This post is part of a larger deep dive
Curious about the role of Stoicism and Nietzsche's philosophy of the future in Dogville? Check out Dogville Explained!
Or read the full Dogville article!
Stoicism is a philosophical tradition that was founded around 301 BC in the city of Athens, Greece by a Cypriot merchant called Zeno of Citium.
The central question in Stoicism can be succintly asked as: How does someone live a good life?
The Stoics used the term eudamonia to describe the fundamental goal in life, which roughly translates to Happiness and Fullfilment.
It might sound like a trivial question. Most of us will probably think that as long as we are healthy, wealthy and have a good reputation within our society, we are essentially living good lives.
As a matter or fact, for the Stoics, none of these things actually contribute to Happiness as I will explain below.
In classical Stoicism, complete Happiness could only be reached if we were living in harmony 1) with our own self, 2) with the universe and 3) with our fellow humans.
We are not born perfect, we have many flaws. Stoics, however, believed we could bring our nature to perfection using the most valuable faculty Nature has provided us with: reason.
They argued that Nature is goal-directed and wants us to perfect ourselves (in this context, Nature doesn’t mean the environment, but rather the whole Universe).
But how can we perfect our character in a way that is according to Nature?
For stoics the answer lays in our capacity for reason: specifically, the only aspect of our lives that really matters is virtue. And all of us contain the seed of virtue.
I find virtue a tough word to explain in the context of Stoicism, but I believe the Stoics meant perfecting human nature by acting with justice, wisdom, courage and self-discipline (the four cardinal virtues).
So, possession of virtue perfects our human nature. And the goal of life handed to us by Nature is to fulfill our potential as human beings (to finish Nature’s work to perfection) – this is what they mean by living in harmony with our own self. Without virtue our lifes will always be void and unfulfilled.
The Stoics were largely influenced by their forerunners, the Cynics, who led very austere lives. For example, Cynics ate simple meals and drank only water; they dressed in cheap and weather-adequate clothing; they had few belongings which they carried in a small knapsack and slept in straw mats in public buildings. Most Stoics did not take such extreme measures, but they considered that Cynics’ arduous lifestyle constituted a short-cut to virtue.
For the Stoics the good in life (i.e., living virtuously and in harmony with ourselves) must be something that 1) is fundamentally praiseworthy and honorable in itself (e.g., self-discipline) and 2) brings about good consequences.
For example, being a professional pianist requires exercising a certain self-discipline – practicing arduously and assiduously and doing your best. Now, let’s say you are a pianist who is often anxious when entering a concert hall. This might happen for a multitude of reasons: maybe you are seeking recognition as a virtuoso, or simply wish people to applaud your performance at the end.
Well, the audience’s reaction is something that is not under your direct control, no matter how well-prepared you are. Perhaps, someone will cough during your performance, distracting you. Maybe there is a fire and everybody has to evacuate. So, desiring external things (like reputation) is likely to make you frustrated, since these desires can be thwarted by unforeseen circumstances.
However, self-discipline is beneficial to the mind and is an honorable quality in itself regardless of what the long-term result will be. So the goal of life should be to improve virtues – in this example self-discipline – since this is directly under your control.
Naturally, not everything that feels good to you is virtuous. For example, we might argue that tranquility of mind is something that we should all aspire to. However, the Stoics would argue that tranquility of mind can still be misused – a psychopath might feel tranquility when murdering someone. So clearly, not everything that feels good brings about good consequences.
So, something is only virtuous if it is considered to be praiseworthy and brings good consequences. So living virtuously (i.e., in harmony with your own self) is all that matters when it comes to complete Happiness and Fullfillment.
Of course, when we act virtuously, feelings of joy might appear. Stoics class these as “healthy passions”. But they stress that these healthy feelings should never be the central goal; they are rather (positive) side-effects of exercising virtue.
At the other end of the spectrum, unhealthy feelings such as worry, envy, sexual lust, malicious joy in the misfortune of others need to be dealt with. If not, they will corrupt the mind and we cannot attain a good life.
These unhealthy passions and desires conflict with the Stoic goal of living in accord to Nature, because they go against our nature as rational human beings.
For stoics, we become slaves to fortune and to our passions, ever attached not only to external objects, but to people as well (e.g., if another person has full control over what we desire, we become enslaved to that person).
For example, let’s say a tyrant is threatening to kill someone or take away a someone’s possessions. An ideal Stoic would view these as indifferent, and the tyrant wouldn’t be able to bring up fear in him, since the tyrant has nothing that the ideal Stoic desires.
Only virtue matters to the ideal Stoic, and possession of virtue offers us freedom from irrational fears and desires.
Stoics believe that the only way to attain Happiness is to look within ourselves rather than external things – if we manage to do so, we will be totally liberated from emotional suffering (free from unhealthy fears or desires).
Note this doesn’t mean we should ignore affection. Quite the contrary! The Stoics highly valued love and natural affection (see below).
The idea was that we should overcome unhealty desires and promote healthier ones. For example, we should naturally love our partner (healthy passion) but not to the point that will make us anxiously worry (unhealthy passion).
Let me put it like this: if you have the feeling that you are not getting what you most desire, or, in contrast, getting what you most fear or avoid, then it means you have become a slave of your passions.
Living in agreement with Nature also means that we need to accept fate as something beyond our control to change it.
If “shit happens”, we should not dwell and complain about it but rather understand that the Universe so wanted it to happen and there is no going back.
Nature or Universe (capitalised) are used interchangebly, and in Stoicism, they refer not only to outer space, but includes literally evertything. If you are religious (and Stoics were indeed very pious) it would be a synonym with God.
For example, if a catastrophe suddenly befalls you, there is no point in ruminating about it, because you can’t really change past events – the past is out of our control, it’s an indifferent thing (see below). Therefore, the wisest behaviour is to willingly accept that it has happened.
Every action we undertake must be done with the knowledge that its outcome is beyond our control and may not turn out as planned – we simply must be detached from these external events (outcomes) and see them as indifferent (we should stop judging them as good or bad).
This is why Stoics’ intentions are never thwarted, because Stoics only desire what are under their control and nothing can take that away from them.
A good analogy is a talented archer shooting an arrow from his bow with the best of his abilities. So the intention is under the archer’s control (he picks the bow, he aims to the target,) but the outcome (the arrow hiting the actual target) is left ultimately up to fate (e.g., a gust of wind may suddenly appear, someone may stumble over the target, etc).
Note that living according to our own human nature and the nature of the Universe are complementary. Acting with virtue allows us to overcome adversities, and in this sense we learn to accept whatever life throws at you instead of complaining.
Now, this does not mean we should have a passive attitude towards life. Definitely not!
For example, if you are in an abusive relationship, the appropriate behaviour would be not to put up with it but actually leave the abusive relationship and participate it to the authorities.
Stoics would do their best to protect themselves from abuse, accidents, etc, but if these things happened, a Stoic would accept the fact that we cannot change the past, and would face the reality of the situation.
In Stoicism, we should exercise good not only for our sake, but also for humanity’s sake in general. This is what Stoics mean by living in harmony with our fellow human beings.
We are social beings, so we should have a philantropic attitude towards others. Thus, natural affection, justice and kindness towards others is part of living virtuosly.
We should love mankind and the only reward we should take from it is virtue By doing good to other people, we help them live without conflict and as a result the society will head towards a Stoic republic – an enlightened communiy of ideal Stoics.
This suggests that the Stoics should love even those who are vicious and our potential enemies. That is, because our enemies have the faculty of reason (the seeds of virtue), they too could turn up to be wise, just and treat us with respect.
There is a good analogy that says that vicious people are like small children – they don’t understand what they are doing so there’s no point in being angry with them.
We do our best (acting with virtue and justice and benevolence) and encourage others towards virtue, whether or not we succeed.
Of course, you might be skeptical and think: “being tolerant with my worst enemies, sure not!”. However the Stoics always avoid responding with anger. For example, they practise putting themselves in other peoples shoes and understand the reason for such and such behaviour (e.g., if people are aggressive towards you, maybe they were brought up in an aggressive family environment).
So, to be a perfect human being, i.e., to live a good and honourable life, you need to act in a way that benefits not only yourself but also others.
A central tenet of Stoicism is that we should direct our behaviour towards good, and avert the bad (folly, injustice, cowardice and vice). As mentioned above, the chief good is virtue (e.g., wisdom, courage, self-discipline, etc), and this is something that is always under our control – in our own feelings, actions and thinking.
Other stuff that most of us might consider good, such as health, wealth and reputation are not relevant to the central task of living a good life. These “external” things are not under our control, and so are classed as “indifferent” when it comes to living a good life.
Indifferent (external) things are neither good nor bad, only our response to them is good or bad. So good and bad only refer to what happens inside our minds.
However, most of us will tend to identify these external things as good, and, in the process, experience feelings of desire for these things. The consequence of this is that they will likely experience frustration at some point in their lives, because indifferent, external things are not directly under their control (think of the pianist example above). In fact, judging external things to be intrinsically good compels us to engage in ever more vice and crave ever more pleasure, wealth and reputation.
Similarly, we might focus too much on irrational judgments about what we believe to be bad or harmful: in this category we find, for example, the fear of pain, poverty and disgrace (which are actually indifferent things, according to Stoics).
So we need to develop wisdom (a virtue), understand what are the most important things in life, learn what is under our control (own actions and judgements) and what is not (indifferent things).
If we manage to perceive external things as just indifferent and accept whatever Nature has provided you with, then we are one step closer to attain eudamonia.
The Stoics believed that even if we managed to prolong one’s life, that would add nothing to virtue – health and wealth, on their own, cannot help a vicious and unfair person attain eudamonia. In fact, wealth tends to corrupt people, in that they engage in more vice.
For Stoics, life, by itself, is neither good nor bad when it comes to living the good life; it is simply the stage on which you can either act virtuously or viciously.
Their point was that even if you suffer from bad health, you can still act virtuosly, and if you do act virtuously, then nothing can affect you, not even bad health.
Put it another way, for the Stoics, it is far more important to have a healthy mind (by that they mean living virtuously) than a healthy body.
I bet most of you are thinking “yeah sure, what a load of mumbo jumbo”.
But, you see, the Stoics did not dismiss having good-health, but they were careful to class these as a “preferred” outcomes, although still irrelevant when it comes to true Happiness and Fullfillment.
In other words, it is far more important to cultivate a healthy character than a healthy body (the idea that the true beauty resides in our character rather than in our looks probably has its roots in Stoicism, as Stoics defined the chief good (virtue) as the beautiful (kalos)).
If you have achieved that level of enlightment, then external things such as bad health and poverty will not affect you. They believed being a good person (living with virtue and free from irrational fears and desires) is completely sufficient to attain Happiness.
However, it’s only natural to seek some external things that have some value in planning the future (they are “preferred”). These naturally include health, wealth, reputation and pleasure as opposed to illness, poverty, disgrace and pain. However, these preferred indifferents should not be the basis on which Happiness is assessed, and should be experienced with emotional detachment.
At the end of the day, the key is to use preferred things wisely (with wisdom and virtue), and this includes, for example, philantropy towards others (i.e., helping and wishing others well).
This was a magnificent review of a great movie. I enjoyed your review as much as I enjoyed the movie itself. However, I, with a background in philosophy and German, read a lot of Nietzache in both German and English. I also know how Nietzsche was MISUSED to back up NAZI propoganda. I am not trying to say that you were inaccurate in what you said about Nietsche’s writing. but your metaphors and examples completely missed the target, in my opinion. You described a Nietsche who would resemble Charles Atlas, and who, if he was coming towards you on the street would look like a bruiser.
In reality, Nietsche was a smallish weakling with a huge brain. Nietsche was all about the brain. Nietsche would never try to be first in line in a crowded store. Probably the only time in his life that he got into a fight, was when he tried to stop a man on the street from beating his horse. and by doing that, he had a complete mental and physical breakdown, and never recovered,
Nietsche was not a boxing champion, he was a thinking champion.He was the son of a Lutheran minister. He was not religious, but he was a genius.
Philosophy-wise, Nietsche was one of the first Existentialists. He didn’t believe in trying to figure out what reality was, he believed in using your brain to mold reality. Your brain, not your bicepts.And I think my version of Nietsche also works extremely well in analyzing this movie. Grace was ten times the IQ of anyone in Dogville. She was teaching kids stoicism. She could understand what was going on around her. Physically, she was more like Nietsche than Marcus Aurelius. She was raped and abused daily until she decided that changing reality was much more effective than trying to cope with it. So, she used her mind to mold reality by having daddy put the wiseguys to work and “fix” the town. You go, girl!
Great movie, Great philiscophical review above.
Hi David,
Many thanks for your insightful comment, and I’m happy you enjoyed the article!
I completely agree with what you say above. The examples described in the article were just my attempt at linking Nietzsche’s teachings with more mundane, daily-life experiences that readers could relate to.
In particular, people getting angry at others skipping the line probably aligns with Nietzsche’s proposition that seemingly honourable attitudes can be often expressions of self-interest or envy in disguise. I admit though that there’re likely better analogies.
But, yes, Nietzsche would have (almost surely) sucked it up and stayed in line 😀
I was looking for a satisfying analysis after watching the film with my wife. It was my 3rd or 4th time seeing the film, and it’s one of my all time favorites. Now, in my 40’s, I think I fully appreciate the philosophical implications. Your essay really hit the nail on the head for me. Thank you.
Hi Familydude,
You’re very welcome, and thank you for your comment!
I watched Dogville for the first time when it came out in the cinema back in 2003 and I loved it. Rewatched it after 20 years with renewed eyes and a tad more philosophical, and it was a whole different experience.
Only great films have this capacity to make us feel differently as we mature – Dogville is certainly one of them!
I wholeheartedly agree. I’m now interested in learning more about Nietzsche. Do you have a recommendation on where to go, or what book to begin with? Thanks
I read two or three books on Nietzsche for a general overview of his work, as well as translations of some of original texts such as The Antichrist (which were surprisingly not extremely difficult to follow).
However, there are plenty of youtubers out there with a Philosophy background who do a very good job at explaining philosophical ideas with plenty of quotidian examples, and this is what I recommend as a first dive into Nietzsche. Two of my favourite channels while writing up the article were: Personal Power and Philosophy Vibe.
Good luck! I had a lot of fun learning Nietzsche’s philosophy, and I’m sure you’ll do too 😉
Incredible article! This movie put me in quite a depressive episode but your analysis really helped me understand why it made me feel so powerless. I also found Grace’s change to be reminiscent of Camus’ philosophies on absurdity and sincerity.
Hi Mike,
Thank you very much for your comment!
I have to admit that I know very little about Albert Camus’ philosophies, but you’ve certainly piqued my interest. So thanks for the suggestion, I’ll check it out!
Outstanding
Great article! Dogville is one of my favorite movies and to be honest I identify with Grace regarding her stoic values. Now I am struggling a little with the consequences of my virtue approach towards people. At some point earlier I decided to reject the master attitude since it wasn’t always understood (i.e. at work), I fell into the herd mentality trap. It is not easy, you try to be good and go beyond for others – they kick you in the butt, you control the situation – they are scared of you.
After this read I am at least a little bit more aware and eager to get a better understanding of Nietzsche’s position.
So in some way, you changed my life 😀 thanks!
Hi harofld. Thank you for your comment, and I’m very happy to know that you found the article helpful.
Indeed, I identify strongly with what you said about the difficulty in displaying a type of master morality in places where it is often misunderstood. I have to confess I also tend to follow a herd mentality: trying to appease others, being diplomatic and uncontroversial and exercise good judgement, even if that puts me at a disavantage sometimes.
Nevertheless, the research I did for Dogville, placing Stoicism and Nietzsche’s philosophy in a sort of opposition, was at least helpful in making me aware of some of my own limitations.
I don’t think I’ve ever read an article or a review this good. It captures everything that it needs to capture, in terms of dissecting the essense of the movie AND in terms of debating through different philosophies. 100/100. Thank you so much for putting in the effort and time. Remarkable.
Hi Kate. Thank you very much for your very kind words and I’m really glad you enjoyed the article. I’ll definitely do my best to keep publishing these articles as often as I can 😉 Hope to hear from you again soon!
This article was as good as the movie, I really appreciate the time the autor took to write it, as a practitioner Stoic I loved to read a film review that was very well informed. And beyond that it was just so complete and satisfying to read. Thank you, looking forward to read the other articles.
Hi Ztoicfox. Many thanks for the kind words, I’m really happy that you enjoyed the article. It’s comments like yours that really make my day :). Cheers!
Great
Loved the movie but…
I loved the movie, the concept, the aesthetic, the philosophy behind and the acting! All great, my only but, was the camera work, I understand handheld makes total sense with the whole line of the movie but personally it was to pronounce. If it was made more subtle I would have given 5 stars.