< Back to University Essays and Work
The most recent Marvel movie “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” follows Shuri confronting her grief following her brother’s death, where she attempts to resolve her innately logical approach to grief with that of her traditional roots. This conflict is also observed in Singapore where the Westernised younger generation seems to approach grief differently from the more traditionally Confucian-raised older generation (Lim, 2019). However, are the logical Western philosophies necessarily at odds with the more traditional Eastern philosophies?
This paper aims to first analyse and explain both the Confucian and Stoic approaches to grief. Following which, I would show why they seem to contradict each other. However, by refining the definition of grief and proposing a distinction between “uncontrollable” and “controllable” grief, I would demonstrate that the nuanced understanding of both philosophies actually have consistent attitudes to grief.
At first glance, it seems that Confucius recognises and amplifies the significance of grief when dealing with death. In fact, he seems to condemn those who do not express grief while mourning, especially when he claims that “the forms of mourning observed without grief - these are things I cannot bear to see!” (Analects, 3:26) This is because he believes that there is a relationship between grieving death and the life that has been lived. As Confucius said, “Till you know about the living, how are you to know about the dead?” (Analects, 11:11)
In short, Confucius believes that the intensity and length of grief is related the value of the life that has been lived. When Tsai Yu had claimed that he felt at ease after only one year of mourning for his parents, Confucius claimed “how inhumane Yu is!” (Analects, 17:21) since a true gentleman should mourn for at least three years as per the rituals. He argue this because “a child ceases to be nursed by his parents only when he is three years old”, indicating that the amount or type of grief should be directly informed by the amount of love and virtue that the life had shown. In fact, Confucius repeatedly argues that this sort of grief is the ethically appropriate response to the death of a loved one (Olberding, 2004, p. 297), which goes to show how he believes that the ability to grief is required to living a morally upright life.
Another example of the relationship between grief and the value of life was in Confucius’ response to the death of YanHui, who was a close student of his, and was one of the most exemplary men of the time. Even years after YanHui’s passing, Confucius praised his virtue, temperament, and hunger for learning (Chin, 2007, p. 74), and claims that “there has been no one like him since then” (Analects, 11:6). Unfortunately, YanHui died at a young age of 29 (Confucius, 2009, p. 113).
Upon receiving the news that YanHui, a close student of his, had passed, Confucius exclaimed “How cruel! Heaven is killing me! Heaven is killing me!” (Analects 11:9). Yet, when asked about his uncontrollable weeping, Confucius replied that “if any man’s death could justify abandoned wailing, it would surely be this man’s!” (Analects, 11:10). Given the sage-like status of Confucius, this shows that it is not only acceptable, but also encouraged for someone to grieve as uncontrollably as Confucius did for YanHui. Such a grief is also reserved for someone of virtue like YanHui, which indicates that greater grief is required for people who were of greater virtue. Additionally, YanHui’s premature death could be understood as “tragic insofar as they represent waste” (Olberding, 2004, p. 284). Ultimately, with YanHui’s virtuous excellence, the potential for his “maturation of understanding and the expression of virtue across a full spectrum of possibilities” is lost and taken from him (Olberding, 2004, p. 285).
Regardless, Confucius believed that, at its core, grief is an essential part of dealing with death and its length and intensity should be informed by the value and quality of that person when they were alive. This is especially so when grieving over family, close friends, virtuous people, and premature deaths. In fact, grief is not only acceptable, but is also the morally correct response to such deaths, as expressions of the appreciation of the value of that person when they were alive, and the value that could have been.
Over the years, various stoics have covered the topic of grief at length, arguing why grief is generally to be frowned upon. In particular, this essay would look at Seneca’s letters to Marcia, Marullus, and Polybius, all comforting them after the loss of a loved one. Both Marcia and Marullus had lost their sons at a young age, while Polybius had lost his brother. Similar to the deaths discussed in Confucianism, these premature deaths are of loved family members. Hence, in order to effectively compare Stoicism’s and Confucianism’s approach to grief, it would be useful to understand Seneca’s responses to these circumstances.
Firstly, it is clear that the stoics recognise that grief is pain. Intuitively, many would agree with this. For most, grief is an emotion of pain and emptiness as a response to loss. Seneca described grief as a “state of sadness and wretchedness” (Seneca, 1928, pp. i.7-ii.3) that even time cannot fully heal as evidenced by Marcia’s grief even three years after her son’s death (Seneca, 1928, pp. i.4-7). In fact, grief is compared to a wound, where left unchecked, its “violence” will grow into “inveterate evils” that “must be crushed” (Seneca, 1928, pp. i.7-ii.3). Such strong words used by Seneca only goes to show the negative effects that stoics observe in grief.
The next step in understanding the stoic’s response to grief is acknowledging that since life is a gift from nature, death is a natural reclaiming of a gift that all humans can neither cheat nor avoid. Here, the stoics adopt a realistic position, accepting that “loved objects will surely leave, nay, are already leaving” (Seneca, 1928, pp. x2-6). Additionally, acknowledging that death as a function of nature means that it is irrelevant to debate the length of someone’s lifespan. Ultimately, “the Fates go their way, and neither add anything to what has once been promised, nor subtract from it” (Seneca, 1928, pp. xxi.6-xxii.2). Hence, a stoic is required to accept this immutable nature of death, without expecting any concessions from nature.
Therefore, the stoics believe that grief is built on a logical misconception that we can cheat death and nature. Grieving over a death is to unfairly “complain about what has happened to one man but is in store for all” (Seneca, 1917) and that is a “haughty and overweening presumption [..] to wish that he and his dear ones alone be excepted from this law of Nature that brings all things to their end” (Seneca, 1928, pp. i.1-ii.2). Founded on “insatiable greed”, grief is a “perversity of the human mind” that needs to be avoided (Seneca, 1928, pp. x.5-xi.2).
Given the fact that grief is pain, and is both futile and unvirtuous against the immutable nature of the world, the stoics conclude that “if grief tortures us and does not help us, we ought to lay it aside as soon as possible” (Seneca, 1928, pp. iii.4-iv.1).
It is quite clear why it seems that Confucianism and Stoicism disagree on whether grief is the appropriate response to death. On one hand, Confucianism appears to look beyond the self, prioritising the value of another’s life as a benchmark for the amount of grief we feel. Additionally, the sadness and pain we feel is the morally correct response that demonstrates our appreciation for the life that has passed. On the other hand, Stoicism focuses inwardly using logic, arguing that the pain resulting from grief is unnecessary since it does not affect the natural state of things. Instead, grief reflects greed and selfishness, and hence should be avoided.
However, it must be admitted that there is a loose usage and understanding of the word “grief”, resulting in both philosophies being portrayed much less nuanced than they actually are. Firstly, there is a need to recommit to the naïve dictionary interpretation of grief as sadness in response to the loss of a life (Cambridge Dictionary, 2022). Here, we define grief with a negative connotation, where it necessarily involves emotions that cause pain, often affecting the daily processes of life.
Secondly, there has to be the distinction between the “uncontrollable grief” and the “controllable grief” that one experiences. The “uncontrollable grief” is a reflex emotion in response to learning about the death and tends to be extremely intense. In contrast, a “controllable grief” is a subconscious process where one tends to allow themself to be consumed by sadness even though it is possible for them to overcome those emotions.
Naturally, there isn’t a clear specific threshold at which an “uncontrollable grief” transitions into a “controllable grief” because each individual processes emotions differently and at their own pace. Additionally, it also cannot be proven that one cannot experience both types of grief at the same time. Nevertheless, after reframing the philosophies in terms of these types of griefs, it is clear that they both do exist.
With the new classifications, it is possible to then argue that Confucianism and Stoicism do not actually contradict each other regarding grief. Confucius was more concerned about the “uncontrollable grief”, arguing that embracing such grief is essential, while Seneca had focused on the “controllable grief”, claiming that something that brings pain and could be stopped should be stopped. As this paper reframes each philosophy in terms of these new definitions, it can be seen that both actually adopt the nuanced position of welcoming “uncontrollable grief” but consciously limiting “controllable grief”.
Firstly, Confucius defends “uncontrollable grief”, as can be seen when he defends his response to YanHui’s death. Diving deeper, Confucius’ exclamation of “Heaven is killing me!” was an unprecedented response since he had rarely spoken of heaven (Waley, 2011, p. 154). In addition, his response of “Am I doing so?” when his followers had informed him of his unrestrained wailing has also been interpreted as confusion as a result of the absence of self-awareness in the moment (Olberding, 2004, p. 295). In short, “Confucius has, simply and rather unambiguously, lost his wits” (Olberding, 2004, p. 293). Hence, it is “uncontrollable grief” that overwhelms Confucius, and that he permits us to experience.
Next, Confucius acknowledges and shuns the concept of a “controllable grief”, warning others that “mourning should reach to grief and then stop” (Analects 19:14). The grief he speaks of here is one I would categorise here is a “controllable grief” since it is implied that it is within one’s control to avoid such an emotion (Olberding, 2004, p. 297). It is here that Confucius displays a practical awareness for the life we live, recognising that the grieving process “is not […] the abandonment of one’s well-being to the vicissitudes of a necessarily fragile and changeable world” (Olberding, 2004, p. 297). Instead, Confucianism teaches one to “grieve properly and then gradually get back to your life” (Angle, 2022, p. 182).
Yet, what does it mean to grieve properly? Confucianism promotes rituals as a form of structured processes of mourning to assist in coping with the loss (Angle, 2022, p. 184). Hence, it is also important to differentiate the rituals and grief, even though these concepts are often used interchangeably. The form of rituals that Confucius supports “stems from a complex of values that notably differ from the conditions that give rise to an untutored or blind grief” (Olberding, 2004, p. 297). In other words, although “controllable”, rituals are a sombre appreciation and reflection of life to gain a genuine gratitude for the value of the life that had been lost. Rituals do not involve the sorrow and pain that grief brings, but instead are a practically beneficial set of practices, to “deal with the potentially hazardous emotional and physical responses” through “life-affirming celebration of their life” (Tavor, 2020). Hence, Confucianism offers us rituals as a method to avoid “controllable grief” and its harms.
Seneca recognises the distinction between “controllable” and “uncontrollable” grief, as reflected when he describes that “tears like these fall by a forcing-out process, against our will; but different are the tears which we allow to escape when we muse in memory upon those whom we have lost” (Seneca, 1917). Hence, it is undeniable that this “controllable grief” that “even men are prone to nurse and brood upon” (Seneca, 1928, p. i.1) is an active state of mind that someone can “indulge” in (Seneca, 1917). Naturally, Seneca rejects this grief.
However, this is not to say that the stoics also reject “uncontrollable grief”. Ultimately, Seneca claims that “Nature requires from us some sorrow, while more than this is the result of vanity. But never will I demand of you that you should not grieve at all.” (Seneca, 1928, pp. xviii.4-8) In fact, Seneca also recognises the benefits to allowing “uncontrollable grief” to express itself since “tears fall, no matter how we try to check them, and by being shed they ease the soul” (Seneca, 1917).
Consequently, it should not be mistaken that the stoics reject all aspects of grief, but rather they allow raw expressions of “uncontrollable grief” as long as they do not evolve into the foolish “controllable grief”. To do so, the stoics recommend one to “maintain a mean which will copy neither indifference nor madness” (Seneca, 1928, pp. xviii.4-8). In fact, the virtuous approach to death is similar to that of Confucian rituals, “to behold the burial ceremonies of those near and dear to you with the same expression as you beheld their living forms” (Seneca, 1917). Like rituals, these ceremonies are distinct from grief, and serves to achieve appreciations and respect.
Therefore, at its core, the stoics seem to prioritise the pursuit of virtue of appreciation and love (among others), while recognising “uncontrollable grief” as an unavoidable side effect that should be embraced and “controllable grief” as unnecessary pain that should be avoided.
Therefore, although it seems that Confucianism and Stoicism contradict each other, understanding the negative connotation of grief and the “uncontrollable” and “controllable” versions allows us to understand that both philosophies have differing focuses. On one hand, Confucianism promotes “uncontrollable grief”, personally demonstrating how the value of one’s life can inform the intensity of “uncontrollable grief”. On the other hand, Stoicism rejects the “controllable grief”, arguing that it is informed by mistaken and selfish opinions against the nature of the world, resulting only in unnecessary pain.
Yet, neither philosophy negates the other. Confucianism recognises that “controllable grief” is a state that one should not find themself in, while Stoicism understands the benefits of giving in to “uncontrollable grief”. Ultimately, both philosophies promote technologies and processes that help us not only to find that balance in experiencing the two types of grief, but also to take one step closer to leading a morally virtuous life.
Angle, S. C. (2022). Growing Moral: A Confucian Guide to Life. New York: Oxford Academic. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190062897.001.0001 Cambridge Dictionary. (2022). Meaning of grief in English. Retrieved from Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/grief Chin, A. (2007). The Authentic Confucius: A Life of Thought and Politics. Simon and Schuster. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=d4As4v5ZaG8C&vq=yan+hui&source=gbs_navlinks_s Confucius. (2009). The Confucian Analects, the Great Learning & the Doctrine of the Mean. (J. Legge, Trans.) Cosimo, Inc. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=JiALtt67xicC&source=gbs_navlinks_s Confucius. (1 December, 2021). The Analects of Confucius 論語. (C. A. Muller, Trans.) Retrieved from The Analects of Confucius 論語: http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/analects.html Lim, K. (8 September, 2019). Balloons and online memorials: How a millennial is changing the funeral business. Retrieved from Today Online: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/balloons-and-online-memorials-how-millennial-changing-funeral-business Olberding, A. (July, 2004). The Consummation of Sorrow: An Analysis of Confucius’ Grief for Yan Hui. Philosophy East and West, 54(3), 279-301. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1400099 Seneca, L. A. (1917). Moral Epistles: On Consolation To The Bereaved (Vol. 3). (R. M. Gummere, Trans.) Cambridge: The Loeb Classical Library. Retrieved from https://www.stoics.com/seneca_epistles_book_3.html Seneca, L. A. (1928). Moral Essays: De Consolatione Ad Marciam (Vol. 2). (J. W. Basore, Trans.) London: The Loeb Classical Library. Retrieved from https://www.stoics.com/seneca_essays_book_2.html Seneca, L. A. (1928). Moral Essays: De Consolatione Ad Polybium (Vol. 2). (J. W. Basore, Trans.) London: The Loeb Classical Library. Retrieved from https://www.stoics.com/seneca_essays_book_2.html Tavor, O. (2020). Embodying the Dead: Ritual as Preventative Therapy in. Journal of Ritual Studies, 34(1), 31-42. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/43897962/Embodying_the_Dead_Ritual_as_Preventative_Therapy_in_Chinese_Ancestor_Worship_and_Funerary_Practices Waley, A. (2011). The Analects of Confucius. London: The Arthur Waley Estate. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203715246