First, it is common to hear people say we are slipping into paganism. If only ! Many pagans had a deep understanding and practice of virtue, they knew nobility, and were open to the numinous world of spiritual realities.
No, with the waning of Christianity, we do not get the noble Pagan warrior. We get…..Chris Chan.
However, the elites are now obsessed with certain aspects of Pagan thought, particularly Stoicism. I think this is perfectly logical and perfectly in line with liberal globalism.
Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Square and Twitter, has been called the “Silicon Valley Stoic” for his 5 a.m. wake-up time and ice baths. Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of Theranos, has called Meditations her favorite book. Billionaires like Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Cuban have been described as Stoics, and there’s an entrepreneurship-focused lobbying firm, the Cicero Institute, named after the Stoic Roman philosopher.
Endless articles have been written about the explosion of Silicon Valley Stoicism among the elites and billionaires.
Now, there’s a tendency to lay the problems of social justice universalism at the feet of Christianity.
There's some truth that, in part, this is a kind of mutated, disordered Christian love.
But it misjudges the pagans, the Stoics especially, who often preached love, tolerance, nonviolence, & cosmopolitan kinship among all peoples.
In the book “Stoicism in Early Christianity” it’s argued both non-Retaliation and Love of Enemies was a thoroughly Stoic virtue. He writes, “Non-retaliation was common to Stoicism and Christianity. The Christian principle, however, is mitigated by divine vengeance .”
He argues that whereas one usually considers Stoics haughty egotists and Christians social activists, it was Stoic teachings that stressed universal social ethics while Christian morality was introverted.
Traditional reading of the Christian letters mistakes pan- ecclesial language for universal. Universal humanitarianism is endemic to Stoicism and not Christianity. The latter retains a ‘fundamental distinction between “us” and “them”’ (p. 209)
Indeed Pierre Hardot, in his classic work, states,
“It cannot, then, be said that “loving one’s neighbour as oneself” is a specifically Christian invention. Rather, it could be maintained that the motivation of Stoic love is the same as that of Christian love. […] Even the love of one’s enemies is not lacking in Stoicism.”
Seneca knew this:
“No school has more goodness and gentleness; none has more love for human beings, nor more attention to the common good. (Seneca, On Clemency, 3.3)
What about globalism ?
Well, ancient ’cosmopolitanism’ is perhaps best expressed by Seneca:
“Let us take hold of the fact that there are two communities — the one, which is great and truly common, embracing gods and men, in which we look neither to this corner nor to that, but measure the boundaries of our citizenship by the sun; the other, the one to which we have been assigned by the accident of our birth.”
The great scholar John Sellers writes :
“According to this account the Stoic ideal of cosmopolitanism is focussed upon the thought that the cosmos is a city, the only true city, and that it is to this cos- mic city that the Stoic will have his primary affiliation. Consequently he will reject, or at least be indifferent to, the conventional city in which he was born.
This Stoic political ideal has often been presented as the desire for a world- wide political organization in which all humankind will be fellow citizens and in which *all cultural and racial divisions will be transcended.*”
Sound familiar ?
Sellers writes about their belief in, “a benevolent Empire governed in the best interests of its citizens might actually bring about a political State covering the entire world that could embody this humanist ideal.
Thus Cicero’s conception of cosmopolitanism envisages a world-wide State, governed by one set of political laws, themselves based upon divine law, uniting all humanity.”
Of course, there is no one monolithic Stoic view on this. Even before, there were the Cynics, starting with Diogenes, laying homeless in his barrel, publicly masterbating :
Sellers again,
“For Diogenes, then, cosmopolitanism may be conceived as a positive allegiance to the cosmos combined with a rejection of the customs of the city and a rejection of citizenship of any particular city. Julian reports that Diogenes rejected Athenian citizenship because he did not want to be tied to any particular place and did not want the *obligations that came with it.*”
Tolerance too, was an important Stoic virtue.
In Epictetus, toleration is conceived of as a personal virtue — tolerating others who disagree with us reflects the recognition that the beliefs of others are neither ‘up to us’, nor do they matter for our own happiness.
In Marcus Aurelius, toleration is also conceived of as a social virtue—tolerating others who disagree with us is an obligation that we have towards them as fellow rational creatures.
Read one of Marcus’ best-known and most widely-quoted sayings:
Say to yourself at the start of the day, I shall meet with meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people. They are subject to all these defects because they have no knowledge of good and bad.
No, with the waning of Christianity, we do not get the noble Pagan warrior. We get…..Chris Chan.
However, the elites are now obsessed with certain aspects of Pagan thought, particularly Stoicism. I think this is perfectly logical and perfectly in line with liberal globalism.
Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Square and Twitter, has been called the “Silicon Valley Stoic” for his 5 a.m. wake-up time and ice baths. Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of Theranos, has called Meditations her favorite book. Billionaires like Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Cuban have been described as Stoics, and there’s an entrepreneurship-focused lobbying firm, the Cicero Institute, named after the Stoic Roman philosopher.
Endless articles have been written about the explosion of Silicon Valley Stoicism among the elites and billionaires.
Now, there’s a tendency to lay the problems of social justice universalism at the feet of Christianity.
There's some truth that, in part, this is a kind of mutated, disordered Christian love.
But it misjudges the pagans, the Stoics especially, who often preached love, tolerance, nonviolence, & cosmopolitan kinship among all peoples.
In the book “Stoicism in Early Christianity” it’s argued both non-Retaliation and Love of Enemies was a thoroughly Stoic virtue. He writes, “Non-retaliation was common to Stoicism and Christianity. The Christian principle, however, is mitigated by divine vengeance .”
He argues that whereas one usually considers Stoics haughty egotists and Christians social activists, it was Stoic teachings that stressed universal social ethics while Christian morality was introverted.
Traditional reading of the Christian letters mistakes pan- ecclesial language for universal. Universal humanitarianism is endemic to Stoicism and not Christianity. The latter retains a ‘fundamental distinction between “us” and “them”’ (p. 209)
Indeed Pierre Hardot, in his classic work, states,
“It cannot, then, be said that “loving one’s neighbour as oneself” is a specifically Christian invention. Rather, it could be maintained that the motivation of Stoic love is the same as that of Christian love. […] Even the love of one’s enemies is not lacking in Stoicism.”
Seneca knew this:
“No school has more goodness and gentleness; none has more love for human beings, nor more attention to the common good. (Seneca, On Clemency, 3.3)
What about globalism ?
Well, ancient ’cosmopolitanism’ is perhaps best expressed by Seneca:
“Let us take hold of the fact that there are two communities — the one, which is great and truly common, embracing gods and men, in which we look neither to this corner nor to that, but measure the boundaries of our citizenship by the sun; the other, the one to which we have been assigned by the accident of our birth.”
The great scholar John Sellers writes :
“According to this account the Stoic ideal of cosmopolitanism is focussed upon the thought that the cosmos is a city, the only true city, and that it is to this cos- mic city that the Stoic will have his primary affiliation. Consequently he will reject, or at least be indifferent to, the conventional city in which he was born.
This Stoic political ideal has often been presented as the desire for a world- wide political organization in which all humankind will be fellow citizens and in which *all cultural and racial divisions will be transcended.*”
Sound familiar ?
Sellers writes about their belief in, “a benevolent Empire governed in the best interests of its citizens might actually bring about a political State covering the entire world that could embody this humanist ideal.
Thus Cicero’s conception of cosmopolitanism envisages a world-wide State, governed by one set of political laws, themselves based upon divine law, uniting all humanity.”
Of course, there is no one monolithic Stoic view on this. Even before, there were the Cynics, starting with Diogenes, laying homeless in his barrel, publicly masterbating :
Sellers again,
“For Diogenes, then, cosmopolitanism may be conceived as a positive allegiance to the cosmos combined with a rejection of the customs of the city and a rejection of citizenship of any particular city. Julian reports that Diogenes rejected Athenian citizenship because he did not want to be tied to any particular place and did not want the *obligations that came with it.*”
Tolerance too, was an important Stoic virtue.
In Epictetus, toleration is conceived of as a personal virtue — tolerating others who disagree with us reflects the recognition that the beliefs of others are neither ‘up to us’, nor do they matter for our own happiness.
In Marcus Aurelius, toleration is also conceived of as a social virtue—tolerating others who disagree with us is an obligation that we have towards them as fellow rational creatures.
Read one of Marcus’ best-known and most widely-quoted sayings:
Say to yourself at the start of the day, I shall meet with meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people. They are subject to all these defects because they have no knowledge of good and bad.
But I, who have observed the nature of the good, and seen that it is the right; and of the bad, and seen that it is the wrong; and of the wrongdoer himself, and seen that his nature is akin to my own—not because he is of the same blood and seed, but because he shares as I do in mind and thus in a portion of the divine—I, then, can neither be harmed by these people, nor become angry with one who is akin to me, nor can I hate him, for we have come into being to work together, like feet, hands, eyelids, or the two rows of teeth in our upper and lower jaws.
To work against one another is therefore contrary to nature; and to be angry with another person and turn away from him is surely to work against him. (Meditations, 2.1)
Now contrast that with this credited to Mother Theresa
The best in Stoicism, I might add, was indeed adopted by Christianity. I end with a quote by St Basil :
"We Christians, young men, hold that this human life is not a supremely precious thing, nor do we recognize anything as unconditionally a blessing which benefits us in this life only.
Now contrast that with this credited to Mother Theresa
The best in Stoicism, I might add, was indeed adopted by Christianity. I end with a quote by St Basil :
"We Christians, young men, hold that this human life is not a supremely precious thing, nor do we recognize anything as unconditionally a blessing which benefits us in this life only.
Neither pride of ancestry, nor bodily strength, nor beauty, nor greatness, nor the esteem of all men, nor kingly authority, nor, indeed, whatever of human affairs may be called great, do we consider worthy of desire, or the possessors of them as objects of envy; but we place our hopes upon the things which are beyond, and in preparation for the life eternal do all things that we do.
Accordingly, whatever helps us towards this we say that we must love and follow after with all our might, but those things which have no bearing upon it should be held as naught."
No comments:
Post a Comment