On Virtue

So last time we talked about Eudaimonia and how it essentially means having the best possible life that a human can have, full of happiness, contentment, and fulfillment. We also mentioned  that the Stoics believe that the best way to obtain Eudaimonia was to be virtuous.

The Stoics believed that virtue was both necessary and sufficient for a life of Eudaimonia. This differentiated them from many other Greek philosophical schools at the time who believed that virtue was necessary for a life of Eudaimonia. Other schools, such as the Peripatetics, believed that virtue was necessary for a good life, but that you also needed other things as well, such as friends, family, money, good food, etc…

So what did the Stoics mean by virtue? And how could virtue alone be sufficient for a good life?

What the Stoics really meant by virtue, aretewas something like excellence of character. There were four cardinal virtues that were required for excellence of character. These virtues were temperance, courage, justice, and practical wisdom. These virtues are very broad, and encompass a variety of sub virtues. Here is a general break down of the four cardinal virtues.

Practical wisdom – Understanding how to act and feel correctly. Includes good judgment, discretion, and resourcefulness. It is the all encompassing virtue, the other virtues are really just specific manifestations of practical wisdom.

Temperance – Knowing how to act and feel well in situations arousing other emotions such as desire, appetite, and lust. Includes propriety, sense of honor, and self-control. It is wisdom applied to matters of choice.

Courage – Knowing how to act and feel correctly in situations of danger, in facing things seen as fearful, especially death and disaster. Includes perseverance, confidence, and magnanimity. It is wisdom applied to endurance.

Justice – Knowing how to act and feel well in our relationships with other people, at individual, family or communal level. Knowing how to act generously and with positive benevolence, with friendship and affection. Includes piety, kindness, and sociability. It is wisdom applied to social living.

So essentially, if you have all of these virtues, and act on them correctly, you will live a good life. Sounds pretty good to me right?

But what about money, friends, family, pleasure, etc…?

Well, the Stoics thought that it would be nice to have these things, but they didn’t really think that they were necessary for a life of Eudaimonia, the good life. Why is this the case? This is because the Stoics classified these things as being outside of our control. The only thing that is fully within our control is how we act, essentially our character and our actions (they were compatibilists). If we allow ourselves to depend on externals for our happiness (money, pleasure, etc…), we will at some point become disappointed, or as Epictetus liked to say, we will become wretched. We will become anxious when we try to obtain these externals, and depressed when we fail. You should not rely on these externals for your happiness. Instead, you already have everything you need to live a good life full of joyfulness and tranquility, and that is a life of Virtue.

It is important to note that the Stoics did not forbid people from having money, friends, family, small pleasures, etc… they were not ascetics like the early Cynics were. They separated these thing into what they called preferred and dispreferred indifferents. It is ok to have and pursue these things (money, family, friends) as long as they do not detract from your ability to pursue a life of virtue. In pursuing these externals you must not turn to vice, the opposites of the virtues.

This is not an easy task to accomplish. The only one to fully accomplish this goal is considered to be a Stoic sage, and we are not even sure if such a person ever existed. Perhaps Socrates, Zeno, or Cato the younger are examples of sages, but we are not really sure. Consistently achieving these virtues is something that must be worked on every day, perhaps, for the rest of your life. And that is why we should all be prokoton, one who makes progress towards virtue.

And then, because I’m not naturally gifted, shall I therefore abandon all effort to do my best? Heaven forbid. Epictetus won’t be better than Socrates; but even if I’m not too bad, that is good enough for me.

– Epictetus, Discourses 1.2.35

For additional reading on Stoicism and virtue, I encourage you to read the r/Stoicism FAQ, the IEP entry on Stoicism,  and this blog post by Christopher Gill about the virtues. Much of the information in this particular blog post was pulled from these resources.

This will be my final post for 2016, so I wish all of you happy holidays and a eudaimonic new year!

On Eudaimonia

If you have poked around Greek philosophy texts at all, you have probably encountered the term Eudaimonia. This is an essential concept that we must wrap our heads around if we are to understand what the whole point of philosophy is (according to the Greeks).

I am no professor on Greek philosophy, and I can’t say that I know very much in the way of translating ancient Greek at all, so take what you are about to read here with a bit of skepticism.

The ancient Greek Philosophical schools were all about Eudaimonia. The Stoics, Skeptics, Cynics, Peripatetics, Epicureans, etc… They all pretty much agreed that Eudaimonia was the best thing ever, and that we should all pursue it. However they all disagreed on the best way to obtain it.

So what does Eudaimonia even mean? Well the term is often translated as “happiness”. That makes sense, everybody wants to be happy, but they might disagree about the best way the become happy, right? Now this is an ok definition, but it is still a little vague. A better translation of eudaimonia is often said to be “human flourishing”. Ok, that is a little different than happiness, and more specific in some ways but confusing in other ways. What does it really mean for a human to flourish?

If we say something like “wow, that new tree you just planted is really flourishing” we mean something along the lines of “that plant appears to be very healthy and is growing in an almost accelerated manner in its current environment”. Wow that explanation sounds like it was written by a robot huh?

Anyways, hopefully that helps us to unpack what we might mean by “human flourishing” a little, but we are still not quite there yet. I think there is still some ambiguity here, and that we can come up with a better definition.


The ancient philosophers were largely working within the framework of Teleology. To quote Wikipedia “Teleology (from Greek telos, meaning end or purpose) is the philosophical study of nature by attempting to describe things in terms of their apparent purpose, directive principle, or goal”.

Maybe this will be a little easier to understand with a super overused example. Think of a knife. What is the purpose, or the telos, of a knife? The purpose of a knife is to cut things. A good knife cuts wells, while a bad knife cuts poorly.

So with this in mind how can we flesh out the idea of Eudaimonia? Well, as humans all of our action have some sort of goal or purpose. Why do people go to college? People go to College, so they can get a job, so that they can earn money, so that they can buy things, so that they can provide themselves with the materials that they think are required for a good life. So the end purpose of going to college is to have a good life. That is essentially the purpose of all of our actions isn’t it? We think, correctly or incorrectly, that our actions will lead us to have a good life.

Eudaimonia is that life that we are all seeking. It is a life full of happiness, contentment, and fulfillment. It is the best possible life that a human can have. So, now we have a definition I think that we can work with.

Eudaimonia – The best possible life that a human can have, full of happiness, contentment, and fulfillment.

So, if we define eudaimonia this way, and I ask you the question, “Do you want a life of Eudaimonia?” you are probably going to answer “Yes”.  I think you would be hard pressed to find someone you does not want a life defined as “the best possible life that a human can have”.

So what is the problem here? Well it turns out that people are going to disagree about how exactly you can go an obtain a life of Eudaimonia. Here is a really brief, and in no way sufficient, tongue in cheek caricature of how the different Greek philosophical schools thought a person could reach a life of Eudaimonia.

Cynics – Live an ascetic life, abandon all of your worldly possessions except for the absolutely bare minimum you need to live. Go against the flow of common social norms. Bark at people when they do something stupid, and don’t forget to hug cold statues while wearing little to no clothing. You must also do backwards moonwalks into large crowds of people to prove that you are “going against the flow” of Society.

Epicureans – Move away from everyone else to live in a commune with all your best friends and become a self sufficient community. Remember that the only good is pleasure and the only bad is pain. And by pleasure I mean adding one piece cheese to you daily meal which consists of just a little wine and bread. Also don’t forget to tend to your garden, you gotta have one even if you don’t like plants.

Skeptics – We are troubled throughout life because we make incorrect judgments about what is good or bad for us. We become disappointed when our judgments do not match up with reality. The best way to alleviate this issue is to not make any judgments at all, about anything, ever. Is that the edge of a cliff over there? How can I be sure? I will suspend my judgement and walk over there anyways.

Peripatetics – The best human life consists of using reason, and being the best person you can possibly be. But you also kind of need money, friends, family, and good luck. So if you aren’t lucky, or are born into unfortunate circumstances, oh well, no Eudaimonia for you. Also don’t forget to walk around a lot and think about things.

Stoics – The best human life consists of using reason, and being the best person you can possibly be. You must be wise, courageous, temperate, and just. It doesn’t matter if you are a slave or an emperor. The only thing that matters are your own actions and your character. Because the only thing that matters are your actions, you can be happy all the time. Yes all the time, even if you are being tortured and your limbs are being hacked off one by one, you are happy. Also, the Stoic sage is the only one who can fully acquire a life of Eudaimonia, because he is the best person ever and always makes the right decisions. But this guy only appears once every ten thousand years, so you probably ain’t him. And by the way everyone else who is not a sage is insane, full of vice, and never acts correctly even if they copy the sage action for action.

And I chose to be a Stoic huh?



On Religion

Based on my previous blog posts it is probably not too difficult to guess my general position on religion. I am a De facto atheist. But what do I really mean by that? The words atheist, agnostic, and theist often have different meanings in different contexts, and can mean different things to different people. There are often debates about what the word ‘atheist’ actually means, along with how it is used in a societal and academic context.

So, what am I saying when I call myself a De facto atheist? Well, like many things in life, I consider a person’s religious belief to be best characterized as a spectrum of possibilities. Richard Dawkins popularized the spectrum of theistic probability which is what I am referring to here. The spectrum is defined as follows:

  • Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God.
    •  “I do not believe, I know.”
  • De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent.
    • “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
  • Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
    • “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
  • Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent.
    • “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
  • Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
    • “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
  • De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero.
    • “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
  • Strong atheist.
    • “I know there is no God, with the same conviction that a Strong theist knows there is one.”

I personally feel that the statement,”I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” describes my position on the matter fairly well.

However, there is another phrase which I also believe to describe my position, and that is “I remain unconvinced by the evidence or claims made by any of the world’s religions”. This was essentially said by Neil deGrasse Tyson in a podcast where he talked about why he doesn’t call himself an atheist. Neil would rather label himself as an agnostic over an atheist, due to the connotations associated with those words.

I am certainly sympathetic with that view, as I previously described myself as agnostic for very similar reasons. I did not like using the term atheist to describe myself, as people often took that to mean that I was a strong atheist, believing with conviction that there is no god, when that is not the case. However, referring to myself as agnostic caused confusion as well, as some people believed what I meant by agnostic was that “we can never truly know if God exists or not” or that “God’s existence and non-existence are equally probable” when that was not the case either.

I prefer the term De facto atheist because it provides a little more information than the word atheist by itself, and my cause extra discussion about what exactly I mean by the term. Also, I get to describe myself using Latin, and using Latin phrases is what all the cool kids do nowadays. Right?

Technical Terms

If we were to  fully flesh out how I would describe my belief in technical terms, I would consider myself to  be a friendly wide negative weak atheist. Wow, that is a lot of adjectives huh?  You can read more about these terms on the IEP and elsewhere on the Internet, but here is a quick summary for you.

Atheism can be narrow or wide in scope. The narrow atheist does not believe in the existence of God (an omnipotent- being).  A wide atheist does not believe that any gods exist, including but not limited to the traditional omnipotent-God, the Norse Gods, the Greek Gods, the Egyptian Gods, etc…

Negative atheism is the lack of a belief that God or gods exist, whereas positive atheism is to affirm the non-existence of God or Gods. The terms negative and positive are often used interchangeably with the words strong and weak, meaning essentially the same thing.

What about a friendly atheist. Now by friendly I don’t mean that I consider myself to be a friendly person who is also an atheist (although I certainly hope that to be the case). To quote the IEP again “The friendly atheist can grant that a theist may be justified or reasonable in believing in God, even though the atheist takes the theist’s conclusion to be false.” This has to deal with how we view knowledge (Epistomology), and whether beliefs can be rational, justified, and true or false. I recommend reading the IEP page to learn more if you are unfamiliar with these terms.

It has become a trend recently, that instead of calling oneself a weak or a strong atheist, people will call themselves an agnostic atheist  or a gnostic atheist, with the terms gnostic and agnostic referring to knowledge, while theism and atheism refer to belief. If I were to use these terms instead, I would be classified as an agnostic atheist. Personally I do not like using this format, as it is not the way in which philosophers typically use these terms. Perhaps this form was recently popularized because people were uncomfortable with using the terms strong, weak, positive, and negative to describe their positions?


So, why am I spending so much time talking about what the difference is between agnosticism and atheism, along with how it all applies to myself? Well, honestly this is a question that I have personally struggled with for a while. Looking for an answer to this question is essentially what lead me down the path of philosophy in the first place.

I grew up in a Protestant Christian household that attended church fairly regularly. Both of my parents were very involved in the church, both of them being deacons, and my father was acting Treasurer for the church for a while. After I went away to college and was exposed to more people with varying beliefs, I started to doubt what I had been taught by my family. It all just seemed to make less and less sense. After doing a lot of soul searching and contemplation for the past few years, I have essentially come to the conclusion that I have been elaborating upon throughout this post.

I also think this is a question that all people need to wrestle with an settle on in one form or another, as it becomes a pillar that supports and influences your world view.

The Stoics

This question was also important to the ancient Stoic philosophers. They essentially believed in pantheism, that God and the universe were one and the same, and that the universe is governed by rationality and providence. This puts me at odds with the ancient Stoics as I am not a pantheist, and I do not believe in providence.

There is also a debate within the Stoic community as to whether one can even consider themselves to be a Stoic while being an atheist, as belief in a rational universe along with providence was an essential part of Stoic philosophy as a whole. Many people have written on this topic elsewhere in much more detail, but essentially I agree that an atheist would not be able to consider themselves a Stoic, at least in the classical sense, and that you would become a different type of Stoic, with a different philosophical world view. I do think it is possible to retain the concepts found in Stoic Ethics without the need of a pantheistic view of the universe. However, that is something that I will go into, another time.