Stoicism, God, and Toilets

In this week’s edition, we’re going to spend some time talking about toilets. Why? Why would I subject my readership to any length of discussion on the single greatest achievement of indoor plumbing’s (nearly) 500 years on the job? Well, because a reader has asked a question and, in order to answer that question, I must talk about toilets.

That’s just how it’s gotta be. Here’s that question:

This question also requires me to tiptoe through the tulips of a family drama without hurting anyone’s feelings or seeming like I support one side (of the family) over the other. I won’t mince words, but I am going to chop them finely and carefully.

Traditional Stoicism™️ and Modern Stoicism™️

Within the category of “People who identify as Stoics” there exist a few subcategories that these self-described Stoics use to differentiate themselves from one another. The largest of these subcategories are “Traditional” and “Modern”.

The single strongest indicator of which of these subcategories someone will self-select into is, what I will call, theological tolerance.

Atheists and non-spiritual agnostic types (those who, in concerns to their own worldview, are theologically intolerant) will almost always self-select into the Modern Stoicism camp.

Religious and spiritually “open-to-the-idea-of-a-higher-power” types (those who, in concerns to their own worldview, are theologically tolerant) will almost always self-select into the Traditional Stoicism camp.

It is the individual Stoic’s relationship with “the G-word” (and what it represents, to them) that seems most responsible for the existence of these subcategories within contemporary Stoic practice in the first place.

But what does this have to do with Joran’s question?

Joran’s question is about belief in (the Stoic conception of) God and why it is I’ve suggested in the past that such belief is required for Stoicism to “make sense”. I’ve suggested this because the following order of events is true:

1. Stoics developed their logic model (an improvement on propositional logic)

2. Stoics used their logic model to make a logically sound argument for “god”

3. Stoics used their understanding of the god they reasoned themselves to in order to develop their ethical model (and understanding of morality)

If we cut out the Ancient Stoic’s conception of god, we’re left without a direct or congruent justification for choosing to support (let alone adopt) their ethical model and moral framing. You can see the challenge, I’m sure.

I, myself, am conflicted as to whether or not this is true (that one must believe in the Stoic god to be an actual Stoic) even though I’ve said it is true in the past.

My mind seems to change its approach to the whole thing depending on who I’m talking to.

If I think a person can listen critically and take the time to truly understand what the Stoics meant by “god” (and that they didn’t mean God like a supernatural cosmic father figure that cares what we eat and wear, or who we sleep with) then I’ll suggest belief in the Stoic god is necessary.

On the other hand, if I don’t think they’ll listen or take the time to understand, I’ll tell them belief in the Stoic God is entirely unnecessary.

It’s difficult to explain why I do this, but it has something to do with belief in god not being the point of Stoicism and not wanting to put it in the way of anyone looking to build a Stoic practice.

I think I can best attempt to explain my reasoning with… toilets.

Toilets and absolute definitions

Diogenes once threw a live, completely plucked, chicken at the feet of Plato and said, “Here is your man, Plato!”

This was in response to Plato’s (and his academy’s) proposed definition of a human being. A human, Plato posited, was a featherless biped. Diogenes, King of the Lulz, was quick to see the hole in that definition and mock it with a naked yardbird. In response, the definition was modified to a featherless biped with flat nails.

At no point in time was it the case that Plato and Diogenes, nor anyone else on Earth, were unable to tell a human apart from a bird or anything else. The defining of human beings in this manner, with this degree of rigor, is not a practice of practicability nor is it of any functional use to everyday people (because everyone knows a human being when they see one). This entire exercise implies that if we can’t define a human being in the way Plato was attempting to, that we must not truly understand what a human being is. While this might be true at the highest echelon of specificity and technicality, it is the sort of truth that very few people need to care about (or want to care about).

Do you know what a toilet is? Of course you do.

I wonder though, could you tell me why a urinal isn’t a toilet? And, just to make it interesting, could you imagine a little Diogenes on your shoulder as you attempted to do so?

You: “You can’t poop in a urinal.”
Diogenes: “Oh yeah?”

You: “Toilets have lids!”
Diogenes: “So if a toilet has no lid, it’s no longer a toilet?”

You: “Urinals are used standing upright.”
Diogenes: “Can I not use a toilet while standing upright?”

You: “Urinals are attached to the wall!”
Diogenes: “Aren’t toilets also attached to the wall?”

You: “Toilets are attached to the floor.”
Diogenes: “But what about portable toilets?”

The outcome of this endless back and forth would be Diogenes nailing a bucket to the wall and saying, “There is your urinal, Steve!” Then he’d take that same bucket off the wall, set it on the floor, and say, “…and here is your toilet!”

I’m not saying we couldn’t perfectly define a urinal in a way that was entirely distinct from the definition of a toilet, I’m saying there’s no practical need to do this — everyone already knows the difference; everyone already knows what each of these things are intended for.

What does this have to do with Stoicism’s family feud?

Traditional Stoicism is a toilet, and Modern Stoicism is a urinal. Modern Stoicism isn’t Traditional Stoicism (just as a urinal isn’t a toilet), and neither camp would disagree with my assessment that they are different from one another — that neither are the same as the other.

Toilets and urinals, however, are similar enough to share a taxonomic category: sanitary fixtures.

I would like to suggest that the same is true of Traditional and Modern Stoicism, and that the taxonomic category they share is Stoicism — and, above that, Virtue Ethics Philosophies.

If this is true, then there are at least two ways to be a Stoic and at least two schools of Stoicism that are as valid an expression of the philosophy as the other.

The feud between Traditional and Modern camps is probably just elitism and egoism masquerading as something relevant to Stoic philosophy when, in fact, it’s just an excuse to argue and assert knowledge and authority (and build thriving Facebook communities, of course).

The point of Stoicism isn’t belief in God, as I said, it’s the pursuit of Virtue within a certain philosophical tradition. That “certain philosophical tradition” doesn’t come down to whether or not a person can justify their support and adoption of the philosophy, it comes down to whether they practice the philosophy to its intended ends and in its intended manner.

If we’re doing this… we’re doing Stoicism.

Besides, if what we’re trying to do is justify the evolution of our philosophy’s ethical positions we need only to understand the Stoic God in an academic sense. We don’t need to believe in the Ancient Stoic’s conception of God unless we want to, because there are other ways to justify the moral goodness of Stoic ethical positions and approaches.

And finally, the Stoic God is really just what the Stoics called the causal chain resulting from the birth of the Cosmos, and the totality of matter and forces in those Cosmos. The zaniest thing they said about God (the Cosmos) was only that it was inherently rational — which I’ve argued before is one way to think of any stable system (whether it’s the universe or our own physical bodies) and not a very big leap of faith.

Anyway, Joran, thanks for the question. This one has been a bit of a romp, but I hope it’s still been helpful to you. You don’t need to believe in the Stoic “God” in order to practice Stoicism, but you do need to accept the Stoic’s reasoning if you want to understand Stoicism academically as a subject of interest and historical relevance.

Thanks for reading.