Stoicism, Daoism, and Apathy

I give thanks to David Miller for inviting me to present here today on the topic "Stoicism, Daoism, and Apathy" and I'm glad that my audience was sufficiently bothered to attend! David, of course, is deserving of some praise organising these "philosophy of the street" lectures for many decades now, whether it is through the title of the Existentialist Society, the Atheist Society, the Agnostic Society, the Sea of Faith in Australia, and more. He has even seen fit to invite me along to speak at these events on several occasions, including on such riveting topics as "The Phenomenology of Technology", way back in 1995, but more recently "Do We Have Enough Time? A Eudaimonic Answer" in June 2024, "From Stoicism and Naturalistic Pantheism to Effective Altruism" in April 2022, "Pantheism: Beyond Atheism and Theism" in July 2021, and "The Continuum of Needs and Wants" in November 2020. There have been many others, of course, but the aforementioned presentations are part of an ongoing research and related research project, relevant to today's topic.

David has introduced me as the University Outreach Officer for the International Society for Philosophers. This association was formed in 2002 to bring professional and amateur philosophers together and claimed over two thousand members across 93 countries, along with publishing the online journal "Pathways to Philosophy", which began in 1995 hosted at Sheffield University. Whilst there is a board governing the Society's activities, I fear it has become mostly moribund since the founder and main driver for the Society, Geoffrey Klempner, died in 2022. It serves as a valuable warning for any unincorporated and loose association that heavily depends on the activities of one person.

For my own part, my formal interest in philosophy began in 1986 when I enrolled at Murdoch University in the multi-disciplinary programme, "Politics, Philosophy, and Sociology". Involvement in student politics, that traditional graveyard of potential degrees, meant that I did not actually complete my undergraduate studies until 1993, but at least I walked out with an honours degree. Since then, I've collected several more stiff pieces of cardboard, mostly related to science and technology, organisational systems, education, psychology, and, most recently, climatology and economics, but during all these, I have retained a keen interest in philosophy and religion. This includes many addresses to the Melbourne Unitarian Church, being the co-convener of the Melbourne Unitarian Church's Philosophy Forum for more than ten years and, for a similar period of time, the founding president of the Victorian Secular Lobby.

As is clear from the aforementioned presentations, I have often raised the topic of Stoicism, and today is no exception. This is, however, the first time that I have discussed Daoism, and perhaps it is opportune to also mention that I am the current president of the Victorian branch of the Australia-China Friendship Society, which is pretty much what it says on the tin. The objectives of that organisation are simply to ensure that there is good understanding of Chinese history, language, and culture and mutual understanding and exchanges through travel, economic, and business ties. Understanding Daoism certainly falls under these objectives.

There are several parts to today's presentation. The first two involve an introduction and definition of Stoicism and Daoism, which I hope can navigate between Scylla and Karybdis, mixing our metaphor, to reach Kunlun Shan, the divine axis mundi in Chinese mythology. On one hand, I am very sensitive to those for whom an introduction to these two great schools of thought is essential, and I hope to awaken a spark of interest in them for further investigation. On the other hand, for those who are already familiar with one or both of the schools, I beg for your humour and patience. Following these introductions, I will also briefly explore some of the similarities and differences between the two, as I have expressed the temerity to place them together in this presentation.

Following this, I will explore common and more nuanced definitions of apathy and it is from the latter I will compare different ideas of self-cultivation, whether it is the Chinese notion of Xiushen or the Hellenic Prohairesis. Following this, the Four Cardinal Virtues of Stoicism and the Three Treasures of Daoism, both of which lead to a consideration of the relationship between social justice and radical acceptance and responding to the challenge sometimes levelled at both Stoicism and Daoism that they encourage a passivity and "slave mentality". For concluding remarks, I will compare the Logos and the Dao as two forms of pantheistic naturalism.

A Definition of Stoicism

Stoicism was founded as a Hellenistic philosophy and first systematically introduced in Athens by Zeno of Citium, that is modern day Cyprus, around 300BCE. It was heavily influenced by Socrates in the form of philosophical questioning and commitment to the good, and perhaps even more so by the Cynics, such as Diogenes of Sinope. The name comes from the porch (stoa) in the Agora in Athens, where the first Stoic philosophers would meet, debate, and teach. Like other schools at the time, the Stoics were very much an everyday practical philosophy interested in "eudaimonia" which can be roughly translated as "happiness", but more literally means a "good demon", to have an internal moral compass and habit that generates happiness and a sense of "ataraxia", the freedom from disturbances. For the Stoics, ataraxia was a necessary condition to live in accord with nature. They had a naturalistic sense of virtue ethics that was informed by physics and logic. In doing so, the Stoics were in dialogue and debate with the Platonic Academic School, Aristotelianism of the Peripatetic school ("the walkers", in contrast with the stoa), and famously, the Epicureans.

Against the dualist approach to ontology used by the Platonists, whereby empirical experience was secondary to idealist immaterial Forms, the Stoics argued for a single immanent physical experience. They were also critical of the sceptical side of the Platonists, who they felt would engage in semantic games when matters of virtue were at stake. Against the Aristotleans, who felt that a level of utility was a good in itself (e.g., health, education, housing) because it was necessary in achieving eudaimonia, whereas the Stoics considered these "preferred indifferents", something that wasn't actually good (because virtue was the only good), but could help value with respect to the ability to practice virtue. In the past, I have argued that this is a stepwise function; that some utility assists in achieving virtue. Against the Epicureans, the Stoics strongly argued against both Epicurean calculated hedonism, but especially their suggestion to withdraw from society and surround oneself with a few close friends. The Stoic Epictetus argued that even in the act of advocating this position and by appealing to society in general, Epicurus was being incoherent.

After their origins in Greece, the Stoics were influential in the Roman world, most famously through Marcus Aurelius, whose "Meditations" - meant to be a private collection of notes - has had lasting influence over the centuries. In one celebrated phrase, advice is given on how to deal with downright unpleasant people: "When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil". Much of the Stoic recommendations for dealing with the practical experiences of life involved acceptance of events outside of our control, and choices informed by rational wisdom for those things we can control. In the past I have quipped in a Stoic fashion: "Take responsible and thoughtful control of what you can, which includes your own feelings about things that you cannot", along with, "Life is short, death is long, use your time wisely", the latter statement in accord with Seneca The Younger: "It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it."

The Stoics also influenced early Christian thinkers. They are mentioned directly by Paul in Acts 17:18, and medieval scholastics as well. Their emphasis on universality both in nature (logos) and among humanity (brotherhood, sisterhood) was modified in accordance with Christian metaphysics, but nevertheless was present. The recognition of the limited time, "memento mori", for virtue was shared, and the cardinal virtues of the Stoics were directly adopted by Augustine. In humanistic and Renaissance writings, especially in Thomas More and Baruch Spinoza, they had a notable revival. In contemporary times, they have been extremely influential and explicitly noted in the therapeutic technique of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and its subsequent developments, Dialectical Behaviour Therapy and Action and Commitment Therapy. One may also note that Stoicism had an interesting revival during the COVID-19 pandemic as many people sought a framework to navigate the new circumstances.

A Definition of Daosim

On the other side of the world, around the same time as the founding of Stoicism in 300 BCE, a philosophical and religious tradition was being founded in China during the descriptively named Warring States period. During this time the foundational texts, the Daode Jing (Tao Te Ching) or "Book of the Way and Its Virtue" and Zhuangzi were both composed. The former is attributed to Laozi, a name which literally means 'Old Master', although modern scholarship has serious doubts whether any such person ever existed, and the philological evidence suggests that the text was composed of multiple authors, underwent revisions, and accretion, rather than a single event. The latter text translates as 'Master Zhuang' as is attributed to Zhuang Zhou, and similarly, reviews of the text suggest multiple authors are involved. The former text is enigmatic, typically expressing meaning through the elaboration of contradictions, which illustrate the importance of finding contentment and harmony. For example, from Chapter 46: "No guilt is greater than giving in to desire, No disaster is greater than discontent, No crime is more grievous than the desire for gain. Therefore, Contentment that derives from knowing when to be content is eternal contentment". In comparison, Zhuangzi is a collection of anecdotes, allegories, and short stories often expressed with notable irreverence and humour. It often illustrates how arbitrary and artificial dichotomies are false and how a level of doubt is necessary. It is in this text that one finds, for example, the famous butterfly-dream, which raises questions of sensations, lucidity, and identity.

The core principle of Daoism is learning to live in harmony with the Dao, which represents reality, eternal motion, and how experience is ultimately ineffable; "The Dao that can be described is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name", which can be compared with Kant’s noumenal and phenomenal. In contrast to Buddhism, which has an elaborate cosmology and principles of behaviour, Daoism is more immediate and concerned with adaptation to the immanent, although it must be noted that Taoism was very influential in the development of Mayana Zen (Chan) Buddhism. In contrast to Confucianism, which often concerns itself with family, politics, law, and the institutions that humans build, Daoism's is more concerned with physical and spiritual cultivation with naturalness and spontaneity. As a common thread throughout its history, Taoist philosophy has emphasised concepts like wuwei ("effortless action"), ziran (literally "self-so", or "authenticity"), qi ("spirit"), wu ("non-being"), wuji ("non-duality"), taiji ("polarity") and, of course, yin-yang ('dark and bright'), bianhua ("transformation") and fan ("reversal"). Alongside Confucianism and Buddhism, Taoism has thus become one of the three major religious and philosophical traditions within the Sinosphere and, like the others, is typically present simultaneously at Chinese places of worship.

A great deal of scholarship attempts to distinguish between "philosophical Daoism" (daojia) from "religious Daoism" (daojiao). It is a controversial distinction as it is not part of the Daoist religious practice, which is incredibly diverse, having incorporated folk religious practices and shamanism, along with quasi-empirical pseudo-scientific practices such as alchemy, numerology, and astrology; notably, all of these are attempts to deal with the realities of everyday experience. Of course, the distinction between philosophy and religion is not just an issue with Daoism; one could make a similar argument about Christianity, for example. What is more important is whether it is possible to derive a secular analysis from a religious practice and scholarship, and whether the religion itself is capable of self-transformation, overcoming dogmatic adherence to magical thinking, deific worship, mythological literalism, and ritualised practices which, ironically, are very far removed from the naturalism of the Dao.

Today, it is useful to distinguish between three branches of Daoism. The first is the traditional Chinese cultural approach, which combines, in myriad teaching and practices, an ongoing combination of philosophical and religious activities. Even within China as a distinct denomination, it represents a very small percentage of the population in a dedicated sense, but with a significant cultural influence. A second branch involves the reinterpretation and syncretisation of Daoism with novel religious beliefs. This is common in both Chinese and non-Chinese cultures, as Daoism is a living and evolving collection of religious practises, but it is also prone to superficiality (e.g., the popular book "The Tao of Pooh") or cultic groupings which can sometimes be downright dangerous - such as the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult, responsible for the 1995 sarin gas Tokyo metro attack, which left 13 people dead. The third branch, which I consider to have the greatest potential, is the secularised practices found in both Chinese and non-Chinese societies, which emphasise philosophy and life practices over religious beliefs and rituals. This includes Daoist martial arts (especially Tai Chi), mental discipline and meditation, and ecological interests.

Similiarities and Differences

As mentioned, I will now take a bit of stock of this broad overview to note some similarities and differences in Stoicism and Daoism before moving toward the question of apathy and elaboration on the common themes. Obviously separated by geography, but with a serendipituous coincidence in terms of synchronous foundation, both Stoicism and Daosim belong to that central question of how one is meant to live, a matter which has interested philosophy for millennia, although it may be noted that as disciplinary boundaries evolve over time, there are pragmatic reasons why philosophy should be increasingly associated with foundational matters of epistemology, ontology, and logic, which are universal to all disciplines, whilst there is a growing interest in the conduct of life and the mind in psychology.

Both Stoicism and Daoism take a strong starting point that the objective of human conduct is to be harmonious and in accord with nature. By "nature" it is not meant to be a "naturalistic fallacy", the erroneous argument in informal logic that asserts what is natural is good, or that a property is good because it is natural. Rather, the Stoics gave a principle of applying reason as part of nature to circumstances, whereas, in a similar manner, the Daoists engaged in the examination of contradictions and their resolution. Both have a strong emphasis on contemplation of adaptation and especially acceptance, although it is notable that there is some divergence on matters of humour; it's not that the Stoics didn't have a sense of humour (Seneca the Younger actively encouraged it and gave plenty of examples), but rather it was not as intrinsic as it is in Daoism.

This aside, in order to develop adaptation and acceptance, Stoics and Daoists alike looked toward self-cultivation, which I will review as Chinese Xiushen and Hellenic Prohairesis, which are united in their interests and content in ethical behaviour and mentality, although there is some divergence when it comes to physical matters. The Stoics gave a lessened priority to physical health, seeing it as a "preferred indifferent", a necessary requirement for virtue ethics, whereas in Daoist religious traditions, physical health would often be explicitly tied to alchemy, elixirs, and the quest for longevity and even immortality. On the other hand, both emphasised the need for personal frugality, humility, compassion and ethical treatment of others.

Another similarity, albeit one which has weakened both traditions, is their lack of a strong organisational structure. Certainly, it is true that the Stoics have their own school that lasted for generations in the Athenian sense. It is also true that there are a multitude of religious bodies that carry the appellation of Daoist. But in terms of a central and organised body, both are lacking in this regard. This has provided diversity and resilience at the cost of social effectiveness and, perhaps as a result, despite their ethical interests, a Stoic or Daoist approach to matters like political economy is rarely elaborated or debated in the way that one finds in, for example, Christianity or Buddhism.

Finally, both are monist and universal. The Logos and the Dao are all-pervasive and immanent with a "this worldly" concern, although the Stoics tended toward physicalism and the Daoists could be more immaterial. With its self-manifestation, the Dao gives birth to the three main components of the cosmos. Collectively called the "three treasures" (sanbao), these components are jing, or Essence, qi, or Breath, and shen, or Spirit, whereas we find with the Logos a historical attachment to Artistotle’s interest in rhetoric, where we find a threefold connection with logos, pathos, and ethos along with Isocrates' teachings about philosophy and logos and their partnership in generating an ethical, mindful polis. In Stoic philosophy, Logos was the active reason pervading and animating the Universe. It was conceived as material, the law of generation in the Universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos. The Stoics took all activity to imply a logos or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, the logos was anima mundi to them.

Common and Nuanced Definitions of Apathy

With this in mind, I would like to discuss apathy. We have a conventional notion where it represents a lack of purpose, worth, or meaning in the apathetic’s life. For those raised with a Judeo-Christian upbringing, apathy is condemned as a deficiency of love and devotion to God and his works and is referred to as a deadly sin under the name of Sloth.

From a medical perspective, apathetic individuals tend to have a lower quality of life and are at a higher risk for mortality, institutionalisation, insensibility, and sluggishness. In positive psychology, apathy is described as a result of the individuals' feeling they do not possess the level of skill required to confront a challenge (e.g. "flow" theory), or they perceive there is no challenge at all, whether the challenge is irrelevant to them, or they have learned helplessness. Among health-care professionals, "apathy" is a term to describe a lack of goal-directed activity and motivation, and is often compared to previous behaviour. It can also look like they lack spontaneity, interests or emotional expression.

Apathy in the medical sense is due to several neurological conditions and is outside of the control of the patient. It can arise from events that have post-traumatic stress disorder, and is common in survivors of catastrophes or prisoners of war. People who experience traumatic events may develop apathy as a way to protect themselves mentally and prevent further distress.

It is worthwhile to look at the word "apathy" in a nuanced manner and look at the word quite directly. In the word "apathy", the negation, "a", with the word "pathos". It is derived from the Greek apatheia "without feeling" from a- ("without, not") and pathos ("emotion"). It was used by Stoics to signify a desirable state of indifference toward events and things that lie outside one's control, that is, according to their philosophy, all things exterior, one being only responsible for one's own representations and judgements. So there is a positive apathy.

Positive apathy refers to a state of selective emotional detachment used as a protective mechanism to preserve emotional resources, focus on what truly matters, and redirect energy towards more meaningful pursuits. It is not a passive state of "not caring" in a general sense but rather an intentional indifference to things we can’t control, an indifference to distractions or emotionally draining situations to foster mental well-being, and enable focused action on priorities. It doesn’t mean being apathetic about all things; it means being apathetic about some things, those things that are outside of our control or things that are irrelevant, a state of selective emotional detachment. It is possible, of course, to have a general state of empathy, where one is not engaged with anything at all; this is a negative apathy.

Referring to a previous presentation on "The Continuum of 'Needs' and 'Wants'", there is a great deal that is quite relevant on this point. People can develop their own sense of material security, firstly through the satisfaction of basic needs, such as clothing, housing, and food, the basic levels in Maslow’s (flawed) hierarchy of needs. Beyond this satisfaction, one begins to engage in hedonistic pursuits and ultimately indulgence. A preferred development before over-indulgence is the more refined choices based on utility, converting hedonism into a selective, qualitative, grounded and lasting pleasure, such as found in the philosophy of Epicureanism. This, too, develops diminishing returns and cannot generate meaning in itself. Ultimately, with the satisfaction of material needs and then material utility, the final need is the Stoic-inspired actions of virtue.

In order to value something, we have to care about it, which means we have to reject other things that are not part of what we value because we have a finite amount of time. To establish our identity, we have to choose those things that are part of our values and direct ourselves towards them, and be apathetic about those things that are not important to us. A great number of people in this world do not engage in this behaviour, and it is to their loss. Because they refuse to develop values and reject things that are not part of values, they end up stumbling with a valueless, hedonistic, self-absorbed, and entitled lifestyle. They end up quite unhappy as a result, as they haven’t learned to reject those activities which are harmful to them and do not generate longer-term meaning. We have to be selective; the universe has already decided we have a finite period of time. Therefore, we have to engage and invest in those experiences and relationships that really matter.

Self-Cultivation: Chinese Xiushen and Hellenic Prohairesis

One finds selective apathy and meaningful choice in this process of self-cultivation, the Chinese xiushen or the Hellenic prohairesis. In the Chinese approach, it is the development of one’s mind and capacity through one’s own efforts, the integration and coordination of mind and body, and has been used in a form of cognitive psychotherapeutic approach. In Daoism, which tends to focus on the linking of the mind and body with the natural world. It tends to focus on developing the authentic self that is independent and free from legal, political, or social expectations. It tends to encourage an ethos, an ethical sense, in a manner that is natural to the individual. In the more religious perspective, it is tied to concerns of astrological and numerological destiny, where a birthdate and time are considered auspicious or inauspicious; this is part of the tradition, which I don’t think particularly corresponds with reality.

In comparison, prohairesis in the Stoic approach involves giving or withholding assent to the "phantasiai" or impressions that one receives, and from that develop moral and ethical choices. In this approach, things themselves are not considered good or bad. It is our actions that are in our control that have a moral character. Those actions within our own volition are prohairesis, that is, bound to the faculty of choice. For example, if someone says something that is criticising us, that’s not "bad" and likewise if we are complimented, that is not "good". In both these cases, it is not something that we control; it is something that is external. Indeed, nor should we want to control it. It is up to the other person’s individual choices and how they respond to us. And this certainly is the case of events that occur to us as well. Instead, it is a matter of how we respond to what is happening around us and what sort of faculty and reasoning we provide to ourselves. That is the transformative behaviour by which we develop our own reason.

These are implemented as a recommended pathway, whether as the Four Cardinal Virtues in Stoicism or the Three Treasures in Daoism. The Cardinal Virtues are used within a range of Greek philosophical thought and were also incorporated into medieval Christianity. The virtues are Prudence (the knowledge of the right course of action to take in a given situation and to understand consequences), Justice (fairness, the motivation of righteousness), Courage (the dedication to and commitment to confront uncertainty and intimidation in testing times), and Temperance (self-control, discretion, moderation).

Comparing this with the Daoist approach is the Three Treasures, sanbao. The basic virtues of Daoism are "compassion", "frugality", and "humility". To quote from the Tao Te Ching chapter 67,

"Everyone under heaven says that our Way is greatly like folly. But it is just because it is great, that it seems like folly. As for things that do not seem like folly - well, there can be no question about their smallness!

Here are my three treasures. Guard and keep them! The first is pity; the second, frugality; the third, refusal to be 'foremost of all things under heaven'.

For only those that pity is truly able to be brave;
Only those that is frugal is able to be profuse.
Only those that refuses to be foremost of all things
Is truly able to become chief of all Ministers."

These serve as an illustrative example of adopting and adapting to contradiction that leads to a positive resolution.

Justice and Radical Acceptance

Turning to an area of some criticism, which arises from a common theme in Stoicism and Daoism of radical acceptance and adaptation, and their relationship with justice. We can see this arising from Epictetus with the famous dichotomy of control: "We are responsible for some things, while there are others for which we cannot be held responsible".

When one looks at matters of what constitutes the good, perhaps it is unsurprising to see that some may advocate for "harmony" or "tranquillity" in preference to the difficult and confrontational tasks involved in trying to implement changes that accord with principles of justice.

There are countless ways this has been done. For example, if someone is the victim of an unjust action, Seneca says, "We suffer more often in imagination than in reality". Perhaps this is true sometimes, but actual events themselves are important. Does the Stoic position encourage us to disengage from a position whereby we can make a real change to the world? Zeno of Citium says we conquer the world by conquering ourselves.

Such statements allow for the possibility of disengagement. In Hegel’s "Phenomenology of Spirit" he accuses Stoics of all epochs of failing to see that this possibility exists. "Stoicism could only appear on the scene in a time of universal fear and bondage." There is a potential notion, prevalent in both Stoicism and Daoism, that freedom stops inside one’s own head, rather than becoming a social good. Do we accept Marcus Aurelius when he wrote, "reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears"? Injuries themselves are actually very real; it is helpful for a person who has been injured to consider it in the past and, with determination, establish a mindset where they will not let a past injury govern them any further, but it doesn’t change the reality that the injury occurred or the conditions that allowed it to occur.

This also occurs in Daoism. Daoism does not consider justice in terms of laws, but rather in idealised and inherent impartial processes that accord with Nature, both as a reality and as a technique, it is The Way. Human constructs of justice are artificial and often harmful. But whilst legal systems and laws are not justice themselves, however, this does not mean that one shouldn’t engage or improve them. A Daoism that emphasises inner harmony and wu-wei as effortless action and non-doing can lead to a situation where injustices are overlooked and are not engaged socially.

It is important, therefore, that wu-wei is not interpreted as doing nothing, or going with the flow. It means doing and not-doing in accordance to the Dao. To quote again from the Dao Daode Jing a principle of justice from from chapter 54. "See others as yourself. See families as your family. See towns as your town. See countries as your country. See worlds as your world." A perspective that combines compassion and cosmopolitanism.

To quote from chapter 67: "The whole world says that my Way is great like nothing else. It is great because it is like nothing else. If it were like everything else, It would long ago have become insignificant. I have three treasures that I cherish. The first is compassion. The second is moderation. The third is not claiming to be first in the world. By compassion one can be brave. By moderation one can be generous. By not claiming to be first in the world one can rule. But to be brave without compassion, Generous without moderation, And rule without refraining from being first in the world are certain deaths."

As a warning, there is a tendency in both traditions to become escapist, rather than adaptive. This is quite strongly tied to the lack of engagement with institutions and the lack of debate on matters of political economy. Which is quite weird when considering two philosophical traditions that have so much emphasis on the Immanent.

Cosmology: The Logos and the Dao

To conclude, after a discussion that is very much oriented toward individual experiences, it is worth looking at the overall cosmological perspectives, the Logos and the Dao. Within Daoism, shen, qi, and jing, in this order, represent the three stages in the cosmos, from non-being and emptiness, the development of essence that generates "ten thousand things". Shen is the principle of the non-material; jing is the principle for material entities; and qi is what holds the whole cosmos together, throughout its continuous changes. Then the totality representing the Dao itself, whether a philosophical or religious approach it has a sequence of states, the Dao De Jing describes a sequence of states taken on by the Dao, including the Dao itself, unity, duality, and then multiplicity: "The Dao generates the One; the One generates the Two; the Two generate the Three; the Three generate the Ten Thousand Things".

In comparison, the fundamental aspect of Stoic philosophy is the idea that ethics is central, and ethics is supported by logic and physics, the "topoi" of Stoicism. Logic and physics are related to ethics because Stoicism is a thoroughly naturalistic philosophy. Even when the Stoics are talking about "God" or "soul," they are referring to physical entities, identified with a rational principle which is part of the universe itself and it is what makes human rationality possible so you can be in accordance with the universe.

Stoics, therefore, have a relationship with pantheism and naturalistic pantheism in particular, which can be interpreted as fatalistic and deterministic, as Einstein said, "time is an illusion". There is a single monist whole, which arises from the core principle of logos that is active and life-giving, dynamic, and with a trajectory to reality that unfolds before us where we are participants, both Stoics were both rationalists and empiricists simultaneously. We are not talking about transcendent omniscient beings, but rather an immanent divinity that is part of nature and is nature. Marcus Aurealis wrote: "All things are implicated with one another, and the bond is holy... For there is one universe made up of all things, and one god who pervades all things, and one substance, and one law, and one reason".

It must be mentioned that in pure logic there are also significant contributions by the Stoics, particularly Chrysippus, developing a system of propositional logic beyond Aristotle, including logical connectives like "if...then," "and," and an exclusive "either...or" to form complex propositions and arguments. In comparison, Daoist thought emphasises an experience of the unfolding of language and the universe that is often paradoxical and is often difficult to grasp conceptually. Instead of formal logic, Daoists utilise a dialectical approach that questions the validity of fixed categories and emphasises motion and change.

Conclusion

In summary, despite different geographical origins, both Stoicism and Daoism are acceptance and adaptation responses that emphasise self-control and self-cultivation. Although profoundly interested in ethics and justice, they are non-institutional, an approach that gives them a certain timelessness, but at the cost of effectiveness. They can lead to passivity with the dichotomy of control or desire for harmony, but this is far from intrinsic and results from general apathetic and hedonistic seductions. They are apathetic about some things; things that don’t matter (which is often things that people give a lot of time to). They are monist, immanent approaches to the universe, and can alternatively use formal and dialectical logic. A potential synthesis of the two, combined with an a greater emphasis on institutional matters, would be valuable for their future development.

Presentation to the Melbourne Agnostic Society, September 13, 2025