The philosopher’s pen may pierce through the years,
But the tyrant’s chains will silence the seers.
In suffering, Stoics claim their noble stance,
Yet in the heart of the storm, do they still dance?

– Anonymous

In his monumental book, History of Western Philosophy, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell criticizes Stoicism harshly.

He examines not only the philosophical tenets of Stoicism but also highlights the contradictions between its ideals and the actual lives of its most prominent proponents, such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.

Russell’s analysis delves into how these Stoic figures often failed to live in accordance with the very principles they espoused, revealing a gap between theory and practice.

Stoicism, founded in the third century BCE, teaches that virtue is the highest good and that we should focus on controlling what we can, rather than worrying about things we can’t control.

Its proponents—Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and later Roman Stoics like Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus—emphasized living in harmony with nature, cultivating reason, and detaching from external goods.

They argued that enduring hardships with equanimity was essential for a virtuous life.

The Problem of Determinism

Russell views determinism as a major obstacle to human freedom and moral agency.

According to Stoic philosophy, human will is compared to a rolling cylinder: while external forces may push it, the cylinder’s shape, which represents one’s character, determines how it moves.

This metaphor suggests that individuals, despite being influenced by external forces, retain control over their actions based on their internal nature.

However, Russell counters this view by arguing that if the world is entirely deterministic, then the “shape” of the cylinder—representing a person’s will or character—is itself determined by natural laws, leaving no space for genuine moral choice.

In a deterministic world, individuals are not free to choose virtue or vice; rather, their actions are the result of factors beyond their control, such as biology, environment, and past experiences.

This undermines the Stoic belief in moral freedom and personal responsibility.

As Russell writes in History of Western Philosophy:

“If the world is completely deterministic, natural laws will decide whether I shall be virtuous or not. If I am wicked, Nature compels me to be wicked, and the freedom which virtue is supposed to give is not possible for me.”

This statement encapsulates his critique of Stoicism, emphasizing that moral choice, in the face of determinism, becomes an illusion.

Hypocrisy in Practice

Russell is relentlessly critical of the glaring dissonance between Stoic ideals and the actions of its most famous proponents, exposing their hypocrisy with ruthless precision.

He sharply targets Seneca, whose vast wealth—amassed through “business moves” that included exploitative loans in Britain—stands in direct contradiction to his teachings on detachment from material wealth.

Despite Seneca’s moral preaching about the indifference of riches, his personal life was a stark example of exactly the opposite: the accumulation of a fortune that many considered obscene, made in part by charging exorbitant interest rates to the impoverished.

According to the historian Dio, Seneca’s loans were so usurious that they contributed to economic unrest in the region, even sparking revolts.

Seneca amassed an estimated fortune of 300 million sesterces (about 3 million pounds in modern terms). This was a vast sum, especially for a philosopher who publicly professed disdain for wealth and material excess.

In Russell’s eyes, Seneca’s wealth was not a byproduct of a virtuous life but rather a moral betrayal, revealing a man far more interested in power and comfort than in the Stoic ideals he so frequently extolled.

Russell’s criticism doesn’t stop with Seneca; he extends it to Marcus Aurelius, often hailed as the paragon of Stoic virtue.

Russell highlights the glaring contradiction between Marcus’s philosophical writings and his actions as emperor.

While Marcus wrote about the importance of tolerance and the indifference of external goods, his reign saw the brutal persecution of Christians, a group that defied Roman state religion.

This contradiction, according to Russell, exposes the hollowness of Stoic virtue in practice.

A man who could order the execution and persecution of innocent people in the name of state power cannot be said to truly embody the Stoic ideals of tolerance and moral justice.

For Russell, Marcus Aurelius is the ultimate example of Stoic hypocrisy: a man who, in his lofty writings, claims to be the ideal Stoic, yet in his political actions, proves himself a tyrant no different from any other Roman ruler.

Stoic Resilience in Extreme Cases

While the Stoics idealize resilience, Russell argues that modern science has revealed its limitations.

For example, he points to the fragility of the will under torture or chemical coercion, suggesting that Stoic heroism is contingent on external conditions.

He questions whether Stoic fortitude can withstand the advances of a scientifically savvy tyrant.

Table 1: Key Concepts in Stoicism vs. Bertrand Russell’s Criticisms

Stoic Concept	Description	Russell’s Criticism
Virtue as the sole good	Moral excellence is the only intrinsic good.	Determinism undermines moral freedom and responsibility.
Endurance over hope	Focus on resilience in adversity.	Stoicism is a philosophy for “tired ages,” lacking hope.
Detachment from wealth	Wealth is indifferent and should not dominate life.	Hypocrisy of Seneca, who amassed great riches.

Stoicism as a Philosophy for “Hard Times”

In History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell argues that Stoicism, with its emphasis on endurance and acceptance of suffering, was particularly well-suited to the grim realities of the Roman Empire during its decline.

Russell suggests that the Stoics’ focus on enduring hardship without complaint provided a psychological tool for coping with the harsh realities of the age.

At a time when the Empire was crumbling, the Stoics’ ideal of maintaining inner peace regardless of external chaos offered an existential solace.

This emphasis on endurance, rather than action or reform, made Stoicism a philosophy well-suited to those living in times of stagnation and decay.

Russell contrasts Stoicism with other philosophical systems, particularly those of thinkers like John Locke, who championed the idea of progress and the possibility of human improvement.

Locke’s philosophy was grounded in optimism and the belief that through reason and political change, societies could advance toward greater justice and prosperity.

In contrast, Stoicism’s outlook was less concerned with societal progress and more focused on individual resilience and personal virtue in the face of inevitable suffering.

While Locke’s philosophy offered a vision of a future shaped by human action and moral development, Stoicism seemed to offer little in the way of hope for social or political improvement.

Instead, it advocated an acceptance of the world as it was, encouraging people to focus on controlling their internal responses rather than striving to change external conditions.

Russell’s critique implies that Stoicism’s emphasis on enduring adversity—its “tired” philosophy—was fitting for an era in which there seemed little to look forward to.

Re-evaluating Russell’s Criticisms

Russell’s critique often focuses on individual failures rather than Stoic philosophy as a whole.

His attacks on Seneca and Marcus Aurelius are 100% spot on but undermine the philosophical robustness of Stoicism a bit too much.

There have been other notable stoic figures such as Epictetus (he was a slave) who embraced Stoicism without the contradiction/hypocrisy found in the life of Seneca and Aurelius.

Russell is notably less critical of earlier Stoics like Zeno or Chrysippus, whose abstract ideas are harder to target.

Stoicism, like any philosophy, is aspirational. Its value lies not in the perfection of its adherents but in the ideals it sets forth.

Russell’s criticisms, while valid, reflect a selective emphasis on practical failures over philosophical insight.