Interesting take. Just FYI, as retired military, I don’t take offense to anything in this article. I say that because sometimes emotion gets lost or confused in text.
So, if “the soldier, even the enlightened soldier-philosopher, cannot be Stoic and therefore cannot be a warrior-philosopher in the Stoic sense,” then what was Marcus Aurelius? Or James Stockdale?
I’m not sure where this conceptualization of soldiering comes from because what was described in the article was not my military experience at all, nor that of my peers.
Military personnel in many countries, including the United States, are not only permitted but are required to disobey orders that are unlawful or unethical per the UCMJ. Of course there are exceptions to every rule (My Lai massacre being one of them) because "perfect" doesn't exist.
Perhaps the biggest contention I have with Stoicism is its claim of a single moral high ground. Virtue, like truth, is socially constructed. What’s virtuous to one is less so to another. The definition of virtue you described is so broad (as it is in my dictionary, too: “a quality considered morally good or desirable in a person”) that it's impossible for there to be unanimity on its definition.
I would also question whether the wisdom described in your article is realistic for those at the top, because the implication is that there’s a) a single “right” interpretation of history and b) a single moment from which to base the wisdom of their knowledge repertoire on. This characterization of wisdom also works both ways, because those at the top typically lack context about what’s happening on the ground. This is precisely why JSOC was reshaped in the early 2000s. So, I would argue that those at the top don’t have the context of those at the bottom, which means they’re missing the “full knowledge” you describe just as much as the soldier on the ground. This also suggests that nobody under Marcus Aurelius was a true Stoic either simply because they didn’t know what he knew.
First, thanks for reading and responding, especially so thoughtfully. The world is fast losing educated, rational, intellectual discourse, and it's a pleasure to be able to still participate in it. Secondly, I believe it's incredibly important to have intelligent opposing views, especially from those with external knowledge. I am not military; you are, so I am admittedly speaking with missing information that you possess. Had I been in the military, it is not only possible my views would be different, it is highly likely. That said, I believe it's also essential to get enlightened views from both inside and outside our realities. Occasionally we need outside views to calibrate internal views, which is what I hope I provided and is precisely what you are providing to me. So, thank you.
Your point on Marcus Aurelius is excellent, and I can answer your question: What was Marcus Aurelius? He was not a warrior-philosopher; he was a philosopher-king. By his admission, his virtue was imperfect, and he failed on many fronts to adhere to virtue. He is far more related to the soldier-philosopher than to a pure warrior-philosopher archetype. Like the soldier, he had a duty to the state and to the soldiers under his command, and he could not afford the luxury of pure virtue. Marcus Aurelius is notorious for his melancholy writing and lamenting his failures because of incompatible duties between virtue and state. I believe Marcus Aurelius to be the strongest example of what I wrote: virtue and obedience to the state are incompatible, and he knew it. Marcus Aurelius did not consider himself fully virtuous and knew he could not be; he considered himself on the path, a student of philosophy, in constant need of correction, refinement, and self-discipline precisely because he could not be fully virtuous. He did not write Meditations as a public monument to his wisdom. He wrote it as a soldier's and emperor's battlefield diary against ego, temptation, impatience, and fear; fights he knew he could not win, but he must fight regardless.
I agree with you that Stoic virtue is socially constructed, but I'm not sure if it claims a “single moral high ground.” It claims a “highest” path to good, which I don't think is quite the same (but arguable). However, as you implied, this is dangerous ground regardless. Once you claim a “highest” anything, all sorts of things can go wrong. That is why I wrote that my comparison is not a “better than” or “worse than” comparison. It is simply a statement: “Given the Stoic definition of virtue, this is the logical conclusion…” For my part, I do not claim to proceed from a single moral high ground on anything. I simply claim, if we accept the Stoic definition of virtue, then a soldier cannot be Stoically virtuous. The moment you or anyone says, “I do not accept the Stoic definition of virtue,” then debate ends because our premises do not align. You and I would have a good debate if we both said, “I accept the Stoic definition of virtue,” but then disagreed on the conclusions of that statement. Then we would be arguing logic, which is solvable. Arguing socially constructed premises is not solvable; it is philosophy.
For me, yes, I believe Stoic virtue is the ethical high ground (notice I did not say 'moral'), and I do not believe the active soldier can attain that specific ethical state. Not because they don't try or don't care, but because their duties to state and virtue are incompatible. I also don't think a soldier should care about reaching that point; it's not their reality (a point I tried to convey in my post). My point was not that the soldier fails to reach Stoic virtue; my point was that Stoic virtue and the soldier are simply incompatible realities that cannot coexist.
On your point of “full view” at the top or bottom, I agree with you completely. Those at the top don't have the view at the bottom, and vice versa, which I think makes my point better than I did. Because of purposeful and explicit incomplete information, neither those at the top nor those at the bottom have a complete view, and this is by explicit design; therefore none can operate under Stoic virtue (everyone is missing wisdom). It is precisely why I say, “I cannot and would not be a soldier.” I will not operate blindly (even partially), and I will not follow those who operate blindly (even partially). The military is literally required to operate that way. Lack of information at various levels is not a bug; it's a feature, necessary for the correct operation of the whole. Stoically, action in the face of incomplete information, when explicitly knowing your information is critically incomplete, is inherently unvirtuous.
Built into military philosophy is a simple “truth”: those at the top have the big picture; they know what's best for the state, so follow the chain of command; it's for the greater good. But we know for a fact those at the top lie and have personal agendas. We know they operate politically, and we know more often than not profit, greed, power struggles, and ego rule over courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom. We have too many examples to deny this is true. So, what does that say of anyone who operates in such a system and follows orders? It says they cannot be stoically virtuous. It does not mean they cannot be good or ethical or moral or good for the whole; it just means Stoic virtue is not possible.
With all that said, so what? So nothing. Everything I wrote is based on a premise: Stoic virtue is correct and is the highest path to good. That premise could be wrong. Right or wrong, it's impossible to prove. Right or wrong, it says nothing about whether someone can be a good person, do good, or be good for the greater whole without Stoic virtue. We always have to be careful to not fall for the fallacy of denying the antecedent (as most moral systems do). Stoicism claims, “If you are stoically virtuous, you are good,” but it does not claim “If you do not follow Stoicism, you are not good.” Stoicism does not deny other paths to good; it simply states Stoic virtue is the cleanest most straightforward path to good (i.e., “highest”). That is the difference between a moral system and an ethical system.
As I conclude, I'm going to re-iterate, I'm not military, so I fully admit I could be wrong. My view (as Kyle pointed out) is high-level, coarse, and lacks hands-on nuance. So, I take your and Kyle's views very seriously and am still thinking about them.
Furthermore, for the record, in my head, this was all discussed and argued on the steps of the Acropolis, and there was ouzo and souvlaki afterward 🤣 We may or may not have been wearing togas.
Interesting academic analysis of these archetypes.
Definitions, like you say, are important.
These words aren’t that clean though and I’d argue soldiers/sailors/airmen/warfighters can/are virtuous all the time even in the extremes. At scale/from the outside it’s easy to assume/analyze and there are always poor examples amongst any group, but I respectfully disagree with the conclusion as there’s simply too much nuance to the word soldier. Again, fun to debate on but impossible to categorize at scale as the determination of virtuous vs not can often only be made internally, especially when it comes to the extremes of life like war.
What one person perceives as a virtuous action could very well be a poorly intended one by the individual and vice versa.
I like how you adeptly slip the word “academic” into the first statement—an expert disarming of my claims. Well done, sir 😂
To your point, you are 100% right; it is academic, and it is at scale; therefore, it is coarse and has no fine-grained applicability. No denial on that at all. In fact, I support what you are saying and add to it that that's what philosophy is; it is wide applicability for thought experiments and discussion. Like the hypothesis and theory versus practical application. Hypothesis and theory are things we claim are true based on the premises given, and under idealized conditions. Practical application is a lot messier and requires nuance.
So I agree with you and don't claim practical application with nuance. I claim theoretical correctness based on the premises given and leave it up to the reader and the individual to decide practical truth in their reality.
Great point about UCMJ Jeff. As someone who is still active duty, I probably should have remembered that… haha.
The point about Marcus Aurelius is also spot on. Let us not forget that much of Stoicism doesn’t exist within the significant influence of Socrates who was also a soldier for many years, even while he was already questioning virtue and practicing philosophy.
Sam Alaimo had a great piece on it a while back which is initially how I found him when Donald Robertson shared it:
I think Marcus Aurelius' case supports my claims more than Jeff's (I wrote about it in my response to Jeff). I also read Sam Alaimo's post before replying to anything. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting take. Just FYI, as retired military, I don’t take offense to anything in this article. I say that because sometimes emotion gets lost or confused in text.
So, if “the soldier, even the enlightened soldier-philosopher, cannot be Stoic and therefore cannot be a warrior-philosopher in the Stoic sense,” then what was Marcus Aurelius? Or James Stockdale?
I’m not sure where this conceptualization of soldiering comes from because what was described in the article was not my military experience at all, nor that of my peers.
Military personnel in many countries, including the United States, are not only permitted but are required to disobey orders that are unlawful or unethical per the UCMJ. Of course there are exceptions to every rule (My Lai massacre being one of them) because "perfect" doesn't exist.
Perhaps the biggest contention I have with Stoicism is its claim of a single moral high ground. Virtue, like truth, is socially constructed. What’s virtuous to one is less so to another. The definition of virtue you described is so broad (as it is in my dictionary, too: “a quality considered morally good or desirable in a person”) that it's impossible for there to be unanimity on its definition.
I would also question whether the wisdom described in your article is realistic for those at the top, because the implication is that there’s a) a single “right” interpretation of history and b) a single moment from which to base the wisdom of their knowledge repertoire on. This characterization of wisdom also works both ways, because those at the top typically lack context about what’s happening on the ground. This is precisely why JSOC was reshaped in the early 2000s. So, I would argue that those at the top don’t have the context of those at the bottom, which means they’re missing the “full knowledge” you describe just as much as the soldier on the ground. This also suggests that nobody under Marcus Aurelius was a true Stoic either simply because they didn’t know what he knew.
First, thanks for reading and responding, especially so thoughtfully. The world is fast losing educated, rational, intellectual discourse, and it's a pleasure to be able to still participate in it. Secondly, I believe it's incredibly important to have intelligent opposing views, especially from those with external knowledge. I am not military; you are, so I am admittedly speaking with missing information that you possess. Had I been in the military, it is not only possible my views would be different, it is highly likely. That said, I believe it's also essential to get enlightened views from both inside and outside our realities. Occasionally we need outside views to calibrate internal views, which is what I hope I provided and is precisely what you are providing to me. So, thank you.
Your point on Marcus Aurelius is excellent, and I can answer your question: What was Marcus Aurelius? He was not a warrior-philosopher; he was a philosopher-king. By his admission, his virtue was imperfect, and he failed on many fronts to adhere to virtue. He is far more related to the soldier-philosopher than to a pure warrior-philosopher archetype. Like the soldier, he had a duty to the state and to the soldiers under his command, and he could not afford the luxury of pure virtue. Marcus Aurelius is notorious for his melancholy writing and lamenting his failures because of incompatible duties between virtue and state. I believe Marcus Aurelius to be the strongest example of what I wrote: virtue and obedience to the state are incompatible, and he knew it. Marcus Aurelius did not consider himself fully virtuous and knew he could not be; he considered himself on the path, a student of philosophy, in constant need of correction, refinement, and self-discipline precisely because he could not be fully virtuous. He did not write Meditations as a public monument to his wisdom. He wrote it as a soldier's and emperor's battlefield diary against ego, temptation, impatience, and fear; fights he knew he could not win, but he must fight regardless.
I agree with you that Stoic virtue is socially constructed, but I'm not sure if it claims a “single moral high ground.” It claims a “highest” path to good, which I don't think is quite the same (but arguable). However, as you implied, this is dangerous ground regardless. Once you claim a “highest” anything, all sorts of things can go wrong. That is why I wrote that my comparison is not a “better than” or “worse than” comparison. It is simply a statement: “Given the Stoic definition of virtue, this is the logical conclusion…” For my part, I do not claim to proceed from a single moral high ground on anything. I simply claim, if we accept the Stoic definition of virtue, then a soldier cannot be Stoically virtuous. The moment you or anyone says, “I do not accept the Stoic definition of virtue,” then debate ends because our premises do not align. You and I would have a good debate if we both said, “I accept the Stoic definition of virtue,” but then disagreed on the conclusions of that statement. Then we would be arguing logic, which is solvable. Arguing socially constructed premises is not solvable; it is philosophy.
For me, yes, I believe Stoic virtue is the ethical high ground (notice I did not say 'moral'), and I do not believe the active soldier can attain that specific ethical state. Not because they don't try or don't care, but because their duties to state and virtue are incompatible. I also don't think a soldier should care about reaching that point; it's not their reality (a point I tried to convey in my post). My point was not that the soldier fails to reach Stoic virtue; my point was that Stoic virtue and the soldier are simply incompatible realities that cannot coexist.
On your point of “full view” at the top or bottom, I agree with you completely. Those at the top don't have the view at the bottom, and vice versa, which I think makes my point better than I did. Because of purposeful and explicit incomplete information, neither those at the top nor those at the bottom have a complete view, and this is by explicit design; therefore none can operate under Stoic virtue (everyone is missing wisdom). It is precisely why I say, “I cannot and would not be a soldier.” I will not operate blindly (even partially), and I will not follow those who operate blindly (even partially). The military is literally required to operate that way. Lack of information at various levels is not a bug; it's a feature, necessary for the correct operation of the whole. Stoically, action in the face of incomplete information, when explicitly knowing your information is critically incomplete, is inherently unvirtuous.
Built into military philosophy is a simple “truth”: those at the top have the big picture; they know what's best for the state, so follow the chain of command; it's for the greater good. But we know for a fact those at the top lie and have personal agendas. We know they operate politically, and we know more often than not profit, greed, power struggles, and ego rule over courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom. We have too many examples to deny this is true. So, what does that say of anyone who operates in such a system and follows orders? It says they cannot be stoically virtuous. It does not mean they cannot be good or ethical or moral or good for the whole; it just means Stoic virtue is not possible.
With all that said, so what? So nothing. Everything I wrote is based on a premise: Stoic virtue is correct and is the highest path to good. That premise could be wrong. Right or wrong, it's impossible to prove. Right or wrong, it says nothing about whether someone can be a good person, do good, or be good for the greater whole without Stoic virtue. We always have to be careful to not fall for the fallacy of denying the antecedent (as most moral systems do). Stoicism claims, “If you are stoically virtuous, you are good,” but it does not claim “If you do not follow Stoicism, you are not good.” Stoicism does not deny other paths to good; it simply states Stoic virtue is the cleanest most straightforward path to good (i.e., “highest”). That is the difference between a moral system and an ethical system.
As I conclude, I'm going to re-iterate, I'm not military, so I fully admit I could be wrong. My view (as Kyle pointed out) is high-level, coarse, and lacks hands-on nuance. So, I take your and Kyle's views very seriously and am still thinking about them.
Furthermore, for the record, in my head, this was all discussed and argued on the steps of the Acropolis, and there was ouzo and souvlaki afterward 🤣 We may or may not have been wearing togas.
Interesting academic analysis of these archetypes.
Definitions, like you say, are important.
These words aren’t that clean though and I’d argue soldiers/sailors/airmen/warfighters can/are virtuous all the time even in the extremes. At scale/from the outside it’s easy to assume/analyze and there are always poor examples amongst any group, but I respectfully disagree with the conclusion as there’s simply too much nuance to the word soldier. Again, fun to debate on but impossible to categorize at scale as the determination of virtuous vs not can often only be made internally, especially when it comes to the extremes of life like war.
What one person perceives as a virtuous action could very well be a poorly intended one by the individual and vice versa.
I like how you adeptly slip the word “academic” into the first statement—an expert disarming of my claims. Well done, sir 😂
To your point, you are 100% right; it is academic, and it is at scale; therefore, it is coarse and has no fine-grained applicability. No denial on that at all. In fact, I support what you are saying and add to it that that's what philosophy is; it is wide applicability for thought experiments and discussion. Like the hypothesis and theory versus practical application. Hypothesis and theory are things we claim are true based on the premises given, and under idealized conditions. Practical application is a lot messier and requires nuance.
So I agree with you and don't claim practical application with nuance. I claim theoretical correctness based on the premises given and leave it up to the reader and the individual to decide practical truth in their reality.
But I do still think I'm right 🤣
😂👊🏻
Great point about UCMJ Jeff. As someone who is still active duty, I probably should have remembered that… haha.
The point about Marcus Aurelius is also spot on. Let us not forget that much of Stoicism doesn’t exist within the significant influence of Socrates who was also a soldier for many years, even while he was already questioning virtue and practicing philosophy.
Sam Alaimo had a great piece on it a while back which is initially how I found him when Donald Robertson shared it:
https://open.substack.com/pub/whatthen/p/book-review-how-to-think-like-socrates?r=1cn3fa&utm_medium=ios
I think Marcus Aurelius' case supports my claims more than Jeff's (I wrote about it in my response to Jeff). I also read Sam Alaimo's post before replying to anything. Thanks for sharing.