Stoicism, existentialism, individualism - and RFK Jr

A conversation with Google Bard about the social aspects of Stoicism

Today, Google Bard finally became available to citizens in the EU (I live in Denmark). Obviously, I had to try it out!

Let me know what you think in the comments - about my promts, about Bards answers or about RFK Jr's interpretation of Stoicism and of the Myth of Sisyphus.

Jannik: Consider two different formulations of a basic assumption in Stoicism:

A) The only good thing for a human being is virtue.

B) The only good thing for me is my virtue.

Obviously, position B is a deeply flawed interpretation of Stoicism. Position A acknowledges that virtue is good for every human being. Position B hardly cares at all about other human beings. Even though the focus is virtue what is meant by “virtue” in that case seems to be something like: "my own reasoning". Even so position B seems to be dominant in modern popularized versions of stoicism. How do think this happened? Is it due to an inherent ambiguity in Stoicism or is it due to lack of effort from the modern interpreters of Stoicism? Or something else?

Google Bard: I think the reason why position B is dominant in modern popularized versions of Stoicism is due to a combination of factors.

First, Stoicism is often presented as a philosophy of personal development and self-improvement. This focus on the individual can lead to a neglect of the social dimension of Stoicism, which emphasizes the importance of virtue in the context of community and relationships.

Second, the term "virtue" is often interpreted in a narrow sense, as referring to individual moral qualities such as courage, temperance, and justice. This can obscure the fact that Stoicism also understands virtue as a kind of wisdom or understanding of the world.

Finally, modern interpreters of Stoicism have sometimes been influenced by other philosophical traditions, such as existentialism, which emphasize the individual's freedom and responsibility to create their own meaning in life. This can lead to a focus on the individual's own virtue, at the expense of the broader social and ethical implications of Stoicism.

In my view, position A is a more accurate representation of Stoicism than position B. Stoicism does indeed emphasize the importance of individual virtue, but it also sees virtue as a social good that benefits all of humanity. The Stoics believed that the wise person would use their virtue to help others and make the world a better place.

I think that the modern interpreters of Stoicism could do a better job of emphasizing the social dimension of Stoicism. They could also do more to clarify the meaning of the term "virtue" in Stoicism, so that it is not interpreted in a narrow sense. By doing these things, they could help to correct the misconception that Stoicism is a philosophy of self-centered individualism.

Here are some additional thoughts on why position B is dominant in modern popularized versions of Stoicism:

The focus on the individual is a trend in many areas of modern culture, including philosophy.

The narrow interpretation of "virtue" is also a trend in modern culture, as people are increasingly individualistic and materialistic.

The influence of other philosophical traditions, such as existentialism, has also contributed to the dominance of position B.

Jannik: Here is a quote from a recent interview with Robert F. Kennedy where he presents Stoicism as a kind of ancient existentialism:

"Camus was an existentialist and he was the inheritor of the Roman and Greek philosophy of stoicism. He wrote a book about the stoic hero, the iconic stoic hero, Sisyphus. Sisyphus was cursed by the gods to be pushing a stone up the hill all the time, a giant boulder. But when he gets to the top of the hill, he can never get it over. He almost gets it there, but it always rolls back on him, and then he has to start again. He has to do that for eternity. It sounds miserable, but in the minds of the stoics, Sisyphus was a happy man because he had a job and he was always striving to go upward. He was putting his shoulder to the stone and he was doing his duty. That’s where happiness and satisfaction and peace comes from. A lot of times the things that we consider penalties or injuries or misfortunes are actually gifts to us and they’re touched on. Pain is the touchstone of spiritual growth. I feel very happy with my life and peaceful about the choices I’ve made. I have compassion for family members who don’t agree with me on a lot of issues, and I don’t have hard feelings toward anybody. I know what I have to do and I do my best to do it."

Although I am pleased to see Mr. Kennedy emphasize Stoicism as relevant for our age I think his interpretation of Stoicism and of the Myth of Sisyphus are quite problematic. Sisyphus is not mentioned by any Stoic in the preserved sources. Which makes sense given that Sisyphus is a story about the gods punishing a human being - because that human being will not accept death as part of life. Both of these ideas are in direct opposition to Stoicism.

To a Stoic death is a natural part of life and trying to escape that fact is the essence of foolishness. And, to a Stoic, the universe is not ruled by punishing gods - and even less by no gods at all - but by the always forgiving and benevolent Logos.

When ancient Stoicism was alive the myth of Sisyphus was seen as a story about human vanity. The Epicurean philosopher Lucretius writes that we all know Sisyphus from the political life which is full of people “seeking power that is empty”. So, in my opinion, Mr. Kennedy reduces Stoicism to existentialism with all the implications of meaninglessness and individualism. What do you think?

Google Bard: I agree with your assessment of Mr. Kennedy's interpretation of Stoicism and the Myth of Sisyphus. Stoicism is a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of accepting the world as it is, and of living in accordance with nature. The myth of Sisyphus, on the other hand, is a story about a man who is punished for trying to cheat death. This is in direct opposition to Stoic philosophy, which teaches that death is a natural part of life.

Mr. Kennedy's interpretation of the myth of Sisyphus as a story about the importance of finding meaning in life is also problematic. Stoicism does not teach that life is meaningless, but rather that we should find meaning in our own actions and in our relationships with others. The myth of Sisyphus is a story about a man who is condemned to an endless and pointless task. This is not a message that Stoicism would endorse.

I think Mr. Kennedy's interpretation of Stoicism is likely due to his familiarity with existentialism. Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the individual's freedom and responsibility to create their own meaning in life. This is a compatible with some aspects of Stoicism, but it is not the same thing. Stoicism is a more holistic philosophy that emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things.

I think it is important to be aware of the different interpretations of Stoicism that exist. Mr. Kennedy's interpretation is one that is often popular, but it is not the only one. There are many other ways to understand Stoicism, and it is important to find an interpretation that resonates with you.

Midjourney imagining Sisyphus struggling with his boulder