Chapter 31 Chapter 28 Stoicism

Although Stoicism originated at the same time as Epicureanism, its doctrine has a longer history and more changes.The doctrine of its founder, Zeno in the early third century BC, was quite different from that of Marcus Aurelius in the second half of the second century AD.Zeno was a materialist, and his theory was largely a combination of Cynicism and Heraclitus; but the Stoics gradually abandoned materialism because they infiltrated Platonism, and finally even had a little materialism. The shadows are gone.Little has changed indeed in their ethics, and ethics is what most Stoics considered to be the main thing.Even here, however, the emphasis has shifted.As time went on, the Stoics said less and less about other aspects, and more and more extreme emphasis was placed on ethics and those parts of theology most related to ethics.With regard to the early Stoics we are bound by the fact that only a few fragments of their writings survive.Only the works of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius—all of whom belong to the first and second centuries AD—have survived in their entirety.

Stoicism is less Greek than any of the philosophical schools we have considered before.Early Stoics were mostly Syrian, while late Stoics were mostly Roman.Tain (Hellenistic Civilization, p. 287) suspects that the Chaldeans had had an influence on Stoicism.Huberweig correctly pointed out that when the Greeks Hellenized the barbaric world, what they left for them was only suitable for the Greeks themselves.Stoicism, unlike the early purely Greek philosophy, was narrow in feeling and, in a certain sense, fanatical; Those religious components that do not seem to be available.In particular, it caters to rulers, says Professor Gilbert Moule: "Nearly all of Alexander's successors—we might say all the major kings since Zeno—declared themselves Stoic".

Zeno was a Phoenician born in Cytim on the island of Cyprus in the second half of the fourth century BC.It is probable that his family were engaged in commerce, and it is probable that the interests of commerce drew him to Athens in the first place.Once in Athens, however, he became eager to study philosophy.The views of the Cynics appealed to him more than any other, but he was more or less an eclectic.Plato's disciples accused him of plagiarizing the Academy's doctrines.Throughout the history of the Stoics, Socrates has been their chief saint; the manner in which Socrates was brought to trial, his refusal to flee, his willingness to accept death, his treatment of himself by those who have committed an injustice. It all fits perfectly with the teaching of the Stoics to say that you do more harm than others.The same is true of Socrates' indifference to warmth and cold, his austerity in food and clothing, and his complete renunciation of all bodily pleasures.But the Stoics never adopted Plato's theory of ideas, and most Stoics rejected Plato's argument for the immortality of the soul.Only the late Stoics, following Plato, considered the soul immaterial; while the early Stoics agreed with Heraclitus that the soul was made of material fire.Although this theory can also be found in words from Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, they do not seem to regard fire as one of the four elements that constitute physical things.Zeno had no patience for metaphysical mysteries.It is only virtue that counts for him; he values ​​physics and metaphysics only insofar as they contribute to virtue.He tried to combat the metaphysics of the time by means of common sense—and common sense in Greek meant materialism.Troubled by doubts about the reliability of the senses, he pushed the contrary theory to extremes. "Zeno begins by affirming the existence of reality. Skeptics ask: 'What do you mean by reality?'; 'I mean solid and material. I mean this table is solid Matter';. The skeptics asked again: 'Then'; God'; what? The soul?'; Zeno replied: 'It is completely solid; 'Then virtue, justice, or proportion are all solid substances?' Zeno replied: 'Of course they are quite solid'." At this point, it is obvious that Zeno, like many others, Because of his enthusiasm for anti-metaphysics, he fell into another metaphysics of his own.

The main doctrines that this school has always adhered to are those about cosmic determinism and human freedom.Zeno believed that there was no such thing as chance, that the course of nature was strictly determined by the laws of nature.At first there was only fire; then the other elements—air, water, earth, in that order—were gradually formed.But sooner or later there will be a cosmic conflagration, and everything will become fire again.According to most Stoics, this burning is not the final end, like the end of the world in Christian doctrine, but only the end of a cycle; the whole process will be endlessly repeated.Everything that appears now has appeared before, and will appear again, not once but countless times.This doctrine, therefore, seems uninteresting, and in no way more consoling than the usual materialism, such as that of Democritus.But that's only one aspect of it.The course of nature, in Stoicism as in eighteenth-century theology, is regulated by a "legislator" who is at the same time a benevolent Providence.The whole universe, down to the tiniest detail, is designed to achieve certain ends by natural means.These purposes, except those involving gods and ghosts, can be found in human life.Everything has a purpose associated with humans.Some animals are delicious to eat, others can test our mettle; even bedbugs are useful, because they help us wake up in the morning and not stay in bed for too long.The supreme power is sometimes called "God", sometimes Zeus.Seneca distinguishes this Zeus from the object of popular belief; the latter is also real, but subordinate. "God" is inseparable from the world; he is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the divine fire.All things are parts of that single system called Nature; and individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature.In one sense, every life is in harmony with "nature" because its existence is caused by the laws of nature; but in another sense, only when the direction of individual will Human life is in harmony with "Nature" only when it is directed toward those ends which belong to the ends of "Nature" as a whole.Virtue is the will to be in harmony with "nature".Bad men, though compelled to obey God's law, do not do so voluntarily; to use Creander's metaphor, they are like a dog tied behind a cart and forced to go with it.

Virtue is the only good in a man's life; such things as health, happiness, and possessions are insignificant.Since virtue consists in the will, all that is really good and bad in life depends only on oneself.He can be poor, but what does it matter?He can still be virtuous.The tyrant can put him in prison, but he can still live in unswerving harmony with nature.He can be put to death, but he can die nobly, like Socrates.Others can only have power over what is external to them; virtue (which alone is the true good) depends entirely on the individual.Therefore, as long as everyone can free himself from worldly desires, he has complete freedom.And these worldly desires prevailed because of false judgments; the judgment of the sage is a true judgment, and therefore the sage is master of his own destiny in all that is dear to him, for no external power can deprive him of it. virtue.

There are obviously logical difficulties with this doctrine.If virtue were the only good, then a merciful God must have single-mindedly produced virtue, but natural law has produced a large number of wicked people.If virtue were the only good, there would be no reason to object to cruelty and injustice; for, as the Stoics never tire of pointing out, cruelty and injustice afford the victim the best opportunity for the exercise of virtue.If the world is completely deterministic, then the laws of nature determine whether I am virtuous or not.If I am evil, it is only "nature" that compels me to be evil, and the freedom supposed to be conferred by virtue is impossible for me.

It is difficult for a modern mind to be enthusiastic about a virtuous life if virtue leads to nothing.We praise a medical worker who risked his own life in a pandemic because we think disease is an evil and we want to reduce its prevalence.But if disease is not an evil, medical staff can easily stay at home.For a Stoic, virtue is an end in itself, not a means to some good.But what is the end result when we take a longer-term view?That is, the existing world is destroyed by fire, and then the whole process repeats itself.Could there be anything more extravagant and useless than this?At one point, there can be progress here and there, but in the long run there can only be cycles.When we see something unbearably painful, we hope that it will never happen again; but the Stoics assure us that what happens now will happen again and again.One might imagine that even God who sees the whole must at last be weary of despair.

In connection with this, there is a kind of ruthlessness in Stoic morality.Not only bad feelings are rejected, but all feelings are rejected.The sage has no feeling of sympathy: when a wife or a child dies, he thinks it must not be a hindrance to his own virtue, and therefore he does not feel deeply pained.Friendship--that which Epicurus so highly extols--is all very well, of course, but it must not go so far as to make your friend's misfortune sufficient to destroy your own sacred tranquility.As for public life, it may be your duty to take part in public life, because it offers opportunities for justice, fortitude, etc.; Favors—peace, for example, or more abundant food, etc.—are not real favors; and in any case, all but your own virtue are irrelevant to you.The Stoics are not virtuous in order to do good, but they do good in order to be virtuous.The Stoics never had the idea of ​​loving one's neighbor as oneself; for love, except in a superficial sense, is absent from the Stoic morality.

When I speak of this, I speak of love not as a principle but as a feeling.As a principle, the Stoics also preached fraternity; a principle we find in Seneca and his successors, who perhaps acquired it from the earlier Stoics.The doctrine to which the logic of this school leads is watered down by the humanity of its adherents; so that they are actually much better than the others if they were consistent.Kant--he is very Stoic-like--says that you must be dear to your brother, not because you like him, but because the moral law commands you; live by this commandment.Leaving aside these general issues, let us return to the history of Stoicism.

Of Zeno, only a few fragments remain.Judging from these fragments, it seems that he defined "God" as the fiery mind of the world. He said that "God" is the corporeal essence, and the whole universe constitutes the "God" essence.According to Zeno, says Tertullian, "God" penetrates the material world as honey penetrates the hive.According to Diogenes Laertius, Zeno believed that the universal law, that is, "right reason", permeates all things and is identical with Zeus, the supreme head of the universal government: "God", mind, Fate and Zeus are the same thing.Fate is the force that moves matter; "Providence" or "nature" is another name for it.Zeno did not think that there should be temples dedicated to the gods: "It is not necessary to build temples: for temples can never be considered as things of great value or anything sacred. There will be no of any great value or sanctity".He seems to have believed in astrology and divination, as did the late Stoics.Cicero said he thought the stars had a divine power.Diogenes Laertius said: "The Stoics believed that all kinds of divination were efficacious. They said that if there is such a thing as providence, then there must be divination. They take a lot of what Zeno said. Prophecy has become an example of fact, to prove the truth of divination".Chrysippus is very clear about this.The Stoic doctrine of virtue, though not found in Zeno's surviving writings, seems to have been Zeno's own opinion.

Zeno's immediate successor, Creander of Athos, is principally known for two things.The first is, as we have seen, that he maintains that Aristotle of Samoa should be condemned for impiety because he makes the sun, not the earth, the center of the universe.The second thing is his "Ode to Zeus," which for the most part could have been written by Popper or by any educated Christian in the century after Newton.Even more Christian is the short prayer of Creander: Zeus, guide me; Destiny, guide me on.Whatever work you have sent me, lead me on.I follow you without fear, even if suspicion keeps me behind or unwillingly, but I will always follow you. Chrysippus (280-207 BC), who succeeded Clander, was a prolific writer who is said to have written 705 volumes.He systematized and pedantized Stoicism.He believed that only Zeus, the supreme fire, was immortal; other gods, including the sun and moon, were mortal and mortal.He is said to have thought that "gods" had no part in creating evil, but we don't see how he could reconcile this with determinism.Elsewhere he treats evil in the manner of Heraclitus, arguing that opposites contain each other, and that good without evil is logically impossible: "Nothing is more certain than that one cannot imagine The existence of evil is necessary for good to exist. Good and evil are opposites, and the two must exist in opposition.”He cites Plato, not Heraclitus, in support of this claim. Chrysippus believes that good people are always happy and bad people are always unhappy, and that the happiness of good people is not different from the happiness of "gods".They have conflicting opinions as to whether the soul continues to exist after death.Cleopatra held that all souls would continue to exist until the next universal conflagration (at which point everything would be absorbed into the "God"); but Chrysippus held that only the souls of intelligent men That's it.His interests were not as thoroughly ethical as those of the later Stoics; in fact he made logic fundamental.Hypothetical syllogisms and selective syllogisms, as well as the term "selective" all come from the Stoics, as do the study of grammar and the original ideas of various "case" changes of nouns.Chrysippus, or the other Stoics inspired by his work, had a very refined theory of knowledge; that theory of knowledge was largely empirical and based on perception, although it included the It is believed that certain concepts and principles are established due to consensusgentium (that is, the unanimous consent of mankind).But Zeno and the Roman Stoics regarded all theoretical research as subordinate to ethics: Zeno said that philosophy is like an orchard in which logic is the wall, physics is the tree, And ethics is the fruit; or like an egg, logic is the shell, physics is the white, and ethics is the yolk.It seems that Chrysippus seems to admit that the study of theory has more independent value.Perhaps his influence accounts for the fact that many of the Stoics made advances in mathematics as well as in other sciences. Two important figures after Chrysippus, Panethius and Posidonius, modified the Stoicism considerably.Panethius added a fair amount of Platonism and abandoned materialism.He was a friend of Sepio the Younger, and had an influence on Cicero; and it was mainly through Cicero that Stoicism became known to the Romans.Posidonius had a greater influence on Cicero, because Cicero had studied with Posidonius in Rhodes.Posidonius also studied at Panethius, who died about 110 BC. Posidonius (c. 135-c. 51 BC) was a Syrian Greek who was a child when the Seleucid dynasty ended.Perhaps it was because of the anarchy he experienced in Syria that he traveled westward; he first went to Athens, where he absorbed Stoicism, and then went on to the western part of the Roman Empire. "He has seen with his own eyes the sunset over the Atlantic beyond the edge of the known world, the African coast opposite Spain where the trees are infested with apes, and the villages of savage tribes in the interior of Marseilles, where the daily sight of human heads as hung on the gate as a sign of victory."He became a prolific writer on scientific subjects; indeed, one of the reasons for his travels was the wish to study ocean tides, a study which could not be carried out in the Mediterranean.He did a remarkable job in astronomy, and we have seen in Chapter 22 that his estimate of the distance to the sun was the best estimate of antiquity.He was again a famous historian—he succeeded Polybius.But he is known chiefly as an eclectic philosopher: he combined many of Plato's lessons (which seem to have been forgotten in the skeptical stage of the Academy) with Stoicism. doctrine combined. This love for Plato is expressed in his teachings on the soul and life after death.Panethius also said, like most Stoics, that the soul perishes with the body.Posidonius, on the other hand, says that the soul continues to live in the air, and in most cases remains there until the next world conflagration.There is no hell, but the wicked are not so happy after death as the good; for sin makes the soul's vapor cloudy, and prevents it from rising as high as the good soul.Those with serious crimes will be close to the ground and will be reincarnated; those who are truly virtuous will rise to the top of the planet, and watch the movement of the stars as they age.They could help other souls; this (he thought) explained the truth of astrology.By thus reviving Orphic ideas and assimilating Neo-Pythagorean beliefs, Bevan suggests, Posidonius may have paved the way for Gnosticism.He again rightly says that the fatal blow to a philosophy like Posidonian came not from Christianity but from Copernican theory.Creander had good reason to regard Aristarchus of Summer as a dangerous enemy. Far more important historically (though not philosophically) than the early Stoics were three figures associated with Rome, namely: Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius Stay—one of them is a minister, the other is a slave, and the other is an emperor. Seneca (c. 3 BC - AD 65) was a Spaniard whose father was an educated man living in Rome.Seneca chose a career in politics, and, having already had considerable success, was exiled to Corsica (41 AD) by the Roman emperor Claudius because he had offended Empress Messalina.In AD 48, Claudius' second wife, Agrippina, recalled Seneca from exile and appointed him tutor to her eleven-year-old son.Seneca was more unfortunate than Aristotle, because the student he taught was the emperor Nero.Although a Stoic, Seneca publicly disdained wealth, yet he amassed a vast fortune, said to be worth as much as 300 million sesterces (approximately $12 million).Much of this wealth was acquired by lending money in Britain; according to Dio, the excessive interest rates he charged were one of the causes of Britain's rebellion.The heroic Queen Bodicea (if the story is true) leads a rebellion against the capitalism represented by this austere philosophical apostle.Nero's excesses grew more and more lawless, and Seneca fell from favor less and less.In the end he was charged (whether justly or unjustly) with a massive conspiracy to murder Nero and install a new emperor—some say Seneca himself—to the throne.In remembrance of his old service he was graciously killed (65 A.D.). His ending is instructive.When he first heard of the emperor's decision, he was going to write a will.When they told him that there was no time left for him to write long discourses, he turned to his grieving family and said, "Don't be sorry, I leave you with something far more valuable than earthly riches." , I have left behind an example of a virtuous life”—or something of that sort.So he cut open the veins, and summoned his secretary to take down his dying words; and, according to Tacitus, his eloquence continued to flow to his last hour.His nephew, the poet Lu Kang, was also executed at the same time, reciting his poems on his deathbed.Seneca is judged by posterity by his venerable maxims, not by his rather dubious conduct.Some of the church fathers proclaimed him a Christian, and such as St. Jerome believed the supposed correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul to be authentic. Epictetus (c. 60 AD, c. 100 AD) was a very different type of man, although as a philosopher he closely resembled Seneca.He was a Greek, originally a slave of Apaphrodites, who was also a slave freed by Nero, and later became a minister of Nero.He was crippled—the result, it is said, of the harsh punishment he had received as a slave.He lived and taught in Rome until A.D. 90, when the emperor Domitian had no need for intellectuals and expelled all philosophers.Epictetus then retired to Nicopolis in Epirus, where he wrote and lectured for several years, and here he died. Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) was at the other extreme of the social hierarchy.He was the adopted son of his uncle and father-in-law Antoninus Pius, the good emperor of Rome, who succeeded him in AD 161 and remembered Pius with great respect.Aurelius was loyal to Stoic virtues as emperor.Perseverance was much needed for him, for his reign was beset by calamities—earthquakes, plagues, long and difficult wars, military mutinies, and so on.His Meditations, written for himself, were evidently not ready for publication; it shows that he felt the burden of his public duties, and suffered from a great ennui .His only son, Commodus, who succeeded him, was one of the worst emperors of all time, but deftly concealed his malevolence while his father was alive.Faustina, the philosopher's wife, was accused (perhaps unjustly) of great immorality; but he never doubted her, and took pains to honor her after her death .He exiled the Christians because they did not believe in the state religion, which he considered politically necessary.All his actions were conscientious, but most of them were unsuccessful.He was a pathetic man: of a whole series of worldly desires that had to be resisted, the one he found most attractive was that of retiring to a quiet country life.But the opportunity to realize this wish never came.Some chapters of his "Meditations" were written in the camp, and some were written during the expedition, the toil of which finally contributed to his death. The most striking thing is that Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are completely consistent on many philosophical issues.This suggests that although the social environment affects the philosophy of an era, the influence of personal environment on a person's philosophy is often not as great as we imagine.Philosophers are usually men of a certain breadth of mind, and they are mostly able to ignore the accidents of their own private lives; but even they cannot step outside the larger circles of good and evil of their own time.In bad times they create consolations; in good times their interests are more purely intellectual. Gibbon's exhaustive history begins with the crimes of Commodus, and Gibbon, like most eighteenth-century writers, regards the Antonine dynasty as a golden age.Gibbon said: "If a man were asked to point to the period in the history of the world when the condition of mankind was the happiest and most prosperous, he would not hesitate to cite the period from the death of Domitian to the enthronement of Commodus. ".It is impossible for us to fully agree with this judgment.The evil of slavery caused great suffering and was sapping the vitality of the ancient world.Rome had its gladiatorial shows and the fights between man and beast, a cruelty which was intolerable and must have corrupted the people who enjoyed the spectacle.Marcus Aurelius did indeed decree that gladiators must fight with blunt swords, but this reform was temporary, and he did not make any reforms to the gladiator fights between man and beast.The economic system was also very bad; Italy was becoming desolate, and the inhabitants of Rome depended on free rations of food from the provinces.All the initiative was concentrated in the hands of the emperor and his ministers; and throughout the vast realm of the empire, no one could do anything but submit, save the occasional mutinous general.People look to the past for the best of times, and the future to them is boredom at best and terror at worst.When we compare the tone of Marcus Aurelius with that of Bacon, Locke, or Condorcet, we see the difference between a weary age and a hopeful one. different.In an age of hope the great evils of the present are bearable because they are thought to pass away; but in an age of weary even the true good lose their savor.Stoic ethics appealed to the age of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius because its gospel was a gospel of endurance rather than a gospel of hope. From the point of view of general happiness, the age of the Antonines was unquestionably better than any descendant down to the Renaissance.But a closer study reveals that this era was not as prosperous as its architectural remains might lead one to imagine.Greco-Roman civilization did not imprint much on agricultural areas, it was practically confined to cities.And even in the cities, there are still proletarians who endure extreme poverty, and there are also a large class of slaves.When Rosdovtsev discussed the socio-economic situation of the cities, he concluded as follows: "The picture of their social situation is not as attractive as their external picture. The impression given to us by our materials is that the prosperity of many cities is caused by Created by, and for, a small fraction of their population; Most of them either earn little income or live in extreme poverty. In short, we must not exaggerate the wealth of the city, the appearance of the city can give people a false impression." Epictetus said that in this world we are all prisoners, and we are imprisoned in the physical body of this world.According to Marcus Aurelius, he used to say: "A man is a little soul upon a corpse."Zeus also couldn't make the flesh free, but he gave us a part of his divinity.Instead of saying "I am an Athenian" or "I am a Roman", we should say "I am a citizen of the universe".If you were a relative of Caesar, you would definitely feel safe; then since you are a relative of "God", shouldn't you feel even more secure?If we can understand that virtue is the only true good, we can know that no real evil can befall us. I am bound to die.But must I die moaning?I must be imprisoned.But do I have to complain?I was bound to be exiled.But is there anyone who can stop me from laughing, from being brave and calm? "Tell me the secret."I refuse to tell because it is within my power. "Then I'll lock you up".You, what did you say?Lock me up?You can chain my legs—yes; but my will—that you cannot chain, not even Zeus can conquer. "I will imprison you".Then you just mean my body. "I'm going to chop off your head".how?When did I tell you that I was the only person in the world who couldn't be beheaded? These are the thoughts that people who pursue philosophy should consider, these are the lessons they should write down day by day, and they should use them to sharpen themselves.The slaves were also the same as everyone else, because all were sons of "God" alike. We must obey God as a good citizen obeys the law. "Soldiers are sworn to respect Caesar above all men, but we must respect ourselves first." "When you appear before the authority of the world, remember that there is another God who is watching from on high what is happening, and you must please him and not the authority of the world" .So who is a Stoic? Show me a character fashioned after the pattern of those assertions he says, just as a figure fashioned after the art of Phidias is what we call Phidias.Please point me to a person who is happy in sickness, happy in danger, happy in death, happy in trouble, happy in suffering.Please point him out for me.In the name of God, I would love to see a Stoic.No, you cannot point me to a perfect Stoic; then point me to a Stoic in the making, a Stoic on the road.Show me, please, don't begrudge an old man like me to point out a sight that I have never seen.what!Do you think you're going to show me Phidias's Zeus, or his Athena's ivory and gold?What I want is a soul, can any of you show me a soul that wants to be one with God, who is neither god nor man, never makes a mistake, never feels miserable, and is free from anger the soul of such a man as envy, envy, and jealousy--(why conceal my meaning?) Show me a wish to change his personality into a godhead, and who in his poor flesh always puts His purpose must be those who meet God.Please point me to such a person.No, you can't point it out. 爱比克泰德从不厌倦于指出，我们应该怎样对待那些被人认为是不幸的事物，他时常从家常谈话的方式来说明这一点。 他也象基督徒一样，主张我们应当爱我们的敌人。总的说来，他也和其他的斯多葛派一样地鄙弃快乐，但是有一种幸福却是不能加以鄙弃的。“雅典是美丽的。是的，但是幸福要更加美丽得多，——幸福就是免于激情与纷扰的自由，就是你的事情绝不有赖于别人的那种感觉”（第428页）。每个人都是剧中的一个演员，神指定好了各种角色；我们的责任就是好好地演出我们的角色，不管我们的角色是什么。记录爱比克泰德的教训的那些作品，有着极大的真诚性与简洁性（它们是由他的弟子阿里安所笔记下来的）。他的道德是高尚超俗的；在一个人的主要责任就是抵抗暴君权势的那样一种局面之下，我们恐怕很难再找到任何其他更有用的东西了。在某些方面，例如在承认人人都是兄弟以及宣扬奴隶的平等这些方面，它要优于我们能在柏拉图或亚里士多德或者任何被城邦制所鼓舞的那些哲学家那儿所找得到的任何思想。爱比克泰德时代的现实世界要比白里克里斯时代的雅典恶劣得多，但是现实存在的罪恶却解放了他的热望，而他的理想世界之优于柏拉图的理想世界，也就正犹如他的实际世界之劣于公元前五世纪的雅典一样。 马尔库斯·奥勒留的《沉思集》一开始就承认他曾受益于他的祖父、父亲、养父、各位老师以及神明。他所列举的受益，有些是很奇怪的。他说他跟狄奥格尼图学会了不听那些行奇迹者的话；他跟鲁斯提库学会了不写诗；他跟塞克斯托学会了庄重而不动情；跟文法学家亚历山大学会了不去改动别人的坏文法，而是要等到过后不久再去使用正确的表达方式；他跟柏拉图派的亚历山大学会了复信时绝不说因为事情忙碌以致回信过迟请原谅的话；跟他的养父学会了不和男孩子恋爱。他接着说他得归功于神明，因为他并未长时期生长于他祖父的姬妾之手，也没有过早地来验证自己的男性；他的孩子们既不愚蠢，身体也不畸形；他的妻子是柔顺的、温存的、其实的；而且当他搞哲学的时候，他也并没有浪费时间于历史学、三段论与天文学。 《沉思集》一书中凡是非个人的地方，都与爱比克泰德密切地符合一致。马尔库斯·奥勒留是怀疑灵魂不朽的，但是他又象一个基督徒那样地会说：“既然你目前这一刹那就可能离开生命，你就按着这种情况来安排你的每一桩行为和思想吧”。与宇宙相和谐的生命才是美好的东西；而与宇宙相和谐又与服从“神”的意志是一回事。“啊，宇宙，凡是与你相和谐的万物也就都与我和谐。凡是对你适合时宜的，对我也就都不迟不早。你的季节所带来的万物都是我的果实，啊，自然：万物都出自于你，万物都存在于你，万物都复归于你。诗人们说赛克洛普的亲爱的城市；难道你就不该说'；宙斯的亲爱的城市'；了么”？ 我们可以看出，圣奥古斯丁的《上帝之城》有一部分就是得之于这位异教皇帝的。 马尔库斯·奥勒留深信“神”给每个人都分配了一个精灵作为他的守护者，——这种信仰重新出现在基督教的保护者的天使的观念之中。他一想到宇宙是一个紧密织就的整体就觉得安慰，他说宇宙是一个活的生命，具有一个实体和一个灵魂。他的格言之一就是：“要经常考察宇宙中一切事物的联系”。“无论对你发生了什么事，那都是终古就为你准备好了的；其中的因果蕴涵关系终古都在织就着你的生命之线”。和这在一道的（尽管他在罗马国家中有那样的一种地位），还有他那斯多葛主义的把人类视为一体的信仰：“就我是安东尼努斯来说，我的城邦与国土就是罗马；但就我是一个人来说，我的城邦与国土就是这个世界”。我们在这里便发现，所有的斯多葛派都有着这种不能调和定命论与意志自由的困难。当他想到他自己作为统治者的责任时，他就说，“人人彼此都是为了对方而存在的”。但当他想到唯有有德的意志才是善的这一学说时，他在同一页书上却又说，“一个人的罪恶并不能伤害别人”。他从没有推论过说，一个人的善对别人是无益的，也从没有推论过说，如果他是象尼罗那样的一个坏皇帝，他除了害自己而外是不会伤害任何别人的；然而这一结论却似乎是应有的。 他说：“唯有人才能够甚至于爱那些做了错事的人。这种情形发生于，如果当他们做了错事的时候，你会看到他们原是你的亲人，并且他们是由于无知而在无意之中做下了错事，而且不久你们双方都要死去；尤其是当犯过错的人对你并没有伤害，因为他不曾使你的控制能力变得比从前更坏的时候”。 又说：“要爱人类。要追随着'；神'；。……只要记得法则在统治着一切就够了”。这几段话非常显明地表示出来了斯多葛派伦理学与神学之间的内在矛盾。一方面，宇宙是一个严格定命的单一的整体，其中所发生的一切都是以前原因的结果；而另一方面，个人意志又是完全自主的，没有任何外来的原因可以强迫一个人去犯罪。这是一个矛盾，与此密切相关联的还有第二个矛盾。既然意志是自主的而且唯有有德的意志才是善，一个人就对别人既不能行善也不能为害了；所以仁爱就只是一种幻觉。我们对这两个矛盾的每一种都必须加以某些说明。自由意志与定命论的矛盾，是贯穿着从古代直到今天的哲学的矛盾之一，它在不同的时代里采取了不同的形式。现在我们所要探讨的是斯多葛派的形式。 我想，如果我们可以让一个斯多葛派受到苏格拉底式的诘难的话，他也许多少会辩护他自己的观点如下：宇宙是一个单一的活着的生命，具有一个也许可以称之为“神”或者“理性”的灵魂。作为一个整体，这个生命是自由的。“神”从一开始就决定了他自己要按照着固定的普遍的法则而行动，但是他选择了那些能够产生最好的结果的法则。有时候在个别的情况下，结果并不完全是我们所愿望的；但是为着立法的稳固性的缘故，这种不方便还是值得忍受的，如象在人类的法典里那样。每个人都有一部分是火，一部分是低等的泥土；就他是火而言（至少当它有着最好的品质的时候），他就是“神”的一部分。当一个人的神圣的部分能够有德地体现意志时，这种意志就是神的自由意志的一部分；所以在这种情况下，人的意志也就是自由的。 在一定的限度之内这是一个很好的答案，但是当我们考虑到我们意志作用的原因时，它就站不住脚了。从经验的事实里，我们都知道例如消化不良对于一个人的德行所起的坏作用，并且大力使用某些适当的药物是可以摧毁人的意志力的。我们可以举爱比克泰德所喜欢的例子，例如一个人很不公正地被暴君囚禁了起来；这种例子在近些年要比人类史上任何其他的时期都来得多。其中有些人的行为确乎具有斯多葛式的英雄气概；但有些人则颇为神秘地并未能做到。现在我们都知道，不仅仅是充分的折磨几乎足以摧毁任何人的坚强不屈的精神，而且吗啡或者古柯龌也可以使得一个人屈服。事实上唯有当暴君是不科学的时候，意志才能够不向暴君屈服。这是一个极端的例子；但是凡可以支持无生物界的决定论的种种论证，同样也大体上存在于人类意志的领域里。我并不是说——我也并不以为——这些论证是有定论；我只是说它们在这两种情况之下都具有同等的力量，我们不能有很好的理由在一个领域里面接受它们，而在另一个领域里面又排斥它们。当一个斯多葛派劝人对犯罪者采取容忍态度时，他自己是在主张有罪的意志都是以前种种原因的结果；在他看来，似乎唯有有德的意志才是自由的。然而这并不能自圆其说。马尔库斯·奥勒留解说他自己的德行就是由于他的父母、祖父母和师长们的良好的影响所致；但是善良的意志和恶劣的意志都同样地是此前各种原因的结果。斯多葛派的确可以说他的哲学是使得接受它的人有德的原因之一，但是似乎除非是混淆了一定的思想上的错误，否则它是不会产生这种值得愿望的效果的。德行与罪恶同样地都是此前种种原因之不可避免的结果（象斯多葛派所应该主张的那样），可是承认了这种情形，当然多少是会对于道德的努力产生一种瘫痪作用的。 现在我就来谈第二个矛盾；即，斯多葛派宣扬仁爱时，在理论上是主张没有一个人是可以对别人为善或者作恶的，因为唯有有德的意志才是善，而有德的意志又是与外界原因无关的。这个矛盾比前一个更为显著，也更为斯多葛派（包括某些基督教的道德学家在内）所特有。对于他们之所以没有察觉到这一点的解释是：正象许多其他的人一样，他们也有着两种伦理体系，一种是对自己的高等伦理，一种是对“不知法度、没有教养的人”的低等伦理。当一个斯多葛派哲学家想到自己的时候，他就认为幸福以及其他一切世俗所谓的美好都是毫无价值的；他甚至于说愿望幸福乃是违反自然的，意思是说那里面包含着不肯委身听命于神的意志。但是作为一个执掌帝国大政的实践者，马尔库斯·奥勒留却非常清楚地知道这种东西是行不通的。他的责任是要使非洲的粮船按时到达罗马，是要采取措施来救济饥馑所造成的苦难，是要使野蛮的敌人不能越境。这就是说，在对付这些不能被他认为是斯多葛派的哲学家（无论是实际的哲学家也罢，还是可能的哲学家也罢）的臣民的时候，他就接受通常的世俗的善恶标准了。正是由于采取了这些标准，他才能够尽其执政者的职责。奇怪的是，这种职责的本身又是斯多葛派的圣人所应当做到的更高级的境界里面的东西，尽管它是从斯多葛派圣人所认为是根本错误的一种伦理学里面推衍出来的。 对于这个困难我所能想象的唯一答案，就是一种在逻辑上也许是无懈可击但并不值得赞许的答案。我想这个答案康德是会做得出来的，康德的伦理体系非常有似于斯多葛派的伦理体系。的确，康德可以说除了善的意志以外就没有什么善的东西；但是唯有当意志是朝向着某些目的的时候，它才是善，而这些目的的本身却又是无所谓的。A先生是幸福呢，还是不幸呢？这是无关重要的。但是如果我是有德的话，我就要采取一种我相信可以使他幸福的行为，因为这就是道德律所吩咐的。我不能使A先生有德，因为他的德行完全取决于他自己；但是我可以做某些事情有助于使他幸福，或者富有，或者博学，或者健康。因此，斯多葛派的伦理学就可以表述如下：有些事情被世俗认为是好东西，但这是一个错误，真正·是善的乃是一种要为别人去取得这些虚伪的好东西的意志。这种学说并不包含有逻辑上的矛盾，但是如果我们真正相信通常所认为的好东西都是毫无价值的话，那末这种学说就丧失了一切的可信性了；因为在这种情形之下，有德的意志就可以同样地朝向着迥然不同的其他目的。 实际上，斯多葛主义里有着一种酸葡萄的成份。我们不能够有福，但是我们却可以有善；所以只要我们有善，就让我们装成是对于不幸不加计较吧！这种学说是英勇的，并且在一个恶劣的世界里是有用的；但是它却既不是真实的，而且从一种根本的意义上来说，也不是真诚的。 虽然斯多葛派的主要重点是在伦理方面，但是他们的教导有两个方面在其他的领域里是产生了结果的。一个方面是知识论，另一个方面是自然律和天赋人权的学说。 在知识论方面，他们不顾柏拉图而接受了知觉作用；他们认为感官的欺骗性实际上乃是虚假的判断，只要稍微用心一点就可以避免。有一个斯多葛派的哲学家，即芝诺的及门弟子斯非鲁斯曾被国王托勒密请去宴会，国王在倾听了这种学说之后送给了他一个蜡做的石榴。这位哲学家想要吃这个石榴，于是国王就笑他。他就回答说，他不能确定它是不是一个真石榴，但是他认为在王宫的筵席上任何不能吃的东西大概是不会拿上来的，他的这段答话就是援用斯多葛派对于那些根据知觉可以确切知道的事物与那些根据知觉仅仅是或然的事物这二者之间所做的区别的。总的说来，这种学说是健康的、科学的。 他们在知识论方面的另一种学说影响就更大，但问题也更多。那就是他们信仰先天的观念与原则。希腊的逻辑完全是演绎的，这就发生了关于最初的前提的问题。最初的前提必须是，至少部分地必须是普遍的；而且又没有方法可以证明它们。斯多葛派认为有某些原则是明白得透亮的，是一切人都承认的；这些原则就可以作为演绎的基础，象在欧几里德的《几何原本》一书里那样。同样地，先天的观念也可以作为定义的出发点。这种观点是被整个的中世纪，也甚至于是被笛卡尔，所接受了的。 象十六、十七、十八世纪所出现的那种天赋人权的学说也是斯多葛派学说的复活，尽管有着许多重要的修正。是斯多葛派区别了jusnaturale（自然法）与jusgentium（民族法）的。自然法是从那种被认为是存在于一切普遍知识的背后的最初原则里面得出来的。斯多葛派认为，一切人天生都是平等的。马尔库斯·奥勒留在他的《沉思集》一书里拥护“一种能使一切人都有同一法律的政体，一种能依据平等的权利与平等的言论自由而治国的政体，一种最能尊敬被统治者的自由的君主政府”。这是一种在罗马帝国不可能彻底实现的理想，但是它却影响了立法，特别是改善了妇女与奴隶的地位。基督教在接受斯多葛派的许多东西的同时，也接受过来了斯多葛派学说中的这一部分。最后到了十七世纪，向专制主义进行有效斗争的时机终于到来了，于是斯多葛派关于自然法与天赋平等的学说就披上了基督教的外衣，并且获得了在古代甚至于是一个皇帝也不能赋给它的那种实际的力量。