Hello everyone, Justin Vacula here with another video in my Stoic Philosophy series titled 'Is there

such a thing as real stoicism?' You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and my website at
justinvacula.com. Links are in the video description.

My Stoic Philosophy video series explores the philosophical tradition of Stoicism with goals to inform,
empower, and help others benefit from the practical wisdom of Ancient Greek, Roman, and modern
thinkers. I tackle many topics including handling adversity, finding meaning in life, working toward
contentment, dealing with change, anger, and gratitude.

Professor of Philosophy Gregory Bassham at King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

commented on a Facebook post of mine writing the following, “Stoicism makes zero sense apart from
religion. I mean real Stoicism, not the watered-down ersatz stoicism people practice today. Real
Stoicism says: (1) Never complain, because the gods ensure things happen for the best (2) Never get
bummed out by hard knocks because (a) they happen for the best (see 1) and (b) they aren't harms,
because only loss of virtue is a harm, and hard knocks can't cause a loss of virtue unless you let them.
The ancient Stoic view is that virtue is the sole and all-sufficient good. Socrates on the rack is a happy
man. There's no respectable philosophical argument for such a view. It's grounded in a religious
worldview that views the gods as valuing virtue above all things and arranging things so that “whatever
is, is right.”

Thanks for your comment, criticism, and time Dr. Bassham. I'd like to spend time in this scripted video
rather than simply authoring and posting a quick response on Facebook in order to better organize my
thoughts and respond to you. This could be a good way, too, to share these ideas with views and
continue our conversation. I tend to avoid Facebook discussions for the most part.

To start, I'd like to talk a bit about reading others' thoughts and drawing upon wisdom from various
traditions – especially ancient ones. Philosophers, psychologists, theologians, and many others surely
have contributed many thoughts to the world – some, perhaps due to the passage of time which brings
about new information, refutations, and discoveries, because flawed in many ways. Perhaps we can
take some bits of wisdom or even a good deal of wisdom from thinkers of times past and apply them to
our lives today.

Stoicism, in particular, address many perennial human concerns. Some passages I have been reading
from Seneca recently address death, spending time well, how to establish and maintain friendships,
being social, and certain desires to avoid and pursue among many other topics. I think it's fitting, with
Seneca's words and the words of others, to critically reflect on what is being said questioning it all,
accepting some, and rejecting that which doesn't seem true or perhaps may not be relevant in our
modern society.

Indeed, Stoic thinkers mention a deity, providence, fate, fortune, gods, and many other concepts which
would lead us to think that religious thought goes hand-in-hand with Stoic thought. Epictetus, for
instance, talks about God being the father of mankind in book one chapter three of the discourses. In
chapter six of book one titled On Providence, Epictetus advances what seems to be an argument from
design, that living things show the handiwork of an artificer, that they are not products of chance. He
writes, “If not, let them explain to us what it is that brings this all about, and how it is possible that
things so wonderful, and which carry such marks of craftsmanship, should come into being their own
accord and and random.”

Today, given many scientific discoveries, evolution by natural selection overwhelmingly seems to
provide a sufficient account for the development of lifeforms as we know them without appealing to
some sort of creative deity. Perhaps one might ask about the origin of life, abiogenesis, and some
questions exist surrounding that, but even if we say, 'I don't know,' this shouldn't lead us to the
conclusion that there exists some deity. The lack of an explanation, surely, shouldn't lead us to a
conclusion that a god or gods exist. I don't find compelling arguments for a god or creator existing
within Stoic texts or outside of them. However, I can take a good deal of wisdom from Stoic texts and
use this information to better my life and reflect – some statements I will agree with and some I won't.

What might 'real Stoicism' be? Who, if anyone, should identify as a Stoic? Are there certain things
people must endorse or reject in order to qualify as a Stoic? Personally, I don't like labels because I find
them to be limiting; lump me in with others I don't want representing me; and create a good deal of
confusion. I create videos here about Stoic Philosophy and offer my thoughts on the content. I'll talk
about current events and add some quotes from Stoic thinkers. That's fine for me.

Stoicism can make sense for me with or without a religious framework. What about complaining as Dr.
Bassham mentioned? Stoic thinkers indeed talk about complaining being unhelpful, that we can and
sometimes should instead take action to change what we can and bear that which we cannot change. I
talk about this in my video concerning handling adversity. This idea that gods ensure things happen for
the best, well, being an atheist surely I will reject this idea and instead think of the universe as being
indifferent of human concern – that things simply happen and fortune, another idea referenced in Stoic
writings, will, in a way, play its part.

Epictetus talks about imitating those who play at dice, to take whatever falls and apply skill – the
outcome can often be out of our control and we can accept this rather than complaining, wallowing in
misery, and losing hope. Stoicism encourages process-based rather than results-based thinking –
something which really appeals to me as a poker player. Without a belief in a deity, well, I can take
these ideas from Stoic thought and benefit from them even if I am adapting to some extent. After all,
wouldn't Philosophy and even the ancient Stoics themselves call for us to revise our beliefs when there
is good reason to question and modify them? Several passages from Stoic thinkers praise open-
mindedness and lament a stubborn insistence to hold beliefs even when new information is presented
which should bring about a change.

I wouldn't say, though, that Stoic thinkers would always say that things happen for the best because
there are some references to chance particularly in Seneca's Letters to a Stoic, letter 16 'On Philosophy
the guide of life.' He writes, “Whether we are caught in the grasp of an inexorable law of fate, whether
it is god who as lord of the universe has ordered all things or whether the affairs of mankind are tossed
and buffeted haphazardly by chance, it is philosophy that has the duty of protecting us. She will
encourage us to submit to God with cheerfulness and to fortune with defiance; she will show you how
to follow god and bear what chance may send you. But I musnt pass on here to a discussion of the
problem what is within our control if there is a governing providence, whether we are carried along
enmeshed in a train of fated happenings or whether we are at the misery of the sudden and the
unforeseeable.”

Regarding Dr. Bassham's comments about harms – indeed Stoic thinkers seem to converge upon the
idea that the only harm is loss of virtue, that damage to the body, imprisonment, torture, and even death
can be something outside of our control (thus should be of no concern to us) and does not interfere with
our personal authority to make use of judgments about the world, our free will as we would say today,
is not taken away. I'm not totally sold on this idea mainly because a low quality of life could hinder our
ability to be social, help others, teach, and thrive – all things which Stoic thinkers praise. Indeed, we
can do our best to be content while imprisoned, faced with torture, or living in abject poverty for
instance, but these situations, even the Stoics themselves acknowledge, would not be preferred. That
which would hinder my practicing virtue, well, I could not possibly call myself or Socrates a happy
man on the rack as Dr. Bassham mentioned in his comment because a significant extreme hindrance
would interfere with my quality of life and virtue.

However, I think that a reasonable minimalist lifestyle, limiting desires, and valuing the study and
practice of Philosophy – common themes in Stoic thoughts -- are really important. Again, I can take
some ideas from Stoic thinkers and leave and/or question some others with little to no concern about
things like 'real Stoicism' or 'watered-down stoicism.' Stoicism has a great deal to offer and has had a
tremendous influence on theories in counseling particularly cognitive behavioral therapy. I talk more
about this in my video titled 'Why Stoicism?'

Throughout my time at King's College as a student were Dr. Bassham teaches, I discovered a wide
variation of thought between those who call themselves Christians including pastors, professors,
students, and theologians. Some spoke of Christ's resurrection as a metaphor, not believing that he
physically, supernaturally, or literally rose from the dead. Some did not believe in Hell or even an
afterlife in Heaven – those perhaps were metaphors as well or ideas endorsed by thinkers of ages past,
but no longer hold up under scrutiny perhaps because of more modern scientific discoveries linking
personality and life to the brain and a lack of evidence surrounding the soul. Even philosophical
objections from David Hume and other thinkers, presented in classes which were offered when I was
enrolled, cast serious doubts on Christian beliefs. So, who are the 'real Christians?' Who practices 'real
Christianity?' Would someone need to endorse all of Aquinas' views to qualify? What if there were
disagreements concerning certain points or an outright rejection of some ideas for instance?

Perhaps instead of talking about whether we must adhere to all elements of a tradition or thinker and
deciding what 'real' or 'watered-down' means, we can reflect upon what is said and take something
away which holds value. We can talk about individual assertions and core themes within a school of
thought and gain something from the reflection. I'm fine with that.

Let me end the video with a passage from Seneca, letter 21 in his letters from a stoic titled, 'on the
renown which my writings will bring you.' He writes, “I think we ought to do in Philosophy as they are
wont to do in the senate. When someone has made a motion, of which I approve to a certain extent, I
ask him to make his motion in two parts, and I vote for the part which I approve. So I am all the more
glad to repeat the words of Epicurus, in order that I may prove to those who have recourse to him
through a bad motive, thinking that they will have in him a screen for their own vices, that they must
live honourably no matter what school they follow.”

Thanks for watching and stay tuned for more content. I look forward to a response from you Dr.
Bassham and other viewers.

You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and my website at justinvacula.com. Links are in the
video description. Please subscribe, share, comment, and like the video if you find my contribution
worthwhile. Watch earlier videos on this channel in which I explore perspectives within Stoic
Philosophy that can help improve your quality of life. Consider donating if you support my work and
would like to see more for this takes time and effort to produce content. I seek to have more scripted
videos like this one and to improve my video quality through using different approaches and learning
how to better create YouTube content although my time can be quite limited given other obligations.
Have a good day.