Philosophical knowledge —the unconditional search for truth and goodness— goes beyond what is widely accepted at a given time: it forms what is called politically correct. In classical Greek times, this was called doxa: the most widespread and accepted opinion —in fashion— without consistent reasonable justification. In the fragments preserved to this day from the pre-Socratic philosophers —Heraclitus of Ephesus, for example— we find the warning to overcome doxa and adhere to logos: to reason that, starting from reflection on ordinary experience, seeks an explanation of it that can be verified through evidence; whether direct, indirect, sensible or intellectual
In the decline of classical Greek civilization —after the conquest, by the Macedonians, of the famous polis, such as Athens; around 338 B.C.—a different type of philosophical current began to prevail, with respect to the previous Aristotelianism and Platonism. They have been called Hellenistic schools.
Once the end of the polis (city-states) in Hellas had been achieved, the Macedonians—later the Romans—tried to create a universal and autocratic empire. Almost all types of political freedom were canceled. At the height of the polis as an institution, there was a notable identity between the person and the citizen. The person, in the imperial regime, became a subject. Civic virtues—such as justice or political prudence—did not matter much in the imperial era, but the skills necessary for individual subsistence and well-being did. Political activity was considered ethically neutral or even despicable, as it caused fatal ambitions and passions. The person was conceived as an individual, at that time. And she, self-absorbed, explores ways of living that bring the closest satisfactions, tending to recognize herself as the sole architect of her best existence. A separation between Ethics and Politics is consummated, united since the emergence of humanism with Socrates and, its continuation, with Plato and Aristotle. The thinkers of the Hellenistic age elaborate ethics of an individualistic nature. They advise ways of life to achieve immediate individual happiness: different types of ataraxia, that is, total tranquility with oneself, ignoring the rest, of others. The sense of transcendence – of going beyond oneself to be happy – that Plato, for example, proposed is left aside. Immanentist, materialist categories prevail. Practical – technical – knowledge prevails. Theoretical knowledge, about principles and ends, is relegated. What matters above all is solving immediate, vital problems. An ideal of life that a person alone can achieve is pursued. In this way, they understand Socratic self-sufficiency. They face fate: the skeptics with indifference, the Stoics with their allegiance, the Epicureans with laughter. They regard happiness as something negative rather than positive, consisting of a numbness of the spirit.
Stoicism is experiencing a resurgence in popularity in the 21st century. For example, the teachings of Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca, representatives of imperial Latin Stoicism, are appealing. Many consider these teachings effective for emotional control, resilience and the search for the best way to navigate the hectic daily life of the contemporary world.
The current plausibility of Stoicism may be due to several factors. In contemporary society, ways are required to manage stress, anxiety and many other challenges present in the demands of daily life, in a world of both rapid and unpredictable change.
The Stoic virtue, which leads to accepting—with cultivated apathy—what cannot be changed—what fate has in store—and the positive focus on what can be controlled; attracts us to face modern life.
The dissemination of stoicism through books, blogs and social networks has contributed to its popularity, allowing its teachings to be more accessible and understandable to a wide audience. Although, as previously considered, it entails individualism and little foundation of social virtues for the full realization of each person.
Likewise, the choice for stoicism to live better, if it is made uncritically, implies relegating many of the main centuries-old pillars of Western civilization such as the existence of a personal, provident Supreme Being and the acceptance of the existence of incorporeal realities, as mentioned in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
According to Stoicism, religion is not necessary: the Absolute Being is not a person. There is no other life beyond the earthly one. Only the corporeal is real. Therefore, Metaphysics has no place; Physics is sufficient for a complete explanation of the world.
It is appropriate to recall, with regard to the current assessment of Stoicism, the criticism of St. Augustine of Hippo of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, both tendencies that largely preferred principles such as those of Stoicism —of human self-sufficiency— rather than the Christian teachings that affirm the need to freely resort to divine grace in order to do good.
