|
The
Stoics, the Rule of Law, and Ancient
Rome
Stoic philosophy was first developed in the
Hellenistic world after 300 B.C. The Stoic
worldview is one of a rationally governed universe
of material entities, each answering to its
controlling principle ("logos") and thus
participating in the overall cosmic "logos." In its
most developed form, Stoicism takes the lawfulness
of the cosmos as the model on which human life is
to proceed. The rule of law is the defining mark of
our humanity, installing locally what the logos
furnishes universally. The overarching philosophy
of Rome was that of the Stoics, whose commitment to
rationality and the rule of law provided a durable
intellectual foundation for Rome's imperial
administration of much of the known world.
According to the Stoics, the cosmos is ruled by
law, which is evidence enough of a rational
principle behind all natural phenomena. The cosmos
is understood by rational beings to be itself a
model of rational order. The intrinsic ordering
principle ("logos") of the world can be known only
to a creature in possession of a kindred principle.
Only by way of language does one qualify for
membership in that moral order of the universe, and
thus human beings stand apart from the balance of
nature. Man is the only creature capable of thought
and speech. The human community is, above all, a
linguistic community.
What has real existence for the Stoic is "body,"
but Stoicism accepts as "body" that which may take
the form of fire and breath ("pneuma"). To regard
something as existing is to recognize it as having
causal power, which entails corporeality of some
sort. Thus, justice and moral precepts are "bodies"
in that they have perceptible consequences. They
are "active" principles as contrasted with passive
principles of "dead matter."
It can be argued that the Stoics (not the French
of the 1780s or the authors of the Constitution)
first formulated the concept of "natural rights."
Natural rights are different from rights guaranteed
by a constitution or the laws of a "polis"; those
can be taken away. Natural rights are those
inhering in a being because of its nature as a
being of a certain sort. The rational and
linguistic nature of human beings means they have
certain liberties others do not. Since the rule of
law is something a rational being recognizes as
natural, rational linguistic beings have the right
to question whether the laws of a "polis" are in
accord with reason, or are tyrannical and
arbitrary. No person has the right to legislate for
himself. Deviations from the rule of law are
unnatural, a threat to the very rule of nature
itself.
Emotion and passion are what most contradict
reason. Only a man is able to control his animality
and ultimately to surface as a fully rational
being, now sharing in the universal "logos." The
right disposition to have is that of "apatheia";
not "apathy" in the sense of indifference, but
"resignation" before the fact that the cosmic order
is determinative. "Never say of anything that I've
lost it," writes Epictetus, "only that I've given
it back." We bring about our own suffering and
unhappiness by corrupting our reason and
surrendering it to irrational desires and
aspirations. It is only by violating the dictates
of reason -- for example, by wanting what is either
unattainable or what is not in our interest -- that
we bring about our own unhappiness.
What is "natural" must be "good," for there can
be no standard of goodness external to nature
itself. The apparent errors of creation, evil in
the world, accidents, and seemingly chance vents
are illusory. The percipient sees the cosmos only
from a local perspective. Behind a local "chaos"
stands the larger order of things, the entire
system, as it were, being the expression of the
"logos." The only real evil, then, is not in the
"logos" but in the moral weakness of men. This
argument will later be taken up by the Christians
in theorizing about sin.
The Stoics depart from the Epicureans on the
nature of the good life. The Epicureans are
resolutely materialistic. But their creed was not
"eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" --
far from it. The sole goal of life is to avoid pain
and get pleasure, and put off the day of death.
Where the Stoics valued friendship as central to
rational community, the Epicureans use friends to
achieve their central goal. "Apatheia" and
resignation have a similar end: the avoidance of
suffering. The Epicurean creed is never to want
anything so much -- drink, pleasure, money -- that
its absence will cause pain.
The Epicurean personal code and the Stoic
therefore resembled one another. The only way to
tell a Stoic from an Epicurean was to ask where
they would choose to live. The Epicurean would be
found on his country estate, living moderately away
from the dangerous excitements of the city. The
Stoic would be found in the city, in the senate,
and the court, arguing cases and making law -- the
frank, upright figure we see in a hundred Roman
portrait busts.
The Stoics hold a debt to Aristotle and Plato
and it is twofold. They claim the authority of
these great figures of a past very different from
the imperialistic Hellenistic and then Roman world.
They take from Aristotle and Plato's
Republic the view of reason as the defining
human characteristic, the emphasis on the rule of
reason over passion, and the idea of law as the
expression of rationality.
The Roman educated class was brought up by
Stoics; the Roman intellectual spoke and read Greek
and looked to Greece for models in philosophy and
art. The Stoic philosophy was exactly suited to the
Roman empire that would govern the Western world
for a millennium, in its rule bringing into being
much that we call "Western civilization." It was
the supporting philosophy of a society that had
little devotion to doing philosophy. It was the
very air that Roman civilization breathed, and
would be breathing as Christianity arrived on the
scene.
|