Stoicism On Fire

Beyond the Individual: An Interview with Will Johncock – Episode 64

Mon, 03 Apr 2023 04:15:13 GMT

An interview with Will Johncock, author of Beyond the Individual: Stoic Philosophy on Community and Connection.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 21 – Episode 63

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 04:10:06 GMT

Set before your eyes every day death and exile and everything else that looks terrible, especially death. Then you will never have any mean thought or be too keen on anything. (Ench 21) That’s an interesting list: death, exile, and everything else that looks terrible. We can all relate to death and other things that look terrible. However, there is no modern equivalent to Roman exile. To full appreciate the inclusion of exile in this list, we need to understand that exile was a form of capital punishment under Roman law. It was an alternative to the death penalty. Sometimes, a person was allowed to choose exile instead of being put to death. That was considered voluntary exile. In other cases, people were banished and involuntarily removed from Roman territories. Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and Seneca were all exiled at different times. It was not uncommon for philosophers to be exiled because they were often considered a threat to those in power. Why? Because philosophy taught people to think for themselves and have an allegiance to truth instead of political authority. We don’t fear exile today. Those with political power or far-reaching social influence may fear getting canceled in modern times. For some, that may be just as frightening as exile was in ancient times. Nevertheless, I suspect the list of terrible things in Encheiridion 21 would be different if Epictetus were teaching today. He might say: Set before your eyes every day death and social ostracism, pandemics, government lockdowns, inflation, high gas prices, exploding houses costs, recession, the war in Ukraine, mass immigration, mass shootings, high crime, racism, sexism, and everything else that looks terrible, especially death. Then you will never have any mean thought or be too keen on anything. The last sentence of Encheiridion 21 offers two extremes we can avoid if we practice setting death and everything else that looks terrible before our eyes daily. However, the phrase “mean thought” seemed a little vague to me, so I looked at every translation of the Encheiridion I have to see if they would provide some insight. Have any mean thought be too keen on anything A.A. Long Have any abject thought Yearn for anything W.A. Oldfather Harbour any mean thought Desire anything beyond due measure Robin Hard Entertain any abject thought Long for anything excessively Keith Seddon Think of anything mean Desire anything extravagantly George Long Have any abject thought Desire anything to excess Robert Dobbin Do you see the pattern here? In this passage, Epictetus is referring to aversions and desires. This lesson is another, among many, in which Epictetus reminds us that true freedom is internal. Freedom cannot be dependent on externals. When we fear external events and circumstances, we tend to blame others. We blame the other political party, another race of people, the opposite sex, those who have what we think we deserve, those with religious beliefs and lifestyles different from ours, etc. Those aversions tend to create abject and mean thoughts toward others. Likewise, those aversions typically entail excess desires for circumstances to be different. Before anyone concludes that Epictetus is preaching quietism here, look at the language. Epictetus did not instruct his student not to desire a change in circumstances. The English translations tell us not to be too keen on anything, yearn for anything, desire anything beyond measure, desire anything in excess, etc. As Stoics, we should desire and work for change leading toward a virtuous end. However, if your desire for change produces mean and abject thoughts toward those who disagree with you, you are a slave to your passions. You desire something excessively when you allow yourself to hate others you believe are preventing you from attaining it. Lesson 1 So, what is the message of Encheiridion 21? I think we can derive two important lessons from this short passage. The first is pretty obvious. Encheiridion 21 is a reminder to practice Premeditatio Malorum. By contemplating those events and circumstances we consider terrible, we prepare our minds so they will not be overwhelmed should they occur. Seneca wrote about this practice in Letters 24: But what I will do is lead you down a different road to tranquility. If you want to be rid of worry, then fix your mind on whatever it is that you are afraid might happen as a thing that definitely will happen. Whatever bad event that might be, take the measure of it mentally and so assess your fear. You will soon realize that what you fear is either no great matter or not long lasting. Nor do I need to cast about very long for examples to strengthen you with. Every age supplies them. (Letters 24. 2-3) As Seneca wisely noted, every age supplies us with circumstances and events to trouble our minds. However, the Stoic practice of premeditaio malorum helps to keep us on the path of virtue toward true freedom and well-being. Lesson 2 That is the obvious lesson of Encheiridion 21, and if we stop here, we have plenty of opportunity for practice and growth on the path of the Stoic prokopton. However, there’s an equally important lesson here I think we frequently overlook. While the practice of premeditatio malorum has us consider events in the future, its purpose is to prepare our minds for life in the present moment. As Stoicism teaches, the present is all we have, and we do not know how much time we are allotted. As Marcus noted: Remember how long you have been deferring these things, and how many times you have been granted further grace by the gods, and yet have failed to make use of it. But it is now high time that you realized what kind of a universe this is of which you form a part, and from what governor of that universe you exist as an emanation; and that your time here is strictly limited, and, unless you make use of it to clear the fog from your mind, the moment will be gone, as you are gone, and never be yours again. (Meditations 2.4) This passage reminds me of a famous scene from the 1989 movie The Dead Poets Society. The teacher, John Keating, played by Robin Williams, takes his young students into the hallway and has one of them read the opening lines from a poem by Robert Herrick, which reads: Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, Old Time is still a-flying; And this same flower that smiles today Tomorrow will be dying. Keating then informs them the Latin phrase for this sentiment is carpe diem, which means “seize the day.” Keating then tells the class the poet used these lines to remind us that “we are food for worms.” Next, he has the students look into the school’s trophy case, which displays the photos of past sports teams alongside the trophies they won. Listen as Keating delivers a powerful lesson to his students. Audio clip from The Dead Poets Society. [1] Why does Keating want his student to consider their death? He has two goals in mind. He wants to discourage them from waiting until it’s “too late to make from their lives even one iota of what they were capable.” Second, he is attempting to inspire his students to “seize the day” and make their lives extraordinary. Epictetus delivered this same message to his students in a variety of ways. He prodded, coaxed, and occasionally admonished them to abandon their enslaved manner of thinking and living so they could follow the Stoic path toward an extraordinary life. As we will see soon, Seneca counseled his friend Lucilius to do the same. Finally, we see the same throughout the Meditations. That is why Marcus reminded himself in Meditations 2.4 not to defer things but to use what time he has. Later, in book 12, Marcus wrote: In no great while you will be no one and nowhere, and nothing that you now behold will be in existence, nor will anyone now alive. For it is in the nature of all things to change and alter and perish, so that others may arise in their turn. (Meditations 12.21) …the life of every one of us is confined to the present moment and this is all that we have. (Meditations 12.26) Seneca echoed this sentiment when he wrote to Lucilius: I strive to make a day count for a whole lifetime. It’s not that I cling to it as if it were my last—not by any means, and yet I do look at it as if it could actually be my last. (Letters 61.1) Later, in Letters 93, Seneca wrote: What we need to be concerned about is not how long we live but whether we live sufficiently. For a long life, you need the help of fate; but to live sufficiently, the essential thing is one’s character. A life is long if it is full, and it is full only when the mind bestows on itself the goodness that is proper to it, claiming for itself the authority over itself. (Letters 93.2) During my career as a law enforcement officer, I learned first-hand how fleeting life could be. In the final three years of my law enforcement career, I was a traffic homicide investigator. That means that every scene I arrived at involved the death of at least one person. Many fatal crash scenes involved a person simply driving to the store, to work, or a friend’s house, going out for a run, or a bike ride when they were struck and killed by a driver who was impaired or simply not paying attention. None of them could have predicted their life would end that day, but it did. None of us knows when our life will end, and our Stoic practice trains us not to fear death. However, I think we often overlook this equally important lesson as we prepare our minds for death and other terrible events and circumstances. It’s easy to lose sight of why preparation for death is such an important part of philosophy in general and Stoic practice in particular. We keep the specter of our death and other terrible things before our eyes to remind us of two important lessons. First,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A Conscious Cosmos – Episode 62

Wed, 20 Apr 2022 04:01:39 GMT

The doctrine that the world is a living being, rational, animate and intelligent, is laid down by Chrysippus in the first book of his treatise On Providence, by Apollodorus in his Physics, and by Posidonius… And it is endowed with soul, as is clear from our several souls being each a fragment of it. (DL 7.142-3)[1] Some people think the idea of a conscious cosmos is an antiquated relic of ancient Stoicism that we must abandon in light of modern science. However, numerous modern scientists and philosophers describe the nature of the cosmos in ways that are compatible with the intuitions of the ancient Stoics. Some now suggest consciousness must be a fundamental aspect of the cosmos and refer to a mind-like background in the universe. A few boldly claim the universe is conscious, just as the Stoic did more than two thousand years ago. Modern thinkers frequently label this idea panpsychism, which entails consciousness as a fundamental aspect of the cosmos. When we consider a concept like a conscious cosmos and relate it to ancient Stoicism, we first must acknowledge that the Greeks did not have a word for conscious. The word first appears in English in the seventeenth century. Next, we must admit that many definitions of consciousness exist today. The ancient Stoics argued the cosmos is a living being (organism) that is rational, animate, and intelligent. I cannot imagine an entity that meets all those criteria we would deny is conscious. Instead of a conscious cosmos, we could say a rational, animate, and intelligent cosmos; however, that will not appease those who believe the universe is mechanistic, reductive to matter, and governed by laws that just happen, accidentally, to be conducive to life as we know it here on Earth. Therefore, the term conscious serves quite well as a substitute for a living being (organism) that is rational, animate, and intelligent. The ancient Stoics considered their unique conception of a conscious, providentially ordered cosmos a necessary element of their holistic philosophical system. They did so for good reasons. Today, Traditional Stoics think this conception of the cosmos is still viable. First, despite the objections offered by those who adhere to the metaphysical assumptions of the current scientific orthodoxy, there is no objective scientific reason to abandon the conscious cosmos of Stoicism. More importantly, Stoic practice relies on the essential relationship between the way the world is (physics) and the way we should act in the world (ethics). Chrysippus, the third head of the Stoa, argued that universal nature is the source of our knowledge of virtue, good and evil, and happiness. Further, according to Plutarch, Chrysippus asserted, “physical theory turns out to be ‘at once before and behind’ ethics.”[2] As I have written before, the conscious and providential cosmos is the soul of the Stoic philosophical system. Speaking of soul, the ancient Stoics believed the cosmos has a soul, and it is God. As Plutarch notes: In his On providence book 1 [Chrysippus] says: ‘When the world is fiery through and through, it is directly both its own soul and commanding-faculty.[3] Unfortunately, many people recoil, almost reflexively, from the concept of a conscious cosmos because it entails some form of intelligence that preexists human consciousness. They mistakenly assume such a concept necessarily invokes a supernatural divinity akin to those of traditional monotheistic religions. Likewise, many people are unaware of the increasing number of scientists and thinkers breaking out of the pre-twentieth-century, mechanistic, materialist, reductionist box and arguing that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality. I will highlight a few of those thinkers shortly. Consciousness was ignored by the mainstream hard sciences, including psychology, at the beginning of the twentieth century. Science could not explain consciousness via reductive materialism; therefore, they either ignored or explained it away as an illusion or epiphenomenon. They promoted the simplistic notion that the mind is what the brain does. Behaviorist psychology, a product of Logical Positivism, ignored the person's internal experience (consciousness) and treated the human mind as a black box. Behavior was quantifiable and could be subjected to the scientific method. Consciousness, on the other hand, was a metaphysical mystery. Quantum theory challenged the objective observer model of science at its foundation by discovering that consciousness interacts with the physical world. As a result, during the twentieth century, an ever-increasing number of scientists and thinkers began to give due consideration to the nature and role of consciousness. Many have suggested that consciousness, in some form, must be a fundamental property of reality. Interestingly, some are beginning to describe the essential nature of the cosmos in ways that sound remarkably like the intuitions of ancient thinkers such as Plato and the Stoics. Lothar Schafer, a physical chemist, points out several modern thinkers who think it is reasonable to infer consciousness to the cosmos. Here is an extended quote from his recent book: However you look at the matter, it seems reasonable to think that the human mind isn’t self-contained or self-sustained, but connected with a mindlike wholeness. “We can ‘infer’” Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau suggest, “that human consciousness ‘partakes’ or ‘participates in’ the conscious universe. As I have made sure to emphasize, science can’t prove that the universe is conscious. At the same time, the numerous suggestions by serious scientists, including Bohm, Dürr, Eddington, Fischbeck, Jeans, Kafatos, Lipton, Nadeau, and me, that a cosmic spirit exists can’t all be shrugged off as signs of dementia in these authors. It makes more sense to conclude, as psychiatrist Brian Lancaster has done, that “consciousness amounts to a fundamental property, irreducible to other features of the universe such as energy or matter.”[4] Likewise, the renowned American philosopher Thomas Nagel provoked a heated exchange about consciousness in 2012 when he challenged the core of the “neo-Darwinian conception of nature” in his book Mind & Cosmos. In one passage, Nagel speculated about the connection between human nature and the cosmos as a whole. His position is remarkably similar to the Stoic conception of that relationship. He wrote: We ourselves are large-scale, complex instances of something both objectively physical from outside and subjectively mental from inside. Perhaps the basis for this identity pervades the world.[5] The Stoics agree with Nagel. Reason (logos), which permeates the cosmos, is the basis for our identity as humans. The idea that rationality existed in the cosmos before human rationality plays a central role in Stoic theory. As Pierre Hadot notes: all the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[6] Arthur Eddington, an astrophysicist, was a little more direct than Thomas Nagel in the 1930s when he wrote: To put the conclusion crudely—the stuff of the world is mind-stuff… The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds; but we may think of its nature as not altogether foreign to the feelings in our consciousness… Consciousness is not sharply defined, but fades into subconsciousness; and beyond that we must postulate something indefinite but yet continuous with our mental nature. This I take to be the world-stuff.[7] Eddington admits, “It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character.” Nevertheless, as he points out, “no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference—inference either intuitive or deliberate.”[8] Furthermore, he asserts. We have seen that the cyclic scheme of physics presupposes a background outside the scope of its investigations. In this background we must find, first, our own personality, and then perhaps a greater personality. The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory; at least it is in harmony with it.[9] It is fascinating to see a physicist use a phrase like universal Mind and the word logos. Bernard Haish, another astrophysicist, agrees. He wrote: I am proposing that an equally likely—and perhaps even slightly more likely—explanation is that there is a conscious intelligence behind the universe, and that the purpose of the universe and of our human lives is very intimately involved with that intelligence.[10] These are not the ramblings of crackpot pseudo-scientists. As Paul Davies, another physicist points out: An increasing number of scientists and writers have come to realize that the ability of the physical world to organize itself constitutes a fundamental, and deeply mysterious, property of the universe. The fact that nature has creative power, and is able to produce a progressively richer variety of complex forms and structures, challenges the very foundation of contemporary science.[11] In his book, The Goldilocks Enigma, Davies argues, Intelligent design of the laws does not conflict with science because it accepts that the whole universe runs itself according to physical laws and that everything that happens in the universe has a natural explanation. There are no miracles other than the miracle of nature itself. You don’t even need a miracle to bring the universe into existence in the first place because the big bang may be brought within the scope of physical laws too,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 20 – Episode 61

Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:01:04 GMT

Keep in mind that what injures you is not people who are rude or aggressive but your opinion that they are injuring you. So whenever someone provokes you, be aware that the provocation really comes from your own judgment. Start, then, by trying not to get carried away by the impression. Once you pause and give yourself time, you will more easily control yourself. (Ench 20) Full transcript coming soon.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Remembering Dirk Mahling – Episode 60

Wed, 23 Mar 2022 02:00:45 GMT

Let your every action, word, and thought be those of one who could depart from life at any moment. (Meditations 2.11) I cannot find a more fitting passage to describe the last few months of Dirk Mahling's life. Dirk departed from this life last Friday after a hard-fought battle with cancer. He was the President of New Stoa, a tutor, and mentor to many students at the College of Stoic Philosophers since 2016. Additionally, Dirk is one of several people who worked hard to keep the College alive when the founding Scholarch retired last year. He was bright, humorous, courageous, and a dedicated Stoic who was full of life to the end. Dirk was a friend, a colleague, and, more than anyone I know personally, an example of what it means to face death as a Stoic. Dirk told me about his terminal cancer diagnosis last August when I returned to the College of Stoic Philosophers after a long sabbatical. At that time, he thought he might have as many as two years left. He told me his challenge was figuring out how to live the rest of his life in that time. He didn’t appear sick in August; he looked like the Dirk I had known since 2015 when I mentored him through the Stoic Essential Studies course. I mentored many students at the college, but only a handful stand out in my memory. Dirk was undoubtedly one of those. When I returned to the College last year to discover he was the President of New Stoa, I teased him about being one of my most challenging students. He was bright and questioned everything. I enjoyed the challenge, and we had a great time together in the course. Dirk’s sense of humor was unbounded. His essay responses to lessons almost always included comics, memes, and humorous comments. In the Ethics lesson, he included a photo of Oikos yogurt with his essay response about the Stoic doctrine of oikeiosis. His answer to the question, “How do we become cosmopolitan?” was, “by reading Cosmo…” and he inserted a picture of a Cosmopolitan magazine cover. Yes, he also provided a correct answer. That was Dirk’s way of keeping Stoic philosophy fun and lite. He also included a comic with particular meaning as we consider Dirk’s life and death as a Stoic. The comic depicts two men in togas standing next to a grave. The headstone reads, “R.I.P. Zeno the philosopher—dead, but so what? The quote from one of the two characters underneath the comic reads, “He was a Stoic’s Stoic.” Dirk knew his end was near, but I certainly did not predict it was so close based on his behavior. He remained active at the College until the end and recently volunteered to mentor two students through the next term of the Marcus Aurelius Program beginning April 1st. He even joined the College faculty on our monthly Zoom conference call five days before he passed. Dirk was on oxygen during the meeting and told us he needed it because he gets short of breath when he talks. Dirk dedicated himself to the College’s mission of teaching students about Stoicism, and he remained at his post until the Captain called. To me, it appeared Dirk was living the practice of memento mori. Like Marcus Aurelius, Dirk did not fear death. Marcus wrote: In human life, the time of our existence is a point, our substance a flux, our senses dull, the fabric of our entire body subject to corruption, our soul ever restless, our destiny beyond divining, and our fame precarious. In a word, all that belongs to the body is a stream in flow, all that belongs to the soul, mere dream and delusion, and our life is a war, a brief stay in a foreign land, and our fame thereafter, oblivion. So what can serve as our escort and guide? One thing and one alone, philosophy; and that consists in keeping the guardian-spirit within us inviolate and free from harm, and ever superior to pleasure and pain, and ensuring that it does nothing at random and nothing with false intent or pretence, and that it is not dependent on another’s doing or not doing some particular thing, and furthermore that it welcomes whatever happens to it and is allotted to it, as issuing from the source from which it too took its origin, and above all, that it awaits death with a cheerful mind as being nothing other than the releasing of the elements from which every living creature is compounded. Now if for the elements themselves it is nothing terrible to be constantly changing from one to another, why should we fear the change and dissolution of them all? For this is in accordance with nature: and nothing can be bad that accords with nature. (Meditations 2.17) Dirk was still in his late prime and could have been bitter about his circumstances. He could have complained that his life was not long enough. He did not. As Seneca wrote: Most of mankind, Paulinus, complains about nature’s meanness, because our allotted span of life is so short, and because this stretch of time that is given to us runs its course so quickly, so rapidly—so much so that, with very few exceptions, life leaves the rest of us in the lurch just when we’re getting ready to live. And it’s not just the masses and the unthinking crowd that complain at what they perceive as this universal evil; the same feeling draws complaints even from men of distinction. (On the Shortness of Life 1.1) One paragraph later, Seneca wrote: It’s not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it’s been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested. But when life is squandered through soft and careless living, and when it’s spent on no worthwhile pursuit, death finally presses and we realize that the life which we didn’t notice passing has passed away. (On the Shortness of Life 1.3). From what I know of Dirk’s life, he did not squander it. He lived life to the fullest until the very end. Pierre Hadot wrote, In the apprenticeship of death, the Stoic discovers the apprenticeship of freedom.[1] I believe Dirk found that freedom as he faced the end of his life. His example proved it to me. I am grateful to Dirk for all he contributed to the College of Stoic Philosophers. His presence will be greatly missed there. However, I am far more thankful for the example he provided for me. He gave me the opportunity to see how a Stoic should face death. Yes, I’ve read all the passages in the Stoic texts related to death, and they are powerful and convincing. However, nothing in those texts was as compelling and poignant as watching a friend and fellow Stoic courageously face death as Dirk did. The manner with which he faced death is a gift to anyone who witnessed it. Yesterday, I wrote a note to Erik Wiegardt, the founding Scholarch of the College of Stoic Philosophers, to let him know Dirk had passed away. He responded in his typically thoughtful and profound manner. He wrote: Now Dirk knows the answer to that greatest of philosophical questions. He’s right. Dirk learned what we the living cannot know: what happens when we die. Marcus spent a lot of time contemplating death. He wrote: Indeed, the very life of every one of us is like an exhalation from our blood or inhalation from the atmosphere; for such as it is to draw a breath of air into your lungs and then surrender it, so it is to surrender your power of respiration as a whole, which you acquired but yesterday or the day before at the time of your birth, and are now surrendering to the source from which you first drew it. (Meditations 6.15) I think Marcus’ answer here and in Meditations 4.23 provides Stoics with all we can and need to know about death—we return to our source. Since our soul is a fragment of the logos that permeates the cosmos, it will return to its source. In what form or capacity? No one knows. However, we will all discover the answer in the end. In the meantime, life goes on for us and provides us with the opportunity to contribute a verse, as Walt Whitman famously wrote.[2] Dirk certainly did contribute a verse—to his family, the College, the lives of students he touched there, and those of us who had the privilege of knowing him. Regardless of what happens to us at death, I believe Dirk’s parting message to us would be similar to that of Epictetus: You must wait for God, my friends. When he gives the signal and sets you free from your service here, then you may depart to him. But for the present, you must resign yourselves to remaining in this post in which he has stationed you. (Discourses 1.9.16) I believe that is what Dirk would say to us because that is how he lived until the end. He courageously remained at his post until the Captain called, and it was time for him to depart. By doing so, he gave us a wonderful example of a Stoic life lived well. I can confidently say that Dirk Mahling lived life and faced death as a prokopton whose practice of Stoicism was genuinely on Fire. Dirk, your legacy lives on in the lives you touched. Farewell, my friend. ENDNOTES: [1] Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, ed. Arnold Ira Davidson (New York: Blackwell, 1995), p. 96 [2] Whitman, W. (1892) Oh me! Oh Life! in Leaves of Grass

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 19 – Episode 59

Wed, 09 Mar 2022 05:01:37 GMT

You can always win if you only enter competitions where winning is up to you. When you see someone honored ahead of you or holding great power or being highly esteemed in another way, be careful never to be carried away by the impression and judge the person to be happy. For if the essence of goodness consists in things that are up to us, there is room for neither envy nor jealousy, and you yourself will not want to be a praetor or a senator or a consul, but to be free. The only way to achieve this is by despising the things that are not up to us. (Ench 19) If anyone thought jealousy and envy of others is a modern phenomenon, Epictetus clarifies that these destructive emotions are not new. They are exacerbated by modern technologies, which provide a constant stream of social media posts with people showing off expensive clothes, jewelry, cars, houses, vacations, announcing their promotions, and displaying their bodies for the world to see. Social media turned “keeping up with the Joneses” into “keeping up with the Kardashians.” Most modern societies teach us these externals are associated with happiness. Indeed, we are inclined to think the lives of these rich, famous, beautiful people must be filled with happiness. The Stoics make it clear possession of these externals does not ensure happiness. We don’t need to rely on the Stoic conception of happiness to destroy this myth. Hollywood provides us with a constant stream of tragic stories about the lives of the rich and famous. Sadly, most people spend their lives chasing happiness in things that are not up to us. While the acquisition of externals almost always does provide an immediate feeling of happiness, it is always short-lived because this form of happiness is not the state of well-being offered by Stoicism. In this chapter of Encheiridion, Epictetus offers another serving of his consistent message: if we focus our attention on those things that are up to us—our faculties of judgment, motivation, desire, and aversion—we will avoid the pathological emotions that cripple the masses of people and make progress toward true well-being. Like I have said before, understanding the distinction between what is up to us and not up to us is quite simple. However, putting that understanding into practice consistently is extremely difficult. To make progress toward a virtuous character and its accompanying well-being, we must keep our attention (prosoche) on what is up to us our faculties of judgment, motivation, desire, and aversion—and despise everything else. This is the crux of Stoic practice. Does that mean we should despise my spouse, children, job, community, body, etc. since they all fall into the category of externals that are not up to us? No! It means we must despise our judgment of those externals as “good” because none of those externals will bring us the well-being we seek. We cannot remove externals from our lives. Even if we were to remove ourselves from the jealousy and envy of others by moving to a deserted island, without any channel of communication with others, we would still encounter externals like weather, animals, snakes, bugs, hunger, thirst, etc. We cannot escape externals, and we should not try. Externals provide us with the grist for the mill that develops our character. What would wisdom, moderation, courage, and justice mean apart from externals? So, what should we do when faced with the impression of someone we know who has a possession commonly judged as “good”? Especially when we may be inclined to think they didn’t earn it? What should we do when someone else gets the promotion instead of us, and we believe they are less worthy? Before jealousy and envy take hold of our psyche, we need to perform that three-step process on these impressions I highlighted in Episodes 9 and 37: Stop It Strip It Bare See It from the Cosmic Viewpoint If you don’t recall the details of that process, I recommend you go back and listen to Episodes 9 and 37 again. Additionally, regarding jealousy and envy of others who possess externals or receive honors we might be inclined to desire, we have to keep the lesson of Encheiridion 17 in mind. It is not up to us to determine the role assigned to us or others. Maybe the cosmos gave that beautiful person that role to play. That’s their role, not yours. Perhaps the cosmos assigned the role of a wealthy person to that billionaire. Again, that’s their role, not yours. Maybe the cosmos intended that person to hold a position of honor, power, and prestige in your company, community, or nation. That is their role, not yours. Remember what Marcus wrote: But perhaps you are discontented with what is allotted to you from the whole? Then call to mind the alternative, ‘either providence or atoms’ and all the proofs that the universe should be regarded as a kind of constitutional state. (Meditations 4.3) Likewise, remember what we learned from Encheiridion 15. If the cosmos brings wealth, fame, power, prestige to you, reach out and take a portion. However, don’t allow your appetite (desire) for those externals to run ahead, and don’t attempt to stop the server if he passes by you. Remember that delicious-looking chocolate cake from the lesson on Encheiridion 15? In this lesson, Epictetus is taking it a step further. He is instructing us not to be jealous or envious of the person who does get a piece of that delicious-looking chocolate cake we talked about in that lesson. Steven Covey's Story – Wrong Ladder We make a grave mistake when we associate the possession of externals, of any kind, with happiness. The Stoics are quite clear that true well-being can only be found in what is up to us, and the only thing that is entirely up to us is the development of our moral character. The only way to be truly free from the pathology of destructive emotions is to despise our judgments of externals as “goods” and focus our attention on our faculties of judgment, motivation, desire, and aversion. Then, we will be climbing the ladder of moral excellence toward true freedom and well-being.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 18 – Episode 58

Wed, 02 Mar 2022 05:15:37 GMT

Whenever a raven croaks ominously, don’t let the impression carry you away, but straightaway discriminate within yourself, and say: “None of this is a warning to me; it only concerns my feeble body or my tiny estate or my paltry reputation or my children or my wife. But to myself all predictions are favorable if I wish them to be, since it is up to me to benefit from the outcome, whatever it may be.” (Ench 18) In ancient Greece and Rome, a raven was thought to be a messenger of the God Apollo, and the croaking of a raven was typically considered a sign of future bad luck. We moderns are likely to dismiss this kind of divination without further consideration. However, the Stoic’s conception of the cosmos inspired them to give serious consideration to the connection between signs and events. As professor Dorothea Frede wrote in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics: The uniform nature of the active and passive powers within the cosmic order also explains why there is, in contradistinction to Plato and Aristotle, no separation in Stoicism of the super- and the sub-lunary world. The heavenly motions are ruled by the same principles that operate on earth: All of nature is administered by the supreme divine reason, and hence there is a global teleological determinism that the Stoics identified with fate. The omnipotence of the active principle explains the Stoic conception of an overall sumpatheia within nature, an inner connection between seemingly quite disparate events. Divination, the study of divine signs and portents, is therefore treated as a science in Stoicism rather than as superstition. Careful observation leads to the discovery of certain signs of those interconnections, even if human knowledge does not fully comprehend the rationale behind the observable order of all things. This explains why the Stoics not only supported the traditional practices of divination, but also helped establish astrology as a respectable science in the Greek and Roman world.[1] I’m not going to spend much time on divination in this episode because that is not the point of this lesson. Nevertheless, it’s important to understand the role it played in the founding of Stoicism. In the opening chapter of their book Being Better: Stoicism for a World Worth Living In, Kai Whiting and Leonidas Konstantakos do a wonderful job telling the story of Zeno’s calling to the life of a philosopher. They note that after being shipwrecked, Zeno was destitute and wondered what would become of his life. They continue: so he set off on a two-hundred-mile round trip to seek guidance from the Oracle of Delphi — the priestess of the Greek god Apollo — who was respected and revered all over Greece for her divinations. Even kings would travel for days to seek her counsel, and while today it might seem ridiculous to heed the utterings of a young woman in a trancelike state, a trip to Delphi was taken very seriously indeed. Every meeting was an involved process that had more in common with South American ayahuasca rituals than, say, visiting a clairvoyant. The Oracle required visitors to prepare in both body and mind, and as with ayahuasca ceremonies, those seeking answers at the Temple at Delphi had to adhere to strict rules in order to approach the ritual with reverence, respect, and sincerity. You couldn’t just rock up to the Oracle, hand over some coins, and demand that she saw you. Nobody could sit in the Oracle’s presence until they had properly considered the dangers of misinterpreting her advice and also understood and pledged to abide by the three maxims of self-discovery: “know yourself,” “nothing to excess,” and “surety brings ruin.” Wisdom seekers were told to listen carefully to what she said in relation to their strengths, weaknesses, personal quirks, and the specific roles they played in the wider world (as, say, a daughter, mother, Spartan queen). Zeno kept all this in mind as he told the Oracle the story of his shipwreck, and she advised him to “take on the pallor of the dead.” On his return journey home, Zeno weighed her cryptic words carefully because it was imperative that he interpret them well. What could they possibly mean? As Zeno approached Athens’ city gate, it occurred to him that, above all, he must commit to pursuing the ancient wisdom that had been passed down by venerated, and now long-dead, philosophers. He promised himself that he would reexamine the kinds of philosophical texts his own father had read to him while still a boy. In particular, he was determined to get hold of the ones that spoke about the “good life”; that is to say, a life worth living, not just one that is (or will ever be) easy, comfortable, or pleasant. In line with the Oracle’s prophecy, at the precise moment when Zeno was reading about Socrates, who Greek philosophers considered the wisest man to have ever lived, another well-known philosopher, Crates of Thebes, happened to stroll by. The two struck up a conversation, Crates agreed to mentor Zeno, and so began Zeno’s journey toward eudaimonia.[2] Within this story, we see Zeno turn the tragedy of a shipwreck and financial poverty into a new life by seeking the wisdom of the cosmos and then paying attention to the signs Nature provided. What happened for Zeno in that bookseller’s store was a synchronicity—it was more than coincidence, and Zeno knew it. That is why he paid attention to the sign and followed Crates. By following Nature, he changed his life and the lives of many others since who have chosen to follow the Stoic path he blazed. In Encheiridion 18, Epictetus tells his students why signs, no matter their source, cannot negatively affect them. Whether they appear good or bad, all signs concern externals that have no bearing on our moral character and well-being. Imagine being told to take on the pallor of the dead. Zeno certainly could have interpreted that as a foreboding message from the Oracle. Instead, he considered it thoroughly and waited until the cosmos made its meaning clear to him. No Oracle has not been present at Delphi for more than fifteen hundred years, and no one listening to this podcast is likely to be disturbed by the croaking of a raven. However, what about the croaking of a modern weatherperson, financial analyst, news anchor, or political talk show host? If Epictetus were delivering this lesson today, he might dissuade us from being concerned about: The croaks of the weatherperson about the coming hurricane or blizzard. The croaks of the financial analyst about the coming stock market crash The croaks of the political candidate about the foreboding social and economic implications of their opponent winning the election. The croaks of the news anchor about riots in the streets or the war abroad The croaks of the talk show host who tells us to fear those who disagree with us politically. The raven takes a different form for us today, but the result is the same if we allow the croaks of these modern messengers to convince us something bad is coming. If we allow the croaks of messengers to inspire inappropriate action or to discourage us from appropriate action, we harm ourselves. Does that mean we should ignore the predictions of the weatherperson, financial analyst, news anchor, etc.? No! It does mean we must remember those predictions, whether they be optimistic or ominous, apply to externals—indifferents that cannot touch our soul. Epictetus discouraged his students from misusing divination in Discourses 2.7: Because we resort to divination on the wrong occasions, many of us fail to carry out many appropriate actions, for what is a diviner able to see that extends beyond death, danger, or illness, or, in general, things of that kind? If one should be obliged, then, to run a risk on behalf of a friend, or if it is appropriate for me even to die for him, what occasion is left for me to resort to divination? Don’t I have a diviner within me who has taught me the true nature of good and bad, and can interpret the signs that indicate the one and the other? So what further need do I have of entrails or birds? And if a diviner says to me, ‘That is what will be of benefit to you,’ will I put up with it? Why, does he know what is beneficial? Does he know what is good? In learning to read the signs in the entrails, has he also learned the signs that are indicative of good and bad? For if he has knowledge of those, he also knows those that indicate what is right or wrong, and what is just or unjust. Man, it is your part to tell me whether the signs point to life or death, riches or penury; but to know whether these would be beneficial or harmful, is it really you whom I should be consulting? Why is it that you don’t speak out on points of grammar? And yet you do speak out on those matters on which all of us go astray and can never reach agreement? It was thus an excellent reply that the woman made when she wanted to send a boatload of provisions to the exiled Gratilla; for when someone said to her, ‘Domitian will merely confiscate them,’ she replied, ‘Better that he should take them away than that I should fail to send them.’ (Discourses 2.7.1-8) What is the lesson here? Appropriate actions are not guaranteed to succeed. The intention to act is the measure of appropriateness because the success of the action is not up to us. In his commentary, Simplicius offers a breakdown of Epictetus’ formula, and Keith Seddon makes it even more approachable.[3] The argument goes like this: (1) It is in your power never to desire or seek to avoid external things; (2) If you neither desire nor seek to avoid external things, you cannot be defeated (hêttaomai); (3) If you are not defeated, you cannot be in a bad situation; (4) If you are not in a bad situation, then nothing is a sign of something bad for you; (5) Therefore it is in your power to bring it about that nothing is a sign of something bad for you. This five-step argument,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 17 – Episode 57

Wed, 23 Feb 2022 05:15:03 GMT

Keep in mind that you are an actor in a play that is just the way the producer wants it to be. It is short, if that is his wish, or long, if he wants it long. If he wants you to act the part of a beggar, see that you play it skillfully; and similarly if the part is to be a cripple, or an official, or a private person. Your job is to put on a splendid performance of the role you have been given, but selecting the role is the job of someone else. (Ench 17) This chapter runs counter to most modern western thinking. I’m an actor in a play, with an assigned role? No way! “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.”[1] Of course, we are the masters of our fate and captains of our souls; however, not in the way most people typically interpret those famous lines from Invictus. We want to believe we control the externals that determine our fate. We want to believe: If we obtain adequate education and embark on a promising career, we will experience financial prosperity. If we invest properly, we can ensure our financial security for retirement. If we pick the right mate, we will be romantically fulfilled and happy. If we have a nutritious diet, exercise, and get adequate rest, we will be healthy. Etc, etc. Most people hold onto idealistic beliefs like these into their early adult life. However, as time passes, life happens. Events occur that make it quite clear we are not in complete control of our destiny. Technology replaces the knowledge and skills we acquired in college and developed during a career. Stock markets and housing markets crash. Deadly pandemics sweep the world. Car crashes, street violence, war, and disease unexpectedly take loved ones away from us. Spouses leave us for others or fall short of our expectations. Etc, etc. With age, we learn we are not in complete control of the events in our life. Sadly, those hard lessons can make us bitter and pessimistic about life, and we end up frustrated, pained, and troubled, and we find fault with gods and men (Encheiridion 1). So, what is the answer? Are we supposed to stop trying to make our lives and the world better? No! Absolutely not! As I have said before, Stoicism does not teach quietism. However, Encheiridion 17 does teach us to accept that we are not in complete control of events that shape our lives. We choose how well we play our part; however, we do not get to pick the role. Numerous externals constrain us, and our failure to understand and accept that truth leads to psychological distress. The popular idea that we can be anything we want to be, limited only by our will and effort to achieve our dreams, is a fantasy. It is a lie perpetuated by people who want life to be fair from the human perspective. However, life is not fair in that sense. Human talents are not distributed equally at birth. The socio-economic and political environments people are born into, differ significantly between nations, cities, communities, and families. Whether our role is that of a beggar, cripple, official, or private person is primarily determined by many factors outside our control. External factors limit us to a far greater degree than we want to admit. Therefore, if we measure the value of our existence by externals, life will never be fair. Genius is frequently overlooked, and ignorance is often exalted. Morally corrupt individuals make it into high office, and those with good character frequently struggle to get elected to a school board. Cheaters regularly win. Lawbreakers repeatedly get away with their crimes. Hard workers sometimes end up destitute, and lazy people win the lottery occasionally. That is why Stoicism teaches us another way to evaluate our existence. From the perspective of Stoicism, life is fair and perfectly egalitarian. Those born into poverty have an equal opportunity to develop an excellent character and experience well-being as those born into wealth. Likewise, physical infirmities are not moral disabilities. Your circumstances do not dictate your character; your choices do. Were you born into poverty? Choose to put on a splendid performance. Your circumstance may or may not change, but your character will improve. Do you have a physical infirmity that limits you? Choose to put on a splendid performance. Your circumstance may or may not change, but your character will improve. Are you in an official position that grants you power over people? Choose to put on a splendid performance. Your circumstance may or may not change, but your character will improve. Are you a middle-class citizen with a job, house, spouse, and children? Choose to put on a splendid performance. Your circumstance may or may not change, but your character will improve. A good character shines through no matter the role we are assigned to play. Our life circumstances determine our part, but they do not determine our character. We cannot predict if or when our circumstances will change; however, we can experience well-being in any role if we develop our moral character. Epictetus used this play metaphor in another Discourse where he makes the important distinction between the person or self and the role they are playing. The time will soon be coming when the actors think that their masks, and high boots, and robes are their very selves. Man, you have all of that only as your subject matter, your task. Speak out so that we may know whether you’re a tragic actor or a buffoon; for in other respects, both are just alike. Thus, if one deprives a tragic actor of his high boots and mask, and brings him on the stage like a ghost, has the actor disappeared or does he remain? If he has his voice, he remains. So also in life. ‘Take a governorship.’ I take it, and in doing so, show how a properly educated man conducts himself. ‘Take off your senatorial robe, dress in rags, and step forward in that role.’ What, then, hasn’t it been granted to me to display a fine voice? ‘In what role, then, are you coming on the stage now?’ As a witness summoned by God… (Discourses 1.2.41-47) A.A. Long offers the following in his commentary on this passage: Epictetus buys into the concept of performance, but he inverts its ideological conventions by proposing that every role persons find themselves occupying is equally apt as the setting for them to distinguish themselves. Thus, in the second excerpt above, the stage costume corresponds to external contingencies and the voice to the authentic self. The point is then: what reveals persons is not their appearance and the station in life they happen to occupy (their dramatic plot, as it were) but entirely how they perform and speak in these roles.[2] An excellent character is achievable regardless of our circumstances. That is the power of Stoicism. The circumstances of Epictetus, a slave, and Marcus Aurelius, a Roman Emperor, could hardly have been any more different. Neither deserved the role they were assigned, and we could question the fairness of a society that allowed for either role. Nevertheless, both had equal access to an excellent character and well-being. Likewise, both put on a splendid performance in the role the cosmos assigned to them. We hold both up as exemplars today because they played their parts splendidly. What is your part in the play of your life? Are you dissatisfied with your role? Would you rather have the lead role instead of being the supporting cast? Encheiridion 17 teaches us that it is not our choice. Our choice is to play the part we are presently in splendidly. The role may change in time; it may not. That is not up to us. Recall the words of Marcus: But perhaps you are discontented with what is allotted to you from the whole? Then call to mind the alternative, ‘either providence or atoms’ and all the proofs that the universe should be regarded as a kind of constitutional state. Or is it perhaps that bodily things still have a hold on you? Reflect that the mind, as soon as it draws in on itself and comes to know its own power, no longer associates itself with the motions, be they rough or smooth, of the breath; and think too of all that you have heard, and have assented to, with regard to pleasure and pain. Or is it a petty desire for fame that draws you from your path? Consider, then, how swiftly all things fall prey to oblivion, and the abyss of boundless time that stretches in front of you and behind you, and the hollowness of renown, and the fickleness and fatuousness of those who make a show of praising you, and the narrowness of the confines in which this comes to pass; for the earth in its entirety is merely a point in space, and how very small is this corner of it in which we have our dwelling; and even here how few there will be, and of what a nature, to sing your praises. (Meditations 4.3) Again, Stoicism is not quietism. Stoic prokoptons are not to sit idly by as injustice prevails. Our role may be to combat injustice. However, every effort we make to change the external circumstances of our life or the lives of others must be undertaken with a reserve clause in mind. We can only control our choice to act; we do not control the outcome. The appropriate action for Stoics is to play our role splendidly and then wish for things to happen as they actually do (Encheiridion 8). In another powerful passage, Epictetus provides us a glimpse of the calm mind and strength of character that comes from accepting all events as they happen and living the role the cosmos assigns us. When someone has come to understand these things, what is to prevent him from living with a light heart and easy mind, calmly awaiting whatever may happen, and putting up with what has already happened. Is it your wish that I should be poor? Bring it on, then, and you’ll see what poverty is when it finds a good actor to play the part. Is it your wish that I should hold office? Bring it on.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Modern Stoic Fallacy #1 – Episode 56

Wed, 16 Feb 2022 08:15:48 GMT

The Missing Evidence is Evidence I recently decided to start covering Modern Stoic Fallacies periodically. I have been combatting some of these fallacies for years on Facebook, in my blog, and on my podcast. However, I typically only mention them briefly and haven’t provided much analysis. All of these fallacies have the same goal: to justify removing Stoic physics from the holistic system the ancient Stoics created to make Stoicism compatible with agnosticism and atheism. Before I go any further, I will repeat what I have stated numerous times before. I support the development of a modern, agnostic version of Stoicism? However, there is a condition. A modern, agnostic version of Stoicism must not be built on a foundation of fallacies that distort, misrepresent, and discredit the traditional theory and practice as the ancient Stoics created it. I fully support Modern Stoics, like the late Lawrence Becker, who openly stated he intended to abandon Stoic physics to create a “new” synthesis of Stoicism. I do not support those who claim their new synthesis is essentially the same as that produced by the ancient Stoics or what it would have become if the Stoa remained active into modern times. Those assertions are wishful thinking at best. Some of my listeners might wonder why I am spending time refuting Modern Stoic fallacies. That is a fair question. I believe these Modern Stoic fallacies must be refuted for three reasons. First, those entirely new to Stoicism may wrongly assume these fallacies are supported by historical facts, scholarship, or logical thinking. They are not. Second, Traditional Stoics need to understand these Modern Stoic fallacies do not discredit or refute the deeply spiritual form of Stoicism they know and appreciate from reading the Stoic texts and recognized Stoic scholarship. Finally, these fallacies unintentionally opened the door to other newly minted adaptations of Stoicism that bring disgrace to the tradition of the ancient Stoa. Some of these fallacies are repeated so frequently on social media platforms they become memes. One pervasive example most anyone who has been on Stoic social media platforms has seen is, “Stoicism is not a religion.” While that statement is factually accurate, it is used to infer something false about Stoicism. I will covert that in a future episode. The first fallacy I will tackle is what I call The Missing Evidence is Evidence Fallacy. This fallacy proposes the possibility some of the ancient Stoics were agnostics. Curiously, rather than offering evidence supporting this possibility, the author speculates that the evidence might exist in Stoic texts no longer available to us. In other words, he wants to leave open the possibility that missing Stoic texts might lend credence to his hope that some of the ancient Stoics were agnostic about the providential nature of the cosmos. Again, I call this The Missing Evidence is Evidence Fallacy. This Modern Stoic fallacy is not repeated as often as others on social media. I hope that is because many people see the errant reasoning used in this fallacy and understand the unintended consequences of its use. Nevertheless, like most Modern Stoic fallacies, this one serves a specific purpose—it attempts to justify removing Stoic physics, which includes the concept of a divine and providential cosmos, from Stoicism. Here is the source of this Modern Stoic Fallacy: Only about 1% of the ancient Stoic writings survive today, at a rough estimate. We have substantial texts from only three authors: Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. They were all late Roman Stoics and we have only fragments from the early Greek Stoics, including the founders of the school. (Also some important ancient secondary sources, especially in the writings of the Platonist Cicero.) None of these Stoics appear to have been agnostics themselves but others may have been.[1] To be fair, this is not the whole argument presented by this Modern Stoic to support his conclusion that “Marcus Aurelius and perhaps also Epictetus believed that agnosticism or even atheism may have been consistent with the Stoic way of life.”[2] In fact, this particular piece includes several pages of supporting circumstantial evidence and contains several Modern Stoic Fallacies I will address in future episodes. Nevertheless, it is clear from this passage alone the author is appealing to missing textual evidence to support his final claim. Let’s begin by placing this fallacy into the structure of an informal logical argument to analyze it. Premise #1: Only about 1% of the Stoic texts survive today. Premise #2: Most of what we do know about Stoicism comes from a small sample of sources, and most of that is from the Roman Stoics (Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius). Fragments from the founders and secondary writing are notably helpful) Premise #3: None of these Stoics appear to have been agnostics. Conclusion: However, other Stoics may have been agnostics. In this format, we quickly see this is a classic example of a non sequitur, which means “does not follow” in Latin. In other words, the conclusion that “some other ancient Stoics may have been agnostics” does not logically follow from the fact that only a tiny percentage of the ancient Stoic texts are available to us today. Before I tackle the conclusion drawn from this Modern Stoic fallacy, I also want to address a word in Premise #3 that is critical to assessing it. The word is “appear,” and it’s used in the final sentence of the passage that originated this fallacy. Again, that reads: None of these Stoics appear to have been agnostics... [bold emphasis added] The word “appear” is a guarding term in this sentence. People use guarding terms to protect an assertion from attack by reducing its claim and leaving open the possibility it may be wrong. Guarding terms serve a legitimate purpose in philosophical dialogue because many philosophical assertions are not provable in any objectively testable way. Therefore, honesty often necessitates guarding terms to point out a degree of uncertainty or limit the scope of an assertion. Nevertheless, guarding terms can also be deployed to gently persuade a reader or listener to accept an otherwise questionable assertion as true. That is why guarding terms are used so frequently by lawyers in the courtroom to sway a jury toward a conclusion of innocence or guilt based on evidence that can be ambiguous. In philosophy, guarding terms can deliver insinuations and inferences the facts or logical arguments do not fully support. This type of argumentation is called sophistry. A sophistry is a clever but fallacious argument intended to establish a point through trickery.[3] In this Modern Stoic fallacy, the guarding term “appear” is used to subtly call into question the beliefs of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Again, the author asserts that none of these Stoics appear to be agnostics. However, this guarding term implicitly leaves open the possibility they may have been agnostic. It would have been easy for the author of this fallacy to write: None of these Stoics were agnostics themselves... However, the author chose to write it differently. Again, he wrote: None of these Stoics appear to have been agnostics themselves... [bold emphasis added] The word “appear” helps guard the conclusion, which reads: …but others may have been. [emphasis added] Within this conclusion, we see another guarding term. In this instance, it’s the phrase “may have been.” The combination of these guarding terms encourages the reader to assent to the possibility some of the ancient Stoics may have been agnostics while simultaneously guarding the author’s conclusion from refutation. The use of these guarding terms allows the author to suggest a possibility—that some ancient Stoics may have been agnostics—without making a factual claim that can be directly challenged with evidence. If the author made an unambiguous assertion that one or more of the ancient Stoics were agnostics, he would be left unprotected from the question: “Which ones?” Nevertheless, this fallacy only works for those who have not read the Stoic texts and scholarship or those willing to ignore the facts about Stoicism. This assertion may work in a court of public opinion, where fellow agnostics and atheists populate the jury. However, it does not stand up to the historical evidence. Such an assertion would never withstand the scrutiny of peer-review by credible scholars of Stoicism. While it is certainly true Stoic theology, as expressed in the surviving texts, varied slightly between individual Stoics and over time. There is no evidence any ancient Stoic was agnostic as that word is commonly understood today. They were all deeply committed to belief in the existence of God in the form of a providentially ordered cosmos. I am not aware of a single credible scholar who has argued otherwise. Trust me when I say I have looked. I have also asked the author of this article, publicly and repeatedly, to reference any scholar who supports his assertion. To date, I have received none. This highlights one common feature of Modern Stoic fallacies: they never reference credible scholars to back their assertions. Why? In this case, no credible scholar would suggest Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, or any other ancient Stoic was agnostic about the existence of God. Let’s get back to the Modern Stoic Fallacy I’m addressing in this episode. Again, I call this The Missing Evidence is Evidence Fallacy. It opens with an accurate assessment of the current state of Stoic texts. Only a tiny percentage of the known Stoic texts survived and are available today. Archeologists may discover more in the future from archeological sites like Herculaneum;[4] however, we cannot rely on that being the case.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 16 – Episode 55

Wed, 09 Feb 2022 08:15:00 GMT

Whenever you see someone grieving at the departure of their child or the loss of their property, take care not to be carried away by the impression that they are in dire external straits, but at once have the following thought available: “What is crushing these people is not the event (since there are other people it does not crush) but their opinion about it.” Don’t hesitate, however, to sympathize with them in words and even maybe share their groans, but take care not to groan inwardly as well. (Ench 16) This passage refutes the characterization of Stoics as Mr. Spock-like beings completely lacking appropriate emotional responses toward others. As Margaret Graver wrote in her brilliant book, Stoicism and Emotion: The founders of the Stoic school did not set out to suppress or deny our natural feelings; rather, it was their endeavor, in psychology as in ethics, to determine what the natural feelings of humans really are. With the emotions we most often experience they were certainly dissatisfied; their aim, however, was not to eliminate feelings as such from human life, but to understand what sorts of affective responses a person would have who was free of false belief.[1] The conception of the Stoic as an emotionless person who lacks sympathy for others is an unfortunate caricature. Fortunately, it is repudiated by the Stoic texts. The Letters of Seneca are primarily motivated by his desire to counsel and help his close friend Lucilius. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are full of his sympathy for others. In Meditations 2.1, he reminds himself we all share a portion of the same divine mind; therefore, it is contrary to nature to refuse to work with others. Likewise, Epictetus reminds us of our duty to others in several of his Discourses. Encheiridion 16 provides a formula for Stoics to engage with and help people experiencing emotional distress. This formula can be broken down into two parts, and it’s essential to get these parts in the proper order. Otherwise, we may do more harm than good to ourselves and others while attempting to help them. These parts are: Take care not to be carried away by the impression the person is in dire external straits. Don’t hesitate to sympathize with them in words and groans. Now, let’s consider the parts of this formula in their appropriate order. Part 1: Take care not to be carried away by the impression the person is in dire external straits. This part is preparation. Epictetus is warning us to be in the appropriate state of mind before engaging with someone in emotional distress. As a Stoic prokopton, this might appear easy at first. We know the person’s distress is caused by their assent to a judgment that something bad has happened. Additionally, we understand that no external event can truly harm what is essential to our well-being—our inner character. Nevertheless, the Stoics observed the effects of what modern neuroscientists only recently discovered in the form of mirror neurons. We are indeed interconnected. No person is an island. Our mirror neurons react whether we are experiencing events firsthand or observing others experience those events. Modern science proved what the ancient Stoics observed: our interconnectedness is a fundamental aspect of Nature and human nature. For this reason, the Stoic prokopton has to be cautious when dealing with people in emotional distress. If we are inadequately trained, our sympathy for others can quickly turn into a bad emotional response that overwhelms us. I’ve been a law enforcement officer for over fifteen years and a detective for ten of those years. I was already exposed to death and human tragedy before moving to my current position as a traffic homicide investigator three years ago. However, part of my responsibility in this new position is to notify the next of kin when someone dies in a traffic crash. Each time I do so, I mentally prepare myself as I drive to their home to deliver the news. It’s never easy. I have to find a balance between being sympathetic for their loss and simultaneously being the person they can rely on to objectively investigate the crash that killed their loved one. In his commentary on this Encheiridion 16, Simplicius share some insight about striking this balance: But now what follows? Is a reasonable person supposed to be unsympathetic to people feeling crushed, and to ignore them because he condemns their belief? Not at all; rather, he is supposed to go along with them and be accommodating to a certain degree by both speaking a sympathetic word, and even groaning along with him if it is necessary, not pretending to – for pretence is not fitting for the reasonable person – but groaning at human weakness (the kind of thing he considers worth groaning about).[2] My job as a traffic homicide investigator required me to learn how to speak sympathetically and groan genuinely with people as they process the news a loved one was killed in a crash. However, as I said earlier, it’s not always as easy as it appears to find that balance. Shortly after moving to this new position, I encountered a situation I was not adequately prepared for. A young couple was driving home from the mall with their four-month-old daughter strapped into her car seat in the back of their SUV when they became the victims of a violent collision that sent their SUV airborne. Their infant daughter died from the injuries sustained in the crash. The following day, I went to the hospital to interview the injured mother and father. As I stood at the foot of the hospital bed, asking this grieving mother what she recalled about the crash, I became overwhelmed by her emotion. Tears welled up in my eyes, and I got so choked up I couldn’t continue the interview. I had to ask her to excuse me as I stepped toward the window and regained my composure before continuing with the interview. Was my emotional response inappropriate? Yes. A Stoic sage would have been capable of sympathizing with that grieving mother without being overwhelmed by her emotion. You see, for those few moments while I was overwhelmed by my emotions, I could not perform my role as a Traffic Homicide Investigator. Furthermore, if I had allowed her flood of emotions to continue dragging me in, I would not have been able to help her at all. However, I believe an important distinction must be made here. What if I was in a different role in that hospital room? If I was this mother's close friend, would my emotional response have been inappropriate as a Stoic? I don’t think so. Epictetus said we can “sympathize with them in words and even maybe share their groans” Therefore, it seems reasonable that having tears well up in my eyes and getting a little choked up can be counted as sharing in the groans of a grieving friend. The distinction for any Stoic lies in the difference between the roles of an investigator and a friend. Epictetus encourages us to sympathize with grieving people to help them. However, if our sympathizing and groaning goes too far and prevent us from fulfilling our role, we are not helping. That is why Simplicius continued his passage above by highlighting Epictetus’ warning: But he must be careful how far his accommodation goes, lest he too be led in his sympathy to groan at the event from inside himself; otherwise he won’t be able to help the griever any more. For someone who intends to help with the emotion and drag the griever back from it must be accommodating to a certain degree, while remaining securely anchored himself. After all, someone remaining entirely on his own ground won’t be able to snatch up a person being swept away by a flood, any more than someone who is completely caught up in it along with him. The one who stands completely aloof won’t persuade the person suffering the emotion, because he seems to be unsympathetic; while the other one needs help himself, because he too is worsted by the emotion.[3] An appropriate response for a Stoic lies somewhere between an unfeeling statue and being overwhelmed by the emotions of others. Using Simplicius’ metaphor, I wadded too deep into the flood of that mother’s emotions and got swept away momentarily. However, I couldn’t help her if I remained safely aloof from her distress. My job was to step into the water just far enough to reach that grieving mother without losing my footing and being swept away with her in that flood of emotion. That is the challenge the Stoic prokopton faces when dealing with people in distress. Wouldn’t it be safer not to sympathize at all? Safer, yes. Appropriate, no! That is why Epictetus instructs us not to hesitate to sympathize in words and groans. Part 2: Don’t hesitate to sympathize with them in words and groans. Chrysippus argued we have “a natural congeniality to ourselves, to our members, and to our own offspring.”[4] In Stoicism, this is called the doctrine of oikeiosis, which is often translated as orientation or affinity. According to this doctrine, animals and humans alike are driven by an orientation toward self-preservation. The doctrine of oikeiosis comes from Stoic physics—the study of how Nature operates. The doctrine of oikeiosis is the foundation of Stoic ethical doctrine, and this relationship highlights the interconnected nature of the holistic philosophical system created by the Stoics. In Stoic ethics, oikeiosis begins with the orientation toward self-preservation and then expands as a human matures to include one’s family, society, and humanity as a whole. Epictetus tells us it is in our nature as humans “to do good, to be helpful to others, to pray for them” (Discourses 4.1.122). In Discourses 3.2, Epictetus outlines a training program for those who wish to make progress. The first area of study is related to desires and aversions, the second with appropriate behavior, and the third with avoiding hasty judgments. While expounding on appropriate action, the second area of training,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 15 – Episode 54

Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:15:46 GMT

Keep in mind that you should always behave as you would do at a banquet. Something comes around to you; stretch out your hand and politely take a portion. It passes on; don’t try to stop it. It has not come yet; don’t let your appetite run ahead, but wait till the portion reaches you. If you act like this toward your children, your wife, your public positions, and your wealth, you will be worthy one day to dine with the gods. And if you don’t even take things, when they are put before you, but pass them by, you will not only dine with the gods but also share their rule. It was by acting like that that Diogenes and Heracles and others like them were deservedly divine and called so. (Ench. 15) Epictetus uses a banquet as a metaphor in this lesson. However, this banquet appears different from anything we moderns would attend. The Greek word Epictetus used is συμποσίῳ. The title of Plato’s famous Symposium is derived from that same Greek word, and it provides a model for this metaphor. To make his point in this lesson, Epictetus asks us to imagine we are guests at such a banquet. However, to apply this lesson in our life, we must first understand the metaphor. A Greek banquet or symposium during the time of Plato was slightly different from those of Roman times. Epictetus’s students would have been familiar with the latter. However, those distinctions don’t affect the metaphor or the lesson. Let’s set the scene for such a banquet to help us understand this lesson. The host, a person you know, has invited you to a banquet. When you arrive, you’re led to a room filled with pillow-covered sofas. Participants are reclined on those sofas eating food, drinking wine, talking about important topics, and possibly delivering speeches. The room has a predetermined seating arrangement, so you recline on your assigned sofa and engage in conversation with others you know at the banquet. Occasionally, someone might deliver a speech, read a poem, or bring up a topic of political concern for discussion. While this is going on, servers enter the room with platters of food and pitchers of wine. The servers approach each reclined guest in a predetermined order and offer them a portion of what they are serving. You know the proper etiquette for a banquet, and that means you must wait for each server to come to you to take your portion. The preceding lessons in the Encheiridion focus on the distinction between what is up to us and not up to us. As a banquet guest, many things are not within your power—they are not up to us. So, let’s begin by determining what is and is not in our power in this banquet metaphor. Guests don’t choose the date or time of the banquet. Guests don’t choose who is invited. Guests don’t choose their seating location. Guests don’t choose what, if any, entertainment is provided. Guests don’t choose what food and wine are served. Guests don’t choose the portions of the dishes being served. Guests don’t choose the order in which the dishes and drinks are served, Guests don’t choose the order in which they will be served. The host makes all of those decisions. Therefore, Epictetus is reminding us of the only thing within our power. As guests at the banquet of life, the only thing up to us is the choice to reach out and take a portion of each item as it is offered. Interestingly, even though the items served at a banquet are indifferents, Epictetus encourages us to reach out and take a portion of those items offered to us. We are beginning to see why Epictetus chose an ancient banquet as a metaphor for this lesson—many of the circumstances and events in life are not in our power. Moreover, one of the essential aspects of Epictetus’ training program is understanding what is in our power and choosing only those things which are up to us. Nevertheless, there is an interesting change in Epictetus’ training program in Encheiridion 15. Chapters one through fourteen directed our attention away from externals and toward that which is exclusively within our power—what is up to us. Now, Epictetus is providing us with a lesson about dealing with externals—what is not up to us. He encourages us to stretch out our hand and politely take a portion of preferred indifferents when they are offered to us. Epictetus said: Something comes around to you; stretch out your hand and politely take a portion. Epictetus is telling us it’s okay to reach out and take a portion of good health, wealth, a prestigious title, a high-paying job, a desirable mate, a big house, sports car, diamond jewelry, etc., when the cosmos offers them to us. This highlights an important aspect of Stoicism. Stoics were not complete ascetics like the Cynics—they did not renounce all externals. Stoic practice does not entail rejecting indifferents; however, it does require us to abandon our desire for them. The second lesson is a little more complicated. In Encheiridion 15, Epictetus offers a banquet metaphor to teach us how to handle indifferents. However, there’s another critically important part of this lesson. Remember, the host decides almost everything that occurs at a banquet. Therefore, Epictetus reminds us that the only thing within your power—the only thing up to us—is the choice to reach out and take a portion of each item as it is offered. Again, Epictetus said: Something comes around to you; stretch out your hand and politely take a portion. It passes on; don’t try to stop it. It has not come yet; don’t let your appetite run ahead, but wait till the portion reaches you. Here is the critically important part of the lesson: Don’t reach out and attempt to take what is not offered to you by the host. Don’t let your desire for what is being offered to others distract you from the primary goal of the banquet, which is not simply to eat and drink. Implicit in this metaphor is the idea we should not take a portion of any indifferent inconsistent with developing an excellent character. Let’s see if a modern example will help. Imagine you’ve been invited to the wedding of a good friend and the reception afterward. When you arrive at the reception, you see name tags at each table, and you look for the one with your name on it, and you take a seat. You notice the families of the bride and groom are seated in places of honor near the stage. After the bride and groom have entered and been announced, servers begin entering the room with platters of food and trays of champagne. Naturally, they serve the families of the bride and groom first and then work their way back to your table. After the meal, the servers bring in platters with dessert. Each of the four servers has a different desert, and only one of them has chocolate cake. You love chocolate cake, and this chocolate cake looks particularly delicious. Your table is close to the door where the servers enter the room, so you got a really good look at that cake. Your mouth starts to water in anticipation. However, you know you will not be among the first guests served. Your table is the eighth to be served. You could allow the impression of this cake as something “good” to well up and create a desire. Then, that desire might create an impulse to stop the server as he passes and take a piece of cake. However, that would be rude and entirely inappropriate. This is an example of the first warning Epictetus offers in this lesson. The chocolate cake has not been offered to you yet; it is passing on. Epictetus warns us. “don’t try to stop it.” Okay, let’s say you passed that test. Somewhere in the sequence between the impression of the cake as a “good” and acting on the impulse to stop the server, you stopped the impression, accepted chocolate cake is just a preferred indifferent, and you remembered why you are at the wedding—to honor your friend on their wedding day. You turn your attention back to the groom on the stage, telling everyone the story about how he met his bride. Occasionally, your attention is diverted from the groom’s story to the server with the chocolate cake. You just want to make sure some of that delicious-looking chocolate remains. It does, so your focus on the groom’s story again. Then, you hear a guest at the table next to yours say, “This cake is otherworldly.” You turn your head in time to see him take a big bite of cake, and you watch as his body melts into his chair as the flavor overwhelms his senses with satisfaction. You look at the platter and realize there are only two pieces of cake left, and four people are seated between you and that cake. The impression of the cake as “good” suddenly resurfaces, and a desire for a slice wells up inside you. You don’t even hear the words of the groom any longer. Your attention is now focused exclusively on that cake as you hope a piece will be remain when the server arrives at your seat. In Epictetus's words, you just made the mistake of letting your appetite run ahead. Obviously, Epictetus was not giving his students a lesson on banquet etiquette. Instead, knowing his students were already familiar with banquet etiquette, he used it as a metaphor to teach them how to behave appropriately toward preferred indifferents. So, what would be appropriate in our chocolate cake scenario? Epictetus would say: keep your attention on the groom’s speech because the purpose of this banquet is to honor him on his wedding day. In other words, you are there for fellowship, not chocolate cake. If your attention remains on the purpose of the event and the platter of chocolate cake is offered to you, reach out and take a slice. However, don’t let the impression of that chocolate cake distract you from the event or create an impulse to act inappropriately. Someone might ask: “Does this lesson mean I should abandon all ambition, accept my lot in life, and just wait for everything to be brought to me?” No, it doesn’t mean you should be passive or take a quietist approach to life.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 14 – Episode 53

Wed, 12 Jan 2022 08:15:10 GMT

If you want your children and your wife and friends to survive no matter what, you are silly; for you are wanting things to be up to you that are not up to you, and things to be your own that are not your own. You are just as foolish if you want your slave to make no mistakes; for you are wanting inferiority not to be a flaw but something else. But if your wish is not to be frustrated in your desires, this is in your power. Train yourself, then, in this power that you do have. Our master is anyone who has the power to implement or prevent the things that we want or don’t want. Whoever wants to be free, therefore, should wish for nothing or avoid nothing that is up to other people. Failing that, one is bound to be a slave. (Ench 14) There's nothing new in this chapter of the Encheiridion for those following the Exploring Encheiridion series. That is the nature of the Encheiridion, which Arrian created as a handbook a Stoic prokopton could keep readily available as a primer for Stoic doctrines. Therefore, many of the lessons are repeated in different forms. Nevertheless, as I was preparing for this podcast episode, I was struck by a question that inspired me to take this episode in another direction. The question is this: Why would anyone with a conscious or unconscious allegiance to the modern secular worldview consider Stoicism a viable way of life. Consider some other passages we’ve already covered in this Exploring Encheiridion series: When you kiss your little child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being. Then, if one of them dies, you will not be troubled. (Encheiridion 3) Don’t ask for things to happen as you would like them to, but wish them to happen as they actually do, and you will be all right. (Encheiridion 8) Never say about anything, “I have lost it”; but say, “I have returned it.” Has your little child died? “It has been returned.” Has your wife died? “She has been returned.” “I have been robbed of my land.” No, that has been returned as well. (Encheiridion 11) These statements by Epictetus contradict what all moderns, those raised in the West at least, are taught from childhood. When a person views these statements from the perspective of modernity, they will likely ask: How can anyone past or present assent to ideas like this? What kind of worldview could possibly support such apparently odd and counterintuitive ideas? Therein lies the conundrum moderns face when moderns encounter the Stoic texts. We are confronted with words like God, logos, and providence from the ancient Stoic worldview and likely lack the necessary knowledge to understand the meaning of these words within the context of Hellenistic Greek culture and the holistic philosophical system known as Stoicism. If moderns have any familiarity with words like God, logos, and providence, it likely comes from religious training or college professors who mocked these ideas. Therefore, secular-minded, enlightened, educated moderns might feel justified in rejecting those ideas. In fact, moderns may feel compelled to reject them as antiquated, pre-Enlightenment ideas. Unfortunately, that judgment of Stoicism is based on a modern worldview with some underlying assumptions and consequences moderns may have never considered. I know that was true for me. As I’ve previously said on this podcast, I was a hardcore atheist when I started studying Stoicism. It took me almost a year to overcome the misconceptions and cognitive biases of my modern worldview. Worldviews are essential because they guide our beliefs and actions in ways that may evade our conscious awareness and circumspection. Jean-Baptiste Gourinat wrote about this in a paper titled Stoicism Today in 2009. He discussed the connection between Stoicism and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy—CBT—which is partly derived from Stoic principles. He wrote: Cognitive therapy is based on three hypotheses: (1) one’s behaviour springs from one’s view of oneself and the world, and our psychological difficulties and disturbances derive from these views and from our (misconceived) perception of external events; (2) this point of view may be modified; (3) this modification of our thoughts and opinions may have positive effects on our behaviour and emotions since the latter are dependent on the former.[1] The “view of oneself and the world” he refers to is one’s worldview. It’s a combination of a model of the world—the way the world is—and a model for the world—the way one should act in the world to survive and achieve their conception of happiness. Jeremy Lent provided some insight into the concept of a worldview in his 2017 book titled The Patterning Instinct. He wrote: Each of us conducts our lives according to a set of assumptions about how things work: how our society functions, its relationship with the natural world, what's valuable, and what's possible. This is our worldview, which often remains unquestioned and unstated but is deeply felt and underlies many of the choices we make in our lives. We form our worldview implicitly as we grow up, from our family, friends, and culture, and, once it's set, we're barely aware of it unless we're presented with a different worldview for comparison. The unconscious origin of our worldview makes it quite inflexible. That's fine when it's working for us. But suppose our worldview is causing us to act collectively in ways that could undermine humanity's future? Then it would be valuable to become more conscious of it.[2] Then, Lent opens his 2021 book, titled The Web of Meaning, with a story the “the speech” we are all likely to hear during our youth from some well-meaning adult who wishes the pass on their wisdom about the way the world is and how one must operate in it to survive and prosper. He points out this type of conversation is ubiquitous because they channel the “themes we hear every day from those in a position of authority,” including the talking heads on TV, successful business people, teachers, and school textbooks. He notes, “Even when the Speech is not given explicitly, its ideas seep into our daily thoughts” and can be distilled to some basic “building blocks.” He writes: These basic elements, give or take a few, form the foundation of the predominant worldview. They infuse much of what is accepted as indisputably true in most conversations that take place about world affairs. They are so pervasive that most of us never question them. We feel they must be based on solid facts – why else would all those people in positions of authority rely on them? That’s the characteristic that makes a worldview so powerful. Like fish that don’t realize they’re swimming in water because it’s all they know, we tend to assume that our worldview simply describes the world the way it is, rather than recognizing it’s a constructed lens that shapes our thoughts and ideas into certain preconditioned patterns.[3] So what is the worldview most people in positions of authority and influence embrace? It’s revealed in the assumed intellectual superiority behind demands like “follow the science” or “follow the facts.” It’s the appeal to authority underlying assertions like “the science tells us” or “science says.” It’s the assumed worldview upon which most moderns stand when they demand “proof” and “evidence” to support your assertions while they simultaneously declare their beliefs are based on science. It’s called scientism, and that label will be disputed by those who hold to that belief system as quickly and adamantly as the label fundamentalism will be rejected by those who demand strict adherence to a set of religious beliefs. So, what is scientism? Richard Williams, professor of psychology at Brigham Young University, offers the following definition: Scientism is, in its basic form, a dogmatic overconfidence in science and “scientific” knowledge. But, more importantly it is overconfidence in science, defined by, constructed around, and requiring that, the world must be made up of physical matter following particular lawful principles, and that all phenomena are essentially thus constituted. This gives scholars the great confidence that characterizes scientism. The confidence associated with this worldview is seen in the insistence that any scholarly endeavor that does not ground itself in that required set of constructs and ideas must be rejected as unscientific, and any knowledge claims made as a result of such endeavors are suspect. Such knowledge claims are to be rejected as being only metaphysical speculation, reflecting mere subjective bias, or, ironically, a devotion to religious orthodoxy.[4] Religious believers in centuries past rarely stopped to consider how some of their beliefs affected their psychology and behavior. Why? They didn’t need to; their worldview was mainstream and left largely unchallenged. In the same way, moderns neglect to consider how the scientific worldview that implicitly molds the spirit of our secular age affects their beliefs and behaviors. Why? Scientism and secularism are now mainstream, so their worldview is rarely challenged in modern times. Let’s consider some of the ideas perpetuated by modern orthodox science: The universe and human life are accidents; they result from a long sequence of chance events. There is no inherent meaning in the universe or human life. Everything is reducible to interactions of inert matter constrained by the physical laws. Humans are driven by selfish genes to propagate their genetic code into the next generation. Consciousness is an illusion—an epiphenomenon of neural activity. Free will is an illusion. There is no room for any freedom of the human will within the mechanistic, clocklike operation of the universe. Do the intellectuals and scientists who impose these beliefs on moderns ever stop to consider where those beliefs will lead us? Do they reflect on what kind of behaviors they might produce?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Enchiridion 13 – Episode 52

Wed, 05 Jan 2022 08:15:21 GMT

If you want to make progress, don’t mind appearing foolish and silly where outward things are concerned, and don’t wish to appear an expert. Even if some people think you are somebody, distrust yourself. It is not easy, you can be sure, to keep your own will in harmony with nature and simultaneously secure outward things. If you care about the one, you are completely bound to neglect the other. (Ench 13) After a short break from the Encheiridion, I start again with chapter 13. I will continue to work through the Encheiridion, chapter by chapter. However, I will take breaks from it occasionally to cover other topics or conduct interviews as I did recently with the authors of two new Stoic books. Epictetus opens Encheiridion 13 with a familiar refrain, “If you want to make progress,” and then lists what a prokopton must do to progress along the Stoic path. So, what is Epictetus prescribing for us to make progress? He lists two things in this lesson: First, don’t mind appearing foolish and silly where outward things are concerned. Why? Because it’s difficult to keep our will (prohairesis)—that which is within our power and up to us—in harmony with Nature while simultaneously desiring and seeking externals—those things not within our power and therefore not up to us. Second, don’t wish to appear as an expert. Why? Again, if we desire to appear as an expert, we seek something not up to us. Before we consider these two specific things Epictetus lists in this passage, let’s look at the overarching message. Some things are up to us, and others are not up to us. We learned that in Encheiridion 1. As a refresher, the things that are not up to us are external to us, like our health, financial status, other people’s opinion of us, etc. Obviously, our behavior can influence these externals; nevertheless, they are not entirely within our power. We can live a healthy lifestyle and still get cancer; we can work hard and save money and still end up broke and destitute during a widespread economic crisis; we can be kind, helpful, and act appropriately, and some people will still have a low opinion of us. On the other hand, our reasoning faculty (prohairesis) is entirely within our power; it is up to us. So much so, as Epictetus teaches in Discourses 3.3, not even Zeus can override this power granted to us by Nature. Therefore, once again, Epictetus confronts us with the distinction between what is up to us and not up to us. We will continue to see this theme in the Encheiridion because it is central to Epictetus’ teaching and critically important for developing our moral excellence and progress toward well-being. Now, let’s look at these two things not up to us Epictetus chose to highlight in this lesson. I will tackle the second item first because this episode will focus on the first. Epictetus warns us not to wish to appear an expert. If some people have that opinion of us, that’s fine, but it’s not up to us. Because it’s not up to us, desiring that others think of us as an expert is not in accordance with the nature of things. As Keith Seddon points out in his commentary, this passage could have two different meanings. When Epictetus warns against not wishing to appear knowledgeable about anything, he may mean this in a wholly general way – to have knowledge is one thing, but to have a desire to show it off and be regarded as a knowledgeable person is altogether something else, and is inappropriate for the Stoic prokoptôn – for placing one’s well-being (to however small a degree) on the satisfaction of this desire is to rely on something that is not in one’s power, something external and indifferent, and risks undermining one’s ‘good flow’ (euroia). But I suspect Epictetus means ‘knowledgeable’ to refer only to knowledge of good and bad, moral excellence, the indifferent and external things, and of Stoic ethics as a whole. However advanced our progress, it is unlikely ever to be complete, and to impose our views on others is not fitting, for however severe their faults may be, even if our faults are less, our efforts should be applied to diminish our own faults, not theirs.[1] Epictetus is focusing the attention of his students inward. If we desire to appear knowledgeable or more advanced in our progress toward virtue, we are making our well-being dependent on others who are external to us. We learned where that path leads in Encheiridion 1: …you will be frustrated, pained, and troubled, and you will find fault with gods and men. I want Epictetus’ message to be clear here. He is not instructing us to avoid seeking knowledge. The path of the prokopton entails the acquisition of knowledge. Virtue is a form of knowledge—the knowledge of good and bad. Likewise, we are not doing anything wrong if others happen to think we are knowledgeable. Again, that is not up to us. The danger to our well-being lies in our wish (desire) to appear knowledgeable to others. Social media makes this a more present danger in modern times. It’s pretty easy to fall into the social media approval trap where we measure our value by the number of people who “Like” our posts and comments. Now, we come to the second topic, the first item on Epictetus’ list in this passage. He said: If you want to make progress, don’t mind appearing foolish and silly where outward things are concerned. Why? Well, Epictetus tells us. Because it’s difficult to keep our will (prohairesis)—that which is within our power and up to us—in harmony with Nature while simultaneously desiring and seeking externals—those things not within our power and therefore not up to us. So, what could Epictetus possibly mean by appearing foolish and silly where outward things are concerned? With Stoic teachings in mind, I think it’s easy to imagine several ways a Stoic prokopton might appear foolish and silly to others. First, most people in ancient and modern times would consider it foolish to focus one’s full attention inward to experience well-being. Consider this imaginary scenario. You’re standing around with a group of your close friends one day when you suddenly feel compelled to tell them you’re embarking on a new philosophical way of life. “Cool,” one of them responds, “what is it?” It’s called Stoicism. Another of your friends chimes in, “I’ve heard of that. I guess you’ll be developing a stiff upper lip, ol’ chap.” You politely inform him that’s a mischaracterization of Stoicism. “What is Stoicism about then?” He asks. You tell them it entails paying attention only to those things that are up to me, like my judgment of impressions, desires, aversions, and intentions to act, rather than things like financial success, good health, promotions, fame, etc. Suddenly you realize the room went quiet, and everyone is staring at you curiously. Oh, but wait, you insist, there’s more to it than that! You tell your friends you don’t need those things because you’ve discovered something infinitely more valuable. Now they're interested. “What is more valuable?” Bill asks as he leans forward with anticipation of hearing about a great stock tip, Bitcoin cache location, or a cure for Covid. All their attention is now focused on you as your words pierce the deafening silence. Well, I’ve discovered that developing courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom is the only path to true well-being. John spits out his coffee; Tammy just stares at you disbelievingly. Your best friend Bill walks over, slaps you on the back, and says, “That was a good one; you had us all going there for a minute.” Seriously, you insist. I’ve learned not to ask for events to happen as I would like them to. Instead, I now wish for events to happen just as they do? “Really?” John asks incredulously. “Even if that means the loss of your job, your home, your legs, your child, or your spouse?” Yes, you reply as the laughter increases in volume. Your best friend Bill asks, “How can you possibly believe something like that?” As if the situation wasn’t bad enough, now you must reveal the truth about how it is you can hold such foolish and silly beliefs about tragic events. I believe the cosmos is providentially ordered. You say a little hesitantly. “What?” Tammy shouts! I must not have heard you correctly. What did you just say?” I said I believe the cosmos is providentially ordered. Things happen for a good reason. “Alright, now you’ve gone too far,” Tammy insists. “Don’t you know science has proved the universe and humans evolved from nothing?” Then, she tells you to sit down while she explains how the powerful double punch from Hume and Darwin made belief in things like providence “untenable” in modern times. “It’s all the result of chance,” she exclaims. “With enough time, anything can happen. That providence crap is pure nonsense,” she insists. “Worse, it’s nonsense of stilts. You need to stop reading those foolish and silly Stoics and start reading some of the ancient Sceptics.” The rest of your friends stopped laughing a while ago. They are simply staring at you with their hands over their mouths and a genuine look of concern in their eyes. Are you feeling foolish and silly yet? Many moderns will applaud the tongue-lashing Tammy delivered in the name of science in this imaginary scene. Why? Because they agree that a concept like a providential cosmos is nonsense. They think it’s foolish and silly. Meanwhile, they somehow overlook how foolish and silly the rest of Stoicism is to the average modern person. Here’s a challenge: go out to a busy street corner in any large city and try convincing those passing by that virtue is the only true good and it’s the only thing they need for well-being. I suspect you will get a response similar to the guy on the opposite corner telling people to repent because the return of God is at hand. Most people will consider you foolish and silly. Yet, some of these same moderns believe the Stoic axiom that virtue is the only good, almost unquestioningly,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Breakfast with Seneca: An Interview with David Fideler – Episode 51

Wed, 29 Dec 2021 08:15:28 GMT

This interview of David Fideler covers his 2021 book titled, Breakfast with Seneca: A Stoic Guide to the Art of Living. His book provides a detailed look at the life of Seneca as a Stoic prokopton. David's book is intended for a general audience, and it is an easy and enjoyable read. Nevertheless, he provides extensive notes for those wishing to dig deeper. This book is rather unique because it provides a solid introduction to the basics of Stoic philosophical theory through the life and writings of a single ancient Stoic: Seneca. Chapter 9, titled Vicious Crowds and the Ties That Bind is particularly insightful and relevant in our time of political and social divisiveness. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Seneca's life and works. I will also make a great gift to friends and loved ones who are curious about Stoicism. A video version of this interview is available on YouTube

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Being Better: An Interview with Kai Whiting and Leonidas Konstantakos – Episode 50

Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:15:59 GMT

This interview of Kai Whiting and Leonidas Konstantakos covers their 2021 book titled, Being Better: Stoicism for a World Worth Living In. Their book provides a short (136 pages, excluding notes) yet highly informative introduction to Stoicism as a way of life. Being Better was written for a general audience, and it is the best book I've read for two types of people. First, for those new to Stoicism, Being Better provides an excellent introduction. It includes just enough philosophical theory and history to acquaint the reader with Stoicism. The second audience is the person considering Stoicism but is unsure it's right for them. After reading Being Better, readers will know if Stoicism is a philosophical way of life worth pursuing further. Finally, I cannot think of a better book for those who want to give a short, easy-to-read, informative, and interesting book to a friend or family member who is curious about Stoicism. A video version of this interview is available on YouTube

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Festival of Life – Episode 49

Wed, 15 Dec 2021 08:15:28 GMT

Our situation is like that at a festival. Sheep and cattle are driven to it to be sold, and most people come either to buy or to sell, while only a few come to look at the spectacle of the festival, to see how it is proceeding and why, and who is organizing it, and for what purpose. So also in this festival of the world. Some people are like sheep and cattle and are interested in nothing but their fodder; for in the case of those of you who are interested in nothing but your property, and land, and slaves, and public posts, all of that is nothing more than fodder. Few indeed are those who attend the fair for love of the spectacle, asking, ‘What is the universe, then, and who governs it? No one at all? (Discourses 2.14.23-25) In this passage, Epictetus paints an unflattering picture of the mass of humanity. He suggests some of us treat the festival of life as a marketplace; we are distracted by the superficial endeavors of life. This chapter of the Discourses tells the story of a wealthy, influential Roman who was attending one of Epictetus’ with his son. Midway through the lecture, Epictetus instructs his students they must imitate God. With this, the father asked, “Where are we to start then?” The father now has Epictetus's undivided attention. I can only assume he did not know what that would entail. Epictetus acknowledges the father is wealthy and likely known to Caesar. Nevertheless, he informs the father he lacks what is most essential for happiness: …you know neither what God is, nor what a human being is, nor what is good, nor what is bad. (Discourses2.14.19) Next, Epictetus suggests most people behave like sheep and cattle, driven here and there by our appetites (desires). He argues that only a few love the spectacle of the festival of life. These few are the ones who inquire about the nature of the festival: The nature of the cosmos – “What is the universe, then, and who governs it? No one at all? And yet when a city or household cannot survive for even a very short time without someone to govern it and watch over it, how could it be that such a vast and beautiful structure could be kept so well ordered by mere chance and good luck?” (2.14.25-26) The nature of the divine – “So there must be someone governing it. What sort of being is he, and how does he govern it?” (2.14.27) Human nature – “And we who have been created by him, who are we, and what were we created for?” (2.14.27) The relationship between humans and the divine – “Are we bound together with him in some kind of union and interrelationship, or is that not the case?” (2.14.27) Epictetus continues to elaborate on this small group of people who seek to understand this festival of life. He asserts, “they devote their leisure to this one thing alone, to finding out about the festival before they have to take their leave” (2.14.28). Our quest as philosophers is to discover as much as we can about this festival we call life before we take our leave from it. Like Socrates, the true philosopher is naturally curious and cannot be stopped from inquiring—it is in a philosopher’s nature to seek wisdom. It is part of our human nature to inquire about the nature of the cosmos and humankind. Epictetus tells us: But God has brought the human race into the world to be a spectator of himself and of his works, and not merely to observe them, but also to interpret them. It is thus shameful for a human being to begin and end where the irrational animals do. Rather, he should start off where they do and end where nature ended with regard to ourselves. Now it ended with contemplation, and understanding, and a way of life that is in harmony with nature. Take care, then, that you don’t die without having contemplated these realities. (Discourses 1.16.19-22) Seneca offers a similar list of inquiries. Seneca’s list is found in his work appropriately titled Natural Questions. That list includes the following: What is the material that makes up the universe? Who is the creator or guardian of the universe? Is god concerned with humans? Is god immanent and acting in the world or created the universe and remains remote? Is god part of the world or the world itself? (Natural Questions I, praef. 1-2) The similarity between these lists is obvious. However, Seneca follows his list of ponderings with a remarkable statement, If I were not allowed access to these questions, it would not have been worth being born. For what could give mea reason to be glad that I had been included in the ranks of the living? Digesting food and drink? Stuffing full this body—which is vulnerable, delicate, and will perish if it is not constantly replenished—and living as nurse to a sick man? Fearing death, the one thing to which we are born? Take away this invaluable blessing, and life is not worth the sweat and the panic. (Natural Questions I, praef. 4) Marcus Aurelius makes a similar argument about the value of human life without the divine: Let your every action, word, and thought be those of one who could depart from life at any moment. But taking your leave of the human race is nothing to be feared, if the gods exist; for they would not involve you in anything bad. If, on the other hand, they do not exist, or if they do not concern themselves with human affairs, why should I care to go on living in a world devoid of gods or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do show concern for human affairs, and they have placed it wholly within the power of human beings never to fall into genuine evils; and besides, if anything were bad for us, they would have taken measures too to ensure that everyone would have it in his power not to fall victim to it. (Meditations 2.11) Life without the rational fragment of the divine—the God within—each of us possesses is not worth living because that is an animal's life, not a human. As Epictetus asserts: Merely to fulfil the role of a human being is no simple matter. For what is a human being? ‘A rational and mortal creature,’ someone says. First of all, what does the rational element serve to distinguish us from? ‘From wild beasts.’ And from what else? ‘From sheep and the like.’ Take care, then, never to be like a wild beast; otherwiseyou will have destroyed what is human in you, and will have failed to fulfil your part as a human being. Take care that you never act like a sheep; or else in that way, too, you will have destroyed what is human in you.‘When is it, then, that we act like sheep?’ When we act for the sake of our belly or genitals, when we act at random, or in a filthy manner, or without proper care, to what level have we sunk? To that of sheep. What have we destroyed? What is rational in us. And when we behave aggressively, and harmfully, and angrily, and forcefully, to what level have we sunk? To that of wild beasts. There are, besides, some among us who are large ferocious beasts, while others are little ones, small and evil-natured, which prompt us to say, ‘I’d rather be eaten by a lion!’ By all such behaviour, the human calling is destroyed. (Discourses 2.9.1-7) More than two millennia later, most people still follow the herd and behave like animals rather than rational humans, and philosophers still contemplate the same basic questions. What is the nature of reality? What is this festival of life all about? Is there a purpose? Is there inherent meaning? Unfortunately, many of us neglect to ask these questions because we believe there are no meaningful answers. Additionally, contemplation like this reminds us of the existential angst lurking in the shadow of our psyche. So, we continue to follow our impulses and behave like sheep and cattle. We follow the herd. We uncritically accept the worldview and values of the society in which we live. We absorb the spirit of the times (zeitgeist) without challenging the current orthodoxy. In the past, the herd followed religious orthodoxy. Today, the herd typically follows the orthodoxy of scientism combined with the latest, trendy sociopolitical theory. Neither of those paths is appropriate for the philosopher because both lead to soul-destroying behavior. They both demand that we follow the herd, which entails following authority figures rather than thinking for themselves. Most importantly, we neglect to examine our judgments, desires, and intentions. Why? Because exposing and then changing our thought patterns is hard work, and it requires self-knowledge we often lack. We are equally resistant to discovering and relinquishing the desire for things outside our sphere of control. These desires have driven us toward what we thought was happiness for so long that we cannot imagine abandoning them. Finally, many of us avoid examining our behavior because it may entail a change we are unprepared to face. Therefore, we continue to follow the herd. We ignore our troubled minds; we remain angry at God, the universe, and fellow humans. Besides, there is a sense of comfort, security, and belonging in the herd. Alternatively, we know that if we step outside the herd, we face what Epictetus predicted: [We] become an object of mockery for the crowd, just as the spectators at an ordinary festival are mocked by the traders; and even the sheep and cattle, if they had sufficient intelligence, would laugh at those who attach value to anything other than fodder! (Discourses 2.14.29) The challenge for us moderns is to step away from the herd long enough to do a thorough self-examination. As uncomfortable as it may be, we need to hear Epictetus’ diagnosis of our current state of mind: our desires are inflamed, our aversions are low, our purposes are inconsistent, our motives are out of harmony with nature, and our opinions are ill-considered and mistaken (Discourses 2.14.22). The diagnosis is harsh, the medicine is bitter, and the path to recovery will be long and occasionally quite challenging. However, the alternative is much worse.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Winds of Fortuna – Episode 48

Wed, 08 Dec 2021 08:36:53 GMT

The wise person is still not harmed by the storms of life—poverty, pain, and the rest. For not all his works are hindered but only those that pertain to others. He is himself, always, in his actions, and in the doing of them he is greatest when opposed by fortune. For it is then that he does the business of wisdom itself, which as we just said is his own good as well as that of others. (Letters 85.37) Fortuna, for Seneca, is not an anthropomorphized divinity with malicious intentions. Instead, Fortuna (fortune) is a metaphor for those events in life which appear to hinder or help us achieve our desires and intentions. Fortuna is the slow driver in front of us, making us late for work or school, the overbearing boss, the unexpected bill, the life-threatening medical diagnosis, the termination letter from an employer, the breakup of a relationship, etc. Alternatively, as Seneca points out, Fortuna may masquerade as an apparent good, tempting us to succumb to desires and aversions outside of our control. The appearance of good fortune may include lottery winnings, promotion, fifteen minutes of fame, a new lover, etc. As we can see, Fortuna can present herself as either an apparent good or an apparent evil when, in fact, she is neither. Fortuna is a metaphor for the externals outside our control and serves as grist for our character's mill. As such, those external circumstances, which Seneca labels Fortuna, are indifferents that have no inherent ability to affect our moral character (virtue). Nevertheless, they are the very things and events that challenge us and allow us to develop our moral character toward excellence. Without the challenges offered by Fortuna, we lack the means to develop our excellence of character fully. As Seneca points out: In fair weather anyone can be a helmsman. (Letters 85.34) Our character is not challenged and developed when the seas of life are smooth and the winds are calm and steady, blowing in the direction of our wishes. Instead, our character is tested and can thereby develop most rapidly, at those times when the sea becomes turbulent and blustering winds threaten to shred our sail. Therefore, the storms of life that threaten to drive the bow of our ship under the waves are the events that serve to test and strengthen our character. In Seneca’s words: To fashion a man [or woman] who can genuinely be called a [Stoic], a stronger fate is needed. For him, the way will not be flat: he must go up and down, he must be tossed by waves, and must guide his vessel on a stormy sea. He must hold his course against fortune. Many things will happen that are hard and rough—but things he can soften and smooth out himself. Fire proves gold; misery, brave men [and women]. (On Providence 5.9) When Fortuna stirs up a storm in your life and appears intent on driving your ship onto the rocks or into the depths, keep this truth from the Stoics in mind: Fortuna is not your enemy; she is your teacher. You can choose to welcome her into your life and learn the lessons she offers, or you can ignore the lessons of Fortuna, resist fate, and suffer the psychological consequences. We learn that Fortuna is not an existential threat by trusting the benevolence of a providential cosmos and focusing our attention on what is up to us. Our struggle with Fortuna is not a fight against external circumstances. Instead, it is a struggle with our desire for circumstances to be other than they are. As we learned from Encheiridion 8, the goal of Stoicism training is learning to wish for things to happen as they do. Again, this does not mean we wish for dispreferred outcomes in advance; that’s not what the Stoics taught. However, when those events occur, we need to use them to develop our character. Stoicism teaches us to look for the lesson in the storms of life. Fortuna may use a storm to redirect our ship toward a destination we did not originally intend. Alternatively, the squall we face today may prepare us for a more significant, unforeseen storm just over the horizon. Remember, it takes fire to prove gold, and Fortuna is the metaphorical fuel that feeds the flames of the refinery. Therefore, if we keep our attention (prosoche) on developing our character, we can view events in Nature, whether they appear good or bad, as indiffernets and act appropriately to develop our moral character. Stop it – When Fortuna confronts us with an impression of circumstance that appears either good or bad initially, we must remind ourselves to say “Stop it!” to that impression. When we mentally say, “Stop it!” to the impression, we create the mental gap we need to prevent the impression from carrying us away psychologically. The impression may be of a cancer diagnosis; it may be an offer for a “dream job” with a large salary. It doesn’t matter whether the circumstance appears good or bad; we must Stop it because we know as Stoics it is neither. Strip it bare – Next, we need to set aside that immediate value judgment that this is either good or bad. We must Strip it bare to see it for what it is—just an event occurring in Nature. Remember, it is not the event that disturbs or elates us; it is our judgment of that event. See it from the cosmic perspective – Finally, we need to view these circumstances from a cosmic perspective. Yes, this cancer may kill me, but death is not bad. Death cannot harm my character, but my thoughts about death can disturb my mind and inspire intentions to act in inappropriate ways, which will damage my character. Yes, that is a dream job with a large salary, but it came from a company known to engage in unethical practices. If I take that job, I will indirectly contribute to the harm this company does to others. As I have said before, as Stoic prokoptons, we will occasionally encounter circumstances that overwhelm us. To bear and forbear may be the best we do under those circumstances depending on our level of Stoic training. However, we must move beyond bear and forbear toward willing engagement with Fortuna to develop our character. Following the events of Nature closely is an active rather than a passive approach to life. Character development requires constant attention (prosoche), discernment of what is ‘up to us’ and what is not, and a willingness to follow where fate leads with an attitude of gratitude toward a providential cosmos. Our intentions and actions must be in accord with the way things happen in Nature rather than in opposition to them. When we learn to live in agreement with Nature, we can look directly at the storm clouds forming on the horizon or the promise of riches that await on a distant shore without being overwhelmed by the passions either of those impressions typically invoke. We can welcome Fortuna into our lives as our teacher and proclaim, as Marcus did: Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in yourown good time. (Meditations 4.23)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Religious Sentiment of Marcus Aurelius – Episode 47

Wed, 01 Dec 2021 07:15:11 GMT

Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. All is fruit for me that your seasons bring, O nature. All proceeds from you, all subsists in you, and to you all things return. (Meditations 4.23) The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a deeply spiritual person, and that fact comes across clearly in his Meditations. The American philosopher and religious scholar Jacob Needleman suggests the combination of “metaphysical vision, poetic genius, and the worldly realism of a ruler” within the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius inspire us and give us “honorable and realistic hope in our embattled lives.”[1] As a result, he argues, [The Meditations] deserves its unique place among the writings of the world’s great spiritual philosophers.[2] Needleman elaborates on the spiritual impact Marcus’ Meditations has on many of its readers, Marcus is seeking to experience from within himself the higher attention of what he calls the logos, or Universal Reason, so too the sensitive reader begins to listen for that same finer life within his own psyche. That is to say, the reader— you and I— is not simply given great ideas which he then feeds into his already formed opinions and rules of logic. The action of many of these meditations is far more serious than that, and far more interesting and spiritually practical. In a word, in such cases, in many of these meditations, we are being guided—without even necessarily knowing what to call it—we are being guided through a brief moment of inner work. We are being given a taste of what it means to step back in ourselves and develop an intentional relationship to our own mind.[3] The practice of Stoicism for Marcus was a means to find his place in the cosmos. He sought congruity with Nature and learned to love what fate had in store for him because he trusted in a providential cosmos. As David Hicks asserts, The Stoicism in which Marcus believed is rooted in an all-encompassing nature. Everything in man and in the universe, everything that is or ought to be, everything fated and everything free, and the logos or rational principle that informs everything and ties everything together and is ultimately identified with the deity – all of this is found in nature, and there is nothing else.[4] Stoicism provided Marcus with more than an abstract, intellectual understanding of human and cosmic Nature. The religious nature of Stoic philosophy differentiated it from other philosophies as well as organized religions. I covered the religious nature of Stoicism previously, so I will not address it fully here. However, it is important to understand that Stoicism was more than an intellectual endeavor for Marcus. Stoicism provided a rational form of spirituality for Marcus, and it offers the same for moderns. Stoicism is an alternative for those who consider themselves spiritual but not religious. If you're uncomfortable with the dogmas of organized religion and the nihilism of atheism, Stoicism offers a middle ground. Stoicism provides a spiritual way of life guided by reason. Stoicism relies on our innate connection with the rationality permeating the cosmos to guide our human reason toward a relationship with the divine that inspires us to develop our moral character and thereby experience true well-being. As Mark Forstater wrote in his insightful book The Spiritual Teachings of Marcus Aurelius: Until the time of Neoplatonism, Stoicism was the most highly spiritualised form of philosophy in ancient Greece and Rome. It was so spiritualised that it is as accurate to call it a religion as a philosophy.[5] As Henry Sedgewick points out in his biography of Marcus Aurelius, the traditional religions did not provide what he was looking for, Marcus was seeking a religion, as I have said, but there was none at hand that he could accept. The old Roman religion was a mere series of ceremonies, with nothing sacred except lingering patriotic sentiment, and withal marred by superstitions, such as those at Lanuvium. Foreign religions were no better. Syrian priests, like mountebanks, trundled images of the Magna Mater about the countryside, hoping to wheedle peasants out of their pennies; the worshippers of the Egyptian gods offered sensuous exaltation, and mysteries that disregarded reason. Christianity, as we understand it, was utterly unknown to him. He was compelled to look for religion in philosophy; for there only, as he thought, and perhaps thought truly, could a man, without doing wrong to his reason, find spiritual help to enable him to do his duty and keep his soul pure.[6] Marcus did not find consolation in the rituals of traditional religions or the mediation of priests. He was looking for psychological strength and consolation which could allow him to keep his mind pure in trying times and under troublesome circumstances. Marcus discovered the personal religious practice he was looking for within the deeply spiritual philosophy of Stoicism.[7] As a result, his life became an example of the power of Stoicism in a person’s inner life. Sedgewick argues, Marcus Aurelius is not a prodigy among men, unheralded by what has come before; on the contrary he is the ripe product of the spiritual movement that expressed itself in the Stoic philosophy, or rather, as it had then become, the Stoic religion.[8] As can be seen in his Meditations, Marcus followed the Stoic path and became his own priest, in service to the gods, For such a man, who no longer postpones his endeavour to take his place among the best, is indeed a priest and servant of the gods, behaving rightly towards the deity stationed within him, so ensuring that the mortal being remains unpolluted by pleasures, invulnerable to every pain, untouched by any wrong, unconscious of any evil, a wrestler in the greatest contest of all… (Meditations 3.4.3) In Meditations 3.16, Marcus draws upon the importance of the divine while discussing four models of human behavior. Body, soul, intellect: for the body, sense-impressions; for the soul, impulses; for the intellect, judgements. To receive impressions by means of images is something that we share even with cattle; and to be drawn this way and that by the puppet-strings of impulse, we share with wild beasts, with catamites, and with a Phalaris or a Nero; and to have the intellect as a guide towards what appear to be duties is something that we share with those who do not believe in the gods, with those who betray their country, with those who will do anything whatever behind locked doors. If you share everything else with those whom I have just mentioned, there remains the special characteristic of a good person, namely, to love and welcome all that happens to him and is spun for him as his fate, and not to defile the guardian-spirit seated within his breast, nor to trouble it with a host of fancies, but to preserve it in cheerful serenity, following God in an orderly fashion, never uttering a word that is contrary to the truth nor performing an action that is contrary to justice. In this passage, Marcus outlined three aspects of the Stoic Self and their corresponding capacities; then, he uses these to delineate four behavior models. First, let’s look at the three aspects of Self: Body (soma)—sense-impressions (phantasia) Soul (pneuma)—impulses (horme) Intellect (nous)—judgments It would be a mistake to impose a Platonic conception of a divided mind here. The mind is a unified whole in Stoicism. As Christopher Gill notes in his note on the Robin Hard translation of Meditations, where Marus used this same language: This threefold division differs from the standard Stoic view that psychological processes are also physical and are functions of an animating ‘breath’ (pneuma); see LS 47, 53. However, the division is probably best taken as an essentially ethical one (Marcus urges himself to identify with his rational and potentially virtuous mind or ‘ruling centre’), rather than indicating the deliberate adoption of a non-standard, Platonic-style view of psychology.[9] In his Introduction to the same translation, Gill wrote: …[Marcus] sometimes stresses that we are, essentially, our ‘ruling’ or ‘governing’ centre (or ‘mind’, hēgemonikon), sometimes contrasting this with other aspects of our self, including ‘flesh’, and, more surprisingly, psuchē (which he uses to mean ‘breath’ or ‘vitality’).25 On the face of it, this looks like a shift towards a Platonic-style dualism, distinguishing between the disembodied mind and the body in a way that is quite inconsistent with the Stoic view that our psychological functions are also bodily ones. But, examined more closely, it is clear that such passages are really making an ethical point, and one that reflects the first Stoic theme noted earlier. What Marcus is stressing (like Epictetus in similar phrases) is that the really important aspect of human nature is the capacity to use the mind, or ‘governing part’, to try to live virtuously, rather than attaching supreme value to ‘matters of indifference’ such as material goods or sensual pleasures.[10] Next, Marcus uses these aspects of the Self to delineate four models of behavior: Those who are driven by sense impressions (phantasia): “To receive impressions by means of images is something that we share even with cattle.” Those who are driven by desires (horme): “Drawn this way and that by the puppet-strings of impulse, we share with wild beasts, with catamites, and with a Phalaris or a Nero.” Those who are driven by their intellect (nous) alone: “To have the intellect as a guide towards what appear to be duties is something that we share with those who do not believe in the gods, with those who betray their country, with those who will do anything whatever behind locked doors.” So far,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Religious Sentiment of Seneca – Episode 46

Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:30:14 GMT

Seneca’s writings reveal a committed Stoic, a pious soul, and an inspirational moral philosopher. Nevertheless, some of his actions and financial dealings have generated doubt about his genuineness. Seneca is a mixed bag if the historical record can be trusted. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that Seneca engaged in politics at the highest levels of the Roman Empire, which was the dominant world power of his time. Thus, he had powerful enemies, not the least of which was the infamous Emperor Nero. When I imagine a man like Seneca in our modern political game of character assassination, I can easily find room to believe much of his negative press was politically motivated. I’m not going to dive into the morass of conflicting scholarship about Seneca; However, I offer the following quote as a balanced opinion, Naturally, we can have no more certainty that Seneca actually followed his own moral teaching than we can have about any person from antiquity. At best, the sources allow us to extract certain implications for a prominent individual like Seneca. But common opinion about his person seems very much affected, first, by the bare fact that he was a wealthy man, as if that alone would have made him selfish and hypocritical by definition, and, second, by a peculiar fusion of the tutor and counselor Seneca with the student and Emperor Nero, who is best remembered for his bad morality. Here it seems to matter little that our sources suggest that the emperors ‘good period’ was in fact precisely when he was under Seneca's influence. The stereotyped image of Seneca as a pretentious hypocrite is amazingly widespread, often simply found ‘as a stock assertion dragged from one second-hand work to another’.[1] As Stoics, I think we should take Seneca's writings at face value. They inspired multitudes in the past, and they do the same today. Many of the early Christian Church Fathers thought highly of Seneca and considered him a moral exemplar. Tertullian, a second-century Christian apologist, even referred to him as “our Seneca.” Regardless of the ambiguous historical record, Seneca’s writings reveal his deep philosophical thought and reverence for divine Nature. Letters to Lucilius Throughout his writings, Seneca refers to the relationship between the gods and us. In Letters 1.5, he calls this relationship a “kinship” and claims it is “sealed by virtue.” Later, in Letters 31, titled Our mind’s godlike potential,[2] he suggests a committed devotion to philosophy, as a way of life, raises us above our human nature toward our godlike potential. How? Through virtue, which he defines as: [T]he evenness and steadiness of a life that is in harmony with itself through all events, which cannot come about unless one has knowledge and the skill of discerning things human and divine. (Letters 31.8) Again, in Letters 53, Seneca argues that a mind committed to philosophy will be near to the gods and can experience the “tranquility of God.” He points out the tremendous power of philosophy to “beat back all the assaults of chance” and claims, No weapon lodges in its flesh; its defenses cannot be penetrated. When fortune’s darts come in, it either ducks and lets them pass by, or stands its ground and lets them bounce back against the assailant. (Letters53.11-12) In Letters 41, titled God dwells within us, Seneca covers the topics of Stoic physics and theology in some detail. First, he makes a clear distinction between the practices of personal religion and those of conventional religions. As I discussed in previous episodes, Stoicism was never a religion in the traditional sense, with altars, temples, and priests. Nevertheless, the Stoics were deeply spiritual and reverential toward God, which they conceived as an immanent and creative force that permeates and providentially guides the cosmos and humankind. Seneca begins Letters 41 by asserting, You need not raise your hands to heaven; you need not beg the temple keeper for privileged access, as if a near approach to the cult image would give us a better hearing. The god is near you—with you—inside you. I mean it, Lucilius. A sacred spirit dwells within us, and is the observer and guardian of all our goods and ills. However we treat that spirit, so does the spirit treat us. In truth, no one is a good man without God. Or is there anyone who can rise superior to fortune without God’s aid? It is God who supplies us with noble thoughts, with upright counsels. In each and every good man resides a god: which god, remains unknown. (Letters 41.1-2) Scholars suggest this reference to God as unknown comes from Virgil’s Aeneid, where King Evander leads Aeneas to a grove and says, …this hill with its crown of leaves is a god’s home, whatever god he is. (Aeneid 8.352) As an educated Roman, Lucilius would have been familiar with Virgil’s epic poem about the foundations of Roman civilization. However, this reference begs the question. Why would Seneca quote a passage referring to an unknown god in a letter about the God that dwells within us? I think this is illustrative of the Stoic conception of God. Cleanthes, the second Scholarch of the Stoa, referred to the divinity as the God of many names in his deeply spiritual Hymn to Zeus. For the Stoic, God is immanent in all of creation. Therefore, whether God, Nature, Zeus, universal Reason, etc., the name we choose does not matter. They all point to the same concept—divine rationality that permeates the cosmos and is the source of its ongoing existence. Next, Seneca discusses the religious awe many people experience while in the majestic presence of Nature. If you happen to be in a wood dense with ancient trees of unusual height, where interlocking branches exclude the light of day, the loftiness and seclusion of that forest spot, the wonder of finding above ground such a deep, unbroken shade, will convince you that divinity is there. If you behold some deeply eroded cavern, some vast chamber not made with hands but hollowed out by natural causes at the very roots of the mountain, it will impress upon your mind an intimation of religious awe. We venerate the sources of great rivers; we situate an altar wherever a rushing stream bursts suddenly from hiding; thermal springs are the site of ritual observance; and more than one lake has been held sacred for its darkness or its measureless depth. (Letters 41.3) Next, Seneca makes an interesting comparison. He compares this experience of the divine in Nature to the experience of encountering a sage-like person—a person who lives up to their godlike potential. He wrote: So if you see a person undismayed by peril and untouched by desire, one cheerful in adversity and calm in the face of storms, someone who rises above all humankind and meets the gods at their own level, will you not be overcome with reverence before him? That eminent and disciplined mind, passing through everything as lesser than itself, laughing at all our fears and all our longings, is driven by some celestial force. Such magnitude cannot stand upright without divinity to hold it up. In large part, then, its existence is in that place from which it has come down. (Letters 41.4-5) So, what is the source of this divinity which holds up the “eminent and disciplined mind” of this person? Seneca writes: Even as the sun’s rays touch the earth and yet have their existence at their point of origin, so that great and sacred mind, that mind sent down to bring us nearer knowledge of the divine, dwells indeed with us and yet inheres within its source. Its reliance is there, and there are its aim and its objective: though it mingles in our affairs, it does so as our better. (Letters 41.4-5) In other words, the god-like mind we see in this sage-like person has its source in “that great and sacred mind” that permeates the cosmos. As Pierre Hadot notes in his marvelous book The Inner Citadel, the Stoics thought: It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[3] Many moderns gloss over passages like this because they consider them religious nonsense. However, Seneca and the other Stoics thought this conception of the cosmos the most reasonable inference from their observations of nature. Seneca is arguing for the existence of an inherent intelligence in the cosmos, and many modern scientists agree. In response to an inquiry from a young girl, Einstein wrote: …everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.[4] Einstein did not believe in a personal God, and he was not an advocate of organized religion; nevertheless, he asserted that “individuals of exceptional endowments” could rise to a “third stage of religious experience” he called “cosmic religion” where, The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.[5] Einstein’s definition of cosmic religion is consistent with the theology and religious sentiment of the Stoics, who called this intelligence within the cosmos logos and considered it divine. For the Stoics, a fragment of the same logos (rationality) which permeates and rationally orders the cosmos also serves as our guiding principle or hegemonikon—our rational mind. Thus, when we live according to Nature, as the Stoics prescribed, our rational faculty is in coherence with the divine, rational mind (logos) permeating the cosmos.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Religious Sentiment of Epictetus – Episode 45

Wed, 17 Nov 2021 07:29:21 GMT

If I were a nightingale, I would perform the work of a nightingale, and if I were a swan, that of a swan. But as it is, I am a rational being, and I must sing the praise of God. This is my work, and I accomplish it, and I will never abandon my post for as long as it is granted to me to remain in it; and I invite all of you to join me in this same song. (Discourses 1.16.20-21) Epictetus is typically considered the most religious of the Roman Stoics. As such, some attempt to portray him as an outlier among the Stoics. However, as A.A. Long points out, In his conception of divine providence, creativity, and rationality, Epictetus is completely in line with the general Stoic tradition. His distinctiveness, in what I have discussed so far, extends mainly to the enthusiasm with which he commends obedience to God and to the warmth he infuses in his expressions of God's concern for human beings.[1] We find this same “notable religious sensibility” in the philosophy of Seneca, Musonius Rufus, and Marcus Aurelius,[2] and, as A.A. Long further notes, it is “broadly in line with traditional Stoicism.”[3] To a large degree, these religious sentiments result from the inherent “structural resemblance” between the rationality of humans and that of the divine logos, which allows for a “certain degree of personalistic theism in thinking and speaking about god”[4] in Stoicism. We see this language used frequently by Epictetus. Likewise, over the history of the Stoa, God will “assume more and more spiritual and personal traits” and “religiousness will tend to permeate” Stoicism and move it toward theism without fully arriving there.[5] Nevertheless, it is essential to balance the religious sentiments of Epictetus with the realization that he never claimed nor adhered to any form of divine revelation; neither did he express a need for religious faith, in the forms those concepts are commonly understood today. For Epictetus, to follow God means “we should pay attention to the God in us, i.e. to our reason, in order to determine what is the right thing for us, namely how we are to live in accordance with nature.”[6] As Andrew Mason, Teaching Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, points out in the introduction of a beautiful little volume on The Philosophy of Epictetus: Talk of God’s seeing, helping, guiding, speaking to and punishing us, and of God as our father, can be explained in terms either of God’s overall providence, or of our inner god or daemon, our reason, which is a fragment of the cosmic deity. Likewise prayer, for Epictetus, is not an appeal for intervention by an external God, but rather an admonition to oneself. Epictetus does differ from the early Stoics in the extent to which he uses personalistic language about God; this may be explained partly by his personal outlook, but also by the purpose of the Discourses, in the context of which God’s providence and his status as an ethical example are more important than the cosmological aspects of him which played an important part in early Stoicism.[7] A.A. Long sums up the difference between Epictetus and his predecessors in the Stoa by arguing he “proceeds from rather than to God.”[8] He points out, “Epictetus’ favourite formula for the goal of human life is ‘to follow the gods’ (Discourses1.12.5; 1.30.4; 4.7.20).”[9] The earlier Stoics used oikeiosis as the starting point to explain Stoic ethical theory; they taught theology last. Epictetus reversed that approach and made theology the starting point of ethics. Epictetus builds his ethical theory and practice on what Long calls THEONOMIC FOUNDATIONS.[10] Epictetus argues we are born with an innate moral sense (preconception) of the good and the divine.[11] Because each of us possesses a fragment of divine Reason (logos) as our guiding principle, we are innately capable of understanding and living according to the laws of God that are written in Nature. Thus, Epictetus’ instruction to ‘follow God’ is equivalent to ‘living according to nature’ (1.26.1). Nevertheless, Epictetus is not unique in this approach; as Plutarch noted, Chrysippus always put theology first when discussing ethical matters.[12] Here we see why the Stoic conception of Nature, derived from the study of physics and theology, is essential to understanding this holistic philosophical system. Both oikeiosis and theology fall under the topic of physics in Stoicism. Thus, whether the Stoics began with oikeiosis or theology, they grounded their ethical theory in physics—the study of nature. The Stoics did not conceive of God as a transcendent being; the Stoic divinity is immanent. As such, a fragment of the same logos that providentially orders the cosmos resides in us as our guiding principle (hegemonikon). A.A. Long suggests, The Stoics’ deepest religious intuitions are founded on their doctrine that the human mind, in all its functions – reflecting, sensing, desiring, and initiating action – is part and partner of God.[13] In his book dedicated to the application of Epictetus’ teachings to a philosophical life, A.A. Long writes, Whether [Epictetus] speaks of Zeus or God or Nature or the gods, he is completely committed to the belief that the world is providentially organized by a divine power whose creative agency reaches its highest manifestation in human beings. That was orthodox Stoicism, and much else that Epictetus attributes to divinity is quite traditional. However, no theology is simply a matter of doctrine. Conceptions of the divine are indicated in numerous ways that go beyond such epithets as eternal, creative, providential, and beneficent, on all of which the Stoics were agreed. Awe, reverence, gratitude, joy, prayer, obedience-these are a sample of attitudes that a serious belief in a supreme divinity typically involves. Stoic philosophers, just like other believers, vary considerably over which of these attitudes they express and with what degree of emotional engagement. When we review Epictetus from this perspective, his theology emerges as most distinctive in two respects: first, its serving as the explicit foundation for his moral psychology, and, secondly, its warmly and urgently personalist tone. More emphatically than any other Stoic in our record, Epictetus speaks of Zeus or God in terms that treat the world's divine principle as a person to whom one is actually present and who is equally present to oneself as an integral aspect of one's mind.[14] A word of caution is appropriate here. We must use due caution when approaching Stoicism with our modern conceptions of God, religion, and piety. If we fail to check our preconceived notions and biases, we are likely to misinterpret and misunderstand the Stoics by “falling victim to either over-assimilation or excessive differentiation.”[15] We moderns commit a serious error when we attempt to position the Stoics at either end of the modern metaphysical spectrum. The Stoics were neither theists nor atheists in the modern sense. Stoicism is a rational form of spirituality that arrived at a conception of divinity through reason rather than revelation. Therefore, the Stoic concept of a divine, providentially ordered cosmos resides in the open space between theism and atheism. Many scholars apply the label of pantheism to Stoic theology. However, it is clear a thread of theism was present from the founding of the Stoa, and this blend of pantheism and theism is expressed differently by various ancient Stoics. Nevertheless, as we will see, the Stoics, in general, and Epictetus, in particular, considered their worldview essential to their philosophical system. The difference in worldview—the nature of the cosmos and the nature of human beings—was one of the primary differentiators among the Stoics, Epicureans, Cynics, and Sceptics during the Hellenistic period. They all agreed that eudaimonia (a good flow) was the summum bonum of human life. Likewise, they all agreed an excellent character (virtue) was essential. The Cynics even agreed with the Stoics that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. It was primarily their divergent worldviews, which subsequently affected their other doctrines and differentiated these philosophical schools. A.A. Long argues, The choice of Stoicism over Epicureanism, its principal rival, was decisive not only for one's ethical values and priorities but also for one's understanding of the world's general structure, one's theology, and the importance to be attached to systematic reasoning and the study of language. Yet, however much these and other schools disagreed over their accounts of such things, they all shared the view that philosophy should provide its adepts with the foundation for the best possible human life-that is to say, a happiness that would be lasting and serene. At Epictetus' date (and in fact, from long before) philosophy in general was taken to be a medicine for alleviating the errors and passions that stem from purely reactive and conventional attitudes. To put it another way, the choice of Stoicism over another philosophy depended not on its promise to deliver an admirable and thoroughly satisfying life (that project would not distinguish it from rival schools) but on its detailed specification of that life and on the appeal of its claims about the nature of the world and human beings.[16] Modern Stoic popularizers are simply wrong when they argue that physics and theology are not essential to the Stoic philosophical system. There is no support for such an assertion in the surviving texts or credible scholarship. One can abandon those aspects of Stoicism in modern times, as Lawrence Becker did, and attempt to create something entirely new for atheists and agnostics who reject the Stoic worldview.[17] Becker understood he was creating an entirely new synthesis of Stoicism; that’s why he called it “A New Stoicism.” Nevertheless,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Universal Reason – Episode 44

Wed, 03 Nov 2021 07:30:36 GMT

What defined a Stoic above all else was the choice of a life in which every thought, every desire, and every action would be guided by no other law than that of universal Reason. ~ Pierre Hadot[i] The Stoics placed a rational, divine, and providentially ordered cosmos at the center of their philosophical system and relied on it to guide their every thought, desire, and action. For the Stoic, Nature is the measure of all things. Therefore, the Stoics argued to experience well-being (eudaimonia), we must live in agreement with Nature. [i] Hadot, P., & Chase, M. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 308 FULL TRANSCRIPT COMING SOON

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 12 – Episode 43

Wed, 27 Oct 2021 08:00:45 GMT

If you want to make progress, dismiss this kind of reasoning: “If I neglect my business, I will have nothing to live on,” or “If I don’t punish my slave, he will be no good.” It is better to starve to death in a calm and confident state of mind than to live anxiously amidst abundance. And it is better also for your slave to be bad than for you to be unhappy. So make a start with the little things, like some oil being spilled or some wine being stolen. Then tell yourself: “This is the price one pays for not getting worked up, the price for tranquility. Nothing comes free of charge.” When you summon your slave, reflect that he is quite capable of not responding, or if he does respond that he may do none of the things you want. In any case he is too unimportant for your own tranquility to depend on him. (Ench 12) TRANSCRIPT COMING SOON

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 11 – Episode 42

Wed, 20 Oct 2021 06:00:07 GMT

Never say about anything, “I have lost it”; but say, “I have returned it.” Has your little child died? “It has been returned.” Has your wife died? “She has been returned.” “I have been robbed of my land.” No, that has been returned as well. “But it was a bad person who stole it.” Why are you bothered about the individual the donor used to demand its return? As long as these things are given to you, take care of them as things that are not your own, just as travelers treat their lodging. (Ench 11) SHOW TRANSCRIPT COMING SOON

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 10 – Episode 41

Wed, 13 Oct 2021 06:00:37 GMT

In all circumstances keep in mind to turn in to yourself and ask what resources you have for dealing with these things. If you see a good-looking man or woman, you will find self-control the appropriate power; if pain afflicts you, you will find endurance; if rudeness, you will find patience. By developing these habits, you will not be carried away by your first impressions. (Ench 10) While this passage deals directly with the discipline of assent, it also entails the disciplines of desire and action. When we pull this passage apart, we get a glimpse into how quickly assents to impressions can create desires and aversions and lead to impulses to act. The primary point of this lesson from Epictetus is to show us we possess the resources necessary to stop the quick progression from assent to impulse to act. Epictetus highlights three impressions in this passage and provides specific resources we can use to deal with each. Here’s the process as it applies in each of these three examples: In Step 1, an impression presses itself upon our mind. All of the impressions listed in this passage arise from sources external to our mind. I just saw a good-looking man or woman I feel a pain in my body, or I’m facing some other hardship. I just encountered a rude person. In Step 2, we immediately attach a value judgment to that impression: That good-looking man or woman is something “good” for me. That pain in my body is something “bad” for me. That person’s rude behavior is “bad” for me. In Step 3, that judgment creates a desire or aversion and a subsequent impulse to act. I desire that good-looking man or woman; I’m going to reach out to them. I fear this pain in my body or this hardship; I’m going to avoid it. That rude person offended me; I’m going make them stop, or I’m going to retaliate. If we were sages, we wouldn’t get past Step 1 because we would not place the value judgment on the impression. However, we are not sages, and neither were Epictetus’ students. That is why he is informing us we possess powers or resources we can use to interrupt this sequence after we’ve assented to the value judgment and before the impulse to act leads us into bad behavior. Before I tackle each of these examples, I want to make one point clear. Epictetus’ goal for this lesson is to help us develop habits that prevent us from being carried away by impressions into a state of emotional distress (pathos). The goal is not to turn us into Dr. Spoke-like, emotionless, disconnected observers of events. Epictetus is not telling us we should not find a good-looking man or woman attractive. He is not telling us to ignore the pain in our bodies or the effects of hardships. He is not telling us to be oblivious to rude behavior. Instead, Epictetus teaches us we have resources within ourselves to judge these impressions correctly and respond appropriately. This lesson is important because we frequently allow the initial judgment of an impression to carry us away and cause us to spiral out of control emotionally. Too often, this leads to an entirely inappropriate response. With that in mind, let’s look at each of the impressions Epictetus uses in this lesson and how we can use the resources we have to deal with them. The good-looking man or woman Let’s start with the impression of a good-looking man or woman. Observing and appreciating beauty is natural. There is nothing wrong with observing a man or woman and assenting to the judgment they are good-looking. Nature created us to appreciate beauty. The problem starts when we allow that first impression and initial judgment of beauty to carry us away with desire. We are mistaken if we assent to the impression that having that good-looking man or woman as a life companion or sexual partner is “good” and will bring us well-being (happiness). Their presence in our life could be a preferred indifferent at best. Alternatively, as many of us have experienced, it may lead to some real dispreferred indifferents we did not foresee when this good-looking man or woman initially captured our attention. Epictetus tells us we possess the power of temperance or moderation as a resource to deal with this impression before it becomes an impulse to act. But, how and when do we use this resource? We likely already attached the value judgment of “good” to the impression of a good-looking man or woman, and a desire may be starting to take control. If we let it take control, we may begin to fantasize about that good-looking person mentally. Then, we may be overcome by an impulse to act, which can lead to immoral behavior. In Encheiridion 10, Epictetus is referring to scenarios where the impulse to act would be immoral. We can think of numerous scenarios where assent to a person’s good looks might lead one to seek their company as a preferred indifferent without it being an immoral act. That is not the lesson Epictetus is presenting here. The Stoics did not advocate celibacy; however, they did teach moderation in all things. So how do we apply the power of temperance or moderation to this scenario? We must begin with the practice I taught in Episode 9. When the impression of a good-looking man or woman is presented to our mind, we need to “Stop it,” “Strip it” bare, and “See it” from the cosmic viewpoint. Refer to Episode 9 if you are unclear about this three-step practice to deal with impressions. The good news is this: as long as we engage in this process before we act upon the impulse, we can circumvent the bad action. In other words, we may have already assented to the idea this good-looking person is “good” for us, and we may already be driven by desire and feel the impulse to act. As long as we say STOP to ourselves before we act, it’s not too late. If we can “Stop it” before we act, we have time to “Strip it” bare. In case anyone is confused at this point, “Strip it bare” applies to the impression, not the good-looking man or woman. Please don’t strip them bare. That is not part of this Stoic practice, and it will likely get you into some serious trouble. So, we tell ourselves to “Stop it.” This is where the teacher within us from Episode 36 steps in to guide the child within us. When we “Stop it,” we create a gap that allows us enough time to consider this impression for what it is. That gap gives us time to “Strip” the impression bare. It gives us time to realize this good-looking man or woman is a potential preferred indifferent rather than something that is “good” and can affect our well-being. Finally, we “See it” from the cosmic perspective. How did this good-looking man or woman come into my awareness? Are they a stranger passing by on the street? Or, did you meet them under circumstances that might cause you to give more consideration to them as a preferred indifferent in your life? Sometimes, a confluence of events creates synchronicities that deserve our consideration. This is where we can apply the power of temperance and moderation. After we “Stop it” and “Strip it,”we can use the power of temperance and moderation as we See this impression from the cosmic perspective. We can ask ourselves: Is this desire for this good-looking person consistent with our values and goal of living in agreement with Nature? What might happen, good or bad, if I follow this impulse to act? Are my thoughts and behaviors moderated by a desire to act appropriately? Ultimately, the goal of Stoic practice is to move the “Stop it” step farther back in the chain of events. At first, we may only be able to “Stop it” at the impulse to act stage; before we act. Then, with practice, we can move the “Stop it” step back to where we first feel the desire or aversion taking hold of our psyche with practice and habituation. Finally, we can move it back further and learn to say “Stop it” to ourselves as soon as we recognize we have attached a value judgment to the impression. Pain or labor Like beauty, pain in our body serves a purpose. It’s a warning sign that something may be wrong. We would be foolish to ignore it completely. Unfortunately, we frequently allow pain to control our lives even when it’s minor; we don’t like pain and will do almost anything we can to avoid it altogether. I note that some translations use the word labor or hardship instead of pain in this passage. So, the problem starts when we allow the initial judgment of pain or hardship as “bad” to carry us away with aversion. We are mistaken if we assent to the impression that pain or hardship is “bad” for us and will detract from our well-being in any way. Epictetus tells us we possess the power of endurance as a resource to deal with pain or labor. But, how and when do we use this resource? The same way we did with the good-looking man or woman. We say “Stop it” to ourselves. “Stop it;”it’s just pain. “Stop it;” it’s just a hardship. It’s doubtful this is going to kill me. Then we “Strip it.” We recognize that pain is a signal, and we diagnose the urgency of the signal. It may be urgent enough that we need immediate medical attention. If that’s the case, we can still proceed calmly. A little premeditatio malorum may be helpful. What is the worst that can happen; I may die. If I am going to die, I can choose to die nobly and keep my good character intact. On the other hand, if this is just a minor pain or impediment to my body, I already learned how to deal with that in Encheiridion 9. Now, that we move to the “See it” from the cosmic perspective. We can ask ourselves: Is this pain or hardship really that bad? Can I endure this pain or hardship and be a stronger person as a result? Pain and hardship are not bad for our moral character. The Stoics argue that hardships actually help develop our character. Absent trials, struggles, and tests, how can we develop our moral character? In Discourses 1.6, Epictetus uses the mythological figure of Hercules to make this point.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 9 – Episode 40

Wed, 06 Oct 2021 06:00:52 GMT

Sickness is an impediment to the body, but not to the will unless the will wants to be impeded. Lameness is an impediment to the leg, but not to the will. If you tell yourself this at every occurrence, you will find the impediment is to something else but not to yourself. (Ench 9) Epictetus uses two dispreferred indifferents in this lesson, and both are related to our body: sickness and lameness. Then, he points out that each of these impairments presents a hindrance to our body but not to our will. The Greek word translated as “will” in this passage is prohairesis, and it has deep meaning in Stoicism. I discussed prohairesis briefly in Episode 34; however, I think a more detailed look at this concept will be helpful. However, before we cover prohairesis, let’s look at the concept of body in Stoic physics. This concept applies equally to all bodies, whether rocks, plants, animals, or humans, so it will shed some light on Encheiridion 9. In Stoicism, only bodies exist; therefore, everything that exists is a body. All bodies are a mixture of two principles—the passive principle (primary matter) and the active principle (logos or pneuma). The Stoic definition of a body is that which can act or be acted upon. Understanding this concept in Stoicism is essential because some people confuse it with modern reductive materialism. Some scholars even label the Stoics materialists, but they do not mean materialists in the modern sense where everything is reduced to matter. As Jacques Brunschwig points out in his chapter on Stoic Metaphysics in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, the Stoic version of ‘materialism’ is “vitalist-teleological” in contrast to the “mechanistic-antiteleological” version of the Epicureans.[1] The Epicureans were the reductive materialists in Hellenistic times. That is why it’s essential to understand when scholars refer to Stoics as materialists, they do not mean like the Epicureans or modern materialists. A.A. Long argues: It is misleading to describe the Stoics as ‘materialists’. Bodies, in the Stoic system, are compounds of ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ (God or logos). Mind is not something other than body but a necessary constituent of it, the ‘reason’ in matter. The Stoics are better described as vitalists.⁠[2] Here we see the basis of Stoic physics. Everything that exists is a body composed of matter and mind (God, logos, or pneuma). Therefore, humans are composed of matter and mind. I have more to say about this in a minute. First, let’s cover this concept of prohairesis in Stoicism. Scholars have used different English words to translate the Greek word prohairesis; here are some of them. Translations of prohairesis: will (A.A. Long; George Long) A.A. Long - WILL A favorite term in Epictetus (Greek prohairesis ) for a human being’s power of self-determination and mental disposition. The word is sometimes translated by choice, purpose, volition, or decision, but in my opinion “will” is the most natural English expression for what Epictetus seeks to convey with it.[3] choice (Robin Hard, John Sellars) Sellers - choice (prohairesis) Epictetus' name for the conscious decision-making part of the commanding faculty; what might now be called the "will" or "I".[4] moral purpose (W.A. Oldfather) moral character (Keith Seddon) prohairesis ‘moral character’; the capacity that rational beings have for making choices and intending the outcomes of their actions, sometimes translated as will, volition, intention, choice, moral choice, moral purpose. This faculty is understood by Stoics to be essentially rational. It is the faculty we use to ‘attend to impressions’ and to give (or withhold) assent to impressions. Those things which are outside the scope of one’s prohairesis are the aprohaireta, which are aprohairetos and ‘external’ (ektos), and ‘not in our power’ (ouk eph’ hêmin); Discourses30.3, 2.16.1, 3.3.14, 3.8.1–3.[5] faculty of choice (Nicholas White) mind (Robert Dobbin) decision or choice (Christopher Gill) In his introduction to the Robin Hard translation of the Discourses of Epictetus, Christopher Gill, a recognized scholar of Stoicism, notes the following: The interface between ethics and physics provides a number of important Stoic ideas, centring on the idea that the natural universe provides an informing framework for ethical life. The universe, or its shaping, or ‘divine’’, element, does so either as a paradigm of order, structure, and rationality or as a source of providential care for the component parts of the universe, especially human beings, who share its ‘divine’ rationality. A related idea is that for human beings to exercise their capacity for rational agency is to act in line with the rational (divine) direction of the universe as well as with one’s own inner, rational ‘guardian spirit’ (daimōn). This complex of ideas has a prominent place in the Discourses, as also in some other writings on Stoic practical ethics, notably, Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Epictetus stresses especially the last idea, accentuating the idea of God as director of the universe and as the source of the divine rationality in us. Another theme stressed is that the capacity to exercise rational agency in developing towards virtue (expressed as our prohairesis) is a fundamental, or inalienable, human capacity, which is built into the natural, divinely shaped universe.[6] Now that I’ve covered both body and mind as conceived by the Stoics, it’s important to note the Stoics were not dualists. The mind is not something separated from matter in Nature. Remember that mixture of the passive and active principles. According to the Stoics, everything that exists—all the way down—is composed of both principles. Additionally, according to the Stoics, the mind is not a product of the brain. This contradicts the modern materialist theories of consciousness as an illusion or an epiphenomenon. Instead, for the Stoics, mind is there at the ground level, and its source is the same rationality (logos) that permeates the cosmos. As I pointed out in Episode 35, Pierre Hadot makes note of this in The Inner Citadel. He wrote: In fact, all the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.⁠[7] This is consistent with a theory that is currently gaining substantial traction in the scientific and academic community. The theory is called panpsychism, and it claims consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. Modern panpsychism shares many similarities with the physics of the ancient Stoics. Were the Stoics panpsychists? That depends on how one defines panpsychism. David Skrbina, a senior lecturer in the department of philosophy at the University of Michigan, and author of a definitive book on the topic titled, Panpsychism in the West, certainly thinks they were. He wrote The Stoics were thus thoroughly panpsychist in their outlook on the world, and they developed a theory of the cosmos that was perfectly compatible with that outlook.[8] Whether or not the Stoics should be classified as panpsychists, the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe certainly provides some support for Stoic physics. Interestingly, an ever-increasing number of scientists, philosophers, and consciousness researchers are abandoning reductive materialism for panpsychism. Today, numerous prominent thinkers from various fields are ditching materialism and turning to panpsychism because it offers a coherent explanation for human consciousness. Do a little research, and you will find panpsychism is not a fringe idea anymore. Those moderns who remain committed to reductive materialism and claim Stoic physics is outdated and must be abandoned may soon be the ones left clinging to an obsolete theory. I hear Modern Stoics want to update Stoic physics based on the best available facts; in that case, we should replace the conception of a mechanical universe with the entangled cosmos discovered by quantum physics more than a century ago. Likewise, it’s time to discard the century-old promissory note from reductive materialism to solve the puzzle of human consciousness and consider the possibility an innate intelligence or rationality permeates the cosmos at every level, as panpsychism suggests. Modern Stoics who demand we “follow the facts” are relying on a rapidly waning worldview to make that demand. If we’re going to update Stoic physics, let’s do it right, with the best available facts and theories from the twenty-first century. Back to Encheiridion 9. Sickness and lameness are impediments to our body; however, they do not impede our will, purpose, volition, moral character, faculty of choice, or whatever English word we choose for prohairesis. Our ability to choose between what is up to us and what is not up to us is not impeded by impediments to our body. Obviously, we can create a list of diseases that affect the brain and inhibit or destroy our rational faculties. Epictetus is not talking about extreme cases like that. The list of sicknesses that can debilitate the body and leave the mind intact is substantially longer. If we want an extreme example of this, the brilliant scientist Stephen Hawking provides one. The point is this: the overwhelming majority of physical ailments or disabilities we can experience leave our prohairesis intact. Therefore, they do not affect our moral character unless we choose to allow them to do so. In his book Greek Models of Mind and Self, A.A. Long wrote: Most literally eudaimonia means a divinely favored dispensation. The daimon constituent of the word combines a generic sense of divinity with the notion of fate or fortune. By prefixing to daimon the adverb eu, which qualifies an activity or condition as excellent,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 8 – Episode 39

Wed, 29 Sep 2021 06:00:09 GMT

Don’t ask for things to happen as you would like them to, but wish them to happen as they actually do, and you will be all right. (Ench 8) This passage, and several other similar passages within the Stoic texts, present a huge, sometimes insurmountable, stumbling block for many people when they begin to study and practice Stoicism. As Simplicius notes in his commentary on this passage: But perhaps this injunction to ‘wish for it to happen as it happens’ will seem to some people to be harsh and impossible. What right thinking human being wishes for the occurrence of the widespread bad effects resulting from the universe – for instance, earthquakes, deluges, conflagrations, plagues, famine and the destruction of all sorts of animals and crops? Or the impious deeds performed by some human beings on others – the sacking of cities, taking prisoners of war, unjust killings, piracy, kidnapping, licentiousness, and tyranni cal force, culminating in compelled acts of impiety? …These things and others of this sort – of which there has been an excess in our own lifetime – who would want to hear of them, let alone see them, take part in them or ‘wish them to happen as they happen’, except a malevolent person and a hater of all that is fine?[1] Within the last month, I responded to emails from two Stoicism on Fire listeners who expressed concern about this concept in Stoicism. I will keep the identity of those listeners anonymous. However, I’m going to use the content of those emails to help express a concern that is likely shared by others. The first is from a man who wrote: I am hoping you may be able to help me with something which has been a source of some vexation to me. I have been studying philosophy for most of my adult life and Stoicism is something I came to in the last 5-years or so. The problem I have is to do with the discipline of assent. It seems that what the Stoic wants is to dispense with the value judgement part of the impression. The idea seems to be that whatever is not in my control is to be expunged by simply not assenting to it. Now, I can perfectly see the argument that when a driver cuts me up or someone says something insulting to me, I may want to remove my value judgements to preserve my equanimity. All perfectly obvious. But what you seem to be saying is that any value judgement based on something not in my control, should be “deleted” from the impression, in order to preserve my equanimity. I’m afraid I find this absurd. Suppose you find yourself in a situation where one of your children has been taken hostage by a terrorist and is being threatened with a knife. There is a high probability that something terrible will happen, but according to the discipline of assent, you will need to delete the value judgement (which any normal father would have) that my child is in danger!!. Having thus deleted the value judgement, you can observe events unfolding from your “Inner Citadel” completely unperturbed. The second email was from a woman, who wrote: I have been reading the Stoics for many years. They have served as my substitute for religion, my preferred cognitive therapy. However my major reservation is that Stoicism does not provide an adequate answer or comfort in times of personal or global tragedy or suffering. When something horrible happens to someone, how can we respond by saying we will things as they are, we will things to happen as they have? Stoicism does not provide a good answer to the natural human emotional response to personal tragedy. It does not appear to accept that it is ok to feel the natural emotional anguish that comes with personal tragedy. I have always seen this as the major weakness. A show on this could be helpful, i.e., how does Stoicism dictate that the practitioner should react to a personal tragedy in their life, and does this make sense? Is it rational to expect sentient human beings to react to tragedy by saying, yes, I will things to happen as they have? Well, here’s the episode you asked for; I hope it helps you with this challenging question about Stoic practice. First, I will say: I fully understand the sentiments of both listeners; I had similar thoughts about this concept when I first approached Stoicism. I suspect most of my listeners reacted similarly to passages like Encheiridion 8 when they first encountered them. Moreover, I’m sure some of you are still struggling with the idea that you should not judge tragedy as “bad” but wish for things to happen as they do instead. Many people will find this mindset wholly unacceptable and abandon Stoicism entirely or ignore this aspect of Stoic practice. For many people, this aspect of Stoicism is counterintuitive because they are judging it, consciously or unconsciously, from the perspective of a worldview that is not compatible with Stoicism. As A. A. Long and other scholars of Stoicism have pointed out, several aspects of Stoicism are counterintuitive apart from the theological worldview the Stoics relied on to create their philosophical way of life. For that reason, I think it will be helpful to consider this difficult aspect of Stoicism using the concerns expressed by these two listeners. I want to make it clear I am not criticizing these listeners. Quite the opposite, I hope to help them, and many others like them, to navigate this difficult aspect of Stoicism. To that extent, I want to thank them for expressing their concern to me and allowing me to address it for the benefit of others who may be concerned about the same thing. The first letter juxtaposes two scenarios. The first includes two relatively trivial incidents: a driver who cuts him off in traffic and someone who offers a personal insult. The second scenario involves a terrorist who is holding his daughter hostage at knifepoint. Obviously, to any rational person, there is a considerable difference in the degree of perceived loss between these scenarios. Only our ego is in play in the first case, and we will likely forget about the incident within minutes or hours. In the second, the life of a beloved daughter is at risk, and her loss could affect the loving father for the remainder of his life. Therefore, a reasonable response to these threats should be proportional to the potential loss. To that end, most people would consider it reasonable to use deadly force to stop the terrorist from harming the woman. Alternatively, it would be unreasonable and irrational to run the bad driver off the road for cutting you off. Likewise, punching, stabbing, or shooting someone who offended you with a personal insult would be a disproportionate and unreasonable response. Our laws are typically codified to prevent the later extreme reaction. On the other hand, laws typically protect those who use deadly force to save their own life or the life of another from an imminent threat of death. The second listener’s email expresses a similar concern more generically. She asks if it is rational for “sentient human beings to react to tragedy by saying, yes, I will things to happen as they have?” As we’ve seen from the commentary by Simplicius, these sentiments represent a common concern about Stoicism. So, if this is a common concern, how does Stoicism resolve it? How is it reasonable for the Stoics to tell us we should wish for what happens even when what happens is an apparent tragedy? I think there are two principles of Stoic doctrine at play here. The first is the difference between what is up to us and, therefore, truly “good” and “bad” for us as practicing Stoics. The second principle entails trust in a providentially ordered cosmos. The Well-Being Balance Scale For every event that occurs in our lives, even those we commonly consider tragic, we must begin with Encheiridion 1 and remind ourselves what is up to us and what is not up to us. Any event that is not up to us is an indifferent. No matter how tragic the event may appear, it does not affect our moral character (virtue) because it is external to our proairesis—our rational faculty, which is up to us and allows us to judge the event as good or bad. Remember, Stoicism teaches us our good character (arete, virtue) is necessary and sufficient for our well-being. Nothing but virtue is needed, and nothing else contributes to or detracts from our well-being. If we lose sight of this fundamental principle of Stoicism, nothing else in our practice will work, and we will not be alright. Therefore, the most common and typically the first mistake we make when apparent tragedy occurs is placing indifferents on the wrong side of the well-being balance scale. For this to make sense, I need you to visualize one of those old-fashioned balance scales. The ones where you put a known, calibrated weight on one side and the substance you want to weigh on the other side. The scale balances when the weights are the same. I will call this a well-being scale because we will imagine using it to weigh things of value to our well-being. I used this imagery in Episode 6 on the topic of what is up to us. The common conception of happiness would have us stack as many preferred indifferents, like wealth, good health, a good reputation, a great job, excellent life partner, etc., on one side of the scale and hope they outweigh any of the dispreferred indifferents, like poverty, illness, etc., that come into our life. The Stoics argue this approach to life can never create well-being. Why? Because it makes our well-being dependent upon externals that are not up to us. That is why the Stoics took a different approach to well-being. The Stoics argue the virtues—wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation, are the only things entirely up to us; therefore, our well-being should depend on virtue alone. As a result, the Stoic practitioner must use the well-being scale differently.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 7 – Episode 38

Wed, 22 Sep 2021 06:00:29 GMT

When you are on a voyage and the boat is at anchor, if you disembark to get water, you may pick up a little shellfish and vegetable on the way, but you need to keep your mind fixed on the boat and keep turning around in case the captain calls; and if he does call, you must drop all those things, to avoid being tied up and stowed on board like the sheep. That’s how it is in life too. If you are given a little wife and child, instead of a little vegetable and shellfish, that will not be a problem. But if the captain calls you, run to the boat and leave all those things without even turning around. And if you are old, never go far from the boat in case you are missing when he calls. (Ench 7) This parable is interesting, and I cannot find a similar story anywhere in Stoic texts. However, the fact that Arrian would include it in his Handbook for Stoic practitioners tells us its meaning would have been clear to the students of Epictetus. Since no story like this appears in other surviving Stoic texts, Epictetus is likely drawing on a commonly understood cultural reference. I am not an expert in Greek culture, literature, or history. Nevertheless, I found the following connections that appear to add some meaning to this passage. The imagery in Encheiridion 7 is similar to that of the ancient Greek myth of Charôn, the ferryman. He transported the souls of the deceased over the river Styx to the underworld. The Greek poet Euripides, who was writing almost 500 years before Epictetus, has his character Alcestis say: I see him there at the oars of his little boat in the lake, the ferryman of the dead, Kharon (Charon), with his hand upon the oar and he calls me now. ‘What keeps you? Hurry, you hold us back.’ He is urging me on in angry impatience. (Euripides, Alcestis 252) Likewise, Machon, a writer of comedies, who was writing approximately 300 years before Epictetus, wrote the following in his Philoxenus: But since Timotheos' Kharon (Charon), the one in his Niobe, does not let me dally but shouts that the ferry-boat is leaving, and gloomy Moira (Fate), who must be obeyed is summoning me. (fragment 786) Machon, the writer of this passage, is quoting from a work by Timotheus of Miletus titled Niobe, written approximately 200 years earlier and 500 years before Epictetus. Note the reference to a piece titled Niobe. There are several versions of the myth of Niobe, the bereaved mother whose children were killed by Apollo as punishment for her hubris. The story of Niobe is not essential for our discussion; however, as I will point out in a minute, the reference to Timotheus’ Niobe is important. First, I also want to point out that Seneca references Charon, the ferryman of the river Styx, several times in his literary writings. This supports the idea this imagery was commonly used and understood during the time of Epictetus. So, how does all of this relate to Encheiridion 7? I think you’ll begin to see the connections after I tie it all together in an often-overlooked passage by Diogenes Laertius’ on the death of Zeno, the founder of the Stoa: The manner of his death was as follows. As he was leaving the school he tripped and fell, breaking a toe. Striking the ground with his fist, he quoted the line from the Niobe: I come, I come, why dost thou call for me? and died on the spot through holding his breath. (DL 7.28) I’m going to set the details of Zeno’s manner of death aside because that is relevant to our discussion. However, Zeno’s response to his imminent death is noteworthy. We can infer two different attitudes from Zeno’s words in this story of his death. First, we could infer some resistance to death from his last words: “why are you calling me?” Alternatively, we can infer an attitude of bewilderment. The Greek word used in this passage means to “cry out, shout, call aloud.” Therefore, Zeno could have been saying, “I’m coming, of course, I’m coming; there’s no need to shout at me?” Zeno’s broken toe likewise provides some interesting symbolism, which may suggest he couldn’t move as fast as the Captain may like. Based on the totality of Stoic teaching and his reputation as the founding Scholarch, I think we have good reason to assume Zeno exhibited the later attitude upon receiving his call from the Captain. While Encheiridion 7 may initially appear obscure, the general meaning becomes more apparent when applying these ancient references. Epictetus is using this parable to highlight the fact our life is a transitory stop on a voyage that can end at any moment when the Captain calls us to return to the source of our existence. Let’s look closer at each of these aspects. Life as a transitory stop The transitory nature of human life is discussed frequently in the Stoic texts. Marcus Aurelius wrote, In human life, the time of our existence is a point, our substance a flux, our senses dull, the fabric of our entire body subject to corruption, our soul ever restless, our destiny beyond divining, and our fame precarious. In a word, all that belongs to the body is a stream in flow, all that belongs to the soul, mere dream and delusion, and our life is a war, a brief stay in a foreign land, and our fame thereafter, oblivion. So what can serve as our escort and guide? One thing and one alone, philosophy; and that consists in keeping the guardian-spirit within us inviolate and free from harm, and ever superior to pleasure and pain, and ensuring that it does nothing at random and nothing with false intent or pretence, and that it is not dependent on another’s doing or not doing some particular thing, and furthermore that it welcomes whatever happens to it and is allotted to it, as issuing from the source from which it too took its origin, and above all, that it awaits death with a cheerful mind as being nothing other than the releasing of the elements from which every living creature is compounded. Now if for the elements themselves it is nothing terrible to be constantly changing from one to another, why should we fear the change and dissolution of them all? For this is in accordance with nature: and nothing can be bad that accords with nature. (Meditations 2.17) Seneca wrote an extended essay on the topic titled, On the Shortness of Life. He opened with these lines: Most of mankind, Paulinus, complains about nature’s meanness, because our allotted span of life is so short, and because this stretch of time that is given to us runs its course so quickly, so rapidly—so much so that, with very few exceptions, life leaves the rest of us in the lurch just when we’re getting ready to live. (On the Shortness of Life, 1.1) Then, a paragraph later, he argues: It’s not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it’s been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested. But when life is squandered through soft and careless living, and when it’s spent on no worthwhile pursuit, death finally presses and we realize that the life which we didn’t notice passing has passed away. (On the Shortness of Life, 1.3) Collecting Indifferents How is it that life seems to pass by and leave us in a lurch if, as Seneca argues, we have plenty of time? Here we come to one of the main lessons of Encheiridion 7. While we are ashore during this transitory stop we call life; we will necessarily seek out some preferred indifferents like water and food. We may even choose other preferred indifferents like a spouse or a child. Nevertheless, Epictetus reminds us our primary responsibility is to focus our attention on the divine—represented by the ship and its Captain—while we engage with preferred indifferents to develop our moral character and prepare for the inevitable return of our constituent parts to their cosmic source—the rational, creative fire (divine logos). We are not here to simply drink water, eat, and procreate. That is not the purpose of human life. Yes, it is part of our human experience, but it is not our purpose. As Epictetus reminds us, It is thus shameful for a human being to begin and end where the irrational animals do. Rather, he should start off where they do and end where nature ended with regard to ourselves. Now it ended with contemplation, and understanding, and a way of life that is in harmony with nature. Take care, then, that you don’t die without having contemplated these realities. (Discourses 1.6.20-21) I think it’s interesting to note the items used in Encheridion 7 as possible distractions from our primary purpose. He used high-value preferred indifferents. Food and water are necessary for life, and child-rearing is needed to perpetuate humankind. He could have used more frivolous examples. Epictetus could have said, If you disembark to see the sights, you may search for gold, and gather some beautiful shells on the way, but you need to keep your mind fixed on the boat and keep turning around in case the captain calls. Instead, he used preferred indifferents necessary for life (food and water) and some that help us develop our moral character (a spouse and child). Nevertheless, Epictetus warns us not to let these preferred indifferents, even a spouse and child, distract us from our primary task—to keep our eyes on the divinity and develop our moral excellence, so we are ready when the Captain calls us back. As Epictetus warns us: But as things are, although we have it in our power to apply ourselves to one thing alone, and devote ourselves to that, we choose instead to apply ourselves to many things, and attach ourselves to many, to our body, and our possessions, and our brother, and friend, and child, and slave. And so, being attached in this way to any number of things, we’re weighed down by them and dragged down. (Discourses 1.1.14-15) Again, as I noted in the last episode, the Stoics did not prohibit the acquisition of preferred indifferents.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 6 – Episode 37

Wed, 15 Sep 2021 06:00:08 GMT

Don’t preen yourself on any distinction that is not your own. If the preening horse should say “I am beautiful,” it would be acceptable. But when you are preening and say, “I have a beautiful horse,” admit that you are preening yourself on a good quality that belongs to the horse. What, then, is your own? The management of impressions. So whenever you are in harmony with nature in the way you perform this function, that’s the time to preen yourself; for then you will have a good thing that is your own to preen yourself on. (Ench 6) Don’t preen yourself on any distinction that is not your own. If the preening horse should say “I am beautiful,” it would be acceptable. But when you are preening and say, “I have a beautiful horse,” admit that you are preening yourself on a good quality that belongs to the horse. What, then, is your own? The management of impressions. So whenever you are in harmony with nature in the way you perform this function, that’s the time to preen yourself; for then you will have a good thing that is your own to preen yourself on. (Ench 6) If Epictetus were teaching today, he would probably not choose a horse as the object of his lesson. Instead, he might say, “Don’t preen yourself on your expensive sports car, sparking diamond bracelet, large, finely appointed house, etc., because the good qualities of those possessions do not belong to you.” The object does not matter; the lesson remains the same. Preening Oneself The first thing we need to do with this lesson is to understand the meaning of the word “preen” in this passage. Most translators use the English word “elated” in Encheiridion 6. However, A.A. Long chose the word “preen” for his translation, and I think his choice brings out the whole meaning of this passage. When I referred to my resources, I discovered the Greek verb used in this passage means to “lift up and set on.”[1] There are two aspects of this verb: to lift up and to set on. Therefore, Epictetus is doing more than warning us not to feel a sense of elation or pride when we look at our expensive sports car, sparking diamond bracelet, large, finely appointed house, etc. We could feel that sense of elation or pride while we’re alone, lying in bed, or daydreaming sitting in a park. The word “elated” seems to overlook the public aspect of this passage, and that may be why A.A. Long chose the word “preen.” The online Oxford Learner’ Dictionaries offers the following definition of preen when used as a transitive verb, which is the case in this passage: [transitive] preen yourself (on something) (usually disapproving) to feel very pleased with yourself about something and show other people how pleased you are.[2] That definition helps us understand Encheiridion 6. Epictetus is warning us not to show off our possessions as if their good qualities somehow transfer to us and lift us up in the eyes of others. The word “preen” is often used to describe a person grooming and admiring himself or herself in a mirror. But that’s not the whole meaning here. Likewise, the word “preen” may bring to mind the myth of Narcissus. Many of you are likely familiar with that Greek myth, from which we get the psychological construct of the Narcissist. Narcissus was a beautiful young man who wandered upon a still pool of water while he was hunting. When he saw his own reflection in the pool of water, he fell in love with it and remained there staring at it for the remainder of his life. While Narcissus was quite happy to remain at the pool, staring at and loving his reflection, that is not the point of Epictetus’ lesson. However, with some modification and modernization of that myth, we can make Epictetus’ point clear. Imagine a modern version of Narcissus who walks into their bathroom one day and sees their reflection in the mirror. They feel elated by their own beauty. WOW, they think, I look hot. So, they pull their smartphone out and take a photo of themselves in the mirror. After admiring the picture for a second, they post it on Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms. Why? Because they want others to see how attractive they are. They are trying to lift themselves up by setting their attractiveness on display for others to see. They want others to attribute their beauty to them so they will be lifted up in the eyes of others. At this point, you might be thinking, but that is their attractiveness; that is a quality that belongs to them. Not exactly. Here is Epictetus on the topic: But what does Zeus have to say about this? ‘If it had been possible, Epictetus, I would have ensured that your poor body and petty possessions were free and immune from hindrance. But as things are, you mustn’t forget that this body isn’t truly your own, but is nothing more than cleverly moulded clay. (Discourses 1.1.10-11) According to Stoicism, our body is not up to us. We do not create our bodies. Yes, we take care of our body, and we can make it look better in some ways. Nevertheless, we are not in complete control of what happens to our bodies, and we cannot prevent them from getting sick, broken, or old. In Encheiridion 1, our body is the first item on the list of things that are not up to us. If you prefer a more analogous modern equivalent, I will offer the person who takes a photo of his flashy sports car or her shiny diamond bracelet and posts it on social media for others to admire and envy. Again, they want others to think highly of them because of the possessions they own. My purpose here is not to analyze why people behave this way. Instead, I am interested in the reason Epictetus warns us about doing so. That brings us to the next concept in this passage we need to examine. Qualities that do not belong to us. Yes, you own a flashy red sports car, but Epictetus would tell you the qualities of that car do not belong to you; they belong to the sports car. That’s a beautiful diamond bracelet you own, Epictetus might say, but that beauty does not belong to you; it belongs to the bracelet. I hope you’re starting to get the point. The qualities of our possessions, even the qualities of our body, are not ours, and they are not up to us. Therefore, we are mistaken when we attempt to lift ourselves up in the eyes of others by wrongly thinking we can transfer the good qualities of our possessions to our soul or self. Sadly, there is a reasonable motive for the behavior Epictetus is warning us against in Encheiridion 6. People do judge us based on our looks and possessions. Our character is not typically the first quality society uses to evaluate us. In fact, a person’s character may be several places down the list of qualities most people look for in a friend, life partner, employee, etc. Here’s an experiment you can try to prove this point. Tell a young man you want to introduce him to a young woman you know. Then say, “She’s really sweet and a good person.” What image just popped in his head? You know what he’s imagining, and it’s not a gorgeous female who looks great in yoga pants. Do the same with a young woman. Hey, I think you should meet my friend. I think you’ll like him. “He’s a really nice guy and a good person.” What image just popped into her head. She’s probably not picturing a hot guy with a muscular physique and a flashy sports car. Even though we described both people with positive character traits, we may not get an immediate positive response. Why? A good character may not make the top three traits on their list. I don’t think that’s because people consistently undervalue character. I think it has more to do with the images our society offers as “good.” Movies, television, and commercials sell us images of the “good,” and we unconsciously buy into them. Additionally, we cannot see a person’s character immediately, so we look for other qualities to quickly determine another person’s value. In the West, in particular, we were raised to identify the value of other people by their appearance, job, clothing, the car they drive, the house they own, etc. Pick up any success book, and you will likely come across some version of the “fake it till you make it” strategy for success. What is that? It’s a tactic whereby you wear nice clothes, an expensive watch, and drive an expensive car to leave others with the impression you are already successful, even though you haven’t arrived yet. You fake it till you make it. Success books typically offer this tactic to salespeople where their image is thought to influence potential buyers. Many real estate agents and outside sales professionals employ this tactic, and it works. If you’re interviewing real estate agents to sell your house, you’re more likely to pick the one who drives up in a Mercedes wearing nicely fitted clothing over the Honda Prius driving disheveled looking realtor. We tend to make assumptions about people based on their appearance, which may not be justified at all. As Stoics, we must look beyond the façade and attempt to see a person’s character, and we cannot judge character by appearance. Consider Socrates. He was a pretty homely guy based on historical accounts, and he didn’t dress for success. If a modern equivalent to Socrates approached you today, would you ignore him based on his appearance and attire? I suspect most of us would. Before we move on, I want to make one point clear. The Stoics were not opposed to having possessions. Yes, they prescribed ascetic practices for training purposes, but they were not renunciates. In reference to another passage in the Discourses where Epictetus warned about placing value on possessions, the Stoic Scholar A.A. Long wrote: Does it not follow, then, that Stoic philosophy taught the utter indifference of owning and protecting property? It does not follow, and that for two reasons. The first reason is that, though wealth, as an external commodity, has no moral value in Stoicism, it has instrumental value for `living in agreement with nature',

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 5 (part II) – Episode 36

Wed, 08 Sep 2021 06:00:19 GMT

Uneducated people blame others when they are doing badly. Those whose education is underway blame themselves. But a fully educated person blames no one, neither himself nor anyone else. (Ench 5) In Episode 35, I covered the first part of Encheiridion 5, where Epictetus added death to the list of things outside of our full control and, therefore, not inherently bad. If you’ve listened to Stoicism on Fire for a while or read my Traditional Stoicism blog, you likely understand this concept, which is frequently called the Dichotomy of Control, and you’ve probably been attempting to adopt this Stoic mindset toward externals. However, understanding this concept intellectually and putting it into practice are entirely different things. The practice of Stoicism is hard. I have been at it diligently for ten years, and I occasionally feel like a complete beginner. I understand the Stoic doctrines; I had a firm grasp of those within a couple of years. But, the goal of Stoicism is perfect practice, not perfect doctrinal knowledge. Perfect practice is the ideal of Stoicism. That is the standard attributed to the Sage and one none of us are likely to achieve. Which begs the question, “What then is the point of Stoic practice?” The answer, of course, is progress. Even though we will likely never arrive at the level of wisdom the Sage possesses, we can make progress toward that ideal. In the second part of Encheiridion 5, Epictetus outlines a three-step progression by placing all people into one of three categories: the uneducated, those whose education is underway, and finally, those whose education is complete. I think it is vital for us to understand these categories and their implication for our Stoic practice. Before we get into the categories, it is essential to note that education for the Stoics was more than memorization of doctrines. Education meant training (askesis). The Stoic training regimen required the student to put Stoic principles into practice. In other words, the distinction in Encheiridion 5 is not between those who are entirely ignorant of Stoic doctrines and those who memorized them all and can recite them at will. Epictetus infers more than book knowledge in this passage. We could relabel these categories as follows: those who are untrained in Stoic practice, those whose training in Stoic practice is underway, those who have completed their Stoic training and are completely wise—the Sage. Now, let’s consider these categories in a little more detail. Pay attention to the observable behavioral characteristics Epictetus provides for each of these categories. The uneducated person lives his or her life desiring and seeking things that are not within their complete control (wealth, pleasure, fame, political power, a good reputation, etc.). Simultaneously, they fear and attempt to avoid other things beyond their complete control (poverty, pain, obscurity, death, etc.). Now, here’s the behavioral characteristic of the uneducated person: When they are doing badly, they blame others. The uneducated blame others when they are not getting what they desire and getting what they fear instead. If you doubt this truth, turn on the news for a few minutes. You will observe an endless parade of uneducated people who are angry because they don’t have what they think they deserve to make them happy. They frequently claim to be victims of circumstances or someone else’s bad behavior, and think others have the power to make them happy or miserable. Marcus described them in Meditations 2.1 as “ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people.” Then, he proposes that he remind himself each morning that these are the people he will encounter during the day. Marcus continues this passage by noting the reason uneducated people behave this way: They are subject to all these defects because they have no knowledge of good and bad. (Meditation 2.1) The uneducated seek well-being in externals that are not within their complete control because they don’t know what is truly good (a virtuous character) and truly bad (a vicious character). In Encheiridion 1, Epictetus told us what happens when people desire and fear externals: they will be pained, frustrated, and troubled, and they will blame gods and men. When we see “ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people” on the news or in public, we need to remind ourselves why they are that way. They are uneducated. They may be knowledgeable about many things. They may be college-educated. They may even have a Ph.D., but, as Marcus notes, they have no knowledge of good and bad. Therefore, they are angry that they are doing badly in life and believe the fault lies outside themselves. They think they are unhappy because society is unfair, unjust, or otherwise organized in a way that makes them a victim of circumstances. Let me offer a word of caution here. Marcus’ words about these uneducated people can take us in two directions attitudinally. We can use Meditations 2.1 to judge people because they have no knowledge of good and bad. Or, we can have compassion for them because they have no knowledge of good and bad. I have no doubt Marcus intended the latter when he wrote Meditations 2.1. That was his character. We need to use this reminder in the same way when we encounter ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people. As you likely know from listening to the podcast, I’m a law enforcement officer. I’m a detective now, but I started my career on the street in a tough, low-income, crime-infested area. What I experienced on the street drove me to seek out Stoicism more than a decade ago. Early in my Stoic training, I learned a practice called hypomnemata from my mentor. Essentially, that is what Marcus was doing when he wrote his journal, which we now call his Meditations. Hypomnemata can take various forms; one form is rewriting Stoic passages to personalize them for yourself. As you might imagine, Mediations 2.1 has special significance for anyone in law enforcement. Daily, the profession entails dealing with ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people. One of the hardest things for any cop to do is to maintain their humanity while they are submerged in the inhumane behavior of others. For that reason, in 2012, I personalized and rewrote Meditations 2.1 for my purposes as a law enforcement officer. I hope it expresses the message I’m attempting to deliver here. Namely, we need to have some compassion for the uneducated: When you are face-to-face with criminal behavior, remind yourself this person’s vice-inclined character is not entirely their making. They are morally responsible for their actions; however, the web of prior causes which formed their immoral character includes many causal agents and events—the actions and neglect of their parents, the culture of their community, tragedies they did not cause, and the zeitgeist of a society which fills their soul with anger and hatred toward others they blame for their circumstances. This person is both a perpetrator and a victim of the vice-inclined character, which drives their behavior. Remember, they are a human being—they share in the same divine mind as you. They are ignorant of the true nature of good and bad and have not learned to discipline their desires and fears. Temporarily remove them from society—your role requires that of you. However, do not judge them as evil; they cannot touch your soul. I encourage you to try hypomnemata using Meditations 2.1 as a model. Maybe your ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people are customers. Perhaps they are your students, coworkers, or your mother-in-law. You get the idea. Use Mediations 2.1 to help you withhold judgment from the impression these people can harm your soul and to remember they share in the same divine mind as you. Okay, that’s enough about the uneducated person. Now we’re going to contrast that with the person whose education is underway. This is the Prokopton, who is actively attempting to put Stoic principles into practice in their life. They are beginning to distinguish correctly between what is good and bad for their character. They understand that many things and events they used to consider good, like good health, a high-paying job, other people’s opinion of them, etc., are only preferred indifferents that do not affect their moral character or good flow in life. Likewise, they understand many things and events they formerly considered bad, are dispreferred indifferents that do not affect their moral character or good flow in life. The prokopton understands it is possible to have a good flow in life even while living in poverty, pain, or circumstances restricting their liberty. They might prefer circumstances to be otherwise, but they do not count on them for their good flow in life. The person whose training is underway understands moral excellence (virtue) is the only good, and moral vice is the only truly bad thing. They accept responsibility for their well-being because they know it does not depend on anyone else or any external circumstances. Therefore, when they are out of step with Nature and experiencing emotional distress, they know they are the only ones to blame for their unhappiness. They are far from perfect in their practice of Stoicism; however, they are paying attention to their desires, assents, and impulses to act. They are on the path of the Stoic prokopton, making progress toward the ideal of the wise Stoic Sage. Finally, we come to the educated person who does not blame anyone when things appear to be going badly. Why? Because, as Keith Seddon notes, The fully wise person whose Stoic training is complete will never be in a position to blame anyone at all (not even themselves),

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 5 (part I) – Episode 35

Wed, 01 Sep 2021 06:00:39 GMT

It is not things themselves that trouble people, but their opinions about things. Death, for instance, is nothing terrible (otherwise, it would have appeared that way to Socrates as well), but the terrible thing is the opinion that death is terrible. So whenever we are frustrated, or troubled, or pained, let us never hold anyone responsible except ourselves, meaning our own opinions. Uneducated people blame others when they are doing badly. Those whose education is underway blame themselves. But a fully educated person blames no one, neither himself nor anyone else. (Ench 5) This passage complements Encheiridion 1, where Epictetus taught us that desiring and fearing things beyond our complete control will leave us “frustrated, pained, and troubled” and will cause us to “fault gods and men.” In Encheiridion 5, Epictetus takes this fundamental Stoic principle to its ultimate conclusion by adding death to the list of things we should not fear. He declares it is our opinion about death, rather than death itself, that troubles us. It is September 2021, and the Specter of death, in the form of the COVID pandemic, has been ever-present for more than two and a half years. This pandemic has changed our lives and our world. For some people, it has become an all-consuming fear. Yet, in this passage from the Encheiridion, Epictetus declares that death is nothing terrible. For most people, particularly those raised in the West, an assertion like this by Epictetus might seem bizarre, and it may even provoke a negative response or dismissal. Let’s be honest. This claim is completely counter to the way most of us think and attempt to live our lives. We were taught that externals like the negative opinions of others, poverty, sickness, and especially death are inherently bad and necessarily entail unhappiness. We learned this lesson early in our childhood, and we learned it well. So well, in fact, that we spend a great deal of time, money, and energy attempting to avoid all these externals, death in particular. However, practicing Stoics are repeatedly confronted with lessons like this in the texts that teach the opposite. Stoicism teaches us we can have a good flow in life regardless of our present situation. This doctrine is the crux of Stoic philosophical practice. At this point, some of you may be wondering, “In what way can that assertion by Epictetus be true? How can it be true that poverty, sickness, and even death are not terrible? How can it be that wealth, good health, and life are not inherently good?” Well, in every case except death, the answer provided by the Stoics is quite simple even though many people will likely find it unsatisfactory. The ancient Stoics teach us we must change our thinking about what is truly good and bad. They teach us that moral excellence is the only inherent good. Therefore, the Stoic path trains us to set aside our aversion to poverty, sickness, public shame, and everything that is not within our complete control, including death. There is no overstatement in this passage. Epictetus is not trying to shock us with hyperbole. He is simply restating a profound truth we repeatedly see throughout the Stoic writings. An excellent character (virtue) is the only true good, and a corrupted character (vice) is the only truly bad thing. Therefore, if we seek happiness in things and events we do not entirely control, we will be frustrated, pained, and troubled. Likewise, we will be miserable if we strive to avoid anything other than those irrational thoughts and wicked intentions that corrupt our character (soul). Okay, you may be thinking, I understand that virtue is the only good, and everything else is an indifferent and should not be desired as something good, in itself, or feared as something bad in itself. But how can death not be terrible? After all, Stoicism does not offer the consolation of an afterlife. To answer this question, Epictetus appeals to Socrates, one of the few the Stoics acknowledged as a Sage. He asserts that death is not terrible; otherwise, it would have appeared that way to Socrates. At first glance, this might appear to be a rather trite argument for not fearing death. Alternatively, it could appear as an unsophisticated appeal to authority. However, this passage has an unspoken message, which the students of Epictetus would have understood. Remember, the Encheiridion is a handbook designed to keep the lessons of Stoicism close at hand. Arrian created this handbook to remind practicing Stoics about the lessons with which they are already familiar. That is certainly the case here, so we need to dig a little deeper to understand this passage. As I noted in Episode 4, Zeno embarked on his philosophical path after reading about the life of Socrates in Xenophon’s Memorabilia. Socrates was considered a Sage by the ancient Stoics. Therefore, to understand the meaning of Epictetus’ appeal to Socrates, we must turn to Plato’s Apology, which tells the story of Socrates’ trial. This story is what Epictetus is referring to in Encheiridion 5, and his students would have understood it. As most of you likely know, Socrates was put on trial for impiety and other false charges. Socrates refused to beg, grovel, and weep for his accusers or the jurors during his trial. If you read Plato’s Apology, you will see Socrates was defiant, almost belligerent, during his trial. Then, after he was found guilty of the false charges, Socrates agreed with Meletus, one of his false accusers, that the sentence for these charges should be death. The jurors then held a second vote and condemned Socrates to death. After warning the jurors their fate would be worse than his for the injustice they have done, Socrates turned to those who voted for acquittal and explained why he did not consider his death sentence a terrible thing. He reminded the jurors about his inner daimon or spiritual guide that always warned him when he was about to do something wrong. Socrates said, At all previous times my familiar prophetic power, my spiritual manifestation, frequently opposed me, even in small matters, when I was about to do something wrong, but now that, as you can see for yourselves, I was faced with what one might think, and what is generally thought to be, the worst of evils, my divine sign has not opposed me, either when I left home at dawn, or when I came into court[1] Let’s unravel this. Socrates’ argument goes something like this: (P1) In the past, my divine sign, the Stoics called this a daimon or god within, always warned me when I was about to do something wrong, even if it was about a small matter. (P2) My divine sign has been silent since I left my home to come to this trial. It was quiet when I refused to beg and plead for my life, and it was silent when I agreed the death sentence was appropriate for the crime for which I was accused and judged guilty. (P3) The silence of my divine sign is evidence I have done nothing wrong, including recommending a death sentence for myself. (C1) “What has happened to me may very well be a good thing.” (C2) “Those of us who believe death to be an evil are certainly wrong.” This is what Epictetus was appealing to as evidence that death is not something terrible. Epictetus is not simply saying death is nothing terrible because Socrates said so. Instead, he is arguing death must not be terrible; otherwise, it would have appeared so to Socrates. How? Through a warning from his divine sign or daimon. The ancient Stoics held Socrates in such high regard; they trusted his experience with his daimon about death. Additionally, we must consider death within the context of Stoic theory. In Stoic physics, the cosmos is a divine, rational, living organism permeated by pneuma, which constituted its soul. Thus, the Stoics argued the cosmos is conscious. As Diogenes Laertius noted, The doctrine that the world is a living being, rational, animate and intelligent, is laid down by Chrysippus in the first book of his treatise On Providence, by Apollodorus in his Physics, and by Posidonius. It is a living thing in the sense of an animate substance endowed with sensation; for animal is better than non-animal, and nothing is better than the world, ergo the world is a living being. And it is endowed with soul, as is clear from our several souls being each a fragment of it. (DL 142-3) The Stoic reasonably argued that nothing comes forth from nothing. If humans are rational, that rationality comes from the cosmos. Therefore, the cosmos is rational. In his brilliant book, The Inner Citadel, Pierre Hadot notes, ...all the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[2] Throughout the surviving Stoic texts, we see an acknowledgment of a connection between the divine part of our individual nature and the divinity that is the cosmos. In Meditations 3.13, Marcus reminds himself to, ...keep your doctrines at the ready, to enable you to understand things divine and human, and so to perform every action, even the very smallest, as one who is mindful of the bond that unites the two realms… The daimon is a fragment of the divine within us. I covered this topic in a little more detail in Episode 25. In Letters 41.1-2, Seneca called this daimon the “sacred spirit” that dwells within us. In another of his Letters, Seneca tell Lucilius, You must devote your efforts to that which does not deteriorate over time, and which no obstacle can bar. What is that? It is the mind—but specifically this mind, which is upright, great, and good. What else would you call it but God dwelling in a human body? (Letters 31) Finally, here is one of many examples were Epictetus points out the relationship between us and the divinity that permeates the cosmos:

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Final Episode

Fri, 28 May 2021 13:58:37 GMT

This is the final episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast!
While this is sad, we are excited to announce the launch of our new podcast, The Zen Stoic Path!
Be sure to subscribe to The Zen Stoic Path to tune into daily episodes starting Monday, May 31, 2021
To stay updated, feel free to visit our brand new website zenstoic.com!
For any questions or feedback feel free to email me at info@zenstoic.com
Follow us on Instagram and Facebook: @victor.pierantoni @_zenstoic www.facebook.com/zenstoic.v

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 67 (Season Finale) Interview with Founder of The Oculus Institute: Sean Sessel

Fri, 17 Jul 2020 23:45:50 GMT

In today's episode, Victor and Nicko interview the Founder of The Oculus Institute, Sean Sessel. Sean Sessel runs The Oculus Institute which covers comprehensive personal development with a focus on helping people get clear on a career that is both fulfilling personally as well as financially rewarding. To learn more about Sean and his work, click here: https://oculusinstitute.com/ What was your biggest takeaway from this interview? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 66 Interview with Owner of Jed's Barber Shop: Jed Beal

Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:57:01 GMT

In today's episode, Victor interviews the Owner of Jed's Barber Shop, Jed Beal. Jed opened Jed's Barber Shop in Salt Lake City 9 years ago during the stages of the recession. The business now has 3 locations and dozens of employees- all of which are millennials. Jed specializes in branding, customer service, systems, and millennial management. To learn more about Jed's Barber Shop click here: http://www.jedsbarber.shop/ What was your favorite part of this interview? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 65 Interview with Comedian: Brendon Lemon

Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:12:11 GMT

In today's episode, Victor interviews Brendon Lemon who is a Comedian, a lover of Stoicism and Zen, and author of a Stoic book called "The Stoic Salesperson." Learn more about Brendon's work here: https://www.brendonlemon.com/ and his book here: https://www.amazon.com/Stoic-Salesperson-Brendon-Lemon/dp/1735055204 What was your favorite takeaway from this interview? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 64 Look Within

Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:09:43 GMT

Where and what do you look to when you feel lost or overwhelmed? In today's episode, Nicko and Victor will be discussing a quote from Epictetus that teaches us the important lesson of looking within when we feel pulled from external forces. What was your biggest takeaway from today's lesson? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 63 Doing Your Part

Mon, 29 Jun 2020 22:54:33 GMT

Do you feel that helping others only matters when it's done in a big way or do you feel every action, big or small, counts? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko share a story to remind us that when we come together to do our part, every action counts. What was your takeaway from this story? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 62 Interview with Guelaguetza Restaurant Partner: Bricia Lopez

Sat, 27 Jun 2020 23:46:12 GMT

Bricia Lopez is a partner at Guelaguetza Restaurant, LA’s temple for Oaxacan cuisine. She has become a staunch proponent of Oaxacan culture and an integral figure in the gastronomic culture of Los Angeles. In 2015, her restaurant was awarded the coveted American Classics award from the James Beard Award Foundation and the LA Times awarded her with the Latinos de Hoy Cultural Ambassador Award. Her and her family’s story has been featured in numerous publications including, Forbes.com, The New Yorker, LA Times, and The Ringer just to name a few. In addition to the restaurant, Bricia helped launch Mama Rabbit, the biggest and most important Tequila and Mezcal bar in Vegas inside the Park MGM. She and her siblings have launched an online shop where they sell their bottled Guelaguetza™ mole paste and their proprietary cocktail mix, I Love Micheladas™. Her book, OAXACA home cooking from the heart of Mexico launched fall 2019 and became an instant Amazon bestseller. She lives in LA with her husband and son. Click these links to learn more about Bricia and her work: https://store.ilovemole.com https://www.ilovemicheladas.com http://supermamas.com http://moleandmore.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 61 Interview with Founder and CEO of InnerSpartan: René Rodriguez

Fri, 26 Jun 2020 22:13:04 GMT

In today's episode, Victor interviews René Rodriguez. René Rodriguez is the CEO of the strategic coaching and consultancy company, InnerSpartan Media. He and his team of exceptional coaches and trainers work directly with organizations to help create high performing teams and directly with individuals who aspire to achieve greater levels of success in their businesses and careers, relationships, and health. René helps his clients succeed by getting them to focus on their "inner game" and in developing what he calls an exponential mindset. If you enjoyed this episode and would like to hear René and Victor tackle some other subjects, he was on his podcast, InnerSpartan Unleashed, which releases this coming Monday. Go to www.InnerSpartanUnleashed.com, or wherever you get your podcasts to subscribe now to make sure you don’t miss it. What was your biggest takeaway from this interview? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 60 How to Listen to Your Own Voice

Fri, 26 Jun 2020 00:06:47 GMT

Have you tried to do something new and outside of your comfort zone but quickly got shut down by someone you care about? In today's episode, Nicko asks Victor the question "In the face of uncertainty, how do I follow through with what I know can be possible or that I can achieve?" Listen on to hear Victor's answer for this scenario! Have you taken inventory of your assets lately? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 59 The Gift of Failure

Wed, 24 Jun 2020 22:06:00 GMT

What role does failure play in your life? Is it something you welcome or shy away from? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss a quote from Robert Greene that remind us of the gifts failure can bring us. What was your biggest takeaway from this episode? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 58 Focus On What Nature Demands

Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:36:20 GMT

Do you see yourself separate or a part of nature? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss a quote from Marcus Aurelius that reminds us how important it is to view ourselves as a part of nature and how we can find guidance through it. What was your biggest lesson from this episode? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 57 Stepping Stones

Mon, 22 Jun 2020 22:39:03 GMT

What is your strategy when it comes to meeting new challenges and endeavors? Do you run straight in because you've seen other people run in before or do you like to ask where the stepping stones are first? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be sharing a story to highlight how often we use our Egos to run into doing new things instead of asking for help or guidance. How has this story helped you today? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 56 Interview with CEO and Creative Director of Anthony Vazquez Photography: Anthony Vazquez

Mon, 22 Jun 2020 04:36:04 GMT

In today's episode, Victor interviews the CEO and Creative Director of Anthony Vazquez Photography, Anthony Vazquez. Anthony Vazquez Photography is a wedding and film production company based in New York City catering to high-end clients in the New York state and tri-state area. Victor and Anthony discuss how to be happy, stress-free, and enjoy the simple things even when the world seems like it's falling apart. Learn more about Anthony's work here: https://www.anthonyvazquez.com/ or @anthonyvazquezphotography

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 55 How to Stop Feelings or Thoughts of Regret

Fri, 19 Jun 2020 01:24:38 GMT

Do you have ruminating thoughts that prohibit you from real progress? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be answering a Dojo member's question. Giovanni's question is "how to stop feelings and thoughts of regret and normalize thought process that immediately presents opportunity for growth? I have had multiple issues over the last few days letting things go and finding closure with small issues. It prohibits me from real progress." How has this episode helped with your thought process? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 54 Internal Resistance

Wed, 17 Jun 2020 22:49:26 GMT

Do you feel pulled toward your purpose but also feel an internal resistance to executing it? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss an excerpt from the book "The War of Art" by Steven Pressfield that reminds us to share our gifts with the world instead of hiding it away and understand where this internal resistance is coming from. What do you need to execute your calling? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 53 Adversity Gives More Than It Takes

Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:23:23 GMT

How do you respond when you're faced with adversity and challenges? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss a quote from Epictetus that teaches us we have more to learn from adversity than it takes away from us. Share this episode to anyone you think may need to hear this! What was your biggest takeaway? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 52 The Young Archer

Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:40:16 GMT

How often are you letting your Ego lead the way? In today's story day episode, Victor and Nicko tell the story of The Young Archer to remind us that we often need to let the Ego and the Self work in harmony to keep things in check. What was your biggest takeaway from this story? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 51 Black Lives Matter

Sat, 13 Jun 2020 23:39:02 GMT

In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss the important topic of Black Lives Matter through a Zen Stoic lens.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 50 How to Develop Self-Control

Fri, 12 Jun 2020 02:26:50 GMT

Have you wondered how to develop self-control? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko respond to a Dojo member question! Scott asks "What does the Zen Stoic say about this? It seems I have self-control over some things but not others. Also, all virtues seem unapproachable without self-control. How does one attain the virtue of self-control?" Listen on to hear what the Zen Stoic answer is. What did you take away from this episode? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 49 Embrace And Accept Your Humanity

Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:37:43 GMT

Have you ever asked yourself "What is the point of all this? Why was I even born?" In today's episode, Victor and Nicko are discussing an excerpt from Alan Watt's book, "The Way of Zen" which teaches us to ask instead, "who is it that is asking not to be born?" and to embrace and accept our own humanity rather than separating from it. What was your biggest lesson from this episode? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 48 The Characteristics of The Rational Soul Part 2

Tue, 09 Jun 2020 22:13:46 GMT

Have you listened to last weeks' episode for Part 1? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will continue discussing the remainder of "The Characteristics of The Rational Soul" derived from Marcus Aurelius' journal "Meditations" and how it will look like applied to our modern-day world. Listen on to find out what they are! How many of these apply to you? Or how many of these characteristics would you like more of? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 47 Uncontrollable Temper

Mon, 08 Jun 2020 19:37:04 GMT

What does it mean to control a temper? Is it even something for us to control or to overcome? In today's episode, also Nicko's favorite day, Victor and Nicko will be telling a Zen story to illustrate what role temper has in our lives and how we can begin to find our inner peace by seeing it for what it really is. What did you take away from this story? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 45 Self-Mastery

Thu, 04 Jun 2020 19:37:36 GMT

Have you ever wondered how to measure how much you've progressed on your self-mastery journey? Or if you've reached a level where you cannot progress any further? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be answering and discussing a client question. They asked "How do you measure the progress of self-mastery? How do I know when I have actually reached the desired level?" The answer may not be what you expect! Listen on to find out more. Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 44 The Robber Procrastination

Wed, 03 Jun 2020 21:01:07 GMT

Many of us believe we aren't able to do what we want to do due to a lack of time but what better time than now? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss a quote for Epictetus and Seneca, what they teach us about procrastination, and how we can overcome this. How was this episode helped your habit? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 43 The Characteristics of The Rational Soul Part 1

Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:50:36 GMT

Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher from 161 to 180. In his journal, which later was published as the book "Meditations," he reflected upon and wrote about "The Characteristics of The Rational Soul." In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be discussing these characteristics and how it will look like applied to our modern-day world. Listen on to find out what they are! How can you use these characteristics for yourself? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 42 The Zen Master

Mon, 01 Jun 2020 21:11:36 GMT

In today's story day episode, Victor and Nicko talk about the importance of showing empathy to someone that "may not deserve it" and also illustrates how powerful it is to just allow someone's voice to be heard. All it takes it that one pivotal moment where all you needed was to be heard instead of trying to express it through destructive behavior. How has this story touched your heart today? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 41 Interview with Zen Stoic Micro Meditations Co-Creator: Brandon Koertge

Fri, 29 May 2020 20:29:46 GMT

Did you know the music in The Zen Stoic Micro Meditations are carefully designed with specific sound frequencies that enhance the outcome of the meditation? Whether the outcome is to become ready and awake or relaxed and calm. Brandon Koertge is a Musician, Audio Engineer, and the Co-Creator of the Zen Stoic Micro Meditations. In today's interview, you will learn all about his journey and expertise with music and breaking down the elements that go into each Zen Stoic Micro Meditation. The powerful combination of sound frequencies curated by Brandon along with Victor's voice guidance on top is, ultimately, what makes these micro meditations so effective in such a short period of time. Download a free 5-minute sample here: www.zenstoic.com You can find Brandon on Facebook: @brandonkoertgemusic on Instagram: @brandonkoertge or on Spotify: Brandon Koertge

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 40 Zen Stoic Dojo Member Question: Zen Stoicism in Schools

Thu, 28 May 2020 22:14:24 GMT

In today's episode, Victor and Nicko answer a question from one of our Zen Stoic Dojo members! Principal Andrew asks "What value do you see that educators, specifically administrators of schools could have in practicing and putting into place the zen stoic ideas into schools? Which aspects of Zen Stoicism do you think could be of most value in a school?" Which aspects do you think would be valuable in a school? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 39 The Real Moon

Wed, 27 May 2020 14:00:00 GMT

Sometimes the road to self-improvement can be very confusing. How do we know what is truth and what is not? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be talking about one of the most common mistakes people will make on their self-improvement journey, how to bring awareness to it, and what to do with all the information instead. What is your personal truth? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 38 Zen Stoic Disciplines

Tue, 26 May 2020 14:00:00 GMT

Do you ever find yourself procrastinating or unable to stick to new habits? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be breaking down 3 Zen Stoic principles you can use to help you create more discipline.

The time is always now
Do less, but do it better
Memento Mori- to meditate on your own mortality

Which one(s) will you begin to use today? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 37 The Bamboo Acrobat

Mon, 25 May 2020 22:18:29 GMT

Guess what day it is!? It's Nicko's favorite day! In today's episode, Victor will be telling the story of "The Bamboo Acrobat" to bring awareness to our tendencies in watching what other people are doing instead of keeping our own things in check and balance first. Are you one to plan your day around others or check-in with yourself first? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 36 Interview with Magician, Daniel Fernandez

Sun, 24 May 2020 23:14:58 GMT

In today's episode, Victor interviews celebrity magician, Daniel Fernandez. You will get to hear Daniel describe the art of his magic, what mentalism is, and Victor and Daniel's discussion on the power of your mindset. Find out more about Daniel's work here: https://www.facebook.com/danielvfernandez/ What interesting new idea did you learn from this interview? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 35 Pure Presence

Fri, 22 May 2020 22:27:09 GMT

Did yesterday's episode, "How to Remedy The 5 Patterns of Sabotage," have you wondering what kind of action steps you can take for yourself? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko share exactly what you can start to add into your day to help you feel more present and to see yourself as one with nature (remedy #1.) The Zen Stoic Micro Meditations are used by many and you can begin your journey today by downloading a free 5-minute micro meditation guided by Victor! Download yours here: www.zenstoic.com What other questions do you have for Victor and Nicko? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 34 How to Remedy The 5 Patterns of Sabotage

Thu, 21 May 2020 14:00:00 GMT

In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be answering listeners' questions! Our listener, Tyler, asks "What can you do to mend your soul after damaging it from one of those five things for so long?" This question throws it back to one of our original episodes "Ep. 8 The 5 Patterns of Sabotage." Victor will be recapping the 5 patterns in which you sabotage and damage your soul in this episode, however, we encourage you to listen to episode 8 for a full refresh and context of this topic. Do you have any questions for us? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 33 The Essence of Acceptance

Wed, 20 May 2020 14:57:38 GMT

Many of us attach our identity and value to our hustle, ambitions, and goals. But what if we told you they do not define or validate who you are? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will talk about how goals are actually meant to help us and how embracing the process of getting there will bring you true validation. What are your thoughts or questions about the essence of acceptance? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 32 Live Immediately

Tue, 19 May 2020 22:33:30 GMT

We've all said it... "I'll be happy when THIS happens" or "my life will be complete once I do this!" But what happens when you get there? We may find ourselves asking "now what?" Do you find this to be a pattern in your life? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be reminding us how important it is to live immediately (with a quote by Seneca) and how we can break this pattern by bringing ourselves to the present moment quickly with the power of meditation. Are you wondering how you can introduce meditation into your day? Download our free 5-minute meditation guided by Victor here: www.zenstoic.com Was this episode helpful for you? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 31 Maybe

Mon, 18 May 2020 21:03:31 GMT

It's Nicko's favorite day! In today's episode, Victor will be telling us the story of "Maybe." This story helps to remind us of this simple yet powerful word that captures the ebb and flow of life. How will your life be different if you replaced the defining words of "good" and "bad" with "maybe?" Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 29 Unshakeable Inner Peace

Mon, 18 May 2020 00:15:42 GMT

Zen Stoicism is the hybrid philosophy for unshakeable inner peace. How do we create unshakeable inner peace? It is by mastering the 2 fundamental experiences of being a human: thinking and being. In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will share exactly how you can master these two fundamentals beginning with incorporating Zen Stoic Micro Meditations into your day! Start by clicking this link to download your free 5-minute guided meditation: www.zenstoic.com What did you think of the micro meditation? We would love to hear from you! Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 28 Question From a Zen Stoic Dojo Member

Thu, 14 May 2020 21:56:28 GMT

In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be answering a question from a Zen Stoic Dojo member! Have you been in interactions with people that like to complain about small insignificant things? How about with people that like to blow things out of proportion? How do you deal with this? Listen on to find out. Has this episode helped you with your own conversations? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 27 Let Go and Walk On: Embracing Change

Wed, 13 May 2020 20:25:08 GMT

Right now, we are faced with more change than ever. Do you spend your time looking back on what life used to be or have you let go and walked on? If not, what keeps us from walking on? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko share a quote from Alan Watts to answer this question, discuss the key elements of how we can view and manage change better, and remind us to spend more time nurturing our own melodies. What insights did you gain from this episode? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 26 The Ruler of The Soul

Tue, 12 May 2020 22:04:30 GMT

Are emotions good or bad? How about when uncomfortable sensations come up through your body? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will break down that they're actually neither and how to approach viewing your emotions instead to invite more curiosity than judgment. What are your emotions trying to tell you? How did this lesson support you today? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 25 Two Monks and The Young Woman

Tue, 12 May 2020 21:05:26 GMT

Have you ever been met with rudeness even when our intentions are to help the other person? We are often reminded of important lessons by retelling powerful stories. In today's story, Victor and Nicko reminds us to let go of the things that we cannot control, especially during this difficult time, and focus on what we can control. Let us know what lessons you got from this story by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 24 Interview with President and Co-Founder of StandOut Authority: Joshua B. Lee

Tue, 12 May 2020 01:10:18 GMT

In this episode, Victor interviews the President and Co-Founder of StandOut Authority: Joshua B. Lee. StandOut Authority works to bring back the humanity in Marketing via LinkedIn during the heavily automated times we live in. As people interact more and more through the digital world, Joshua's mission is to create more raw and real experiences and bring back the human touch. Find out more about StandOut Authority here: https://standoutauthority.com/ Let us know what you thought about this interview by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 23 The Best 4 Minutes of Nicko's Life

Mon, 11 May 2020 22:59:42 GMT

In today's episode, Nicko shares his experience and feedback on Victor's Micro Meditation. Do you want to experience these minutes for yourself? From the great Nicko himself: "This sample is better than a Costco sample."
Download your free micro meditation sample here: www.zenstoic.com Let us know what you thought of the micro meditation by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 22 Special Guest: Host of "My Zen Post-Op Life," Jonathan Duarte

Thu, 07 May 2020 21:16:19 GMT

In today's very special episode, we are joined by the host of "My Zen Post-Op Life" podcast, Jonathan Duarte. Jonathan began his Zen journey after he was hit by a drunk driver head-on in 2018. He woke up in critical condition and needed 5 surgeries in a month and had to relearn how to walk again. Along this journey, Jonathan found The Zen Stoic Podcast. Today, you will hear of how Zen Stoicism has helped him with adapting and reshaping his life and how he used these principles to face the drunk driver who changed his life forever. To listen more, you can find Jonathan's podcast here: https://anchor.fm/myzenlife

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 21 Zen Stoic Karma

Wed, 06 May 2020 18:24:20 GMT

"Oo! Karmas a bitch." Heard that before? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko peel back the layers on what karma actually is and how it works contrary to popular belief. What are your views on karma? How has this perspective helped shift your view on your place in the world? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v. BOOM.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 20 Detaching From Dogmatic Thinking

Tue, 05 May 2020 16:13:28 GMT

How do you react when you hear people saying "we've just always done it this way" or "that's just how it is!"? Do you accept it right away or do you question it? Should we be questioning it? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko break down the importance of detaching yourself from dogmatic thinking especially when it no longer serves your life and how you can manage this instead. What are your thoughts on dogmatic thinking? How can this episode help you today? Let us know by leaving a comment through voice message on Anchor or search for us on Facebook at Zen Stoic or on Instagram @zenstoic_v BOOM!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 19 Moving Mind

Mon, 04 May 2020 23:49:24 GMT

It's Nicko's favorite day! In today's episode, Victor tells the story of "Moving Mind." This story teaches us the power of perception and how understanding this can help you to begin understanding how you can manage your own thoughts and emotions. What insights did you get from this episode? Let us know!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 18 Interview with Zen Stoic Dojo Member: Larry Karnis

Mon, 04 May 2020 21:32:42 GMT

In today's episode, we have the special honor and treat of interviewing our very own Zen Stoic Dojo member, Larry Karnis. Victor and Larry talk about how they came about the philosophy and share their insights and wisdom found along the journey. What was your biggest takeaway from this interview? Let us know!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 17 Tranquility of The Mind

Fri, 01 May 2020 23:59:15 GMT

Everyone has felt like they've needed a break and vacation from time to time. Have you ever felt like you needed a vacation from your vacation? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko talk about a key tool you can adopt to have a vacation even if you're not on a beach somewhere on Tahiti. Does this sound like something you would like? Let us know!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 16 Zen Stoic Micro Meditations

Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:53:07 GMT

Did you know Zen Stoic Micro Meditations are only between 1-5 minutes but packs the punch of a full meditation? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko share the power of meditation and how you can start to incorporate this practice into your day just by setting aside a few moments in any environment. Listen on to find out how this works! What do you think about the Zen Stoic Micro Meditations? Let us know!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 15 Living at The Cause

Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:00:20 GMT

How do we react when things don't go the way we expect it to? Do we list all the reasons why it went wrong? Or do we examine and learn from it so it doesn't happen again? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss the idea of living your life at the "effect" and at the "cause" and what that means. They will break down how you can begin to take charge of your life and influence how your path will go moving forward. Are you living at the cause or at the effect? Where would you like to be? Reach out and let us know! We love hearing from you guys.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 14 Embrace Imperfection

Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:12:35 GMT

How often are we putting others first to find we're out of energy by the time we need to take care of ourselves? Are we actually practicing what we preach? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko talk about the importance of managing your own needs and energy first before you offer your help to others so that you can truly be present with it. What was your biggest takeaway from this episode?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 13 A Warrior in The Garden

Mon, 27 Apr 2020 22:27:09 GMT

If you were given a choice, would you be a gardener at war or a warrior in the garden? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss the Zen story "A Warrior in The Garden" and how important this mindset is to help you prepare in life. Tune in for this story! What have you learned from this episode?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 12 Interview with Academic, Athlete, and Business Owner: Carlos Rios

Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:08:02 GMT

In today's episode, Victor is interviewing Carlos Rios who is a Philosophy graduate, a Brazillian Jiujitsu competitor, and the Founder of Ivory Business Solutions. They will be discussing how philosophy consistently teaches us valuable lessons that are transferrable whether you are studying, competing, or running your business. There is wisdom in all concepts! Listen on to find out how Carlos uses philosophy to help him in all his endeavors. If you would like to find out more about the Toronto based Marketing firm, Ivory Business Solutions, click here: https://ivorybusinesssolutions.com/ How has philosophy helped you in your different endeavors?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 11 The 4 Virtuous States of The Soul

Fri, 24 Apr 2020 23:39:56 GMT

In today's episode, Victor and Nicko discuss "The 4 Virtuous States of The Soul" from "The Zen Stoic Path of Inner Peace" ebook. These states will allow your inner peace to flow effortlessly and naturally. Listen on to find out what they are! Curious about the ebook? Click here to download your own free copy: https://bit.ly/3bx40BD What was your biggest takeaway from this episode?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 10 Know Your Port

Thu, 23 Apr 2020 20:50:17 GMT

"If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable" - Seneca In today's episode, Victor and Nicko talk about the importance of having a direction or focus on what you're doing so that you're not aimlessly pushing forward to find you're not "getting any closer." Victor shares a story of one of his clients' success after applying focus on the outcome she was able to communicate the real collective goal during a meeting with The Senate. Have you ever experienced working tirelessly to find out you're not making progress that you want? How have you corrected it to get back on track?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 9 The Function Of Philosophy

Wed, 22 Apr 2020 21:53:37 GMT

What is the function of philosophy? Have you ever met someone that believes they're "above" or "better than" others because they're a very philosophical or spiritual person? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be unpacking the function of philosophy through the Zen Stoic lens, what spiritual egotism means, and how we can stay true to our human nature instead. If you would like to learn more, download your free copy of The Zen Stoic Path of Inner Peace here: https://bit.ly/3bx40BD
Look for us on Instagram @zenstoic_v or on Facebook at Zen Stoic. Let us know if you have ever encountered people with this outlook or perhaps even yourself. What have you learned from this episode?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 8 How Sharp Is Your Axe?

Tue, 21 Apr 2020 22:58:59 GMT

How often do we find ourselves working super hard and exhausting every ounce of energy but do not see any noticeable results? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko talk about something that we all do from time to time- burning out. Through the Zen Stoic principle of sharpening our vessel, our mind, and body, this can easily be resolved by redirecting our focus on the tools and resources we have. Tune in and let us know if you've been sharpening your axe!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 7 Zen Koan: What Is The Sound of One Hand Clapping?

Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:06:24 GMT

What is the sound of one hand clapping? Can you hear the sound? How much time do you think we spend trying to solve these kinds of riddles? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko talk about the purpose of a Zen koan and how it can enlighten us on how we all fall into rabbit holes trying to solve a riddle that doesn't exist in reality. So, how we can redirect our focus instead? Tune in and let us know what you learned from this koan!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 6 Interview with The Growth Strategist For Men In Business: Purdeep Sangha

Sun, 19 Apr 2020 00:43:34 GMT

In today's episode, Victor and Purdeep have a powerful and insightful conversation about science and spirituality, what it means to be a "Mindful Alpha," how Purdeep became The Growth Strategist for Men in Business, and how he helps other men become more present in their lives with their spouse and children. You won't want to miss this interview! You can find Purdeep here: https://purdeepsangha.com/ to check out his podcast and more information on how he is helping other business professionals in achieving a balance between their business and family time.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 5 Zen Stoic Path of Inner Peace: Practice Compassion and Kindness

Fri, 17 Apr 2020 23:08:04 GMT

Have you ever felt a conversation come to a complete halt because one person was being judgmental? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be talking about the importance of practicing compassion and kindness even when you may feel it is "undeserving." This is one of the 10 practices discussed in "The Zen Stoic Path of Inner Peace" which can be downloaded for free here: https://bit.ly/34KGkHh

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 4 Compassion and Boundaries

Thu, 16 Apr 2020 21:06:18 GMT

Many people believe that sometimes when we say "no" it makes us look or sound unkind, unhelpful, or rude. Then we find ourselves in unwanted situations or unfair exchanges where one person is getting the better end of the bargain. How can we remedy this? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko share a story and how you can maintain your kindness and compassion while setting boundaries. Tune in to hear this valuable lesson!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1. Ep. 3 The Antidote to Rudeness

Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:27:42 GMT

Have you ever encountered someone that is just downright rude? How have you counteracted that kind of behavior and how can you make sure their actions don't impact the rest of your day? In today's episode, Victor and Nicko will be discussing the antidote to rudeness and how you can take this with you the next time someone decides to be nasty. Listen on!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 2 A Blind Man With A Lattern

Tue, 14 Apr 2020 21:28:27 GMT

What good is a lantern to a blind man for his walk home? In today's episode, we will be discussing how something we perceive as helpful to another, could turn out to be a setback to their growth. We will be exploring what it means to utilize your perceived "weakness" as your greatest strength and whether or not those loud judging voices in our heads actually belong to our true self. What can we do to strengthen our intuitive voice? Listen on and find out how you can discover your own truth.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

S1 Ep. 1 Welcome (Back!)

Mon, 13 Apr 2020 23:52:06 GMT

Victor and Nicko are back in the house! Kicking off a new season with a refresher on “What is Zen Stoicism?” It has evolved since our very first episode so we will be breaking down the foundations of this hybrid philosophy into digestible nuggets so you can take them with you to use right away. Tune in and find out how this philosophy can help you tap into your true nature and intuition to use every single day. This is for everyone but especially if you’re a busy creative or business owner!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 126 Changes

Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:01:35 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 125 Make Practice The Goal

Sun, 28 Jul 2019 00:13:47 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 124 Your Own Validation

Sun, 28 Jul 2019 00:12:12 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 123 Spiritual Egotism

Thu, 25 Jul 2019 04:58:56 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 122 The Concept Of Time

Thu, 25 Jul 2019 04:53:17 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 121 Kill The Buddha

Mon, 22 Jul 2019 22:35:08 GMT

What does it mean when a Zen master says 'Kill the buddha'?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 120 Interview With The Latina Career Coach: Michelle Gomez

Mon, 22 Jul 2019 22:28:12 GMT

In today's episode, Victor will be interviewing The Latina Career Coach, Michelle Gomez.

Her bio: Michelle Gomez, The Latina Career Coach, is an accomplished corporate sales professional with over two decades of riding the waves of the corporate structure as a first-generation Latina-American. The first in her family to graduate from college, she has earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Management, a Master’s Degree in Business Administration, and a certification in Broadcast Journalism. Throughout her career, Michelle has been an advocate for women in the workforce; leading the charge in speaking forums, business articles and networking events. Michelle has personally mentored and coached dozens of men and women toward achieving their academic and career goals. Through resume reviews, mock interviews, and focus on presentation, she has helped dozens of men and women prepare and position themselves as strong candidates for the career or role they desire. Michelle has also advocated for a healthy work/life balance through her blog posts, providing insight on practical methods for creating balance and wellness in daily pursuits. You can find her here at www.michellemgomez.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 119 What Does Self-Love Actually Mean?

Fri, 19 Jul 2019 22:35:55 GMT

In today's episode, Victor will be breaking down what self-love means through a zen stoic lens and how you can better utilize this to improve the quality of your day. Listen on!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 118 Liberation From Life Long Shackles

Thu, 18 Jul 2019 18:21:09 GMT

In today's episode, we are sharing a powerful story from one of our Dojo members, Rob. Through listening to the podcast and working through the training videos and ebook, Rob has been able to release a limiting belief that has been holding him back since he was a kid. Listen on to hear his giant win and his new beginning free from old shackles!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 117 The Performer's Paradox

Thu, 18 Jul 2019 17:55:12 GMT

In today's episode, we will be discussing a quote from Plato "Wise men speak when they have something to say, fools speak when they HAVE to say something." How often do you find people just saying things just to say things? Victor will break down why this is and how to handle it. Listen on!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 116 "Nothing" Is An Action

Wed, 17 Jul 2019 00:09:14 GMT

A lot of times not saying anything or doing anything counts as an action. In today's episode, we will be talking about how we commit injustice to ourselves and to others by not taking action on what we know is right. Listen on!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 115 The Gordian Knot

Tue, 16 Jul 2019 03:52:37 GMT

In this episode of the Zen Stoic Podcast, we dive into a story of Alexander The Great and The Gordian Knot! This simple, yet powerful story will be sure to challenge your assumptions and think differently about the way you’re solving any of your cure challenges!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Update! 2-Week Break

Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:36:41 GMT

A quick update from Victor and Nicko!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 114 Interview With Entrepreneur: Braedy MacKenzie

Sun, 30 Jun 2019 14:47:38 GMT

In today's episode, I am interviewing my best friend and self-made entrepreneur, Braedy MacKenzie. Despite hardships from being born with cerebral palsy and diagnosed with learning disabilities, he was able to find his success and tranquility. We will be talking about the difference between pursuing pleasure and tranquillity. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 113 There Just Is

Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:47:26 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 112 Creating Inner Peace

Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:41:22 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 111 Identity

Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:37:55 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 110 Your Sense of Purpose

Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:34:02 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 109 Know Your Port

Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:28:48 GMT

In today's episode, we will be discussing the importance of knowing which port you're trying to sail your boat into!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 108 Zen Stoic Path To Inner Peace Ebook Announcement!

Fri, 21 Jun 2019 19:35:48 GMT

In today's episode, we are sharing exciting news!! Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 107 Holding On

Fri, 21 Jun 2019 19:27:18 GMT

In today’s episode, we talk about how we hold onto beliefs so much that it prohibits our growth. This person was able to let go of all that in one session.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 106 Where Does Your Ambition Come From?

Fri, 21 Jun 2019 19:26:01 GMT

In today's episode, we will be discussing the topic of attachment and explaining the difference between having an ambition that comes from a place of scarcity and sincerity. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 105 Genius With Brendon Lemon

Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:19:49 GMT

In today's episode, we have special guest Brendon Lemon back to share some insight on the genius self with us!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 104 Everything Changes

Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:18:50 GMT

In today's episode, we will be sharing a Zen story that helps us to understand Zen in a simple manner and helps us to cope with a world that is constantly changing.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 103 Interview With Stand-Up Comedian: Brendon Lemon

Sun, 16 Jun 2019 01:58:39 GMT

In today's episode, we will be interviewing stand-up comedian Brendon Lemon who is also a proponent of Zen and Stoic philosophy. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 102 Each Day Is A Masterpiece

Sat, 15 Jun 2019 04:09:38 GMT

In this episode, we will be sharing one of the core principles of Zen Stoicism which is "to live in the present moment with an appreciation of a potential future." This will also be talked about in the guide "Zen Stoic Path To Inner Peace." It will soon be available in our Facebook group "The Zen Stoic Dojo" so don't forget to join and gain access to this guide!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 101 Surrender To Your Intuition

Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:56:32 GMT

Do you ever want to make a change, yet feel resistant to the change simultaneously? In this episode we discuss the power tapping into your intuition and going head first into what you feel the most resistance with, in order to make the changes you want!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 100!! Who Is In Your Circle?

Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:32:11 GMT

In today's 100th episode, we will be discussing the topic of toxic people and how you're managing your circle to maintain quality. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 99 The Zen Stoic View On Self-Awareness

Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:35:50 GMT

In today's episode, we will be discussing the topic of self-awareness through a Zen Stoic lens. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 98 Zen Story: The Moon Cannot Be Stolen

Mon, 10 Jun 2019 22:34:11 GMT

In today's episode, we are sharing a Zen story that reminds us that there is more to life than material things and to be careful not to let these things become attached to our identify and worth. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 97 Interview With Traditional Chinese Medicine And Acupuncture Doctor : Michael Fiorani

Sat, 08 Jun 2019 21:00:14 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 96 The Zen Stoic Path To Inner Peace

Fri, 07 Jun 2019 21:57:04 GMT

In today's episode, we will be discussing a highly requested topic which is the question "How do I achieve inner peace?" Listen on to find out what special treat Victor has in store for you and his answer to this question. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 95 Interview With A Very Special Guest And Dojo Member: Geoff Spakes

Fri, 07 Jun 2019 01:26:49 GMT

In today's episode, we're doing something different and new. We're interviewing one of our very own Zen Stoic Dojo members, Geoff Spakes! Don't miss this amazing interview!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 94 Zen Stoic Passion

Thu, 06 Jun 2019 03:11:23 GMT

In today's episode, we will be discussing the topic of passion and the many roles it plays it our lives for the good and the bad. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 93 Amor Fati

Tue, 04 Jun 2019 19:43:29 GMT

In today's episode, we will be discussing a quote from Epictetus that teaches us to wish for things the way they are rather than to wish they were different. Listen on to hear more about what this means!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 92 Zen Story: Wash Your Bowl

Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:34:53 GMT

In this episode, we will be sharing a Zen story called "Wash Your Bowl" that will be teaching us about bringing ourselves back down to earth when our heads are in the clouds and finishing our processes from beginning to end. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 91 Interview with Daydream Founder: Alex Sim

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 00:41:06 GMT

In this episode, we will be interviewing the Founder of Daydream which is Canada's first sparkling water infused with hemp extracts. Stay tuned for this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 90 Zen Story: It Will Pass

Fri, 31 May 2019 21:45:39 GMT

In this episode, we're sharing another Zen story- yes, twice this week woo! If you've been feeling a bit stuck these days, this episode will remind you that "it will pass" and keep on going on! Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 89 Curb Your Desire

Fri, 31 May 2019 02:47:41 GMT

In this episode, we will be discussing the power of perception and how to manage your own to see more abundance in your life. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 88 Wait, Who Do You Love More?

Wed, 29 May 2019 14:25:33 GMT

In this episode, we're going to explore the topic of self-love. Many times we make decisions because we value something and it drives us. So, what drives your behavior? Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 87 Thinking Challenge!

Tue, 28 May 2019 21:45:12 GMT

In this episode, our dear friend Lowell Gelin is back on the podcast! We will be discussing one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s quotes and how it applies to us today. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 86 Zen Story: Be The Boss

Mon, 27 May 2019 21:42:24 GMT

In this episode, we're going to be sharing another Zen story that will give us a lesson about our day-to-day lives. Is the horse guiding you or are you guiding the horse? Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 85 Interview With Brazillian Jiu-jitsu Black Belt: Professor Dan Moroney

Mon, 27 May 2019 04:06:57 GMT

In today's episode, we will be interviewing Professor Dan Moroney who is a 4th degree black belt in Brazillian Jiu-jitsu. We will be talking about how a lot of Zen and Stoic elements are practiced in Jiu-jitsu. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 84 Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules For Life

Sun, 26 May 2019 16:03:39 GMT

In today's episode, we will be discussing 2 extremely helpful rules from Jordan Peterson's 12 rules for life outlined in his book "12 Rules for Life." Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 83 The Power Of Identity

Fri, 24 May 2019 16:35:28 GMT

In this episode, we are sharing a story about the power of identity and what happens when you change the filter of how you view yourself and your life. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 82 Being Owned By The Things You Own

Thu, 23 May 2019 19:47:09 GMT

In this episode, we will be discussing how to detach yourself from the things you own so they don't end up owning you! Don't miss this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 81 What's Your Return?

Tue, 21 May 2019 23:05:19 GMT

We always talk about a "return on investment" but how about "return on experience?" In this episode, we will be discussing how to differentiate between goals with tangible value vs. goals with emotional value. Listen on to find out these distinctions!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 80 Zen Story: "The More I Train"

Mon, 20 May 2019 21:56:44 GMT

In this episode, we are sharing a Zen story called "The More I Train." Just because you train more does not mean you have the correct mindset to master the skill. We will be discussing the importance of enjoying the process and letting go of your attachment to the outcome. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 79 Interview With Empower Mag Founder: Ally Salama

Sat, 18 May 2019 23:10:09 GMT

In today's episode, we will be interviewing the Founder of Empower Mag which is the first ever mental health magazine in the Middle East! You can find Ally on Instagram @allysalama and check out his magazine at www.empower-mag.com. Don't miss this very special interview!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 78 Be The Source Of Your Experience

Fri, 17 May 2019 20:48:34 GMT

In this episode, we're talking about the powerful habit of being the source of your own experience. Most of the time, life is challenging because of our opinions and feelings about it but what if we shifted it into love and kindness? Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 77 Problems: Solving Vs. Understanding

Fri, 17 May 2019 02:57:32 GMT

Have you ever been told "I don't need you to fix it! I just want you to listen!!"? In this episode, we're going to discuss the importance of acknowledging all humans have both masculine AND feminine energy and they both look at problems differently. One likes to solve and the other likes to understand which means communicating this will look and sound different. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 76 The Words You Speak Builds Your House

Thu, 16 May 2019 00:43:02 GMT

In this episode, we will be discussing the importance of being mindful of our daily choice of words. Whether they are positive or negative words, they impact our environment and internal worlds. Let's build a strong foundation for our house to sit on!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 75 Acting On Your Words

Wed, 15 May 2019 01:46:24 GMT

In this episode, we will be discussing the importance of taking action on all the information that you have in order to make changes.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 74 The Happiness Formula

Mon, 13 May 2019 18:53:45 GMT

Are you guilty of ever thinking "I'll be soo happy once I get this new [fill in the blank] or be in [vacation destination]"? Well don't worry, you're not the only one. We've been given this happiness formula all our lives. Unfortunately, this formula is incomplete because it doesn't really tell you what happiness truly is. Well, the truth is, happiness is all about creating meaning in your process and we're going to break this down for you in this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 73 Interview With Special Guest: Lowell Gelin

Sat, 11 May 2019 17:27:44 GMT

In today's episode, I am interviewing my dear friend and also my mechanic: Lowell Gelin. Whenever I visit Lowell for any car service, even if it's a quick 15-minute fix, we always find ourselves in deep philosophical conversation. I am honored to have him on this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 72 Asking For Help When You Need It

Fri, 10 May 2019 14:18:58 GMT

In today's episode, we're going to bring this awesome H word back in style. As we get older, it seems we have forgotten that sometimes we need help. We've romanticized the idea of being fully independent and that we can do it all on our own. Well, with the help from a Marcus Aurelius quote, he reminds us that it is at our very core and nature to help and be there for one another. Listen on, massive!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 71 The Power Of Clarity

Fri, 10 May 2019 02:05:40 GMT

Are you someone who has a packed scheduled yet feels like you're not really "doing" anything? Do you purposefully wear your "busyness" as your badge of honor? In this episode, we will discuss the importance of finding clarity and direction because if we don't know where we're going, no matter which direction we put our sails, no wind is favorable.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 70 Demanding Your Best Self

Wed, 08 May 2019 15:19:20 GMT

In today's episode, we're basically going to call out some bullsh*t as to why you still haven't demanded the best from yourself and show up fully to each situation. We hope you're ready for some real talk because you will not look at your day the same after this episode. Listen on!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep.69 Range Vs. Depth

Wed, 08 May 2019 00:15:39 GMT

In this episode, we will be taking a deeper dive into the difference between having a range of experience and depth of experience. Are you someone that tends to multitask or have many opened projects at once? This is a good episode for you to find exactly if these are good habits to keep or update!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 68 Zion Documentary Review

Mon, 06 May 2019 21:26:49 GMT

In today's episode, Victor and Nicko review an inspiring documentary called "Zion" and discuss their takeaways through a Zen Stoic lens. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 67 Interview With Neurostrategic Coaching Institute Coach: Mario A. Garcia

Mon, 06 May 2019 03:54:25 GMT

Last week, we had Dr. Mario Garcia as our guest and on today's episode, we have his son and business partner at the Neurostrategic Coaching Institute, Coach Mario A. Garcia! He is at the forefront of training coaches at a high standard for the past 5 years. Today, he will be teaching the idea of perception is projection and give us insight as to why people behave in the way that they do. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 66 Seeing Your Original Self

Fri, 03 May 2019 23:25:33 GMT

We love hearing from our listeners! In this episode, we will be talking about a topic that has been submitted by one of our Zen Stoic Dojo members.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 65 From Burn Out To Full Zen Stoic

Thu, 02 May 2019 19:09:25 GMT

In this episode, we are sharing a true story of one of Victor's clients. When he first came to Victor, he already hit rock-bottom and had nothing else to lose. A year later, he wrote a touching and sentimental testimonial to Victor about all the ways Zen and Stoicism helped him transform his life into his best yet. Listen on for this inspiring story!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 64 How Are You Managing Your Time?

Wed, 01 May 2019 16:47:49 GMT

The amount of time we have in a day is fixed, however, the way we manage it is not! In this episode, we will be covering a very important topic about managing our time to essentially gain more time in our daily routines and accomplish more of the things we have set out to do. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 63 Euthymia

Tue, 30 Apr 2019 20:54:46 GMT

We all experience the feeling of doubt and uncertainty of which path to take next. Naturally, we look for guidance from others we perceive as on the right path. In today's episode, we will be sharing and discussing one of Seneca's quotes that teach us to forget those other paths and trust in ourselves. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 62 Emptying Your Cup

Mon, 29 Apr 2019 22:15:19 GMT

Do you keep your cup empty or full? Well, in today’s episode, we are sharing a Zen story that will highlight the importance of keeping your cup empty AND full.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep.61 Interview With Neurostrategic Coaching Institute CEO: Dr. Mario Garcia

Sat, 27 Apr 2019 17:09:28 GMT

Dr. Mario Garcia is the gold standard when it comes to training professional coaches and leadership development. Many of the principles he discusses are very aligned in Zen Stoicism and even enhance the application of the philosophy. He’s been in the coaching world since 1992 and today he walks us through what he has learned in the last 3 decades.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 60 We Are Made For One Another

Sat, 27 Apr 2019 12:43:25 GMT

In this episode, we will explore the habit of stereotyping and how we tend to prejudge someone’s behavior because it feels easier to do that than to get to know them. We will be sharing how you can catch these tendencies and break this habit. Don’t miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 59 The 3 Voices Of Communication

Thu, 25 Apr 2019 23:50:49 GMT

In this episode, Victor shares a simple yet profound lesson about communication. We all communicate in more than 1 voice and he will be breaking down the 3 different voices which have very different functions. This is a super useful tool that can help you improve your own way of communication and problem-solving immensely. Don’t miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 58 Change Is The Only Constant

Wed, 24 Apr 2019 19:26:40 GMT

In this episode, Victor and Nicko discuss the topic of change. We know that change is the only constant, however, how you perceive and manage the change will impact the outcome entirely. Victor will break down the best ways to handle change in your own life through a Zen Stoic lens. Don’t miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 57 The Power Of Journaling For Self-Reflection With Steve Ellis

Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:28:50 GMT

Journaling has been a cornerstone of Stoic philosophy and practice for centuries. Today, our friend Steve is back as our guest to discuss his habits with journaling and how it has tremendously helped his own growth and journey.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 56 Saying "Yes" To Yourself

Mon, 22 Apr 2019 21:41:15 GMT

We have all approached a fork in our paths and needed to make a decision whether to move forward or not and in which direction. In this episode, Victor tells his own story of approaching this fork, making his decision, and shares with us how he handled the entire situation to make sure he is saying "yes" to himself. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 55 We’re Human Beings Not Human Doings With Special Guest: Steve Ellis

Sat, 20 Apr 2019 14:04:03 GMT

In this episode, we have a very special guest and close friend joining us, Steve Ellis! He is a Wall Street professional in New York which is THE financial epicenter of the world. We will be having an in-depth conversation about the hustle culture, the impacts of looking for outside validation, and ultimately the lessons learned through a Stoic lens. Don’t miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 54 Overcoming Conflict Between Your External And Internal World

Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:49:35 GMT

It seems like auto-pilot for us to look to the outside world for validation and to tell us “we’re enough” but what if these opinions and comments do not serve our mission? In this episode, we will be discussing how we can overcome this habit of relying on the outside world, become our own voice, and dissolve the conflicting feeling we experience. Don’t miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 53 Balancing Success And Happiness

Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:05:07 GMT

In this episode, we will be sharing a real story about the struggle of striking a balance between success and happiness. If this situation resonates with you, listen on! We will be sharing how you can overcome this challenge in your own life.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 52 Clearing Out The Pebbles In Your Life

Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:14:39 GMT

Are you setting goals for yourself but can’t seem to finish them? In this episode, we explore one of the major reasons why we can’t seem to finish the task we started, the concept of decluttering, and creating space in your life to achieve your state of zen. Don’t miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 51 What Philosophy Promises

Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:21:40 GMT

We have all once read a quote or learned something for the first time and thought “Oh, I got this. I completely understand!” In this episode, we discuss how much you master an idea by being exposed once and what philosophy promises to your life. Don’t miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 50 Less Is More

Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:41:34 GMT

We are constantly blasted with so much noise and distractions on all different social media platforms making us feel scattered, unfocused, and even unaccomplished. In this episode we explore this topic, the ‘highlights reel’ as Nicko refers to it, and how we can redirect our focus back onto ourselves and actually achieve more by focusing on less. Don’t miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 33 The Difference Between Sympathy And Compassion

Sat, 13 Apr 2019 23:19:48 GMT

One of the common aspects that is shared between Zen Buddhism and Stoic philosophy is the concept of compassion for our fellow human beings. Now, it's really important understand the difference between compassion and sympathy. We'll be going through with the difference between the 2 and how we sometimes actually get them mixed up. Despite our best intentions, we actually do more damage than good. Don't miss this episode of the Zen Stoic Podcast!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 49 Interview With GuerrillaZen Fitness And Potentia Wellness CEO: Blake Bowman

Sat, 13 Apr 2019 22:57:49 GMT

In this episode, we will be interviewing CEO of GuerrillaZen Fitness and Potentia Wellness, Blake Bowman. He will be sharing deep insights on how the environment around us can greatly impact our physical and mental health, especially the invisible one. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 48 Duality: Mind Your Environment

Fri, 12 Apr 2019 22:22:16 GMT

In this episode, we dive deeper into how we can bring ourselves into the present moment to achieve more mental wellness in our day. To begin, it is important to recognize that we live in a world of dualities. We will be discussing what this means and how we can easily improve our environment to make it easier for us to achieve this state. Don’t miss this refreshing episode to find out how!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 47 Facing Your Emotions Head On

Thu, 11 Apr 2019 02:22:50 GMT

We will be discussing what happens when you have to face your emotions head on because you can't go back to your old ways of coping with them. In this episode, we will be telling a story about a bodybuilder who had a competition last year but got injured right before the competition day and wasn't able to compete. This motivated him to come back even stronger and compete this year only to receive horrible news he was unprepared for 4 weeks out. Listen to find out how he turned it all around. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 46 The Difference Between Being Direct And Blunt

Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:23:02 GMT

When we communicate with others it is really important to deliver our message clearly. Well, many times our message becomes lost because we’re not in the right emotional state to deliver that message and often times, even though we want to be truthful, we end up just being blunt. By being blunt our message is not delivered across the way that we want it to. So in this episode, we're going to be discussing the difference between being direct and being blunt with your communication and how you can increase the effectiveness of your communication by being direct instead. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 45 Marcus Aurelius: How To Act

Tue, 09 Apr 2019 22:46:16 GMT

A lot of the time our stress comes from valuing others' opinions over our own and relying on their opinions in order to validate ourselves. So often this creates confusion when it comes to how we should show up or how we present ourselves in the world around us. However, it is more important to be able to stand on our own 2 feet and have our own personal code of conduct so that we're not relying on the opinions of others to conduct ourselves in the world. So in this episode, we're going to be going through Marcus Aurelius’ wisdom on how to act and how to carry yourself. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 44 The True Mark Of Adulthood

Mon, 08 Apr 2019 23:02:09 GMT

Have you ever felt like the wisest person in the room? A lot of times adulthood has nothing to do with a person's chronological age. Today, we will explore what the true mark of adulthood happens and what it means. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 43 Interview With The Oculus Institute CEO: Sean Sessel

Sat, 06 Apr 2019 22:28:28 GMT

Sean Sessel is the CEO of The Oculus Institute. He is an expert in helping people escape burnout jobs and work with them to craft careers that they love. He will be sharing with us the different categories of stress and how to deal with each of them. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 42 A Beginner's Mind

Fri, 05 Apr 2019 22:29:50 GMT

Often times when we spend too much time in our comfort zone or become too familiar with our surroundings, we end up adopting this idea that we don't need to continue learning. The problem is when we stop learning, we stop growing. So what we want to do is have what is called a “beginner’s mind” - the ability to empty our cup and take in new information and new lessons. We're going to be talking about this idea of "Zen mind, beginner’s mind" so that you're able to be fulfilled in your life by continuously learning and progressing. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 41 Nicko's Takeover!

Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:31:57 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 40 Is There Such A Thing As Too Much Positivity?

Thu, 04 Apr 2019 01:02:50 GMT

The self-help industry has been teaching millions of people over the years this idea of positive thinking. Positive thinking can be incredibly powerful and beneficial to those who practice it. However, is there such a thing as too much positive thinking? We're going to be exploring that question because sometimes when we are too positive or too attached the idea of positivity, it can actually come off as inauthentic. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 39 Principle > Passion

Tue, 02 Apr 2019 22:54:51 GMT

One of my favorite childhood movies is the “Karate Kid” and in honor of the new “Cobra Kai” season that’s coming up, we're going to be discussing some Mr. Miyagi wisdom. Many people don't realize that a lot of what he said in that movie to teach Danielsan is very much aligned with Zen and Stoic philosophy. Don’t miss this episode of the Zen Stoic podcast.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 38 "If You Are Always Giving, You Will Always Have"

Mon, 01 Apr 2019 18:01:56 GMT

In this episode, we're going to be discussing the Chinese proverb "If you are always giving, then you will always have." I will be telling the story of how a homeless man named Paul taught me one of the greatest lessons of my life.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 37 Zen Story Of "Maybe" With Psychology Hacker CEO Adam Lyons

Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:48:30 GMT

In this episode, I'm going to be interviewing the CEO of Psychology Hacker and author of the book “Brain Hacking”- Adam Lyons. Adam is a personal friend of mine and my mentor in life and business. We will be going through exactly his method on how to kill the negative voice inside your head. Adam will also be sharing his favorite Zen story- the story of “Maybe.” You're not going to want to miss this episode. It will absolutely change the way that you look at your whole life.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 36 Are You A Worrier Or Warrior?

Fri, 22 Mar 2019 19:39:54 GMT

There's a great quote that says “A coward dies 1000 deaths and a courageous man only once” Now, the reason why that quote is incredibly important because it shows the difference between people who are worriers versus people who are warriors. In this episode, we're going to talk about the mentality that you need to shift in order to become a warrior, if you are in the mindset of a worrier. We all have a tendency to go here sometimes especially when we're overwhelmed or when we're stressed. Don't miss this episode of the Zen Stoic podcast where we're going to talk about how to transition to the warrior.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 35 Compassion: Kidnapped At Gunpoint

Thu, 21 Mar 2019 23:38:29 GMT

Early on in my professional coaching career, I received a phone call that I was not expecting nor was I trained to deal with. But I had my client on the other end who needed my help so I had to do something quick. Now, in this particular coaching session, he told me he wasn't able to move forward in his business because of a fear he had from a traumatic memory in his past where he was kidnapped and held a gun point. In this episode of the Zen Stoic podcast, we're going to be talking about, in detail, exactly what happened during that call and how he turned it all around and how he overcame the most traumatic memory of his life. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 34 How To Spot Weakness

Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:52:23 GMT

One of the biggest problems that we have in this world is the demonization of each other. We generalize each other and label each other simply based on surface behavior. But the interesting thing is, and the questions that nobody asks, what is really going on inside the heads of people who are expressing undesirable behavior? Things like arrogance, cruelty, and just being plain mean. What we fail to realize is these are all traits of weakness although they may come off as an expression of strength. But we never really think about that they're coming from a place of pain, a place of weakness in character. And so part of the way that we can help other people when they're expressing those kinds of behavior is to show compassion. In this episode with Zen Stoic podcast, we talk about how to spot the weakness in others and how to deal with it when you see it. You're not gonna want to miss this one.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 32 Understanding The Self

Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:21:01 GMT

“To study Zen is to study the self and to study the self is to forget the self." That is a quote from Dogen Zenji one of Japan's great Zen masters. But how do we forget the self? We need to first understand exactly how it is that we create the self. The self is nothing but a collection of thought about ourselves. So, in this episode of the Zen Stoic podcast, we're going to be discussing what is the lucid self as it is discussed in the book “The Untethered Soul” by Michael A. Singer and also how you can apply this in a way that you can understand how to control the voice and the thoughts in your head. Don't miss this episode!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 31 Owning Your Why

Sat, 16 Mar 2019 23:13:56 GMT

Stoic philosophy discusses the importance of having an aim and purpose in all that you do. In this episode of the Zen Stoic podcast, we're gonna be talking about filmmaker Guy Ritchie’s personal philosophy and what it means to own the reasons why you're doing everything that you're doing instead of blindly following convention. You're not gonna wanna miss this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 30 What's Your Mental Diet?

Fri, 15 Mar 2019 23:44:10 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 29 Receiving A Suicide Call

Fri, 15 Mar 2019 01:10:25 GMT

A lot of us have been given the advice to make the money that we want and create the lifestyle we want, then we’ll be happy. But what happens when you have somebody who is not only made all the money that they wanted but created the lifestyle that they once upon a time dreamt about and yet still feels depressed? So depressed that they even consider ending their own life. Well, one morning I got that phone call from a dear friend who was considering ending his own life. Somebody who had made more money than he knew what to do with and was living the lifestyle that he intended for himself throughout his whole life. In this episode of the Zen Stoic podcast, we're gonna be talking about exactly how that conversation went and what we did to turn them around. So you're not gonna want to miss this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 28 The Four Sicknesses Of The Mind

Wed, 13 Mar 2019 21:22:09 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 27 Balancing Business And Romance

Wed, 13 Mar 2019 02:37:00 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 26 Giving Your All Regardless Of The Outcome

Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:30:37 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 25 Stoicism Interview With YouTuber Andrew Kirby

Sat, 09 Mar 2019 20:02:53 GMT

Andrew Kirby is from the UK and has a YouTube channel with over 20k subscribers and 300+ videos on Stoicism.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 24 Building A Strong Inner Circle

Sat, 09 Mar 2019 05:05:08 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 23 Finding Your Middle Way

Thu, 07 Mar 2019 23:44:35 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 22 The Root Of Suffering

Wed, 06 Mar 2019 21:13:01 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 17 Let Your "Disadvantages" Be Your Advantages

Wed, 06 Mar 2019 21:07:43 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 20 Silencing The Noise Of The Outside World

Wed, 06 Mar 2019 21:07:09 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 21 Understanding The Dichotomy of Control

Wed, 06 Mar 2019 21:06:01 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 19 The Master That Inspired Zen Stoicism

Sat, 02 Mar 2019 22:49:42 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 18 How Can You Benefit From Meditation?

Sat, 02 Mar 2019 03:26:45 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 16 When Your Ambitions Are Discouraged By Your Loved Ones

Wed, 27 Feb 2019 23:45:04 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 15 How To Have A Zen Mind

Tue, 26 Feb 2019 21:30:37 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 14 Channeling Pain Into Greatness

Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:27:29 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 13 Conquering Your Own Emotions

Sat, 23 Feb 2019 16:48:46 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 12 Procrastination As A Tool

Sat, 23 Feb 2019 16:45:25 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 11 You Are Not A Tree

Fri, 22 Feb 2019 01:31:52 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 10 How To Have More Time

Wed, 20 Feb 2019 21:41:17 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 9 Comparison Is The Thief of Joy

Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:22:34 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 8 The 5 Patterns of Sabotage

Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:13:08 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 4 – Episode 34

Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:10:41 GMT

Whenever you are about to start on some activity, remind yourself what the activity is like. If you go out to bathe, picture what happens at a bathhouse—the people there who splash you or jostle you or talk rudely or steal your things. In this way you will be more prepared to start on the activity, by telling yourself at the outset: “I want to bathe, and I also want to keep my will in harmony with nature.” Make this your practice in every activity. Then, if anything happens, that gets in the way of your bathing, you will have the following response available: “Well, this was not the only thing I wanted; I also wanted to keep my will in harmony with nature. I shall not do that if I get angry about what is happening.” The meaning of this profoundly important passage may be more relevant and applicable to us in modern times than it was to the young students of Epictetus almost two thousand years ago. Nevertheless, to fully appreciate and apply this passage to our modern lives, we must overcome one cultural hurdle to understand and appreciate its meaning entirely. Epictetus relies on the experiences of a Roman bathhouse to drive this lesson home for his students. However, few moderns have ever been to anything like a Roman bathhouse to bathe. Therefore, when Epictetus begins his list of things that occur at a Roman bathhouse—splashing, jostling, rude talk, stealing of clothing—we might be inclined to think of a modern public pool setting and consider it similar. However, that is not a good comparison, and it leaves us with an inadequate appreciation of the point Epictetus is making. Let’s take a closer look at Roman bathhouses and the types of activities that occurred there. In Encheiridion 4, Epictetus is relatively brief with his description of a Roman bathhouse because he did not need to elaborate further. His students related to his example immediately because these bathhouses were a standard part of Greek and Roman life. On the other hand, Seneca provides a more detailed picture of these bathhouses in a Letter to Lucilius. He writes: Call to mind every sort of awful noise that grates on the ears. When the stronger men do their exercises, swinging their hand weights about and straining with the effort (or pretending to), I hear the grunts each time they exhale, their rasping and gasping for breath. When I get some idle fellow who’s happy with an ordinary man’s massage, I hear the hands slapping his shoulders and the change of sound when they strike with the cupped hand or with the palm. Then if a ballplayer shows up and starts counting how many he catches, I’m done for! Now add the quarrelsome type—and the one caught stealing—and the one who likes to hear himself sing in the bath chamber—and also the ones who jump into the swimming pool with a great splash. Besides all these, who are at least using their normal voices, imagine the tweezer man screeching over and over in his shrill falsetto, just to attract attention: he is never silent unless he is plucking someone’s armpits and making him cry out instead. Now add the cries of the drink man, the sausage man, the bakery man, and all the different sellers of cooked foods, singing out their wares in their distinctive tones. (Letters 56.1-2) It’s hard to imagine a similar combination of distractions today. We would have to combine a Florida beach during spring break with an outdoor gym, some people playing catch, a bar full of quarrelsome drinkers, an open-air hot wax station, and food vendors shouting over the crowd to sell hotdogs and beer. Then, we might have a similar experience. If you do not relate to that, imagine a crowded shopping mall during the holiday season, a “Black Friday” sale at an electronics store, etc. You get the idea. Epictetus is trying to get his students and us to imagine environments where we typically get frustrated and angry with people and events. Why should we imagine these? Because this type of active imagination in advance of an event (premeditatio malorum) trains us to deal with these events appropriately. It prepares us to keep our will in harmony with nature even during events that might otherwise disturb our tranquil mind and make us angry. Scenarios: Family gatherings Derogatory remarks or criticism Regurgitating or replaying an old family drama Sibling rivalries extended into adulthood Trip to the shopping mall Rude drivers in the parking lot who take the spot you were waiting for Unsupervised children screaming and bumping into you in the stores Slow checkout lines Commute on the highway The driver who cuts you off The man who misses the first 10 seconds of the green light because he focused on his smartphone while driving The woman who does the same because she is putting on eye makeup while driving Commute on train, subway, or bus The people who push and plow their way to the front when the door opens The healthy young person who will not give up his seat to someone who appears to need it. The person singing aloud to the music playing in her earphones A day at the office The backbiting and backstabbing The grumpy boss Incompetent or lazy employees The political games played for promotion In this lesson, Epictetus teaches us to use the practice of premeditatio malorum for every situation where we may encounter people and events that can disturb us and put us in a state of disharmony with nature. He teaches us to remind ourselves what happens at the shopping mall, on the freeway and subway, at the office, family gatherings, etc., before we engage in those events. What is the ultimate goal of this practice? It enables us to participate in these activities without becoming irritated or angry. It thereby allows us to keep our prohairesis, the Greek word for our moral purpose, will, or faculty of choice in harmony with Nature. In this passage, A.A. Long translates the Greek word prohairesis as “will” and defines it as “a human being’s power of self-determination and mental disposition.” In the glossary of his translation of the Encheiridion, he further argues: The word is sometimes translated by choice, purpose, volition, or decision, but in my opinion “will” is the most natural English expression for what Epictetus seeks to convey with it.[1] Some people may balk at the idea of premeditatio malorum because it is a form of negative visualization. This practice appears to contradict some New Age teaching that suggests our thoughts directly create and control things and events external to us. On the other hand, Stoicism teaches us that all external things and events are outside of our control. Of course, that does not imply that our thoughts and intentions do not affect things and events external to us. However, as we learned in the lesson on Encheiridion 2, Nature does not grant us the authority or permission to control things and events that are external to us. Stoicism teaches these externals are not up to us. Premeditatio malorum does not create what some people call a self-fulfilling prophecy for two reasons. First, the Stoic practitioner learns these events are not indeed “bad.” Instead, the Stoic trusts that these events, which are brought about by a providentially ordered cosmos, are “good” for the whole of the cosmos even though they may be dispreferred indifferents to us. Again, I repeat Marcus Aurelius’ beautiful expression of radical acceptance toward the things and events that Nature: Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. All is fruit for me that your seasons bring, O nature. All proceeds from you, all subsists in you, and to you all things return. (Meditations 4.23) Second, Stoics do not visualize the possibility of adverse events because they fear them and want to avoid them. Instead, they envision them to develop the realization there is nothing about these events we should fear. As we will see in the next lesson, these seemingly adverse events cannot harm us. Instead, it is only our beliefs about those events that can and do bring us genuine harm. Therefore, Encheiridion 4 teaches us to keep our “will” in harmony with nature while engaging in activities where events might otherwise irritate us and make us angry. While the events themselves are not bad, the irritation or anger we allow to well up inside us is morally bad because it places our will in a state of disharmony with Nature. But what does it mean to be in a state of disharmony with Nature? To understand that, we must understand what it means to live in harmony with Nature. A. A. Long provides a succinct and poignant definition in the translation's glossary I am using here. He suggests that living in harmony with Nature means: To behave in conformity both to one’s human nature as a rational animal and to one’s predetermined and god-given circumstances.[2] Please notice that he did not stop with human nature. That is the mistake many moderns make in their practice of Stoicism. Without cosmic Nature, Stoic theory and practice lose their profound spiritual significance, and life lived in agreement with Nature loses its inherently moral purpose. So, how do we apply this practice of premeditatio malorum in our daily life? The applications are endless, but here are a few examples. Before your morning or evening commute, remind yourself how other drivers behave during rush-hour traffic. Then, when another driver cuts you off or causes you to miss a green light because they were not paying attention, you can look beyond the immediate goal of getting home or to another location and remind yourself: Well, this was not the only thing I wanted; I also wanted to keep my will in harmony with nature. I shall not do that if I get angry about what is happening. (Ench 4) When you decide to go shopping at the mall,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 3 – Episode 33

Sat, 08 Dec 2018 16:53:27 GMT

This famous passage from Encheiridion 3 highlights the fact that this handbook is intended for practitioners who are already familiar with Stoic theory and practice. I say that because passages like this one, read in isolation, without an adequate understanding of Stoic teachings, can easily leave one with the wrong impression. In fact, absent the larger context of Stoic theory and practice, this passage, in particular, can appear inhumane or even pathological, and has turned people away from Stoic practice. As Lawrence Becker, the late professor of philosophy at the College of William and Mary points out: The image of the austere, dispassionate, detached, tranquil, and virtually affectless sage – an image destined to be self-refuting – has become a staple of anti-Stoic philosophy, literature, and popular culture. It has been constructed from incautious use of the ancient texts and is remarkably resistant to correction.[1] However, when we place a passage like this within the full context of Stoic theory and practice, the caricatures conjured up by these incautious interpretations are easily dismissed. By focusing on several key words and phrases used in this passage, we can see this is simply another, more advanced, application of the distinction between what is up to us and not up to us. So, let’s dissect this passage, place it in context, and see if a different picture of Stoic practice emerges. First, we need to consider three important phrases in Encheiridion 3. Epictetus offers three different categories of things. In summation, these categories include everything that attracts us or has its uses or that we are fond of in life. Let’s take a look at each of them: A thing that “attracts you” (ψυχαγωγούντων) – amusement (Discourses 2.16.37); fascination (Discourses 3.21.23); entertainment (Discourses 4.4.4). A thing that “has its uses” (χρείαν) – useful; can be used or put into service. This Greek word is used more than one hundred times in the Discourses and Encheiridion combined. A thing “you are fond of” (στεργομένων) – love, affection. A form of this Greek word is used eleven times in the Discourses and Encheiridion. It is used six times in Epictetus’ lesson on family affection (Discourses 1.11). It is important to consider the broad range of external things these three categories include because it helps us understand the meaning of this passage and avoid a mischaracterization of Stoicism this passage frequently evokes. First, it includes external things we find amusing, fascinating, or entertaining. This may be a television, computer, or another electronic device that provides mindless entertainment; it may also be a beautiful painting or another piece of artwork we admire; or it could be a collection of coins, stamps, dolls, trinkets, etc. This list is nearly endless. Next, are those things we may find useful or of service. Again, many things come to mind: a favorite coffee cup, a smartphone, computer or tablet, car, house, a comfortable chair, etc. Once again, the list of things that fall into this category is extremely long. Finally, we have those things for which we feel love or affection. Wait a second! Did Epictetus say love and affection? To be precise, Epictetus uses a Greek word that is typically translated as “fondness,” as it is here. However, the Greek root for this word means love or affection.[2] Interestingly, the fondness in this passage is directed exclusively at people. Specifically, this passage directs fondness toward our children or spouse. This highlights a sense of feeling and connection with loved ones that many mistakenly believe is absent in Stoicism. As we will see later, the image of the unfeeling, detached Stoic is a mischaracterization. This brings us to another extremely important aspect of this passage that is essential for the deconstruction of this mischaracterization and the development of a proper understanding of this frequently misunderstood passage. As already noted, this passage deals with a broad range of things—externals—in our lives. What is easily overlooked in this passage is the existence of a hierarchy from the most trivial of things, like a jug, up to those things for which we have a genuine love or affection—spouses and children. It is a gross misunderstanding of Stoic theory to suggest our affinity for a spouse or child should be comparable to our affinity for a jug. The Stoics certainly do place all of these things in the same category of preferred indifferents and teach us not to be “troubled” by the loss of any of them. Nevertheless, as this passage makes clear, there is a natural dissimilarity between our affinity for things that amuse us, entertain us, and are useful to us and those humans that are closest to us in our circle of affinity (oikeiosis).[3] In reference to Encheiridion 3, Brad Inwood argues, Epictetus “is not, of course, advocating utter indifference to one’s loved ones” any more than Chrysippus was “advocating indifference to one’s health” in the fragment preserved in Discourses 2.6.9-10. Additionally, Inwood argues: It must be remembered that this readiness for setbacks does not rule out determined efforts and actions to achieve one’s proper goals: staying healthy, keeping one’s children alive, executing the various plans and actions which make up a life of appropriate actions. But in the uncertainty of a human life, all these actions and plans, which are or depend on forms of impulse, should be carried out with the addition of reservation. In this way one may attain the smooth flow of life which is characterized by consistency with oneself and with the will of Zeus.[4] In fact, in Discourses 1.11, which addresses the topic of family affection, Epictetus makes it quite clear that “family affection accompanied by reason” is in accordance with Nature. That lesson takes the form of a dialog between Epictetus and a government official who claims his affection for his little daughter forced him to leave her presence when she was sick. He claimed he could not bear seeing his daughter suffer. By the end of the dialog, Epictetus leads the official to understand he left his daughter during her time of need because of his wrong judgment about what is appropriate rather than his affection for her. I encourage everyone to read and consider Discourses 1.11. It presents a case for familial love and affection that is frequently overshadowed by the misleading caricatures of Stoics derived from passages like this one in Encheiridion 3. Discourses 1.11 places challenging passages like Encheiridion 3 and Discourses 3.24.88 into context. In that latter passage, Epictetus instructs: From now on, whenever you take delight in anything, call to mind the opposite impression; what harm is there in your saying beneath your breath as you’re kissing your child, ‘Tomorrow you’ll die’? Or similarly to your friend, ‘Tomorrow you’ll go abroad, or I will, and we’ll never see one another again.’ (Discourses 3.24.88) Again, it is wholly inaccurate to suggest this passage teaches Stoics to be indifferent toward their loved ones. Instead, Epictetus is encouraging us to accept the true nature of human existence—it is fragile and temporal. Likewise, this passage serves as a reminder to practice premeditatio malorum because things break, people die, and events frequently do not turn out as we intend. Why should we practice envisioning the loss of possessions, the onset of dispreferred circumstances, and the death of loved ones? Because that practice helps to keep us on the path toward true freedom. To be free, we must disconnect our well-being from anything that is not up to us. As we learned in the last episode, to act otherwise is an attempt to claim authority over that which is not up to us, and that path leads us into slavery to externals, which produces a troubled mind. A Troubled Mind The whole point of Encheiridion 3 is to avoid a troubled mind by understanding and accepting the true nature of all external things and our lack of control over them. Jugs break and loved ones die. That is the normal operation of nature. To expect something different is unwise. The Greek word translated as “troubled” (ταραχθήσῃ) is used eight times within five passages of the Encheiridion. Two of those instances are here in chapter three. The use of that Greek word in the Encheiridion highlights the distinction between the psychological state of true freedom and that of a troubled mind. Ench 1 – if we seek those things not up to us, we will be troubled Ench 3 – if we do not consider the true nature of things, we will be troubled Ench 5 – it is our opinions about things and events that trouble us Ench 12 – if we base our well-being on the outcome of our actions, we will be troubled Ench 28 – if we allow the insults of others to affect our mind, we will be troubled Each of these passages emphasizes the dichotomy between what is and is not up to us. The Stoic path requires us to understand that all externals—whether we seek them for entertainment, their usefulness, or love and affection—are outside of our control; they are not up to us. TVs, computers, smartphones, collectibles, beautiful and awe-inspiring artifacts, our favorite coffee cup, and family heirlooms can be broken, burned, lost, or stolen. Likewise, those people for whom we feel natural love and affection can become sick and die. Therefore, we set ourselves up for failure and psychological distress when we desire any of these things as goods and seek them as sources of happiness (well-being). Stoicism does not teach us to deny ourselves any of these preferred indifferents. Instead, Stoic practice trains us seek our good in one thing alone—our moral excellence (virtue), because it is only through the development of virtue that we can find true freedom and well-being.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 2 – Episode 32

Sun, 18 Nov 2018 23:19:57 GMT

Encheiridion 1 focuses on what is up to us and contrasts the tranquil psychological state of those who focus their attention and impulse only on those things and events within their control with the troubled mind of those who attempt to control what is not in their power. The second chapter of Encheiridion further defines the concepts of desire and aversion and adds another important concept: things contrary to Nature. Encheiridion 2 opens with the following advice: Keep in mind that desire presumes your getting what you want and that aversion presumes your avoiding what you don’t want, and that not getting what we want makes us unfortunate, while encountering what we don’t want makes us miserable. We have a few things to unpack in this passage. First is that we should “keep in mind” the lesson of Encheiridion 2. This means we should memorize it, remember it, and regularly remind ourselves about it. The phrase “keep in mind” is translated from the Greek word Μέμνησο, which appears sixteen times within fourteen different chapters of the Encheiridion. As I noted in the introduction to this series, Arrian created the Encheiridion to serve as a handbook that can be kept close at hand or carried in the hand. Arrian filled it with reminders that help us “keep in mind” those Stoic doctrines that are essential to our practice. So, what is so important about the lesson of Encheiridion 2 that warrants keeping it in mind? In short, this lesson defines the key distinction between true freedom and slavery in Epictetus’ teaching, which entails wanting only what is up to us, avoiding only what is contrary to nature, and treating everything else as inconsequential to our goal of developing an excellent moral character and experiencing true well-being. To comprehend this lesson's meaning and its application in our daily lives, we must have a solid grasp of several key concepts, including desire, aversion, things contrary to nature, and reservation. Desires and Aversions Exist in our Psyche When we assent to a value judgment attached to an impression of a thing or event—that it is either good or bad—we create a desire or aversion that acts upon us in the form of an impulse to either seek or avoid that thing or event. Therefore, desires and aversions are not external entities that tempt us or frighten us. They do not exist out there in the world; they exist as real mental faculties in our psyche (soul) that we must restrain and ultimately retrain. The first time I read this new translation of Encheiridion 2 by A. A. Long, his use of the word “presumes” in this passage struck me as odd. I recalled no other translation using that word, so I checked a few others. Pay attention to the language used to describe the activity of desires and aversions in each of these translations: A. Long: desire presumes your getting what you want, aversion presumes your avoiding what you don’t want Robin Hard: desire promises the attaining of what you desire, and aversion the avoiding of what you want to avoid Thomas Higginson: desire demands the attainment of that of which you are desirous; and aversion demands the avoidance of that to which you are averse W.A. Oldfather: the promise of desire is the attainment of desire, that of aversion is not to fall into what is avoided The language being used here is rather curious. It describes desires and aversions as real entities with the ability to make presumptions, promises, and demands. However, according to Stoicism, to act on us in this way, these desires and aversions and the impulses they produce must be real physical faculties in our psyche. In fact, they are. As Marcus Aurelius notes repeatedly in his Meditations, those impulses created by our desires and aversions control us like puppets (2.2; 6.16; 6.28; 7.3; 7.29; 12.19). We must be careful here lest we misinterpret this language to support a form of dualism where a separate mind acts upon our body. That is not the case in Stoic theory. As Christopher Gill, professor of ancient thought at Exeter University, points out: The normal Stoic standpoint is what we might call psychophysical monism or holism: the psyche is conceived as physical and identified with one of the natural elements, pneuma, a mixture of fire and air.[1] In Stoic theory, desires, aversions, and impulses are not external to our psyche; they are natural emotional states that get corrupted and become dysfunctional passions. This occurs when natural desires and aversions that can benefit us and promote our survival are transformed into passions that pull us around like puppets and leave us with troubled minds. We simply learned to value and fear the wrong things.[2] Simplicius, the sixth-century Neoplatonist, wrote the following about this chapter and the concepts of desire and aversion in his famous commentary on the Encheiridion: The promise and goal of desire is the attainment of what is desired, and the ‘fortunate’ are those who attain this. The promise and goal of aversion is that you will not encounter what you flee from, and this (i.e. not encountering it) is being ‘of good fortune’. Similarly, not attaining the object of your desire is ‘unfortunate’ (because you didn’t attain it), while encountering the object of your aversion is ‘ill-fortuned’–the contrary of good fortune–(because you attained something, but what you attained was bad).[3] The Presumption of Desires and Aversions Again, when I first read Long’s new translation of Encheiridion 2, I was struck by the word “presumes” in reference to desires and aversions. Therefore, after I read other highly regarded translations, I looked up the definition of presume and here is what I found. The Oxford online dictionary defines presume as a verb that means to “Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.”[4] My hardbound version of the Oxford English Dictionary defines presume as a verb that means to “Undertake without adequate authority or permission.”[5] Both of those definitions are quite helpful for the unpacking of this passage from Encheiridion 2, which reads: desire presumes your getting what you want, aversion presumes your avoiding what you don’t want (Ench 2) Using the first definition, a desire or aversion must have some reasonable probability of success otherwise it is nothing more than a pipe dream or whimsical fantasy. However, if we combine this with A.A. Long’s definition of desire, we get “a strong acquisitive attitude toward what appears good,” and we have a reasonable chance to obtain, like a better paying job, good health, a good reputation, etc. Likewise, an aversion is “a strongly negative attitude toward what appears bad,” and we have a reasonable chance to avoid, like poverty, sickness, public shame, etc. As we will learn in Exploring Encheiridion 15, it is acceptable to stretch out our hand and take a portion of any preferred indifferent providence has brought into our lives. However, we become enslaved by those externals when we stretch our desire out for them as things that are good in themselves. The opposite is true of those externals we wish to avoid. Why? The answer to that question invokes the second definition from above. Our desires and aversions entail the presumption there is a good probability we can obtain or avoid the externals we consider good or bad. However, as the Stoics make quite clear, Nature does not grant us the authority or permission to presume that we can obtain or avoid those externals—they are not up to us. Things Contrary to Nature (para phusin) This brings us to the next passage from Encheiridion 2, which reads: So if, among the *things contrary to nature you restrict aversion to those that are up to you, you will experience none of the things you don’t want, but if you are averse to sickness or death or poverty, you will be miserable. So move aversion away from everything that is not up to us and transfer it to the things contrary to nature that are up to us. This passage deals with the intersection of two sets of things and events. The first set includes those things and events that are contrary to nature. This refers to things contrary to our human well-being such as sickness, poverty, social isolation, and emotional disturbances (pathê). The second set includes only what is up to us, which includes our assents, desires and aversion, and impulses toward action. Epictetus is advising us that among those things contrary to nature, we should seek to avoid only that which is up to us—our passions (strong emotions). If we seek to avoid the others—sickness, poverty, a bad reputation, etc.—we will be miserable. As Keith Seddon writes: And this is what we must train ourselves in: we must let everything happen as it will with an open acceptance (Discourses 1.12.15–17), even those things to which we are usually averse, seeking to avoid only ‘those things contrary to nature amongst the things that are in our power’, and these are the passions (pathê), the ‘disturbing or violent emotions’ that constitute our misery. Passions are excessive impulses, ‘contrary to nature’ because they are ‘contrary to correct and natural reasoning’ (Stob. 2.7.10a), in that any one passion is, or is dependent upon, a false judgement concerning what is good and bad for us (see DL 7.111; LS 65G3); they are ‘excessive’ because they are ‘disobedient to the choosing reason or an irrational motion of the soul’ (Stob. 2.7.10, trans. Pomeroy; see also DL 7.110); and they are ‘in our power’ because it is entirely up to us how we evaluate things, and whether we assent to the judgements that sanction (or comprise) the passions...[6] Likewise, in Simplicius’ commentary on the Encheiridion we read: if you avoid disease or poverty, since fleeing from them is not completely up to us (because even if we have a power which some times helps us escape them, still it won’t always hold good, or do so entirely),

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion 1 – Episode 31

Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:59:52 GMT

The Path to Freedom vs the Path to Slavery As I noted in the last episode, the focus of this podcast series exploring the Encheiridion will be Epictetus’ concept of freedom, which is not the same as the commonly held concept of freedom as a human right or political entitlement. Epictetus designed his Stoic training program to free us from the judgments, desires, and impulses that enslave us psychologically. This program works even if we are bound in real physical chains, constrained by prison bars, or living under a tyrannical rule that denies us that commonly held conception of freedom. Therefore, as we proceed through the Encheiridion, we must set aside the idea of freedom as it relates to our physical autonomy and political liberty. That is not what Epictetus is talking about. For him, enslavement does not entail chains or bars. Instead, the slave is the person bound by their passions and false beliefs. Freedom, therefore, is emancipation from those psychological bonds, and Stoic training is the path toward that true form of freedom.[1] This opening chapter of the Encheiridion presents us with two paths: the path of slavery and the path of freedom. Most people choose the path of slavery and remain bound by their desires for things and events not within their control—not up to us. They desire and seek things powerless to produce true well-being, servile to external circumstances, and impeded by the actions of others. As a result, they are frustrated, psychologically pained, have a troubled mind, and blame external circumstances (God) and other people for their unhappiness. Fortunately, Epictetus provides us with an alternative path—the Stoic path toward true freedom. This path teaches us to break the bonds of those externals and to desire and seek only those things that are in our complete control and thus are naturally free from external circumstances, unimpeded by others, and unconstrained by Nature. Epictetus makes an astounding promise to those who follow the Stoic path toward that true form of freedom. He says: No one will ever put pressure on you, no one will impede you, you will not reproach anyone, you will not blame anyone, you will not do a single thing reluctantly, no one will harm you, you will have no enemy, because nothing harmful will happen to you. (Ench 1) When we read that promise, it naturally inclines us to ask: Who wouldn’t want that? Who wouldn’t want that life of ultimate freedom? Almost everyone will nod in agreement and say they want that life of psychological well-being. However, most people will not follow the Stoic path toward true freedom because it requires significant effort and entails a commitment to the transformation of our thoughts and behaviors. That commitment deters most people. Sadly, most people choose to remain enslaved by their passions and false beliefs. They lack the motivation needed to achieve these “great things” the Stoic path promises. Those who do find the motivation to embark on a philosophical way of life do so for a variety of reasons. Whatever the motive, those who embark on the Stoic path are seeking something they do not currently have, and that is psychological well-being. They may have been seeking happiness in externals such as wealth, health, reputation, etc., and now realize those things only provide the illusion of well-being. This brings us to the point of departure for the Stoic path—the choice to desire and seek only what is up to us and treat everything else as indifferent to our true well-being. As Epictetus makes perfectly clear, the list of things completely within our control—up to us—is quite short: That list includes “our faculties of judgment, *motivation, *desire, and *aversion—in short, everything that is our own doing.” The alternative list—not up to us—includes “our body and property, our reputations, and our official positions—in short, everything that is not our own doing.” William Irvine, who popularized the phrase “dichotomy of control”[2] also attempted to expand it into a “trichotomy.” That is not what Epictetus, or the other Stoics, had in mind when they delineated what is and is not up to us (eph’ hêmin). As Keith Seddon, an independent scholar and practicing Stoic notes: When Epictetus talks of things being in our power or not in our power (Handbook 1.1–2) he means this in an absolute sense. For Epictetus, for something to depend on us, to be in our power, in our control, or up to us, this must be so invariably and always.[3] In other words, if any event or thing is even partially under the control of or dependent upon another person or external circumstance, then it is NOT up to us. For those who have questions about this concept, I refer you to What Is “Up to Us”? - Episode 6 of Stoicism On Fire. For our purposes, keep in mind that up to us means completely up to us. If a thing or event is only partially in our control, it is not up to us. The Choice The choice Epictetus is presenting us is simple to understand yet exceedingly difficult to practice consistently. Nature presents us with two distinct paths, and we must choose which one to follow. The traveler of the first path desires and seeks good health, physical beauty, possessions, a good reputation, and high office or power, etc.—things that are not up to us—and ends up emotionally frustrated, psychologically pained, with a troubled mind. In the end, they blame external circumstances, including God other people, for their unhappiness. However, the traveler of the Stoic path desires and seeks to develop an excellent character by developing their faculties of judgment, eliminating inappropriate desires and aversions—things that are up to us—and are therefore unimpeded, unharmed, do nothing reluctantly, have no enemies, and blame no one for their circumstances. They experience true freedom—psychological well-being. The choice Epictetus presents us with could not be clearer or more distinct—we choose the path toward a troubled mind or the path to psychological well-being. The choice is ours, but the choice is not an easy one and neither is the path we must continue to follow after that initial choice is made. Nevertheless, before we continue, I want my listeners to be clear about what this choice does not entail. First, it is not a choice between good and bad things; that is a different topic. This is a choice between what is and is not up to us. Many of the things that are not up to us are, nonetheless, preferred indifferents that we may appropriately choose under the right circumstances. Some, like participating in the care of one’s family, community, nation, and all of humanity are actual duties we should engage in as Stoics. As Stoics we are called to step out of the Epicurean garden and into the Stoic cosmopolis, and we should engage in just causes with courage, wisdom, and moderation. Nevertheless, our success or failure in these endeavors has no bearing on our psychological well-being. Ultimately, we must accept that all quests for social justice, political equality, world peace, environmental conservation, etc., are externals that are not up to us. We must keep that in mind. Second, this choice is not a call to renounce indifferents entirely; it is the choice to understand their true nature and treat them as inconsequential to the development of our moral character and our well-being. As Epictetus instructs, we may need to renounce many externals for a while; however, Stoicism is not a call to the life of an ascetic renunciate. We need to keep an important distinction in mind as we proceed on the Stoic path. Preferred indifferents like good health, property, reputation, and positions of power and authority are not incompatible with the Stoic path toward freedom; they are inconsequential to it. Possessing externals does not impede our path toward freedom. Instead, it is our desire for them and our fear of not having them that leads to psychological distress. As we will see in Encheiridion 15, if fate brings us these preferred indifferent while we are at the banquet of life, we can stretch out our hand and take a portion. However, we must not extend our desire toward them. Stoicism teaches us we can be truly free even while imprisoned, living in slavery or under tyrannical rule, or while sick and impoverished. This is certainly counterintuitive when viewed from the perspective of modernity. However, it is the most profound truth Stoicism has to offer—any psychological misery we endure is the misery of our own making via our judgments, desires, and aversions. The corollary is also true. If we desire and seek externals for our happiness, “everyone with authority over any of our circumstances is bound to be our master” (Discourses 4.1.59). Epictetus makes this point perfectly clear: If you desire externals, “you are giving yourself up to slavery and submitting your neck to the yoke” (Discourses 4.1.77). A Demanding Path This bring us to the reason why most people remain on the path of slavery to our desires and false beliefs. Epictetus tells us we must be “highly motivated” if we want to “achieve such great things.” What are those great things? A life that is naturally free from external circumstances, unimpeded by others, and unconstrained by Nature because it seeks only what is within our complete control—an excellent moral character. It is a life of virtue and well-being. The Stoic path of freedom is not an easy path. We should not expect it to be easy when we consider the “great things” it offers. As Epictetus makes clear, the path requires that we “forego some things completely, and postpone others for the present.” Why? Because we cannot pursue those “great things”—freedom and well-being—while we simultaneously desire and pursue preferred indifferents like “prominence and wealth.” Epictetus advises that if we pursue both simultaneously,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 7 Looking At Adversity

Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:26:37 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring Encheiridion (Introduction) – Episode 30

Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:40:33 GMT

This episode of Stoicism On Fire kicks off an exploration of the powerful, poignant, and perennially inspiring Encheiridion of Epictetus. The fifty-three chapters of this Stoic handbook will provide the primary content and plan for this exploration of Stoic theory and practice. However, I will incorporate other Stoic texts and the insights of scholars when it's appropriate for the subject at hand. In this introductory episode, I will provide some background on the Encheiridion. Then, in the next episode of Stoicism On Fire, we will begin the chapter-by-chapter exploration with the frequently quoted chapter one. About the Encheiridion Origin and Authorship The Encheiridion, like the Discourses, was written by Flavius Arrian, who was a student of Epictetus and later became a public servant under Emperor Hadrian, and a respected historian. In a letter to Lucias Gellius, Arrian claims the Discoursesare “word for word” taken “as best I could” from the lectures of Epictetus.[1] The Encheiridion, frequently referred to as the Handbook, is a compilation of passages drawn from those Discourses. As a result, many of the chapters in the Encheiridion can be directly correlated to passages in the Discourses; those that cannot are likely from portions of the Discourses that are lost to us. History The Encheiridion, more so than the Discourses, has been the historical gateway into the thought of Epictetus. For example, Simplicius, a sixth-century Neoplatonist, wrote a commentary on the Encheiridion that served as an introduction to Neoplatonist philosophy. Additionally, as Christopher Gill notes in his introduction to the Robin Hard translation of Epictetus, The Handbook was also adopted, with some modifications (including replacing the name of ‘Socrates’ with ‘St Paul’), by Christian monks, and used for centuries by the Eastern (Greek Orthodox) Church. Through Syriac Christian scholars, Epictetus’ thought spread to the Islamic East, influencing, for instance, the teaching on ‘dispelling sorrow’ by al-Kindī, a major figure in the study of Greek texts in ninth-century Baghdad.[2] The fact that the Encheiridion served as the sole source of Epictetus’ teaching for many who are not otherwise interested in Stoicism produced a negative side effect. As W. A. Oldfather, the author of the Loeb Classical Library translations of Epictetus points out, the “necessary aridity and formalism” of this condensed version obscures “the more modest, human, and sympathetic aspects of [Epictetus’] character.”[3] Unfortunately, a compendium like this can easily create misunderstanding and result in unwarranted criticism of Epictetus’ thought. This brings up an excellent point. The Encheiridion is not a substitute for the Discourses of Epictetus. Instead, its passages should serve as reminders for those who are already familiar with Stoic teachings. Purpose According to Simplicius, Arrian wrote a letter to Messalenus that describes the Encheiridion as a “selection” of those passages from the Discourses that are “most timely and essential to philosophy, and which most stir the soul.” Simplicius further suggests: The aim of [the Encheiridion]—if it meets with people who are persuaded by it, and do not merely read it but are actually affected by the speeches and bring them into effect—is to make our soul free, as the Demiurge and Father, its maker and generator, intended it to be: not fearing anything, or distressed at anything, or mastered by anything inferior to it.[4] Because the Encheiridion was created to serve as a handy reminder of Epictetus’ teaching, I waited to address it on the Stoicism In Fire podcast until I covered the essentials of Stoic theory and practice. The Encheiridion is not a standalone text of Stoic doctrine. Instead, it serves to remind us about teachings with which students and practitioners of Stoicism should already be familiar. This podcast series will explore the Encheiridion with that in mind; therefore, I assume the listener is already familiar with basic Stoic doctrines and practices. If you are new to Stoicism, please take the time to listen to Stoicism On Fire podcast episodes 1 through 14 before proceeding. Those episodes will provide a foundation that will allow you to get the most out of this exploration of the Encheiridion. How to Be Free This series of podcasts will use A.A. Long’s translation of Encheiridion from his 2018 book, titled How to Be Free: An Ancient Guide to the Stoic Life. A. A. Long is one of the most, if not the most, respected Stoic scholars of our time. His scholarship is always of the highest quality. Therefore, in deference to him, I will use the title Encheiridion instead of Handbook throughout this series and I will spell it, as Long does, with the additional “e” in the middle. I strongly encourage my listeners to purchase a copy of this book. This is an inexpensive hardbound book and is a worthy addition to the library of anyone who is studying and practicing Stoicism. As A. A. Long makes clear by his book title, freedom is a central theme in the teachings of Epictetus. On the front flap of the dust cover, Long writes: Freedom, for Epictetus, is not a human right or a political prerogative but a psychological and ethical achievement, a gift we alone can bestow on ourselves. This is consistent with his previous book on Epictetus, where he argues “Four principal concepts give Epictetus' philosophy its unity and coherence: freedom, judgement, volition, and integrity.” On the principle of freedom, Long wrote: FREEDOM, underwritten by the theology we have just observed, has nothing to do with liberty in a social or political sense. The freedom that interests Epictetus is entirely psychological logical and attitudinal. It is freedom from being constrained or impeded by any external circumstance or emotional reaction.[5] We will see each of these four principles—freedom, judgement, volition, and integrity—during our exploration of the Encheiridion. However, freedom will be emphasized because that principle is pervasive in the teachings of Epictetus. This focus on freedom is likely because Epictetus was a slave before being freed and becoming a Stoic teacher. As a result of that experience, where his external circumstances were controlled entirely by the whims of his master, Epictetus developed a profound understanding and appreciation for true freedom, which is naturally free, unimpeded, and unconstrained (Ench. 1). As A.A. Long notes, for Epictetus: Freedom, according to this notion, is neither legal status nor opportunity to move around at liberty. It is the mental orientation of persons who are impervious to frustration or disappointment because their wants and decisions depend on themselves and involve nothing that they cannot deliver to themselves.[6] Epictetus reminds us that true slavery has nothing to do with chains, freedom of movement, or the ability to carry out one’s intentions. As a result, he teaches the slave how to be truly free while simultaneously reminding the free person they are enslaved by their desires and aversions. Nevertheless, as Long points out, this conception of freedom is not the invention of Epictetus. According to Zeno, the original head of the Stoic school, freedom is the exclusive prerogative of those who are wise, while inferior persons, who comprise the majority of people, are not only fools but also slaves.[7] Therefore, when Epictetus calls his students “slaves” in his lectures, he is not insulting them. Instead, he is reminding them their psyches are controlled by the puppet strings of desires and aversions just as much as the slave’s body is controlled by chains and whips. In other words, he is reminding his students they are not free; he is encouraging them to seek true freedom. As Stoic practitioners, our goal during this exploration of the Encheiridion is to cut a few more of those puppet strings that bind us like chains to our desires and aversions. By doing this, we will make a little more progress along the Stoic path toward true freedom. A.A. Long’s Stoic Values Diagram The diagram below is from A.A. Long’s book, How to Be Free(pg. xxx). The first edition hardbound book included an ERRATA insert to correct this diagram. The version of the diagram below is a recreation that includes the correction. Goods Bads Indifferents Essentially beneficial Essentially harmful Neither essentially beneficial nor harmful up to us up to us not up to us virtue, wisdom, happiness faultiness, folly, unhappiness e.g., poverty, wealth mind dependent mind dependent not mind dependent harmony with nature disharmony with nature Glossary A.A. Long provides a helpful glossary of terms in the back of his new book How to Be Free. I will provide those definitions as they are in his book. I will not provide a consolidated glossary like that from the book. Again, I encourage all of my listeners who intend to follow this series of podcasts on the Encheiridion to purchase a copy of Long’s excellent book. Primary Sources The following sources will be relied upon and quoted from during this exploration of the Encheiridion. Additional sources, if used, will be noted in the Stoicism On Fire episode where they are used. Brennan, T., & Brittain, C. (2002). Simplicius: On Epictetus Handbook 1-26. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press. __________ (2002). Simplicius: On Epictetus’ Handbook 27-53. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press. Dobbin, R. (1998). Epictetus: Discourses, Book 1. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Hard, R. (2014). Epictetus: Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. (C. Gill, Ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. New York: Oxford University Press. Long, A. (2018). How to Be Free: An Ancient Guide to the Stoic Life. Princeton,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 6 Fall In Love With The Process

Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:32:20 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 5 Momento Mori

Mon, 08 Oct 2018 20:30:04 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Characteristics of Good and Bad People (Part 3) – Episode 29

Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:22:40 GMT

In the last episode of Stoicism On Fire, I focused on the Stoic doctrine of an excellent human life and the fact that such a life requires agreement with both human nature and cosmic Nature. The corollary of that doctrine is that human reason alone is not enough to lead us toward an excellent moral character; we must bring our human reason (logos) into agreement with universal Reason (Logos). As I pointed out, the concept of human reason as a fragment of the Logos permeating the cosmos relates to the inner guardian the Stoics referred to as a daimon. With those concepts in mind, we are ready to continue with Marcus’ list of characteristics of a good person. When Marcus reminds himself not to defile his daimon, he notes the good person will exhibit the characteristic of: following God in an orderly fashion, never uttering a word that is contrary to the truth nor performing an action that is contrary to justice. We see three related characteristics here; they are: following god, speaking truth, and acting justly. Following God in an Orderly Fashion First, what does it mean to follow God in Stoic practice? The instruction to “Follow God” may inspire curiosity or provoke resistance among secular moderns. This is not equivalent to following the commands of a sacred text; the Stoics had no such texts. Recall that God is equivalent to Nature in Stoicism. Therefore, to follow God is to follow Nature. However, we misrepresent this aspect of Stoic practice if we remove the divine and providential characteristics of Nature the Stoics attributed to her. Nature devoid of providence is not the cosmic Nature with which the ancient Stoics tried to live in agreement. Absent providence, some version of a chance universe like that of the Epicureans remains. The Stoics opposed this model and found it inadequate as a guide for ethical human life. That is the reason they emphasized the relationship between us and a purposeful (providential) cosmos. Throughout the Meditations, we see Marcus seeking a relationship with cosmic Nature and attempting to align his life with its universal Law. In several passages, Marcus expresses this as following God: Hearten yourself with simplicity and self-respect and indifference towards all that lies between virtue and vice. Love the human race. Follow God. (Meditations 7.31) And he has put aside every distraction and care, and has no other desire than to hold to the straight path according to the law, and by holding to it, to follow God. (Meditations 10.11) In the final passages of his Meditations, Marcus instructs himself to constantly consider, those who have been greatly aggrieved at something that came to pass, and those who have achieved the heights of fame, or affliction, or enmity, or any other kind of fortune; and then ask yourself, ‘What has become of all that?’ Smoke and ashes and merely a tale, or not even so much as a tale. (Meditations 12.27) Then, he reminds himself how “cheap” those things are we strive for and reminds himself of those things that are worthy of our pursuit such as wisdom, justice, temperance, and obedience to the gods. Marcus then imagines a dialog with those who doubt or deny the existence of the gods. He writes: To those who ask, ‘Where have you seen the gods, or what evidence do you have of their existence, that you worship them so devoutly?’, I reply first of all that they are in fact visible to our eyes, and secondly, that I have not seen my own soul, and yet I pay it due honour. So likewise with the gods; from what I experience of their power at every moment of my life, I ascertain that they exist and I pay them due reverence. (Meditations 12.28) Finally, he asks himself a deeply probing question and provides himself with an answer. What is it that you seek? The mere continuation of your life? To experience sensation, then, and impulse? To grow, and cease from growing? To make use of your tongue, and your mind? And what is there in that which strikes you as worth desiring? But if all these things are worthy of contempt, take the final step, and follow reason, follow God. (Meditations 12.31) The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are the best expression of Stoicism we have before the Stoa ceases to exist a short time after his death. Within this text we see a deeply held reverence for the divinity of Nature along with a desire and commitment to follow God. This attitude of reverence is not unique to Marcus. As Pierre Hadot emphasizes while writing about the Discipline of Desire, All this corresponds, then, to a religious need: the need to personalize that power, to the will of which the discipline of desire instructs us complacently to consent. This is why Marcus Aurelius, like Epictetus, often employs the expressions "follow the gods" or "obey the gods" to describe this attitude of consent.[1]However, this concept of following God does not begin with Epictetus or Marcus. It can be traced to the founding of the Stoa. In the Discourses of Epictetus we see the “follow God” theme more frequently and, as Hadot points out, to follow the gods “means to accept their will, which is identical with the will of universal Nature.”[2] Likewise, A.A. Long points out, “Hence for Epictetus, the goal of `following God' is equivalent to `living in accordance with nature' (1.26.1), which was the standard Stoic definition of the good life.”[3] Let us look at what Epictetus had to say about this topic in several passages: And one who is still being educated should approach his education with this aim in view: ‘How may I follow the gods in everything, and how can I act in a way that is acceptable to the divine administration, and how may I become free?’ (Discourses 1.12.8) For does it in fact take long to say that ‘our end lies in following the gods, and the essence of the good in the correct use of impressions’? (Discourses 1.20.15) ‘Tell me further, what were the things that you regarded as being “goods”?’—‘The right exercise of choice and right use of impressions.’—‘And what is the end?’—‘To follow God.’ (Discourses 1.30.4) Again, "following the gods" was the language used throughout the history of the Stoa as equivalent to living in agreement with nature. This is clear from the writings of Chrysippus, the second founder and third Scholarch of the Stoa. In Diogenes Laertius’ ancient book Lives of Eminent Philosophers, we read: Chrysippus says in the first book of his De finibus; for our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe. And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature, or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common to all things, that is to say, the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus, lord and ruler of all that is. (DL 7.87-8) If that is not clear enough, Chrysippus followed up with this unambiguous statement: And this very thing constitutes the virtue of the happy man and the smooth current of life, when all actions promote the harmony of the spirit dwelling in the individual man with the will of him who orders the universe. (DL 7.88) Virtue and happiness, according to Chrysippus, result from the harmony between “the spirit dwelling in the individual” (daimon) and “the will of him who orders the universe” (Zeus, God). Considering that Chrysippus was the third Scholarch of the Stoa, these quotes get us close to the founding. However, we can get closer. On four occasions in the Discourses of Epictetus, he repeats a prayer he attributes to Cleanthes, whom Zeno selected to succeed him as the second Scholarch of the ancient Stoa. The most famous version of Cleanthes prayer is found in Enchiridion 53: Guide me, O Zeus, and thou, O Destiny, To wheresoever you have assigned me; I’ll follow unwaveringly, or if my will fails, Base though I be, I’ll follow nonetheless.[4]For those who are unfamiliar with Stoic theology, it is important to note that the name Zeus does not refer to the anthropomorphic figure of Greek mythology or a transcendent deity. Instead, it refers to the God of many names that is the immanent and active force within all of Nature. As professor Keimpe Algra of Utrecht University writes: we know that the Stoics were willing to link their philosophical monotheism or pantheism with at least parts of traditional polytheism. They were prepared to call their one cosmic god by many traditional names—Zeus, Hera, etc.[5]The Stoic God is a philosophical God—one arrived at by observation and reason. Nevertheless, as the surviving texts make clear, the Stoics were not playing mere word games by declaring the cosmos divine as some modern scientific pantheists do. The reverence to Nature and individual piety is clearly present from Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus at the founding all the way to Marcus’ Meditations as the flame of the Stoa grows dim. As A.A. Long argues, Epictetus' theological language betokens a personal belief and experience as deep and wholehearted as that of any Jew or Christian or Muslim.[6]This evidence makes it abundantly clear that the idea of following God was there from the founding of the Stoa. The instruction to “follow the gods” cannot be dismissed as Epictetus’ “own version” of the Stoic edict to follow nature.[7] It is also important to remember a fragment of that logos resides in each of us. Therefore, as A.A. Long points out: We don’t need God, as distinct from ourselves, to tell us what to do; but we are able to tell ourselves what to do only because of the way our nature has been constructed. And the author of our nature's construction is God. Hence for Epictetus, the goal of `following God' is equivalent to `living in accordance with nature' (1.26.1), which was the standard Stoic definition of the good life.[8]Just in Word and Deed

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 4 The Importance of Letting Go

Mon, 01 Oct 2018 21:49:11 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Characteristics of Good and Bad People (Part 2) – Episode 28

Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:58:28 GMT

The last episode closed with a thought-provoking passage from the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius that places our human reason into the proper Stoic perspective. It reads: to have the intellect as a guide towards what appear to be duties is something that we share with those who do not believe in the gods, with those who betray their country, with those who will do anything whatever behind locked doors. (Meditations 3.16) As a transition to this episode, I will highlight the important point Marcus makes in this passage for a second time. Human reason is not the ultimate guide for ethical behavior in Stoic practice. On the contrary, universal Reason—cosmic Nature—is the sole arbiter of good and bad in Stoicism. Chrysippus, the third scholarch of the Stoa, argued this point when he wrote: For there is no other or more suitable way of approaching the theory of good and evil or the virtues or happiness than from the universal nature and from the dispensation of the universe… For the theory of good and evil must be connected with these, since good and evil have no better beginning or point of reference and physical speculation is to be undertaken for no other purpose than for the discrimination of good and evil.[1] Again, in his book titled On Ends, Chrysippus argued: And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature, or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common to all things, that is to say, the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus.[2] In this passage, Chrysippus makes it quite clear a “life in accordance with nature” is one lived in agreement with “the right reason which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus” (emphasis added). The Greek word translated as “reason” in this passage is logos. According to the Stoics, every entity that exists is comprised of a mixture of matter (the passive principle) and pneuma(the active principle). Humans are unique among all existing entities because the pneuma within us comprises our soul (psyche) and “constitutes itself as reason, logos.”[3] Seneca articulated this as follows: What, then, is the distinctive property of a human being? Reason. It is by reason that the human surpasses animals and is second to the gods. Therefore perfected reason is the human’s distinctive excellence; everything else is shared with animals and plants. (Letters 76.9) As A.A. Long emphasizes, “The [goal-directed] assumptions which this argument requires for its validity are too obvious to need discussion.” Accordingly, “'the goodness of living according to reason' is derived from, and not the grounds of, 'living according to Nature'.” In other words, any “goodness” we can attribute to living according to human reason is due solely to the fact that human reason is derived from cosmic Reason (logos). Therefore, the Stoics looked to Nature for ethical norms to guide our lives and society. Chrysippus articulated this in his“third book on the Gods,” where he wrote: It is not possible to discover any other beginning of justice or any source for it other than from Zeus and from the universal nature, for thence everything of the kind must have its beginning if we are going to have anything to say about good and evil.[4] In his paper titled The Logical Basis for Stoic Ethics, the renowned scholar of Stoicism A.A. Long points out: Nature is available to all people as a moral principle through the 'impulses towards virtue' which human beings have as a Natural endowment. The wise man is marked out by his voluntary submission to what Nature wills; he chooses, in some sense of choice, to act according to Nature. The actions of bad men are necessarily contrary to Nature's will… By giving human beings reason, Nature provides the necessary conditions of good or bad actions; for actions are good or bad if and only if the reason of their agents accords with or fails to accord with Nature. By endowing man with 'impulses towards virtue' Nature provides conditions sufficient to direct him towards what accords with Nature.[5] In the conclusion of this paper, A.A. Long argues against the circular reasoning that “life according to nature must be followed because it is the reasonable life or life according to reason.” He refutes the idea that “the reasonable life” constitutes living according to Nature[6] and maintains: That is a complete misrepresentation of the logical basis of Stoic ethics. Life according to reason is entailed by life according to Nature; but life according to Nature is not obligatory because it accords with reason. Nature stands to human beings as a moral law commanding him to live by rational principles, viz., those principles of thought and action which Nature, a perfect being, prescribes to itself and all rational beings.[7] Stoic theory and practice rely on the premise that each human mind is a fragment of the universal, divine mind that permeates and orders the cosmos. Therefore, our ultimate human good is developed by bringing our human reason and will into agreement with universal Reason (cosmic Nature, Logos). Again, in the conclusion of his masterful study of Marcus’s Meditations, Pierre Hadot points out: What defined a Stoic above all else was the choice of a life in which every thought, every desire, and every action would be guided by no other law than that of universal Reason[8] Additionally, Hadot contends, all the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[9] It is simply impossible to make Stoic ethical theory and practice fully coherent if we begin with the modern scientistic assumption that human life and human reason are accidental byproducts of a random universe. We make a serious mistake when we unseat cosmic Nature from its rightful place as the supreme guide for human action and rely solely on our human intellect to guide us towards what appears to be good. This is true of Stoicism and ancient virtue ethics in general. As A.A. Long argues, if we ignore the “symbiosis of cosmic and ethical perspectives” in ancient ethics “we shall not only misrepresent one of its most basic features; we shall also fail to understand why ancient philosophers were so absolute in their claims about the power of reason to guide human life and to deliver prosperity.”[10] Thus, Marcus highlights the fact that using human “intellect as a guide towards what appear to be duties” makes us no different from those who are impious toward divine Nature, disloyal to their country, and engage in soul-destroying behavior. Again, the evil in the world is committed by humans who are using their intellect; they are using their human reason to accomplish their vicious ends. Unfortunately, their human reason is not in agreement with universal Reason. The ancient Stoics understood human reason alone—disconnected from cosmic Reason—is insufficient to guide us toward virtue. Why? Because human reason can be easily corrupted by errant assents to impressions, and desires and aversions that create impulses to act contrary to the will of Nature. The path to virtue requires more. It requires harmony between human reason and cosmic Reason. It requires an understanding and appreciation for universal Reason as the source of our human reason. The Special Characteristic of the “Good Person” With that in mind, we can move on to Marcus’ list of characteristics of those who do use their capacities appropriately. He writes: If you share everything else with those whom I have just mentioned, there remains the special characteristic of a good person (Meditations 3.16) Love of Fate (Amor Fati) First on Marcus’s list of characteristics of the good person is the fact they will “love and welcome all that happens to him and is spun for him as his fate.” In his commentary on this passage, Pierre Hadot wrote: We have already seen that, for the Stoics, what is present for me is that which is currently happening to me: in other words, not merely my current actions, but also the present event with which I am confronted. Here again, as in the case of the present in general, it is my thought and my attention which singles out from the flux of things that which has meaning for me; at which point my inner discourse will declare that such-and-such an event is happening to me. Moreover—whether I know it or not—the overall movement of the universe, set in motion by divine Reason, has brought it about that I have been destined, from all eternity, to encounter such-and-such an event.[11] I dealt with love of fate extensively in previous episodes, so I’m not going to say much about it here. However, I will remind you of the difference between bowing to the necessity of fate and the Stoic practice of loving every event of Nature. As I have noted in a previous episode: Bear and Forbear Only Gets Us Half the Way There. Care of the Daimon Next, Marcus suggests the good person will exhibit three characteristics with regard to their daimon—the guardian spirit within: They will not defile the guardian spirit within. They will not trouble it with a host of fancies. They will preserve it in cheerful serenity.[12] Marcus focuses on the care of his inner daimon throughout his Meditations. This daimon is the guardian or inner “genius” that must be cared for lest it becomes corrupted by incorrect assents to impressions and desires and aversions that lead to impulses to act contrary to the universal law of Nature. In Meditations2.13,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 3 Self-Blame Is Not Self-Discipline

Wed, 19 Sep 2018 02:55:19 GMT

Latest episode of The Zen Stoic Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Characteristics of Good and Bad People (Part 1) – Episode 27

Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:26:36 GMT

In Meditations 3.16, Marcus Aurelius notes three different capacities of the human psyche and the corresponding character traits of bad people who are controlled or guided by them. He writes: To receive impressions by means of images is something that we share even with cattle; and to be drawn this way and that by the puppet-strings of impulse, we share with wild beasts, with catamites, and with a Phalaris or a Nero; and to have the intellect as a guide towards what appear to be duties is something that we share with those who do not believe in the gods, with those who betray their country, with those who will do anything whatever behind locked doors. This passage is fascinating. The first two capacities relied on by those with a bad character will get near-universal nods of agreement from Stoic practitioners. However, the third—those who use their intellect as a guide—may raise eyebrows and will need explaining. Let’s look at each of these in detail. Those Who Are Operating on Sense Impressions (Phantasia) Alone Marcus begins by comparing those who rely only on sense impressions to cattle. If we seek a human parallel, slaves and prisoners come to mind. Like cattle, others control the movements of slaves and prisoners. Likewise, they must eat what is put in front of them lest they starve. A sense impression of food is presented to them and they respond by eating it. A sense impression of downtime is presented to them, so they rest or sleep. Others make all of their significant choices for them; there is no need to make judgments, so they are simply responding to sense impressions. It is possible to imagine a human who is not a literal slave or prisoner but lives in an environment where they are cared for by others and every significant choice is made for them. This would be unlikely in modern times. However, we can imagine a prince or princess of a powerful king living in such circumstances in the past. No matter what we imagine, I think we will agree these circumstances are dehumanizing—this is not the life of a human being; it is the life of cattle. For us, the important lesson here is how we handle sense impressions, and that skill falls under the practice known as the Discipline of Assent. As I noted in a previous episode, we need to set up a Stoic roadblock for impressions. This allows us to Stop every impression, Strip it bare, and See it from the cosmic viewpoint. If we wrongly assent to the almost involuntary value judgments that typically accompany sense impressions—that is “good” or that is “bad”—we develop or further ingrain the desires and aversions that disturb us. That brings us to the next capacity on Marcus’ list. Those Who Are Driven by Impulses (Horme) Marcus likens those who are driven by the impulses that arise from desires and aversions to “wild beasts.” Clearly, wild beasts differ from the cattle that rely on sense perceptions. Animals in the wild are not fed and cared for by others. Instead, they must hunt or forage to eat, and they are free to move about, sleep where they want, and procreate as they desire. These wild beasts are driven by impulses that arise from innate desires (longings) and aversions (fears)—we typically call these instincts. Wild animals do not question their desires and aversions; they do not consider whether their actions are good or bad. If they are social animals, they may tend toward certain behaviors and avoid others because there are rewards or repercussions from others in their group. However, that is not rational behavior; it is conditioning. Marcus argues that people who exhibit this characteristic are “drawn this way and that by the puppet-strings of impulse.” He uses this puppet analogy several times in his Meditations. He admonishes himself not to be “tugged this way and that, like a puppet, by each unsociable impulse” (Meditations 2.2), and cautions against being “pulled around like puppets by our impulses” (Meditations 6.16). Additionally, he finds some consolation in death because he will be free from “the impulses that pull us around like a puppet” (Meditations 6.28). When we are honest with ourselves, as Marcus was, we recognize the power of desires and aversions to control us like puppets. They do pull us around. When we are presented with the impression of something we desire as a “good” or wish to avoid because we consider it “bad,” our impulse to move toward or away from that thing or event can be psychologically overwhelming. That is why Epictetus repeatedly emphasizes the importance of eliminating our desires and aversions. This is the practice known as the Discipline of Desire. He even teaches us that the only thing powerful enough to overpower a desire or aversion is another desire or aversion (Discourses 1.17.24). In other words, our desire for an excellent character must become strong enough to overpower our desire for good health, wealth, power, and reputation and our fear of the opposite externals. Otherwise, we will continue to have a troubled mind and we will find reasons to blame others and the cosmos (Enchiridion 1). Left unchecked, our desires will turn us into immoral humans. Worse yet, if we are placed in a position of power, those desires and aversions can turn us into tyrants like Phalaris or Nero. Therefore, if we succumb to desires and aversions, we will turn into the human equivalent of wild beasts. Epictetus teaches us, “It is thus shameful for a human being to begin and end where the irrational animals do” (Discourses 1.6.20). He scorns those who choose to live as irrational animals. He declares, you “should lie down and go to sleep, and lead the worm’s life that you’ve judged yourself to be worthy of; eat and drink, and copulate, and defecate, and snore!” (Discourses 2.20.10). Those Who Are Guided by Their Intellect (Nous) At this point, one might assume that using our divinely given human rationality will inevitably lead us away from those characteristics shared by cattle and wild beasts and toward an excellent character (virtue). Unfortunately, that assumption is incorrect. Human history makes it quite clear that we are capable of using our reason to achieve evil ends. In fact, as Cleanthes highlights in his Hymn to Zeus, the only evil in the world is that which wicked men do. It is common for us moderns to observe and consider the evil deeds of other humans and conclude they must be crazy—irrational. However, the Stoics did not consider evil acts to be the result of irrationality. Instead, evil is the misuse of rationality. The Stoics did not divide the human psyche into rational and irrational parts as Plato did. Instead, they argued for a unified human psyche that is thoroughly rational even when it is morally corrupt and vicious. The Stoics would argue that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Charles Manson relied on their human rationality to carry out their morally vicious actions. Consequently, we moderns make a serious mistake when we equate rationality with virtue because human reason can be used for both good and bad ends. That is why the Stoics argue that human reason must be brought into agreement with (όμολογουμένως) the nature of the whole universe (DL 7.87). Stoicism teaches us the current state of our character is the product of all of our previous assents to impressions and our currently held desires and aversions. Therefore, our response to any present impression of a thing or event will be the product of our present character. There is no magic in Stoic psychology; if we wish to behave differently in the future, we must change our character. To change our character, we must correct our errant judgments and eliminate our desires for and aversions to externals that are not “up to us.” An excellent character (virtue) will produce appropriate responses to things and events, while a bad character (vice) will produce the opposite. Chrysippus likened our individual character to the shape and composition of a cylinder. He argued: Just as the person who pushed the cylinder gave it its beginning of motion but not its capacity for rolling, likewise, although the impression encountered will print and, as it were, emblazon its appearance on the mind, assent will be in our power. And assent, just as we said in the case of the cylinder, although prompted from outside, will thereafter move through its own force and nature. (Cicero, On Fate, 43) To help us understand this cylinder metaphor and its application to human character, I think it is helpful to imagine two different cylinders. First, imagine a cylinder that is perfectly round, balanced, and composed of uniformly smooth, durable, and weighty metal. Label this cylinder “virtue.” Now imagine a second cylinder that is slightly out of round, imbalanced, and composed of a soft, porous wood like North American pine that is full of knots. Label this one “vice.” If we place both cylinders on the same smooth, slightly inclined surface and give them both a nudge of equivalent force, they will not roll in the same manner. Why? Because their nature is quite different. Likewise, two human characters, one virtuous and the other vicious, when acted upon by the same impression of an external thing or event, will respond differently. How can evil acts be considered rational? Because their rational faculty was corrupted. It is not that their rational faculty is broken; it is misguided. Their rational faculty is guided by wrong judgments about what is “good” and “bad” and driven by desires for externals beyond their control. Using the language of Marcus, each used their “intellect as a guide” to achieve what appeared “good” and “right” to them. As the old saying notes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Even though we all share a portion of the same divine mind, that fragment of the divine we each possess can become corrupted.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 2 What Can Tom Brady Teach Us About Zen?

Tue, 04 Sep 2018 01:58:59 GMT

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tending the Stoic Orchard – Episode 26

Sun, 02 Sep 2018 20:56:45 GMT

Stoic practice is distinct from academic philosophy because it is a way of life—an art of living—supported by a holistic philosophical system. The Stoics never intended their system to be a primarily intellectual endeavor. Nor was it created as a quick fix, self-help program. This is obvious from the surviving Stoic texts. Unlike academic philosophical tomes, the writings of Seneca, Discourses of Epictetus, and Meditations of Marcus Aurelius challenge and inspire us. It is quite apparent that something profound motivated these Stoics to live uncommon lives. For two thousand years, their lives have encouraged people like us to live up to our full potential as humans who are capable of developing moral excellence and experiencing true freedom and well-being. Nevertheless, the path Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus, and the other ancient Stoics trod toward that goal was not an easy one. As Pierre Hadot suggests, the practice of Stoicism will “turn our entire life upside down.”[1] While contemplating what that means, an image I found helpful was that of a farmer tilling a field. The process of tilling turns the soil upside down, and that serves several functions that help cultivate crops: It disrupts the root structure of existing weeds, it breaks up and loosens hardened soil, and it exposes fresh soil that is better able to absorb nutrients and support the growth of new seeds. Interestingly, these functions are analogous to cultivating our psyche, so it can bear the fruit of moral excellence. If a Stoic practitioner neglects to till the field of their psyche and instead scatters the seeds of Stoicism across untilled soil, they are unlikely to get the crop yield promised by the Stoics—eudaimonia. The initial excitement that comes from seeing the first signs of a plant breaking through the soil may be short-lived. That is because seeds scattered on hard, untilled soil may grow shallow roots if they can penetrate the soil at all. Those new seeds are forced to compete with preexisting weeds for water and nourishment. This is analogous to the modern Stoic practitioner who tries to apply Stoic sayings and techniques to their mind that is still entangled with the preexisting psychic weeds from a lifetime of false judgments, wrong desires, and irrational fears. Many people come to Stoicism in the twenty-first century looking only for psychological techniques, mind hacks, or inspirational aphorisms that will help them overcome obstacles and achieve their preexisting personal goals. Likewise, many seek a means of developing tranquility in our chaotic times. Judging by the current popularity of Stoicism on social media, it appears that many people are benefitting from applying Stoic principles and practices to help them get a better job or promotion, manage a company, become a better athlete, recover from a breakup, etc. However, what many moderns overlook is the fact that seeking externals is not the goal of Stoic practice. In fact, as Epictetus teaches us in Enchiridion 1, desiring and chasing after those externals will keep us enslaved and cause us to lament and have a troubled mind. Likewise, moderns may overlook the fact that others can apply those same techniques to make them a better criminal, corrupt business person, tyrannical political leader, or an uncaring, disconnected human being. Therefore, we must keep this important truth in mind: If we apply Stoic techniques and practices to an untilled psyche, it will fertilize Stoic seeds and preexisting weeds. To experience true well-being, our Stoic practice must be aimed at an excellent moral character rather than externals like health, wealth, office, and reputation. Stoic practice helps us develop new patterns of thought to replace our old errant judgments, misdirected desires, and disturbing aversions (weeds) so we can develop our moral excellence (virtue) and experience true well-being (eudaimonia). However, for those new seeds of thought to flourish and produce fruit, we must discover and disrupt the root system of those existing thoughts that create our psychological disturbances. That requires serious, ongoing effort. It requires us to till the soil of our psyche. Again, when we scatter seeds of Stoicism atop the hard ground of our psyche, amidst the weeds that have already taken root, and then use Stoic practices, techniques, or mind hacks to fertilize those seeds we are nourishing both the new Stoic seeds and the preexisting weeds. The Stoics never intended to help us achieve better health, more wealth, increased fame, a better reputation, etc. If we leave the desire for those externals in place, they will likely grow alongside the seeds of Stoicism. This means the trees of our Stoic orchard will be competing with preexisting weeds and they may never bear the fruit (moral excellence) Stoicism promises. That is why Stoic practice requires tilling the soil of our psyche. Stoicism requires us to turn the soil of our psyche (soul) upside down to disrupt those false judgments, desires and aversions that enslave us and trouble our minds. Then we can plant new seeds and reap a better harvest of well-being. To expose errant judgments, wrong desires, and irrational aversions we must focus our attention (prosoche) on them. Then, we can use the discipline of assent to uproot those weeds. Simultaneously, the discipline of desire will help us select only the best seeds to plant in the tilled soil of our psyche—seeds that can produce moral excellence. Finally, we can apply the fertilizer of Stoic practice to the fresh soil and new seeds. That is the path of the prokopton, and the Stoics promise us it will bear fruit. To do so, however, we must understand and apply all three fields of study—logic, physics, and ethics. The ancient Stoics offered the simile of an orchard to represent the holistic nature of the Stoic system for good reason. A Stoic orchard must be protected by the fence, built via the discipline of assent to impressions (logic), so the soil and trees of appropriate desires (physics) can produce good fruit (ethics). In modern times, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) demonstrated the effectiveness of this ancient Stoic practice of examining and changing deeply held beliefs to effect change in one’s behavior. As Aaron Beck, the founder of Cognitive Therapy, points out, our behavior is motivated by three levels of cognition: core beliefs, dysfunctional assumptions, and negative automatic thoughts. “Core beliefs, or schemas, are deeply held beliefs about self, others and the world.”[2] These core beliefs create a worldview—a map that represents the way the world is. The connection between a person’s worldview, their perception of events, and their behavior is fundamental to CBT practitioners. Jean-Baptiste Gourinat highlighted this connection in his 2009 paper titled Stoicism Today. He notes that“one’s behavior springs from one’s view of oneself and the world, and our psychological difficulties and disturbances derive from these views and from our (misconceived) perception of external events.”[3] The ancient Stoics understood the connection between beliefs, behavior, and psychological well-being. As a result, they developed a philosophical system that supported a way of life designed to develop an excellent moral character (virtue) and promote well-being. This way of life is far more holistic than CBT alone, which does not prescribe or promote any particular model of reality. As I have pointed out in several episodes, Stoic theory and practice, as the ancients conceived it, rely on trust in a providentially ordered cosmos. Therefore, it is unreasonable to think we can remove or ignore the Stoic worldview from their interdependent, holistic system without changing the system as a whole. That does not prohibit a modern from adapting Stoicism to an atheist worldview. However, such an adaptation will require significant modification to Stoic ethical theory and practices as well. Consequently, moderns who attempt to modify Stoicism in this way should be aware they are doing something the ancient Stoics did not conceive of, and their mileage may vary. As Pierre Hadot suggests, the Stoic art of living is an “exercise” that consists of a “concrete attitude and determinate lifestyle, which engages the whole of existence.” He further points out, “The philosophical act is not situated merely on the cognitive level, but on that of the self and of being.”He argues this “conversion” is one that “turns our entire life upside down, changing the life of the person who goes through it.” As a result, we can rise above our “inauthentic condition of life, darkened by unconsciousness and harassed by worry” to an “authentic state of life” that includes “self-consciousness, an exact vision of the world, inner peace, and freedom.”[4] I have dedicated the last seven years of my life to the serious study of Stoic theory and a consistent—albeit far from perfect—attempt to put that theory into practice. During that time frame, I have also mentored numerous students through the basic course at the College of Stoic Philosophers and tutored students through the year-long advanced course known as the Marcus Aurelius School. From my personal experience and my observations of those I have mentored, I am convinced the results one gets from the practice of Stoicism are directly proportionate to one’s commitment to the Stoic path. A half-hearted commitment to the Stoic path will not create the psychological resilience and greatness of character we see in ancient Stoics. Why? Because, as Seneca points out: To fashion a [Stoic] who can genuinely be called a [Stoic], a stronger fate is needed. For him, the way will not be flat: he must go up and down, he must be tossed by waves, and must guide his vessel on a stormy sea. He must hold his course against fortune. Many things will happen that are hard and rough (On Providence, 5.9) Why are trials and hardships essential to the Stoic path?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Zen Stoic Podcast Ep. 1 Introduction To Zen Stoicism

Fri, 24 Aug 2018 21:22:16 GMT

This episode is an introduction to Zen Stoicism. We have changed the format of how this podcast is delivered by making the content more Zen and Stoic specific as well as creating bite sized daily episodes instead of long form conversation. Each daily episode will give you a single lesson to take with you for the day. Upgrade your morning routine, get your afternoon back on track, or wind down your evening with some practical wisdom that will help you to create mental wellness and vitality in your personal and professional life.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Epictetus' Prescription for Psychological Resilience – Episode 25

Tue, 21 Aug 2018 04:01:23 GMT

From everything that happens in the universe it is easy to praise providence, if one has within him two things: the faculty of taking a comprehensive view of the things that happen to each person and a sense of gratitude. For, otherwise, one will either fail to recognize the usefulness of what has come about, or else fail to be truly grateful if one does in fact recognize it. (Discourses 1.6.1-2) Psychological resilience is a by-product of Stoic practice; it is part of the good flow or well-being (eudaimonia) a Stoic practitioner experiences as a result of developing an excellent character (virtue). In his expression of the dichotomy of control, found in Enchiridion1, Epictetus contrasts the psychologically resilient Stoic with those who have a troubled mind—those who will be hindered, lament, and blame gods and humans for their troubles. Simultaneously, Epictetus declares that “no harm can affect” the Stoic who has developed a resilient mind. Nevertheless, as he points out, the development of a resilient mind requires significant effort and change in our lives. People have troubled minds because of their thoughts, desires, and intentions. As I have written before, Stoicism is not a topically applied balm we can use occasionally to make us feel better. Instead, it is internal medicine and it requires constant attention and practice. Stoicism works from the inside out, beginning with our thoughts, desires and aversions, and intentions to act. Progress depends on our willingness to turn over the soil of our psyche to disrupt the roots of our entangled thoughts, so we can plant new seeds that can grow into new patterns of thinking. In the above passage from the Discourses 1.6, we see two elements that are necessary to develop psychological resilience: a comprehensive view of things, and gratitude. A Comprehensive View of Things The first part of Epictetus’ prescription for psychological resilience involves developing a cosmic viewpoint. The cosmic viewpoint allows us to escape our human-centered view of things and events and the judgments associated with that limited perspective. Life is not easy. Like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, we all must face the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” However, there is good news. Stoic practice equips us to “take arms” against that “sea of troubles” we call life; it prepares us “to be” despite life’s vicissitudes that may cause us to question whether it is better “not to be.” To begin, we must abandon our limited human perspective and view events as if from above. The “view from above” is more than a view from a distance that trivializes things and events on Earth. The cosmic viewpoint teaches us to accept the cosmos as a holistic organism, where events have a purpose that is larger than our human-centered view of things typically allows us to see.[1] From this cosmic perspective, seemingly tragic events are neither good nor evil. Instead, these events are simply the way our purposeful cosmos is bringing about what is best for the whole. As practicing Stoics, we can use the cosmic viewpoint to transcend the false expectations which cause a troubled mind. As I wrote in a previous post, Once we understand the nature of the cosmos and our place in it, we begin to understand that external events are neither good nor bad, in a moral sense, because they are beyond our control. The only events that have moral implications for us are those we can control—our judgments. External events cannot harm our inner Self; only our thoughts about events can.[2] Epictetus makes this point succinctly: It isn’t the things themselves that disturb people, but the judgements that they form about them. (Enchiridion 4) Pierre Hadot considers the cosmic viewpoint the beginning of Stoic practice. He writes, Putting theory into practice begins with an exercise that consists in recognizing oneself as a part of the Whole, elevating oneself to cosmic consciousness, or immersing oneself within the totality of the cosmos. While meditating on Stoic physics, we are able to see all things within the perspective of universal Reason. To achieve this, we must practice the imaginative exercise which consists in seeing all human things from above.[3] When we are confronted with events that might appear unsettling, disturbing, or even tragic, we are wise to take a step back and try to envision those events from a cosmic viewpoint. From the perspective of the whole cosmos, those events can take on an entirely different meaning. No matter how tragic the events may appear, we will be wise to recall the famous aphorism: Things turn out best for those who make the best of the way things turn out. (source unknown) If we make the best of the way things turn out, we may be able to see purpose in those events. From the cosmic viewpoint we can relinquish our anthropocentric judgments of those events and learn to develop an attitude of gratitude for everything that happens in our lives. For those who may be inclined to claim, “That’s just a placebo!” Maybe, but what is the alternative? While others are stomping their feet, screaming, crying, and venting their anger at the universe and humans (Enchiridion 1), the Stoic who adopts a cosmic viewpoint can assume all events have some greater purpose and make the best of them. Will they not be far better off for doing so? If this is nothing more than a placebo, it is a damn good one. To those who then claim, “Well, I can’t make myself believe the world is providentially ordered.” Agreed, but you can allow yourself to live as if it is and see what happens. After all, you are probably quite familiar with what it feels like to believe that tragic events are random, meaningless accidents. Or have you fully considered what you actually believe and the ramifications of those unexamined beliefs? Are you living as if the universe is a random accident? How is that working out for you? Are you willing to consider an alternative approach? What if you could replace the anger and sadness you still carry from those unsettling, disturbing, and tragic events that occurred in your life? What if you could see those events from a perspective that allowed healing and provided a sense of meaning because those events actually had a purpose? That is what the cosmic viewpoint can do for you if you are willing to adopt it. Stoics do not simply attempt to put a positive spin on events. Instead, Stoics seek to understand the nature of reality, human nature, and humankind’s place within Nature. The cosmic perspective helps us deal with life’s vicissitudes. How? By teaching us to limit our concerns to what is “up to us”—our judgments of events—and to love what we cannot control. We can learn to love, rather than simply tolerate, the events of Nature by trusting they have a purpose and thereby provide our human lives with inherent meaning. From that perspective, we can transform our anger and resentment from past events into gratitude for all the events that occur in a rationally ordered, divine cosmos. An Attitude of Gratitude The second part of Epictetus’ prescription for psychological resilience in Discourses 1.6 involves developing a “sense of gratitude” for everything that happens. An attitude of gratitude distinguishes a love of fate (amor fati) from mere resignation and fatalism. How does a Stoic avoid resignation and learn to love fate? By choosing to see challenging events as opportunities for growth in virtue (excellence of character). Trials either make us bitter or they can make us better. The choice is ours. Consider this: What would Stoics do without the people on Facebook who annoy us, the inconsiderate drivers who cut us off in traffic, the thoughtless actions of our loved ones, the unreasonable demands of a boss or customer who does not appreciate us, the pains in our bodies, or the occasional tragedies visited upon us? How would we grow in virtue without these dispreferred indifferents to shape our character? How would we test or measure our growth without them? Finally, how much would we value virtue (arête) and well-being (eudaimonia) if they came easy, without much effort? If we accept that unsettling, disturbing, and apparently tragic events beyond our control are going to happen, what would it look like to take our Stoic practice to the next level? What if we adopt an attitude of gratitude toward all those events that are “not up to us”? Imagine the psychological strength and equanimity that would spring from such an attitude. Marcus provides us with a wonderful example of an attitude of gratitude: Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. All is fruit for me that your seasons bring, O nature. All proceeds from you, all subsists in you, and to you all things return. (Meditations 4.23) Marcus had that attitude of gratitude because he trusted that, “Nothing happens to anyone that he is not fitted by nature to bear” (Meditations 5.18.1). Epictetus also highlights that same attitude of gratitude toward what happens when he instructs us: Don’t seek that all that comes about should come about as you wish, but wish that everything that comes about should come about just as it does, and then you’ll have a calm and happy life. (Enchiridion 8) As Robert Emmons, professor of psychology at UC Davis, wrote in his book on the practice of gratitude: In modern times gratitude has become untethered from its moral moorings, and collectively we are worse off because of this. When the ancient Roman philosopher Cicero stated that gratitude was the queen of the virtues, he most assuredly did not mean that gratitude was merely a stepping stone toward personal happiness. Gratitude is a morally complex disposition, and reducing this virtue to a technique or strategy to improve one’s mood is to do it an injustice.[4]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Step out of the Epicurean Garden and into the Stoic Cosmopolis – Episode 24

Mon, 06 Aug 2018 04:01:39 GMT

Our modern world is bursting with angst. News of an impending environmental crisis, worldwide political turmoil, gratuitous violence, wars, and human suffering are delivered instantaneously, twenty-four hours a day, to the smart devices in the palms of our hands. It seems there is no escape from the incessant stream of allegedly newsworthy catastrophes short of ignoring the news, abandoning all forms of social media, and sequestering ourselves in some form of safe space, far away from the mayhem of human society. That was the solution offered by the ancient Epicureans. They retreated from social and political life to their garden where they tried to live tranquil lives among like-minded friends. There were exceptions; some Epicureans engaged in society when they thought the benefit of doing so was significant enough to risk their tranquility. However, the primary Epicurean strategy was to retreat from society and thereby avoid the people and events that can cause psychological distress. The Stoics provided an alternative solution. It appears the Epicurean garden did provide a place to develop tranquility for some ancients, and it seems reasonable to assume a similar approach to life can do the same for moderns. However, the Epicurean garden is no place for Stoics. To become a Stoic, one must avoid the alluring walls of the Epicurean garden that separate us from society. The Stoic path does not lead to any peaceful, secluded garden. Instead, it leads us out of the garden and into the clamor of society, where we can fulfill our roles and duties as rational, social creatures. Fortunately, Stoicism provides us with the psychological tools and training methods that will enable us to thrive and experience tranquility, even amid this seemingly hostile environment. Stoics are a different breed; they can flourish in whatever sociopolitical circumstance they find themselves while they simultaneously work to create a society and world that exemplifies courage, justice, wisdom, and moderation. The Stoic prepares to handle the best and worst of human nature within their homes, marketplaces, cities, boardrooms, political forums, and battlefields, while the Epicurean prefers to remain in their garden to escape those potentially disturbing environments. While both pursue virtue, the Epicurean seeks inner tranquility (ataraxia), in part at least, by controlling their external environment; the Stoic, on the other hand, creates inner resilience that allows for psychological well-being (eudaimonia) regardless of external circumstances. Stoics realize how easy it is for the hordes of externals to trample and burn the walls of the Epicurean garden. In contrast, the formidable walls of the Stoic’s inner citadel can withstand the siege of Fortuna and the crashing waves of inexorable fate. Therefore, it is not surprising that many ancient Romans from the political class adopted Stoicism as a way of life. In fact, two of our surviving textual sources come from a Roman emperor (Marcus Aurelius) and a Roman senator (Seneca), and a third comes from the lectures of a freed slave turned philosopher (Epictetus). These writings resonated with people throughout history because these three Stoics lived their philosophy in the real world. They were not academic philosophers expounding on hypothetical scenarios. Instead, each of these ancient Stoics lived and thrived in the tumultuous, chaotic, sweaty, and occasionally bloody world of humanity because they relied on their inner resilience, cultivated by Stoic practice, to live virtuously. The Stoic builds his retreat inside his psyche, not in a garden retreat. The Stoic inner citadel provides an ever-present fortress and retreat, where the Stoic’s soul remains untouchable amidst the vicissitudes of life. As a result, the ancient Stoics possessed the inner strength to engage in social and political life. As C. Kavin Rowe points out, In contrast to the Epicureans, for example, the Stoic tradition emphasized the compatibility of philosophy with civic life; indeed, many went a good deal farther than this and stressed the necessity of civic engagement as part and parcel of what it meant to be a Stoic.[1] Epictetus even mocked the Epicureans on this point and argued their philosophy is not conducive to human society: In God’s name, I ask you, can you imagine a city of Epicureans? ‘I shan’t marry.’ ‘Nor I, for one shouldn’t marry.’ ‘Nor should one have children; nor should one perform any civic duties.’ So what will happen, then? Where are the citizens to come from? Who’ll educate them? Who’ll be superintendent of the cadets? Who’ll be director of the gymnasium? And then, what will the young men be taught? (Discourses 3.7.19) Stoicism does not lead us to a place of tranquility and pleasure in the garden. Instead, the Stoic path trains us to be a helmsman who is capable of piloting our psyche through the tempestuous winds and turbulent waters that leave many others drowning or dashed on Fortuna’s rocks. Therefore, while the inner practices of meditation, mindfulness training, and the development of inner tranquility are helpful in the practice of Stoicism, we must be careful not to allow these means to become ends. Ancient Stoics were not reclusive contemplatives; they engaged in society. As Pierre Hadot notes: The Stoic always acts "under reserve"—but he does act, taking part in social and political life. This is another important point which separates him from the Epicureans, who in principle retire from everything that may cause worry. The Stoic does not act in his material or even spiritual interest,but acts in a way which is always disinterested and in the service of the human community.[2] The Stoics thought the cosmos and the humans with it form a unified Whole, guided by universal Reason, which they called Logos. As Richard Tarnas highlights in his acclaimed book The Passion of the Western Mind, The existence of the world-governing reason had another important consequence for the Stoic. Because all human beings shared in the divine Logos, all were members of a universal human community, a brotherhood of mankind that constituted the World City, or Cosmopolis, and each individual was called upon to participate actively in the affairs of the world.[3] Throughout his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius reminds himself of the connectedness of humanity as he contemplates how to deal with the frequently antisocial behavior of people (see Meditations 2.1). As Emperor of Rome, Marcus dealt with the best and worst of human nature. I suspect this is one reason his Meditations, written as a personal diary, continues to resonate with so many people. Within its pages,we see our current struggles against the vicissitudes of life and the seeming wickedness of humanity. We see Marcus facing challenges that would psychologically cripple some people; nevertheless, he remained strong even while surrounded by chaos. Marcus' equanimity is inspiring and provides us with a wonderful picture of a life well-lived under trying circumstances. In Meditations 4.3, Marcus provides an outline of the Stoic practice that empowered him to live as he did. When the ruling power within us is in harmony with nature, it confronts events in such a way that it always adapts itself readily to what is feasible and is granted to it. For it attaches its preference to no specific material; rather, it sets out to attain its primary objects, but not without reservation, and if it comes up against something else instead, it converts it into material for itself, much like a fire when it masters the things that fall into it. These would have extinguished a little lamp, but a blazing fire appropriates in an instant all that is heaped on to it,and devours it, making use of that very material to leap ever higher. Never embark on an action at random, or otherwise than according to one of the principles that perfect the art of living. (Meditations 4.1-2) That is a powerful passage. According to Marcus, when our rational faculty(our fragment of the logos) is in coherence with universal Reason (Logos), external events serve as fuel for the fire which drives us forward and guides our actions. In that state of coherence with Nature, we will wish for events to happen as they do, rather than as we may desire them to happen (Discourses 1.12.15). Then, as events happen, we stick close to them and follow them (Discourses3.1.18; Enchiridion 53).[4] When we combine these ideas from Marcus and Epictetus with the concept of the reserve clause, we begin to understand what it means to live according to Nature as the Stoics conceived it. We begin to see why the concept of a providential cosmos played such an important role in the Stoic ethical practice. If we outline the process step-by-step, it becomes clearer. First, the Stoic intends an appropriate action to bring about a virtuous end. Then, with the reserve clause in mind, the Stoic tries to achieve the intended goal. If external events prevent the action or produce an outcome other than intended, the Stoic accepts and even loves the outcome as an event of Nature beyond their control (amor fati). Next, the Stoic quickly adapts to the new situation and follows fate closely. In Marcus’ words, the fateful event then becomes fuel for the fire that drives the Stoic forward. If Nature gives the Stoic lemons; she makes lemonade rather than fretting and whining because she wanted grape juice. When the Stoic follows the cart of fate closely and willingly, she discovers the freedom available to her to act virtuously and experience the well-being that results from aligning her will with the will of a providential cosmos. This practice does not lead to a fatalistic mindset; instead, it creates the attitude of gratitude I wrote about in Epictetus’ Prescription for Psychological Resilience.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is Important in Life? Day 7 – Episode 23

Sun, 29 Jul 2018 04:01:33 GMT

Prepare for Death to Discover Freedom What is most important? Having your soul on your lips. This makes you free not according to the law of the Quirites, but according to the law of nature. A free person is one who escapes enslavement to himself, which is constant, unavoidable, oppressing by day and by night equally, without break, without respite. Enslavement to oneself is the most severe enslavement, but it is easy to shake it off if you stop expecting a lot from yourself, if you stop making money for yourself, if you set before your eyes both your nature and your age, even if it is very young, and say to yourself, “Why am I going crazy? Why am I panting? Why am I sweating? Why am I working the land, or the forum? I don’t need much, and not for long.” (Natural Questions III, praef. 16-17) This week-long meditation with Seneca on the topic of what is important in life ends at the most appropriate place—the contemplation of and preparation for our death. Seneca opens this final passage with the recommendation that we have our soul on our lips. In other words, we must be prepared to die. Why? Because doing so makes us free according to the law of nature. The Stoics did not measure freedom by one’s ability to move freely from place to place, city to city, or country to country. Instead, true freedom is the absence of enslaving desires and crippling fears that consume our life. We are afraid of not getting what we want: a large house, great job, good reputation, wonderful soul mate, retirement account, good health, etc. Likewise, we fear getting that which we do not want: homelessness, poverty, shame, loneliness, sickness, and death. As a result, we spend our time driving ourselves to madness and working ourselves to death for things we believe will make us happy. As Epictetus frequently reminds us, we are slaves to externals. All the while, we neglect to ask “What is most important?” As Seneca notes, It’s not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it’s been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested. But when life is squandered through soft and careless living, and when it’s spent on no worthwhile pursuit, death finally presses and we realize that the life which we didn’t notice passing has passed away. (On the Shortness of Life 1.3). The Stoic practice of Memento Mori—the contemplation of death—is more than a preparation for our inevitable end. That is the obvious goal of this ancient, widespread practice. The less obvious, but equally important, goal of this practice is the development of true freedom, which is preparation for life. Pierre Hadot writes, In the apprenticeship of death, the Stoic discovers the apprenticeship of freedom.[1] Freedom for the Stoic is the inner freedom that allows us to contemplate and live in agreement with Nature regardless of life’s circumstances. As Hadot notes, For the Stoic Epictetus, the meaning of our existence resides in this contemplation: we have been placed on earth in order to contemplate divine creation, and we must not die before we have witnessed its marvels and lived in harmony with nature.[2] We moderns, especially we westerners, have been trained from childhood to move at a faster and faster pace, so we achieve greater and greater goals, and accumulate more and more possessions. We only half-jokingly repeat the 1980s bumper-sticker slogan, “He who dies with the most toys wins.” Stoicism is not a mind hack to be used to overcome external obstacles along the path to fame and fortune. Instead, the Stoic path trains us to overcome the obstacles within our mind that stand between our present state and an excellent character, which is capable of experiencing true well-being. The Stoic path leads toward freedom. We moderns, especially we westerners, have been trained from childhood to move at a faster and faster pace, so we achieve greater and greater goals, and accumulate more and more possessions. We only half-jokingly repeat the 1980s bumper-sticker slogan, “He who dies with the most toys wins.” Stoicism is not a mind hack to be used to overcome external obstacles along the path to fame and fortune. Instead, the Stoic path trains us to overcome the obstacles within our mind that stand between our present state and an excellent character, which is capable of experiencing true well-being. The Stoic path leads toward freedom. As Seneca points out, the Stoic path teaches us to live “free” according to the law of Nature even if the law of the Quirites—the law of society—binds us and imprisons us. We can find this form of freedom only within the inner citadel of our mind, and it empowers us to act virtuously in the world without fear of punishment, imprisonment, or even death. The realization that nothing can harm our Self is empowering. Socrates assented to this higher law and lived continually with his soul on his lips. He did not fear imprisonment or death by the powerful men of Athens he openly challenged. When these men brought him to trial on trumped-up charges, he did not cower. Instead, he mocked their sense of justice. After being sentenced to death, Socrates had an opportunity to escape but he did not. He understood that the Athenians could kill him, but they could not take away his freedom to choose the good. In other words, they could not harm him. The life and courageous death of Socrates inspired the ancient Stoics and they pointed to him as an example of an excellent life. Death Is Not an Evil However, Seneca’s message here is not limited to exceptional people like Socrates. The contemplation of death is for everyone because death is part of Nature’s process. The philosophical practice of contemplating misfortune and death is not unique to Stoicism, nor was it invented by the Stoics. In fact, as Pierre Hadot points out, the Stoics appear to have borrowed these practices from Plato’s Republic (604b-d). Hadot suggests, If it is true that philosophy subjugates the body’s will to live to the higher demands of thought, it can rightly be said that philosophy is the training and apprenticeship for death.[3] Contemplation of death was a common philosophical practice because death is truly universal. Seneca opens his work On the Shortness of Life with this common complaint about death: Most of mankind, Paulinus, complains about nature’s meanness, because our allotted span of life is so short, and because this stretch of time that is given to us runs its course so quickly, so rapidly— so much so that, with very few exceptions, life leaves the rest of us in the lurch just when we’re getting ready to live. And it’s not just the masses and the unthinking crowd that complain at what they perceive as this universal evil; the same feeling draws complaints even from men of distinction. (1.1) Benjamin Franklin echoes Seneca in his famous quote: Life's tragedy is that we get old too soon and wise too late. How does the Stoic prevent this regret? By contemplating death as an inevitable end that may occur at any moment, and then living each moment in the present through the practice of prosoche (attention). Marcus admonishes us to, Let your every action, word, and thought be those of one who could depart from life at any moment. (Meditations 2.11) Death is a frequent theme in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. That may be due to the fact that death was a constant companion of Marcus at home and on the battlefield. Of his fourteen children, only six outlived him. Additionally, Marcus wrote a large portion of his Meditations while he was encamped on the Danube river, with his army, during a time of war. The transient nature of life was ever-present for Marcus and his note to himself reflect that: All that you now see will very swiftly pass away, and those who have watched it passing will swiftly pass away in their turn, and he who dies in extreme old age will be brought to a level with one who has died before his time. (Meditations 9.33) In his masterpiece on the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, Pierre Hadot wrote: From the point of view of the imminence of death, one thing counts, and one alone: to strive always to have the essential rules of life present in one's mind, and to keep placing oneself in the fundamental disposition of the philosopher, which consists essentially in controlling one's inner discourse, in doing only that which is of benefit to the human community, and in accepting the events brought to us by the course of the Nature of the All.[4] Obviously, one event we will all face is death. Likewise, Epictetus offers us the following advice about the practice of contemplating misfortune and death: Day by day you must keep before your eyes death and exile and everything else that seems frightening, but most especially death; and then you’ll never harbour any mean thought, nor will you desire anything beyond due measure. (Enchiridion 21) For the Stoic, there is nothing to fear in death; it is simply a process of Nature. The Stoics were ambiguous about what happens after death, and it does not appear they spent much time contemplating the topic. Instead, it appears they were satisfied to consider death the cessation of life as we know it and the return of our constituent parts to Nature. Their focus was on the development of an excellent character in the here and now. However, one of our constituent parts is a fragment of the logos that is returned to God. That fact is tantalizing; does some aspect of our consciousness continue to exist after death? As Epictetus stated, Isn’t it true that these things are indifferent and nothing to us, and that death is no evil? And that we are in some sense related to God, and draw our origin from him? Allow us to go back to where we came from… (Discourses 1.9.13-14) Nevertheless, what happens after death is highly speculative,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is Important in Life? Day 6 – Episode 22

Sat, 21 Jul 2018 15:28:22 GMT

The Good Fight Against Fortuna What is most important? Raising your spirits high above chance events; remembering your human status, so that if you are fortunate, you know that will not last long, and if you are unfortunate, you know you are not so if you do not think so. (Natural Questions III, praef. 15) Fortuna—fortune in English—is a prevalent theme in Seneca’s writing. He uses some form of the word more than two hundred times in his Letters and more than twenty times in Natural Questions. As one scholar notes, If we were to search for Seneca’s language that at one and the same time captured the nature of the world and human experience within it, the main word upon which we would land would doubtless be Fortuna. Fortuna and all that it invokes provide the organizing grammar of Seneca’s world. It is the overarching cosmological context in which all human life is lived.[1] Like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Seneca acknowledges the “Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” However, Seneca denies that these constitute “a sea of troubles.” How? By applying the dichotomy of control and trusting in a providentially ordered cosmos as a defense against the vicissitudes of fortune. Seneca declared, The wise person is still not harmed by the storms of life— poverty, pain, and the rest. For not all his works are hindered but only those that pertain to others. He is himself, always, in his actions, and in the doing of them he is greatest when opposed by fortune. For it is then that he does the business of wisdom itself, which as we just said is his own good as well as that of others. (Letters 85.37) However, we must keep in mind the fact that the dichotomy of control is not just a promise; it is also a warning. Whenever we desire those things that are “not up to us” we risk becoming a victim of Epictetus’ poignant warning: You’ll have cause to lament, you’ll have a troubled mind, and you’ll find fault with both gods and human beings. (Enchiridion 1) Seneca offers a similar warning for those who chase things that are “not up to us.” As he admits, he came to this realization late in life, after he had chased “those things that please the many” until they made him weary. The right path, which I myself discovered late in life when weary from wandering, I now point out to others. My cry is this: “Avoid those things that please the many, the gifts that fortune brings. Be suspicious; be timid; resist every good that comes by chance. It is by the allurements of hope that the fish is caught, the game snared. Do you think these are the blessings of fortune? They are traps. Any one of you who wants to live in safety must make every effort to shun those baited favors amidst which we, poor creatures, are deceived. We think we have hold of them, when in fact they have hold of us. (Letters 8.3) As noted in the previous episode, the life-transforming power of Stoicism lies in the application of two fundamental Stoic doctrines: the dichotomy of control and a love of fate engendered by trust in a providentially ordered cosmos. Stoic philosophy teaches us that virtue is the only good, and therefore, vice is the only bad. Everything else is morally indifferent. In Stoicism, virtue (excellence of character) is measured by our thoughts and intentions alone. When the Stoics famously declare that the wise person can experience well-being even while being tortured on the rack, they do not deny the reality of physical pain and suffering. They are simply pointing out the profound truth that physical well-being is not a necessary element of the moral well-being derived from virtue. Seneca admonishes, Stop saying, therefore: “Will the wise person not receive an injury, then, if he is cut, if his eye is gouged out? Will he not receive an insult if he is jostled through the forum with abusive taunts by foul-mouthed men; if, at a king’s banquet, he is ordered to recline beneath the table and to eat with the slaves who are responsible for the most humiliating chores; if he is compelled to endure any other contrivance that is offensive to the sensibilities of a freeborn person?” (On the Constancy of the Wise Person 15.1) Seneca is declaring that such questions miss the point of Stoic practice altogether. Physical pain, suffering, and public humiliation are real events, and a Stoic will experience real sensations of physical pain. However, none of them can touch the soul of the Stoic unless they allow it to do so through their wrong judgment of those events. Thus, he concludes: We do not deny that being beaten, being struck, or losing a limb is an unfortunate thing, but we deny that all these things are injuries. We remove from these not the sensation of pain but only the name injury, which cannot be sustained with virtue intact. (On the Constancy of the Wise Person, 16.1) The truth is this: Fortuna will likely bring great pain and misfortune into our lives at some point; nevertheless, we must remember those events are “not up to us.” What is “up to us” is our mental attitude as we face the vicissitudes of Fortune. We get to choose whether those trials we face in life make us bitter or make us better. As Stoics, we must accept the fact that life’s trials and tribulations are the “grist for the mill” that allows us to develop excellence of character. Without such trials, we cannot know, nor live up to, our true potential. As Seneca points out: To fashion a [Stoic] who can genuinely be called a [Stoic], a stronger fate is needed. For him, the way will not be flat: he must go up and down, he must be tossed by waves, and must guide his vessel on a stormy sea. He must hold his course against fortune. Many things will happen that are hard and rough— but things he can soften and smooth out himself. Fire proves gold; misery, brave men [and women]. (Seneca, On Providence 5.9) I conclude with an incredibly profound passage from Seneca’sLetters. This passage is worthy of memorization and/or keeping close at hand. It truly summarizes what it means to be a Stoic. The happy person is not the one ordinary people call happy, not the one who has been showered with money, but rather the one whose every good resides in the mind. That one is upright and exalted; he spurns underfoot the objects of wonder; he would not trade his life for any other that he sees. He assesses a person only by that part which makes him a human being. He takes nature for his teacher, regulates his life by nature’s laws, lives as nature has directed. His goods are those no power can strip away; whatever is bad, he turns to good. He is sure in judgment, unshaken, undismayed. There are forces that move him, but none that alarm him. The sharpest, deadliest blows that fortune can inflict do not wound him: he feels but a sting, and that rarely. As for those other darts that assail the human race, those bounce off him like hail hitting a roof, that rattles and then melts without hurting the one inside. (Letters 45.9) Fortuna is not our enemy; she is our sparring partner in life. The blows she delivers in the training ring are designed to teach us how to absorb the knockout blows life occasionally delivers. Nevertheless, she is a tough training partner, and she will knock us to the mat if we are let our guard down. Stoic training prepares us for battle in the ring of life. While others are knocked out by the vicissitudes of fortune, the Stoic understands the blows of those externals, while physically painful, cannot touch their soul (psyche). Through the continued practice of the Stoic spiritual exercises, which includes the application of the dichotomy of control and trust in the providentially ordered cosmos, we can strengthen our inner citadel to be impenetrable by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. ENDNOTES: [1] C. Kavin Rowe, One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions (Yale University Press, 2016), p. 22

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is Important in Life? Day 5 – Episode 21

Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:10:55 GMT

A Contented Mind and Pure Hands What is most important? Refusing to let bad intentions enter your mind; raising pure hands to heaven; not seeking any good thing if someone else must give it or must lose it so that it may pass to you; wishing for a sound mind (something that can be wished for without competition); regarding the other things rated highly by mortals, even if some chance brings them into your home, as likely to exit by the door they entered. (Natural Questions III, praef. 14) This passage strikes at the core of human conflict. Seneca instructs us not to seek “any good thing if someone else must give it or must lose it so that it may pass to you.” Competition for possessions, money, power, prestige, and position is incompatible with the development of moral excellence (virtue) and well-being. Stoicism teaches us that whether we are rich or poor, powerful or powerless, famous or unknown, we should be content with our present circumstances. Moreover, when things are not to our liking, Stoicism teaches us to use those circumstances as an opportunity to develop our moral character. However, we live in a time when the predominant message is quite the opposite. If we are dissatisfied with our circumstances, we are encouraged to complain, sue, petition, protest, picket, march, riot, and even cause civil disturbance and property damage until we get what we want. We are led to believe that if someone has more money, education, power, better health care or housing than we do, an injustice must have occurred. Meanwhile, Marcus Aurelius poignantly reminded himself: But perhaps you are discontented with what is allotted to you from the whole? Then call to mind the alternative, ‘either providence or atoms’ and all the proofs that the universe should be regarded as a kind of constitutional state. (Meditations 4.3) I believe this is one of the primary reasons many moderns reject the Stoic conception of a providential cosmos. To accept this Stoic doctrine entails that the cosmos and our current circumstances are as they should be. In other words, we currently have what the cosmos allotted to us, and our current circumstances provide the perfect place from which to begin development of our moral character. That is a message many of us moderns simply do not want to hear because it makes us accountable for our lives. It is so much easier to blame others for our circumstances than it is to look in the mirror and accept responsibility. Two common misconceptions are used to excuse our righteous indignation at perceived injustices. First, we mistakenly believe that our circumstances dictate or largely influence our well-being. However, circumstances are neither good nor bad; it is only our judgments of those events that can affect our well-being. According to the dichotomy of control, externals do not present a barrier to the development of our moral character or our well-being. Instead, the Stoics teach that our life circumstances are grist for the mill. Epictetus makes this point quite clear in his Discourse titled On providence when he asks: What kind of a man do you suppose Heracles would have become if it hadn’t been for the famous lion, and the hydra, the stag, the boar, and the wicked and brutal men whom he drove away and cleared from the earth? (Discourses 1.6.32) In other words, those dis-preferred external circumstances allowed Heracles to become who he truly was. Without them, he would not have become Heracles; he could not have lived up to his potential without those challenges. The second common misunderstanding comes from the assumption that being content with and loving our present circumstances leads to a form of quietism and thereby subdues any desire to effect change in our personal or social circumstances. On the contrary, Stoicism does not teach us to remain quiet and passive in the face of real injustice. Likewise, it does not teach us to be passive toward dis-preferred circumstances. Regarding Heracles and the lion, hydra, stag, boar, and wicked and brutal men, Epictetus asks: What would he have turned his hand to if nothing like that had existed? Isn’t it plain that he would have wrapped himself up in a blanket and gone to sleep? (Discourses 1.6.33) Next, Epictetus challenged his students to welcome and engage difficult circumstances rather than being passive: So come on, then, now that you recognize these things, and consider the faculties that you possess, and after having done so, say, ‘Bring on me now, Zeus, whatever trouble you may wish, since I have the equipment that you granted to me and such resources as will enable me to distinguish myself through whatever may happen.’ (Discourses 1.6.37) Finally, we get a dose of Epictetus’ protreptic teaching style as lays us bare: No, but you sit there trembling at the thought that certain things may come about, and wailing, grieving, and groaning at others that do come about; and then you cast blame on the gods. For what else than impiety can result from such meanness of spirit? And yet God has not only granted us these faculties that enable us to endure whatever may happen without being debased or crushed by it, but has also granted them to us—as befits a good king and, in truth, father—free from all hindrance, compulsion, and restraint, placing them entirely within our own power, without reserving any power even for himself to hinder or restrain them. Possessing these faculties as you do, free and as your own, you fail to make use of them, however, and fail to perceive what it is that you have received, and from whom, but sit there grieving and groaning, some of you blinded towards the giver and not even recognizing your benefactor, while others are led astray by their meanness of spirit into making reproaches and complaints against God. And yet I can show you that you have the resources and equipment that are needed to be noble-minded and courageous, while it is for you to show me what occasion you have for complaint and reproach! (Discourses 1.6.38-43) Obviously, Stoicism, properly understood, does not lead to quietism. Instead, Stoic practice creates courageous minds for courageous action. We must engage with our personal versions of the lion, hydra, stag, boar, and wicked and brutal men with an intention to act appropriately and achieve a preferred outcome. Nonetheless, we must do so without desiring that outcome or being fearful of its opposite. Additionally, we must act with a reserve clause and the full realization that fate may have different plans. Therefore, we must be willing to accept and love the outcome even when it is the opposite of what we intended. Why? Because for that moment, under those circumstances, that is what the universal Reason of the cosmos produced, and that outcome is “not up to us.” Finally, we must be careful when we intend to seek any external lest we engender bad intentions and create unclean hands. Envy, resentment, and anger have no place in the Stoic way of life. Seneca could not be more clear on this matter; we are not to seek “any good thing if someone else must give it or must lose it so that it may pass to [us].” We live in a time when some people argue that the desired end they seek, whether it be equality or some form of justice, is important enough to warrant nearly any means to achieve it. However, justice cannot be achieved via unjust means. The moral indignation, anger, and outrage exhibited by so many of those seeking justice is not an indicator of the righteousness of their goal. This form of self-righteous virtue-signaling does little more than stir anger and encourage hatred of others. Far too frequently, it leads to bad intentions and impure hands. We moderns usually reject this kind of self-righteousness when it is exhibited by religious fundamentalists. Yet, we are often manipulated and fooled by secular prophets who promise utopias here on earth. Regardless of the motive or promised paradise, bad intentions and impure hands cannot bring about justice. The end does not justify the means. The “Nature” that we Stoics are instructed to live in agreement with has a cosmic, divine source. It is not the “Nature, red in tooth and claw”[1] of the animal kingdom. As Epictetus teaches us: When we act for the sake of our belly or genitals, when we act at random, or in a filthy manner, or without proper care, to what level have we sunk? To that of sheep. What have we destroyed? What is rational in us. And when we behave aggressively, and harmfully, and angrily, and forcefully, to what level have we sunk? To that of wild beasts. There are, besides, some among us who are large ferocious beasts, while others are little ones, small and evil-natured, which prompt us to say, ‘I’d rather be eaten by a lion!’ By all such behaviour, the human calling is destroyed. (Discourses 2.9.4-7) Our modern world is ravaged by a sense of discontent, envy, and rage that instigates and feeds anger and hatred for others who have what we do not have. Far too frequently, that rage boils over into catastrophe as those who have been taught to feel like helpless victims lash out against those they believe are the cause of their unhappiness. As Stoics, we must not be duped by false prophets of either religion or politics who justify unclean hands today for the promise of a utopia tomorrow. As Stoic practitioners, we must not be tempted to desire what other possess. Epictetus mocks those who reach for things belonging to others in Discourses 2.4.8. Likewise, he frequently reminds us that our power, virtue, and well-being are found within: My principal task in life is this: to distinguish between things, and establish a division between them and say, ‘External things are not within my power; choice is within my power. Where am I to seek the good and the bad? Within myself, in that which is my own.’ But with regard to what is not my own, never apply the words good or bad,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is Important in Life? Day 4 – Episode 20

Sun, 15 Jul 2018 04:01:46 GMT

A Courageous Mind for Courageous Action What is most important? A mind that is brave and defiant in the face of calamity, not just opposed but hostile to luxury, neither courting nor fleeing danger; one that knows not to wait for fortune but to create it, to go to face both forms unafraid and undismayed, unshaken either by the turmoil of the one or the glitter of the other. (Natural Questions III, praef. 13) As practicing Stoics, our equanimity is not derived from passivity, inaction, or avoidance of challenging and potentially troubling people and events. We do not stand by and let fate take its course. Instead, as Seneca makes perfectly clear in this passage, the Stoic is a person of action who is brave in the face of calamity and potential bad fortune. Stoic practice is not limited to the inner work discussed in the Day 3 meditation. In fact, that inner work is not an end in itself; that is not the goal of Stoicism. The goal is the development of an excellent character (virtue) and that can only be achieved through engagement with the people and events that can help us develop wisdom, courage, justice, and moderation. Ultimately, the development of that inner strength and character empowers us to engage serenely with the clamor and chaos of humanity and cosmic events so we can fulfill our role for the good of the all. As I stated before, there are innumerable roles that can benefit the whole of humanity directly or indirectly. More often than not, we do not have to look far to discover our roles; fate typically ensures that our roles find us. This passage is not concerned with how we discern our roles; instead, it is focused on our preparedness to fulfill the roles in which fate places us. According to Seneca, a person who is fully prepared to face either good or bad fortune is “unafraid and undismayed, unshaken either by the turmoil of the one or the glitter of the other.” Such people possess three characteristics; they are: 1. Brave and defiant in the face of calamity 2. Hostile to luxury 3. Neither courting nor fleeing danger Brave and Defiant in the Face of Calamity After we build an inner citadel in our soul (Day 1), learn to see things from the cosmic viewpoint (Day 2), and learn to accept and love fate (Day 3), we are prepared to be genuinely brave and defiant in the face of calamity. As practicing Stoics, we know that external events are “not up to us” and they cannot affect our moral character (virtue), neither can they disrupt our genuine well-being (eudaimonia). Stoic practice prepares us for every circumstance and any role fate may present. This enables Stoics to be co-creators of their fate. Again, Marcus Aurelius and Cato the Younger provide marvelous examples of Stoics who maintained their excellent character while engaged in their challenging social roles. Our role may not be battling an invading horde or resisting a tyrannical leader. Instead, it may be as simple as teaching, policing, designing, building, leading, etc., within a community. Likewise, our role may be providing for and raising children to be good citizens of the cosmopolis. We sometimes overlook the fact that every role in life has psychological dangers. The specter of calamity—the potential for loss, frustration, or failure—is present in every endeavor. Therefore, the perspective of the cosmic viewpoint combined with the strength and security of the inner citadel is indispensable to provide us with the assurance that our true self—our soul—cannot be harmed by external circumstances. That is how the Stoic can be brave and defiant in the face of calamity. This is not arrogance or false bravado. Instead, it is the peace of mind and calmness of action that comes forth from a place within us that cannot be harmed by people or events. Hostile to Luxury Both Seneca and Marcus Aurelius turned away from the luxuries their wealth and power provided them. Some criticize Seneca for not doing it sooner or to a greater degree. Nevertheless, he did turn to a simpler life in his later years and argues, One who is serious about [philosophy as a way of life] should choose settings that are conducive to sobriety and clean living. Too much comfort makes the spirit unmanly, and even mere location undoubtedly has some power to ruin one’s strength. Draft animals whose hooves have been toughened by hard ground can travel on any road; those that have been fattened in soft meadows quickly go lame. The soldier who has been posted in steep places becomes ever stronger; the urbanite is a lazy fellow. Hands that go directly from plow handle to sword hilt can handle any kind of work, while those that gleam from manicure and massage give up the minute they have to get dirty. The harsher discipline of some places strengthens one’s spirit and renders it fit for great endeavors. (Letters 51.10-11) In Letters16.8-9, Seneca argues that natural needs for life are minimal; however, when we succumb to the opinions of others, our desires can become “unbounded,” and the only thing we learn is “how to desire more.” Likewise, Seneca asserts: Everything we need for our welfare is ready and available, but luxuries come only at the cost of misery and trouble. (Letters119.15) To mitigate the desire for luxuries, Seneca proposes physical training as well as mental training: Set yourself a period of some days in which you will be content with very small amounts of food, and the cheapest kinds, and with coarse, uncomfortable clothing, and say to yourself, “Is this what I was afraid of?” (Letters 18.5) Why do we need physical training? Because “we are steeped in luxuries, and think everything harsh and difficult.” Physical training helps us “wake the mind from sleep” and serves to “pinch it, and remind it of how little our nature actually requires” (Letters 20.13). Otherwise, we run the risk of drowning ourselves in pleasures, because we have grown so accustomed to them that we “can no longer do without them.” At that point, we cease enjoying our pleasures because we are “slaves to them.” Seneca closes this passage with an ominous warning: “Once vice becomes a code of conduct, there ceases to be any possibility of cure.” (Letters39.6) The Greek word askesisis used to describe both spiritual training and physical training; both are a part of Stoic practice. Nevertheless, Stoic askesisis not the extreme form of asceticism practiced by renunciates. As Pierre Hadot writes, askesis– which must be understood not as asceticism, but as the practice of spiritual exercises – already existed within the philosophical tradition of antiquity.[1] For the Stoic practitioner, moderation is the key. However, it becomes quite obvious from reading the Stoics that we Westerners have become so decadent that Stoic moderation will seem like asceticism to many of us. As long as we are slaves to these externals we cannot be free. That is the reason we must become hostile to luxuries. Neither Courting nor Fleeing Danger Next, Seneca advocates moderation regarding danger. The Stoic, he suggests, does not seek it out, nor does he run from it. Courage is a virtue for Stoicism. Chrysippus defined courage as follows: "Courage," he says, "is knowledge as concerns things to be endured" or "a condition of mind which is obedient without fear to the highest law with respect to suffering and endurance." (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 4.53) Courage, like each of the other virtues (prudence, justice, and moderation), is difficult to analyze in isolation. That is because the virtues are interdependent and entail each other. Moreover, virtue ethics does not offer ready-made rules for action like consequentialist and rule-based ethical theories. Virtue ethics depend on the wisdom, courage, justice, and moderation of the virtuous person to make the best decision based on all the facts available to them. Therefore, it should not be a surprise that Seneca offers his decision to go on living, in spite of his desire to commit suicide, as an example of courage (Letters78.2). Then, alternatively, he offers Cato’s suicide as an example of courage: Cato’s final and supremely courageous wound through which freedom dispatched his spirit (Letters 96.72) Even apart from Cato’s suicide, he provides us with a poignant example of a courageous Stoic mind. Cato did not succumb to the misconceived que será será attitude of love of fate. He could have maintained his position of political power if he had accepted the tyrannical rule of Caesar as fate. Instead, he committed his life to the attempt to save the Roman Republic from Caesar. Nevertheless, fate had other plans, and he accepted that fate even though it meant his own death. Cato lived as a Stoic and struggled against tyranny by living the virtues, which were in his control, and letting fate, which was not in his control, take its course. Cato lost that battle with Caesar, but he won the war. Cato’s example still stands as a reminder to tyrants everywhere to beware of those who have the courage to resist. As Stoics we cannot know the outcome of our actions; the outcome is not “up to us.” Our good intentions and acts may not succeed from our limited, human perspective. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that our only responsibility is to act virtuously, allow fate to do what it will, and then love the outcome. Here are some questions to consider today: Am I mentally prepared to face a financial catastrophe, physically disability, loss of a loved one, or an equivalent calamity? If not, what am I waiting for? Human history suggests we are likely to face at least one such event in my life. We must contemplate these possibilities in advance to be mentally prepared for them. That is the Stoic practice of negative visualization (premeditatio malorum). Am I addicted to luxury? What can I do today to practice moderation?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is Important in Life? Day 3 – Episode 19

Fri, 13 Jul 2018 04:01:09 GMT

Love of Fate (Amor Fati) What is most important? Being able to endure adversity with a glad mind, to experience whatever happens as though you wanted it to happen to you. For you ought to have wanted it to, if you had known that everything happens according to god’s decree. Crying, complaining, and moaning are rebellion. (Seneca, Natural Questions III, praef. 12) From the perspective provided by the cosmic viewpoint (Day 2), we can learn to love what happens in our lives. The Stoics propose that we should love all events, even those that appear tragic from our human perspective. Why? Because to do otherwise is “rebellion” according to Seneca. It is an act of rebellion against the cosmos because we are claiming more power than we truly have. If we act virtuously with the intent to have result “A” happen but “B” happens instead, “crying, complaining, and moaning” about it indicates we think we have more power than we actually have. As Epictetus repeatedly teaches, it is a psychologically damaging mistake to assume we have the power necessary to bring about the end we seek. Our intention to act is “up to us” but our ability to complete the act and the result are beyond our control. This is the primary lesson of the dichotomy of control. The truth is that neither “A” nor “B” are completely “up to us.” Only our thoughts and intentions toward “A” and ‘B’ are “up to us.” Therefore, when a Stoic intends result “A” and engages in actions to bring that about, they must do so with a “reserve clause” that acknowledges fate may not cooperate. Obviously, love of fate and the cosmic viewpoint are interdependent. Together, they allow us to aim at an appropriate goal “A” and intend to bring about that goal with the attitude that we will accept and love outcome “B” if that is what happens. That is love of fate. Keep in mind that loving “B” does not preclude appropriate actions to bring about “A” a second, third, fourth, or thousandth time. There might be a reason it took numerous attempts at “A” to bring it about. Likewise, “A” may never happen. Marcus Aurelius accepted and loved fate because he trusted the cosmos was providentially ordered. He wrote: Providence permeates the works of the gods; and the works of fortune are not dissociated from nature, but intertwined and interwoven by all that is ordered by providence. Everything flows from there; but necessity is implicated too, and the benefit of the whole universe of which you are a part. (Meditations 2.3) In Meditations 12.24, Marcus tells us how to act in accordance with fate: Always act with a “definite aim” in accordance with Justice. Remember that “whatever happens to you from outside is due either to chance or to providence.” In other words, the result is “not up to us.” We “should neither blame chance nor bring accusations against providence.” Interestingly, this attitude toward fate does not result in a fatalistic pessimism among the Stoics. The popular caricature of the stoic as someone who grins and bears the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune is an unfortunate mischaracterization. Seneca pointed out the difference between the grin and bear it attitude of “grudging obedience” and “willing obedience” to providence: No matter which is true, Lucilius, or even if they all are, we must still practice philosophy. Perhaps the inexorable law of fate constrains us; perhaps God, the universal arbiter, governs all events; perhaps it is chance that drives human affairs, and disrupts them: all the same, it is philosophy that must preserve us. Philosophy will urge us to give willing obedience to God, and but a grudging obedience to fortune. It will teach you to follow God; to cope with chance. (Seneca, Letters 16.5) Grudging obedience to fate is a philosophical attitude; however, it is not the Stoic attitude. Marcus Aurelius provides a beautiful expression of the Stoic attitude that comes from willing obedience to a providential cosmos, Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. (Meditations 4.23) This same attitude was expressed by Epictetus: But if I in fact knew that illness had been decreed for me at this moment by destiny, I would welcome even that; for the foot, too, if it had understanding, would be eager to get spattered with mud.’ (Discourses 2.6.10) Contrast the attitude expressed by Seneca, Marcus, and Epictetus with the “crying, complaining, and moaning” of those who rebel against events they do not like and you begin to see the true nature of the Stoic attitude toward fate.Stoics do not grin and bear it; they welcome and love all events as if they wanted them to occur. Pierre Hadot describes this Stoic love of fate as follows: By consenting to the present event which is happening to me, in which the whole world is implied, I want that which universal Reason wants, and identify myself with it in my feeling of participation and belonging to a Whole which transcends the limits of individuality.[1] Fate is a big pill to swallow for moderns who believe they can apply the famous lines from Invictus, “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul”[2] to overcome external obstacles of any kind. The Stoics understood that we are the masters of our thoughts and intentions alone. Our ability to act on those intentions and the outcome are simply “not up to us.” The truth of the matter is this: We are far more constrained and, therefore, far less free than we like to admit. We are constrained by time and place of birth, genetics, environment, social circumstances, educational opportunity, etc. We cannot change those facts; they are “not up to us.” Fortunately, in spite of all those external constraints, there is profound freedom within our thoughts and intentions, and they are “up to us.” Moral excellence (virtue) and a good flow in life (happiness) are not constrained by any of the externals listed above. Regardless of whether one is constrained by the lowly circumstances of slavery, as Epictetus was, or the fortunate circumstances of the Roman emperor, like Marcus Aurelius, Stoicism provides a way of life that can transcend external events. Yes, we are the dog tied to the cart of fate in the famous Stoic metaphor. However, we do not have to be dragged, yelping and howling, behind the cart. There is a better way. We can choose to follow the cart willingly toward an excellent life. We can follow the path of the Stoics by adopting a cosmic viewpoint and loving all events that occur. Try the following during some quiet time: Make a list of the apparently “bad” or “tragic” events that are significant in your life and then ask the following about each of them: In hindsight, do those events seem different than they did at the time? If so how? For each of those events, find at least one valuable lesson you learned or one way in which you are a better person as a result of that event. Don’t stop at one; list as many as you can. If you change your mind about those apparently “bad” or “tragic” events in your past and decide to view them as trials (see Day 2), which provided an opportunity for personal growth and character development, how would your attitude about those events change? Would that attitude change affect your life positively? If so, why not try to see things from a cosmic viewpoint for a while and see what happens? Why not try loving all the events that occur in your life for a while and see if it makes a difference in your well-being? Throughout the day, commit yourself to do the following and pay attention to your mental state as you do so. First, every time you set out to do something, say to yourself, “I intend this outcome fate permitting.” This will remind you that the result is not up to you. Then, whatever the result may be, remind yourself the outcome is a moral indifferent and repeat Marcus’ affirmation: Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. (Meditations 4.23) ENDNOTES: [1] Pierre Hadot, The Inner Citadel: the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 145 [2] William Ernest Henley, Invictus (1875)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is Important in Life? Day 2 – Episode 18

Wed, 11 Jul 2018 04:01:58 GMT

The Cosmic Viewpoint What is most important? Raising your mind above the threats and promises of fortune, thinking that nothing is worth hoping for. For what have you to desire? Whenever you sink back from engagement with the divine to the human level, your sight will go dim, just like the eyes of those who return from bright sunlight to dense shadow. (Natural Questions III, praef. 11) The cosmic viewpoint is a central theme of Stoicism, and Seneca’s Natural Questions highlights that theme. In it, Seneca “impels his reader to look upward, to transcend ordinary life at ground level, to reach for cosmic consciousness.”[1] I covered the cosmic viewpoint in episode 5 on prosoche. Nevertheless, the cosmic viewpoint is a critically important topic in Stoic practice; it cannot be repeated too often. The cosmic viewpoint is often referred to as the “view from above.” This is the cosmic viewpoint, and it entails more than seeing the insignificance of life as if from afar. The cosmic viewpoint is more about attitude than altitude. Imagining that we are zooming away from the Earth may help distance us from the triviality of some troublesome events. However, that form of a “view from above” does not necessarily bring about the attitudinal change Stoicism prescribes. The ultimate goal of Stoic practice is not to distance ourselves from troublesome events or become indifferent to them. The goal is to learn to love those events as if we wished for them. Why? Because they are the events of Nature that have a purpose of their own, and, as Stoics, our aim is to live in agreement with that cosmic Nature. To do so requires more than a change in altitude; it requires a significant change in attitude. Stoic practice obliges us to develop an attitude of gratitude toward all events, even those we might otherwise consider troublesome, or tragic. As Epictetus taught: From everything that happens in the universe it is easy to praise providence, if one has within him two things: the faculty of taking a comprehensive view of the things that happen to each person and a sense of gratitude. (Discourses 1.6.1) Pierre Hadot considers the cosmic viewpoint the beginning of Stoic practice. He writes, Putting theory into practice begins with an exercise that consists in recognizing oneself as a part of the Whole, elevating oneself to cosmic consciousness, or immersing oneself within the totality of the cosmos. While meditating on Stoic physics, we are able to see all things within the perspective of universal Reason. To achieve this, we must practice the imaginative exercise which consists in seeing all human things from above.[2] When confronted with something which might appear unsettling or disturbing, we must take a step back and try to envision the situation from the perspective of the whole cosmos. It is reasonable to assume if we had all of the information about an event we would see things differently. To take on the perspective of the whole we must shed our personal desires, the desires of our immediate family and loved ones, and those of our local community or nation. That is a difficult thing to do; however, this paradigm shift is an essential part of Stoic practice. From the cosmic viewpoint, we can begin to see and love all events as parts of the Whole. Marcus Aurelius describes this exercise: Watch the stars in their courses as though you were accompanying them on their way, and reflect perpetually on how the elements are constantly changing from one to another; for the thought of these things purifies us from the defilement of our earthly existence. A fine reflection from Plato. One who would converse about human beings should look on all things earthly as though from some point far above, upon herds, armies, and agriculture, marriages and divorces, births and deaths, the clamour of law courts, deserted wastes, alien peoples of every kind, festivals, lamentations, and markets, this intermixture of everything and ordered combination of opposites. (Meditations 7.47-8) Pause and consider the list of things and events offered by Marcus in this passage: herds, armies, agriculture, marriages and divorces, births and deaths, the clamour of law courts, deserted wastes, alien peoples of every kind, festivals, lamentations, and markets. There are items on that list we would typically consider “good” and others we may consider “bad”; however, Marcus is reminding himself not to judge them as such. Instead, he challenges himself to view these things and events “as though from some point far above” to gain a new perspective. What is that perspective? It is not a perspective that minimizes their importance because of our altitude. Instead, it is a perspective derived from an attitude change, and it allows us to see all events, no matter how seemingly tragic, as an “intermixture of everything and ordered combination of opposites.” In other words, every event plays a role in the ordered whole. “Wait a minute,” someone might say, “there is no way I’m going to accept that tragic events happen for a purpose and that I should love them.” Then you will have a troubled mind, and you will be angry with gods and men, according to Epictetus (Enchiridion 1). Please do not misunderstand the Stoics here. It is our responsibility to behave in a manner that minimizes wars, rapes, murders, political and economic injustice, etc. We do so by behaving in a wise, just, courageous, and moderate manner, and encouraging others to do the same. Nevertheless, seemingly tragic events will happen; they are part of the “intermixture of everything and ordered combination of opposites” (Meditations7.48). When they do occur, we have a profoundly important choice to make. We can choose to accept them as the necessary events of a providentially ordered cosmos and love them as parts of an interconnected and interdependent whole. Or, we can rage against them as cosmic injustices and thereby create a troubled mind and feed our anger against gods and men. Either providence or atoms. This does not imply that a Stoic should do nothing about injustice when they can act and attempt to bring about a virtuous end. As Stoics, we are obligated to act. Cato the Younger and Marcus provide excellent examples of courageous action to defend the people and values of their society. Nevertheless, they acted with a reserve clause in mind and accepted that their actions may not bring about the end they sought. After all, the cosmos may have a different plan. In either case, our goal as a practicing Stoic is to accept and love the outcome as one event within a larger causal network of events that constitutes the Whole. That is the cosmic viewpoint. Ultimately, this paradigm shift involves more than additional information that may change our opinion about an event. The cosmic viewpoint entails an entirely different way of thinking about events. It relies on bringing our rational faculty—that fragment of the logos we each possess—into congruence with universal Reason. Seneca warns, Whenever you sink back from engagement with the divine to the human level, your sight will go dim, just like the eyes of those who return from bright sunlight to dense shadow. (Natural Questions III, praef. 11) In other words, our psychological angst is the result of seeing events from a limited anthropocentric perspective—the human level. Stoic practice teaches us to view events from the cosmic perspective—the divine level. As you go about your day, try applying the cosmic viewpoint by asking yourself the following questions: What might this event look like if I had full knowledge of what is going on? Will this event be as significant to me tomorrow, next week, next year, or a decade from now? Can I envision a way this event, which appears unfortunate, troublesome, or even tragic at this moment, might bring about a positive outcome in the future? If so, would it be prudent for me to act, with a reserve clause, as if this apparently troubling event is directing me toward a new course of action? Did this slamming door reveal another previously unnoticed door I should explore? Am I aware of any events like this from the past that were used by individuals or nations to bring about a positive end? Are there events in my past that appeared unfortunate, troublesome, or tragic at the time that I consider a blessing now? If I make a conscious choice to assume this seemingly unfortunate, troublesome, or tragic event has a larger purpose, and I make the best of it, how will that change my attitude? Seneca challenges us to “look upward, to transcend ordinary life at ground level, to reach for cosmic consciousness.”[3] Our challenge as Stoic practitioners is to allow our soul to take flight, metaphorically of course, and view the world and events around us as if from above—from the perspective of the Whole. According to the Stoics, the new perspective we can achieve from this cosmic viewpoint will change our lives. ENDNOTES: [1] Gareth D. Williams, The Cosmic Viewpoint: A Study of Seneca’s Natural Questions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 11 [2] Pierre Hadot, What Is Ancient Philosophy? (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2002), p. 136 [3] Williams (2012). p. 11

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is Important in Life? Day 1 – Episode 17

Mon, 09 Jul 2018 15:14:24 GMT

Seven Days with Seneca What is most important in human life? That is a perennial question that almost all of us ask ourselves, in one form or another, at some point in our lives. Unfortunately, many of us neglect to confront that question until late in life or when unforeseen circumstances force the question upon us. There, amid the faintly glowing embers of a long life approaching its end, or within the smoking and smoldering embers of a cataclysmic life event, we are more likely to listen to our inner sage as it admonishes us to consider what is really important in life before it is too late. Seneca, the wealthy and once powerful Roman senator repeatedly asked what is important in the preface to Book 3 of his Natural Questions. He was looking back on his life from old age when he wrote this work. From that perspective, he admits his motive for asking, “What is most important in life?” He wrote, Old age is at my back and accuses me of having used up my years in fruitless pursuits. (Natural Questions III, praef. 2) Many of us, maybe most, feel the weight of that same accusation at some point. We ask ourselves, what am I doing with my life? The question may be prompted by external events like divorce, a disabling accident, the death of a loved one, a brush with death, a terminal medical diagnosis, the birth of a child, etc. Likewise, the question may arise during meditation or a quiet moment of self-reflection. Many occasions might prompt the question. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that few of us ask it often enough or reflect on it deeply enough to effect lasting change in our life. Fortunately, as Seneca points out, it is never too late to begin anew. No matter what stage of life we are in, we can “press on all the more” and give “hard work” the opportunity to “repair the losses of a misspent life” (Natural Questions III, praef. 2). How? By giving our mind—our rational faculty—time to itself for “contemplation of itself.” Here, Seneca echoes Epictetus’ confidence in our rational faculty’s self-judging and self-healing capabilities (Discourses 1.1). Nonetheless, we must create the time and space for our mind to work on itself. According to Seneca, if we create the time in our busy lives to allow our rational faculty to work on itself, it can “recover by using its present life with care.” While it is helpful to create a time and place for regular meditation or thoughtful reflection, it far more important to the recovery process that we practice constant attention (prosoche) throughout the day. This practice of attention focuses our rational faculty on our present judgments, present desires, and present actions; this is the real inner work of a practicing Stoic. Once we are paying attention, we can deploy the three Stoic disciplines to help us “transition from remorse to honorable action.” (Natural Questions III, praef. 2-3). Seneca asks, “What is most important in life?” seven times and provides seven thought-provoking insights in Natural Questions, Book 3, praef. 10-16. This episode is the first of a week-long meditation program that draws from Seneca’s responses to that question to challenge and inspire practicing Stoics. Each daily meditation is short enough to be listened to or read quickly during a morning meditation and will give you something to consider throughout the day. The goal of this week-long meditation is twofold. First, I trust that Seneca’s responses to the question “What is important in life?” will provide some insight into this question. Second, my wish is that Seneca’s responses will provoke some deep soul-searching and motivate us to ask and answer this potentially life-changing question more frequently. The Inner Work of Stoicism What is most important in human life? Not filling the seas with fleets, nor setting up standards on the shore of the Red Sea, nor, when the earth runs out of sources of harm, wandering the ocean to seek the unknown; rather it is seeing everything with one’s mind, and conquering one’s faults, which is the greatest victory possible. There are countless people who have been in control of nations and cities, very few who have been in control of themselves. (Natural Questions III, praef. 10) Seneca opens his examination of what is most important in life by directing us inward. The real work of the Stoic life, the work that provides the greatest victory, is inner work. This inner work, Seneca suggests, is done by directing our attention inward toward the only things we can control: The judgments, desires and aversions, and impulses to act that form our character faults. External successes are "indifferents" to the Stoic. That does not mean they have no value at all. Instead, it means they have no bearing on our moral excellence and well-being. These externals are indifferents because they are neither good nor bad in themselves and they are beyond our control—they are “not up to us” (Enchiridion1). There is no causal relationship between virtue (moral excellence) and externals. We can become the head of a company, the leader of a social movement, a city, or a nation while having a vicious moral character. Likewise, we can possess an excellent moral character while being poor, powerless, and nameless. The excellent life—the life of virtue—is achieved through inward victory over the erroneous judgments and inappropriate desires and aversions that damage our virtue and diminish our well-being. Through the practice of attention (prosoche) and the disciplines of assent and desire, we turn inward to examine the thoughts, desires, and aversions that trouble our mind and cause us to “find fault with both gods and human beings” (Enchiridion 1). This is the path of the prokopton (one making progress) and it leads to the creation of what Pierre Hadot calls the inner citadel,[1] where the vicissitudes of fortune cannot affect our tranquility. This inner citadel is within our soul (psyche), and it is there that we must focus our attention. As Marcus Aurelius wrote: People seek retreats for themselves in the countryside, by the seashore, in the hills; and you too have made it your habit to long for that above all else. But this is altogether unphilosophical, when it is possible for you to retreat into yourself whenever you please; for nowhere can one retreat into greater peace or freedom from care than within one’s own soul. (Meditations 4.3) Marcus further asserts that we have the power to stop our inner turmoil, which is caused by faulty judgments, at any moment: If you suffer distress because of some external cause, it is not the thing itself that troubles you but your judgement about it, and it is within your power to cancel that judgement at any moment. (Meditations 8.47) The inner citadel is created from the realization that nothing can touch the soul of the Stoic. This circumscribed Self is immune from harm by anything external to it. Things as such have not the slightest hold on our soul, nor do they have access to the soul, nor can they alter it or move it; but the soul alone alters and moves itself, and ensures that whatever is submitted to it conforms to the judgements of which it considers itself worthy. (Meditations 5.19) Inner work is not easy. Uprooting faulty judgments, desires, and aversions that cause us distress is hard work. That is precisely why, as Seneca notes, few people are actually in control of themselves. Most people live lives that are driven by impressions of externals to prompt them to desire and seek that which they do not control. As Epictetus frequently points out, most people are not the masters of their own impulses; instead, they are slaves to their desires and aversions. The path of the Stoic prokopton can free us from this slavery to our desires and aversions. However, this path traverses a challenging, sometimes steep, and occasionally precarious route. It is easy to assume, mistakenly, that the lush valley below offers a safer and shorter path to virtue and happiness. It probably does not. There are no shortcuts or quick fixes in Stoicism. The path of the Stoic prokopton is the practice of philosophy as a way of life, and it requires continued learning and constant training. However, the reward is worth the effort because the Stoic path leads to an excellent moral character and well-being. Nevertheless, as I have written before, the inward-directed nature of Stoic practice is not a call to withdraw from life’s tempestuous seas; quite the opposite. Through the creation of inner virtue and the application of the dichotomy of control, Stoics are prepared to fulfill their roles in society while maintaining their virtue and tranquility. Stoics shun the peaceful garden of the Epicureans for the rough-and-tumble world of human society. Because, as Seneca notes: To fashion a [Stoic] who can genuinely be called a [Stoic], a stronger fate is needed. For him, the way will not be flat: he must go up and down, he must be tossed by waves, and must guide his vessel on a stormy sea. He must hold his course against fortune. Many things will happen that are hard and rough— but things he can soften and smooth out himself. Fire proves gold; misery, brave men [and women]. (On Providence 5.10) The practice of the three Stoic disciplines that define the path of the prokopton allows us to gain control of our judgments, desires and aversions, and impulses to act. The inner citadel of our psyche is not created as a safe place to hide from the turmoil of life. Instead, the inner citadel is our psychological stronghold that derives its strength from the knowledge that nothing external to us can touch our soul. From that place of inner strength, we can perform our roles in society with purpose. Our purpose is to live in agreement with cosmic Nature, our rational human nature, and our unique individual nature. As naturally social creatures, that means we must live in, engage with, and contribute to the society we are part of.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Purpose in the Universe with Tim Mulgan – Episode 16

Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:43:41 GMT

From the back cover of professor Tim Mulgan's book: Two familiar worldviews dominate Western philosophy: materialist atheism and the benevolent to God of the Abrahamic faiths. Tim Mulgan explores a third way. Ananthropocentric Purposivism claims that there is a cosmic purpose, but human beings are irrelevant to it. Purpose in the Universe develops a philosophical case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism that is at least as strong as the case for either theism or atheism. Those who are interested in exploring professor Tim Mulgan's concept of Purpose in the Universe further may find the links below helpful. His book is published by Oxford University Press. A paper titled Beyond Theism and Atheism: Axiarchism and Ananthropocentric Purposivism by Tim Mulgan: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/phc3.12420 Book Review in University of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/purpose-in-the-universe-the-moral-and-metaphysical-case-for-ananthropocentric-purposivism/ A podcast episode produced by The Forum that includes Tim Mulgan and others discussing Purpose in the Universe: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/theforum/does-the-universe-have-a-purpose/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Religious Nature of Stoicism – Episode 15

Mon, 25 Jun 2018 22:15:13 GMT

Many people who were introduced to Stoicism by popular books that were written in the twenty-first century are surprised by the religious nature of Stoic philosophy when they first encounter it in the surviving Stoic texts and scholarship on those texts. That is because none of these popular authors address the deeply religious nature of Stoicism positively. Instead, they either ignore it or attempt to discredit it as the unwarranted beliefs of ancient philosophers who lacked our modern scientific understanding of the universe. For some, like Lawrence Becker, Stoic ethics cannot be “credible” if it remains attached to Stoic cosmology (a providential cosmos).[1] Likewise, William Irvine considers this aspect of Stoicism “off-putting to modern individuals, almost none of whom believe in the existence of Zeus, and many of whom don’t believe we were created by a divine being who wanted what was best for us.”[2] Ryan Holiday takes a different approach and justifies ignoring Stoic physics (which includes Stoic theology) by making the unsubstantiated claim that as Stoicism progressed, the later Stoics “focused primarily on two of these topics—logic and ethics”[3] to the exclusion of physics. In a unique approach, Donald Robertson attempts to obscure the modern divergence from Stoicism by making the unsupportable claim that some of the ancient Stoics “may have adopted a more agnostic stance”[4] or may have “believed that agnosticism or even atheism may have been consistent with the Stoic way of life.”[5] Claims like these may satisfy those who are unfamiliar with the Stoic texts and have not read any credible scholarship on Stoicism. Likewise, they will please those atheists and agnostics who wish those claims to be true. However, these claims do not stand up to the textual evidence or credible Stoic scholarship. A more brazen example of a predisposition against the religious nature of Stoicism is offered by Massimo Pigliucci, who combines literary fiction with a bit of scientific hubris to justify the abandonment of the Stoic worldview and its deeply religious nature. In his 2017 book How to Be a Stoic, which should have been more appropriately titled How to Be a Secular Stoic, Pigliucci engages Epictetus in an imaginary conversation. He sits Epictetus down for a friendly chat and educates him about the “powerful double punch” that David Hume and Charles Darwin delivered to the Stoic conception of a providential cosmos.[6] Of course, in Pigliucci’s version of this story, Epictetus does not provide a defense of Stoic providence against the claims of modern philosophy and science. Instead, Epictetus remains silent while the Stoic worldview is laid waste. However, for those who have any familiarity with the Discourses of Epictetus, it is hard to imagine this conversation would be so one-sided if the real Epictetus were engaged with Pigliucci. It is easy to imagine Epictetus countering with something like, my dear philosopher, “The [Stoics] say that the first thing that needs to be learned is the following, that there is a God, and a God who exercises providential care for the universe” (Discourses 2.14.11). Then, Epictetus, in his typically protreptic style, might have asked Pigliucci, “What is the universe, then, and who governs it?” (Discourses 2.14.25). Finally, it’s fair to assume a modern version of Epictetus would be familiar enough with the writings of Hume and Darwin to know that Pigliucci’s “powerful double punch” may be quite effective against the New Atheist strawman version of God paraded into most modern debates. However, a modern, well-informed Epictetus would be able to point out that neither Hume nor Darwin can land a blow on the immanent God of Stoicism that providentially orders the cosmos from within. Unfortunately, Pigliucci is so beholden to the reductionist materialist belief system of nineteenth-century science that he is compelled to declare, as he recently did, that the metaphysical beliefs of the ancient Stoics are “unsustainable in the light of modern science.”[7] Of course, what Pigliucci and other reductionist materialists fail to tell their audience is that their nineteenth-century conception of reality is itself unsustainable in light of twentieth-century quantum discoveries and modern theories of consciousness. More importantly, Pigliucci’s appeal to modern science to refute Stoic metaphysics is adequately undercut by the existence of many brilliant modern scientists and philosophers, from a variety of fields, who believe that some form of preexisting consciousness or mind-like background provides the best explanation for our ordered cosmos and human consciousness. Before I proceed any further, I want to make two points. First, the idea that Stoicism is somehow compatible with atheism without being substantially modified, and the speculation that the ancient Stoics “may have adopted a more agnostic stance”[8] or themselves “believed that agnosticism or even atheism may have been consistent with the Stoic way of life”[9] are recent inventions of the modern Stoic movement. These assertions are unsupportable by reasonable interpretations of the Stoic texts and are contradicted by a large body of scholarship. Lawrence Becker, in his 1998 book A New Stoicism, was the first person to propose a secular version of Stoic ethics. However, he acknowledged the dilemma he faced with his attempt to extract Stoic ethics from the “purposive system with an end or goal that practical reason directs us to follow.” He declared, “It seems that the book cannot be a work of stoic ethics without the cosmic teleology but that it cannot be a credible work of ethics with such a cosmology.”[10] In other words, Becker realizes that Stoic teleology—the idea that the cosmos has a purpose with which we humans should align ourselves—is not credible in academia. That will not be a surprise to anyone who is familiar with modern academic philosophy. The important point here is that Becker, who was at the leading edge of what would later develop into the modern Stoic movement, is open and honest about the fact that Stoic physics and ethics were considered inseparable. Prior to Becker, no one seriously considered such a separation feasible. Even today, twenty years after Becker wrote A New Stoicism, no credible scholar of Stoicism claims that Stoic ethics can be separated from the Stoic conception of a providential cosmos without making substantial changes to the system as a whole. The second point is this: As I have repeatedly stated, I fully support the creation of a secularized version of Stoicism that can appeal to agnostics and atheists. I believe that furthering what Becker started in 1998 is both reasonable and commendable. However, reinterpreting Stoic texts and giving undue weight to ambiguous fragments in an attempt to anachronistically paint the ancients as agnostics or speculate that they may have been open to agnosticism or even atheism is neither reasonable nor commendable. These practices may serve to further expand the modern Stoic movement and sell more books and courses to the masses; nevertheless, they also open the door to a myriad of interpretive practices that allow Stoicism to be twisted and distorted beyond all recognition. In 1998, Lawrence Becker made his divergence from ancient Stoicism quite clear. Unfortunately, the opposite is true of some modern popularizers who attempt to justify their predisposition to secularism and their aversion to the religious nature of Stoicism by rewriting the history of the Stoa and attributing beliefs to the ancient Stoics that are contradicted by the surviving texts. What the Scholars Say about the Religious Nature of Stoicism Now that we have some idea of how the modern Stoic popularizers feel about the religious nature of Stoicism, let’s see what the recognized scholars have to say on this topic. Interestingly, early Christian thinkers, medieval scholastics, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century neo-Stoics, and the nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars of Stoicism all recognized the deeply religious nature of Stoicism. As an example, the distinguished classicist Edith Hamilton claimed, [Stoicism] was a religion first, a philosophy only second.[11] Additionally, she wrote, This is the voice not of philosophy, but of religion. Stoicism from its earliest beginnings was religious… It must not however be concluded that Stoicism was a religion only and not a philosophy.[12] Likewise, the classical scholar Gilbert Murray wrote, Stoicism may be called either a philosophy or a religion. It was a religion in its exalted passion; it was a philosophy inasmuch as it made no pretence to magical powers or supernatural knowledge.[13] Scottish philosopher Edward Caird called Stoicism a religious philosophy, From the first, Stoicism was a religious philosophy, as is shown by the great hymn of Cleanthes, the successor of Zeno as head of the school—a hymn which is inspired by the consciousness that it is one spiritual power which penetrates and controls the universe and is the source of every work done under the sun, “except what evil men endeavour in their folly.”[14] Finally, German philosopher Eduard Zeller points out the impossibility of understanding Stoicism apart from its theology, It would be impossible to give a full account of the philosophy of the Stoics without, at the same time, treating of their theology; for no early system is so closely connected with religion as that of the Stoics. Founded, as the whole view of the world is, upon the theory of one Divine Being… There is hardly a single prominent feature in the Stoic system which is not, more or less, connected with theology.[15] Is Stoicism a Religion? Are these scholars wrong to suggest that Stoicism is a religion? At first glance, it appears Pierre Hadot thought so. He suggests we must be careful to make a distinction between philosophy and religion.[16] Of course,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stoic Ethics – The Discipline of Action – Episode 14

Sun, 17 Jun 2018 18:38:10 GMT

This podcast episode refers to the blog post on The Discipline of Action, which is currently being updated. If you are looking for an exceptional way to jump-start your Stoic practice, consider the Theory & Practice Course offered by The College of Stoic Philosophers. This course is a mentor-guided, four-month-long course that provides an excellent foundation in both Stoic theory and practice.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stoic Ethics – The Theory of Action – Episode 13

Sun, 10 Jun 2018 19:52:40 GMT

This podcast episode refers to the blog post on The Discipline of Action, which is being completely updated. Blog posts referenced in this episode: The Connection Between Physics and Ethics Retaining the Soul of Stoicism

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Bear and Forbear Only Gets Us Half the Way There – Episode 12

Tue, 05 Jun 2018 01:56:04 GMT

Does the cosmos have a purpose that gives human life inherent meaning? Or do we live in an accidental universe that lacks any inherent purpose and thereby makes our lives as potentially futile as that of the mythological Sisyphus, who is compelled for eternity to roll a boulder to the top of a hill only to have it roll down again? This question has puzzled and haunted the minds of numerous thinkers for many millennia; however, to seriously entertain the possibility that the cosmos has an inherent purpose today one must step outside the spirit of our time, which operates on the mostly unspoken and unprovable assumption that the universe is accidental and purposeless and the only meaning in human life is that which we create for ourselves. Stoicism stands staunchly opposed to that assumption. The Stoic worldview is so different from that of our secular age that most people who are interested in Stoicism today ignore the concept of a providential cosmos, and question or deny any difference it can make in the life of a practitioner. That is unfortunate. Originally, I intended this episode of Stoicism On Fire to move on to the spiritual exercise known as the discipline of action, which falls within the field of ethics. However, I think more attention needs to be focused on a distinction covered in the last episode before we move on. In episode eleven, I offered the following meme: Bear and forbear only gets us half the way there My goal in offering that meme was to highlight the vast gulf between the common caricature of a stoic as one who bears and forbears all the events in life with equanimity, and what we see in the Stoic texts. The accurate portrait of a Stoic presents a person who loves the events of nature and expresses gratitude for them—all of them. The Stoics were renounced for their resilience to the events of life. They considered it irrational to want things to happen differently than they do. However, Stoic practice did not stop there. If it did, the caricature of the Stoic as emotionless and detached would be justified. Yet, Epictetus said: I shouldn’t be unfeeling like a statue, but should preserve my natural and acquired relationships, as one who honours the gods, as a son, as a brother, as a father, as a citizen. (Discourses 3.2.6) Throughout the writings of Seneca, the Discourses of Epictetus, and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, we see more than a grin and bear it acceptance of events. The point of Stoicism is not to tolerate events that occur; although, that is a significant step in the right direction. The ultimate goal of Stoic practice is more than bear and forbear. Again, as I said in the last episode: Bear and forbear only gets us half the way there The proper Stoic attitude is to love all events that occur as if we wished for them. In his lecture “On Contentment” (Discourses 1.12), Epictetus opens One who is still being educated should approach his education with this aim in view: ‘How may I follow the gods in everything, and how can I act in a way that is acceptable to the divine administration, and how may I become free?’ For someone is free if all that happens to him comes about in accordance with his choice and no one else is able to impede him. (Discourses 1.12.8-9) Here is a key point that is too frequently overlooked in Stoicism. Freedom does come from making ourselves psychologically immune from external things and events. Neither does it come from being the master of our fate and overcoming all of the obstacles placed between us and our goals. True freedom only occurs when everything happens in accordance with our choice. Only then are we unimpeded. That state of freedom only occurs when our choices are in accordance with what actually happens rather than what we wish happened. Epictetus makes it quite clear that our human freedom rests on our understanding of what is and is not “up to us” and our practice of the discipline of desire. If we desire and fear those things and events in life beyond our complete control, we will end up just where Epictetus warns: We will have a reason to lament, we will have a troubled mind, and we will find fault with both gods and human beings.[1] Epictetus opens this passage with a question. He asks, Is it, then, only in this most grave and important matter, that of freedom, that it is possible for me to desire according to my whim? (Discourses 1.12.15) Epictetus’ Response to the question: In no way, but rather true education consists precisely in this, in learning to wish that everything should come about just as it does. And how do things come about? As the one who ordains them has ordained. (Ibid) In other words, Stoic education and training, which leads to true freedom, teaches us to accept all things and events as if they come from a providentially ordered cosmos. But how? How can a person go beyond “bear and forbear” for seemingly tragic events like the death of a loved one or a stage four cancer diagnosis? In truth, “bear and forbear” may be the best we can do with some life events—we are not sages. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that Stoicism does provide a path beyond “bear and forbear” that can teach us to praise providence for everything that happens in life. Yes, I said everything. Here is what Epictetus has to say about it: From everything that happens in the universe it is easy to praise providence, if one has within him two things: the faculty of taking a comprehensive view of the things that happen to each person and a sense of gratitude. For, otherwise, one will either fail to recognize the usefulness of what has come about,or else fail to be truly grateful if onedoes in factrecognize it. (Discourses 1.6.1-2) Consider what Epictetus did not say. He did not say, “From everything that happens in the universe it is easy to tolerate misfortune if one has within him two things. Likewise, he did not say: “From everything that happens in the universe it is easy to bear and forbear, if one has within him two things. He said: From everything that happens in the universeit is easy to praise providence,if one has within him two things: the faculty of taking a comprehensive view of the things that happen to each person and a sense of gratitude. (Discourses 1.6.1) That is the whole point of this episode: To make certain our sights on the correct target of Stoic practice. Our goal is not a grim acceptance of events; our goal is much greater than bear and forbear, even if that is all we can achieve on occasion. Our ultimate goal is a loving agreement with the events in nature. Our goal is to learn to love them and agree with them, even while those around us are distraught, anguished, angered, and destroyed by those same events because they view them as something “bad.”. As A.A. Long, a respected scholar of Stoicism points out, resignation to the deterministic events of a mechanical universe does not get us to the “rationality and dignity” the Stoics claimed were part of human potential. He writes, The deterministic thesis explains why Stoics find it irrational and pointless to wish that things might be otherwise than what they actually experience. But if that were all, Stoicism would be largely an attitude of mere realism, fatalism, or resignation. The crucial step is the combination of determinism with providence. If the situations in which we find ourselves are providentially determined, and if, further, we are equipped with minds that can understand this dual aspect of things, then we have reason not only to accept everything that happens as inevitable but also to regard whatever impinges on our individual selves as the allotment that is right for us and as the requisite opportunity for us to discover and play our human part in the cosmic plan. Hence committed Stoics will interpret circumstances that are conventionally regarded as misfortunes as challenges to be accepted and even welcomed because they give them the means of proving and showing their rationality and dignity as fully-fledged human beings.[2] In this quote, A.A. Long is emphasizing a point he repeatedly makes in his scholarship. Providence is an essential part of Stoic theory and practice. In fact, he argues it is acceptance of providence that allows us the means of “proving and showing” our “rationality and dignity as fully-fledged human beings.” That’s a pretty powerful assertion coming from one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent scholar of Stoicism in the last century. The goal of Stoic practice is not to train us to “grin and bear” or “bear and forbear” the events of life. Instead, the goal is to love them. Ok, you ask, but how do we get there? Fortunately, Epictetus provides the answer. He tells us we must have two things within ourselves to arrive at that place of loving acceptance of all things and events. First, we must develop the ability to taking a comprehensive view of events that happen. Second, we must possess an attitude of gratitude. A Comprehensive View of Events The cosmic viewpoint allows us to escape our human-centered view of events and the judgments associated with that limited view. Once we understand the nature of the cosmos and our place in it, we can begin to see that external events cannot affect our moral character in either a “good” or “bad” way because they are beyond our control. The only things that affect our character and well-being are those we can control—our judgments. Epictetus makes this point succinctly: It isn’t the things themselves that disturb people, but the judgements that they form about them. (Enchiridion 4) Pierre Hadot considers the cosmic viewpoint the beginning of Stoic practice. He writes, Putting theory into practice begins with an exercise that consists in recognizing oneself as a part of the Whole, elevating oneself to cosmic consciousness, or immersing oneself within the totality of the cosmos. While meditating on Stoic physics,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stoic Physics: The Discipline of Desire – Episode 11

Tue, 29 May 2018 04:39:05 GMT

This podcast episode refers to the blog post on The Discipline of Desire, which is being completely updated.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stoic Physics: The Theory of Desire – Episode 10

Mon, 21 May 2018 23:47:00 GMT

This podcast episode provides a new theoretical foundation for my previous blog post on The Discipline of Desire, which is being completely updated. Make sure to come back for the next episode where the spiritual exercise of the Discipline of Desire will build upon the theory of this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stoic Logic: The Discipline of Assent – Episode 9

Mon, 14 May 2018 07:33:13 GMT

This episode is a continuation of Episode 8, which covered the theoritical aspect of the this spiritual exercise. This episode cover the practice of this spiritual exercise. The Discipline of Assent blog post is currently being rewritten to reflect the material covered in these two podcast episodes.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stoic Logic: The Theory of Assent – Episode 8

Mon, 07 May 2018 00:49:21 GMT

This podcast episode provides a new theoretical foundation for my previous blog post on The Discipline of Assent, which is being completely updated for the release of Episode 9 of Stoicism on Fire. Make sure to come back for the next episode where the spiritual exercise of the Discipline of Assent will build upon the theory of this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stoic Spiritual Exercises – Episode 7

Sun, 29 Apr 2018 23:46:28 GMT

Today’s podcast is an introduction to the concept of Stoic spiritual exercises. Over the next few episodes, I will be covering three Stoic spiritual exercises: the discipline of assent, the discipline of desire, and the discipline of action. These three exercises or disciplines are the core of what I call the path of the prokopton. In episode 5, I covered the concepts of attention (prosoche). In episode 6, I covered what is and is not “up to us,” which is commonly called the dichotomy of control. As I noted in that episode, Pierre Hadot refers to these as the fundamental Stoic spiritual attitude and the fundamental rule of life respectively. Together, they constitute what Hadot calls the Stoic moral attitude, which is the attitude a prokopton takes toward all the events that occur in life. The Stoic spiritual exercises are the practices that develop that moral attitude and lead us farther along the Stoic path toward an excellent character and well-being. Those who are familiar with the writing of the French philosopher Pierre Hadot will recognize the concept of spiritual exercises. It is a constant theme in his books. He did not invent it; however, he applied the term to ancient philosophical practices and thereby illuminated the meaning and significance of these exercises. Before Hadot, the idea of philosophy as a way of life had largely been lost. Modern academic philosophy deviated so far from the concept of philosophy as a way of life that a 2016 critique was able to highlight the “pathologies” of contemporary academic philosophy and point out its complete abandonment of the philosophical practices of Socrates. The authors of that critique write: Universally venerated by contemporary philosophers, the actual philosophic practice of Socrates is rejected or ignored. Socrates could never get a position today in a philosophy (or any other) department.[1] This divergence from the philosophical practices of Socrates is important to twenty-first-century practitioners of Stoicism for two reasons. First, Socrates in the grandfather of Stoicism, and his way of life served as a model for the Stoics. As I noted in episode 4, Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, was inspired to follow the philosophical way of life after reading about the life of Socrates in Xenophon’s Memorabilia. That portrait of Socrates inspired Zeno to ask, “Where can I find men such as these? ”Second, because the path of the Stoic prokopton is a spiritual practice—it relies on the transformational power of these spiritual exercises that are largely, if not wholly, ignored by modern academic philosophers. Even where Stoicism is taught in academic environments, it is unlikely that any attention will be paid to these practices. Modern academia has little if any tolerance for anything considered spiritual. That is why it was necessary for Pierre Hadot to reintroduce the modern world to the spiritual nature of the ancient philosophical way of life. Philosophy as a way of life is so radically different from the mind-numbing, logic-chopping positivism that turns many people away from philosophy, we can argue it belongs in a different category. As Michael Chase wrote in the introduction of a published set of essays honoring Hadot: Hadot’s work, written in a plain, clear style that lacks the rhetorical flourishes of a Derrida or a Foucault, represents a call for a radical democratization of philosophy. It talks about subjects that matter to people today from all walks of life, which is why it has appealed, arguably, less to professional philosophers than to ordinary working people, and to professionals working in disciplines other than philosophy.[2] If you doubt the difference between Hadot’s approach to the ancient Stoics and that of modern academia, here is an experiment. Read and compare two books, both published in English in 1998 and both dealing with the application of Stoicism in the life of practitioners. The first book, written from the perspective of modern academia, is Lawrence Becker’s A New Stoicism. The second book is Pierre Hadot’s The Inner Citadel. The contrast between these views of Stoicism highlight the problem with modern academic philosophers attempting to apply Stoicism to daily life. Becker abandons the worldview of the Stoics because from his academic perspective, “a credible work of ethics” cannot include the Stoic teleological (providential) worldview.[3]In contrast, Hadot writes, What defined a Stoic above all else was the choice of a life in which every thought, every desire, and every action would be guided by no other law than that of universal Reason. Whether the world is ordered or chaotic, it depends only on us to be rationally coherent with ourselves. In fact, all the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[4] The idea that universal Reason exists and provides us with human rationality and the laws that serve as a guide for our ethics is anathema to a modern academic like Becker. Therefore, instead of approaching Stoicism and its practice as the ancients intended, he demands that Stoicism conforms to the worldview that holds sway over modern academic philosophy and makes it irrelevant to most moderns. The philosophical way of life is not primarily aimed at knowing, although that is certainly an essential aspect of it. Instead, the philosophical way of life is aimed at a mode of being; its goal is the transformation of the Self into the best possible human beings we are capable of becoming. The Greeks called this state of human excellence arete. We translate that word as virtue in English; however, virtue does not fully express the concept of arete, which encompasses the whole human being rather than just ethical behavior. Hadot not only reintroduced the modern world to philosophy as a way of life, he also revived the practice of spiritual exercises, which predate the Christian conception of those practices attributed to Ignatius of Loyola. Interestingly, Hadot argues the spiritual exercises of Ignatius are “a Christian version of a Greco-Roman tradition”[5] that emphasized askesis(philosophical practice or exercise). So, what does Hadot mean by the term spiritual exercise? Why did he choose to call them spiritual exercises instead of philosophical exercises or something else? In defense of his use of the adjective “spiritual,” Hadot writes, The expression is a bit disconcerting for the contemporary reader. In the first place, it is no longer quite fashionable these days to use the word "spiritual." It is nevertheless necessary to use this term, I believe, because none of the other adjectives we could use –"psychic," "moral," "ethical," "intellectual," "of thought," "of the soul''–covers all the aspects of reality we want to describe.[6] In the passage that follows the one above, Hadot addresses three reasonable alternatives that might come to mind and explains why they are inadequate to fully describe the scope of these exercises. Thought Exercises Hadot argues, ‘the word "thought" “does not indicate clearly enough that imagination and sensibility play a very important role in these exercises.’ Intellectual Exercises He claims ‘we cannot be satisfied with "intellectual exercises," although such intellectual factors as definition, division, ratiocination, reading, investigation, and rhetorical amplification play a large role in them.’ Ethical Exercises Hadot concedes that ‘“ethical exercises”is a rather tempting expression, since, as we shall see, the exercises in question contribute in a powerful way to the therapeutics of the passions, and have to do with the conduct of life. Yet, here again, this would be too limited a view of things. All of these are inadequate because these exercises “correspond to a transformation of our vision of the world, and to a metamorphosis of our personality.” They address more than the practitioner’s mere thoughts, they entail “the individual's entire psychism.” Therefore, according to Hadot, the word "spiritual" “reveals the true dimensions of these exercises” because by means of them, “the individual raises himself up to the life of the objective Spirit; that is to say, he re-places himself within the perspective of the Whole ("Become eternal by transcending yourself")."[emphasis added][7] Our Place Within the Whole This concept of replacing our own personal perspective with that of the Whole is a primary goal of Stoic practice. This theme if repeated frequently within the pages of Marcus Aurelius’Meditations. Providence permeates the works of the gods; and the works of fortune are not dissociated from nature, but intertwined and interwoven by all that is ordered by providence. Everything flows from there; but necessity is implicated too, and the benefit of the whole universe of which you are a part. Now for every part of nature, the good is that which universal nature brings, and which serves to sustain that nature; and the universe is sustained not merely by the changes of the elements, but also by the changes of the bodies compounded from them. Let these doctrines, if that is what they are, be enough for you. As for your thirst for books, be done with it, so that you may not die with complaints on your lips, but with a truly cheerful mind and grateful to the gods with all your heart. (Meditations 2.3) Everything suits me that suits your designs, O my universe. Nothing is too early or too late for me that is in your own good time. All is fruit for me that your seasons bring, O nature. All proceeds from you, all subsists in you, and to you all things return. (Meditations 4.23) All things are interwoven, and the bond that unites them is sacred, and hardly anything is alien to any other thing, for they have been ranged together and are jointly ordered to form a common universe.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is "Up to Us"? – Episode 6

Sun, 22 Apr 2018 19:41:43 GMT

Epictetus, the freed slave turned Stoic philosopher and teacher, said the following: Some things are within our power, while others are not. Within our power are opinion, motivation, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever is of our own doing; not within our power are our body, our property, reputation, office, and, in a word, whatever is not of our own doing. (Enchiridion 1) In episode 5 of the Stoicism On Fire podcast, I covered the practice of attention (prosoche), which is, according to the philosopher Pierre Hadot, the fundamental Stoic spiritual attitude.[1] In this podcast, I will cover the category of things to which we are to pay attention—those are the things that are within our complete control. The popular term for this concept is the Dichotomy of Control, which Epictetus distinguished as what is and is not“up to us” (eph’ hêmin). Pierre Hadot called this distinction the fundamental rule of life for the Stoic practitioner.[2] Therefore, when we focus our attention on what is “up to us”, we combine the fundamental Stoic spiritual attitude with the fundamental rule of life and end up with what Hadot calls the fundamental Stoic attitude or Stoic moral attitude. This attitude is what enables us to make progress along the Stoic path—the path of the prokopton. Hadot defines this fundamental Stoic attitude in detail. Referring to Enchiridion1.1, Hadot writes: Here, we can glimpse one of the Stoics' most fundamental attitudes: the delimitation of our own sphere of liberty as an impregnable islet of autonomy, in the midst of the vast river of events and of Destiny. What depends on us are thus the acts of our soul, because we can freely choose them. We can judge or not judge, or judge in whatever manner we please; we can desire or not desire; will or not will. By contrast, that which does not depend on us—Epictetus lists our body, honors, riches, and high positions of authority—is everything that depends upon the general course of nature. Our body, first: it is true that we can move it, but we are not completely in control of it. Birth, death, sickness, involuntary movements, sensations of pleasure or of pain: all these are completely independent of our will. As for wealth and honors: we can, to be sure, attempt to acquire them, yet definitive success does not depend upon us, but upon a series of human factors and events which are exterior to us; they are imponderable and do not depend upon our will. Thus, the Stoic delimits a center of autonomy—the soul, as opposed to the body; and a guiding principle (hegemonikon) as opposed to the rest of the soul. It is within this guiding principle that freedom and our true self are located.[3] The key phrase in that passage from Hadot’s book The Inner Citadel is “the impregnable islet of autonomy.” As we consider what is and is not “up to us” it is easy to see this fundamental rule of life as limiting. However, throughout the Discourses and Enchiridion, Epictetus teaches this rule for the opposite reason. It is by understanding what is and is not “up to us” that we can find true freedom. It is not an accident that Epictetus, a freed slave, emphasizes this rule and the freedom it provides—he understood the nature and value of true freedom as a result of high life experience. The Stoics understood that externals cannot bring us the well-being we seek. Possessing them is indifferent with regard to our moral character; however, desiring them and pursuing them is the path to psychological anguish. Why? Because they can all be taken away in a moment—in a fire, a life-threatening illness, a hostile take-over of a company, a layoff, a market crash, a divorce, a terrible accident, etc. They may make us temporarily happy, but that is not what the Stoics meant by the Greek word eudaimonia. The eudaimonia of the Stoics was the sense of well-being that comes from the pursuit of virtue, or human excellence in the areas of wisdom, courage, justice, and moderation. The Stoics teach us it is possible to live an excellent (virtuous) human life, and thereby experience well-being, under any circumstances. That includes being imprisoned, enslaved, and even tortured. That is an entirely novel concept to most moderns. We tend to measure our happiness by externals—what we own, our health, job, relationships, etc. The Stoic argument against this measurement of happiness is really quite simple: Our human excellence (virtue) and resulting well-being cannot be dependent on anything we do not have complete control over. Otherwise, to use Epictetus’ language, we are a “slave” to those externals. What Is “Up to Us”? Enchiridion 1.1 makes it quite clear what is “up to us” and the list is quite short: Focus on the contents of the circle in the diagram above for a moment. That is our unimpeded circle of control. Nothing, no one, not even God can influence what is inside that circle. Epictetus teaches us that we have complete control over all three items in that circle—we are the master of that inner domain. Unfortunately, we typically desire to control those things outside of that circle—what the Stoic called “externals” or “indifferents.” We desire good health, some wealth, a good reputation, etc., and we fear sickness, poverty, low social status, etc. Epictetus repeats one profound truth throughout the Discourses and the Enchiridion, and it is quite easy to understand; however, most of us refuse to consider it. What is that truth? We spend most of our lives desiring and fearing things that are not “up to us” because we consider them “good” or “bad,” and that leads to our misery. Meanwhile, we neglect the things that are wholly within our control: our judgments, desires and aversions, and impulse to act. How important is this distinction between what and is not “up to us”? Epictetus mentions it in fifty of the ninety-six chapters of the Discourses, and sixteen of the fifty-three chapters of the Enchiridion. Chapter 1 of the Discourses is focused exclusively on the topic. In Enchiridion1, Epictetus draws a sharp contrast between two paths, and it serves as both a promise and a warning. Indifferents There is a lot of confusion about “indifferents” in Stoicism. It is a mistake to assume the Stoic practitioner—prokopton—is indifferent to all externals, if by ‘indifferent’ we mean a total lack of interest in them and no pursuit of them. Food, water, and shelter are “indifferents” in Stoicism. However, we will not survive long without them. It is a natural human impulse to survive; therefore, we will pursue food, water, and shelter. Additionally, Stoicism teaches us that we are social animals and it is our duty to be involved in society. If we misinterpret a life in agreement with nature, and misunderstand indifferents, we could easily turn Stoic practice into the ascetic life of a renunciate hermit. That is most certainly not what the Stoics had in mind. If you are living a life in isolation from as many externals as possible, including other humans, how will you develop your virtue? What would a life of wisdom, courage, justice, and moderation even look like without externals? The practice and development of virtue requires externals. Therefore, as a Stoic prokopton, we cannot deny all externals. The question that naturally arises then is this: What did the Stoics mean when they categorized all externals as indifferents? They meant they have no inherent moral value. They are neither “good” nor “bad” in the sense that possessing them makes us more or less virtuous. If we had a scale to measure value and we placed wisdom, courage, justice, and moderation on one side, that side of the scale would immediately drop as the value of virtue is immense. Now we start stacking indifferents on the other side—health, wealth, reputation, a house, high office, a long life, friends, family, a just government, etc. We keep stacking and stacking, but the scale doesn’t even budge. Why? Because none of those externals has any inherent value when measured against those virtues. Image adapted from - WorldArtsMe Nevertheless, there is an extremely important point that is frequently misunderstood about externals or “indifferents” (I use the words “externals” and “indifferents” interchangeably because all externals are indifferents): While they do not have any inherent value, many of them do have practical value. That means we can and must use some indifferents in our daily life—the Stoics labeled them “preferred indifferents.” These are indifferents that may be useful in the development of our human excellence (virtue). Therefore, our task as a Stoic prokopton is not to deny that indifferents have any value. Instead, our training must lead us to the realization that indifferents will not bring us happiness. Equally important is the understanding that desiring externals will bring us the opposite of virtue and happiness: It will result in psychological distress. Living Between Denial and Desire That brings us to where the rubber meets the road in our daily lives, where we must make choices about indifferents. Again, the Stoics were not renunciates; they did not renounce property, money, public office, social relationships, etc., as the ancient Cynics did. The Stoics did not deny the value of externals entirely; they denied their inherent value. The Stoic message is quite clear: Virtue is the only good; therefore, if we seek externals as a good, we will be hindered, we will lament, we will have a troubled mind, and ultimately, we will blame gods and humans for our distress (Enchiridion1). Nevertheless, we do choose some externals in our daily life as a part of being a social creature and fulfilling our duties. Epictetus uses the analogy of a banquet to drive this point home. Remember that you should behave in life as you do at a banquet. Something is being passed around and arrives in front of you: reach out your hand and take your share politely.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Prosochē: The Practice of Attention – Episode 5

Sun, 15 Apr 2018 07:00:17 GMT

This episode of Stoicism On Fire kicks off a series I call the path of the Prokopton. A prokopton is someone who is making progress along the Stoic path. This podcast is about the practice of Attention. The Stoics called it prosochē in Greek, and that word signifies an attitude and practice of attention. Pierre Hadot considered prosochē the fundamental Stoic spiritual attitude.[1] It is a state of continuous, vigilant, and unrelenting attentiveness to oneself—to the present impressions, present desires, and present actions, which shape our moral character (prohairesis).[2] My aim in this episode is to help you understand why it is so important to practice attention while on the path of the prokopton. When you relax your attention for a while, do not fancy you will recover it whenever you please; but remember this, that because of your fault of today your affairs must necessarily be in a worse condition in future occasions. (Discourses 4.12.1) Prosochē is essential for the prokoptōn to practice the three Stoic disciplines prescribed by Epictetus (Discourses 3.2.1-5). Constant attention is necessary to live in agreement with Nature. Once one embarks on the path of the prokoptōn, the attitude of prosochē serves as an ever-present, vigilant watchman to ensure we continue to make forward progress. As Epictetus warns, relaxing our attention (prosochē) is not only dangerous because of the faults which may be committed in the present, but he further warns that “because of your fault today your affairs must be necessarily in a worse condition on future occasions” (Discourses 4.12.1). The attitude and practice of prosochē focus our attention and provides the foundation for the Stoic disciplines, whose aim is a life of excellence (aretē) lived in accordance with Nature, wherein we experience human flourishing or well-being (eudaimonia). Attention - Not Perfection Before further discussion about the Stoic concept of prosochē, which can appear onerous at first glance, it is helpful to understand that progress in Stoicism does not require perfection. Yes, to be a Stoic sage does require perfection, but that’s not what I’m talking about right now. This episode is about making progress toward that ideal of the sage. It is unlikely any of us will ever become sages. Nevertheless, we can make progress—we can be a Stoic prokopton. Epictetus is clear on this issue, “So is it possible to be altogether faultless? No, that is impracticable..” (Discourses 4.12.19). The practice of Stoicism requires attention, not perfection. The goal of the prokoptōn is continual progress toward the perfection of the sage, without the expectation that he will ever achieve it. The Stoic sage serves as an ideal which we attentively focus our mind on as we practice the disciplines of assent, desire, and action. Again, according to Epictetus, the practicable goal of Stoicism is not perfection; instead, it is “to strive continuously not to commit faults” with the realistic hope that by “never relaxing our attention, we shall escape at least a few faults” (Ibid). So, what are we to do when we fail in our practice? What do we at those moments when we fail to live our Stoic principles? Epictetus provides us with a clear answer: In this contest, even if we should falter for a while, no one can prevent us from resuming the fight, nor is it necessary to wait another four years for the next Olympic Games to come around, but as soon as one has recovered and regained one’s strength, and can muster the same zeal as before, one can enter the fight; and if one should fail again, one can enter once again, and if one should carry off the victory one fine day, it will be as if one had never given in. (Discourses 3.25.4) There are two important points here that we have to balance. First, we have to pay attention to our thoughts, desires, fears, intentions, and actions. That means we’re going to have to focus on some area in our thinking that is less than ideal. We are going to fail occasionally. There is no question about that. When we do, we have to keep in mind that we do not have to be perfect to make progress. Our failure is only momentary. However, we have to stay on the path. If you have a bad moment, a bad day, if you get knocked down, don’t sit there and ruminate about it. Get up and get back in the fight. Learn from your failure and move on. Remember; attention; not perfection. What is Prosochē? Pierre Hadot, the French philosopher who helped reintroduce the concept of philosophy as a way of life wrote the following: Attention (prosoche) is the fundamental Stoic spiritual attitude. It is a continuous vigilance and presence of mind, self consciousness which never sleeps, and a constant tension of the spirit. Thanks to this attitude, the philosopher is fully aware of what he does at each instant, and he wills his actions fully. Thanks to his spiritual vigilance, the Stoic always has "at hand" (procheiron) the fundamental rule of life: that is, the distinction between what depends on us and what does not.A “fundamental attitude” of “continuous attention, which means constant tension and consciousness, as well as vigilance exercised at every moment.”[3] [T]he fundamental attitude of the Stoic philosopher was prosoche: attention to oneself and vigilance at every instant. For the Stoics, the person who is " awake" is always perfectly conscious not only of what he does, but of what he is. In other words, he is aware of his place in the universe and of his relationship to God. His self-consciousness is, first and foremost, a moral consciousness. A person endowed with such consciousness seeks to purify and rectify his intentions at every instant. He is constantly on the lookout for signs within himself of any motive for action other than the will to do good. Such self-consciousness is not, however, merely a moral conscience; it is also cosmic consciousness. The "attentive" person lives constantly in the presence of God and is constantly remembering God, joyfully consenting to the will of universal reason, and he sees all things with the eyes of God himself.[4] Obviously, the practice of prosochē is not easy. To use an old, worn-out adage, “If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.” The adjectives used to describe prosochē (tension, vigilance, self-consciousness, etc.) are enough to deter mere mortals. However, it is not as daunting as it first appears if we remember Epictetus taught us that perfection is “impracticable.” Our goal is to focus on the continuous practice of attention, rather than the perfection may likely never achieve. Moreover, Marcus Aurelius offered some practical advice which further reduces the perceived burden of prosochē by limiting the span of our attention to the present. Attention to the Present In Meditations 7.54 Marcus Aurelius applies the focus of his attention on the present. Everywhere and all the time it lies within your power to be reverently contented with your present lot, to behave justly to such people as are presently at hand, and to deal skilfully with your present impressions so that nothing may steal into your mind which you have not adequately grasped. According to Marcus, it lies within our power: To be reverently contented with our present lot – the discipline of desire To behave justly to such people as are presently at hand – the discipline of action To deal skillfully with our present impressions – the discipline of assent Since we are dealing with attention to the present, it is interesting that time does not exist in Stoicism; it only subsists, which means it is less real than corporeal reality. Time is a passing moment. Time is like the Heraclitan river that is perpetually changing. In the same way that we can never step into the same river twice; we cannot experience the same moment twice. Therefore, when we dwell on the past, we are ruminating on something that no longer exists in reality. The past only exists in our mind and only to the extent that we relive it mentally. Nevertheless, many people struggle to relinquish their compulsion to ruminate over the past and worry about the future. That creates mental anguish for us. If we want to travel the path of the prokoptōn, we must relinquish the past and future as externals over which we have no control. They are not up to us. We cannot make progress if we remain scattered and constantly distracted. The fleeting attention most of us give to the events of our lives epitomizes the attitude of mindlessness—not prosochē. As a prokoptôn, we must constantly apply the fundamental rule of life—the distinction between ‘what is up to us’ and what is ‘not up to us’—and that is accomplished by focusing our attention on that which is within our control at this present moment. Additionally, through the practice of attention, we begin to see the connection between our inner world of beliefs, desires, fears, and intentions, which constitute our moral character, and the outer world of action. Awareness of that connection exposes the causal web (or chain) where our moral character plays a causal role in the world. Our thoughts shape our desires, which molds our character, and then generates the impulses of our will toward action. Recognizing that sequence and taking responsibility for the judgments and thoughts that generate it is necessary to make progress on the Stoic path. Practicing Prosoche in the Present Seeing the World Anew Seneca, in Letters 64.6, writes about the inspired attitude a mere glimpse of virtue brings him. Even though he spends a great deal of time absorbed in thought about wisdom, he writes that he is no less astonished by her than when he looks up into the heavens as if seeing them for the first time. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and during the summers I spent many nights on what we called sleepouts.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Choosing the Stoic Path – Episode 4

Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:57:22 GMT

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. ~ Robert Frost[1] I love those lines from Robert Frost’s timeless poem The Road Not Taken. As a practicing Stoic, they take on new meaning because of the importance of choice. Robert Frost’s traveler stands at a fork in the road, and he must choose—path A or path B. During his contemplation, he acknowledges that he cannot travel both paths. Then, in these closing lines, Frost highlights the obvious—the chosen path, whatever it may be, will make a profound difference in one’s life. So why choose the Stoic path? Why did you choose the Stoic, if you’ve already made that choice? Why not Epicureanism, Scepticism, Platonism, Cynicism? Why a philosophical path at all? In this podcast, I’m going to argue that if you did choose the Stoic path, you may not have made that choice for the reasons you think you did. If you haven’t chosen a path yet, I’m going to give you some things to consider before you choose a path. As much as I personally love Stoicism and believe everyone can benefit from familiarity with its ethical principles, I do not believe the Stoic path is for everyone. The Stoics teach three natures: Universal Nature Human nature And our individual nature—we might call that your psychological makeup of personality. There is a good reason why we have a variety of philosophical paths—its call human variety. The first choice is for a philosophical life; an examined life. Sometimes, that choice is made when external circumstances force a reevaluation of our life. Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, faced one of those unexpected life events and the subsequent fork in the road as a shipwrecked merchant in a foreign city—Athens. According to Diogenes Laertius, Zeno used his downtime wisely; he stopped in an Athenian bookstore and read about the life of Socrates. A new path opened in Zeno’s mind—a fork in the road—and he faced a choice. The choice he made not only changed his life, but it is also fair to say it profoundly changed Western thought and impacted history in ways he could not have conceived. Frost’s famous traveler only faced two choices. We face a multitude of paths and numerous forking roads as we travel through our lives. Today, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, there is renewed interest in ancient wisdom and the philosophical way of life many lived at the time Zeno made his life-changing choice. I am going to focus on those options available in Hellenistic times when philosophy was practiced as a way of life, and consider why a person who has committed themselves to philosophy as a way of life might choose any of the schools available to them. Then I will offer some reasons why they might choose Stoicism. As Frost’s imaginary traveler considered his options, he knew two things. First, his choice would make a “difference” in his life. Second, knowing how “way leads on to way,” he understood it was unlikely he would ever make it back to explore The Road Not Taken. In other words, the choice was profoundly important and deserving of careful consideration. Moderns who are intrigued by virtue ethics and interested in philosophy as a way of life will likely find themselves facing a similar choice. Faced with several viable philosophical ways of life—Stoicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism, and Cynicism—which to choose? Unlike modern academic philosophy, ancient philosophy practiced as a way of life was not primarily intellectual; it was transformative. Its goal was not mere knowledge; instead, it intended to cure the soul of the practitioner by unburdening their mind of mistaken notions about the nature of reality and human nature and developing within them a state of moral excellence. This endeavor required more than philosophical discourse. That is why, as French philosopher Pierre Hadot so eloquently points out, ancient philosophical discourse and practice were intertwined and considered inseparable aspects of a way of life.[2] During Hellenistic times, philosophical schools created holistic systems of thought and practice designed to transform the practitioner through the practice of a prescribed way of life. The ancient philosophers were physicians of the soul (psyche), and their prescriptions were intended to heal. Nevertheless, they were not painless and easy methods. As Epictetus pointed out, A philosopher’s school, man, is a doctor’s surgery. You shouldn’t leave after having had an enjoyable time, but after having been subjected to pain. For you weren’t in good health when you came in; no, one of you had a dislocated shoulder, another an abscess, another a headache. (Discourses3.23.30) While philosophical theory was an essential part of practice for all ancient philosophical schools, it was not the primary motive that drove people to philosophy in general nor to any particular school. Instead, students were attracted to the philosophical way of life as a quest for wisdom, then they made a “specific existential choice”[3] to follow the path prescribed by one of the schools. Zeno’s Path to Stoicism While shipwrecked in Athens, Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, went to a bookseller’s shop and began reading Xenophon’s Memorabilia.Zeno was so impressed by the life of Socrates he asked the bookseller where such men could be found. As Diogenes Laertius tells the story, Crates the Cynic happened to walk by at that time, so the bookseller pointed him out and said, “Follow that man.”[4] Zeno did follow Crates and that was the beginning of his philosophical quest. Ultimately, Zeno left Crates and studied under Polemo at Plato’s Academy, and then under Stilpo at the Megarian school. Zeno borrowed elements from each of these schools and ultimately blended them with the concept of a conscious and providential cosmos to create the holistic philosophy of Stoicism. A close look at this story of Zeno and the Athenian bookseller, reveals several interesting things. First, it is fair to ask why Zeno was so impressed by the life of Socrates he found in Memorabilia. As Scottish philosopher William Leslie Davidson points out while highlighting “The Socratic Impulse” in Stoicism, “we can hardly question that the historical Socrates reasoned on Theistic lines, basing his conception of God and God's providence on teleology or the marks of design manifest in the universe…”[5] Therefore, within Xenophon’s Memorabilia, we see “the Socrates” who “was characterized by religious reverence and personal piety” and inspired Zeno to follow the path of philosophy.[6] Interestingly, Diogenes Laertius makes a specific note of the fact that Zeno was reading Book II of Memorabilia at the time he asked where men like Socrates could be found. We do not know if Zeno already completed Book I, which highlights the piety of Socrates and defends him against the charge that he did not believe in the gods of the city. Throughout Book I, Socrates counsels his companions to discipline their desires for externals like food, drink, sex, and wealth. Likewise, the opening lines of Book II take up that same theme: He turned his companions toward training themselves to be continent in their desire for meat and drink, and in regard to lust, sleep, cold, heat, and labor. (Memorabilia II.1.1) According to Diogenes Laertius, Zeno must have read those lines and then continued through Book II to an unknown place where his admiration for the life of Socrates inspired him to ask where he could find such men. We do not need to read much farther to find a good cause for Zeno’s enthusiasm. In Book II, chapter 1, verse 21, Xenophon retells Prodicus’ story of Heracles (Hercules) and his fateful choice between two paths. When Heracles was starting to enter adolescence from childhood—when youths, since they are already becoming their own rulers, make clear whether in life they will take the road through virtue or that through vice—going out to a quiet spot, he sat down perplexed as to which of the roads he should take. This story of Heracles is worth reading. I provide more details in previous blog post titles, Choosing The Stoic Path. Or, you can read the entire story here: The Memorabilia: Recollections of Socrates, Xenophon French philosopher Pierre Hadot argues that ancient students of philosophy chose the school they would follow in ancient times because of a “way of life” it offered. I find this argument convincing, and this podcast is based on his idea. He writes: The philosophical school thus corresponds, above all, to the choice of a certain way of life and existential option which demands from the individual a total change of lifestyle, a conversion of one’s entire being, and ultimately a certain desire to be and to live in a certain way.[7] Therefore, when moderns are considering which philosophical path to follow, they should keep several things in mind. First, all the Hellenistic schools claimed to provide a path to eudaimonia (happiness), even though they offered profoundly different paths to achieve it. Second, to argue that one school is better than another is somewhat meaningless. It is reasonable to assume there are examples of people from each school who did achieve that goal. In the end, it may be a matter of individual personality that inspires a person to prefer one school’s path over another. It may be that Epicureanism, Scepticism, Cynicism, and Stoicism all provide viable paths to eudaimonia. This is not an argument for subjectivism; it is an argument for tolerance. Philosophical discourse between schools remains a healthy part of the philosophical way of life. Nevertheless, none of these philosophical paths can be “proven” effective for everyone. Each may work quite well for a subset of humanity, and a little bit of humility amidst the inter-school rivalries and debates will serve us all well. Third, none of these philosophical paths offers a quick fix for psychological angst.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Stoic God – Episode 3

Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:54:30 GMT

It would be impossible to give a full account of the philosophy of the Stoics without, at the same time, treating of their theology; for no early system is so closely connected with religion as that of the Stoics. Founded, as the whole view of the world is, upon the theory of one Divine Being…There is hardly a single prominent feature in the Stoic system whichis not, more or less, connected with theology.[1] The Stoic God is an all-pervasive, immanent, active force in the cosmos, and is equivalent to and often called “Nature.” Zeus, pneuma, universal Reason, and logos are also used to refer to this active force. The Stoics used many names to refer to the divine principle in the cosmos. In fact, Cleanthes, the second head of the ancient Stoa addressed the Stoic God as follows in his Hymn to Zeus: Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names When describing the Stoic conception of God, it is actually easier to begin by listing the characteristic commonly attributed to deities that do not apply to the Stoic God. The Stoic God is NOT: Transcendent Supernatural Anthropomorphic Aristotle’s prime mover A metaphor An interventionist The Stoic God IS: Immanent Universal Reason Logos Providence Creative fire Active principle The generative principle (σπερματικός λογός) World-soul Breath (πνευμα) World mind Pantheism The Stoics are most frequently considered pantheists; however, deist, theist, and panentheistic qualities are found in the surviving writings. It is important to keep in mind that all of these labels are modern creations; therefore, none applies perfectly. The God of Stoicism does not fit neatly into any modern theological box.[2] More importantly, people use these terms with slightly different meanings, so we must be careful and accurate when we anachronistically refer to the Stoics using a modern term like pantheism. As an example, I have encountered several pantheists online who claim to be atheists. Simply put, at best this is an abuse of language. Our English word pantheism is derived from a combination of the Greek word pan, which means “all”; and theos, which means “god.” Therefore, pantheism means all is God. To declare oneself a pantheist and an atheist simultaneously may be a great conversation starter; however, if pressed, the individual making such a claim will necessarily have to redefine atheism to make that assertion sensible. Where does this come from? One contributor to this abuse of the word pantheism is Richard Dawkins, the fundamentalist advocate of New Atheism. He famously declared that pantheism is nothing more than “sexed-up atheism” in his book the God Delusion.[3] Interestingly, it appears the World Pantheist Movement agrees with Dawkins’ assessment: Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism – the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists – is the only one that passes the muster of the world’s most militant atheist.[4] Unfortunately, this appeal to the authority of Einstein is undercut by the fact that he vehemently denied being an atheist and was extremely critical of atheism on several occasions.[5] Abusing the definition of pantheism to include atheism adds confusion to discussions about an already difficult topic. I will leave this topic with a clear statement: If your definition of pantheism is open to atheism, then it does not apply to the ancient Stoics. There is no credible evidence the ancient Stoics entertained atheism. In fact, the overwhelming body of evidence points in the opposite direction; the ancient Stoics were deeply spiritual. Cleanthes, the second head of the Stoa, wrote the religious Hymn to Zeus; Posidonius, accused the Epicureans of atheism; a charge Philodemus, an Epicurean, felt compelled to deny in his work On Piety. Moreover, Marcus refers quite unflatteringly to "those who do not believe in the gods" (Meditations3.16). Finally, when Epictetus outlines five theological positions, he acknowledges, "there are some who say that the divine doesn’t even exist" (Discourses 1.12.1-3). The Stoics were quite aware of atheism and argued forcefully against it. Stoic Ontology (what exists) The Stoics considered theology the culmination or the crown jewel of Stoic physics. Therefore, to understand their conception of God, we need some grounding in their conception of being. This is called ontology in philosophy, and it is the study of what exists. Only Bodies exist That which acts That which is acted upon All bodies are comprised of two principles Passive principle – undifferentiated matter Active principle – pneuma, God Stoic Materialism Stoic ontology is frequently labeled “materialist” by scholars. However, they do not mean the reductive materialism of modern science when they use that label. In context, they label the Stoics as materialist to contrast them with the idealism of Plato. The Stoics did not agree with Plato’s conception of forms. Instead of external forms to which matter was conformed, the Stoics proposed an active principle (pneuma) that acted upon unsubstantiated matter from within. Therefore, the label “materialist” can lead to misunderstanding. As A.A. Long points argues, It is misleading to describe the Stoics as ‘materialists’. Bodies, in the Stoic system, are compounds of ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ (God or logos). Mind is not something other than body but a necessary constituent of it, the ‘reason’ in matter. The Stoics are better described as vitalists.[6] The Stoic God The Stoic conception of the divine and providential cosmos was there at the beginning of the Stoa, as highlighted by Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus. Here are the opening lines: Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names, ever all-powerful, Zeus,the First Cause of Nature, who rules all things with Law, Hail! It is right for mortals to call upon you, since from you we have our being, we whose lot it is to be God's image, wealone of all mortal creatures that live and move upon the earth. Accordingly, I will praise you with my hymn and ever sing of your might. As Brad Inwood, professor of philosophy at Yale University points out, The themes of Cleanthes' hymns lie at the heart of Stoicism and help to flesh out the doctrine of Chrysippus that theology is the culmination of physics…Like every branch of philosophy, physics is intimately concerned with the place of human beings in the coordinated whole which is run by Zeus.[7] Johan Thom, distinguished professor at Stellenbosch University, highlights one of the difficulties of understanding Stoic prayer and religion in his analysis of Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, The cause of the difficulty regarding Stoic prayer, and indeed Stoic religion in general, may be ascribed to the fact that Stoicism was, from the very beginning, not purely pantheistic, but an amalgam of pantheism and theism.[8] These theistic leanings are quite prominent in the Hymn to Zeus by Cleanthes, who is considered the “most religious”[9] of the early Stoics. Thus, Thom argues According to Cleanthes’ Hymn, the philosophical life is a religious life, and vice versa.[10] Likewise, the Discourses of Epictetus are rich in theistic language. The logos of Stoicism is not a personal God; nevertheless, in the history of the Stoa, God will tend to assume more and more spiritual and personal traits, religiousness will tend to permeate more and more strongly the system, and prayer will begin to acquire a precise meaning... The Stoa will turn, especially in the last stage, towards theism, but without arriving at it fully.[11] Even though the religious nature of Stoicism evolved over the course of its five-hundred-year history, the“vivid religious sense” was there from the founding of the Stoa and already found “full expression in the well-known Hymn to Zeus.”[12] Nature may be the easiest way for many people to conceive of the Stoic God. However, in Stoicism, Nature is not limited to plants and trees, although they are certainly included. Nature, for the Stoics, means a divinely ordered cosmos, and it is equivalent to God because pneuma—the active principle—permeates the entire cosmos and everything in it, including us humans. This divine cosmos is providential to the extent that everything works out for the good of the whole rather than the good of any particular person. A Modern Stoic Perspective Gregory Sadler, a member of the Modern Stoicism team, recently produced a YouTube video titled “Does Stoicism Believe in God?” During the first six minutes of the video, Dr. Sadler does a great job accurately describing the Stoic conception of God and differentiating it from the commonly held beliefs of many forms of theism. This topic is frequently ignored by modern Stoics, so I applaud Dr. Sadler for addressing it accurately. He even gives a small shout-out to traditional Stoics at 8:00. However, toward the end of the video, his comments reveal an unspoken, and possibly unconscious, bias I believe is common in modern Stoicism. At the seven-minute mark, Dr. Sadler identifies the "wide range of religious perspectives" of people involved in modern Stoicism, including Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Daoist. He then argues these religious perspectives require some 'syncretism’ to make them work, because, there are some places where ancient Stoicism and say Judaism and Christianity were clearly at odds with each other and couldn't be in entire agreement. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Sadler on this point. Nevertheless, while his assessment is quite accurate, it overlooks the fact that agnosticism and atheism also require some 'syncretism' to make them work with Stoicism. In other words, Dr. Sadler's point is equally true when restated as follows:

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Logos and Providence and God, OH MY! – Episode 2

Thu, 05 Apr 2018 15:48:22 GMT

A virtuous and good person, keeping in mind who he is, and where he has come from, and by whom he was created, concentrates on one thing alone: how he may fill his post in a disciplined manner, remaining obedient to God. (Discourses 3.24.95) I grew up watching The Wizard of Oz every year when it was broadcast on live TV. I always loved the famous scene where Dorothy, Tin Man, and Scarecrow enter the scary forest. As a young child, I was gripped by the almost palpable fear in Dorothy's voice as she asked the Tin Man, "Do you suppose we'll meet any wild animals?" This is the prelude to the familiar scene where the trio skips through the forest chanting: Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my! Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my! The tension of the scene mounts until the Lion bursts from the forest and confronts the trio with loud roars. Dorothy responded to the impression of the roaring Lion by running and hiding behind a tree; the Tin Man raised his ax in anticipation of an imminent attack, and the Scarecrow fell over backward, trembling with fear. Fortunately, it did not take long for the trio to discover this was a false impression and there was no reason to fear this Lion—he was all roar and no bite. In fact, after a brief, tense introduction the Lion became their friend and trusted traveling companion for the remainder of their journey to Oz. As strange as it admittedly sounds, this scene from The Wizard of Oz brings to mind my early experience with the Stoic texts in 2011. I had been a committed atheist for more than twenty years by that time. I was not a mere agnostic; I was an antitheist as a result of my personal experience with organized religion as a young man. Therefore, as I turned the pages of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, I found myself in the midst of a scary theological forest, filled with logos and providence and God. Oh My! I was not prepared to face my aversion to these religious bogeymen, and I nearly turned and ran from this Stoic text a second time. You see, I tried to read Marcus' Meditations more than a decade earlier, but my aversion to anything remotely religious made me incapable of dealing with the "God talk" I found within its pages, so I returned it on my bookshelf. Now, here I was, a decade later, in that same scary theological forest. This time, however, there was a sense of desperation. I was grasping for something to help me make sense of my life, and Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Happiness Hypothesis, pointed to the wisdom of Stoicism for guidance. Therefore, I purchased and read William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life, and Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism, where I discovered an affinity for Stoic psychological and ethical principles and practices. However, neither of those books included all of this God talk that confronted me within the pages Marcus’ Meditations. At first, I hoped Marcus get this God talk out of his system in the early pages of his Meditations; but alas, the God talk did not cease. It was there on nearly every page: Logos and Providence and God, Oh My! In my ignorance about the Stoics, I thought this might be limited to the writings of Marcus Aurelius; therefore, I turned to Epictetus’ Discourses hoping to find some reprieve from the God talk. Oh, my! Was I in for a big surprise. Marcus’ emphasis on a relationship with a divine and providential cosmos paled in comparison to Epictetus’ piety and expression of his relationship with the Stoic divinity in rather personal language. Logos and Providence and God, Oh My! As I read, I recoiled each time I encountered the word "God.” Worse, the concept of “providence” truly made my skin crawl. Nevertheless, Lawrence Becker and William Irvine had convinced me that Stoic theology was not essential to the practice of Stoicism, so I continued my effort to glean what I could from the Stoic texts while ignoring the God talk. In late 2011, I enrolled in the School of Essential Studies course (SES) offered by The College of Stoic Philosophers. I remained firm in my atheism throughout the course by naturalizing Stoic concepts like logos and pneuma as much as possible. I simply ignored the word providence because, like Becker, I considered it an untenable concept. Finally, each time I encountered the word “God” in the Stoic texts, I mentally replaced it with the word “nature” in my mind. God and Nature are synonymous in Stoicism; therefore, this seemed to be a reasonable substitution. Upon completion of the SES course, my atheism was intact, and I was still excited about what Stoicism had to offer. I wanted to learn more, so I enrolled in the one-year-long Marcus Aurelius Program at The College of Stoic Philosophers. Erik Wiegardt was my mentor during the SES course, and now he served as my tutor in the MA School. During the second term of MA School, I dove into the physics of Stoicism, and I soon discovered that Stoic physics includes theology. Oh My! It soon became clear that I was not going to find any reprieve from these theological concepts because they were an integral part of the Stoic philosophical system I was studying and the Stoic way of life I was attempting to live. Ultimately, I realized I was facing a choice. If I wanted to practice Stoicism the way the ancients did, I could not simply ignore or set aside the Stoic conception of the cosmos as Becker and Irvine suggested. The Stoic conception of the cosmos, including their theology, is an integral part of the holistic system known as Stoicism. The concepts cannot be redacted or ignored without affecting Stoic ethics and the Stoic way of life. Now that I was reading the Stoic texts and the scholarship on those texts, I could see that the departures from the traditional form of Stoicism by Becker and Irvine were significant. When they abandoned the Stoic worldview, they changed Stoic theory and practice at a fundamental level. I knew the ancient Stoics warned against deconstructing their system and offered similes of an egg, animal, and orchard to argue it could not be done without damage to the whole. However, until I read the Stoic texts for myself, I did not realize how different those texts were from the modern versions offered by people like Becker and Irvine. They were not simply updating Stoicism for moderns; they were redacting the Stoic worldview, along with its theology, to make Stoicism palatable for atheists like me. I appreciate their efforts. I likely would not have engaged Stoicism if I thought it required “belief” in God or a conscious and providential cosmos. Therefore, secularized versions of Stoicism serve a need, and many people find satisfaction in them and feel no need to venture into the scary theological forest of Stoicism. I was not one of them. As strong as my aversion to concepts like logos, providence, and God was, my intellectual curiosity inspired me to push forward. I soon realized that I was facing a choice I did not anticipate. I could remain committed to my atheism and move forward with a modern version of Stoicism like those I found in the writings of Irvine and Becker. Or, I could attempt what I previously considered unthinkable: I could give the ancient version of Stoicism, including its theology, some open-minded consideration. The latter option was a difficult task for a committed atheist. Fortunately, my mentor, Erik, did not push Stoic theology on me; he simply allowed the Stoic texts to speak for themselves. The MA School is not designed to convert anyone; it simply presents Stoic doctrines, unapologetically, and leaves the choice to the student. I faced this existential choice alone. This was a time of genuine intellectual and existential struggle for me. I learned how difficult it is to set the cognitive biases of a worldview aside long enough to even consider other possibilities. As uncomfortable as I was with Stoic theological concepts at that time, I chose the latter path. Nevertheless, I did not overcome my discomfort with the Stoic worldview quickly or easily. Trying on a New Worldview Over the course of more than eighteen months of dedicated study and contemplation, I came to two important realizations. First, the God of Stoicism is nothing like the deities of organized religion, with which I was familiar. Second, the Stoic doctrine of a conscious and providential cosmos is not as radical an idea as I first thought. In fact, I discovered that many modern scientists and philosophers were entertaining conceptions of reality that were similar, and in some cases compatible, with that of the ancient Stoics.[1] I began to realize there was a lot of science the infamous Four Horsemen of Atheism (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) avoided in their diatribes against religion. More importantly, most of their hyperbolic criticism of organized religion did not apply to the Stoic conception of God or a providential cosmos, or the practice of Stoicism as a way of life. Slowly, assumption by assumption, I set my atheistic cognitive bias aside and opened my mind to the possibility that the ancient Stoics may have grasped a profound truth: The order of the cosmos is not an accident, and human rationality must have a rational source. Of course, this wisdom was not discovered by the Stoics nor were they the only ones to assent to it. This truth is part of the perennial wisdom tradition that can be traced back to the beginning of human history in every culture. On the other hand, atheism, of the kind which permeates our modern secular age, is a recent intellectual invention. Nonetheless, atheism and its more militant New Atheist warriors influence our culture and our thought in profound ways we frequently overlook.[2] As moderns, living in a secular age, we are educated and socially conditioned to ignore and even recoil from religious concepts. The word "God" triggers a negative response in many people, and the idea of being "obedient to God" conjures a strong emotional reaction from most. For some,

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What Is Stoicism On Fire? – Episode 1

Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:17:56 GMT

Since this is the inaugural episode of Stoicism On Fire it would be natural for you the listener to wonder what this podcast is about. Obviously, it’s about Stoicism, but What is Stoicism on Fire? As the introduction states, this podcast is about Stoicism as a philosophical way of life, which includes a rational form of spirituality. That form of Stoicism has become known as traditional Stoicism in modern times. Ancient Stoicism: 300 BCE – 200 CE Many credible sources are available to explore the doctrines of Stoicism. Both of these trusted sources provide accurate explanations of Stoic doctrines and contrast that with modern or contemporary versions of Stoicism: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Stoicism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Stoicism Neo-Stoicism: 16th and 17th centuries Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Neo-Stoicism Modern Stoicism Has its roots in Lawrence Becker’s book A New Stoicism in 1998 – an attempt to revive Stoicism in a secular form. Modern Stoicism Blog Traditional Stoicism Grew out of Erik Wiegardt’s creation of the New Stoa in 1996. Traditional Stoicism is an attempt to make sense of the ancient Stoic way of life in light of what we have learned about human nature and the cosmos over the last two thousand years while remaining true to the deeply religious nature of Stoicism. Traditional Stoicism Blog The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps Peter Adamson, Professor of Philosophy at the LMU in Munich and at King's College London, takes listeners through the history of philosophy, "without any gaps." The series looks at the ideas, lives and historical context of the major philosophers as well as the lesser-known figures of the tradition. Lectures 60 through 68 address Stoicism; they can be found here: 60 – Walking on Eggshells: the Stoics on Logic 61 – Nobody’s Perfect: the Stoic on Knowledge 62 – We Didn’t Start the Fire: the Stoics on Nature 63 – Like a Rolling Stone: Stoic Ethics 64 – David Sedley on Stoicism 65 – Anger Management: Seneca 66 – You Can Chain My Leg: Epictetus 67 – The Philosopher King: Marcus Aurelius 68 – John Sellars on the Roman Stoics John Cooper John Cooper, of Princeton University, also provides a great one-hour long lecture on ‘The Stoic Way of Life’ as part of the 2011 John Locke lecture series produced by University of Oxford. Some key points of interest for traditional Stoics: @ 6:29 – The coherence of the Stoic philosophical system @ 6:48 – John Cooper argues: “In order to understand properly the Stoic way of life and its philosophical basis, we’re going to have to learn a great deal about their metaphysical and physical theory into which, as I have said, their ethical theory is set as the centerpiece of their whole philosophical system. @ 13:55 – The human relationship to the divine mind The full lecture can be found here: John Cooper Lecture A Box of my favorite things Kevin Patrick Jr wrote a blog post in November of 2015 that has remained quite relevant as the modern Stoic movement grows. He asks, How many of us have a box of our favorite things which we’ve haphazardly scrawled “STOICISM” across the side? Inside this box of decades’, generations’ worth of baggage, is there much room leftover for the ideas of Epictetus? Kevin's post is worth reading; he blogs as Mountain Stoic and this post can be found here: A box of my favorite things, with “STOICISM” scrawled on the side Pierre Hadot Maybe more than any other modern philosopher, Pierre Hadot reintroduced moderns to the concept of philosophy as a way of life. His books emphasize the deeply spiritual nature of Stoicism. In his book on the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, he wrote in the conclusion: All the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[1] This existential choice differentiates traditional Stoicism from the modern Stoic varients that deny the existence of the cosmic intelligence the ancient Stoics referred to as universal Reason, logos, or God. ENDNOTES: [1] Pierre Hadot, The Inner Citadel: the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998). pp. 308-9

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.