Stoicism in Context
Understanding the gap between ancient virtue ethics and contemporary value theories
Stoicism is often misunderstood today as merely a toolkit for emotional resilience, a stance rightly critiqued by Stoic philosopher Gregory Lopez as "freshman-level Stoicism." Lopez clarifies that Epictetus's popularized dichotomy of control—"Some things are up to us, others are not"—is just the initial step in a deeper philosophical progression. According to Lopez, authentic Stoicism unfolds in three stages:
Discipline of Desire: Shift one's aversions from external outcomes to internal mental states, reframing anxiety as a sign of misplaced external valuation.
Discipline of Action: Foster intentional and pro-social behavior, expanding moral concern beyond oneself.
Discipline of Assent: Cultivate moment-to-moment rigorous practice of virtues, embedding philosophical discipline deeply into daily life.
This nuanced perspective counters what Lopez terms "dark Stoicism," the misuse of Stoic techniques for mere emotional invulnerability without ethical growth, resulting in what he vividly calls the "resilient asshole"—one who achieves toughness without empathy or ethical refinement.
Yet, even this richer portrayal of Stoicism does not fully address deeper existential critiques. Stoicism, fundamentally, remains a defensive philosophy primarily oriented toward emotional regulation and virtuous equanimity. It excels as a framework for enduring adversity but leaves relatively unexplored the expressive, creative, and passionate dimensions of human flourishing. The Stoic virtues, while ethically sound, offer limited resources for cultivating authentic subjective value, aesthetic richness, or passionate intellectual exploration.
Furthermore, Stoicism’s traditional metaphysical assumptions—particularly the belief in objective value and cosmic determinism—sit uneasily with contemporary philosophical perspectives such as Conditionalism, subjective value theory, and the Quantum Branching Universe (QBU). In these contemporary frameworks, value is context-dependent and fundamentally perspectival, aligning poorly with the Stoic insistence that virtue alone constitutes genuine goodness.
In short, Lopez’s corrective is valuable in reclaiming Stoicism’s ethical depth, effectively addressing its superficial modern adaptations. Yet, the broader existential critique remains valid: Stoicism’s virtues of equanimity and resilience, while commendable, still do not encompass the full range of human potential and flourishing as envisioned by more expansive contemporary philosophies like Phosphorism, which explicitly prioritize authentic passion, intellectual vitality, and subjective creativity.