The Treachery of Scholars: The Attack on the Stoic Military Tradition
American universities have become echo chambers. Through years of biased hiring practices and distillation of individuals with common psychological architectures (correlating strongly to political beliefs), the academic field of philosophy has been highly corrupted. Scholars, such as Massimo Pigliucci, present highly biased and less than academic publications attempting to use Ancient Stoicism to re-enforce their modern political beliefs. I found the recent article “Stoicism and the Military: an Unvirtuous Coupling” so poorly argued that I felt obligated to rebut the attack on the Stoic military tradition.
I will find myself echoing the criticism that Ralph Waldo Emerson presented 160 years ago; “The country complains loudly of the inefficiency of the army. It was badly led. But, before this, it was not the army alone, it was the population that was badly led. The clerisy, the spiritual guides, the scholars, the seers have been false to their trust.” Pigliucci has been false with his trust as an academic to present the complete account of history and deal appropriately in the structure of his logic. A professor should have been easily able to recognize nuance and addressed issues within the appropriate context. However, Pigliucci seems to either lack this ability or ignores his sacred charge.
Pigliucci was writing in response to the article “How Elite Soldiers Use Stoicism to Survive — and How You Can Too” by Kristin Hitchcock. Hitchcock is an “Army wife” writing about the use of Stoic philosophy within the military. One could assume that any second-hand observer would not be able to fully describe how the military culture embraces this philosophy. With the article only running 1,147 words (~4 pages) long, a scholar should be able to acknowledge that it will lack much of the detail and nuance of the full philosophic application. Being a military philosopher and an Army veteran, I enjoyed reading Hitchcock’s article. Pigliucci was correct in identifying her lack of connection of Stoic practices to ethical self-improvement, however a veteran would have understood that ethical focus is built into the military culture. In fact, there is so much focus on maintaining the moral abilities of soldiers that the U.S. Army even provides commanders calculators for calorie expenditure to ensure soldiers do not become so fatigued they cannot engage the frontal cortex of their brain (The area of the brain responsible for moral decision making).
Pigliucci begins his article with a false dichotomy. He argues that one can either practice Stoicism as a philosophy (he lists only select Ancient Stoic philosophers) or you can engage in Stoic practices as “life hacks.” This fallacy should be easily recognized by anyone that has formally studied philosophy. Pigliucci is largely presenting a semantic argument trying to define the term differently than how it is used within the military community (and the context of Hitchcock’s article) while ignoring the evolution of Stoic traditions to include NeoStoicism that heavily influenced the design and professionalism of the modern Western military tradition. Frankly, this argument is lazy. Few could call themselves Stoics if using Pigliucci’s definition and those that could would nicely align with his Progressive worldview.
Pigliucci argues that military service is incompatible with Stoicism, “If soldiers were truly practicing Stoicism they would probably not be soldiers in the first place, or at the very least they would assent — to use Epictetus’s frequent phrase — only to just wars.” While Pigliucci goes on to explain just war theory, he excludes any discussion of NeoStoicism and its influence on developing the modern laws of warfare that attempts to limit the harm and destruction caused by wars. By Pigliucci’s own argument, no wars fulfill all the requirements for a “just war,” asserting his understanding of Stoicism as incompatible with military service.
Pigliucci acknowledges Cato the Younger’s military service against the tyrant Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius’ military service in the Marcomannic wars but quickly attempts to disregard these examples by focusing on Aurelius’ call for toleration and compassion. This may lead readers to believe the Cato the Younger was the “outsider” in military service. This is blatantly false. Starting from the beginning of the Stoic tradition, Zeno of Citium was inspired to study philosophy because of the teaching of Socrates. Socrates was a decorated Hoplite (heavy infantry) veteran. Stoicism absorbed the works of Xenophon, a military general. Ancient Stoics adopted many of the practices of Sparta including dressing in simple course grey chitons and sleeping on camp beds. Stoic writings are filled with military analogies. Sphaerus of Broysthenes, a student of Zeno of Citium and Cleanthes, would advise Spartan King Cleomenes III in a period of military reform. Not to mention, Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, the greatest strategist in the Western military tradition, even greater than Napoleon Bonaparte, was a Stoic. I could go on but it should be clear that Pigliucci’s suppression of Ancient Stoicism’s connection to the military profession is a blatant disregard for academic integrity.
Pigliucci attempts a red herring argument by quickly shifting to the topics of feminism and slavery. At best, he is engaging in presentism, and at worse, he is playing on an emotional response. The true irony here is Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson displayed the virtues that he accused the Ancient Stoics of lacking. Higginson funded John Browns raid on the U.S. Arsenal at Harpers Ferry. Higginson would go on to command the first Union regiment formed from freed slaves during the American Civil War. (I highly recommend his book “An Army Life in a Black Regiment.”) He would also become a major supporter of feminism. If there were doubts about Higginson’s connection to Stoicism, know that he translated the works of Epictetus during the war. The Stoic military tradition did what Pigliucci’s narrow definition of Stoicism could not.
The Ancient Stoics were not united in their understanding of the concept of cosmopolitanism. While all supported the concept, the degree of support varied wildly. The beliefs varied from the socially liberal extreme of Zeno seeing all men as literal brothers and sisters, to Cato the Younger socially conservative view that while all human life had value, military force may still be required between nations to resolve conflicts. Interpretation of cosmopolitanism plays a large role in determining if Stoicism is compatible with nationalism and governmental service. I must admit that I find Pigliucci’s condemnation of the U.S. Military ironic. The same government that pays soldiers provides a portion of Pigliucci’s paycheck as a professor. So, while Pigliucci is happy to condemn the military profession, he isn’t above living off of a government he sees as corrupt. Needless to say, he is no Thoreau.
The major fault of Pigliucci’s agreement is countries do not fully determine if they enter war. A whole nation could embrace the socially liberal extreme of cosmopolitanism and still be invaded by a nation that desires conquest. The art of turning citizens into soldiers is a long one. While modern soldiers can be made proficient in as little as two-years, it takes a lifetime to develop strategic military leaders. A nation that ignores the military arts and sciences will soon be conquered by one that does not. Ultimately, general military education among citizens may result in the world with less conflict that Pigliucci desires. As explained by Norwich University faculty, “The charge that [Military Education] breeds a desire for war is hardly more sensible than to say that surgical training breeds in a doctor the desire to witness suffering and agony. The surgeon exists because suffering and agony continue. The soldier exists because the idea of force continues. But the man of medicine is no more anxious to banish pain and sickness than the soldier is anxious to see warfare go upon the scrap heap. […] A little military like a little medicine, goes a long way — but that little is sometimes essential.” Ultimately, Stoics cannot wait till a time of war to learn how to fight.
Pigliucci asserted, “Stoic cosmopolitanism, while not requiring strict pacifism, certainly discourages any deep entanglement with the military as it is structured today, in the U.S. as well as in many other countries.” This assertion reminds me of the quote by Lieutenant General Sir William Francis Butler (Often misattributed to Thucydides) “The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” If the U.S. Military is truly an unethical institution, wouldn’t the solution be more Stoics not less? However, I have to note that I agree with Pigliucci’s assertion. The U.S. should return to a militia-based army that places more demands on individual citizens to provide for the Nation’s defense. This NeoStoic approach would reduce the risk for needless conflict to justify the cost of a standing army. However, I am quite certain by Pigliucci’s political alignment that he would never support this approach (Just to let you know, Pigliucci, the term “well-regulated” refers to the militia’s ability to wage war and not gun control).
Ultimately, I do not mind anyone trying to argue their political views through the use of Stoic philosophy. But I do expect scholars to take an accurate account of their area of study. Hiding facts and misleading an audience is hardly a mark of a sage. Recognizing echo chambers and engaging with those of different psychological temperaments and political opinions is important. Embrace the diversity of thought and argue your point with logic and reason so all may be led to greater knowledge in virtue.
I will leave you with one final quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, a man that frequently quoted Marcus Aurelius, on his vision for the fullness of an American scholar. I pray that one day we may achieve his standard. “So let [the American Scholar] habits be formed, and all his economies heroic; no spoiled child, no drone, no epicure, but a stoic, formidable, athletic, knowing how to be poor, loving labor, and not flogging his youthful wit with tobacco and wine; treasuring his youth. I wish the youth to be an armed and complete man; no helpless angel to be slapped in the face, but a man dipped in the Styx of human experience, and made invulnerable so, — self-helping”
The views presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Department of Defense or its components.
