Episode #237 — "The Stoics Are Wrong" (Nietzsche, Schopenhauer)

Host: Stephen West — Philosophize This

Overview

This episode critiques Stoicism by presenting major objections from Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer. West juxtaposes Stoic assumptions (stable “being,” rational order, emotional governance) with Nietzsche’s celebration of becoming and life‑affirmation, and Schopenhauer’s emphasis on suffering, compassion, and escape from the metaphysical “will.” The episode aims to show what each critic thinks Stoicism misses and why that matters for how we live.

Key points & main takeaways

Nietzsche’s critique

• Stoicism treats the world as a static “being” to be aligned with (virtue, logos, apatheia). Nietzsche argues this falsely imposes rational order on a flux of becoming.
• Stoics classify external events as “indifferent” and focus on controlling reactions; Nietzsche sees this as avoidance of life’s irrational, creative, and transformative forces.
• Nietzsche’s amor fati is radical: love your fate whether it reveals rational order or chaos. Affirmation of life must not depend on a transcendent rational plan.
• Stoicism risks self‑tyranny and mediocrity: by prioritizing tranquillity and rule‑following, Stoics miss opportunities for intense experiences that fuel self‑overcoming and greatness.
• Example used: messy, formative relationships that a Stoic might dismiss as lacking virtue can be, for Nietzsche, essential ground for transformation.

Schopenhauer’s critique

• He sees Stoicism primarily as an art of avoiding suffering (eudaimonistic) rather than a true morality.
• Stoic detachment can be selfish—focused on preserving one’s own peace of mind rather than internalizing others’ suffering.
• True morality, for Schopenhauer, begins with compassion (“suffering with”) and the ability to feel others’ pain, not to classify it as indifferent.
• Schopenhauer locates suffering in the metaphysical “will” (a blind, striving force). Stoic reaction‑control does not address this deeper source.
• His alternative path: aesthetic contemplation → compassion (empathy) → ascetic renunciation (freedom from the will). These practices aim to reduce craving/striving at a fundamental level, not merely tame responses.

Stoic response (as noted)

• Stoics would insist their ultimate aim is virtue (not calmness per se); tranquillity is a byproduct of right judgment, not the goal.
• Stoics would reject the charge that their practice is mere avoidance of life.

Notable quotes & insights

• Nietzsche (quoted): “Is our life really so painful and burdensome that it would be advantageous for us to trade it for a fossilized Stoic way of life? Things are not bad enough for us that they have to be bad for us in the Stoic style.”
• Schopenhauer’s moral pivot: compassion as “suffering with” — true morality begins by internalizing the suffering of others, not avoiding it.
• Key conceptual contrast: Stoicism = being (static order, rational alignment); Nietzsche = becoming (flux, emergence); Schopenhauer = will (metaphysical source of suffering) → freedom from the will via aesthetic, compassionate, ascetic practices.

Topics discussed

• Stoic fundamentals: virtue ethics, apatheia, amor fati, rational order/logos
• Nietzsche: decadence in Western thought, critique of Socratic rationalism, radical amor fati, self‑overcoming, life‑affirmation vs. life‑denial
• Schopenhauer: suffering as intrinsic, the will as metaphysical force, compassion vs. self‑preservation, methods to quiet the will
• Practical illustrations (e.g., romantic relationship example) contrasting transformative suffering vs. Stoic avoidance
• Brief Stoic rejoinder (virtue as primary aim)
• Suggested reading context (Marcus Aurelius, Beyond Good and Evil, The World as Will and Representation)

Action items & recommendations

• Reflect: do you prioritize tranquility and rational self‑control (Stoic path) or do you value intense experiences, creative becoming, and radical affirmation (Nietzsche) or deep compassion and reduction of willful striving (Schopenhauer)?
• Try a comparative exercise:
  • Apply a Stoic lens to a recent emotional event (identify judgments, reframe, practice acceptance).
  • Then apply a Nietzschean lens (ask how the event could fuel self‑overcoming; affirm its chaotic elements).
  • Finally apply a Schopenhauerian lens (attempt to empathically feel another’s suffering; practice aesthetic attention or temporary renunciation of desire).
• Read/watch primary texts to deepen perspective:
  • Marcus Aurelius — Meditations (Stoicism)
  • Friedrich Nietzsche — Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche’s critique)
  • Arthur Schopenhauer — The World as Will and Representation (on will and compassion)

Final thought (speaker’s stance)

West doesn’t prescribe one correct path; the episode encourages listeners to weigh the costs and benefits of Stoicism against Nietzsche’s and Schopenhauer’s objections and decide which approach—or which synthesis—best fits their life.

Further resources: the episode cites Nietzsche and Schopenhauer primary works; for practical comparison also revisit Stoic writings (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca).