Picture a vertical gate pulled up by a spring but held down closed by you. When a thought comes by, assenting to it is like unclenching the hand and releasing the gate open, thus letting the thought enter ‘the impulse chamber’ — where it will be transformed into a belief (and, if the thought was impulsive, an external action).

Withholding assent is like actively holding the gate down by keeping a clenched hand on it. The thought bounces back off the closed gate, but may return anytime. If you let the thought pass through the gate, an identical thought my come by anytime.

Looking back, I can see that although surviving tough times was challenging, the uncertain future appeared much more terrifying. However, I have learned an important lesson from standing up for myself in the face of hardship: I deserve respect. Even in trying circumstances, I've perfected the art of setting priorities for my demands. Regardless of what other people think, I will keep setting boundaries.

"Hokore. Omae wa tsuyoi."

I was reading Seneca letter 9. The below quote caught my attention:

"The difference here between the Epicurean and our own school is this: our wise man feels his troubles but overcomes them, while their wise man does not even feel them."

So, very clearly, Seneca is making the distinction that Stoics DO feel the feels, and the Epicureans do NOT feel the feels.

Epictetus talks at great lengths about conforming to nature, and accepting who we are as we are. Nature made us an emotional species, so I posit that acting as though we are without feelings, or stuffing them, actually runs counter to our nature, and is thus both illogical and unstoic.

You can still, and must, evaluate and work with your feelings, but you can't evaluate or work with something you deny to exist.

I would also posit that feelings are required for virtue. Thinking of "bravery", let me introduce you to four people deciding if they should take a difficult action.

Person 1 feels no feelings about the action, and decides inaction.

Person 2 feels no feelings about the action, and decides to do it.

Person 3 feels terrified of the action, and decides inaction.

Person 4 feels terrified of the action, but chooses to do it anyways.

Which of the 4 would you call brave?

The same example could be made of temperance. Temperance requires both a strong feeling of longing or avoidance, and then to preform an action that runs counter to that feeling (cant have what I crave, must do what I dont want).

How can you act with justice, or compassion, or kindness, or as a cosmopolitan if you feel nothing towards anyone? How can you be wise and self-contented if you never feel satisfied or content?

So, HAVE your feelings, just understand and master them also.

One day -- this day even! -- the body will fall away from me, and it will be like a stranger to me. On that day -- is it this day? -- This life I know, will also belong to someone I have never known, though I lived in this body, felt in this boy, held those I love with this body, saw the world with this body, despite this, I will be stripped from the body, and return to nothing, to being nobody, just a soul with no body, wondering where is my body? Have you seen it?

Trying to be happy as a ghost, I know I will fly toward my body with an overpowering desire to return to it, but just as I'm about to, I will realize – 'my goodness, this carcass is already rotting!'. In perplexity, sadness, fear, and with laughter, I will call out to God, asking in the watery depths of my deepest anguish; 'Father, please give me a gift?' 'What?' 'Please give me the gift of a body, and if you would indulge me... Sir, please make it a good one, so that I too may be good!'.

What doesn't transmit light, creates its own darkness. (Meditations 7:57)

"One day, this body will fall away, and it will feel like a stranger to me. On that day, this life I now live will belong to someone I have never known, though I lived it in the very body I leave behind, callously but with love. With a bit of luck, I will be thrust into the world again, starting from nothing, rising from the ground and the ashes of humble beginnings, but always setting my sights on heaven. Let my present efforts endure; let these small, humble acts pave the way for greater things, for longer and swifter strides. Yet, come what may, let me persist. Let me endure. Let me overcome.

One day, soon enough, I will rest deeply in the present moment, renewed and reunited with the vitality of my human body. But let me be patient and wait for that day to come only when the time is right. And when the worst is upon me, when this sickness crescendos in death, let me cast this body to the ground like the immortal being I am. May God clothe me as He sees fit, but let me be a son of the light, coming in the name of the Lord. May the Son and the Father, the cosmos and the spirit of life, grant me the strength to bear this eternal cross again and again, as I traverse the great divide between life and death for all eternity.

And if there be no heaven without hell, no life without death, then give me life, and give me the strength to walk through hell to reach heaven."

https://preview.redd.it/wuadr58mf02e1.png?width=1472&format=png&auto=webp&s=c2094926e15198291711b6859bdc79a86a647773

https://preview.redd.it/u0sgs48mf02e1.png?width=1472&format=png&auto=webp&s=f0e1d0f8ee14d975af9898d13276a491b8d6ed1c

https://preview.redd.it/vvijk58mf02e1.png?width=1472&format=png&auto=webp&s=350db90971cbb130f3b0adf5085d811ba4c1526d

https://preview.redd.it/z6ohjdowzt1e1.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=96eb0f678988249e28ea5c10b364fc5b692452c6

"Endure with patience what is given, for time will shape you as the earth shapes the tree."

In a clearing on the northern California coast, a young redwood stood alone, its presence subtle in the vast forest. The fog, ever-present, softened the light, leaving the sapling in a quiet half-shadow, as if waiting for the passage of time. The earth beneath it, simple and sufficient, allowed the tree’s roots to grow slowly and deliberately, finding their way without haste.

The winds, gentle and constant, never disrupted the calm. The tree grew with patient grace, its slender trunk rising steadily, each ring a quiet mark of persistence. The fog wrapped it each morning, providing a gentle dampness that accompanied its unhurried growth. There was no rush, no competition for light. It grew simply because it could, its form rising steadily, its roots deeply anchored, as if time itself had become its only companion. The tree’s quiet, measured ascent reflected the stillness of its surroundings, where growth came without force.

I just got a new job at a coffee shop and I’m one of the younger people there. I have one coworker who is my shift lead and she is a 30 year old mom. I’m a 24 year old man and one of the younger people at my job.

I’ve always really struggled with self confidence and social anxiety and have been studying stoicism as a way to improve myself and navigate difficult situations. I have always really hated being teased and this girl is always trying to “roast” me. I have only been there for a month but she says we are friends? She is always trying to organize stuff with coworkers and invite me saying she’s gonna buy me a drink for my birthday and stuff. She is mostly nice but she’ll say stuff like you have a dumbass expression on your face in a joking way. Shes always making fun of my expressions because I have a tendency to smile and kind of bug my eyes out when I get anxious, which happens whenever she’s around me. She’s also always saying she wants to beat me up as a joke.

It’s kind of bizarre and I am having trouble knowing how to respond. I try to roast her back but it’s not really in my nature and feels kind of forced. I just feel like I have to stand up for myself. It’s weird because she’s always saying how much she likes me and praises my work and stuff. I just don’t want to feel like a doormat but the stoic approach to insults makes me feel like I’m not being assertive enough. Maybe it would be better to just tell her that she is being disrespectful? This situation is really stressing me out.

(The argument ending with) “What then is the result of what has been said? Is not this the result-that other things are indifferent, and that wisdom is the only good, and ignorance the only evil?”—Plato, Euthydemus

https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthydemus.html

“the Stoic definition of knowledge:

Knowledge is strong assent to a kataleptic impression.

Here too, as earlier with ‘belief ’, it is worth saying a word about how the Stoic use of the term ‘knowledge’ differs from our own — and here the difference is more severe. Since knowledge, like all belief, is an assent on the Stoic view, it follows that people only know things when they have them in mind, and are thinking about them — it is an event, not a disposition. In the case of ‘belief ’, we saw that English recognizes both an event-like sense and a state-like, dispositional sense. With ‘knowledge’, the case is more extreme; the state-like sense predominates in English, and the event-like sense is awkward to the point of non-existence. It is not only correct but perfectly natural to say of someone busily thinking about what to have for dinner that he knows algebra, or knows his children’s birthdays, though he is not thinking of either. And it is very odd to say of the same person, when they are recalling those same birthdays, that he ‘is knowing’ the dates (‘is in the middle of knowing them’?). We might say instead something like ‘he knows the dates, and right now he is thinking about them, too’. The Stoics would describe the same case by saying ‘at dinner he had a disposition to know the dates, and right now he is knowing them, too’, which sounds peculiar in English. Unfortunately, no other word will better convey the Stoic doctrine, and so I will use the term ‘knowledge’ while at times drawing attention to the difference by such unnatural constructions as ‘doing a bit of knowing’ or ‘having an episode of knowledge’. It is true that they also used the term ‘knowledge’ (or rather ‘episteme’) on occasion to describe the disposition-like state that we more naturally call knowledge. But it was the episodes of knowing something, that is, attending in a knowledgeable way to something one knows, that the Stoics thought were the fundamental unit in the analysis of knowledge, just as the episode of believing something is fundamental in the analysis of belief.

Thus an episode of knowing something, for example, knowing that my hand is in my pocket, involves having a strong, irreversible assent, to a kataleptic impression. There are two criteria here; the assent must be strong, and the impression must be kataleptic. If either fails, then the assent does not constitute (a bit of ) knowledge, but rather what the Stoics called ‘opinion’ (doxa in Greek).”—Brennan, The Stoic Life

“If you’re going out to take a bath, set before your mind the things that happen at the baths, that people splash you, that people knock up against you, that people steal from you. And you’ll thus undertake the action in a surer manner if you say to yourself at the outset, ‘I want to take a bath and ensure at the same time that my choice remains in harmony with nature.’”—Epictetus, Enchiridion 4

Wisdom (knowledge of what is good) is the only good, ignorance of what is good is the only evil.

Knowledge/ignorance only exist in the present moment.

It follows that, in the present moment, you are evil if you are distracted from the knowledge that wisdom is the only good.

The main teachers of stoicism met in person to discuss their teachings, with the word stoicism itself coming from where Zeno met with his followers.

I feel these kind of spaces are missing from modern life (real life discussion beats online!), at least where I am.

Do these spaces exist where you are?

Please Be Honest, If You Dont Mind Id Like To Know If You Saw A Add For This At a Good Price Would You Get It.

https://preview.redd.it/9xn8usraym1e1.jpg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6966fd670080dc0c2c539251269d9f8394b4961

I'm looking for some advice. I'm going to keep this as short as possible, but it's difficult for me to not tell a story, with back story and detailed context.

I am a single father of four, and care for my father who needs physical, emotional, and mental care, and work full time.

I have not had a vacation in 20 years, not had a down time day off in 15 years, and not had a day off at all in about two years. I used to care for three more people, who are no longer my responsibility.

I have been dealing with some difficulties far beyond my normal challenges recently, which have compounded my emotional and mental struggles.

I know that peace, happiness, and satisfaction in life originate internally. I focus strongly on being mindful of what I can control, and letting go of the rest. What I'm looking for is help finding that inner peace. How do you let go of/deal with/process overwhelming situations. How do you find your peace and inner strength? Any guidance, tips, or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Assent implies confidence, perceived certitude. So, when uncertain, withhold assent.

Greetings followers of the Stoic tradition,

I’m myself one who dove into Stoic worldview nearly a decade ago - finding much to appreciate and quickly adopting it for myself. Two issues eventually became clear to me:

The first is that the philosophy has, for all intents and purposes, been dead for coming up on two millenia. Hence we’re stuck with the philosophy we have, and modern reiterations mostly seek to stretch the inheritance from antiquity over new issues and constructs.

The second lies within the theoretical core itself, where I ended up taking issue with how content it can potentially leave you with being in a state of idleness. This is a counterintuitive state of affairs, since Stoicism actually leaves you well-prepared for dealing with the world at its fullest, should you internalize all its practical lessons. Yes, I know that various ancient personalities proclaimed that you must engage with the world, but that’s not reflected by the theoretical core itself (the surviving fragments, anyway).

Out of love for the philosophy that had otherwise shaped me so well, I’ve in the back of my mind contemplated how to address my contentions. Stumbling upon the niche discipline of Generative Anthropology, I believe I’ve finally located a source that can not only grant Stoicism a more social orientation - while retaining its spirit, that we all value – as well generate new theory and practices which should come off as recognizably Stoic.

This started out as a hobby project, but gradually increased in scope until it got to the point where I’ve written a book. While this is the first time writing a book, my hope is you’ll withhold initial judgement and first grant assent after you’ve read the book. I personally believe there’s something truly worthwhile here, something that has the potential to truly animate the philosophy once more – which my book doesn’t even come close to exhausting, despite its length and breadth. It’s out now on Kindle and print here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DNCGDDV7/

“Even though Epictetus did not count suffering cruelty an evil, he did not want to deny that inflicting cruelty (being cruel) is evil, although it remains mysterious why. Cruelty is, apparently, a misuse of the will. The important things, he finds, are to resist becoming evil and to resist being defeated by the evil that others do... But if cruelty to others does them no harm, why is it wrong? To say that it harms the perpetrator begs the question. For it harms the perpetrator only if it is wrong... If it is impossible to harm others who place no special value on what eludes their control, stoics could not be harmed by anything others did to them, even though their bodies could be maimed and their lives terminated. For the stoic, to inflict or suffer a loss merely of “what one reasonably prefers” is not to inflict or suffer true harm. One is harmed only by having the wrong attitudes, and the attitudes we have, according to the stoics, are up to us... If those who value what eludes their control are thereby responsible for their own misery when they suffer at the hands of others, stoic wrongdoers cannot truly harm others, let alone do them evil. If they harm anyone, it is only themselves (by holding the wrong values). For the stoic, all that evil can possibly consist in is wrongdoing itself. All evils are, apparently, self-inflicted... Stoicism... leaves little or no room for ethics in interpersonal relationships and social interaction... Would stealing wrong anyone, if no one should be so attached to worldly goods as to suffer greatly from their loss? Why regard even murder as a wrong, if the true self is invulnerable? If morality in particular, as distinct from ethics in general, is socially oriented, it appears that stoics should reject most of morality, or at least the importance most people attach to it today”. (Card, The Atrocity Paradigm)

That explains Epictetus’ “one should never find fault with anyone, whether god or human being, and never reproach anyone.” (Discourses 3.5.16)

Thinking in a stoic manner changed how I view many things in my life, I made a video to advise fellow people who are entering this space for that reason. Let me know if you like it...

Life doesn’t always give us what we want. In fact, sometimes it throws us the exact opposite. We face challenges, unexpected turns, and setbacks. And in those moments, it can be so tempting to wish things were just…easier. But what if we’re approaching it the wrong way? What if, instead of hoping for fewer problems, we used these moments to become a stronger, wiser, and more resilient person?

Continue to learn more:
https://youtu.be/8cfoYZokMtM

https://preview.redd.it/i192skrh3m0e1.png?width=1005&format=png&auto=webp&s=44894ab11044b8faf58116c8c44bb972ab588bc6

It is a core teaching of Stoicism that happiness is fully realized through the cultivation of virtue; externals are irrelevant to one’s happiness, and dependence upon externals is unwise.

How can this notion be reconciled with the findings of modern-day psychology, which show us how crucial external factors such as healthy friendships are for our happiness? Modern-day psychology has proven that social connections are a basic human need just as drinking and eating are basic human needs.

The Stoic claim that external factors are completely and totally irrelevant to one’s happiness seems silly in light of this.

I think the whole idea of therapy is just coping with being a pussy. Just work it out on your own, why would I tell some evil bitch about my life. She is just going to use it against me. If I told them the extent of what I’ve done they would throw me in the fucking slammer. Fuck therapy and ever pussy that goes there.

Did the Stoics believe suffering was self-inflicted? If I understand correctly Epictetus taught we are only hurt the moment we believe ourselves to be, and that painful emotions only arise because we summon them with our negative judgements.

This just seems like such a bad take to me. And it causes problems, because, many of our moral customs are enforced to prevent emotional harm.

Let’s say for example that I am at work, and my boss intentionally humiliates me at a meeting. Has my boss done something wrong, or are my feelings of embarrassment self-imposed? After all, from a Stoic perspective, is my embarrassment not the result of my choice to make an irrational judgement? If I did not care about what others thought of me, my boss’ attempt to humiliate me wouldn’t harm me.

Some more examples: if I am bullied by others, have they wronged me, or am I in the wrong for choosing to feel hurt by their mean behaviour? If I fall victim to sexual harassment, am I in the wrong for choosing to feel threatened or uncomfortable?

Any negative emotion we suffer, is the direct result of our inner judgements, rather than external events, correct?

Is this what Stoicism is about? To tell people who are hurt that their pain is their own fault? That they don’t have the right to suffer? The right to feel sad, angry, scared, worried, etc?

Discover nine timeless Stoic principles for building stronger, more meaningful relationships. From self-respect to mental resilience, learn how smart men can approach love and connection with wisdom and strength.

https://youtu.be/6XuVwzvZ3P8

How do you know what you're doing is right if you've never done wrong?

How do you know what you're doing is good if you've never done anything bad?

You don't - and that's the point Seneca is harping on when he says:

"For he who does not know that he has sinned does not desire correction; you must discover yourself in the wrong before you can reform yourself.

Prove yourself guilty, hunt up charges against yourself, play the part, first of accuser, then of judge, last of intercessor. At times be harsh with yourself."

~ Seneca (Letter 28, On Travel as a Cure for Discontent)

If you don't know you've done bad, you'll never seek to correct yourself, to change for the better, and to aim to to make sure you repeat no wrong.

So, how do you discover yourself according to Seneca? By being harsh with ourselves, because when we're harsh with ourselves, we'll see what's wrong, what's bad, what's good, and what's right. The entire aim in being harsh with ourselves is to hold ourselves accountable for actions, good and bad. When we hold ourselves accountable for bad actions, we'll realize it was bad, take responsibility and attempt to not do that action again.

And that's also not to say that you should purposefully do bad. Don't go out and rob a store and end up in prison to know that robbing a store is wrong. There's some things that we know is wrong to do. But, as we live our lives, we'll slowly see the faults in our actions of things less obvious...slowly.

And when that happens, we'll have the ability to recognize them and correct it.

P.S. If you like the writeup, I've also been making videos about Stoicism and philosophy in general for about a year - come check it out :) Betwixt Philosophy

Cheers

Adam

"How much longer will you delay before you think yourself worthy of what is best, and transgress in nothing the distinctions that reason imposes?”—Epictetus, E51.1

Reason/Logos/God presents to you things that are distinct. What are the only things presented to you?—Rational impressions / thoughts. Logos presents to you distinct kinds of thoughts. 

What is the distinction with regard to thoughts?—Some are kataleptic/true, others are akataleptic/false. You need to recognize that distinction and never transgress it. That's what is best for you. You need to recognize a true thought and assent to it. You also need to recognize a false thought and withhold assent to it. 

Now, you may ask: “Why does Logos sometimes give me false thoughts?” Well, imagine only being given true thoughts. You would have no choice but to automatically assent to all. You would be an automaton, like nonhuman animals. False thoughts are given to you so that you have a choice. Choice is freedom.

"to have a mind just is to have rational impressions [...] To define logikē phantasia as an impression whose content can be expressed in words is to get to the very heart of the human mind: we are above all the language animal, and lekta are the currency of agency, knowledge, and rationality.”—Vanessa de Harven, Rational Impressions and the Stoic Philosophy of Mind

And yet, rational impressions are not up to you, they lie outside your sphere of choice. ‘Your’ thoughts are not yours, not generated by prohairesis/you. Rational impressions are externals, providential indifferents. Logikē phantasiai are presented to you by Logos. Some of them are true thoughts, gifts for knowledge. Others are untrue thoughts, gifts for freedom. No false thoughts, no freedom. Logos is benevolent/providential.

Within Stoic determinism you only have one freedom, from compulsion: you never have to assent to anything.

“Pay careful attention, then, to your impressions; watch over them unceasingly. For it is not something of little importance that you’re trying to preserve, but self-respect, fidelity, impassibility, freedom from distress, fear, and anxiety, and, in a word, freedom.” Epictetus, D4.3.7

“What sort of thing do you imagine the good to be? Serenity, happiness, freedom from constraint. […] can anyone constrain you to give assent to what seems to you to be false?—‘No one can.’—Or not to give assent to what seems to you to be true?—‘No one can.’—Here, man, you can see that you have something in you that is free by nature.” Epictetus, D3.22.39-42

As humans, we are cognitive beings, our modus operandi is reflecting perceptions by rationally arranging concepts. Thoughts are presented to you, like "It would be good to eat that cupcake." You have the capacity to choose between two options: to assent or not to assent to that thought. Nothing can force you to assent. Nothing can force you not to assent. Nothing can prevent you from assenting. Nothing can prevent you from not assenting. That's freedom.

The pourpose of akataleptic impressions are is to ensure your freedom from compulsion. If all impressions were kataleptic, they would all compel assent, so there would be no freedom to choose. Akataleptic impressions are there for the purpose of freedom, they are gifts for freedom.

I love the quote but can't seem to find a direct source of who first used it.

If I recall correctly, a tenet of stoicism is to not fret over things that are out of your control. But democracy throws a wrench in that, because it's both in your control and out of your control. It's in your control in terms of your vote does contribute to the end result, but it's out of your control because unless it a vote of one, other people can vote and you don't control them. So how does a proper Stoic handle democracy?

I applied for a job last week and I cannot stop thinking about it. I just want to be updated on whether my application went well.

I’m 19 years old and I’m in community college so I don’t meet too many people. I start my new job tomorrow and I’ve also struggled with anxiety. I got medicated since I graduated HS and I started worshipping God 24/7. I have a best friend who was the same as me in high school. Both awkward lossless virgins. I have always been the more confident one. But recently he met a girl and they began to hang out. He lost his virginity to her and I didn’t care too much. I’ve always just wondered why others could get someone but not me. I’m attractive too btw. Well a couple days ago I was scrolling through instagram and I saw he was at a party and I’ve never been to one and neither did he until the party I saw he was at on instagram. I was so jealous that he lost his v card and started going to parties without me. I’m going to a university in the spring and I’m majoring in philosophy what things can I work on. I’ve read a couple of stoic books but I still get jealous at times.

If you are unfamiliar with this critique, the stoic emerges from slavery. An individual is forced against their will to produce labor for someone else, they struggle to find any sense of identity or meaning in life since all they create with their own hands gets consumed by someone else. A way for the slave to reclaim their identity is simply to negate the objects in their environment, and to claim that their minds are free and separate from everything in their world, including the pains of slavery. While they continue to work for someone else, their minds are free. The critique is that this is the vaguest form of identity and it only emerges from a negation. Eventually the individual must find things in their environment and their own soul that are positive affirmations of who they are if they wish to unite the particular (identity) with the universal (spirit)