When presented with a thought, in order to assess/measure/match it, prohairesis brings up / selects a standard. That standard might be a principle or an opinion. After the match or mismatch is recognized, the choosing occurs automatically: if match, then assent; if mismatch, then no assent.

The choosing between assenting and not assenting is automatic. Prahairesis’/your selection compels the “choosing” one way or the other.

“It isn’t the things themselves that disturb people, but the judgements that they form about them.”—Epictetus, E5

I read Epictetus' 'judgment' as 'assent': What disturbs people is (internal) assents, not (external) thoughts.

The chain goes like this:

• The thought "That word hurt me" is presented to prohairesis/you;
• you select a standard;
• if that standard was an opinion, then the thought might match it,
• an assent/judgment occurs, 
• a corresponding belief is formed, and
• the body conforms to that belief by acting accordingly.

The present(ed) thought is an external, not up to you, not yours. The only thing that is yours, up to you, is selecting a standard, which might be a principle or an opinion. If the former, then you live well. If the latter, then you don’t live well.

———

Now, in order to select a principle, they need to exist and you need to be able to recognize them. 

Principles are not beliefs, they are unchanging meanings, universals. If such things are fictions, then all that is left for you is baseless subjective everchanging beliefs. Assents “based” on baseless opinions are baseless, logically vicious by circularity or infinite regression. If there are no principles, then morality collapses like a house of cards and we are doomed to be vicious. 

No principles, no morality — “every man for himself and devil for all.”

“One should know that it isn’t easy for a person to arrive at a firm judgement unless, day after day, he states and hears the same principles, and at the same time applies them to his life.”—Epictetus, F16

SPOILER WARNING (well I'm not describing what happened but still).

So obviously this is for those who have seen the film. As I saw it, it was a critique of the type of buddhism that tries to ascend above all humanly emotions of pain, joy etc. towards a kind of ethereal serenity. But you could also see it as a critique of a perhaps "naive" stereotype of stoicism: that we shouldn't let anything move us and that all heightened emotions are a sign of "failing at being stoic".

Anyway, I was greatly moved by it and felt like the fear of (especially emotional) pain is an obstacle in itself that can lead to a kind of avoidance-based premature enlightenment, i.e. based on managing to mainly ignore things that would put you off balance. Or, lying to yourself that something doesn't bother you when it actually does.

Explore the revolutionary concept of identity shifting and its transformative power in this enlightening video. Dive into the teachings of Marcus Aurelius Stoicism and learn how to redefine your identity for personal growth and fulfillment. Discover practical techniques and philosophical insights to embark on a journey of self-discovery and reinvention. Whether you're seeking to break free from limiting beliefs or embrace new opportunities, this video offers guidance to help you unlock your true potential and live authentically.

I feel like I very often get angry over little things that shouldn’t mean anything. for example when my friends makes jokes about and stuff i often take it personally and struggle to laugh along. but when everyone else makes jokes about them they’re completely fine. don’t worry i don’t have bad friends or anything and they’re all genuinely good people and we all joke with each other like this. but i feel like im the only one in the friend group who takes them personally. how can I get out of this mindset and stop caring so much about the jokes?

ἀδιάφορον/adiaphoron is a Stoic term meaning: that which makes no difference with regard to your happiness. It is the negation of διάφορον/diaphoron: that which makes a difference with regard to your happiness.

Diaphoron is the choosing mind (prohairesis), which is either good or bad. Adiaphora is everything else, all the things that are external to prohairesis — those things are neither good nor bad.

Only the mind that chooses to assent or not to the present thought on the grounds of a principle is good. Only the mind that assents to the present thought on the grounds of an opinion is bad. In short, “only virtue is good, only vice is bad.”

Prohairesis is diaphoron, it makes a difference, it obtains change, it is consequential, it has effects, it is a cause, a corporeal, a local instance of Logos.

Prohairesis is you yourself. You can be either good or bad, depending on whether you choose to assent or not to the present thought on the grounds of a principle (and then you are good) or on the grounds of an opinion (and then you are bad).

Only you are good or bad. That’s ΔΙΑΦΟΡON, what I call the Stoic principle described above, basically a more explicit version of the “only virtue is good, only vice is bad” principle.

I find it more practical to remember, whenever a thought calls an external good or bad, that that’s not true, because only I can be good or bad.

I just killed my dog on purpose by accident

I've been studying Epicureanism for the past 3 years and have experienced ataraxia through study, practice, and contemplation of the doctrines. I feel like what is there in the extant texts is more than enough for an average student to get there.

I was curious whether enough of the Stoic system survives to get a modern person to experience ataraxia. If you have experienced ataraxia through Stoicism, what do Stoics say about it? What does it feel like? I am just wondering if these are separate states that use the same word or if they are indeed talking about the same thing.

Thanks in advance!

Because immaturity — one is still a child and glad to escape supervision.

“I have often marvelled at how everyone loves himself above all others, yet places less value on his own opinion of himself than that of everyone else. At all events, if a god or some wise teacher presented himself and told him not to entertain any thought or idea in his mind without stating it aloud as soon as he had conceived it, he would not abide it for even a single day. So much greater is our respect for what our neighbours think of us than what we think of ourselves!”—Marcus 12.4

I recently realized that in ancient Greek music, the harmonic-rhythmic accompaniment on lyre is the actual lead, while the singing is the actual accompaniment.

The ancient Greek rhapsodes sang the poetry, they didn’t recite it. Each line of a verse had a corresponding melodic line — the various pitches and rhythms embellishing (art-ifying) the natural, rough pitches and rhythms of the spoken language.

The rhapsodes accompanied themselves with a lyre. Why?—Well, as a standard on which to ground their singing. Without that accompaniment, the voice alone is unable to stay tuned and keep constant metre (metron, measure, standard).

Logos-prohairesis is a similar pair: Logos provides the grounds for assent (the principles), while prohairesis (of the sage) assents based on that standard.

The analogy goes like this: The present thought is the verse line. Logos is the lyre, having the principles as strings. Prohairesis is the singer. Assent is the melody. Life is the whole rhapsody (Iliad, Odyssey, etc), the stream of assents.

As you can hear in the clip below, the melody follows, accompanies the metron/rhythm-pattern/harmony of the lyre, not the other way around. The lyre is the cart, the voice is Cleanthes’ dog.

When you choose to assent on principled grounds, your life is music — or, as Zeno said, you live consistently/harmoniously.

———

Here is The Epitaph of Seikilos, the oldest Greek song preserved complete:

ΟΣΟΝ ΖΗΣ ΦΑΙΝΟΥ / ΜΗΔΕΝ ΟΛΩΣ ΣΥ ΛΥΠΟΥ / ΠΡΟΣ ΟΛΙΓΟΝ ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ ΖΗΝ / ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ Ο ΧΡΟΝΟΣ ΑΠΑΙΤΕΙ

While you live, shine / have no grief at all / life exists only for a short while / and Time demands his due.

MEMENTO VIVERE, folks!

What is prohairesis? What is its nature: corporeal or incorporeal?

Prohairesis acts, it chooses to assent or not to the present thought. Prohairesis’ act that we call assent obtains change in the external world (eg muscle contraction, etc).

Prohairesis is a faculty/capacity/ability that obtains change; only corporeals obtain change; it follows that prohairesis is corporeal.

Just like the physical/corporeal energy is a capacity/ability to do work, the capacity/ability called prohairesis is physical/corporeal.

Prohairesis is the corporeal you.

———

“For you yourself are neither flesh nor hair, but prohairesis”—Epictetus, D3.1.40

“‘proairesis’ is the name that Epictetus gives to our logical faculty when, and only when, it is considered as a faculty that can assume a right and virtuous or a wrong and vicious attitude.”—Scalenghe

Prohairesis’ function and purpose is to choose in a principled way to assent or not to the present thought. That’s the mature prohairesis, the sage.

However, it seems that very few children become adults. By ignoring the principles, the immature prohairesis is compelled to “assent” in an unprincipled way, that is, on the grounds of opinions.

By not learning the principles, prohairesis perverts itself—it degrades its tenor logos by mimicking the behaviour of the tenor psuche: it accepts automatic compulsion from prefabricated, false standards—opinions.

This thought pops up: “This guy’s word hurt me, punch his mouth!”

The mature prohairesis’ matches that thought with its related principle: “Externals are neither good nor bad.” There is a mismatch, so, no assent.

The immature prohairesis is compelled by an opinion imposed on it through education: “An eye for an eye.” Compulsion takes place, just like in a nonhuman animal. For a human, that’s degrading, vicious.

Vice is immaturity. Virtue is principled adulthood.

That's my message to anyone asking how to help themselves and others.

Hypothesis:

There are two sets of things that seem compatible and mixed but are neither. We seem to blend them seamlessly into one persona but that’s just a schizoid perception bent to perpetuate corruption.

A human action either aims at the consistency of reason—keeping integrity of character—or it aims at the pleasure granted by myth.

The corporeal Character has the tenor logos and is a benevolent emperor; the corporeal Ego has the tenor psuche and is a tyrant. Character aims at truth; Ego aims at persuading and pleasure. Character has the power of assent; Ego is powerless—by itself it has no access to assent.

Having no access to assent, Ego hijacks/usurps Character and acts on its behalf, masquerading as Character. That explains vice completely.

In a world that often celebrates extroversion and constant social interaction, there's a quiet strength found in those who cherish solitude. These individuals possess a unique set of personality traits deeply rooted in the principles of stoicism, an ancient philosophy focused on inner peace, self-awareness, and personal growth. Contrary to the misconception that solitude signifies loneliness or isolation, those who value their alone time exhibit a rich tapestry of characteristics that shape their approach to life

“What has he given to me to be my own, and subject to my own authority, and what has he reserved for himself? He has given me whatever lies within the sphere of choice; he has made it to be subject to my control, and immune to hindrance and obstruction. This body formed from clay; how could he make that immune from hindrance? And so he has made it subject to the revolution of the universe”—Epictetus, D4.1.100

Although stoicism had good influence in my life previously. It helped me a lot but now time has come to currently not being part of stoicism and move to something more important in life . ❤️

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehc7ThC4uz4

I was just having a thought about how Stoics who live a mundane life of the typical 8am - 5pm job and go back home tired having achieved nothing for themselves. Having to sleep early to wake up and do it all over again. How do you apply memento mori in this as according to me its about living life like everyday is your last day.

its about to hit midnight in my country, bedtime is arriving. i meditated for the first time in my life today (16yo), i timed 5mins on my phone and with everything right i thought about something else just for ~10sec from the start and 5-10secs during the event. it felt really nice, the reason i started to this is actually the dirtyness of my mind. trying to be real stoic on my own for 3-4 months. but the thing i am making withiou wanting blocks me. if ı should tell from where it has begun, i think about my friendships so much no matter what and i dont know why. in a big friend group why am i not get listened, or in smalls like 34 why they are communicating more lovely and communicating more. i was thinking about my friendships that much for a 2-3 month timelapse. i dont want you to get bored while reading, if anyone wants to know i can tell the allstory more detailed. what can i do on/to my life and how can i make my meditates better?

I consider myself highly stoic and uncaring. Never been angry in my life, forgive very easily, and unlimited patience and an overall lack of care for a lot of stuff. Been told I don’t exhibit emotions a lot. But breakups, or loss of friendships bother me A TON. After breakups I always get super anxiously desperate to rekindle shit and ruin my chances instead of sitting and being stoic about it. What’s the best way to be more stoic towards these situatios? I don’t care if my house exploded tomorrow, but I’d lose my mind if someone (mostly girls) didn’t want to be friends anymore.

The general view is that philosophy is two different things: aspiration/commitment (philo) and wisdom (sophia). That’s dualism: subject & object, substance & structure, action & retribution, journey & destination, etc.

The Stoic philosophy is one thing: virtue. That’s monism.

“I will begin, then, if you don’t mind, by stating the difference between wisdom and philosophy. Wisdom is the human mind’s supreme good; philosophy is the love and aspiration for wisdom. The latter is proceeding toward the destination at which the former has arrived. […]

What is generally agreed is that there is a difference between philosophy and wisdom, since the object of aspiration cannot be the same thing as the aspiration itself. […]

One is the outcome and reward of the other: philosophy is a progression, and wisdom is where it is headed. […]

Even though philosophy is commitment to virtue, one being the pursuer and the other the object of pursuit, there are some in our school who have held that no distinction can be made, since there is no philosophy without virtue and no virtue without philosophy. Philosophy is indeed commitment to virtue, but by means of virtue itself. There can be no virtue without commitment to it, and neither can there be commitment to virtue without virtue itself. It is not like the archer who tries to hit a target from a distance: here, the target is not in some different place from the one aiming. Nor are the ways to virtue external to virtue, like roads to a city. One comes to virtue by means of itself; philosophy and virtue are inseparable.”—Seneca, Letters 89.4-8

“[12] Well now, is it in us human beings alone that these things come about? Many, indeed, in us alone, those of which the rational animal has a special need, but you’ll find that we share many of them with the irrational animals too. [13] Is it the case, then, that they too understand how things come about? No, not at all, since use is one thing and understanding is another. God had need both of these creatures, which merely make use of impressions, and of ourselves, who understand the use of them. [14] For them, it is enough merely to eat, drink, take rest and procreate, and perform such other functions as are appropriate to each, whereas for ourselves, who have been further endowed with the faculty of understanding, [15] that is no longer enough, but unless we act in a methodical and orderly fashion, and in accordance with our own specific nature and constitution, we shall no longer attain our proper end. [16] For in so far as beings have different constitutions, their works and their ends will differ too. [17] So where a being’s constitution is adapted for use alone, mere use suffices; but where a being also has the capacity to understand that use, unless that capacity be properly exercised in addition, he will never attain his end. [18] What of the animals? God has constituted each according to its intended purpose, one to be eaten, another to be used in the fields, another to produce cheese, and another for some comparable use; and to be able to perform these functions, how is it necessary for them to be able to understand impressions and be capable of distinguishing between them? [19] 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. [20] 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. [21] Now it ended with contemplation, and understanding, and a way of life that is in harmony with nature. [22] Take care, then, that you don’t die without having contemplated these realities.”—Epictetus D1.6.12-22

Why is it that we don’t live in harmony with nature, like all the other animals?

Short answer: misuse of lekta. Slightly longer answer: evolution making a necessary ‘detour’ requiring education/maturing. Full answer: … just kidding, I don’t have it. All I have is a working hypothesis. —

Logos, as a whole, understands itself and the matter it works on (Hyle) by direct contact. However, the parts of the Logos don’t understand themselves. The local logos (tenor) in a mineral, a virus, a bacterium, a fungus, a plant, or a non-human animal, doesn’t understand anything, it just does its job.

Enters lekton — the latest major invention of Logos. Concepts arise in minds, reflecting/expressing in abstract form external bodies and their attachments (qualities, actions, etc). Logos connects those concepts into the structure of language — which becomes the actual means, the tool for a particular part-of-Logos (the human) to understand itself and everything else.

However, using a new tool requires skills, and skills are acquired through learning by trial and error. As individuals and as species, we get better at (and by) using this complex tool, and grow up.

At the moment, we are obviously still in the ‘childhood’ stage, beginning to understand a few things — some well, other badly (and most of them we don’t understand at all). Being ‘children’, we make errors and learn to correct them. That’s how evolution and causal determinism work. That’s how Logos works.

Next evolutionary step — the sage, the mature human, the part-of-Logos that understands itself and everything that comes its way. The sage is the animal that has developed a new way to live in harmony with nature: by conceptual / logical understanding.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, man is a rope between the beast and the sage.

That’s my hypothesis. Noit sure if it’s testable, but it might be.

My (M23) name is Connor. I graduated highschool and went through trade school to get a certificate in culinary excellence. I’ve been working in kitchens since I was 16, and I love the field I work in. I go home happy, and I have a girlfriend who loves me to pieces.

I never feel like I can make ends met when it comes to money. I feel like it’s impossible to start out on my own and move out.

I make decent money for being a cook at a retirement resort. With student loans and a car payment, I just barely have enough to have $1000 at the end of the month. I know I could move out with my girlfriend, but rent is so expensive. I honestly don’t think I’ll be able to afford a home any time soon.

I just need help with the mindset. I need to know how I can change my thought process from everything feeling so impossible at the moment.

I’m turning 24 soon and want to get started with my life

I know fear is something that can’t be erased completely. Im talking about you probably do fear something but fear in your mind just can’t hold you back.

So with that mindset are you truly free?

Is Seneca trolling Lucilius with all the comments about "put it down to my credit, though I have already wiped out my debt for the present" or " I shall not charge this up to the expense account, because I have given this to you from your own stock."

I find it hilarious, however it feels impossible to google without "real life" shit like paying debts and all.

Hoping someone knows or maybe agrees with my warped humor.

I love how he is dropping life lessons about dealing being at ease with one's self, living from within, defining true friendships, debating philosophy giant's, and then being like "where's my money!?

Fucking hilarious... if im understanding 2000 year old humor

Thoughts?

Appreciate it and be well

Please share some tips. Like from start to end.it will be very helpful

I can’t really define what moderation is,give me examples if possible

PS I know the meaning of moderation 😅

I believe stoicism can and I wanna know how. Stoicism is great for dealing with breakups and rough patches in relationship, but how can it help to flourish it.