Stoicism and Further Ramblings

February 28, 2025

Maybe I just picked up the mantle of stoicism as an excuse for my total lack of interest in the mundane, and when I speak about the mundane, I mean the fleeting elements of the world, as opposed to the eternal.

In line with this thinking, I wonder if people pick philosophy based on what is most in their nature, as opposed to what is most reasonable and coherent. And if I am justified in believing in stoicism, defined as only valuing virtue and being indifferent to everything else, particularly externals like possessions.

But at the same time, gun to my head, I couldn’t tell you if I was indifferent to a holiday in Namibia or not. I certainly think I am, but then again, how much of that is influenced by stoic thought that I should see it that way, and how much of that is genuine? One could argue if the second is true, stoicism did its job, but this is like the difference between liking strawberry ice cream and telling yourself you like strawberry ice cream. I don’t know what the point of this was.

Anyways, when I looked at the Spitzkoppe, an impressive mountain in Namibia that many would call awe-inspiring, I didn’t feel this overwhelming sense of awe as when I experience something more transcendental, be it a philosophical argument/worldview or an experience of the divine. When I hear about a new war, or a new climate disaster, or how someone had a horrific death, I do not react like my family with anguish and horror, but with disinterest and wonder why they care. Though not once have I come across a convincing argument for the existence of God, I yearn for something at least akin to the divine, and maybe Kierkegaard’s thought of making a leap of faith is correct.

The fundamental problem of virtue ethics is the problem of evil: in a world where evil does not seem to care if one is virtuous or not—think of a child getting cancer or a corrupt politician taking bribes versus a virtuous politician being shunned—why would one act virtuously in a world where it seems virtue doesn’t guarantee happiness or even reward it? One possible answer would be God. If God existed, we would have the guarantee of immortality in the afterlife for the virtuous, but since we do not have that, maybe we need to adopt the Kierkegaardian position and just take a leap of faith, believing that virtue will provide happiness. But maybe even that framing is wrong? If we consider it from the lens of control—if we consider what we can control, possessions can be taken away, bodily harm can be inflicted upon you, fame and glory fade over time—if we rely on externals for happiness, then we are relying on the whims of destiny for our happiness. But if we instead only rely on virtue for our happiness, which we are in full control of, then happiness is guaranteed if we are diligent. It’s less about virtue providing happiness and more about changing our perception, making virtue our happiness. At least that’s what I think.

You know what I like to do in situations like this? Grab a bunch of beers, admire the night sky, and get drunk.