What do Stoics have in common with Mystics? Did Marcus Aurelius participate in secret psychedelic rituals? What is the Logos, and is it a fundamentally mystical idea?
Well, hold on to your memento mori coins, dear friends, as we take a wild ride across the worlds of Stoicism and Mysticism to find answers to all this and more.
But before we continue, please take a memento to subscribe for mori. I’ll give you a second to do that and to recover from that terrible, terrible joke. Ready? Let’s go.
Ah Stoicism, sweet sweet Stoicism. It’s hard to imagine a more misunderstood, misapplied and misrepresented set of ideas. And yet, for a philosophical school founded 2300 years ago, it sure has some staying power. Interest in Stoicism has always flowed and ebbed throughout history ever since Zeno of Citium and his followers started their little discussion group on a painted porch - or Stoa - in Athens near the tail-end of 4th Century BCE.
Stoicism was famously embraced by Marcus Aurelius, but rejected by many other Roman Emperors. Christianity did quite a bit to suppress the Stoics, but that didn’t stop Christian philosophers and rulers from borrowing Stoic ideas and attitudes.
A new wave of interest in Stoicism rose with the Renaissance, then crashed out for a century or so, and rose again when the Dutch Philosopher Baruch Spinoza was accused of being the leader of a new sect of Stoics. In more recent years, Stoic principles would become one of the most important influences on the psychotherapeutic method that we would come to know as cognitive behavioral therapy.
Bill Clinton would go on to say that Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is the book that influenced him the most while famously failing to control his own passions. Kind of an essential part of the book, no, Billy boy?
And all this brings us to the present moment, where it really feels like we are living in a new golden age of Stoicism. I mean, look around you, Stoicism is everywhere. It’s evident in the fact that these two books have sold over 3 million copies combined.
It’s a staple of the motivational grindset memeverse usually cut with clips from Berserk and Grappler Baki. It’s also the most requested topic for me to make content on, and I get complaints all the time that I don’t talk about it very often on my Instagram page, so this one’s for you, folks.
Stoicism is one of the most enduring philosophies ever, but it seems like it’s always been fundamentally misunderstood, and this is especially true in its current form.
The most popular misunderstanding is the idea that Stoicism is about just sucking it up and suppressing your feelings, which is not true, it’s about understanding your feelings, creating the mental space to open up a range of reactions, and choosing the most rational reaction for the situation - which could very well be no reaction - instead than being tossed around by your instinctive pulls and urges. It’s about composure, not suppression. It’s about choosing rational responses over irrational ones and cultivating the ability to discern between them.
In this way, it shares many similarities with mindfulness but this doesn’t stop many a grindset gigachad hustler from thinking that suppressing their emotions is cool, that mindfulness is lame, and refusing to seek therapeutic help for their trauma makes them Stoic.
Because of these enduring misunderstandings, Stoicism gets a bad rap.
Hmmm, enduring…misunderstood…bad rap…You know what else that reminds me of? Will Smith.
Jokes, sorry Will, don’t come at me. What it actually reminds me of is Mysticism.
Stoicism and Mysticism are not two sets of ideas you usually hear about in the same breath. And in fact, at first glance they seem to be at odds with each other, with the Stoic emphasis on rationality and the Mystic emphasis on…
Wait a second. What exactly does mysticism emphasize? What does it even mean?
If you think Stoicism is misunderstood, well, the misunderstanding of mysticism really does start at a definitional level.
The root word of "mysticism" is derived from the Greek word "μυστικός" (mystikos), which means "secret." This, in turn, comes from the verb "μύω" (myo), which means "to conceal" or "to shut." The verb "myo" was often used in the context of closing the eyes or lips, suggesting secrecy or hidden knowledge. If we stick to this original Greek context, the word ‘mystic’ strictly speaking, was used to describe someone who had been initiated into one of the many mystery cults of ancient Greece and gained access to hidden knowledge through secret rituals.
But more commonly, the term ‘mystic’ conjures up the image of someone who does obscure spiritual things surrounded by incense smoke and has answers to life’s deeper questions - although the answers are suspiciously vague, and overly broad.
The term evokes caricatures more than an actual conclusive answer as to what mysticism is and what mystics do. In fact, some scholars even consider the term to be a fabrication that was specifically used to dunk on esoteric ideas that were no longer considered rational after the Enlightenment.
And then there’s Stoicism that seems to live in a completely different Universe, considered to be the most quintessentially rational of all ancient schools of thought.
So how exactly do we examine the relationship between Stoicism and Mysticism, if we can’t even seem to pinpoint what mysticism is?
Well, of the many features used to describe mysticism, two keep coming up over and over again. One, that mysticism prioritizes spontaneous spiritual insights over systematic analysis and two, that mysticism emphasizes the fundamental unity of all things, and seeks to unite with ultimate reality.
Let’s break these features down and see how stoicism stacks up against each of them.
Feature 1: Mysticism prioritizes spontaneous spiritual insight over systematic analysis.
Now this one seems straightforward, right? Stoicism prioritizes systematic analysis over spontaneous insights, not the other way around.
Doesn’t it?…
Okay, let’s establish the facts as charitably as possible before we start riffing a bit. Yes, Stoics do prioritize systematic analysis.
That’s not to say that Stoics don’t have spontaneous insights into things, or cannot find themselves following their intuition - it’s to say that the principles of Stoicism are derived from a combination of empirical and rational analysis, and the practice of Stoicism prioritizes alignment with reason.
In fact, there’s a concept called ‘Prolepsis’ in Stoicism which is a preconception that is naturally implanted in the mind. In other words, it is a form of intuitive knowledge that allows us to discern between right and wrong action. This preconception might break through as spontaneous insight and guide us in recognizing and judging specific instances of good or evil when we encounter them in the world.
But this doesn’t mean that Stoics prioritize these preconceptions over reason.
Sure moral intuition may be a source of certain insights that the Stoics have but the intuitions are generally not seen as revelatory in and of themselves, they have to be examined through rational contemplation and analysis. Generally, for that Stoic golden seal of approval, they also have to be practically applicable in the real world and virtuous.
So now that we’ve firmly established that Stoicism, unlike Mysticism, does emphasize systematic reason over spontaneous revelation…let’s complicate matters a bit, shall we?
The most famous Stoic was possibly also a mystic, in the original sense of the term. That is, he may have been initiated into the most mysterious of mystery cults originating in Ancient Greece, and may have participated in its rituals. We are of course talking about Marcus Aurelius and the Eleusinian Mystery Cult.
Roman histories tell us about Marcus Aurelius' visit to Athens, where he was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. This ancient ceremony involved consuming a potion called the kykeon, which, according to Brian C. Muraresku's fascinating book "The Immortality Key” likely contained ergot, a substance with hallucinogenic properties. This initiation was a significant public event, and reportedly took place in 176 CE, likely after Marcus had completed "Meditations."
Fun fact: A bust believed to be of Marcus Aurelius was placed above the main gate of the Temple of Demeter at Eleusis, and decorated with poppy flowers. This bust still exists today, and may have been a testament to Marcus Aurelius' involvement in or at least patronage of these mystical rites.
Pictured: Cuirassed bust of Marcus Aurelius, Eleusis
What makes all this fascinating is how it challenges our perception of the Stoics as purely rational. Marcus Aurelius’ participation in the Eleusinian Mysteries does suggest an openness to revelatory experiences.
The Eleusinian Mysteries were deeply mystical, focusing on personal transformation through secretive rituals and spontaneous spiritual insights aided by psychedelics. Marcus' involvement indicates that even the most rational Stoic could find value in the spiritual and mystical dimensions of human experience.
Now we don’t have records of what Marcus Aurelius’ mystical insights were from his Eleusinian days. Since his famous book now known as Meditations was actually a private diary never meant for the public eye, I don’t think there’s much hope of ever discovering a bestselling part 2 called Revelations. Although that would be really cool and I would read it immediately.
Anyway, the fact that Marcus had periods in his life where he may have prioritized revelatory insights over systematic analysis doesn’t mean he’s not a Stoic. Even if he received some mindblowing insights from his wild psychedelic days, this doesn’t mean that he took them at face value. You can still have really spontaneous intuitions as a Stoic and then subject them to rational analysis and decide how it will impact your thinking and action. And if that thinking and action fits within a Stoic framework of virtue and rationality you’re still practicing Stoicism.
In fact, one of the Stoic OGs, Chrysippus, famously believed in divination rituals and omens, but he also had a systematic framework of Stoic physics through which he concluded that these phenomena might have some truth value. Whether that framework was accurate or not, it was arrived at by systematic analysis even if the nature of analysis may have been flawed and the subject of analysis is something we would consider to be mystical.
But then again, Chrysippus also died of laughter when he saw a donkey eating some figs, so…maybe it wouldn’t hurt to separate the philosopher from the philosophy a little bit.
Which brings me to my next point - the disposition of one Stoic has no bearing on the philosophical underpinnings of Stoicism itself. So even if ol’ Marky might have prioritized mystic insights, that doesn’t really impact Stoic epistemology.
Feature 2: Mystics believe in the fundamental unity of all things.
Now here’s where things get tricky. The Stoics actually do wholeheartedly believe in the fundamental unity of all things - but in a different way than mystics do. Generally speaking, mystics talk about a transcendent unity which means a unity that may include all of the material realm but ultimately exists beyond it. In other words, it’s the essential oneness of all things that we all originate from, which exists outside of and above the ordinary world. The Source or the Tao or the Brahman would all be examples of a unity that is ultimately transcendent.
The Stoics identified the unity of all things as strictly immanent, not transcendent. Meaning, they completely rejected the idea of anything that exists outside the material Universe. In other words, everything is biological, everything is Nature and there is nothing Supernatural. There is only one realm, and we are living in it here and now.
For the Stoics, the force that animates Nature is called The Logos, which is the embodiment of reason itself. The Logos is famously described as the creative fire that gives rise to everything, gives everything form, orders everything, and moves everything. And most importantly, the Logos is not a spirit in the sky that keeps pushing the Universe along, the Logos is the sentience of the Universe itself.
So when Stoics like Cleanthes and Epictetus talk about Zeus, they are not talking about a literal dude with a lightning bolt in his hand ruling over the cosmos, they are talking about the underlying rational principle that animates the universe and everything in it.
And when I say everything. I do mean everything. For the Stoics, the Universe is literally a single living organism and the Logos is the life force of that organism.
Like, for example you. Yes, you. You are a little piece of the Universe animated by the Logos, and so is everything around you.
So in the sense, yes the Stoics do believe in the fundamental unity of all things.
But does this make them Mystics?
Well, some scholars do make the case that Stoicism is a kind of naturalistic or rational mysticism. But instead of relying on supernatural revelations or miracles, it focuses on recognizing the divine logos in the world and within ourselves. From this perspective, Stoicism can be seen as a quasi-spiritual practice that offers a way to enter into mystical union with the Logos through our ethical and intellectual growth.
Now while I do find this argument interesting, I don’t think we can make it in good faith. And that’s not because I think it will be difficult to show mystic elements, influences and intersections in Stoicism.
I mean, even the very idea of the Logos was introduced by the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who could have borrowed it directly from Eastern theological-philosophical traditions that he was almost certainly exposed to. When you look into Historical figures who are dyed-in-the-wool mystics like St. John of the Cross, we can see echoes of Stoic thought running through their works.
Certainly, there is no shortage of Stoicism to be found among the Mystics; and no shortage of Mysticism to be found among the Stoics.
The reason I think it will be difficult to make the argument that Stoicism is a kind of Rational Mysticism in good faith is because it’s hard to make this claim without running into the major issue with the term ‘mysticism’ - which is that it’s been used as a slur to describe traditions that sit outside or are perceived to sit out rationality and empiricism.
In fact the best way to label Stoic ideas as mystical would be to point out some of the irrationality that may be inherent in the Stoic framework.
One way we could do this is by following Friedrich Nietzsche’s line of thinking about Stoicism. For example, Nietzsche famously slammed the Stoics for arbitrarily imposing a rationalistic framework onto the chaos of nature. To live according to nature, for Nietzsche, you just need to, well, exist…
Instead, the Stoics - in Nietzsche’s view - have conditioned themselves into thinking that Nature wants them to live in alignment with the values they perceive Nature to embody. Nietzsche characterizes Nature as “boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain.” So in this sense, the Stoic emphasis on rationality, order and providence as features of Nature may itself be irrational.
So it’s when we take apart the rationality of Stoicism a bit, we begin to find that it’s much easier to sit back and call it a bit mystical. But this is exactly what I don’t want to do, not only because I think it’s unproductive, but because I think it’s a reactionary way of describing ideas. You see, you can pretty much call anything mysticism by playing a certain language game.
You do it by playing up the part of it that seems irrational and underplaying the parts of it that seem rational.
I genuinely believe that it would be more intellectually honest to evaluate and critique esoteric traditions on their own terms - but using mysticism as a catch-all slur against them is anything but charitable. It’s more of an aesthetic judgment against them than one genuinely based in reason.
Instead, I think it will be more productive if we are able to give more credit to the traditions that are often crammed into the bucket of mysticism. This may include Gnosticism, Sufism, Kabbalah, Advaita Vedanta, Daoism or Jungian Psychology (although I think that last one being labelled as mystical is an especially unfair characterization, and I’ll soon dedicate some content to explaining why)
On closer inspection, we may begin to find that some of these traditions are more rooted in different kinds of rationality than we may have given them credit for. And even if they are not, they deserve to be assessed on their own merits, understood and brought into the light. In fact, this reassessment in good faith is kind of what Stoicism benefited from.
Despite some irrational features, the most coherent and valuable aspects of pre-modern philosophy of Stoicism were preserved and refined so that it can help guide a new generation of people as a living philosophy. And despite the many misunderstandings and flawed interpretations that came with it, the resurgence of Stoicism has largely been a success story.
It has brought back the creative fire to an ancient school of thought that could have easily been sidelined and forgotten to time, fated to be known only by a few ivory tower academics. Instead, it’s helping people around the world get up in the morning, be better versions of themselves, and have a better relationship with existence. And that is so, so good.
Just like it’s only fair to caution people against misunderstanding long, rich and complex philosophical traditions such as Stoicism based on bad readings, maybe it’s only fair to caution people against misunderstanding traditions that do not meet our modern expectations of empiricism and rationalism, and encourage them to think twice before simply dismissing them as ‘mysticism’.
Well, that’s all folks. Do consider entering into mystical union with the subscribe button below.
Until next time,
Yepi