Stoicism has been labeled a corporealist philosophy by scholars because it does in fact hold that all things that exist are material, however it would appear their monism is something nominal at best. What I mean is that while the language used by most Greek and Roman Stoics seems to justify a monistic classification, that is believing in one irreducible principle that underlies reality, there exists a real tension for anyone who wishes to maintain this classification. This is all in juxtaposition to the other predominant schools of thought which are dualism and physicalism. Dualism would be best characterized by Christianity or its precursor Platonism wherein there exists two fundamental aspects of reality, material and immaterial substances. Whereas physicalism (or materialism depending on philosophical categories) is more closely related to the modern conception of the world introduced my hard scientism, atheism and, in general, the growing secular world. Some have labeled Stoicism in the latter category, yet I find this to be a disservice to the ancient practice. Stoicism sets itself apart from both worldviews by granting that all things are material, in some regards, yet also has categories for the existence of things like the human soul, Platonic Forms, and God.



As Seneca states in his letter “How Many Causes?”, “We Stoics hold that there are two factors in nature which gives rise to all things, cause and matter.” Seneca goes on to specify that, “Matter lies inert, susceptible to any use but yielding none if no one sets it in motion. Cause, which is to say reason, shapes matter and turns it where it will, to produce various objects.” This specification on Seneca’s part is both a deterring from previous views, espoused by Plato and Aristotle, and a ground work for Seneca’s later proposal that there exists only one cause and artificer of the cosmos, God. The value of simplicity is clear in Seneca’s objection that there appears to be no limit to the multiplicity of causes found in Plato and Aristotle. Seneca finds it more adequate to focus on the primary cause, god or Logos, by including that even Plato’s formal foundations are rooted within the makers mind and therefore are not necessary as an extra step within a causal chain. “Such patterns of all things god has within himself; his mind encompasses the measures and numbers of absolutely everything which is to be acted upon. He is filled with the forms- eternal, unchanging, incorruptible- which plato terms “ideas.””



It should be noted, however, that in light of Seneca’s distinction, he, along with his fellow Stoics, do believe God is material. However, at bottom, the Stoic worldview specifies that there exists both active and passive principles at work within the cosmos. Their panentheistic view has God as the active rational force providentially governing all events to their natural and good end and matter as the passive agent which is shaped and guided by its animator. As Seneca states, “All things consist of matter, which is poured about him [God] and follows him as guide and leader.” For the Stoic, God operates in the world as the soul to the human body. This may sound a bit complicated given that to suppose two physical things could exist in the same place at once seems obviously false. However, the early Greek Stoic Chrysippus argued that a similar analogy would be that of a liquid mixture. He imagined God permeated the universe in a similar way to a glass of wine being poured into the ocean. Chrysippus’ conclusion was that there now existed one mixture of wine and ocean, god and matter, body and soul. This was debated…heavily, but still stands as the Stoic interpretation of how God is both material and distinct from passive matter, but is also immanent within the cosmos.



This brings me to two final things I would like to briefly look at namely, the human soul and divine providence. While these topics qualify for their own separate evaluation, it is important to note the logical link between the Stoic concept of a corporeal reality, an immanent God, and the providential governing of particular bodies. What I mean is that in the Stoic concept of providence it is not simple causal events that are determined, but causal bodies. As Seneca states in his work “On the Corporeality of Virtue”, “Nothing but body can touch or be touched”, further defending the idea that providence is itself an outworking of God within the cosmos, not without. This is an important distinction from classical theism wherein God is a sort of first cause and supernaturally intervening within secondary causes to achieve some sort of end. Stoicism maintains that the cosmos and everything in it are God’s body and therefore the cosmos is a rational animal slowly inching it’s way towards its teleological end IE conflagration and the perfection of the soul.



This is a general overview but I will conclude where the Stoic does that all of life is simply a preparation for good men to commune with God. Not much is discussed within Stoicism about an afterlife, however it has been debated within the early Greeks and seems to have carried over into Seneca’s thought as well. It would appear that Seneca believes that, “God hardens and scrutinizes and exercises those he approves and loves; but those he appears to indulge and spare he is only keeping tender for disaster to come.” This is because for the Stoic, god is only concerned with the righteous person. As Seneca expresses, “He [God] does not treat the good man like a toy, but tries him, hardens him, and readies him for himself.” I could not imagine Seneca meaning anything other than a post life experience of the divine for those who perfect virtue or at the very least live noble lives.” Furthermore this deliberation to prove a Stoic afterlife is not to go contra mainstream but flows logically from what Stoicism teaches man’s soul is by nature IE divine essence that has its source in the Logos. Seneca seems to imply that “In every man indwells a god”, yet qualifies that “a soul which is of superior stature and well governed, which deflates the imposing by passing it by and laughs at all our fears and prayers, is impelled by a celestial force.” It would appear that Seneca is arguing that that which we call soul exist more or less in a person depending upon the life lived and further is an object of veneration due to its divine origin. Finally Seneca states, “Just as the rays of the sun do indeed warm the earth but remain at the source of their radiation, so great and holy soul is lowered to earth to give us nearer knowledge of the divine; but though it is in intercourse with us, it cleaves to its source; it is tied to it, it looks toward it, it seeks to rejoin it, and it concerns with our affairs is superior and detached.” Hence I would argue given that the soul is both a material substance that has mixed with the body (I know…limited language to use here) and has divine origins, it would seem almost obvious that in returning to the source we are seeing the Stoic view of the natural end of the good man IE union with God. Yet since providence is a causal chain of bodies it would seem clear that God is permeating all of creation and every man in some way.



Still Stoic Corporealism is simply a platform for building upwards towards a fuller philosophy. Ironically, I start off my evaluation of Stoicism with its metaphysic, as opposed to its popular ethic, due to contemporary gestures towards a secular Stoicism prevalent among popular level writers and celebrities. Ofcourse, my aim is to expound upon how a secular Stoicism is simply not a Stoicism at all. Stoic Corporealism, while many times conflated with contemporary atheistic materialism, cannot be divorced from the philosophy’s deeply held panentheism or divine determinism. Furthermore, as I will cover in later writing, a Stoicism that lacks its corporeal metaphysic, panentheistic god, or divine determinism will also, by consequence, fail to deliver its very successful ethic. For as Seneca says, “Philosophy has taught us to worship the divine and to love the human.”

