Pyrrhonism as an Anti-Subversive Activity

We in the US have come to that quadrennial election season when various writers about philosophy and religion fall into spouting off their political opinions, basing those opinions to what they think their philosophy or religion says. Sometimes, of course, they may get these connections correctly, but a lot of it looks like rationalization, particularly via cherry picking. One sign of this is that often there is disagreement among those professing the same philosophy/religion with regard to political opinion. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the disagreement among Christians about supporting Donald Trump versus Kamala Harris.

Massimo Piglucci describes Stoicism as a subversive activity. He seems correct with regard to Stoicism. Stoicism does entail philosophical commitments that have political implications, and these implications direct Stoics to, in certain respects, subvert the status quo. He goes on to point out, however, those implications poorly match the the current left/right political divide.

So, while Stoicism might give clear guidance on some particular issues, that’s about as far as it goes. Further, there’s no clear way of making trade-offs among these beliefs. While Stoics assert that virtue is the only good, and there appears to be widespread acknowledgment that Donald Trump is no paragon of virtue, Kamala Harris isn’t one either, although they may differ in this regard by degree, perhaps even considerably. Or perhaps not.