear view of where I want to
arrive, and I should also have some ideas about how I will determine when
I have reached that goal.
So far, this makes good sense, and working on one's character will usually
employ that strategy, or one similar to it. Where, however, would the need
enter to go further, and envisage a goal that consists in eliminating
all proclivities one might have, and in addition any other faults of
character, inclinations to accept courses of action without sufficient
reason, or accept attitudes and beliefs without full and convincing evidence?
Where, in other words, would the ideal of a sage come in helpful? If
anything, that ideal goes to far for practical purposes. While I might be
able to imagine myself without one or the other faults of character, it's
difficult to think of me without any one ever possible.
It seems, then, that on both levels discussed the ideal of a Stoic sage is
not really useful, i.e. both as an aid to reflection and as a tool for
self-improvement. The thought of becoming a perfect sage seems not to be
a good motivator, and if there are reasons why becoming one should be an
actual objective for us, these reasons might perhaps just be used directly,
without appeal to an idealized figure.
__
[1] For more details on the Stoic theory of character traits (and
proclivities in particular), see Margaret Graver's discussion in her
Stoicism and Emotion, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2007,
133-145.
