Should we be Sceptics, Cynics, or Stoics?
How to live in an uncertain world
“The Sceptical School is also called the “Seeking School”, from its spirit of research and examination; the “Suspending School,” from the condition of mind in which one is left after the search, in regard to the things that he has examined; and the “Doubting School,” either because, as some say, the Sceptics doubt and are seeking in regard to everything, or because they never know whether to deny or affirm.” Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhonic Sketches
“They [the Cynics] promoted ideals other than the traditional virtues, qualities that hardly qualify as virtues at all: self-sufficiency, freedom, detachment, training aimed at instilling physical and moral toughness or endurance…” The Cynic Philosophers: from Diogenes to Julian Translated and edited by Robert Dobbin
“…the Stoics were most concerned with how one lived. The choices you made, the causes you served, the principles you adhered to in the face of adversity. They cared about what you did, not what you said.” Lives of the Stoics Ryan Holiday and Stephen Hanselman
According to Merriam-Webster a cynic is “a faultfinding captious critic”, “especially: one who believes human conduct is motivated entirely by self-interest”. A Cynic (capital ‘C’) is also specifically an adherent of a Greek philosophical sect dating from from the fourth century BC.
At the moment, perhaps for decades, small ‘c’ cynicism is everywhere. It feels adjacent to bitterness, manifesting in an inability to ascribe good intentions to people in public life, or sometimes almost anybody , as well as a lack of hope that the world could be better, that we may be better governed by better leaders.
This jaundiced view of the world makes me depressed, but often the people who offer up these views seem perfectly happy. Weird! Perhaps they do not really believe what they say and their cynicism is a kind of pose, they are just showing that they are grownups, not naive kids. Or perhaps having no faith in their institutions, or their government, does not bother them. Or maybe as a form of self-protection these people convince themselves things can never be better. A kind of ‘expect disappointment and you’ll never be disappointed’ attitude.
Scepticism on the other hand, despite its apparently close affiliation to cynicism, is, in fact a different state of mind. It is not bitter, it can be invigorating, and it is definitely productive. Scepticism is an important component, even the foundational condition, of critical thinking. For analysis of what we read or hear, cannot begin unless we first take the stance of not accepting anything at face value.
To me scepticism is a hopeful state of mind. It contains the belief that it is worthwhile, not to simply shrug our shoulders at corruption and cruelty, but to analyse the situation, search for the truth, in the hope that solutions may be discovered.
Sceptics question for the very reason that they believe it is possible to find a route, through questioning, thinking, and reasoning, to the truth. Or if not the exact truth something approaching the truth. Or a useful way station en route to the truth.
Small ‘c’ cynics are not really interested in any meaningful way, in discovering the truth. Either they do not believe there is such a thing as truth, or they do not think that moral or scientific truth can contribute to an improvement of society. Their view is that people are motivated purely by self-interest and all the while the world is selfish, which it always will be, it is pointless to hope for it to be better, or try to make it so.
The ‘narrative’ is not afraid of cynics. It does not matter if cynics roll their eyes at government initiatives or pronouncements because cynics will never act on their doubts. Modern-day cynicism is a dead end, a road to nowhere. In fact such cynicism may, perversely, lead to more compliance with government diktats or agreement with government pronouncements. Without principles people are far more likely to do whatever their government, boss, or other authority figure tells them to do, regardless of whether it is wrong or right. In fact they may do it without even asking themselves whether it is wrong or right and what the further consequences of their compliance may be: in a lost world that you cannot hope to change by your own individual actions, why would you even try to fight against what seems inevitable - ‘Of course the world is going to sh#t’ - *shrug*.
The Sceptic philosopher, Sextus Empiricus, wrote, seventeen or eighteen hundred years ago, that “[s]kepticism relieved two terrible diseases that afflicted mankind: anxiety and dogmatism”. Coincidentally these two diseases seem to be pretty prevalent today.
Perhaps dogmatism arises out of a need to combat the anxiety. Dogmatism can be not only a set of beliefs but, perhaps more importantly, a set of rules that are to be followed. Dogmas, beliefs, are now everywhere asserted by the state: that manmade climate change is not only definitely provably real, beyond a doubt, but also disastrous; that the planet is overpopulated; that human pressure on the natural world will lead to more pathogens crossing from animals to humans; that dangerous pandemics are inevitable. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, these are some of the beliefs our governments are handing down to us and becoming less and less tolerant of us questioning.
Dogmas are not just ideas that are present in a society, they are a set of beliefs that must be accepted. These beliefs then lead to their own rituals and behaviours. These might include not only the adherence to social distancing, but laws to enforce that. Not just attempts by individuals to live a life-style which produces less carbon emissions, but laws to enforce it. These beliefs become embedded not only in a social system, but in a legal system that brooks no dissent.
For many people, understandably, such strict belief systems and the accompanying rules, or ‘choice-limitation systems’, bring relief. This is reminiscent of the notorious Google video, The Selfish Ledger, part of which speculated on providing users with an app that would allow them to set goals, and that they could then use to measure different experiences or behaviours against those goals - “Google, which should I do for greater spiritual well-being: climb this waterfall; or kayak on that river?” *holds up phone to both*. The drawback of course is that the app would never be able to tell you which would make you feel most fulfilled. You would have to ask it which provides a better full-body workout, that’s more in AIs wheelhouse!!
Examples of dogmatism are all around us and they are not conducive to the creation of a vibrant, thriving society. Instead they are causing ever greater dissent, misery, and conflict. However without dogmas, as Sextus acknowledges, people can be left in a state of anxiety, not knowing what to believe, not knowing what is the right course of action to take. He knew anxiety arises from the discomfort of not knowing for certain what is true and what is right.
The problem then, was how to avoid falling into the trap of the Dogmatists who believed they had discovered the truth (‘the Science’?!), without ending up like the Academics, who believed the truth was “inapprehensible” (small ‘c’ cynics, perhaps?). Sceptics, Sextus insisted, “keep on searching”. They do not believe there is no truth, or that truth cannot be found or understood, just that they have not found it - yet. Scepticism is a form of enquiry, a method or set of skills, not a set of beliefs.
Clearly there is an anxiety to not knowing what is true. Many have been experiencing this anxiety for years. Caused by the actions of the state, Big Tech’s ‘surveillance capitalism’, the security services and so on. And this anxiety has reached new heights over the last two years when many have no longer been able to deny that things are not as the government and media tell us they are, and yet we cannot really get to a clear understanding of exactly what is happening, or why.
Sextus addresses this anxiety born of uncertainty. Scepticism not only seeks to question dogma, but also to attain ataraxia or a state of imperturbability or equilibrium. It can sound worryingly untethered “The fundamental principle…is especially this…to oppose every argument by one of equal weight…in this way we finally reach the position where we have no dogmas.” However, perhaps the point is not that there is no truth, but that there are no rules or beliefs that have been toughened to the point where they become dogmas that cannot be questioned.
The ataraxia, or a state of serenity in the face of uncertainty, is definitely worth achieving, and is perhaps essential. After all if there is one thing two years of digging away trying to work out what is going on has taught us, it is that no one person will ever understand completely what is going on, and in fact there are probably several different forces, and powerful groups at work at different times, all trying to achieve slightly different and perhaps at times opposed, outcomes. The world with billions of people in it, is a complex system.
The best we can hope for is to gain some understanding of some aspect of what is happening, maintain an open questioning mind in order to allow us to learn and understand as much as possible in the future, and then to hold ourselves inside this uncertainty with a level of calm acceptance. We do not have to understand every part of a car’s engine to be able to see which direction the car is travelling in.
Whilst modern cynics may wonder if there is any point in seeking the truth or attempting to distinguish between right and wrong, ancient Sceptics and Cynics both have something useful to impart to us. Sextus states:
“…he who tells us to agree with the majority proposes something childish, as no one could go to all men and find out what pleases the majority…”
A refreshing opinion at a time when we are bombarded with exhortations to do the same as everybody else, for the collective good.
The Cynic belief in self-sufficiency and freedom of speech is also instructive. They would be honest to the point of rudeness as a way of breaking out of social norms and maintained their poverty, not simply as a form of humbleness or denial of the value of material things, but as a way of preserving their autonomy:
“Plato saw [Diogenes of Sinope] washing lettuces, came up to him and said to him under his breath, “Had you paid court to Dionysius, you wouldn’t now be washing lettuces”, and [Diogenes] answered, in a similarly confidential tone, “If you washed lettuces, you wouldn’t have to flatter Dionysius””.
Such an exchange may give some of the scientists who have been quiet for the last two years in order to preserve their sources of funding, a moment of reflection.
For the Stoics the only reason to study philosophy was to become a better person, and to live a better life. Too dogmatic for Sextus Empiricus and the Sceptics, they followed strict principles based on the virtues of courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom. They wanted to know how to find “tranquility, purpose, self-control, and happiness”.
The question of philosophy is ‘how to live?’. The question we are faced with now is ‘how to live this way?’ with uncertainty, threat (of authoritarian government, of war, of food shortages, of societal collapse). The Stoics would tell us of the noble values to maintain, the Cynics will assert we should live humble and honest as dogs with only our barest needs met, in the open air, speaking with blunt honesty, self-sufficient with little regard for our dignity. This perhaps sounds uncannily like the fate we are trying to avoid (“You will own nothing and you will be happy”) yet the fear of losing our comforts is keeping many back from speaking truth and standing up. There is value in this teaching and in the fortitude in the face of adversity taught to us by the Stoics. And, of course, without the constant questioning of the Sceptics we will not realise there is something to resist, nor what that something is.
In the months and most likely years ahead, we will all need the blunt doggedness of the Cynics, the adaptability of the Stoics, and the Sceptics’ tranquillity in the face of constant uncertainty.