A Critique of the Stoicphere

My first reading of the Stoics was back when I was still an Evangelical Christian, studying theology in undergrad in a suburb in the norther outskirts of the Metro-Detroit area. I'd been working to expose myself to a variety of new ideas, both religiously and philosophically when I stumbled upon The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. The effect the work had on me was so profound that I had to put it down. I was still a very conservative Christian at the time, but it was clear to me in a way that I wasn't willing to admit that Aurelius was much wiser than Solomon - in fact, I felt seduced by his moral perspective. Looking back, I realize that this is because his perspective appeals to me more than anything in Christian scripture, which is why I identify as a Stoic Humanist today, instead of as a Christian. 

Even though I identify as a Stoic, I'm disappointed by what I see in most of the Stoic communities that I observe. While I do see a lot of good things, I notice a few things seem to be missing. I see a lot of Stoics focused on resolve, being undefeatable, not caring what the world thinks. All of these are great aspect of Stoicism, but without the important other elements, they are incomplete at best and potentially even toxic. 

Here's what I think is missing. The Stoics focused on community. Stoicism isn't an individualistic ethical philosophy - they believed that humans are social creatures, that we are our best selves when we're both giving to and receiving from the community. We aren't doing all of the things we do only for ourselves. We are supposed to care about the world around us. We're supposed to work to resolve injustices and improve our communities. We might fail - humans and their societies are innately unjust. We're not going to create a utopia that has humans in it. But perfection isn't the point. Doing our part is. This is more about virtue that it is about results, which leads right into the next problem.

A lot of Stoic communities don't seem to be heavily focused on virtue. What I see instead is ego. Don't get me wrong. I don't see this nonsense from many of the great Stoic teachers of our day, folks like Ryan Holiday and Robert B. Irvine. They're teaching against ego, but in the online communities and even in some of the in person communities, something different is going on. Stoicism isn't a fight song. It isn't toxic positivity. It doesn't begin by telling us that we can win. In fact, it begins by telling us that we're going to lose. One of the foundational ideas of Stoicism is that we're all going to die and who knows if there's an afterlife. It not just that we're going to die, but that we die moment by moment. The most of that last sentence has past and the Jon who wrote it is gone too. We are temporary - there's no such thing as winning. Enjoying the moment and being the best we can be for the people around us is the closest we get to winning. Cultivating the virtues, the character that help us do that - that's the closest we get to winning.

Words

Better Life Community: An Introduction

 Earlier this week, I started a Meet-up group called "Better Life Community - Roseville." Starting this community, or something like it, is something I've been thinking about since I left Christianity, or in some ways, before I left Christianity. I wasn't particularly happy with the way I saw most Christian communities doing church.

I decided to start it now both because I need this community now and also because I think my life is more or less stable enough that I can handle getting it going. If you're reading this, you probably doing care much about my personal story getting here and even if you do, that's probably something better for a conversation over coffee than it is a blog post....

So, what are my goals with this community? What am I trying to create? And how do I plan to get it off the ground?

First, let's talk about goals. I want a community that encourages people to be their best selves, to improve their local community and also to enjoy life. The group would facilitate educational opportunities and discussions. It would create space for identifying goals of individual members and encourage those members to achieve those goals. It would identify opportunities to improve the local community and act on them. And - it would be fun and encourage people to have fun.

Also, it wouldn't be dogmatic. This is very important to me. I happen to be a practicing Stoic, a Humanist and am influenced by all sorts of other ideas and lenses, but... I'm not interested in forming a group to create replicas of myself. I don't even want an insular group. Instead, I want to create something that is always bringing in new ideas and interacting with various groups on the outside. While I think every community needs a core, I think that communities where the lines between insiders and outsiders is too clearly delineated or where the line between ideas we accept and ideas we don't it too strict... well, I think that can be a bad thing. 

How do I get it off the ground? Well, I think every successful community like this develops with a good mix of direct leadership and organic growth. You someone with vision and I've definitely got one, but the implementation of that vision needs to be guided, often altered, by the community sharing it. The visionary is often wrong, particularly about implementation. 

Nevertheless, here are my current ideas. I'm starting three separate groups, Roseville Runners, Better Life Community and Roseville Beautification Volunteer Core (not quite sure on the name here yet). The groups are separate, but have overlapping goals. The runners group will help people improve their fitness levels and hopefully increase use of public parks. The Beautification group will improve those parks. And the Better Life Community will be more about philosophy, philanthropy and fun, but will also encourage an active life. 

All three groups are intended both to work together from time to time and also to collaborate with outside entities, both other Meet-ups and also Civic organizations. 

And that brings me to my philosophy on leadership and collaboration with other groups. While I believe that self-improvement, community improvement and life enjoyment are uncontroversially good goals, my views on how best to achieve this, my methods and even those of the communities of which I am a part, will not always be best. Even when they're great, they will be incomplete in both the knowledge informing their approach and the talents and skills enabling their implementation. On account of this, I can't successfully achieve my goals without both the cooperation and even leadership of others. 

Let's take the running group as an example. A good running group should have a good stretch routine. Now, I do know quite a bit about stretching, both because I'm a Soldier and we do a stretch routine after our workouts and also because I happen to have fairly tight hamstrings. But, I don't have a strong history with yoga. Over time, no doubt, someone who joins the running group will have that background. It only makes sense for that person to lead us in stretching. If we don't find such a person, and even if we do, it might only make sense for the Roseville Runners, once and a while to collaborate with a group that focuses on yoga or stretching for the obvious reason that we'll learn new things and meet new people, but also because this sort of cross-pollination enriches the community at large. 

If this sounds interesting to you and you're in the area, here's a link to our Meet-up group
https://www.meetup.com/better-life-community-of-macomb-county/

Proud of Our Beliefs

During a lecture at my second visit to the Baha'i Center, I got a strong sense that Baha'is are proud to be Baha'is.  There is a lot of good that comes with this.  They are proud to fight prejudice, to work towards justice and to be inclusive towards other religions.  Still, I found them oversimplifying other religious perspectives almost to the point of absurdity.  This may sound like a harsh criticism, but

1. I don't blame them for this.  Oversimplification is inevitable.
2. They were generous in their oversimplifications, which isn't always the case.

As a group, they seemed to agree that Christianity doesn't teach against racism or for a unified humanity.  To be fair, Baha'u'llah's writings are clearer on these issues than Paul's.  Nevertheless, there was a further assumption that God hadn't been working directly against racism through religion before God's revelation to Baha'ullah (in the mid 1800s).  I couldn't help but think of the Quakers I'd visited only hours before or the Sikhs I visited years ago.

One of many Baha'i Texts (It's worth reading)

My guess is that the Baha'is knows of both groups.  It's hard to be religiously aware and not know about the Sikhs, due to their being confused with Muslims.  And Quaker history (even their focus on the equality of all people) is American history canon.  Nevertheless, the information didn't seem to factor into the conversation.  Neither did Paul's declaration that Jews and Gentiles were one in Christ - a proclamation against both ethnic and cultural divisions (Ephesians 2:11-22)

The Baha'is can't be expected to know all of these facts any more than I can know all the things that might challenge or provide nuance to my beliefs.  Even what they do know may be difficult to incorporate into their current narrative.  Most of us are bad at using the information we know to challenge our most firmly held beliefs.  Consider all the creationists who have gone to zoos and see that at least anatomically that apes look very much like humans.  They have arms, thumbs, breasts, elbows, and knees.  They lack tails.  You even find them behaving like we do. They relax and daydream.  They nurture their children.

Creationists will see all of these things and still tell you that the people who think we are related to apes through evolution have no basis for the assumption.  My point isn't that creationists should concede by this evidence alone, rather it is that they should concede that a reasonable person could take these features as evidence.  I don't mean to single out creationists.  We are all somewhat blind to evidence that doesn't support our assumptions.  We find it hard to see evidence we're not looking for, and we usually only look for evidence that validates our beliefs.

Look at the fingers, the pensive look, the hairless face, the brow and front facing eyes.  Look at the very human-like ears.

Knowing our human limitations, we should strive both for humility and curiosity.  We should be aware that there is information we're inclined to miss due to current belief commitments, and we should intentionally ask if we know things that might challenge our beliefs.  This gets a little easier with time.  More than anything, we should go easy on one another.  We're all blind.  Looking down on one another for it only adds to our list of vices.