ABSTRACT
Cicero and Seneca. He studied them both during his school years at the Collegium Fridericianum and also later as a university professor. However, in his published writings he does not usually refer to specific texts nor does he mention authors by name. As a consequence, in his discussion of Stoic theories it is common to find both textual and systematic inaccuracies (Santozki 2006: 154-8; Seidler 1981: 1-13). Kant seems more interested in using Stoic ideas to develop and define his own position (Schneewind 1996: 292-3). Both Kant and the Stoics ultimately understood philosophical activity as a guide for
living. However, contrary to the Stoic intellectualistic bent, Kant strongly denies that philosophical knowledge provides any help for leading a moral life. The role of philosophy is to provide justifications for the moral principles available at any particular time to ordinary people. The philosopher or the sage is in no better a position to lead a moral life (GMS 4:404). In this chapter our main objective is to offer a number of Stoic interpretative keys so that
we can better understand Kant’s moral philosophy. That Kant was strongly influenced (positively or negatively) by the Stoics is beyond doubt. Unfortunately, only on a few occasions is it possible to trace direct textual links. However, one can identify a number of structural parallelisms between Stoic and Kantian positions. We provide an account of some of the most relevant of these because central concepts of Kantian ethics – such as the good will, virtue, the relationship between duty and happiness, and the role of emotions – gain a more precise definition when considered from a Stoic perspective. Textual references to Stoicism serve this purpose but will not be discussed in detail here.
