+ Read More

It’s also important to remember that when Stoicism developed the ancients did not have all of the modern knowledge, and sensibility, that we have today. So most the following “critiques” cannot, in real fairness, all be attributed to the original philosophers who developed the path. This would be a form of ahistorical and revisionist appraisal, that neglects the reality that Stoicism developed in a particular time in the past (when certain social, cultural, historical conditions prevailed). In reality, all philosophies, and religions, in the world have real limitations, due to the times, and conditions, when they were developed. And Stoicism, however we might admire it, was not immune from these Forces.

Finally, it’s essential to get a solid understanding of the biases and limitations of Stoicism, in order to have a more realistic view of what the tradition can presently offer us, and precisely in order to remedy these weaknesses (via modernisation). The primary shortcomings of the path are as follows:

The excessive focus, and over-reliance, on the cognitive-rational mind, as the seat of practically all self-agency, power and transformational ability. A corresponding hyperrationalist, and partially out-dated, approach to self-transformation. There is an idealistic, and unrealistic, perception that reason alone can lead to the surmounting of all sufferings and to self-transformation (and this bias reverberates not just in Stoicism, but through all of ancient Greek philosophy). As powerful as reason can be, modern psychology, and the psychotherapeutic process, has amply shown that, in many ways, and for a number of reasons, our cognitive-rational faculties are hardly sufficient for healing and selftransformation. To put it plainly: simply cultivating the mind will not transform you enough and heal you in full, for many types of human ailments, indeed for most.

A corresponding, and excessive, focus on the cognitive-rational mind for most of the disciplines and therapeutics of the path.

A simplistic and unwise treatment of the stronger, “darker” emotions (anger, fear, grief, sadness or depression). This often results in a corresponding, and often unconscious, banishment, denial, or repression, of the more difficult and “dark” emotions. And here this is the age-old, common critique of Stoicism, as a philosophy that represses emotions, and why we get the popular, modern version of the word “stoic.” This is still a major flaw of the path, especially as it pertains to the darker emotions (which the ancient Stoics explicitly condemned or looked down upon).

The neglect of the power of detrimental psychological conditionings (as opposed to mental conditionings), and the crucial need to address these, so that we can properly transform our emotional sufferings, heal and develop greater well-being.

A dogmatic and outright denial of external factors, and their power to impact our lives. For ancient Stoics, all externals, or elements outside of our inner selves, (such as familial and communal relations, poverty, class, health, work conditions etc.) were classified as the “indifferents,” and were considered fundamentally irrelevant to our well-being. This doctrine, if closely followed, leads to yet more anxiety and sufferings for people, as it is plainly very excessive and incomplete, or simply not true to life. Anyone who has worked, on the front lines, with the general population - such as social workers, doctors, therapists - knows first-hand just how powerful, and detrimental, external factors can be in a person’s life. If we seek to help people heal and transform, we must necessarily address external factors because they obviously matter enormously (whether it is family relations, social conditions, work environment, the quality of the natural environment). And they matter not only in their detrimental dimension - which we seek to transform - but also, conversely, in their medicinal or healing dimension (many people need to cultivate better external conditions precisely to improve or expand their well-being).

A pronounced masculine bias to the whole tradition, and a corresponding excessive focus on the masculine dimension, and qualities, of existence - due to the very patriarchal environment in which Stoicism was originally developed (and in fairness, of course, all the great philosophies and religions of the world suffer from this historical bias). The whole path is skewed, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, by the fact that it was developed by men and for men. This is of course an important limitation of the path, for both women and men, because it leads to a real neglect of the feminine qualities (present in both genders), qualities precisely needed for fuller self-transformation and well-being. And it fails, almost entirely, to properly address important existential elements specific to women’s lives. Furthermore, the strong masculine bias of Stoicism is also quite problematic in our modern social context where social, economic and political power is still, thousands of years later, greatly imbalanced between women and men (even though real progress has been made in a number of countries these last 50 years). Since the path of Stoicism is firmly committed to the cardinal virtue of Justice (among other noble virtues) the masculine bias of the path is obviously in real need of improvement.

As a result of the preceding factors, an insufficiently holistic approach to self-development and well-being. And this is especially evident in the overwhelming emphasis on the cognitive-rational dimension (particularly striking in the field of Logic), and the corresponding neglect of the other dimensions (the heart, the feminine, the externals).

+ Read More

So Stoicism is definitely an integral path for self-transformation - an incredibly modern contribution on its part - but it is an imbalanced and insufficiently developed one. The modernisation of the path thus requires more “holism” or integral development, so that more attention, balance and care are applied to all the dimensions of the human condition.

And, concretely speaking, how can we make Stoicism more integral and balanced?

Precisely by integrating into the philosophical-therapeutic work the dimensions neglected, or underdeveloped, by traditional Stoicism. And this modern and higher integration necessarily also implies a re-balancing to tone down the over-emphasis on the cognitive-rational mind; because, in fact, we precisely cannot solve all our existential problems solely via this route - indeed the exclusive focus on the cognitive-rational becomes its own existential problem. A modern version of the path must therefore more fully address the following human dimensions:

The body, and its proper cultivation (beyond the contributions of the old path).

The heart or feelings (and especially the wise treatment of the “darker” emotions, and detrimental psychological conditionings).

The higher Logos or Integral Mind, as opposed to just the cognitive-rational mind.

The feminine energies and virtues (in women and men), and the power imbalance between genders in familial, social-cultural and political relations.

The realm of the externals: family and relational environment, cultural conditionings and forces, work conditions, socio-economic setting, environmental conditions etc.

All of these elements are an integral part of people’s lives - their difficulties, aspirations, well-being - and therefore all of them need to be carefully considered, and integrated, in the therapeutic process of a modern Stoic path.

And this is precisely where the psychotherapeutic process of modern psychology serves as such a powerful complement to the ancient tradition. Indeed, the methods and tools of psychotherapy precisely allow us to address the neglected, or underdeveloped, dimensions of traditional Stoicism: the general realm of feelings, re-balancing the cognitive over-emphasis, the importance of the feminine qualities of existence (for both men and women), working with “external” factors … And this is especially true of the field of holistic, depth psychotherapy - our chosen approach - precisely because it looks at human transformation and healing from an integral perspective, taking into account the main quadrants of human existence (the personal and the social; and the inner and the external dimensions).