I was just discussing this with DH last night. He said that a stoic should be able to find happiness in either state, even if not-working is preferred.
I'm wondering about the whole "obligation to society" thing. Would Marcus Aurelius have been satisfied filling his days with eating, vacationing, and reading books? Or would he say that service to our fellow man is essential for a meaningful life?
Of course a job is not the only definition of contribution....
But I can't imagine the man eating bon bons and scratching his groin while watching daytime TV.
Hark! Who is this man they call Jerry Springer? And why are his friends not tranquil?
Yes, I wonder about stoicism-ER too.
HA
One part of this is that the elites of this time, who did all the writing about philosophy, placed importance on accepting the status quo. That made it a lot easier to write about philosophy while other people were enslaved and had no access to education. But I think most people would argue that's a product of their time rather than part of the philosophy.
They do have some thoughts on the importance of obligation to others and a public life which I haven't really gotten into reading. But I would point out that if ER isn't necessarily stoic, FI certainly is. Insofar as we ought to control what we can control and be good citizens, not being beholden to a job allows us to practice unencumbered virtue. If you look at their writings on tyranny, it makes sense that they would approve of achieving a position where you can undermine the emperor from within rather than supporting a bad regime because you need a paycheck.
Looked at another way, jobs provide positive benefits for people, like order and security, and stoics might suggest negative visualization to prove to yourself that you would be okay without the job, that you're not trapped by the comfort of the job anymore than you want to be trapped by any other comfort.
I like the question. I'll keep thinking about it.
