Member-only story
Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods, and why the Stoics got it wrong — part I
Philosophies of life have a lot in common with religions. Up to a point. Both systems of thought comprise, at a minimum, two components: a metaphysics and an ethics. The metaphysics provides adherents to a given system some notion of how the world works; the ethics gives them guidance on how to live in the world. So if you are a Stoic, for instance, you accept the metaphysical notion of a universal web of cause-effect (which the ancient Stoics called “god”), as well as that everything that exists is made of matter. Ethically speaking, you are on board with the idea that virtue is the only true good, and that we should behave as citizens of the world (cosmopolitanism). If you are a Christian, by contrast, metaphysically you accept that the world was created by an omnipotent god who exists outside of time and space, and ethically you agree that we should help others and offer the other cheek even to our enemies.
One major difference between philosophies of life and religions, however, is that the founders and early contributors to philosophical schools are not regarded as gods, and what they wrote is not scripture. We are free to change things that we think no longer stand up to scrutiny. That’s why, for instance, I suggested that the notion of a Stoic god interpreted as a cosmic living organism endowed with reason…
