Nietzsche Destroyed Stoicism in A Single Paragraph
Stoic wisdom has once again risen back into popular society. With authors like Ryan Holiday teaching and applying these lessons for a modern age, it feels like more people than ever are subscribing to a Stoic outlook of the world – and feeling better for it.
As with any belief system which neatly makes sense of the world in which we live – while simultaneously helping us to reconcile the disturbing fact of our own mortality – it can be quite uncomfortable to have it challenged.
Unfortunately, a couple of hundred years ago, Nietzsche came along with his critical yet brilliant intellect and ruined Stoicism for the rest of us.
In Beyond Good and Evil, he masterfully exposes the cheeky “smuggling-in” of morals to the Stoic world view in a manner difficult to refute.
Here’s a breakdown of his critique, followed by some reflections on how we should respond (spoiler – it isn’t all doom and gloom).
What the Stoics Say
The Stoic philosophy teaches time and time again that we must “live according to our nature” – which they believe means to live a pure and virtuous life.
“Virtue is according to nature; vice is opposed to it and hostile.”
Seneca“So to work against each other is contrary to nature; and resentment and rejection count as working against someone.”
Marcus Aurelius
On first reading these inspiring messages, it’s almost instinctual to want to embrace these sentiments as profound truth.
A feeing of inner peace, clarity and inspiration to “live according to nature and do the right thing” passes over the individual who embraces these words and a clear path is laid out for the moral life.
The only problem is that it doesn’t logically hold up. Here’s what Nietzsche had to say in response.
Nietzsche’s Critique
“O you noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are!
Imagine a being like nature, wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purposes and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile and desolate and uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power – how could you live according to this indifference?
Living – is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is not living – estimating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different?
And supposing your imperative ‘live according to nature’ meant at bottom as much as ‘live according to life’ – how could you not do that?”
Why make a principle of what you yourself are and must be?”
Nietzsche points out that fundamentally, nature is far from moral or just. You only need to think of the brutal nature of life living off life – the threats of comets, volcanos, earthquakes – cancer in children – or the way an ocean will readily swallow up a ship of people without a moments hesitation to know that nature has a dark and oppressive side deeply embedded into its core.
To truly attempt to live in the light of nature would be the opposite of what most would consider a “virtuous” life.
Nietzsche goes further to argue that the very act of living with all of its rejection of reality – the wishes that things would be different – is itself a “pushing away” of reality. The most natural reaction to nature would be radical indifference to everything that happens – including the immoral.
Finally, he highlights that, in reality, we cannot help but live according to our nature – whether we act virtuously or otherwise. The very fact we do a thing necessitates that it was in our nature to do it.
What to Do About It
Realising this creates a problem for the Stoic reader.
It turns out, nature doesn’t necessitate that you behave yourself – at least, not in the way the stoics say it does.
It isn’t possible to create a value system from an objective view of reality. Values do not derive from facts.
Rather, this sentiment to act virtuously is the intrinsic value of the philosopher hidden in their philosophy.
The human mind isn’t wired to seek objective truth – it isn’t clear that such an endeavour would be good for us in any way.
Rather, the true act of the philosopher is to try and ground their existing values in objective truth – which is what the Stoic is doing when they assert that nature “tells them to be virtuous”.
This isn’t a “bad thing” – there’s no denying that adopting a Stoic world view can enrich your life immeasurably – that’s real.
But the grounds for the claim are not.
Should We Descend into Debauchery?
Despite the fact Nietzsche dismantled the core teachings of stoicism with a swift, remorseless blow, we shouldn’t feel compelled to throw the baby out with the bath water.
It’s good to be aware of the limitations of the philosophies and teachings which inspire us – this doesn’t mean we need to dismiss them altogether.
Stoicism made Aurelius a great man – and undoubtedly gave him a compass to navigate the trials and struggles of life in a poised, elegant and highly inspiring manor. The same is true for Seneca and countless other Stoic men and women throughout the ages.
If the effects of the Stoic teachings can offer so much to the individual, that alone is enough to justify the belief in them.
To assume our ideas and understanding of the world rests on objective truth is proud and ignorant. We’re flawed creatures with flawed thinking. Remember – Socrates wisdom came from the understanding that he knew almost nothing.
We ought instead to see philosophy as an act of self expression. We search for the answers which resonate with our own being.
Approaching philosophy this way allows us to remain open minded and more accepting of other points of view. It gives us the humility to accept our limits while still pressing boldly on into the difficulties of life.
It enables us to withstand the attack of even the greatest thinkers such as Nietzsche and, in the words of Marcus Aurelius, “to be like the rock that the waves keep crashing over. It stands unmoved and the raging of the sea falls still around it.”
Note: I recommend reading Jason Kramer’s comments for a more rounded understanding of the Stoic outlook than the one I presented in this article (here).
