Stoicism vs Nihilism: Acceptance vs Despair

Question

What is the difference between Stoicism and nihilism? The two are often confused, because they seem to say the same thing — that the goods of the world are empty, that the conventional values are illusions, that the wise person does not care. The confusion is understandable, and the difference is the most important thing to understand about both.

Quick Answer

Stoicism and nihilism share a starting point and reach opposite conclusions. The shared starting point: the external goods of life — wealth, reputation, comfort, pleasure — are not what they seem, and the person who stakes their happiness on them is building on sand. The opposite conclusions: the nihilist concludes that if the externals are empty, then nothing is good — there is no meaning, no value, no reason to prefer one life to another — and the response to this emptiness is despair, indifference, or the will to nothingness. The Stoic concludes that if the externals are empty, then the good must be found where it cannot be lost — within, in virtue, which is in our power — and that the inner life is the source of a meaning and value that nothing can destroy. The nihilist looks at the world and says "nothing matters"; the Stoic looks at the same world and says "everything essential matters, and it is in my power."

Historical Wisdom

The confusion has deep roots. Nietzsche, the greatest diagnostician of nihilism, took the Stoics as one of his targets: he read their acceptance of fate, their discipline of desire, their "amor fati," as a form of the will to nothingness — the resentful rejection of life that he called the spirit of gravity. But the Stoics themselves are the best answer to the charge. Epictetus, the former slave, taught that the emptiness of externals is the liberation of the inner life: "some things are up to us and some are not," and the things that are up to us — the judgments, the choices, the virtues — are the real goods. Marcus Aurelius, the emperor, found in the passing of all things not the meaninglessness of life but its urgency: "the impediment to action advances action." The Stoic acceptance of fate is not the nihilist's resignation but the sage's consent: the order of the cosmos is rational, and the wise person wills it.

Philosophical Perspectives

The comparison has three dimensions. First, the account of value: the nihilist denies that anything is good; the Stoic affirms that virtue is good and that the other things are indifferents. The difference is the difference between the absence of value and the location of value. Second, the account of meaning: the nihilist concludes that life has no meaning; the Stoic concludes that meaning is found within — in the exercise of reason, the practice of virtue, the service of the whole. Third, the emotional response: the nihilist responds to the emptiness with despair, with the will to nothingness, with the laughter of the abyss; the Stoic responds with joy — the joy of the soul that has found the good it cannot lose. The nihilist's "amor fati" would be the love of meaninglessness; the Stoic's amor fati is the love of the rational order — the two are opposites wearing the same coat.

Lessons From Thinkers

From the nihilists: the emptiness of the externals is real — the person who stakes their happiness on wealth, reputation, or pleasure has staked it on sand. From Epictetus: the emptiness of the externals is the liberation of the inner life — the good is in our power. From Marcus Aurelius: the passing of all things is not the meaninglessness of life but its urgency. And from the tradition: the Stoic is the nihilist who refused the conclusion — who saw the emptiness of the world and found, within, the good that the world cannot touch.

Practical Application

The comparison has practical value in the face of the modern mood of meaninglessness. When the thought arises that nothing matters — that the goods are empty, the values are illusions, the striving is vain — the Stoic runs the examination: what is the emptiness of the externals supposed to prove? It proves that the externals are not the ground of meaning. It does not prove that there is no ground. The Stoic conclusion is the alternative to the despair: the ground is within, in the exercise of reason and virtue, and the person who has found it is free — free of the need for the externals, and free of the despair at their emptiness. The practice is the discipline: the daily exercise of the virtues, which is the living proof that the good exists and that it is in our power.

Quotes

Nietzsche states the nihilist's conclusion: "God is dead." Epictetus states the Stoic's alternative: "Some things are up to us and some are not." And Marcus Aurelius states the Stoic's joy: "The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way."

Related Questions

• What Is Nihilism? — the philosophy Stoicism is contrasted with.
• What Is Stoicism? — the philosophy of the inner good.
• What Is the Meaning of Life? — the question both address.
• What Is Stoic Fatalism? — acceptance vs despair.