Are Stoics necessarily pragmatic because their philosophy is deeply rooted in rationality? What does it mean to be pragmatic in the philosophical sense?
If you’ve ever wondered what Stoicism and Pragmatism have in common, you’ve come to the right place! This blog post will answer these questions by comparing the philosophy of Stoicism vs Pragmatism. We will examine their main tenets separately, then look at what they have in common and what sets them apart.
A Primer on Stoicism, the Philosophy of Inner Resilience
Stoicism originated in ancient Greece around 300 BC and later gained popularity in ancient Rome. Its most prominent figures are Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus and Seneca, although modern thinkers have aligned themselves with Stoic tradition too.
Stoicism points towards virtue (to be understood as moral excellence) as the most worthwhile human pursuit and identifies rationality and self-discipline as the trusted tools needed to achieve it.
Perhaps the most important tenet of Stoicism is the Dichotomy of Control, which posits that we should distinguish what is up to us and what isn’t. According to Stoic teachings, we have control over our thoughts and actions, whereas external circumstances lie beyond our influence.
When we separate everything we encounter into these buckets, we allow ourselves to focus our energy on what is up to us, rather than wasting it on things we cannot change. This is an empowering mindset which leads to less anxiety, frustration, and disappointment when faced with the inevitable ups and downs of life.
In close relation to this is another tenet of the philosophy: that of embracing one’s destiny wholeheartedly (Amor Fati), regardless of how it fits with our expectations and desires. To do so is to approach life with equanimity, which has the extraordinary side effect of tranquility (the Stoic equivalent for inner peace).
Now that you got the gist of Stoicism, let’s see what the philosophy of Pragmatism proposes to its students.
Pragmatism: the Philosophy of Practical Problem-Solving
Pragmatism is a more recent philosophy than Stoicism, having been developed in the late 19th century by American philosophers such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey.
Pragmatism states that the value of an idea or a belief can be judged based on its practical consequences (i.e.: its ability to solve problems or lead us to a desirable outcome). This no-nonsense view stems from a desire to break with the earlier philosophical tradition, which they criticize for engaging in abstract debates and metaphysical speculations.
Because of this, Pragmatism advocates for experimentation and learning through experience, which are seen as essential to validating ideas. A Pragmatist rejects the notion that knowledge is something fixed that is waiting to be discovered, and instead proposes that knowledge evolves through continuous interaction with the world. As a consequence, absolute truth cannot exist, and beliefs should be adapted when new information is acquired.
To a Pragmatist, an idea that is simply beautiful has no merit, because theories and concepts should be judged based on their effectiveness in addressing real-world issues and improving the human experience. (In other words, usefulness trumps poetry.)
Stoicism vs Pragmatism: What They Have in Common
Stoicism and Pragmatism share a lot of beliefs: they both see rationality as a crucial ingredient to living a good life, value practicality in all human endeavors, and think that we should put great effort in prioritizing self-development and growth.
The importance of reason
Stoicism sees rationality as the main tool through which we can understand Nature and align our actions with the cosmos. It is also our best ally in understanding our emotions and actions and steering ourselves in a way that enables us to achieve tranquility regardless of external circumstances.
This idea is so valued by Stoics that the ”Stoic sage” - which they consider to be the epitome of wisdom - is someone who wields reason so expertly that they achieve complete equanimity and are able to live in perfect harmony with the Universe.
Pragmatism is also a strong advocate of reason, but identifies its usefulness in its ability to guide us towards the most practical outcome. For a Pragmatist, rationality is the only reliable way to evaluate the consequences of our beliefs, thus enabling us to refine them.
Although their motivations for employing rationality differ, followers of both philosophical traditions rely on rationality to live their best life.
Emphasis on practicality
Both Stoicism and Pragmatism are applied philosophies, whose ideas are meant to be lived and not simply contemplated. Because of this, they both encourage us to take action and make decisions based on what is practical and achievable in the present moment, since this is the only way to invite meaningful change in our existence,
In Stoicism, this is visible in the Dichotomy of Control - it is undeniably more practical to direct your efforts towards that which you can influence, rather than worry about what lies outside of your control.
In Pragmatism, this comes up as the imperative of seeking the most useful outcome when making decisions or solving problems.
Focus on personal development
Being wise - according to both Stoicism and Pragmatism - necessarily involves continuous personal development. They differ, however, in what they choose to focus their improvement efforts on.
For a Stoic, personal growth involves the cultivation of the 4 virtues, as well as achieving mastery over one’s reactions and emotions. Reflection, as well as practicing a variety of Stoic exercises.
Stoicism vs Pragmatism: Where They Diverge
While Stoicism and Pragmatism have a lot of fundamental ideas in common, they also diverge in important ways: their view of the limits of human agency and the extent to which they believe we have the ability to influence outcomes.
The Limits of Human Agency
Stoicism believes in the existence of Fate and sees this as the natural limit of human agency (some things are not up to us), while Pragmatism believes in the power of active problem-solving above all.
The Pragmatic stance implies that everything is solvable if one manages to understand how the world works, as well as what the most practical course of action is.
If I were to venture a guess, I would say that the Stoic view seems a more accurate depiction of the human condition, as anyone who’s ever been alive can attest to. There are realities that we simply cannot change, no matter how much practical effort we put into solving them.
View of External Outcomes
For a Pragmatist, everything can be judged based on the outcomes it produces - good ideas produce positive results, and thus pass the test, while bad ideas produce undesirable outcomes and should be discarded.
This is in stark contrast to the Stoic view on outcomes, which they believe lie outside of our sphere of influence. While we should always do our best to achieve a positive result, what this result will ultimately be is up to Fate, and we should detach ourselves from our expectations of particular outcomes. (This is why every Stoic endeavor is accompanied by the reserve clause.)
Pragmatism also recognizes the influence of external factors on outcomes, but less strongly. It encourages us to remain adaptable at all times and to use reason to identify when a change of strategy is in order.
Conclusion
Now that you know the main differences between Stoicism and Pragmatism, you can decide which approach works best for you. Even if you don’t resonate fully with what each of them has to offer, you might still be well-served by adopting a few philosophical principles from both.
Here’s how I combine a bit of wisdom from both.
As a Stoic, I recognize that good intentions are not always enough, as focusing only on intentions has the potential to trick us into doing less than we could to ensure a good (moral) outcome. To better understand this, think of the moments when you did your best, but your best was simply not enough. (Perhaps there was a test you studied for, but didn’t choose the appropriate material to study from.)
This is where I blend the Pragmatist idea that I should be practical at all times: I first seek to understand what I am trying to achieve (i.e.: what I’m optimizing for) and then try to identify the best course of action. Only if I have come up with a good strategy AND followed it, am I allowed to say that I have done my best and that the outcome lies outside of my control from there on.
Perhaps this adjustment to the Dichotomy of Control can also be helpful to you. If you try it, do reach out to let me know how it went!
If you enjoyed this post, you might want to know how Stoicism compares with other modern philosophies. Check out Stoicism vs Skepticism, Stoicism vs Existentialism or Stoicism vs The Law of Attraction.
