Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Stoicism: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Right section |right=Voting Rights and Suffrage |section=Philosophical Origins |question=Tradition contributions |questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right? |breakout=Stoicism |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=While ancient Stoics did not explicitly discuss voting rights, some of their concepts and principles offer insights into how it might be perceived. One such concept is the Stoic idea of natural law...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Right section | {{Right section | ||
|right= | |right=Freedom of Expression | ||
|section=Philosophical Origins | |section=Philosophical Origins | ||
|question=Tradition contributions | |question=Tradition contributions | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|breakout=Stoicism | |breakout=Stoicism | ||
|pageLevel=Breakout | |pageLevel=Breakout | ||
|contents= | |contents=The concept of freedom of expression can be traced back to ancient Stoicism, a school of thought that emerged in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. Founded by Zeno of Citium and developed by prominent figures such as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, Stoicism incorporates the “Cynic virtues of continence and self-mastery”, and offers profound insights into the nature of true freedom, rational discourse, and ethical responsibility — all of which inform our modern understanding of freedom of expression (Grayling 2019, 108). | ||
One way it does so is by providing guidelines for appropriate speech, rooted in the belief that true freedom is inner freedom, achieved through the mastery of one's own thoughts and emotions (Grayling 2019, 113). Epictetus states, “some things are under our control, while others are not", emphasizing that true freedom lies in focusing on what we can influence and accepting the inevitable with apatheia or equanimity (Enchiridion, 1; Grayling 2019, 113). He further elaborates on this concept of self-mastery in Book II of The Discourses, where he highlights the role of the faculty of expression under the guidance of the will. Here he shows that eloquence and articulate speech, while significant, must be governed by the rational will to ensure that expressions are appropriate, rational, and ethical (Chapter 22, para 4). Marcus Aurelius echoes this in "Meditations," where he advises against being disturbed by external circumstances: "Thou must be like a promontory of the sea, against which though the waves beat continually, yet it both itself stands, and about it are those swelling waves stilled and quieted" (Meditations, 11.40). This resilience — understood within the broader context of their philosophy encompassing ethical integrity and proactive engagement — supports the Stoic belief that true freedom, including freedom of expression, comes from within and is guided by a rational and steadfast mind (Meditations, Introductions, para. 14). It encourages a form of expression that is thoughtful and measured, focused on constructive dialogue rather than reacting impusively to provocations. This corresponds to modern restrictions on speech that incites violence and promotes truthful speech without fear of societal pressure. | |||
Central to the concepts of self-mastery and inner freedom is rational discourse, which to the Stoics was not only a means of communication but a fundamental aspect of ethical living (The Ethics of the Stoics, para 2). They view humans as rational animals, with a body and a soul, where the soul's rational part (hegemonikon) resides in the heart and governs ethics, presentations, and impulses (The Ethics of the Stoics, para 2). Rational discourse originates from this leading part, which enables humans to use reason to control their responses and actions, and is itself governed by logos, or universal reason. This belief is reflected in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, where he discusses Stoic philosophy and quotes Chrysippus of Soli and Antipater of Tyre as having said that "the world is ordered by reason and providence" and that "the whole world is a living being, endowed with soul and reason", respectively (Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 7.135-7.139). Humans, being part of the cosmos and therefore rational beings, are expected to align their thoughts and expressions with this cosmic rationality. Logic and dialectics play a crucial role in this process, providing the tools for clear thinking and effective reasoning. Speech is closely tied to dialectics as it enables the practice of reasoned dialogue and argumentation, which are essential for discovering and communicating truth. Stoics also believed that language naturally aligns with and captures the rational order of the world, making its study a fundamental part of their philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2023). Its mastery was required for attaining wisdom, as “the wise man is a true dialectician” (Laertius, Lives Eminent Philosophers, 7.1.85). Thus, for the Stoics, this facilitative role of free speech (though narrower in scope compared to modern views of expression) warranted its protection. | |||
Such emphasis is also reflected in Aurelius’ gratitude towards his brother Severus for introducing him to prominent Stoic philosophers like Thrasea, Helvidius, Cato, Dio, and Brutus, who were known for their unwavering commitment to justice and their courage in resisting tyranny (often at great personal cost). In his Meditations, Aurelius reflects on the influence of these philosophers and their dedication to a balanced constitution and “of government founded on equity and freedom of speech and of a monarchy which values above all things the freedom of the subject” (Aurelius, Meditations,1.6 as quoted by Pigliucci, 2021). This acknowledgment by Aurelius underscores the Stoic belief in the importance of speaking truth to power and the value of open discourse in maintaining justice. | |||
However, as shown above, this freedom was not considered absolute. The "wise man" or "sage," was expected to assent only to true presentations. "If it be not fitting, do it not. If it be not true, speak it not" (Meditations, 12.14). Though the primacy of the freedom of expression is acknowledged — with Epictetus considering it as a divine gift — they also emphasize that speech should be purposeful, brief, and in service of the greater good (Discourses, 2.22, para 1). As Aurelius notes in his Meditations, one should avoid vain, deceitful, and offensive speech, “not [to] be offended with other men’s liberty of speech”, and communicate with simplicity and substance (Meditations,1.3). Public speech should be grave and modest, steering clear of affectation (Meditations, 1.7, 4.28, 8.28). He praises Apollonius for demonstrating "true liberty and unvariable steadfastness" and maintaining rationality in difficult times. He remained "not subject to be vexed" by the “incapacity of his scholars and auditors in his lectures and expositions”, showcasing calm and thoughtful communication. Similarly, he writes that Sextus exhibited "mildness" and the ability to “rationally and methodically find out and set in order all necessary determinations and instructions for a man's life" (Aurelius, Meditations, 1.5 & 1.6). These examples highlight both the distinction they make between listener and speaker (emphasizing different ethical behaviors for each role) and the careful balancing of freedom and responsibility in speech. This latter perspective directly informs modern democratic values, which uphold freedom of expression as a fundamental right while also recognizing the importance of exercising this freedom responsibly. Examples include regulations against hate speech, libel, and defamation. These legal boundaries are designed to ensure that freedom of expression is exercised in a way that respects the rights and safety of others, reflecting the Stoic emphasis on purposeful and ethical speech. | |||
Although modern legal systems primarily regulate the speech of individuals, it can be argued that they also implicity require the sort of tolerance and thoughtful listening emphasized by the Stoics. Applying Wesley Hohfeld’s rights analysis, the right of a speaker to express their views carries with it a correlative duty, or expectation on the listener to tolerate the speech, even if offensive or disagreeable (Brady, 1972, p. 247). The two are interconnected, each influencing and shaping the boundaries and responsibilities of the other. The high standard set on speeches (such as true threats, obscenity, harassment) highlight the law’s emphasis on protecting the exchange of diverse ideas while preventing significant harm. This standard is even higher when the speech targets public officials, who are expected to endure greater levels of scrutiny and criticism due to their role in the society. According to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), it is no longer sufficient for public officials to prove mere negligence in defamation suits; instead, they must demonstrate "actual malice"—that the false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth (Wermiel, 2021). This legal differentiation resonates with the Stoic emphasis on thoughtful and unoffended listening, particularly for those in positions of public responsibility (Stoic sages) as part of their roles in maintaining a healthy democracy. As such, though the expectation on listeners to develop a certain level of tolerance is not explicitly codified as an ethical duty in the law, it can be considered as a byproduct of the high thresholds set for limiting speech. | |||
References | |||
Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Edited by R.D. Hicks. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D1. | |||
Epictetus. The Encheiridion of Epictetus. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://people.ucsc.edu/~jbowin/Ancient/encheiridion.pdf. | |||
Epictetus. The Discourses of Epictetus. Translated by P.E. Matheson. 1916. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://sacred-texts.com/cla/dep/dep055.htm. | |||
Grayling, A.C. The History of Philosophy. Penguin Random House UK, 2019, 108-115. | Grayling, A.C. The History of Philosophy. Penguin Random House UK, 2019, 108-115. | ||
James B. Brady. "Law, Language and Logic: The Legal Philosophy of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld." Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 8, no. 4 (Fall 1972): 246-263. Published by Indiana University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319668. | |||
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Translated by J. Boulton and David Widger. Project Gutenberg, June 1, 2001. Most recently updated March 9, 2021. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2680/pg2680-images.html. | |||
Massimo Pigliucci, "Stoics as Activists." Edited by Nigel Warburton. Aeon Essays, December 21, 2021. https://aeon.co/essays/when-stoicism-is-a-political-not-just-a-personal-virtue. | |||
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Stoicism." January 20, 2023. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/. | |||
Stephen Wermiel, "Actual Malice," Free Speech Center, July 1, 2021, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/actual-malice/. | |||
Stoic Teacher. "What is Freedom? Is True Freedom Possible?" Medium, October 24, 2022. https://stoicteacher.medium.com/what-is-freedom-is-true-freedom-possible-a61ef702e319 | |||
"The Ethics of the Stoics." Philosophy 143 Lecture Notes. University of California, Davis. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi143/stoaeth.htm. | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:36, 29 August 2024
What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
Stoicism
The concept of freedom of expression can be traced back to ancient Stoicism, a school of thought that emerged in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. Founded by Zeno of Citium and developed by prominent figures such as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, Stoicism incorporates the “Cynic virtues of continence and self-mastery”, and offers profound insights into the nature of true freedom, rational discourse, and ethical responsibility — all of which inform our modern understanding of freedom of expression (Grayling 2019, 108).
One way it does so is by providing guidelines for appropriate speech, rooted in the belief that true freedom is inner freedom, achieved through the mastery of one's own thoughts and emotions (Grayling 2019, 113). Epictetus states, “some things are under our control, while others are not", emphasizing that true freedom lies in focusing on what we can influence and accepting the inevitable with apatheia or equanimity (Enchiridion, 1; Grayling 2019, 113). He further elaborates on this concept of self-mastery in Book II of The Discourses, where he highlights the role of the faculty of expression under the guidance of the will. Here he shows that eloquence and articulate speech, while significant, must be governed by the rational will to ensure that expressions are appropriate, rational, and ethical (Chapter 22, para 4). Marcus Aurelius echoes this in "Meditations," where he advises against being disturbed by external circumstances: "Thou must be like a promontory of the sea, against which though the waves beat continually, yet it both itself stands, and about it are those swelling waves stilled and quieted" (Meditations, 11.40). This resilience — understood within the broader context of their philosophy encompassing ethical integrity and proactive engagement — supports the Stoic belief that true freedom, including freedom of expression, comes from within and is guided by a rational and steadfast mind (Meditations, Introductions, para. 14). It encourages a form of expression that is thoughtful and measured, focused on constructive dialogue rather than reacting impusively to provocations. This corresponds to modern restrictions on speech that incites violence and promotes truthful speech without fear of societal pressure.
Central to the concepts of self-mastery and inner freedom is rational discourse, which to the Stoics was not only a means of communication but a fundamental aspect of ethical living (The Ethics of the Stoics, para 2). They view humans as rational animals, with a body and a soul, where the soul's rational part (hegemonikon) resides in the heart and governs ethics, presentations, and impulses (The Ethics of the Stoics, para 2). Rational discourse originates from this leading part, which enables humans to use reason to control their responses and actions, and is itself governed by logos, or universal reason. This belief is reflected in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, where he discusses Stoic philosophy and quotes Chrysippus of Soli and Antipater of Tyre as having said that "the world is ordered by reason and providence" and that "the whole world is a living being, endowed with soul and reason", respectively (Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 7.135-7.139). Humans, being part of the cosmos and therefore rational beings, are expected to align their thoughts and expressions with this cosmic rationality. Logic and dialectics play a crucial role in this process, providing the tools for clear thinking and effective reasoning. Speech is closely tied to dialectics as it enables the practice of reasoned dialogue and argumentation, which are essential for discovering and communicating truth. Stoics also believed that language naturally aligns with and captures the rational order of the world, making its study a fundamental part of their philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2023). Its mastery was required for attaining wisdom, as “the wise man is a true dialectician” (Laertius, Lives Eminent Philosophers, 7.1.85). Thus, for the Stoics, this facilitative role of free speech (though narrower in scope compared to modern views of expression) warranted its protection.
Such emphasis is also reflected in Aurelius’ gratitude towards his brother Severus for introducing him to prominent Stoic philosophers like Thrasea, Helvidius, Cato, Dio, and Brutus, who were known for their unwavering commitment to justice and their courage in resisting tyranny (often at great personal cost). In his Meditations, Aurelius reflects on the influence of these philosophers and their dedication to a balanced constitution and “of government founded on equity and freedom of speech and of a monarchy which values above all things the freedom of the subject” (Aurelius, Meditations,1.6 as quoted by Pigliucci, 2021). This acknowledgment by Aurelius underscores the Stoic belief in the importance of speaking truth to power and the value of open discourse in maintaining justice.
However, as shown above, this freedom was not considered absolute. The "wise man" or "sage," was expected to assent only to true presentations. "If it be not fitting, do it not. If it be not true, speak it not" (Meditations, 12.14). Though the primacy of the freedom of expression is acknowledged — with Epictetus considering it as a divine gift — they also emphasize that speech should be purposeful, brief, and in service of the greater good (Discourses, 2.22, para 1). As Aurelius notes in his Meditations, one should avoid vain, deceitful, and offensive speech, “not [to] be offended with other men’s liberty of speech”, and communicate with simplicity and substance (Meditations,1.3). Public speech should be grave and modest, steering clear of affectation (Meditations, 1.7, 4.28, 8.28). He praises Apollonius for demonstrating "true liberty and unvariable steadfastness" and maintaining rationality in difficult times. He remained "not subject to be vexed" by the “incapacity of his scholars and auditors in his lectures and expositions”, showcasing calm and thoughtful communication. Similarly, he writes that Sextus exhibited "mildness" and the ability to “rationally and methodically find out and set in order all necessary determinations and instructions for a man's life" (Aurelius, Meditations, 1.5 & 1.6). These examples highlight both the distinction they make between listener and speaker (emphasizing different ethical behaviors for each role) and the careful balancing of freedom and responsibility in speech. This latter perspective directly informs modern democratic values, which uphold freedom of expression as a fundamental right while also recognizing the importance of exercising this freedom responsibly. Examples include regulations against hate speech, libel, and defamation. These legal boundaries are designed to ensure that freedom of expression is exercised in a way that respects the rights and safety of others, reflecting the Stoic emphasis on purposeful and ethical speech.
Although modern legal systems primarily regulate the speech of individuals, it can be argued that they also implicity require the sort of tolerance and thoughtful listening emphasized by the Stoics. Applying Wesley Hohfeld’s rights analysis, the right of a speaker to express their views carries with it a correlative duty, or expectation on the listener to tolerate the speech, even if offensive or disagreeable (Brady, 1972, p. 247). The two are interconnected, each influencing and shaping the boundaries and responsibilities of the other. The high standard set on speeches (such as true threats, obscenity, harassment) highlight the law’s emphasis on protecting the exchange of diverse ideas while preventing significant harm. This standard is even higher when the speech targets public officials, who are expected to endure greater levels of scrutiny and criticism due to their role in the society. According to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), it is no longer sufficient for public officials to prove mere negligence in defamation suits; instead, they must demonstrate "actual malice"—that the false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth (Wermiel, 2021). This legal differentiation resonates with the Stoic emphasis on thoughtful and unoffended listening, particularly for those in positions of public responsibility (Stoic sages) as part of their roles in maintaining a healthy democracy. As such, though the expectation on listeners to develop a certain level of tolerance is not explicitly codified as an ethical duty in the law, it can be considered as a byproduct of the high thresholds set for limiting speech.
References
Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Edited by R.D. Hicks. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D1.
Epictetus. The Encheiridion of Epictetus. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://people.ucsc.edu/~jbowin/Ancient/encheiridion.pdf.
Epictetus. The Discourses of Epictetus. Translated by P.E. Matheson. 1916. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://sacred-texts.com/cla/dep/dep055.htm.
Grayling, A.C. The History of Philosophy. Penguin Random House UK, 2019, 108-115.
James B. Brady. "Law, Language and Logic: The Legal Philosophy of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld." Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 8, no. 4 (Fall 1972): 246-263. Published by Indiana University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319668.
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Translated by J. Boulton and David Widger. Project Gutenberg, June 1, 2001. Most recently updated March 9, 2021. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2680/pg2680-images.html.
Massimo Pigliucci, "Stoics as Activists." Edited by Nigel Warburton. Aeon Essays, December 21, 2021. https://aeon.co/essays/when-stoicism-is-a-political-not-just-a-personal-virtue.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Stoicism." January 20, 2023. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/.
Stephen Wermiel, "Actual Malice," Free Speech Center, July 1, 2021, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/actual-malice/.
Stoic Teacher. "What is Freedom? Is True Freedom Possible?" Medium, October 24, 2022. https://stoicteacher.medium.com/what-is-freedom-is-true-freedom-possible-a61ef702e319
"The Ethics of the Stoics." Philosophy 143 Lecture Notes. University of California, Davis. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi143/stoaeth.htm.