A suitable life philosophy for liberalism

Don't let the conservatives have classical philosophy

The increasing political polarization of men and women has been frequently discussed, and the potential complications of this development are indeed concerning.  A major reason seems to be the emergence of ‘lifestyle gurus’ appealing directly to young men. Individuals like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and Joe Rogan have different approaches and points of view, but all come from generally conservative or right position, and all have generally male audiences. By contrast, there seems to be a paucity of practical ‘lifestyle’ advice or philosophy for men from a liberal or left perspective. This is unsurprising, given the core beliefs of liberals and leftists. Leftist perspectives tend towards a more systemic view of society rather than placing the impetuous on individuals to fix their own problems.   Liberals are also poorly equipped to give ‘men’s advice’ because they tend to hold that men and women are not so different as to require separate classes of advice. However, this vacuum leaves an enviable on ramp for far right beliefs, as young men attracted to ostensibly practical life advice are drawn deeper and deeper into a right wing perspective on sex and gender and gradually politics generally. 

I’d propose that liberals seeking to fill this vacuum would do well to re-purpose a very old philosophical tradition that has proven enduringly attractive to individuals seeking a philosophy and ethics – Stoicism.

The suggestion may seem outlandish. The affinity of the right wing for Greek and Roman culture is well known and has a deep history. Benito Mussolini’s fascist movement famously drew on Roman imagery and a desire to recreate the Roman Empire, and the Nietzschean understanding of Graeco-Roman ethics has long attracted philosophers and politicians seeking a more masculine and aggressive alternative to Judeo-Christian morality. But in the theory and practice of Stoicism, Liberals can actually find much to agree with.

Against Gender Essentialism

For one thing, Stoic philosophers like Musonius Rufus largely agreed with later liberal feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft on the question of women’s virtue and education. Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Women declares that

“if [a woman] be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue; for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice. And how can woman be expected to co-operate unless she know why she ought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen her reason till she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is connected with her real good?”

Coming to very nearly the same conclusion as Musonius Rufus, a prominent stoic philosopher in Rome nearly two millennia prior, in defending the study of philosophy by women:

“by what reasoning would it ever be appropriate for men to search out and consider how they may lead good lives, which is exactly the study of philosophy, but inappropriate for women? Could it be that it is fitting for men to be good, but not for women?”

Rufus and Wollstonecraft are both, of course, bound by their times, and both make their arguments for women’s education in relations to men, rather than on their own merits. But generally, the same idea is present – that the advice for living, at least as regards the virtues of life, is the same for men and for women. This makes Stoicism uniquely suitable as a basis for both practical and philosophical advice to people of any sex – but particularly makes it valuable advice to give men if any effort is to be made to combat gender essentialist beliefs.

Worry about yourself

Stoicism is also, despite its embrace by many conservatives, compatible with liberalism in other ways as well. First and foremost, Stoic philosophers taught the importance of minding one’s own business. Marcus Aurelius, in his meditations, remarked on “How much trouble he avoids who does not look to see what his neighbor says or does or thinks, but only to what he does himself, that it may be just and pure”. This is an essential liberal virtue, summed up by L.T. Hobhouse: “Under self-guidance individuals will diverge widely, and some of their eccentricities will be futile, others wasteful, others even painful and abhorrent to witness”. A key element of surviving in a liberal society is learning to let others be, a virtue Stoic philosophers expounded on long ago. This also blunts the edge of conservative culture war issues, many of which revolve around concern about what happens in the bedrooms and changing rooms of people whose lives are fundamentally not their business.

For Cosmopolitanism

Finally, a Stoic understanding of the world rests on duties to family and city, but ultimately calls on a practitioner to accept a cosmopolitan worldview. Epictetus, whose ‘Discourses’ and ‘Enchiridion’ formed the basis for most Latin study of Stoicism, wrote that “Never in reply to the question, to what country you belong, say that you are an Athenian or a Corinthian, but that you are a citizen of the world”. While liberalism has sometimes tied itself to nationalism, especially as the two movements grew up together in the 19th century, cosmopolitanism has always better fit the Liberal ethos: as Thomas Paine claimed, “The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.” Being a citizen of the world is much more palatable when one has the necessary personal philosophy to stay grounded. For liberals looking to compete with the likes of Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan, the best competing philosophy may lie well in the past.