Babak Abbasi's essay 'Philosophy and Living in Hard Times'

What help can philosophy offer in hard times?

First of all, it must be borne in mind that there are various conceptions of what philosophy is and what its function is, and it is not the case that every philosophy considers itself addressed by this question. In fact, only one conception of philosophy engages with this question, and that is "philosophy as a way of life." The antiquity of this conception of philosophy, alongside philosophy as the knowledge of being, goes back to ancient Greece and the founding era of philosophy. Many believe that for Socrates, the most important questions were not abstract, metaphysical ones, but questions such as what the good life is and how one should live. The saying that Socrates brought philosophy down from the heavens to the earth probably means something like this. That is, instead of metaphysical questions or questions about what goes on in the skies and celestial spheres, his question was how we should tread upon the earth.

Of course, since an important characteristic of philosophy is "questioning itself" (philosophy itself), and also since philosophy has gone through numerous periods throughout history, different answers have been given in each period to the question of what the task of philosophy is. Reviewing these answers would take us too far from our subject, but what seems necessary to say is that in the history of philosophy, the definition of philosophy as "ontology" (What exists? What does not exist?) or, in the modern era, "epistemology" (What can I know?) was predominant. However, from the mid-twentieth century onward, that old question and concern of philosophy—namely, the question of the nature and manner of living well—was revived by philosophers such as Pierre Hadot. This conception of philosophy is closer to the semantic implications of "wisdom," because in wisdom the practical aspect is just as important as the theoretical aspect, and perhaps it is more accurate to say that in wisdom, theory is not separate from practice. But this is contrary to the main current of the history of philosophy, which always considered theory separate from practice.[1]

But moving on from this introduction, a point must also be added to your question so that both the question and its answer can be better understood, and that is that no period in history has been without hardship. The feeling of people in every era was that they were living in hard times, and this means that every era has had its own hardships. Essentially, some believe that philosophy feeds on intellectual and objective difficulties. Philosophy is born of hard times. That is, when the things we knew (or thought we knew) are no longer of use to us, and we need new knowledge and fresh solutions. Socrates, too, did not live in easy and comfortable times—otherwise, his death would have been an ordinary death, not death by the hemlock cup. So, this question of what to do with difficult life conditions is not a new question.

Now, if we return to the aforementioned idea about the status of philosophy, that is, philosophy as a way of life, perhaps an answer to the above question can be found. In many philosophies, from Plato to the present day, one can seek an answer to the question of how we can endure difficult conditions and, to use a not-so-eloquent expression, live life, not just stay alive! A list of philosophers, ancient and modern, can be lined up who, at least in some of their works, have addressed such a question, but here I want to name only one school that has proven itself in practice and throughout history, and even today is a source of inspiration for many individuals and schools that have sought to alleviate their own suffering and that of other human beings in difficult human conditions, and also to show a path to a rich and meaningful life; and that is none other than the Stoic school.

Stoic philosophy is a philosophy of resilience, and the Stoics were, in thought and deed, champions of resilience. This school has been a source of inspiration for many later philosophers as well as for people who found themselves in difficult circumstances, whether in the external world or within. One memorable example is Boethius, who, while writing The Consolation of Philosophy in prison, was offering an account of Stoic philosophy suited to his own condition. Today we also witness a return to Stoic philosophy. For instance, a thinker like Alain de Botton, whose name rose to prominence with the book The Consolations of Philosophy and who later founded "The School of Life," is essentially developing a Stoic project under the banner of practical philosophy. It is also worth mentioning the excellent book by William B. Irvine, who has tried to offer a philosophy of life suited to contemporary needs based on Stoic teachings. [2] But moving beyond philosophy, the Stoic school has also been the intellectual wellspring for two important schools in psychology: "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy" (CBT) and "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy" (ACT).

The Stoic school, which also bears considerable resemblances to Buddhism, aimed, in modern terms, to increase the psychological flexibility of human beings and to help them set out on the path of the right life, which is the virtuous life. The Stoics both had an explanation for suffering and an undesirable life, and, based on that explanation, proposed a solution for liberation from suffering and setting out on the path of the good life.

Here I will try to outline two ideas whose lineage traces back to Stoic teachings and very briefly show their connection to resilience and living well: the idea of acceptance (which is based on the distinction between things we can control and things we cannot control) and the idea of the sufficiency of virtue.

Openness and Acceptance

One of the important themes of Stoic philosophy is the distinction between things we can control, things we can partially control, and things we cannot control. How we react to these two/three categories will determine both our mental states, such as whether we have tranquility or not, and the value of our lives. What things are controllable and what things are uncontrollable? According to the Stoics, external circumstances, even what happens to our body, are beyond our power. However, how we react to external events, how we think, how we feel, and how we act, are under our control. One may disagree with the Stoics about the specific instances of things under our control. But the principle of such a distinction remains defensible and illuminating. The Stoics' suggestion for difficult conditions was to accept what is not in our power and to take action regarding what is in our power and control.

They believed that no one can be praised or blamed for what lies outside the sphere of their power; therefore, our happiness or misery should not be tied to things that are not in our power. What can grant a person credit and distinction are things in which the person themselves has a direct or indirect share in attaining. We have probably often heard this sentence from Epictetus: our suffering is not the result of events themselves but the result of the perception and judgment we have about them. But the philosophical and logical analysis of this proposition is usually not explained. In language more familiar to those versed in philosophy, our perceptions and reactions to events are not necessary matters but are contingent. This means that one can have different and varied judgments about a single event, and moreover, our reactions are not inevitable either. These judgments and reactions depend on context and are, of course, the result of our choice. An example commonly used is death. It is said that if death were inherently terrifying, why could Socrates face it with such openness.

Based on this analysis, the effective encounter with difficulties beyond our control is openness and acceptance. Openness and acceptance, in turn, have two meanings: intellectual openness and acceptance, and emotional openness and acceptance. Intellectual acceptance means accepting what has happened as a fact. The opposite of this sense of acceptance is denial and disbelief. For example, when something unfortunate happens to us, questions like "why me?" are a sign of denial. This positive meaning of acceptance can be seen in the idea of "love of fate" (amor fati), of which Nietzsche was an admirer.

But emotional openness and acceptance means the willingness to fully experience difficult states and emotions. The opposite of this sense of acceptance is "avoidance." The Stoics had techniques for practicing both the intellectual and emotional aspects of acceptance (such as contemplating misfortunes), but today we need the help of psychologists to learn how to implement emotional acceptance. Acceptance in this sense does not mean welcoming pain and suffering, but rather being ready to embrace the pains resulting from life's events. In this shift of direction from "turning away" to "facing," we will see that the situation changes. When we recoil from the emotion of pain or the emotion of fear, pain becomes more painful and fear more frightening, and this is something that empirical experiments confirm today. The alternative reaction to avoidance is to be prepared, with forbearance, to experience difficult emotions. As a result of such an approach, the pain does not disappear, but, unlike the avoidance approach, we also do not cause the pain to increase and deepen.[3]

In summary, openness and acceptance mean that when facing difficulties, we neither deny them nor avoid them. We accept, believe, and acknowledge them, and then try to make room within ourselves for these difficult states and emotions like sadness, fear, and anger. The Stoics, with psychological insights, had realized that recoiling from pain intensifies it. Since each of us has an inevitable share of pain and suffering, we must abandon excess and accept our share of pain, making peace with it rather than war and struggle. Such an encounter and reaction, which naturally requires practice to master, does not eliminate pain and adversity but curbs its destructive power and prevents pain and suffering from becoming something debilitating, and in this way, space is created for doing things that are important to the person.

The question that arises here is: does this acceptance not lead us to passivity in the face of what is happening around us in society and politics? The answer seems to be no. Firstly, the Stoics themselves were not reclusive and isolated individuals and actively participated in political and social life. Secondly, they also had theoretical foundations for this deep participation in social and political life—which we will address in the next section.

Virtuous Activity

The doctrine of virtue in ancient Greece was first formulated in the thought of Socrates/Plato and then systematized and developed in Aristotle’s philosophy, so that both Aristotle’s ethics and his philosophy of life were built around the idea of virtue. What made virtue important was its connection to living well and the good life (in the sense of a worthwhile life). It was Aristotle who first argued that all human beings seek not merely the good but the highest good, and that this supreme good is the virtuous life. In ancient Greece, the view that virtue is necessary for the good life was widely accepted. There was, however, disagreement over whether virtue is also sufficient for living well. Aristotle argued that the good life, if not impossible, is at least difficult without the assistance of fortune and luck. But the Stoics, one of whose key figures, Epictetus, was himself once a slave, sensed something unfair in this Aristotelian conception of the good life. The Stoics’ problem with this formulation was that they maintained the goodness of a life cannot depend on fortune and luck. For this reason, they sought to define happiness in such a way that luck and fortune would not be a necessary condition. The dichotomy between what is within our power, control, and mastery and what lies beyond our power and mastery was devised for this very purpose. Epictetus, in various expressions, constantly returns to this distinction and opposition, striving to chart a path for living well that does not hinge on things beyond our control.

The Stoics believed that virtue is a kind of excellence and an acquired quality for which we praise a person. Thus, virtue must pertain to matters over which we have control and mastery, such as our thoughts or actions. Today, there are significant doubts about how much control and mastery we have over our thoughts and emotions. Yet, it can be agreed upon that reacting virtuously and acting virtuously is within our power.

We all have a general conception of virtue and readily employ it. We very likely know people who possess virtues such as honesty, benevolence and helpfulness, empathy, courage, and fairness. But to refine our understanding of what virtue is, it is worth referring to existing philosophical definitions as well.[4] Here, virtue is understood as acquired character traits that a person can choose to have their actions manifest and reflect those inner traits. It has been said that virtues are qualities that make us better people; virtues lead us to growth, flourishing, and perfection, either by having good outcomes, such as success in improving our own lives or the lives of others, or by embodying good values or motivations, such as a concern for the good of others or a concern for discovering the truth. The opposite can be said of vices. Vices make us worse people, either because they typically have bad outcomes, like oppression, or because behind the actions arising from them lie bad motivations, such as narcissism, or duplicity and dishonesty. Virtues have intrinsic value, for they are themselves perfections and are not a prelude or instrument for attaining something else. And this is the meaning of Socrates’ famous saying that virtue is its own reward.

Now, the idea of virtue can be linked to resilience and the good life in this way: first, it must be said that the Stoics, who were among the developers of the idea of virtue, placed resilience in the front rank of the virtues. Resilience in the sense that the individual can cope with adversities that were not under their control and mastery, and can “accept” and endure difficulties with courage and dignity in the two senses described above. Second, in the Stoic account of the idea of virtue, what makes a life desirable is not a life accompanied by happiness and free from pain and suffering, but a life accompanied by virtuous activity. For them, the bad life was not the difficult life but the insipid life. They were not seeking an easy and untroubled life, but a rich, substantial, and even adventurous life. This is why the Stoics prioritized virtue over pleasure (which was the Epicurean idea).

Virtues are diverse and numerous, and each person, depending on the passion or need they discern in their path of growth, can set certain virtues as their guiding star and manifest them daily in their life and conduct. What could prevent a person, even in the most difficult circumstances, from being benevolent, compassionate, or open to other human beings and their sufferings? Viktor Frankl, a survivor of the Auschwitz camp and a true exemplar of resilience, recounts harrowing tales of prisoners who would walk through the camp, visit other inmates, and share their food rations with them. A person can choose whether or not they want their life to be a manifestation of certain values and virtues. They can choose whether or not they want to do something for what they deem important.

Today, the idea of virtue has also entered psychology. There are interesting similarities and affinities between some accounts of the ancient theory of virtue and modern, psychological interpretations of Stoic thought (such as the approach known as ACT, mentioned earlier). Virtuous activity aligned with one's values can make a person's life rich, worthwhile, and meaningful. Such a life enhances a person's resilience and flexibility in the face of adversities, because the individual has a support and a stronghold to protect them in hardships. One of the widely used concepts in the discussion of resilience and psychological flexibility is the concept of hardiness, which has been translated into Persian as "sakht-ruyi" (hard-facedness), derived from Rumi's Masnavi:

How can I steal, when He is the keeper of His treasury?

How can I not be hard-faced, when He is my support?

Whoever has the sun as their backing

Is hard-faced, having neither fear nor shame.

Virtues and values are like the sun, giving human life both light and illumination to find the way, and warmth so that the hardships of the path do not leave them cold and despondent.

.

---

.

[1] . A good example in the field of contemporary studies on wisdom is the book Wisdom; Several Approaches to a Concept / Translated and Compiled by Malek Hosseini.

[2] . William B. Irvine, A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, translated by Mahmoud Moghaddasi, Nashr-e Goman.

[3] . Further explanation can be found in books on the ACT approach, and in simpler language in the book The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck / Nashr-e Kargadan.

[4] . My source for these definitions is the readable book Virtue by Heather Battaly, translated by Amirhossein Khodaparast.

.

---

.

Philosophy and Living in Hard Times

Author: Babak Abbasi

Philosophy Department, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch

What help can philosophy offer in hard times?

.

---

.