Is a life with preffered indifferents more in accordance with nature than a life without them?

A conversation with ChatGPT about Stoicism

This conversation with ChatGPT is sort of a follow up to the conversation I had with Bing Chat in my previous post. All I was trying to say in that conversation is exactly what I say in this conversation 😊

Jannik: In Stoicism both choosing virtue and selecting a preferred indifferent are actions done according to nature. Do you agree?

ChatGPT 4.0: In Stoicism, living "according to nature" is indeed a key tenet. To Stoics, nature refers to the universe's rational order. To live in accordance with nature is to live a virtuous life since virtue is the highest good in Stoicism.

Preferred indifferents, such as health, wealth, and status, are considered aspects of life that may be naturally desired but are not inherently good or bad. Although Stoics may choose them, these preferred indifferents are considered secondary to virtue. They are 'indifferent' because their presence or absence does not affect one's virtue, which should always be the primary focus.

So, yes, you could say that both choosing virtue and selecting a preferred indifferent are actions done according to nature in a Stoic perspective. But it's crucial to note that choosing virtue is far more significant because it's the ultimate good and the key to tranquility (or "ataraxia"), whereas preferred indifferents should not disturb our peace of mind whether we achieve them or not. In other words, a true Stoic should be indifferent to the indifferents, whether they are preferred or dispreferred, as they are beyond our control and not necessary for virtue.

Jannik: Even so, it seems possible to imagine situations where even a Stoic would agree that it would be wiser to take care of our health than to pursue virtue. For example, even the most courageous fireman needs sleep and food. Don't you agree?

ChatGPT: Yes, you're correct, and this is a great point. While the Stoics believed that virtue was the highest good and the ultimate goal, they also acknowledged the value of physical health and other external circumstances, referring to them as "preferred indifferents." The "indifferent" label doesn't mean that these things don't matter at all, but rather that they are not the ultimate goal or good.

In the case of the fireman, for instance, maintaining good health by sleeping and eating well is essential for him to be able to perform his duties, which can be seen as expressions of the Stoic virtues of courage and justice. If the fireman neglects his health to an extent that it prevents him from performing his duties, he is not acting virtuously. So in this sense, taking care of one's health can indeed be seen as part of living virtuously.

In Stoicism, the idea is to strike a balance: we should not become overly attached to or reliant on external circumstances, but we should use them appropriately and in service of living a virtuous life. A Stoic would say that we should prefer health, but we should not allow our happiness to depend on it, as it is ultimately beyond our control.

Jannik: Let's imagine two different wise persons. One is blessed with great friends, a loving family and a peaceful community. The other has none of those things. A Stoic would obviously say that there are no difference between them in terms of happiness, since they are both wise - but wouldn't the Stoic have to admit that the first person's life is more in accordance with nature than the life of the second person?

ChatGPT: This is a thoughtful question. According to Stoic philosophy, virtue is the sole good and is sufficient for happiness (eudaimonia). So, a Stoic would maintain that both wise people, possessing virtue, could achieve equal levels of happiness regardless of their circumstances.

The presence of good friends, a loving family, and a peaceful community fall under the category of "preferred indifferents." While they contribute positively to life and are typically pursued naturally by humans, they are not necessary for happiness, and their absence does not impede happiness, according to Stoic doctrine.

In terms of living "according to nature," Stoics believe that understanding and accepting the course of Nature or the Logos (the rational principle governing the universe) is crucial. From a Stoic perspective, both individuals, being wise, would have understood and accepted their circumstances as a part of the natural unfolding of the universe.

However, if we're interpreting "according to nature" as in alignment with human sociability and the natural inclination to form relationships, then one could argue the first person's life appears more in accordance with this aspect of nature. But, again, it's crucial to note that for Stoics, virtue and wisdom are paramount, and the presence or absence of preferred indifferents does not affect one's ability to live virtuously and therefore achieve happiness.

In summary, from a Stoic perspective, the first person's life might seem more aligned with certain aspects of human nature (like sociability), but it doesn't make them more virtuous or happier than the second person. Both, possessing wisdom and virtue, have the tools they need to achieve true happiness, irrespective of their external circumstances.

Jannik: It seems to me that it easy both to underestimate and to overestimate the importance of preferred indifferents. We obviously overestimate them if we think that they are necessary for happiness - but we clearly also underestimate them if we don't understand their importance for our understanding of a good life. All things considered, a good life is a life lived wisely - with good personal relations in a thriving community. This is, in my opinion, clearly what the Stoics think we should strive for. Obvisouly, we should also keep in mind that all that matters for happiness is that we strive for those things with wisdom. Without wisdom those things will do us no good - and with wisdom we can manage even without those things. This is essential Stoicism. But I think there is a real danger that someone who tries to follow Stoicism forgets the importance of good personal relationships and being part of a thriving community. What do you think?

ChatGPT: I absolutely agree with your nuanced view of Stoicism. Your interpretation aligns well with the Stoic philosophy that recognizes the value of preferred indifferents, such as good personal relationships and a thriving community, while emphasizing that these are not the ultimate determinants of happiness.

Stoicism indeed encourages us to strive for those things wisely, but it also teaches us not to be overly attached to them or to allow our happiness to be contingent on them, as they are outside of our control. Stoicism's key premise is that our responses to circumstances (which we can control) rather than the circumstances themselves (which we often can't control) determine our tranquility and happiness.

But you're right to point out that there's a danger of misinterpreting Stoicism as advocating for emotional detachment or isolation, which can lead to undervaluing the importance of relationships and community. Stoicism promotes emotional resilience, not emotional repression or disconnection. Relationships and communities are indeed valuable aspects of human life, and living wisely includes recognizing and appreciating their value.

The Stoics understood this and believed in the concept of 'oikeiôsis', which is the natural human inclination towards affection and care for others, starting from ourselves and extending to family, friends, and the larger community.

So, while it's crucial to keep in mind the core Stoic teaching that our virtue and our responses to events are what ultimately matter for happiness, it's also essential to remember that Stoicism is not about rejecting relationships or community. Instead, it's about engaging with those aspects of life in a way that's wise, balanced, and mindful of the larger perspective.

Midjourney imagining two women having a conversation in ancient Athens