Stoicism Pt.2: Does Fate Make Us Lazy?

We previously discussed that the Stoic word kathekon means obtaining the knowledge of what is the right thing to do in a choice or situation. These choices can be rationally justified, thus kathekon is the correct use of reason. The art of living is knowing what kathekon is so we act appropriately on our emotions and impulses.

Let's look at some examples where kathekon is being excelled and what the objective is:

Activity Objective

- Eating well - Health

- Saving money - Good finance

- Wearing a life jacket - Safety

These activities are the correct use of kathekon, because they abide by what is good for own personal nature as a human being. The objective, however, despite the influence of our activities is primarily out of our control. Our greater objectives, in contrast, are in agreement with the nature of the cosmos and are determined by God. God, according to the Stoics, wants us to take care of our health. Therefore eating well is in agreement with divine reason.

Our objectives are not always achieved. We can live perfectly healthy lives but still become ill with a fatal disease. So what then? Haven't we been living the way which God has asked us? Although it seems natural to feel upset, the Stoics believe that we should accept that our health wasn't supposed to be this way. We need to accept our adjusted path in life and move on, and then again we will be conforming to divine reason. You are not expecting any more, or any less.

"Seek not to have things turn out as you wish, but rather wish for everything to happen as it does, and your life will flow smoothly" - Epictetus

The Goal and the Target

We have established that we behave in the right way by using our reason to govern our actions. This can be pictured as an archer, a bow, an arrow and a target. Each of these items can represent a different part of decision-making:

- The archer: The person using their reason, deciding whether to fire the arrow

- The bow: How to initiate the decision, where to aim it

- The arrow: The decision itself

- The target: The desired outcome

The archer may perfectly line up the arrow at the correct angle with the correct speed, but does that guarantee they will hit the target? No. Why not? Because of unseen circumstances. There may be a sudden gust of wind, or someone may unexpectedly appear and jog the archer, or obscure their vision. The archer should not feel dismayed because they did everything to succeed but unfortunately failed. They exercised their skill in archery correctly and fully, thus they reached their goal without even hitting the target.

We can use this analogy for all circumstances within our lives. The virtuous person is still successful as a rational agent, regardless of whether they achieve their objective or not. The Stoic's only concern is whether we aim correctly, not whether we reach our desired outcome. Accepting we can fail is a part of living in agreement with divine wisdom. Of course, one is allowed to feel negative emotions of distress, but as long as they retain the understanding that the good entirely consists of us acting virtuously. It is of no dishonour for the decision-maker to miss due to unseen circumstances.

All of the below schools agree that our actions are determined by us alone, but they differ because:

Stoics: Hitting our target isn't always in our control Epicureans: Hitting the target is in our control and we do not need to hit it So we shouldn't worry about missing it So we shouldn't worry about missing it

Stoics: Living well is living virtuously Peripatetics*: Living well is living virtuously, and healthily, securely etc

* Aristotelian school of teaching

A 'Lazy' Attitude

The Stoics believed that everything is determined by fate, but not in a superstitious sense, but a physical one. Fate is an interweaving of causes. Therefore, it is determined by the Universe. Both the Epicureans and Peripatetics disagreed but their criticisms are vague. The first is known as the Lazy Argument (argos logos). This is because, quite literally, if fate was true then surely it would make us lazy?

"If it is fated for you to recover from this illness, whether you call the doctor or not you will recover. Similarly if it is fated for you not to recover from the illness, whether or not you call the doctor you will not recover. And one of the two is fated; therefore there is no point in calling the doctor" - Cicero, On Fate

So, whatever action you take, you cannot avoid the fated outcome. The Stoics responded to this with co-fatals. This means that fated events are complex and are conjoined to other fated events, for example if you are fated to get an A on an exam paper then you are fated to work hard. However, what about illness? If you are dying despite having access to the greatest medical care, it is unclear whether seeing a doctor is a help or hindrance.

Can We Avoid Fate?

Let's look at an example: a boy prophesied that it was his fate to kill his father. He tries to run from this fate, but is later found and taken back to his father, who he inevitably ends up killing despite trying everything to avoid this fate. No matter what his actions, he cannot avoid his fate.

This is Fatalism. We do not bother calling for help because the matter is out of our own hands. No matter what we do, the outcome is already determined. However, the Stoic view of fate should not be confused with that of Fatalism. They do not claim the Universe is hostile towards our wishes, nor is everything completely independent of our own choices.

But, if us handing in an A paper is fated, then surely we are not in control of our actions? So what is actually up to us?

Impulses And Impressions

All of our actions come from us assenting to an impression. For example, you are driving down a road and notice a stop sign at the next junction. You then make a decision, based on this impression, whether to stop or not. (This is what Cicero called an impulse).

Some impressions are non impulsive, for example, it's raining. You can also withhold assent to an impression depending on your own individual knowledge, for example you know a stick does not bend in water because you are familiar with light refraction. This is similar to seeing a stop sign; we assent to this impression depending on what we know - you must stop at all stop signs, and what we care about - life. If we then assent to this impression, we stop. The stop sign is an external factor, the initial impression of the impulse, and was put there by someone else. This is called an antecedent cause.

All actions can be traced back to an antecedent cause beyond our control. We can break this down into the following three stages:

• Our actions are fated

• So, our actions are due to an antecedent cause external to us

• Therefore, because this antecedent cause is not in us, then it's not up to us

• So our actions are not up to us

The Stoics accept the first two stages as they believe in fate and antecedent causes. However, they believe that the third point is only true for some causes.

They claim there are two types of causes:

- Perfect and principle

- Auxiliary and proximate

Auxiliary and proximate causes have the same causes but a different effect. If I push a cylinder, it will roll in a straight line. But if I push a cone, it will roll to the side. The push is the cause for both of these objects, but it does not determine how the object will move. The push is therefore only the auxiliary and proximate cause (determines whether we will act, but not what we do).

Impressions are effects that the world has on us, for example, the stop sign. We do not create these external impressions ourselves but the effect that the impression has on us is not determined by the impression itself (the stop sign does not decide whether we actually stop or not). Thus, it is not the perfect and principle cause.

IMPRESSION - DECISION - ACT

Let's consider the example of a thief stealing dropped money. The money is the antecedent cause; it does not make us steal it. The effect is either to steal or not steal, which is determined by our own character. Therefore, dropping the money is only the auxiliary and proximate cause of the theft.

(This is what Chrysippus means when he says that antecedent causes invoked by fate are only the auxiliary and proximate causes of our actions)

So, what about perfect and principle causes?

Let's look at an example of an antecedent cause that counts as perfect and principle. Imagine that the cylinder and cone this time are not pushed by a hand but by a tornado which causes them to fly away. The difference between the cone and the cylinder is irrelevant to the effect that the external force will have on them. Thus, the tornado is the perfect and principle cause. So, is there an antecedent external force which causes us to act regardless of our values?

If we return to our bullet point stages, and to the second point, Chrysippus would argue that the external antecedent causes are auxiliary and proximate causes. His thesis of fate (impression, assent, action) is purely based on auxiliary and proximate causes, so he does not need to account for perfect and principle.

He would rewrite the stages as:

• Our actions are fated

• So, my actions are due to auxiliary and proximate causes that are not in me

• If something's perfect and principle antecedent cause is not in me , then it is not up to me

• So, our actions are no longer up to us (this step no longer needs to follow)

But still, what is wrong with fate?

It is not the stop sign which makes us stop. What causes us to stop is a combination of our own values and the sign together, meaning the only fate if I am a careful driver who abides by the Highway Code, is to stop. This decision, however, is still up to us, for there is nothing external which is forcing us.

In conclusion, our fated actions are up to us depending on the antecedent cause being auxiliary and proximate. They are not up to us if the antecedent cause is perfect and principle (such as nature). This is the Stoic thesis of fate.