The ancient Stoics had serious political disagreements with one another. Modern Stoics are no different.
Consider the issue of how to approach an alleged tyrant.
Do you work with them or oppose them?
Seneca chose to tutor the young Roman emperor Nero. For that, he was labeled tyrannodidaskalos – “tyrant-teacher.” This is the same Nero who killed his mother and was more invested in theater than statesmanship.
In response to Nero’s excesses, other philosophers formed the Stoic Opposition. After a failed assassination plot, many of them were exiled, executed, and ordered to commit suicide.
Who was in the right?
Epictetus offers a stark example:
This Priscus Helvidius, too, saw, and acted accordingly; for when Vespasian had sent to forbid his going to the Senate, he answered,
"It is in your power to prevent my continuing as a senator; but while I am one I must go."
Well, then, at least be silent there."
"Do not ask my opinion and I will be silent."
"But I must ask it."
"And I must speak what appears to me to be right."
"But if you do, I will put you to death."
"When did I ever tell you that I was immortal? You will do your part, and I mine; it is yours to kill, and mine to die intrepid; yours to banish, mine to depart untroubled."
Whether or not you should work with a tyrant depends on what the purpose of your role is. Helvidius Priscus shows what that looks like for the role of Roman senator. Given that Epictetus idolized many in the Stoic opposition, such as Thrasea and Agrippinus, perhaps we can guess his view. But it’s just a guess.
Arguably, one could say that both Seneca and the Stoic Opposition played their roles well. Seneca did his best to steer Nero towards becoming a better man as a tutor. The Stoic Opposition arose out of the necessity caused by Seneca’s failure.
But that may be too positive an evaluation of Seneca. It’s important to remember that our most important role is that of a human. You can’t do something inhuman just because it’s your job or you were commanded to do it. Working with a tyrant always risks becoming too close to the inhuman.
There’s no simple answer to what the Stoics should have done. That’s why it has been debated for centuries. But we can make progress in situations we face by: clarifying what our roles are and doing our best to fulfill them. Even when Stoics disagree, the best strive to choose and play their parts well.
What the Stoics say about Daniel working with Nebedchunezzar (sp?)
I'll disagree with Michael. This essay is relevant because it is focused on our actions in the face of perceived tyranny. It doesn't matter how the media portrays a person. What matters is how we come to judge our impressions of that person and what we do with this judgment.
Additionally, political assassination is never inferred in the article, and Stoicism isn't about controlling one's hatred or harming others, at least not specifically. It's about using reason to act in the best interest of the common good. To determine the right actions, we must look to our roles; however, Caleb reminds us that our roles as humans take precedence over the other roles.