The Stoic and the Existentialist: Stoicism vs. Gabriel Marcel’s Perspective

Photo by Rob Mulally on Unsplash

“To guard the heart is wisdom’s aim, yet walls too high may quench the flame.”

– Unknown

Stoicism, a philosophical school rooted in ancient Greece and Rome, teaches the cultivation of virtue, rationality, and resilience in the face of adversity.

Often misunderstood as a doctrine of emotional suppression, it instead advocates for managing emotions through reason and aligning oneself with nature.

On the other hand, Gabriel Marcel, a Christian existentialist, critiques Stoicism in his book Man Against Mass Society, particularly its relevance in modern contexts where psychological pressures dominate.

In this article, I will explore Marcel’s criticisms, contextualize them within his philosophical framework, and evaluate their implications for Stoicism today.

Marcel’s Key Criticisms of Stoicism

Emotional Detachment

Marcel claims that Stoicism promotes emotional detachment, which he believes undermines the vibrancy of a fully lived life.

He argues that a life devoid of emotional vulnerability risks missing profound human experiences.

However, Stoicism does not fully reject emotions but advocates for rational engagement with them.

For example, Epictetus teaches that while external events are beyond our control, our reactions to them are within our power.

Stoicism seeks equanimity (the ability to remain calm, balanced, and composed), not apathy.

Suffering as a Path to Growth

Marcel emphasizes the transformative power of suffering, asserting that pain is crucial for self-understanding and personal growth.

While Stoicism acknowledges the inevitability of hardships, it does not glorify suffering.

Instead, it focuses on enduring challenges with wisdom and virtue.

This divergence highlights differing views: Marcel sees suffering as inherently meaningful, while Stoicism sees its value in how it is confronted.

Impact on Individualism

Marcel critiques Stoicism for allegedly subordinating individuality to universal ideals of virtue and wisdom.

In his view, this overemphasis on abstract ideals may suppress personal uniqueness.

Yet Stoicism, particularly as seen in Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, champions individual agency, urging people to act according to their rational nature while contributing to the greater good.

It seeks harmony between individuality and universality, rather than sacrificing one for the other.

Role of Community and Relationships

Marcel highlights the importance of community and interdependence, contrasting this with what he perceives as Stoicism’s individualistic focus.

However, Stoicism regards justice and social duty as cardinal virtues, stressing the interconnectedness of humanity.

Seneca’s writings often emphasize the moral obligation to contribute to society, aligning with Marcel’s emphasis on communal relationships.

Transcendence and Spirituality

Marcel criticizes Stoicism for neglecting transcendence, particularly spiritual dimensions of existence.

As a Christian existentialist, Marcel’s spirituality is rooted in divine grace, whereas Stoicism divinizes nature and promotes a pantheistic worldview.

Key Quotes from Man Against Mass Society and Their Clash with Stoicism

Talking directly about Stoicism:

“Stoicism has been today, I shall not say refuted by the facts, but uprooted by them from the soul which used to nourish it. This ancient and respectable attitude rested on the distinction made so forcibly and severely by such writers as Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius: the distinction between what depends on my will, and what does not depend on it.

Stoic thought, in so far as it was not merely formulated in abstract terms but adopted with dauntless courage as a way of life, implied a belief in the inner tribunal of conscience: a tribunal unviolated and indeed inviolable, by any intrusion of external power.

There can be no Stoicism without a belief in an inalienable inner sovereignty, and absolute possession of the self by the self. However, the very essence of those modern techniques of degradation, to which I made an earlier allusion, consists precisely in putting the individual into a situation in which he loses touch with himself….

Explanation: This quote is essentially saying that Stoicism has lost its relevance and effectiveness in the modern world. Stoicism was grounded in the idea that people should distinguish between what is within their control (their reactions, thoughts, and actions) and what is not (external events).

Marcel argues that Stoicism is no longer possible in today’s world because modern society has developed ways to break down a person’s connection to their own inner self.

He suggests that these “modern techniques of degradation” make it harder for individuals to maintain the strong, personal willpower required to practice Stoicism, as they lose touch with their own inner sense of control and autonomy.

On the importance of individuality and personal experience:

“The human person is not a thing among things, nor an object among objects; he is a subject, a consciousness, a being that is aware of itself and that perceives the world in terms of its own internal experience.”

Explanation: This reflects Marcel’s belief in the significance of individual experience, contrasting with Stoicism’s emphasis on universal ideals.

On emotional engagement and vulnerability:

“To be human is to suffer, to question, to seek, to struggle. To be human is to live the anguish of being, the pain of being alive.”

Explanation: This connects with Marcel’s critique of Stoicism’s perceived emotional detachment, and his emphasis on suffering as essential for personal growth.

On the loss of genuine human connection in modern society:

“The modern world has created a society in which human beings are alienated from each other and from themselves, caught in the machinery of the collective, without the possibility of authentic human encounters.”

Explanation: This quote ties in with Marcel’s concern that modern society’s structure leads to a loss of authentic relationships, a point he emphasizes against Stoic ideals of detached rationality.

On the need for spiritual transcendence:

“The most essential thing in life is not the pursuit of individual happiness but the discovery of a spiritual unity with all beings.”

Explanation: Marcel’s emphasis on transcendence and spirituality critiques Stoicism’s more rational, pantheistic worldview by stressing the need for a higher, divine connection.

On community and interdependence:

“We must not confuse society with community. The former is a mere mechanical aggregation; the latter is a living, vital connection between people.”

Explanation: This highlights Marcel’s belief in the importance of true human relationships, which contrasts with the Stoic focus on individual virtue and detachment.

Areas of Agreement Between Marcel and Stoicism

Despite their differences, Marcel and Stoicism share notable common ground:

Suffering as Transformative: Both acknowledge that adversity can foster personal growth, though they interpret its role differently.

Value of Virtue and Authenticity: Both prioritize living authentically and cultivating moral character.=

Is Marcel Right?

He has some good points, but the flexibility of Stoicism can counter them effectively.

Contemporary Stoicism has evolved to incorporate insights from psychology and community-building, countering some of Marcel’s critiques.

Practices like cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), rooted in Stoic principles, demonstrate its relevance in fostering mental resilience.

Moreover, modern Stoics often emphasize collective well-being alongside individual growth, bridging the gap between Stoicism and Marcel’s relational focus.

Conclusion

So, what do we take from all this? Marcel’s critique of Stoicism is a reminder that no philosophy has all the answers.

But it’s also a testament to how flexible and enduring Stoicism can be.

By listening to critiques like Marcel’s, we can make Stoicism even richer—embracing its strengths while filling in its perceived gaps.

In the end, this kind of dialogue isn’t about picking sides.

It’s about learning from different perspectives to live a better, fuller life.

And that, I think, is something both Marcel and the Stoics would agree on.

Comments

Leave a Reply