That fundamental rule of life is so profound. Easy to talk about but hard to practice! But it's well worth the effort and is a beautiful way to live.
Appreciate the article and analysis. It's writers like yourself that give meaning and depth to these wonderful teachings.
It seems like there's always people willing to exploit
something to gain followers/subscribers and of course wealth etc. Unfortunately those promoting Stoicism as a life hack to gain greater wealth, prestige etc have missed the target completely. Says a lot about what they truly value.
Fortunately there are people such as yourself who have good intentions to educate and inform the public about the true values of embracing philosophy as a way of life. Keep up the good work Massimo.
I asked about this on another’s comment, didn’t want to hijack their thread.
I understand your position on stockdale not being a stoic. Is it possible he wasn’t a stoic for staying in the army, but became a stoic or embraced stoicism later in capitivity?
What are thoughts on the so called stockdale paradox? Is that a stoic ideal?
Is your concern about stockdale more regarding a militaristic version stoicism, as opposed to what the man became.
For full transparency, stockdale is a stoic role model of mine even after you pointed out his flaw regarding staying in the army. Perhaps similar to Seneca remaining in his role as advisor to a deranged Nero.
As a prokopton I am willing to change my views. I don’t have an ego about it, I’m just seeking to learn a new perspective.
Adam, your attitude is certainly the right one. Let me try to address your points. It’s possible that Stockdale became a better Stoic after the captivity episode, but I have not run into any evidence of that. The standard story is that he has embraced Epictetus before the war.
The Stockdale paradox is a notion invented by Jim Collins, and consists in confronting the reality of one’s situation while maintaining an optimistic attitude of being able to handle that situation. It may be reasonable psychological advice, but I don’t think it’s Stoic. Epictetus would say that of course we need to look at the world as it is. But our goal is not to overcome difficulties (because that’s not up to us, since it’s an outcome), but rather to face those difficulties virtuously. The difference may appear subtle, but it is substantial.
Yes, I am very much concerned with a militaristic turn in modern Stoicism, because I think militarism is antithetical to Stoic philosophy (which, by the way, doesn’t mean the Stoics were pacifists: sometimes violence is necessary, as in the case of defense against outside aggression).
ho letto recentemente l'articolo di Henry Gruber sulle "pagine" di psyche.co: Don’t be stoic: Roman Stoicism’s origins show its perniciousness.
fra altre cose sig.Gruber scrive: Stoicism may seem a solution to many of our individual problems, but a society that is run by stoics, or filled with stoics, is a worse society for us to live in.
sono rimasta un po' spiazzata. non sarò la massima esperta di stoicismo, ma se ricordo bene un stoico non cercava di impegnarsi costantemente al servizio dell'interesse comune?
Eliza (if you don't mind I'm going to answer in English, so that others may benefit from our discussion), yeah, I saw that article. It's part of an unfortunate trend to criticize Stoicism on the basis of what I think are misunderstandings or prejudice.
Gruber makes a common mistake known in philosophy as presentism: the evaluation of historical periods, cultures, or individuals on the basis of modern moral standards. If we did so across the board we would never learn anything valuable from history, because there is always something to criticize about other people. (Gruber is also a student, not a professional historian yet, so he may perhaps be forgiven for his naiveté.)
His major problem seems to be with Seneca, though he conveniently largely ignores, for example, Epictetus. Gruber writes: "A Stoicism that glorifies Seneca glorifies the elite collaborator – willing to kill himself rather than rock the boat." And moreover: "We should not write speeches for Nero; nor should we glorify the power of the emperor."
Except of course that Stoicism is a philosophy that is adamantly opposed to glorifying anything or anyone. Seneca was a complex character, faced with an immensely difficult task (steering Nero), which he actually performed very well for five years, and eventually paid for with his life. I'd love to see Gruber doing better in Seneca's place.
Instead of killing himself, Gruber says, Seneca should have opposed Nero. We don't know the extent to which Seneca actually did oppose Nero, but let us not forget that he was ordered to commit suicide precisely because he was suspected of being part of the Pisonian conspiracy against the emperor! Historians seem to think that Seneca did not actively take place in the conspiracy. But he was very likely aware of it, as his nephew Lucan was a participant. For all effective purposes, being aware of a plot against the emperor and stay silent very much is equivalent to opposing the emperor.
Moreover, Gruber ignores the many other Stoics, several mentioned by name by both Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, who did openly oppose Nero (and Vespasian, and Domitian), and lost their lives or were sent into exile for their troubles.
As for Seneca writing in defense of Nero, that is true. At the time he did so, Seneca still hoped to steer the young emperor in a better direction. But people also forget that he wrote On Clemency. That treatise is often regarded as a panegyric to glorify Nero, but in fact contains a number of not-so-veiled threats against the emperor, along the lines of "you better govern justly or else you are likely to be killed." I think that took guts!
Does the above help putting things into perspective a bit?
I feel more comfortable writing in Italian, but as someone who tries to practice stoicism, I will get out of my comfort zone and test myself :) in English.
You explained this very well. I am surprised that Gruber is so confident in expressing his opinion on this subject without even being a historian of philosophy. This whole topic, your post and Gruber's article reminds me of a course at the University of Warsaw by Dr. Paulina Seidler, who is like you a philosopher of science and a practicing stoic - a course on how easy it is to fall into the trap of false information, including scientific information presented on the Internet or social media.
That's why I consider arrogance and overconfidence to be elements that destroy contemporary mass media and interpersonal relations.
I would let philosophers to write about philosophy and all those who express their superficial opinions to pay attention to their thoughts and actions ;)
It's a good exercise to get out of one's comfort zone!
Regarding Gruber's article, I'm surprised it was published in Psyche, which is usually a high-quality publication. But we all make mistake, and I suppose there is a temptation in publishing something that goes against prevalent opinion.
I feel like we reached "peak stoic" the other day when I saw someone on Reddit ask how to watch porn stoically. I assume the answer is: Imagine the actors are corpses, desiccated in the sun.
I really love your articles and books and that is why I subscribed to "figs in winter", which is a real gem and thought provoking. Having said this, I have a few considerations (please forgive my style and my English) 1. I can't understand the way you interpret Stoicism. You tell us many things about Stoic ethics but you say nothing on Stoic attitude towards Monarchy and the Monarchs. Is it true or not that they considered kings and monarchs as an incarnation of the Cosmic Law? ("Lex Animata") I am sure you know very well that Zeno ( the founder of the Stoa, was invited by Antigonos Gonatas to his court and he only refused because he was too old to leave his home. He sent his best friend and student Persaios who was happy to go to Antigonos' court and serve him as his master. He even died for him . He was killed as a soldier defending Corinth when Aratus tried to liberate the city. I have also mentioned (in a former discussion), Sphaerus Borysthenes who was an ardent admirer of Sparta and of Cleomenes III , the Spartan king who tried to revive Sparta's glory. Funny thing, almost all known Stoics, despite their so called "internationalism" admired Sparta, the city that kept its borders closed to foreigners ...
3. I think Nancy Sherman's book "Stoic Warriors" captures the essence of the Stoic stance on War and Discipline. I wonder how can you expect from a Stoic who more than any other considers his duty to obey the Laws of his Country and of his Leader, how can you expect of him to cry: " No! this is immoral !" to his Captain, Leader, Ruler, Governor. Disobeying them is unthinkable for a Stoic. Only an Epicurean (perhaps) or even a Cynic might stand against a tyrant. But certainly not Stoics since they considered them as the Authority they had to obey. And this in my view is one of the most fascinating contradictions of Stoicism.
3. I believe that a Russian soldier can be a good Stoic and serve Putin as a Lex Animata in the same way your favorite Mandela was serving Virtue. It is rather a matter of view: Stoicism is a very flexible philosophy indeed.
I don't think a Stoic can serve a tyrant. (And of course being a king is not the same as being a tyrant.) We have plenty of examples of Stoics who rebelled against tyranny, from the so-called Stoic opposition against Nero, Vespasian, and Domitian to Cato the Younger's rebellion against the tyranny of Julius Caesar, to Gaius Blossius helping the populares party of the Gracchi brothers in Republican Rome.
That said, for a Stoic whatever type of government is a preferred or dispreferred indifferent, that is, something that is the object of exercise of virtue, neither good nor bad in itself. And I do find this particular aspect of Stoic philosophy problematic. So do others, like David Sedley, for instance, who wrote an interesting paper on Brutus and the ethics of tyrannicide.
As for internationalism, there is no question that the Stoics were cosmopolitans. Regardless of their admiration for the fortitude of the Spartans, they were very clear that the needs of the cosmopolis override those of any specific country. Marcus Aurelius says so explicitly in Meditations IX.44.
Finally, remember that the ideal Stoic society described by Zeno in his Republic is essentially founded on (enlightened) anarchism.
Thank you for your prompt response. (I would return on this if you dont mind). I think I have read D. Sedley's paper-was it a link you had commented in your blog : "philosophy as a way of life" ? You had also written a very important article on this subject (the tyrannicide). By the way, how (an where) can we find your earlier papers ?
I appreciate your descriptions of bad Stoicism and the phrase of life hackery vs philosophy is a great way to remember that. I found your comments about Stockdale very interesting. I have his book but have not started it yet. In your view, Professor, is it impossible for someone in the military to be practicing Stoic philosophy?
Bill, Stockdale's book is quite interesting even outside of Stoicism. I've read it and found it worth the effort.
No, I don't think it's impossible to practice Stoicism in the military, because Stoicism is not a pacifist philosophy. However, it would be challenging. A good Stoic would refuse to do what he is being ordered to do if he thinks the action would be unvirtuous. Not a good recipe for succeeding in the military...
Thank you for such a clearly reasoned critique. I’m currently teaching Stoicism to my year 12 philosophy class (that’s the final year of high school here in Australia) so this will prove invaluable to their understanding and evaluations of the philosophy.
Their task is to evaluate Stoicism for its usefulness in a wellbeing context. A common question we come to in our discussions is how mental health might impact one’s ability to practice Stoicism, particularly in terms of the dichotomy of control.
Just wondering what’s your perspective on Stoicism and mental health, or if you could point me in the direction of articles you’d recommend we read?
Thank you Massimo! We will investigate those texts in class. Greatly appreciated.
It seems to me that your point about Stockdale and co. picking aspects of Stoicism can be applied to criticisms of the philosophy more broadly too. Most criticisms I have read seem to take issue with some part of Stoicism, but can be refuted by considering the philosophy as a whole. The idea that Stoicism is guilty of passivity or lacking a social conscience, for example, seems at odds with the virtues of courage and justice, and the cosmopolitanism you outline in your essay. Would you agree?
Paul, I would put it differently. Stockdale isn't picking an aspect of Stoicism-the-philosophy, he's using one of the techniques. The two can be completely decoupled. By contrast, when someone argues that Stoicism could use a social-political philosophy that criticism is meant to work within Stoicism in order to improve the actual philosophy. If that makes sense.
Here's a side point: Since the 4 Noble Truths require the 8fold Path (the Middle Way) and the Path requires Right Meditation, what exactly is a Buddhist who doesn't meditate? And what is a Stoic who just reads about it, but doesn't engage himself in commitment to a practice. Re Xianity: James 1:22 Be doers of the word and not hearers only deceiving your own selves.
Ron, interesting point. I don't know enough about Buddhism to speak for that tradition. I have simply been told that plenty of Buddhists don't meditate. My guess is that meditation *facilitates* but is not *mandatory* for the eightfold path.
Regarding Stoicism, practicing Stoicism doesn't mean to journal or to get up in the morning to see the sun rise. It means to be courageous, just, and temperate in your day to day life. "Doing" doesn't require the techniques, though the techniques facilitate the doing.
Thanks Massimo. Stockdale was never one of my role models, but that aside, you pinpoint what about his behavior was problematic. His behavior after the Gulf of Tonkin was indeed blameworthy. I don't fault him on not living up to an ideal sage, but I don't recall that he ever fully acknowledged his complicity in the pentagon war machine enough to prevent doing the same thing in the future. Thanks for the essay.
"Externals like health, wealth, career, reputation, and so forth are not up to us, and therefore we should not concern ourselves with them, says Epictetus. "
It seems to me that these are all things we can influence, if not completely control. I could have chosen to go into defense 'research' and definitely enhanced wealth. I don't think it would have done much for Eudaimonia.
Things that we can influence always break down into the two basic components: those are up to us and those not up to us.
You could not have gone into defense research. You could have made a decision to do so. Whether your decision became reality would have depended on external factors.
The external factors were such that with some effort I could have gotten a high-paying defense job. It was up to me whether to do that or not. Of course, the effort could have failed. Indeed on the one defense-related job interview, I went on (Bell Labs) it did fail.
It seems to me that the distinction between what we control and what we don't is not that clear-cut. That's why I said 'influence' not choose. We can influence wealth, health, etc.
Again, no, the distinction is clear and absolute. Every time you use the word "influence" what that means is that you can make decisions and initiate actions (entirely up to you) and that the outcomes of those actions ultimately depend on additional external factors (not up to you). It's the combination of what is and is not up to you that explains the ability to "influence."
Take health: I can "influence" my health by deciding to eat well, exercise, go to the doctor, etc.. These are all judgments and actions stemming from judgments, all up to me. But my health further depends on accidents, diseases, genetics, environment, other people's actions, and so forth. None of which is up to me.
I don’t mean to be difficult and jump in here. I’m currently going through your book How To Be A Stoic. In chapter 9 you mention stockdale as one of your role models. Has something changed? I agree with your assessment here that him staying in the war was not stoic, but can one fail at being a stoic but still be a stoic later in life learning from the mistakes?
I wonder if we practiced pure Stoicism would our lives be shortened by those who have executive power over us? 🤔🤷🏻♂️😬😊
Sometimes. Asked Socrates. Or Cato. Or Thrasea Paetus. Or Helvidius Priscus.
That fundamental rule of life is so profound. Easy to talk about but hard to practice! But it's well worth the effort and is a beautiful way to live.
Appreciate the article and analysis. It's writers like yourself that give meaning and depth to these wonderful teachings.
It seems like there's always people willing to exploit
something to gain followers/subscribers and of course wealth etc. Unfortunately those promoting Stoicism as a life hack to gain greater wealth, prestige etc have missed the target completely. Says a lot about what they truly value.
Fortunately there are people such as yourself who have good intentions to educate and inform the public about the true values of embracing philosophy as a way of life. Keep up the good work Massimo.
Thanks for this thoughtful article.
David, thanks for the kind words. And yes, I too find the fundamental rule to be not just useful, but beautiful!
Thank you very much 👍🏻
brilliant
I asked about this on another’s comment, didn’t want to hijack their thread.
I understand your position on stockdale not being a stoic. Is it possible he wasn’t a stoic for staying in the army, but became a stoic or embraced stoicism later in capitivity?
What are thoughts on the so called stockdale paradox? Is that a stoic ideal?
Is your concern about stockdale more regarding a militaristic version stoicism, as opposed to what the man became.
For full transparency, stockdale is a stoic role model of mine even after you pointed out his flaw regarding staying in the army. Perhaps similar to Seneca remaining in his role as advisor to a deranged Nero.
As a prokopton I am willing to change my views. I don’t have an ego about it, I’m just seeking to learn a new perspective.
Adam, your attitude is certainly the right one. Let me try to address your points. It’s possible that Stockdale became a better Stoic after the captivity episode, but I have not run into any evidence of that. The standard story is that he has embraced Epictetus before the war.
The Stockdale paradox is a notion invented by Jim Collins, and consists in confronting the reality of one’s situation while maintaining an optimistic attitude of being able to handle that situation. It may be reasonable psychological advice, but I don’t think it’s Stoic. Epictetus would say that of course we need to look at the world as it is. But our goal is not to overcome difficulties (because that’s not up to us, since it’s an outcome), but rather to face those difficulties virtuously. The difference may appear subtle, but it is substantial.
Yes, I am very much concerned with a militaristic turn in modern Stoicism, because I think militarism is antithetical to Stoic philosophy (which, by the way, doesn’t mean the Stoics were pacifists: sometimes violence is necessary, as in the case of defense against outside aggression).
I hope this helps!
ho letto recentemente l'articolo di Henry Gruber sulle "pagine" di psyche.co: Don’t be stoic: Roman Stoicism’s origins show its perniciousness.
fra altre cose sig.Gruber scrive: Stoicism may seem a solution to many of our individual problems, but a society that is run by stoics, or filled with stoics, is a worse society for us to live in.
sono rimasta un po' spiazzata. non sarò la massima esperta di stoicismo, ma se ricordo bene un stoico non cercava di impegnarsi costantemente al servizio dell'interesse comune?
Eliza (if you don't mind I'm going to answer in English, so that others may benefit from our discussion), yeah, I saw that article. It's part of an unfortunate trend to criticize Stoicism on the basis of what I think are misunderstandings or prejudice.
Gruber makes a common mistake known in philosophy as presentism: the evaluation of historical periods, cultures, or individuals on the basis of modern moral standards. If we did so across the board we would never learn anything valuable from history, because there is always something to criticize about other people. (Gruber is also a student, not a professional historian yet, so he may perhaps be forgiven for his naiveté.)
His major problem seems to be with Seneca, though he conveniently largely ignores, for example, Epictetus. Gruber writes: "A Stoicism that glorifies Seneca glorifies the elite collaborator – willing to kill himself rather than rock the boat." And moreover: "We should not write speeches for Nero; nor should we glorify the power of the emperor."
Except of course that Stoicism is a philosophy that is adamantly opposed to glorifying anything or anyone. Seneca was a complex character, faced with an immensely difficult task (steering Nero), which he actually performed very well for five years, and eventually paid for with his life. I'd love to see Gruber doing better in Seneca's place.
Instead of killing himself, Gruber says, Seneca should have opposed Nero. We don't know the extent to which Seneca actually did oppose Nero, but let us not forget that he was ordered to commit suicide precisely because he was suspected of being part of the Pisonian conspiracy against the emperor! Historians seem to think that Seneca did not actively take place in the conspiracy. But he was very likely aware of it, as his nephew Lucan was a participant. For all effective purposes, being aware of a plot against the emperor and stay silent very much is equivalent to opposing the emperor.
Moreover, Gruber ignores the many other Stoics, several mentioned by name by both Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, who did openly oppose Nero (and Vespasian, and Domitian), and lost their lives or were sent into exile for their troubles.
As for Seneca writing in defense of Nero, that is true. At the time he did so, Seneca still hoped to steer the young emperor in a better direction. But people also forget that he wrote On Clemency. That treatise is often regarded as a panegyric to glorify Nero, but in fact contains a number of not-so-veiled threats against the emperor, along the lines of "you better govern justly or else you are likely to be killed." I think that took guts!
Does the above help putting things into perspective a bit?
Thank you for your answer.
I feel more comfortable writing in Italian, but as someone who tries to practice stoicism, I will get out of my comfort zone and test myself :) in English.
You explained this very well. I am surprised that Gruber is so confident in expressing his opinion on this subject without even being a historian of philosophy. This whole topic, your post and Gruber's article reminds me of a course at the University of Warsaw by Dr. Paulina Seidler, who is like you a philosopher of science and a practicing stoic - a course on how easy it is to fall into the trap of false information, including scientific information presented on the Internet or social media.
That's why I consider arrogance and overconfidence to be elements that destroy contemporary mass media and interpersonal relations.
I would let philosophers to write about philosophy and all those who express their superficial opinions to pay attention to their thoughts and actions ;)
It's a good exercise to get out of one's comfort zone!
Regarding Gruber's article, I'm surprised it was published in Psyche, which is usually a high-quality publication. But we all make mistake, and I suppose there is a temptation in publishing something that goes against prevalent opinion.
Thoughtful, timely and very needed....thank you....this is why I subscribed to your blog.....
Much appreciated, David.
I feel like we reached "peak stoic" the other day when I saw someone on Reddit ask how to watch porn stoically. I assume the answer is: Imagine the actors are corpses, desiccated in the sun.
😆 I'm pretty sure the Stoic answer to watching porn would be: "don't." It's not good for your character.
😂 of course
I really love your articles and books and that is why I subscribed to "figs in winter", which is a real gem and thought provoking. Having said this, I have a few considerations (please forgive my style and my English) 1. I can't understand the way you interpret Stoicism. You tell us many things about Stoic ethics but you say nothing on Stoic attitude towards Monarchy and the Monarchs. Is it true or not that they considered kings and monarchs as an incarnation of the Cosmic Law? ("Lex Animata") I am sure you know very well that Zeno ( the founder of the Stoa, was invited by Antigonos Gonatas to his court and he only refused because he was too old to leave his home. He sent his best friend and student Persaios who was happy to go to Antigonos' court and serve him as his master. He even died for him . He was killed as a soldier defending Corinth when Aratus tried to liberate the city. I have also mentioned (in a former discussion), Sphaerus Borysthenes who was an ardent admirer of Sparta and of Cleomenes III , the Spartan king who tried to revive Sparta's glory. Funny thing, almost all known Stoics, despite their so called "internationalism" admired Sparta, the city that kept its borders closed to foreigners ...
3. I think Nancy Sherman's book "Stoic Warriors" captures the essence of the Stoic stance on War and Discipline. I wonder how can you expect from a Stoic who more than any other considers his duty to obey the Laws of his Country and of his Leader, how can you expect of him to cry: " No! this is immoral !" to his Captain, Leader, Ruler, Governor. Disobeying them is unthinkable for a Stoic. Only an Epicurean (perhaps) or even a Cynic might stand against a tyrant. But certainly not Stoics since they considered them as the Authority they had to obey. And this in my view is one of the most fascinating contradictions of Stoicism.
3. I believe that a Russian soldier can be a good Stoic and serve Putin as a Lex Animata in the same way your favorite Mandela was serving Virtue. It is rather a matter of view: Stoicism is a very flexible philosophy indeed.
I don't think a Stoic can serve a tyrant. (And of course being a king is not the same as being a tyrant.) We have plenty of examples of Stoics who rebelled against tyranny, from the so-called Stoic opposition against Nero, Vespasian, and Domitian to Cato the Younger's rebellion against the tyranny of Julius Caesar, to Gaius Blossius helping the populares party of the Gracchi brothers in Republican Rome.
That said, for a Stoic whatever type of government is a preferred or dispreferred indifferent, that is, something that is the object of exercise of virtue, neither good nor bad in itself. And I do find this particular aspect of Stoic philosophy problematic. So do others, like David Sedley, for instance, who wrote an interesting paper on Brutus and the ethics of tyrannicide.
As for internationalism, there is no question that the Stoics were cosmopolitans. Regardless of their admiration for the fortitude of the Spartans, they were very clear that the needs of the cosmopolis override those of any specific country. Marcus Aurelius says so explicitly in Meditations IX.44.
Finally, remember that the ideal Stoic society described by Zeno in his Republic is essentially founded on (enlightened) anarchism.
Thank you for your prompt response. (I would return on this if you dont mind). I think I have read D. Sedley's paper-was it a link you had commented in your blog : "philosophy as a way of life" ? You had also written a very important article on this subject (the tyrannicide). By the way, how (an where) can we find your earlier papers ?
Yes, I commented on Sedley's paper here: https://philosophyasawayoflife.medium.com/brutus-cassius-and-the-philosophy-of-tyrannicide-dec3dc7f8928
You can find links to all my archived sites here: https://massimopigliucci.org
My most recent batch of articles (406) before this newsletter is here: https://philosophyasawayoflife.medium.com
Thank you very much sir.
I appreciate your descriptions of bad Stoicism and the phrase of life hackery vs philosophy is a great way to remember that. I found your comments about Stockdale very interesting. I have his book but have not started it yet. In your view, Professor, is it impossible for someone in the military to be practicing Stoic philosophy?
Bill, Stockdale's book is quite interesting even outside of Stoicism. I've read it and found it worth the effort.
No, I don't think it's impossible to practice Stoicism in the military, because Stoicism is not a pacifist philosophy. However, it would be challenging. A good Stoic would refuse to do what he is being ordered to do if he thinks the action would be unvirtuous. Not a good recipe for succeeding in the military...
Thank you for such a clearly reasoned critique. I’m currently teaching Stoicism to my year 12 philosophy class (that’s the final year of high school here in Australia) so this will prove invaluable to their understanding and evaluations of the philosophy.
Their task is to evaluate Stoicism for its usefulness in a wellbeing context. A common question we come to in our discussions is how mental health might impact one’s ability to practice Stoicism, particularly in terms of the dichotomy of control.
Just wondering what’s your perspective on Stoicism and mental health, or if you could point me in the direction of articles you’d recommend we read?
Thanks again
Paul, glad to hear the essay may be useful for your class!
There is good evidence that Stoic techniques are useful to address some mental health issues. See this article on depression (https://modernstoicism.com/how-stoicism-helped-me-overcome-depression-by-andrew-overby/), this one on anxiety (https://modernstoicism.com/stoicism-as-an-ally-against-anxiety-by-fidel-beserra/) and this one on both (https://modernstoicism.com/investigating-the-impact-of-stoicism-for-those-at-risk-of-anxiety-and-depression-findings-and-reflections-by-alexander-maclellan/).
Then there is Don Robertson's book on the philosophy of CBT: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10140570-the-philosophy-of-cognitive-behavioural-therapy
Thank you Massimo! We will investigate those texts in class. Greatly appreciated.
It seems to me that your point about Stockdale and co. picking aspects of Stoicism can be applied to criticisms of the philosophy more broadly too. Most criticisms I have read seem to take issue with some part of Stoicism, but can be refuted by considering the philosophy as a whole. The idea that Stoicism is guilty of passivity or lacking a social conscience, for example, seems at odds with the virtues of courage and justice, and the cosmopolitanism you outline in your essay. Would you agree?
Paul, I would put it differently. Stockdale isn't picking an aspect of Stoicism-the-philosophy, he's using one of the techniques. The two can be completely decoupled. By contrast, when someone argues that Stoicism could use a social-political philosophy that criticism is meant to work within Stoicism in order to improve the actual philosophy. If that makes sense.
Here's a side point: Since the 4 Noble Truths require the 8fold Path (the Middle Way) and the Path requires Right Meditation, what exactly is a Buddhist who doesn't meditate? And what is a Stoic who just reads about it, but doesn't engage himself in commitment to a practice. Re Xianity: James 1:22 Be doers of the word and not hearers only deceiving your own selves.
Ron, interesting point. I don't know enough about Buddhism to speak for that tradition. I have simply been told that plenty of Buddhists don't meditate. My guess is that meditation *facilitates* but is not *mandatory* for the eightfold path.
Regarding Stoicism, practicing Stoicism doesn't mean to journal or to get up in the morning to see the sun rise. It means to be courageous, just, and temperate in your day to day life. "Doing" doesn't require the techniques, though the techniques facilitate the doing.
Thanks Massimo. Stockdale was never one of my role models, but that aside, you pinpoint what about his behavior was problematic. His behavior after the Gulf of Tonkin was indeed blameworthy. I don't fault him on not living up to an ideal sage, but I don't recall that he ever fully acknowledged his complicity in the pentagon war machine enough to prevent doing the same thing in the future. Thanks for the essay.
"Externals like health, wealth, career, reputation, and so forth are not up to us, and therefore we should not concern ourselves with them, says Epictetus. "
It seems to me that these are all things we can influence, if not completely control. I could have chosen to go into defense 'research' and definitely enhanced wealth. I don't think it would have done much for Eudaimonia.
Things that we can influence always break down into the two basic components: those are up to us and those not up to us.
You could not have gone into defense research. You could have made a decision to do so. Whether your decision became reality would have depended on external factors.
The external factors were such that with some effort I could have gotten a high-paying defense job. It was up to me whether to do that or not. Of course, the effort could have failed. Indeed on the one defense-related job interview, I went on (Bell Labs) it did fail.
It seems to me that the distinction between what we control and what we don't is not that clear-cut. That's why I said 'influence' not choose. We can influence wealth, health, etc.
Again, no, the distinction is clear and absolute. Every time you use the word "influence" what that means is that you can make decisions and initiate actions (entirely up to you) and that the outcomes of those actions ultimately depend on additional external factors (not up to you). It's the combination of what is and is not up to you that explains the ability to "influence."
Take health: I can "influence" my health by deciding to eat well, exercise, go to the doctor, etc.. These are all judgments and actions stemming from judgments, all up to me. But my health further depends on accidents, diseases, genetics, environment, other people's actions, and so forth. None of which is up to me.
Yes, i’m afraid it can. And has. Can’t wait!
Confession: based on very little information, but I was not much of a Stockdale “I don’t even know why I’m here” (parody) fan even before I read this.
Good for you, Ed. And yet you wouldn't believe how many people consider Stockdale a role model, even within the Stoic community.
I don’t mean to be difficult and jump in here. I’m currently going through your book How To Be A Stoic. In chapter 9 you mention stockdale as one of your role models. Has something changed? I agree with your assessment here that him staying in the war was not stoic, but can one fail at being a stoic but still be a stoic later in life learning from the mistakes?
My apologies, I see this was addressed later in the comments.
No need to apologize. Let me know if you have lingering questions on the subject.