Stoicism is ubiquitous. All want to be, or profess to be, a Stoic, or so it seems. Stoicism is touted as the guide to a good life; but not merely a good one, a successful one. After all, the ancient Stoics maintained that we may live a good life without being successful. But who now would want to be good without being successful? There are books, lectures and no doubt podcasts on how Stoicism may benefit entrepreneurs; may make us leaders; make us rich and powerful, make us efficient. Marcus Aurelius is the Dale Carnegie of these times. Reading him, we learn how to win friends and influence people.
Stoicism is said to be desirable even when shorn of what was thought by ancient Stoics to be essential to it. For example, the Stoic belief in a Divine Reason that is the generative and guiding force of the universe is said to be unneeded by the modern Stoic, according to Lawrence Becker and Massimo Pigliucci. Mr. Becker goes so far as to refer to himself and others as Stoics despite the fact he (and presumably the others he refers to when stating what "we" Stoics think) don't accept the divinity of the ancient Stoics.
As Stoicism is claimed to exist without a divinity, without Providence, why should it be necessary that it retain the other characteristics of ancient Stoicism? Why should the modern Stoic disdain the acquisition of wealth and power, which requires that we pursue things beyond our control, and concern ourselves with them closely? Why shouldn't the modern Stoic seek fame and fortune by making use of the skills which are developed through Stoic practice? Why try to act virtuously--why, indeed, think that virtue is the only good, and the only thing needed for happiness?
Those of us who admire Stoicism as taught and practiced by the ancients may feel gratified that it has become so popular. Stoicism is a form of practical wisdom, and can help us in many respects just as CBT may be of assistance in addressing disquiet or psychological difficulties. But is there a point where its popularity debases it?
Stoicism has seen resurgences in the past, but I doubt there has ever been a time before this when it was considered beneficial and admirable for reasons which seem to me to be at best tangential, at worst contrary, to what it was developed to be; a philosophy of life. A way of achieving tranquility and equanimity. Not a method by which to be successful in business or in other pursuits which are unrelated to virtue.
Perhaps it's the case that coarseness is an essential component of our culture and society. What is arguably good because it achieves virtue is accepted only to the extent that it serves another purpose, one worldly. That's necessary to popularity, here and now. That's been the case with Christianity for quite some time, in fact. The moral teachings of Jesus are honored in word, but it's claimed that Jesus will assist us in this life by making us prosperous. He'll take care of his own.
So will Zeno, or Chrysippus, or Cleanthes, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and others, perhaps. But I'm inclined to think that most of Stoicism will fade away as it increases in popularity, and it will become yet another self-help craze, but one which those who popularize it (and make money doing so) can claim is entitled to added dignity as being based on ancient philosophy.
