by Keith P. Myers

Many say that the Stoics were determinists, or at least compatibilists, which is simply a form of qualified determinism. But the problem with this is the fact that determinism requires abstract laws to operate. In the absence of that idea, it is not determinism. And the Stoics did not believe in abstract laws.

The Stoics pre-date our conception of determinism by some 2000 years. The idea of determinism comes out of the Enlightenment Period. The Enlightenment philosophers proposed secondary God-given laws, similar in principle to Platonic ideals. These rely on mathematical realism to be true, which commits you either to idealism or some kind of dualism, and the causal efficacy of abstract structures. But the Stoics, as conceptualists, denied the reality of abstract universals. They would have considered anything we call a “law” as simply being a description of nature. And a description exists only in language, and cannot be causally efficacious. A description cannot “determine” anything!

Some seem to think that denying determinism opens the door to magic, randomness, acausality, or getting something from nothing. This is not true. Determinism sits on dualistic deistic enlightenment metaphysics. This was not the metaphysics of the Stoics. The problem people have is not being able to understand the alternatives.

The Stoics denied the existence of the abstract, the existence of universals, and the causality of the immaterial. They were physical monists. They denied abstract immaterial laws pushing physical stuff about. Nothing comes from nothing and everything can in principle be explained in terms of what has gone before. But there is nothing outside of nature like a God-given Newtonian abstract mathematical law telling nature what to do. If you are not aware that causal mathematical laws are a spooky dualistic way of thinking you haven’t thought about it hard enough. How does math make anything move?

Again, nothing comes from nothing. Nothing happens just because. The present can be explained with reference to the past, and if we can’t find the explanation in the past for something happening now, it’s because we just can’t find it, not because something popped into being from nowhere. No abstract “law of causation” is necessary. Only the past is necessary. The future cannot be determined because it has not happened yet. You cannot say the future “is” or “was” just as you cannot say “I had my birthday next year”. Just because the present evolves from the past does not mean that the future is pre-determined by the past.

There are three possible viewpoints:

1. The future is fully contained in the past.

2. The future is generated from the past.

3. Stuff comes from nothing for no reason.

Just because #2 denies #3 does not mean it can be reconciled with #1. The flaw in determinist reasoning is the presumption that unless the future is rigidly encoded in the past, it must be arbitrary and lawless. This ignores the possibility that processes can be constrained and structured, and yet not be fully contained in the past. Future events are multiple possibilities based on past events. But nothing in the past rigidly determines what is to happen in the future.

It has been written that “Stoic Teleological Determinism is the idea that everything that happens results from an unbroken chain of causes within a cosmos governed by the logos.” But this is just good old-fashioned Laplacian mechanistic determinism. This idea came about well after the Stoics. The term “chain” is completely inappropriate. Everything is a manifestation of a single fundamental self-organizing kinetic force. There are no loose bits tied together in a chain. There is no external governor holding the chain together. Logos and Cosmos are one and the same. It is organic, not mechanistic.

The Stoic idea of causality says that in order to be the cause of something, something has to be an agent, as in an active power. For the Stoics this agent must be corporeal. It cannot be an abstract law or governor. The Cosmos was seen has having a “divine fire” that produces an organizing structure or force. We could also think of it as a kinetic power. Since everything is made out of the same stuff, everything is more or less a causal power. Human beings are not something set aside from this dynamic structuring force but rather an integral part of it. You cannot be separated from it. Therefore, there is no way of being directed by it in a passive manner.

Three points follow from this dynamic/organic interpretation as opposed to the mechanical/deterministic interpretation:

1. Only what has happened is necessary.

2. The future will have within it the resultants of the powers of the past.

3. The past did not have within it the powers that will be in the future.

Think of it this way: Is water obliged to be moved by the river? Is the river obliged to move by the water? Do the waves in the ocean force the ocean to move? Does the ocean force the waves to move as they do? In the same way one can ask: Am I obliged to be moved by the unified kinetic force? Is the unified kinetic force obliged to move me? The answer in all cases is “yes”! We are an active energetic dynamic power within the dynamic power of the whole. It is an organic relationship, not a mechanistic relationship.

This is tied to the idea of “Fate”, “Providence”, and “Beneficence.”  Most people take “fate” as meaning something along the lines of “was meant to be.” There are many models and many different terms, depending on the philosophical system.  But the Stoics did not see Fate as something pre-determined or directed by an outside agent.

Fate is not some kind of external directive moving things around. Fate is the active principle or creative immanent force that shapes the Cosmos moment by moment. It is the order and sequence of reasons, in which the because of which—the explanation for why things happen—produces outcomes from itself. This is much like a seed unfolding the germ of what it already contains. Fate is not something external or imposed but a kinetic force, ever-active process, immanent in nature and eternally flowing. Fate is not a pre-written book. It is best understood as a structured unfolding that happens live.  It is a natural and philosophical principle: the eternal cause of things, explaining why the past has happened, why the present is occurring, and why the future will unfold as it will.

But how does the idea of Providence or Beneficence follow from a belief that there is no external force or law guiding what happens? Did the Stoics believe that “God” or “Logos” somehow looks out for us and provides for our benefit?

Pronoia is the term translated as Providence. This was typically seen as having the same meaning as Fate. Pronoia as regularity, order and coherence is taken as self-evident from the cycles of life and nature. It is a controlling rational power that sets all things in motion and maintains the order of the universe. But it was not seen as anything like the special care for individuals that you would get from your mother. Taking a lead from Plato, Pronoia was viewed like a well-ordered house that is fit for human habitation with everything we need to flourish. It was not seen as your mummy kissing you and tucking you into bed at night.

The Stoics were insistent that the Cosmos is NOT anthropomorphic. The Cosmos cannot care for a human like a human cares for a human. The Stoic Cosmos is a well-ordered house. The Stoic Cosmos is not a nanny.

The idea of Beneficence is simply an extension of this. It was not typically seen as a separate consideration. If the universe is a well-ordered house with everything we need to flourish, then clearly this is of benefit to us. But again, this was not seen in the sense of your mummy looking out for your best interests and making sure nothing bad ever happens to you.

For the Stoics everything evolved or progressed in a very organic fashion. They still viewed a form of intelligence as involved in this process, just as there is a form of intelligence intrinsic in the growing of a large tree from a small seed.  But they did not see this as focusing on individuals as found in the various religions of the world.