Infidelity seems to be coming back into fashion, if it ever went away. I’m not talking about tabloid articles obsessing over the latest outrageous behavior by this or that celebrity. I’m referring to serious authors like psychotherapist Esther Perel, who is of the opinion that infidelity is common, “and yet it is shrouded in secrecy, filled with shame, and often addressed with major judgment. That’s not helpful to the people who are actually experiencing it — or to society as a whole.” Perel’s take is that affairs are the result of a natural yearning for extra-monogamous affairs, and they are thus likely inevitable, if painful.
That sounds all very well and good, but quite a bit of what makes us different from most other species is precisely that we have an ability to reflect on whether something is good or not, and to act on that judgment. A propensity for violence is also natural for Homo sapiens, and yet we don’t condone it among either children or adults, because we think there are better ways to settle disputes. To be sure, we are all imperfect. We will make mistakes and set ourselves back somewhat. But does that mean we shouldn’t even try to do better? The “it’s natural and likely inevitable” defense can too easily turn into a rationalization for a free pass, especially when given the authority of modern science.
I try to practice Stoicism as a philosophy of life, because it is very pragmatic and effective; designed to help us live a life worth living — a eudaimonic existence, as the ancient Greco-Romans would have put it. And the test of a practical philosophy is precisely in how it handles real problems affecting people. So what does Stoicism have to say about infidelity?
___
"While open relationships are perfectly permissible, if consensual, a Stoic perspective tells us that infidelity — which involves betrayal — is not. The Stoics believe that a good life is one in which we try to become better human beings."
___
The first stops, of course, are the ancient authors themselves. But in this particular case they turn out not to be too helpful. The Stoics did write about sex and relationships, but they were split in a dramatic fashion on this subject. The late Stoics of the Roman Imperial period, like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, were rather conservative, by modern standards. Look at what Seneca writes to his mother, from his exile in Corsica, where he had been confined by the Emperor Claudius:
“If you consider sexual passion to have been bestowed on mankind not for the sake of pleasure, but for the continuance of the race, all other desires will pass harmlessly by one who is safe even from this secret plague, implanted in our very bosoms.” (To my Mother Helvia, on Consolation, XIII)”
The typical view of the Roman Stoics was that sex is for procreation, and it should be done only within marriage. But that’s more a reflection of Imperial Roman prudishness rather than of Stoic philosophy. How do I know? Compare the excerpt above with this passage from Diogenes Laertius, who tells us how Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, saw things just a few centuries before Seneca (while living in the much more licentious Athens, not in Rome):
“In the Republic [Zeno] lays down community of wives [i.e., free love] … he bids men and women wear the same dress and keep no part of the body entirely covered.” (Lives of the Eminent Philosophers VII.33)
16th February 2018
Join the conversation