This short essay must be prefaced by stating that the Ataraxist life philosophy is indebted to Stoic insights. Many elements of Stoic wisdom are incorporated into our core principles and our practical philosophy. However, it is essential to recognize that Stoicism, even in its contemporary interpretations, has significant flaws. I will outline them, in brief, below.
- Stoicism can be seen as a form of quietism (passive acceptance of the status quo without desiring or trying to change things).
Stoicism, going back to early founders like Epictetus, holds that one should passively accept what happens or “what is” as divinely mandated fate. This belief stemmed from the ancient Stoic notion that the universe is ordered by a vague cosmic intelligence known as the logos. This perspective has persisted, to some extent, in modern Stoicism.
Compare this with another major Ataraxist influce: David Pearce’s suffering abolitionism. Pearce’s suffering abolitionist philosophy holds a more rational or parsimonious / scientific view of the nature of reality, seeing the circumstances of our existence as contingent facts. In other words, “what is” is not predetermined by a divine intelligence and should not be considered necessary or immutable; this view implies that we should actively work to change the unfavorable circumstances we find ourselves and others in. Both Pearcean suffering abolitionism and Ataraxism posit that we should strive to eliminate intense involuntary suffering throughout the universe — even by intervening in “nature” (see Reprogramming Predators for an ambitious example of this).
Some defenders of Stoicism will surely point out that one of the Stoic virtues is justice (social justice), and that the Stoics never intended for us to simply accept injustices in the world. It is challenging, however, to reconcile this with the pantheistic beliefs of ancient Stoics or the amor fati sloganeering of many modern Stoics. Moreover, it seems that the radical interventions proposed by Pearce and others do not resonate strongly with many Stoics. In fact, many Stoics adhere to the macho notion that suffering is necessary for character development, disregarding alternative means to cultivate character or wisdom. Also, consider that the issue of vegetarianism / veganism / animal rights is hotly debated within Stoic circles. This is likely due to the fact that Stoic ethics, unlike Ataraxist ethics, are not sentiocentric, and because many Stoics still seem to worship “nature”, and what is considered natural (see the appeal to nature fallacy), even if they do not see divinity or teleology behind it (see the Stoic Massimo Pigliucci on vegetarianism contra the Stoic Jeremy Corter on vegetarianism).
The Stoic concept of amor fati strikes me as odd, not only because this slogan is borrowed from Nietzsche — who was very critical of the Stoics and Stoic pantheism / ethics in particular — but also considering that various informal polls indicate that the majority of modern Stoics are atheists or agnostics. However, it does seem like many of these modern Stoics are conflating the passive acceptance of ancient Stoics with modern psychotherapeutic “reframing” — that is, attempting to view problems through a different, more positive perspective, or attempting to find possible positive aspects or opportunities within unfortunate states of affairs.
2. Ancient Stoicism was based on metaphysical speculation (forming beliefs without relying on reliabilist or evidentialist epistemic justifications), and this memetic baggage continues to manifest in various ways.
As mentioned earlier, ancient Stoicism was built on the belief that the universe is ordered by divine reason, known as the logos. According to this view, every event that happens or has happened is necessary because it was determined by an intelligence greater than our own. While the Stoics didn’t believe in a personal god like Christians do, they considered the universe itself to be God — that is, pantheism, or the belief that God is everything.
Although it appears that most modern Stoics are atheists or agnostics, many still hold onto the pantheistic ideas of ancient Stoicism. While I find Stoic pantheism to be much less problematic than the dogmatic theism of traditional religions, it can still have insidious effects, such as inspiring quietism or, more generally, fostering fatalism, status quo bias, or passivity.
On the other hand, Ataraxism is based on a parsimonious and scientific view of reality. It rejects the use of metaphysical speculation to shape our beliefs or guide our actions. While there may be a place for personal exploration and hypothesis formation involving metaphysical speculation, the life philosophy of Ataraxism is not grounded in such speculation. We do not allow it to dictate our approach to life.
3. Stoicism is often associated with a rigid or simplistic moralism.
Stoic morality, as preached by many followers, can appear overly rigid or simplistic. The focus on the four cardinal virtues (moderation, courage, justice, and wisdom) as the sole determinants of flourishing / ethics may neglect other essential elements, such as love, aesthetic appreciation, or the pursuit of personal sources of meaning. These virtues, of course, are very open to interpretation, which on one hand may be a good thing — to avoid rigidity — but, on the other hand, their vagueness means that they do not offer a great deal of determinacy or guidance in ethical situations.
In comparison, it could be argued that the Epicureans adopted a more sensible and pragmatic approach to morality. They believed in living justly because doing so serves one’s own well-being, but they also considered that happiness usually requires more than living a strict moral life.
Conclusion
In contrast to traditional pantheistic Stoicism, Ataraxism eschews metaphysical speculation and does not hold that one should simply accept the way the world is. We agree with the Stoics in holding that one should accept what they cannot control (see the “dichotomy of control”), but the vestiges of ancient Stoicism seem to engender a sort of passivity which may lead individuals to accept things that they can, or could, exert some control over.
Ataraxism also steers clear of rigid or simplistic moralizing. Reducing the “good life” to living virtuously is to neglect the complexity and various sources of meaning and pleasure that life has to offer. Ataraxists agree that attempting to live ethically is a necessary element to flourishing, but we do not believe that this is all that is required. We also do not believe that morality can be reduced to vague virtues. Our ethical commitments are also somewhat open to interpretation, but they are more detailed in explanation.