Skip to main content

The Providence of Stoicism

I'm continually perplexed by the stoic insistence on the notion of Providence. 

  1. The cosmos is the way it is because of the fundamental nature of space/time and matter/energy.
  2. The cosmos is the way it is because Providence saw fit either to create it that way, or at least to ordain that it be so. 

Which is it? Does it matter? Does it matter that we believe one or the other of these? Does it matter that our belief that it is one or the other be correct?

For me, the main difference is that one model has a Mind or a Purpose behind it, and the other does not. What benefit is conferred by holding the belief in one's head that there is a purpose or intent behind the existence or nature of the cosmos? What detriment stems from thinking that the cosmos is the way it is because the properties of S/T and E/M simply to not permit it to be otherwise?

I think it's vital to make the distinction between the real nature of the cosmos on the one hand, and our BELIEFS about the nature of the cosmos on the other hand. That is to say, it is one question whether Atoms or Gods are responsible for the cosmos; and it is a separate and unrelated questions whether one BELIEVES that either S/T & E/M or Providence is responsible for the cosmos being the way it is.

For me, the answers to both questions are utterly obvious. The cosmos is the way it is because atoms are they way they are. And beliefs are only good to the extent that they are grounded in empirically verifiable reality. However, I acknowledge that we can never really know the answer to the first question or prove that the either option is false. And only the second question can be discussed or debated with any hope of deriving some useful understanding.

And so I repeat the question:

What benefit or harm do humans derive from believing that it is Atoms or Gods that are responsible for the cosmos being what it is?

I say 'humans' very deliberately because we need to take into consideration the vast tangle of cognitive factors at play in our complicated heads. By saying this, I guess what I'm really asking, then, is this:

What are the psychological costs and benefits that derive from individuals and groups of humans, with our hierarchically-oriented psyches, thinking that they are or are not at the top of some cosmic dominance hierarchy?

Mob control is a real thing. People needing a sense of purpose and of participation in a greater good are real things. Differences between individuals' abilities to self-police and self-motivate are real things. And so, cultivating the sense of being monitored by a great, all-seeing eye or of being watched over by an omni-benevolent parent figure who ensures that everything comes out all right in the end can be useful and powerful.

But these benefits are accompanied by some terrible costs. These mechanisms that are often used for good are also extremely vulnerable to abuse by people who do not scruple to use them to enrich themselves at the expense and to the detriment of others. I know I sound like a broken record here. I feel like I've written at least a hundred practically-indistinguishable variations on that sentence.

So, to circle back to the stoics and the question of Atoms or Gods, what is their particular take on this question? Is their insistence on Providence purely utilitarian? Je ne sais pas. I guess I need to keep studying...

Oh, and by the way, how awesome is it that Space/Time Energy/Matter are STEM?

I'll answer: it is Extremely Awesome.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comments on Paradox: On Ownership

It's funny, but not not surprising, that we seem to have had some similar life experiences. The notion of ownership has been very transformative in my life, too. I can clearly recall several instances of what some might call an epiphany, where I experienced an overwhelming realization of ownership. These instances were all similar -- a sudden certainty, like a light turning on, that I was in the right place at the right time doing the right thing for the right reasons; and the not-unpleasant sensation of a new weight of responsibility settling on my shoulders, a weight I was comfortably able to bear. For the longest time, I had no word to describe these experiences, but I have come to view them as taking ownership. These experiences, and the habit of ownership that arose from them, have been very instrumental in any successes I have experienced in my life. Every religion on the planet is probably eager to offer an interpretation of these experiences -- to frame them in the phraseol
1 comment
Read more

E pluribus unum

The original motto of the United States, e pluribus unum -- from many, one -- originally signified the inclusion of 13 separate colonies into one body politic. But it also came to represent the notion that you can come to this country and become a participating citizen, taking on the responsibilities and reaping the benefits. In the 1950s, in response to severe threats playing out on the world stage, we adopted a new motto, In God We Trust . In many ways, this motto's intentions were similar to those of the original -- to unite us around a common purpose in order to prevail against forces seeking to destroy us. It was an understandable but risky choice to adopt the new motto. And now the full extent of that risk is becoming clearer every day. The trends we can see developing around us are making it more obvious than ever that we have to quash the terrifying specter of a government that wields the power of religion.  Power does not respect religion. It only uses it to advance its o
Post a Comment
Read more

Let's talk about freedom

People talk about freedom all the time, but do they ever really think about what it means to be free? Let's take a couple of examples to use as thought experiments. No one should be surprised when my first thought turns to language. Here's too much linguistic freedom in action: Gukb fsilmpmer splifffdd ..;;, !!! @ WASKKQS&&&&^^^^ zzzzmzmzmllllz( If we want to take advantage of language, we have to obey some rules -- a whole lot of them, many layers of rules. In situations where your native language is being spoken, your ear is finely tuned to detect unbelievably minute departures from normal language sounds. You can detect a non-native speaker a mile away from a slightly mispronounced vowel, or even just a missing glottal stop where you would normally expect it. And don't even get me started on grammar. For every way to get something right, there are 100 ways to get it wrong. And yet, once we learn to work within the rules of the language, we experience a mu
Post a Comment
Read more