Via Ciceronis

Now we have a grasp on the nature of rationality (ratio) and the inward state (animus), we are ready to take on a discussion of the Latin word perturbatio. Translated loosely, perturbatio is the word used to refer to an emotion. Although the word ‘perturbation’ exists in English, I am reluctant to use it since it is rarely used today. Instead, I shall continue using ‘emotion’ as the English equivalent of ‘perturbatio’. Although it is used in a far vaguer context today, the word emotion has within it the remnants of the Stoic definition of a perturbatio. If we break it down, we find that emotions are ‘motions’ away from something (signified by the e-). This reflects the Stoic definition which states that:

“An emotion (perturbatio) is a movement of the inward state (animus) contrary to nature (contra naturam) and turned away from right rationality (ratio).” (Tusc. 4.11)

Although Cicero differs from the Stoics in practice, he thought that their theory on emotions was the best developed and had the most accurate definitions and classifications. In this post, I hope to draw out some key points from the Stoic theory on emotions: first, the Stoic categorisation of emotions, then why the Stoics thought emotions were bad, and finally why they believed that the emotions were under our control, and so could, and should, be got rid of.

In the Tusculan Disputations, Cicero explains that the Stoics categorised the emotions into four groups relating to thoughts of present and future, good and bad. If you think something good is present, you experience gladness (laetitia); if the good is in the future, you experience desire (libido); If you think something bad is present, you experience distress (aegritudo); if the bad is in the future, you experience fear (metus). The emotions encourage us to pursue what we think is good and avoid what we think is bad. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the Stoics claimed that nature urged human beings to pursue what was good and avoid what was bad. However, they differentiate between feelings and emotions. They believed that if one follows nature and rationality carefully and consistently, one may still have strong feelings, wanting to pursue good and avoid bad. However, these feelings would be devoid of the turbulent movement of the inward state away from rationality which defines an emotion. In this way, it is not the feeling, but the turbulent emotion away from rationality which is against nature (contra naturam) and bad. We shall go into more depth on the difference between an emotion and a feeling in the coming weeks when we discuss the emotion of fear (metus) in more detail. What is important for now is that feelings are good and natural because they call man to pursue what is good and to avoid what is bad. Emotions, on the other hand, cause the inward state to turn away from what nature presents as true, and thus turn away from rationality. Therefore, they are always bad.

The Stoics also believed that the emotions were under our control. They did not deny that emotions make us act in ways in which we would not normally act. Indeed, in an extremely emotional state one could even be considered as being completely out of control. However, the Stoics claim that we are still responsible for our emotions. This is because the emotions are based on our beliefs and opinions. If we believe something is good when in reality it is not, then the inward state must turn away from rationality to justify itself. Therefore, we control our emotions through our judgements and beliefs. For example, if one does not believe an expected good thing is good, then one will not experience desire for it. In this way, the emotions are a response to false judgements and beliefs about nature. When we believe we have knowledge of something of which we do not have knowledge, we experience a turbulent emotion. We cannot fake emotions, since the emotions do not lie; nor can we get rid of them unless we change our beliefs. Of course, we can pretend and rationalize, but our inward states remain true reflections of our beliefs and opinions. In this way, when our inward states become turbulent and irrational, this is evidence of a false belief being held onto. In this way, if someone changes his belief about a certain good in the future, then his desire for that thing will change as well. The Stoic Sage (wise man) does not assume any knowledge, nor does he hold onto false opinions. Therefore, he doesn’t turn away from rationality and never experiences emotions. He can still feel strongly but his inward state stays calm and consistent. The wise man is completely in tune with nature. He is entirely honest with himself and his nature and as a result, his inward state remains tranquil.

This is how the Stoics justify their position. The emotions are bad because they send the inward state into a turbulent movement away from rationality. We also have control of our emotions through our beliefs and opinions. Therefore, it is possible and preferable to live without emotions like the Stoic sage who lives the best life in a state of consistent tranquillity. This was the life goal of the Stoics. Living a life without emotions may not sound like the pinnacle of the human experience for us in the 21^st century. In fact, even in the Roman Republic, this Stoic way of looking at life was quite radical. It was a philosophy which was highly theoretical and so was only accessible to the highly intellectual few. Therefore, it should be no surprise that to fully grasp these concepts, we must go slowly. nevertheless, by understanding the word perturbatio and introducing these Stoic ideas, we are well on our way. Next week, we shall look at the word morbus (sickness) and discuss how the emotions turn into sicknesses of the inward state. This will take us to Cicero’s limit of engagement with the Stoic theory. Afterwards, we will be well deserving of a break. We shall pause our journey and set up camp. I shall tell a story about Cicero so that we may place our steps in the wider context of Cicero’s life. We shall discover that Cicero is far more concerned with how this theory translates into practice. We will then be ready to go deeper and discuss metus (fear) as an example of a perturbatio which will flesh out the skeleton presented here and get us walking once again.