Marcus Aurelius faced much criticism throughout his life, both as a man and as Emperor of Rome. For example, the Historia Augusta says:
Some maintain — and held it a fault — that he was insincere and not as guileless as he seemed, indeed not as guileless as either [Antoninus] Pius or [Lucius] Verus had been. Others accused him of encouraging the arrogance of the court by keeping his friends from general social intercourse and from banquets.
In Meditations 10.36 he even says that he expects to have many people standing by his deathbed who will be glad when he’s gone because their values conflict so deeply with his own. Indeed, in 175 AD he had to put down a civil war instigated by the usurper Avidius Cassius, supported by a small faction of senators critical of Marcus’ rule.
However, Marcus welcomed criticism.
If anyone can give me good reason to think that I am going astray in my thoughts or my actions, I will gladly change my ways. For I seek the truth, which has never caused harm to anyone; no, the person who is harmed is one who persists in his self-deception and ignorance.
We know that Marcus was not an autocrat but frequently sought guidance from his generals, teachers, and senators. In accord with his Stoic principles, he encouraged honesty and “plain speaking” (parrhesia) at court. Decisions about his life and his rule therefore led to discussion, dialogue, and often criticism.
The world of technology and its development has many similar challenges. Design, development, prototyping and testing all take a great deal of time and effort, and throughout these you will come to key interaction points like the peer review: a time where the goal is to show your work, invite feedback and discuss your solution. Peer reviews offer an opportunity to learn from your coworkers about the efficacy of your approach. In software development, this takes the shape of code reviews. Your code is put on display and your peers are invited to review everything from structure to syntax, as well as the actual content of your code. This can be a harrowing time for any developer, whether you are a junior or even a principal architect. Whenever there are reviews there is feedback – which can lead to conflict.
Accustom yourself not to be disregarding of what someone else has to say: as far as possible enter into the mind of the speaker.
Software code is very personal and, just like writing prose, can show many traits of the developer writing it. Preferences towards structure, syntax, commenting styles and favorite symbology show as patterns for how someone develops their code. A person’s time and effort are also important to remember: this is work that someone has taken the time to think about, design, develop, write and now put up for review. Personal feelings towards ownership, correctness of their solution and ego can begin to cause friction in the code review process for many developers. Simple comments from peers like “there is a spelling error here”, or questions like “why did you choose this approach” can be difficult to hear – especially in any volume. So, how do we use Stoicism to handle these situations better as developers
When a man has done you any wrong, immediately consider on the basis of what opinion about good or evil he did wrong.
One of Marcus Aurelius’ most important strategies, described in The Meditations, derives from the key Socratic-Stoic concept: “Nobody does wrong willingly.” This speaks to the fact that your peers must be doing what they think is right and speaking from a place of good intentions when providing commentary on your code. Ultimately, the power of interpretation is important to identify here – you have that power. It is entirely up to you whether you interpret these comments as positive or negative, coming from a place of ill-will or good intentions, and you can start your decision-making process from this strategic point.
As Marcus says, you should: “immediately consider on the basis of what opinion about good or evil he did wrong.” If you choose to view the feedback as constructive and positive, then you can learn and proceed. The Stoics believed that we should welcome criticism in this spirit, and that our role is to make the best use of criticism. If you begin any feedback experience with the mindset that it comes from a place of good intentions, there is a significant opportunity to learn and grow.
Questions About Your Work
That if they are doing the right thing here then there is no need for us to be annoyed. If not the right thing then it is clearly involuntary and through ignorance.
Questions are a vital part of the development process, and can lead to some profound discoveries in terms of solutions, efficiencies and innovation. When someone begins to ask questions about code you have put up for review, it can be common to experience trepidation. Ego gets involved during this process easily, because people want to show that they are competent, and that they are of value to their peers, management and organization. Questions are a vital part of the development process though and can lead to some profound discoveries in terms of solutions, efficiencies and innovation. So, how do we approach these questions to ensure a positive collaboration and experience during this process?
Marcus Aurelius believed that we become less upset when we remember that everyone is flawed, ourselves included. Seeing people as capable of insight but imperfect and fallible allows us to accept criticism from them in a more balanced way, neither taking it too much to heart nor dismissing it out of hand. This lets us open the floor to commentary from others with the mindset that: “If they didn’t understand what I meant with my code, it must be because they didn’t know my intention.” Here we can see an application where if someone’s view is incorrect: “…then it is clearly involuntary and through ignorance.”
Both approaches have clear links to the Stoic virtue of Justice and kinship with all of humanity, and in order to take this one step further you can begin to say to yourself: “In either situation, I am going to take the time to talk to my peer and discuss solutions.” With this approach, we can hope to turn this situation into a positive one, which not only removes our own ego but also introduces a key aspect of the development process into the environment: collaboration.
Code reviews are just one of the many kinds of peer reviews that persons working in the tech development, engineering and design world must face in their careers. It can be difficult for any developer to have to face the judgement of their peers, team and management, and with development being so intrinsically personal there is no doubt that these experiences have every opportunity to become negative ones. When we take a step back from the situation and begin to understand the intent, and the possibilities of the peer review process, there is a definite opportunity for these circumstances to become positive and productive parts of the development process.
Now, what happens when you are reviewing someone else’s code? How should you approach that?
Giving Your Own Feedback
Reviewing someone else’s code can be fraught with its own challenges though: inadvertent rudeness, dismissive behavior, domineering or even destructive attitudes are all possibilities when it comes to environments where you are asked to provide feedback to a person. How can we approach this process differently in order to prevent these situations?
You have no assurance that they are doing wrong at all, for the motives of man’s actions are not always what they seem. There is generally much to learn before any judgement can be pronounced with certainty on another’s doings.
As a reviewer of code, one of the first things you are going to check for is the efficacy of someone’s solution; Does it work? Does it solve the problem? These questions generally lead to the next question: “How would I have solved this problem?”. This discussion is not saying that this is an incorrect investigation style, however when one approaches the code review process from this angle, many times the next logical step is to say: “Why did they do it this way?” or even: “I don’t agree with this approach”.
Before leaping to any conclusions, remember that there can be many different approaches to developing code which still provide valid solutions. and it is best to avoid situations where you downplay the efficacy of a solution simply because it is different. Why is the approach different? What efficiencies or improvements might there be in an approach like this? These are both great questions to ask and highlight the fact that you have no assurances that there Is any wrongdoing here at all – quite the contrary, this could be a rather innovative solution! Before you pass any judgement, take the time to learn about why the person went in this direction, whether this is a valid solution, and whether there is truly anything wrong here.
…but your advice must not be ironic or critical. It should be affectionate, with no hurt feelings, not a lecture or a demonstration to impress others, but the way you would talk to someone by himself irrespective of company.
What happens if you do find a legitimate issue in someone’s code? How do you approach the situation in a constructive manner? One of the key practices for any developer to follow is understanding that everyone on the team is purposefully trying to do the right thing. If you then approach your feedback to that person with the mindset of “I am here to help, and I want to help you”, your points are going to be received better. Tone is always going to be important, and you should focus on a positive tone, but you should also focus on structuring your feedback in a way that provides the person being reviewed with an understanding of good intentions. You are not attempting to belittle, berate or undermine this person’s work, you are trying to help. This quote from Marcus also highlights something which many developers struggle with when providing code review feedback – the demonstration of one’s own knowledge.
High-tech, high-pressure environments inevitably lead to some form of competition between co-workers; people want to show that they are of value to both their team and the organization, and this can lead to a negative atmosphere within a feedback process. It is easy to flex one’s technical knowledge during this code review process, especially if you are a veteran developer and are an expert in the development of a project. What needs to be at the forefront here, is that the priority for any developer is good product, not simply the thought of being correct. Proving that you are right and acting in a way that is detrimental to the review process is ultimately self-defeating, removing the mindset of a development team away from good product, and towards just being right.
That’s why the Stoics described their ideal as cosmopolitanism, or being “citizens of the universe” – a phrase attributed to both Socrates and Diogenes the Cynic. Stoic ethics involves cultivating a this natural affection toward other people in accord with virtues like justice, fairness and kindness.
Donald Robertson, How to Think Like a Roman Emperor, pg.41
Peer reviews are a never-ending process whenever we are working in engineering, development, design or research. As much as there is difficulty when having one’s own work reviewed, there is even more added difficulty when you are the one doing the reviewing. Feedback that you might give has the potential to support or discourage someone’s development style, and ensuring that you are on the positive end of that spectrum is not always going to be easy. Focusing on the mindset that someone is first trying to do the right thing, that you need to make sure that you understand their approach before making a judgement, and that your advice should be of a helpful tone is a great start towards that goal.
Adam Pierceyis an Engineering Technologist living in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is currently in senior management in the world of biometric security, and has previously worked in the green energy and medical device industries. Adam has been implementing Stoic practice into his career for the last 5 years, and is a member of a small Stoic community calling themselves The Stoic Avengers, in Toronto.
To open this article on Schizophrenia nothing is better than Epictetus’s saying: “It is not things that trouble you, but your opinions on them”(Enchiridion 5). Perhaps this article will lead you, the reader, to have a more favorable opinion about people with Schizophrenia, and this will yield some peace to your heart.
I was diagnosed with Schizophrenia when I was nineteen. I am now forty eight. I never really profited from medicines (although I see they do help many people) , but I improved by way of studying philosophy, especially the Stoics and the Indian Shankara. I now do many voluntary activities to help other diagnosed people. In this article I will discuss some observations I made, both from myself and from my peers. As this is a Stoic blog, I will focus more on Stoic ideas, leaving Shankara aside.
This article is aimed to be of interest to those unfamiliar with Schizophrenia, and useful for those who are familiar. There is nothing definitive here, just speculation.
Anthropologist Jane Goodall when asked if she preferred Chimpanzees or Humans, answered she preferred some Chimpanzees and some Humans. Me too. I prefer some people with Schizophrenia and some “normal” people. This article is about those people with Schizophrenia I prefer. As Seneca said: “ In the choice of our friends, we should choose the least maculated (the best ones).” ( Of Tranquility of the Soul, VII.7)
Most therapists assume there is something immature in a person with Schizophrenia. For them, the best to do is to provide us some reflection about ourselves or about the world that will make us “deal with our feelings” in a superior way. However, there is a mistake here. Because this way of seeing the problem is usually (though not always) vertical, not horizontal, i.e. the therapist is placed superior to the patient.
That vertical positioning is not true. That is (I think) the reason I am successful in my work, and that is what I will try to show in this article. Here I include a quotation from Marcus Aurelius: “Have in mind that all rational beings are related, and to care for everybody is of human nature” (3.4). I think from this quote we can infer everybody should be treated with equal respect.
So, let´s be Stoic. The obvious question is: What is a superior person?. This is a question some people may judge politically incorrect, but one that is necessary for this inquiry.
The first answer for the readers of this article is “a virtuous person”.
But that is a little vague, especially for whom doesn´t know Stoicism. I will start with another premise, with which I think most people would agree: a peaceful person is a superior one.
The reader says: Are you saying people with Schizophrenia (I avoid using the term “schizophrenic” because that reduces the person to this definition i.e. I believe we are more than our diagnostic) are peaceful? Yes, I am. At least those I prefer. I am a facilitator, that is, I direct peer support groups of people with Schizophrenia. I don´t know how useful I really am, but I remember Seneca: “What is demanded from a man is that he be useful to the most people possible” (On Leisure, 3 )
In one of my groups a girl declared: “I am going to give birth to the devil.” There was a respectful silence, and an opportunity for her to explain that was because she had a divine mission to bring peace to the world, and giving birth to the devil she would make him give up his hate, and by way of that make the world more peaceful. Nobody opposed her opinion. Here I quote Marcus Aurelius: “Reason is common to us all” (4.4.)
Everything in this event was peaceful. And one should notice here my behavior: I adopted a logical position. I did not allow myself to rush into telling her not to fantasize (although it seemed she was delusional). I gave her the opportunity to explain why she thought that way. And I, and everybody, respected her view, as her viewpoint. And all that was logical, and peaceful. Once, discussing with some followers of Pyrrho, I suggested his viewpoint of having no opinions was a peaceful one, and they agreed. If you are not eager to uphold your opinion, you become more open to others. Or, if you wish, you should be the superman or the child of Nietzsche (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, part 1, discourse 1).
Another day one of the patients started to hug me, and hold my hand. I did not oppose. I noticed some people were finding that a bit “gay”, but we did not mind. He now repeats that behavior every time we meet. Even in the street. In fact, he may have set a pattern, I think those of my groups have more physical contact than the average. What is that, if not peace?
My friends have difficulties in sustaining romantic relationships. It is really difficult if you depend on your parents or other relatives, if you don’t drive, if you sometimes get anxious and most importantly, if it is difficult for you to walk around.
Nevertheless sometimes two people in those groups start a relationship. And, it should be noticed, they often agree not to engage sexually. So, it is just about the love between two people. What is that, if not peace?
Yes, says the reader, but this is a Stoic blog, we want to hear about self control. And there you are in trouble! We all know all the emphasis of the Stoics in discipline. Perhaps we could remember Epictetus: “When by reasoning you judge you should do something, do it” (Enchiridion 35)
But I answer to the reader : not at all ! Because you should not judge the sailor before you know the storm! We are all crossing the ocean, but for some there´s a friendly wind, while for others there is a tempest.
Many therapists ignore this, but it is a centrally important fact : my peers have often been abused. They suffered bullying. They experienced trauma. Their own parents were disappointed and aggressive with them. They are more sensible and perhaps more vulnerable (some people are, and that´s not their fault), and there is a feature of many people to abuse others who are more vulnerable. It is not the majority but that happens. Some people don´t let escape any opportunity of abusing others. And that is tragic, as then the abused generalize from that, and start thinking they will be abused forever. I believe Marcus Aurelius is wise when he says: “Remember we live only the present” (3.10). My peers forget this. Their past rules their present.
It is upon knowing that that you should think. And perceive these people may actually be good sailors, given the storms they face.
OK, says the reader. What are you suggesting, that we elect our next president a schizophrenic?
I thank you for the question. Let´s be logical once again. Who makes beautiful chairs? A good carpenter, correct? Who plays football well? Brazilian players, who play in the difficult fields of the streets since their childhood, correct? And who is able to be a good president? An honest person who knows how things work, correct?
And then, the proper question is: what do people with Schizophrenia know how to do? As a facilitator I tell you. They make you exercise your logic, your patience, your sense of justice, even your courage. People with schizophrenia might make you more virtuous. Is there a better talent than that?
Marcus Aurelius spoke about turning obstacles into fuel. People with schizophrenia are an obstacle of a special quality, they provide more fuel than other obstacles.
But then I can hear the angry father: What the hell are you suggesting? That Schizophrenia is good? That I should not give medicine to my son?
No. Schizophrenia brings a lot of bad feelings. To the person and to everybody who coexist with the person.And yes. Statistics are undeniable. Those who take medicine have less surges and less suicide attempts. But let’s think this though together, and figure out the best we can do.
Some observations are possible. My peers are afraid. They all are. They are highly insecure, and they feel deeply misunderstood. All of them (I have never seen one who did not agree with this) report a deep sense of loneliness.
I was once an employee in a psychiatric clinic. I was paid just to talk to the patients, to have what I called “a philosophical conversation”. One day, as I arrived, a nurse approached me and speaking low, as if afraid someone could hear, told me to be careful, because one guy there was very aggressive, and he might attack me physically. I thought, well, I have a challenge here and I will face it.
He was making strange gestures with his arms and hands, something I could not at first understand. But then I realized he was conducting a music that was playing, like a maestro. I did not know what to do, but I started to mimic him. He apparently thought I appreciated the music the same as him, and laughed. That started an understanding. He lowered the music, so that we could start talking. And a bit later, he turned off the music. As we talked, I asked if there was someone he trusted. He said no, only me. I was sad and happy at the same time.
But we can infer something from this experience. At first, he was completely alone, just making his gestures, with no hope of being understood. Then, it seems, a hope appeared in his heart. And finally he seemed to feel I understood him. As Marcus Aurelius puts it: “Judge things as they really are, not as a hasty man judges them.” (4.11)
That experience is not an exception. I felt similar in my life. Nobody had the least idea what was going on inside me. So, it seems to me, it is useful to make the person feel he is being understood. It is a first step he can acquire confidence. But he will never feel understood if he perceives you judge yourself superior. So, here we have a delicate situation. We need to show both respect and comprehension.
I think a good way to do that, is focusing in on logic. Trying to understand what the person is saying, and just that, with no wish to show anything, that you have some knowledge or experience he doesn’t have. And, very important, the person should not think you are talking to him in order to acquire prestige, that is, that you want to show everybody you understand him. Here a lot of quotations would fit, I believe all Stoic thinkers stressed the importance of logic. Perhaps I could quote Marcus Aurelius: “Do you have an ability of being rational? If so, why don’t you use it?” (4.13)
Other people may have other approaches. I don’t want to rule those out, but I think logic is a good start. Someone may argue logic is cold, and the greatest need is to be warm. That is true. But I believe, as I said, logic is a start. You begin the relationship trying to understand what the person has to say, and agreeing, whatever he says. And then, as the talk goes, you can reach an emotive understanding.
I am not saying it is easy, or that there is a precise answer. However, I work in a hospital. Anyone can see that those who participate in my groups, (or some other person´s group) are better. It is also because those who search for these groups are already in a better condition, but I keep the argument, because the reason they are better before coming to the groups, is the same they improve with the groups. That is, they feel understood.
To provide that, my feelings are it is better to forget any preconceived ideas. In other words, to be logical. And logic here is also to acknowledge you never understand all of the person. We may today reach an agreement, but tomorrow this same person may surprise you. So, I think we can help my peers by way of making them feel understood. They may grow more confident, they may improve their communicative skills, and ultimately make friends, and be able to walk around. Logic pervades all this process.
And something interesting happens, that sometimes the participants in the group learn from the facilitator a more logical attitude. And this improves their lives.
Logic for me is perhaps the subtraction of the Ego. What hinders us from being logical? Our wishes and desires? Logic is opposed to a big Ego. It helps you to be more detached, and therefore more free. As Epictetus said: “You won´t wish to be a general, a priest or a consul, you will wish to be free. And the only way to be free is to despise what we are not in charge”(Enchiridion 19) (here we know that logic is perhaps what is most up to us).
My peers are not inferior. They should be treated as equals, and we should not judge that all of Schizophrenia is bad. It brings undoubtedly much suffering, but also some qualities to the sufferer.
And, to that angry father, I do not oppose the use of medicines. But something should be said. The drugs available in the market, they don’t teach you anything. Nobody learns from the experience of consuming Haldol or Clozapine. It is true that we observe when the person stops taking the medicine, all symptoms come back. They do not disappear with the use of these drugs as some people argue they do, they only diminish, and they all resurge when we stop taking the medicine. So, what have we profited from those drugs? While a more logical attitude the patients may learn from the example of the facilitator, is more likely to last, and to really make us better people, more confident, more open. “Happy is the person who is led by reason” (Seneca, On The Happy Life, 6).
João Leite Ribeiro was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 19.He is now 48, and has had a very surprising story of recovery. He now facilitates peer supports groups and gives lectures. He is mainly a self taught person, but he completed the course of the School of Essential Studies on Stoicism. He is also the author of the book Memórias de um Estoico (The memoirs of a Stoic) which unfortunately has not been translated into English.
Is it possible to escape time? This subject appeared in the philosophy examination of the 2019 literary French baccalaureate. In this post, I would like to propose a Stoic answer based on Seneca, who studied the question of time in his treatise On the Shortness of Life (De Brevitate Vitae). This post is not an answer key to the question, but a freely inspired exercise that seeks to articulate the stoic philosopher’s reflection on the issue raised.
In Stoicism, time is described as incorporeal. It is not possible to act upon it, neither can it be affected by the interaction of another body. It escapes the causality of the world, just like gravity, the void, or the sayables. So, it seems impossible to influence it. The march of the stars as well as the aging of our bodies do not depend on any particular will.
However, beyond scientifically defined time, the time that makes each second equal to the next, there is a subjectively lived time: 8 hours of sleep do not have the same subjective duration as 8 hours of wakefulness; 3 minutes in a dream may only represent 3 seconds in reality; 1 hour of boredom is not worth 1 hour of leisure, etc. Some control seems possible over this second type of time.
In the context of practical philosophy, the subject must be problematized in relation to its existential implications. We can, with Seneca, distinguish different times: the time of life and the time of non-life. Seneca does not use these terms but talks about the lifestyle of the occupied (occupati) and the lifestyle of leisured people (otiosi). The former are alienated and allow themselves rather than living, while the latter are fully in control of their existence. Many human beings exist without living, that is to say, they alienate themselves in occupations unnecessary – if not harmful – to their natural happiness. They do not escape time, but rather it is time that escapes them. On the other hand, otiosi, those who lead a philosophical life, have a use of time that allows a certain existential detachment.
Given these considerations, we can therefore ask ourselves if appropriating time allows us to free ourselves from it. It will first be necessary to clarify the proper use of time and then to understand whether or not this makes it possible to free oneself from it. Throughout the development process, it is the angle of practical philosophy, the one that supports concrete action, that will be maintained.
I. Of Good Use of time
Time is one of the things that does not depend on oneself, like gravity, body health, reputation, wealth, weather, place of birth, etc. And yet, Seneca affirms that “the life we are given isn’t short, but we make it so” (I. 4). To what extent would it then be possible to influence the duration of our personal experience?
1. Time is a value too often overlooked
First, we must distinguish between time, which follows its course independently of our will, and the use of time, which is specific to each individual. On this point, Seneca notes that most human beings misuse time: we spend it on activities useless to our happiness. We lose it in useless or even harmful company. We spend it as if it were infinite. The Stoic author is surprised that we are stingier with our money and material goods than with our time. He says:
Men are thrifty in guarding their private property, but as soon as it comes to wasting time, they are most extravagant with the one commodity for which it’s respectable to be greedy
To use our time well, it is therefore necessary to be aware of its value. Every lost second is a lost second. It is not equivalent to money, which can come back, or other forms of material goods. For these reasons, Seneca criticizes those who wish to wait until retirement age to engage in truly human activities (meditation, contemplation, studies…), and those who suddenly and tragically become aware that they have not lived when they are on the death bed.
2. To exist is not the same as to live
Seneca then distinguishes existence and life. To live is to follow our human nature. To exist is to ignore this human nature. For the philosopher, all those who alienate themselves in a particular activity, the occupied, waste their lives:
They are too busily preoccupied with efforts to live better ; they plan out their lives at the expense of life itself. They form their purposes with the distant future in mind. Yet the greatest waste of life lies in postponement : it robs us of each day in turn, and snatches away the present by promising the future.
The occupied or foolish are slaves of time, worried for example that their pleasures will one day end, that their bodies will age, that their fortune will disappear… Seneca does not run out of illustrations: drunks, lazy people, avaricious people, debauched people, but also unsuccessful courtiers, idle people, those who lose too much time in bodily care, those who live only following a passion, those who engage in a work of erudition that does not help one know how to live, and so on. They miss their lives without even knowing it.
3. What does living mean?
To live precisely, we must be aware of our human nature. We are beings endowed with reason and, for the Stoics, it is the path of reason that leads us to happiness. Once again, we do not choose to exist but we choose the way we exist, the way we spend our time. A bad way of existing, one that alienates us, that develops in us vices or an ignorance of our own human condition, will considerably reduce the quality of our existence and, at the same time, the duration of our lived experience. On the other hand, a good way of existing, one that develops virtues in us – excellence of character, a mind structured by reason – and an awareness of our role in Nature, will allow us to live fully, even beyond our singular existence:
Of all people, they alone who give their time to philosophy are at leisure, they alone really live.
It is in philosophy that we begin to live and that the duration of our experience is then measurable. Otherwise, we remain in bare existence without value.
In short, quality of life is more important than life span. An old man
may have lived less than a young man. This is because subjectively, the
philosopher or wise person, even a young one, will necessarily be satisfied
with the length of his existence.
To live, in the philosophical sense proposed by Seneca, is therefore to
appropriate the time of one’s existence to make it a duration of no importance
in relation to our serenity. To what extent, however, do philosophy, and by
extension wisdom, free us from the singular time of our existence?
II. Does using your time well allow you to free yourself from it?
What matters, then, is the evolution of the soul rather than that of the body. Practical philosophy develops an art of living. Does the evolution of the soul allow us to go beyond the temporal framework of our existence? Would wisdom – the purpose of practical philosophy – be a point of immortality that would elevate us beyond our mere presence in the world?
1. Spiritual exercises to appropriate time
In his treatise, Seneca indirectly mentions two spiritual exercises: self-attention and self-examination. The first helps to be aware of your actions and the movement of your soul. When anger comes, for example, it allows us to pause the internal dynamics that lead to passion, and to evaluate, with reason, whether or not it is wise to let this dynamic come to an end.
The second exercise helps to evaluate past thoughts and actions to see if I have done the right thing, done the wrong thing or missed the opportunity to do better. In relation to the subject, the self-examination allows me to have an insight into the quality of my existence, a quality optimized by self-attention:
Look back and recall when you were ever sure of your purpose; how few days turned out as you’d intended; when you were ever at your own disposal; when your face showed its own expression; when your mind was free from disturbance; what accomplishment you can claim in such a long life; how many have plundered your existence without your being aware of what you were losing ; how much time has been lost to groundless anguish, foolish pleasure, greedy desire, the charms of society; how little is left to you from your own store of time. You’ll come to realize that you’re dying before your time.
An existence without self-examination and without self-attention is a
life that will necessarily be brief. If spiritual exercises are important, it
is because they bring us closer to wisdom. In Stoicism, wisdom, once acquired,
remains anchored in ourselves until our death. With it, life is long enough.
The happiness it brings is infinite, outside of any temporal preoccupation. A
wise man would be happy for 10,000 years if he could live that long. He would also be for 10 hours if he only had
10 hours left to live. It is therefore a first response to our question : the
appropriation of our time of existence by philosophy allows us to free
ourselves from certain temporal concerns by delivering an atemporal happiness.
We do not free ourselves from time but we structure our mind on an archetype
that detaches itself from it.
2. Joining the noosphere of wisdom
Seneca, however, speaks of immortality in a slightly more sibylline sense:
if we want to transcend the narrow limitations of human weakness by our expansiveness of mind, there is a great span of time for us to range over.
What the author seems to mean here is that our mind can agree, through philosophy and its purpose, wisdom, on infinite and eternal ideas that we have in common with the best of men:
We can debate with Socrates, entertain doubt with Carneades, be at peace with Epicurus, overcome human nature with the Stoics, and go beyond it with the Cynics
The Russian mineralogist and chemist Vladimir Vernadsky might talk here about joining in thought a kind of noosphere of the wisdom. It is another form of appropriation of time beyond our temporary existence. Seneca even believes that the company of these great men leads to eternity and can change our mortal state into immortality. The hypothesis of an esoteric meaning where it is the transcendence of the self through philosophy that leads to mystical immortality is not to be excluded. But more prosaically, wisdom necessarily leads to a changed perception of time.
3. The relationship to time in the wise man
The author does not really elaborate on this, but, in the wise man’s case, “the combining of all times into one makes his life long” (XV.5). Where the occupied and other foolish fall into a fatal triptych: “forget the past, disregard the present and fear for the future” (XVI.1), the wise recollects the time spent by memory, uses the present time and anticipates the future. The past is in memory for the self-examination and to remain aware of the path taken to wisdom; the future is seized in advance in the sense that the soul of the wise is prepared for all events of destiny; the present is the time of self-attention.
This is the exact opposite of the use of time by the occupied. In the life of the wise man,
none of it is made over to another, none scattered in this direction or that; none of it is entrusted to fortune, none wasted through neglect; none is lost through being given away freely, none is superfluous; the whole of life yields a return, so to speak. And so, however short, it is amply sufficient; and for that reason, whenever his last day comes, the sage will not hesitate to go to his death with a sure step.
In concrete terms, the wise person appropriates all time, past, present and future to merge them into one, the present, in his mind. By doing so, he frees himself from the worries of the past and the future into which so often the unwise fall.
Time is a precious value and the use we make of it determines the quality of our existence. An alienated life, of pleasures, or idleness goes against our rational and reasonable state of being. This existence will necessarily be brief because it lacks density. The mind will remain unsatisfied and will fear death. It is leisure life, in the most philosophical sense of the word, that transforms our time of existence into a lived experience. Thus, the appropriation of time through philosophical discipline makes it possible to change the plan.
This life, the life of the wise man in the highest point, has necessarily a satisfying duration. The wise man does not escape time, his body ages, but he transcends it in thoughts through a wisely structured soul. He lives beyond temporal preoccupations, in the present time, and joins the atemporal universe of the greatest minds. To appropriate time thus makes it possible to free oneself from it only insofar as the appropriation is philosophical and that the liberation is that of the soul.
Jean-Baptiste Roncari has a masters in political sociology from the Institute of Political Studies of Strasbourg. He is active in the French-speaking Stoic association Stoa Gallica, and he shares his experience with Stoicism on the blog Un Regard Stoïcien (Facebook page here) and through his Instagram account @unregardstoicien.
Stoics have been known to connect inner tranquility with peace and tranquility in relations with others. This may be why many Stoics have sought peace in the external world as well as the internal. From Seneca vainly pleading with Nero to practice clemency and moderation, to Musonius Rufus vainly stepping into mutually-hostile groups of Roman soldiers and attempting to talk them out of fighting, Stoics have a history of trying to preach peace – and of being disregarded.
Into this tradition of preaching both
internal and external peace falls Joseph Hall (1574-1656), an Anglican
clergyman who tried to stand between hostile English religious forces whose
antagonisms, despite Hall’s pleas, ultimately contributed to the English Civil
War. Though his peaceful counsels were disregarded on the national level, his
bestselling work Heaven Upon Earth appealed
to readers who at least sought inner tranquility.
Hall was part of a Renaissance/Early Modern movement known as Neo-Stoicism. While the Christian world had never fully forgotten or ignored the Stoics, the appearance of new printed editions of many Stoic classics during the Renaissance – and the discrediting of spurious Stoic works – as well as commentaries such as those of Justus Lipsius, prompted a renewed interest in applying at least some Stoic insights to Christian living, especially as an era of religio-political uncertainty, strife and outright war.
Joseph Hall, a very English Stoic, was
born near a town with the very English name of Ashby-de-la Zouch. As he grew
up, inspired by a pious mother, he took an interest in religion. He wanted to
be a Church of England priest, which generally required a course of instruction
in one of the great English universities. Hall’s father – Hall had many
siblings – wasn’t sure he could afford university for him, and was originally
going to indenture him to receive private, non-university tutoring. At the last
minute, Hall’s father changed his mind, and soon afterward a relative agreed to
pay much of Hall’s expenses at Cambridge’s Emmanuel College.
Hall later described his many years at Emanuel as the best years of his life. Emmanuel was known as a center of Calvinism whose graduates went on to become influential Calvinist ministers and bishops in the government-established Church of England. Trained in good Calvinist doctrine while studying classic works like those of Seneca, Hall developed into a learned young man.
Hall also showed a literary bent, becoming known for his poetry. He may have helped write a play performed by students at another Cambridge college (Emmanuel would presumably have frowned on theatrical productions). The last of a trilogy, the play was a comedy with a serious undertone – following Cambridge graduates as they went about the country in a frantic search for decent-paying jobs.
Hall also published satirical verses taking caustic aim at social abuses, such as greedy doctors and lawyers, and hitting the government even closer to home by denouncing the enclosure of agricultural land by rich farmers at the expense of poor agriculturalists. High-up Church officials put a collection of Hall’s satires on a list of books to be burned, but somehow the ecclesiastics promptly changed their minds and gave the work a reprieve.
As Hall moved into a clerical career, he continued writing, but his focus turned from direct social satire to preaching godliness. Clerical appointments were in control of influential laymen, and one of these, Sir Robert Drury, arranged to make Hall the parish priest at Hawstead, where his position turned out to be ill-paid. As Hall later noted, in order to earn enough money to buy books, he had to write books of his own. He was also harassed by one of Drury’s friends, a “bold and witty atheist” named Lilly. As Hall recalls it, in his daily prayers he asked God to “remove” Lilly “by some means or other,” and indeed Lilly later died of a “pestilence” – supposedly while on the way to London to lobby against Hall.
consolation was that Hall got married (as Anglican priests are allowed to do).
The couple had many children, and later, by Hall’s account, a “great man”
observed his numerous offspring and said that children made a rich man poor. “Nay,
my Lord,” Hall claims to have replied, “these are they, that make a poor man
rich; for there is not one of these, whom we would part with for all your
In 1606, while at Hawstead, Hall published Heaven Upon Earth, a Neo-Stoic work which would prove very popular, going through eight editions (four stand-alone editions, and four more editions in which Heaven Upon Earth was combined with some of Hall’s other works). Hall’s goal, he told the reader, was “to teach men how to be happy in this life.” Here, Hall declared, he had “followed Seneca; and gone beyond him: followed him, as a philosopher; gone beyond him, as a Christian, as a divine.”
Hall wrote that be both envied the Stoics – envied, because they had come up with “such plausible refuges for doubting and troubled minds;” pitied, because without the benefit of the Christian revelation, Stoic methods would only lead to “unquietness.” No “heathen” ever “wrote more divinely” than Seneca, and “never any philosopher (wrote) more probably.” Hall would be a Stoic if “I needed no better mistress than nature” – i. e., philosophy without Christianity. But to obtain true tranquility in this life required Christianity, not just philosophy: “Not Athens must teach this lesson, but Jerusalem.” Key Stoic ideas, however, could help guide the Christian.
Heaven Upon Earth proceeded to list the reasons men lacked spiritual peace, and proposed remedies taken from both Calvinist Christianity and Stoicism.
(T)ranquility of mind…is such an even disposition of the heart, wherein the scales of the mind neither rise up towards the beam, through their own lightness, or the overweening opinion of prosperity, nor are too much depressed with any load of sorrow; but hanging equal and unmoved betwixt both, give a man liberty in all occurrences to enjoy himself.
Hall listed the various threats to mental tranquility. He began with sin. A person guilty of sin could not attain tranquility in this life, or the next, unless he repented and turned to Christ, whose sacrifice on the cross repaid the infinite debt which sinful humans owed to God.
In addition to sin, men had their tranquility threatened by “crosses,” or “sense or fear of evil suffered.” Millions of people lived in “perpetual discontentment” due to crosses such as severe illness or excessive grief. For these and other crosses, Hall’s advice was: “make thyself none; escape some; bear the rest; sweeten all.”
Heaven Upon Earth proposed a distinctly Stoic remedy for fears of future misfortune such as sickness, poverty, and imprisonment: “present to ourselves imaginary crosses, and manage them in our mind before God sends them in event.” In this way, “while the mind pleaseth itself in thinking, ‘Yet I am not thus,’ it prepareth itself against (the possibility that) it may be so.”
Like Stoics, Calvinists believed in a strict divine necessity, such that whatever happened, had to happen. Calvin himself had frequently been obliged to fend off accusations of Stoicism, arguing that his ideas were not Stoic. Calvin’s ideas of predestination were based on a sovereign God outside the universe making decrees for the universe, while the Stoics put God in the universe. Still, the similarities were there, and Hall reflected these ideas of metaphysical necessity with the comforting advice that crosses are part of the divine plan.
“Crosses, unjustly termed evils, as they are sent of him that is all goodness, so they are sent for good, and his end cannot be frustrate(d).” Like a doctor prescribing cures for physical ailments, God prescribed certain crosses as cures for spiritual ailments: pride, laziness, anger and other sins. “The loss of wealth, friends, health, is sometimes gain to us. Thy body, thy estate is worse: thy soul is better; why complainest thou?” God knows the best mix of good and bad fortune to suit any particular person’s condition.
The fear of death was another cross. To Hall, such fear could involve shrinking from the painful process of dying, or fear of what happens after death. The true Christian, having laid his sins at the foot of the cross, need not fear – “the resolved Christian dares, and would die, because he knows he shall be happy” in Heaven.
Like Marcus Aurelius, Hall dismissed the spurious immortality of fame – “the fame that survives the soul is bootless,” i. e. useless. Letting one’s tranquility be disturbed by the bad opinions of enemies is also useless and harmful. Denouncing the desire for popularity, Hall apostrophized: “O fickle good, that is ever in the keeping of others! especially of the unstable vulgar, that beast of many heads; whose divided tongues, as they never agree with each other, so seldom…agree long with themselves,” if they agree at all.
In reality, earthly pleasures were insecure and fleeting, giving
in any case no contentment because they were insatiable and had no logical
stopping point. Prosperous people were more “exposed to evil” than the poor,
who having little to lose could more easily rebuilt after a disaster. The
enjoyment of “pleasure” or “sensuality” could turn men into animals (invoking
the myth of Circe). And pleasure could depart rapidly, without notice.
Anyone undergoing crosses could turn to divine contemplation: “He
that will have and hold right tranquillity, must find in himself a sweet
fruition of God, and feeling apprehension of his presence.” As long as Hall
knows “that God favours me; then I have liberty in prison, home in banishment,
honour in contempt, in losses wealth, health in infirmity, life in death, and
in all these, happiness.” Daily communion with God, giving Him thanksgiving and
prayers, would keep the reader in touch with the source of all tranquility.
Hall also advised the reader not to take action before satisfying
all conscientious doubts as to the action’s rightness. Hall gave the example of
lending at interest (“usury”). Hall thought he would not be secure in his
conscience unless he refrained from offering such loans, despite the
plausible-seeming arguments in favor of moderate interest. It’s hard “to
determine, whether it be worse to do a lawful act with doubting, or an evil
with resolution.” Acting in doubtful cases would unsettle the conscience,
threatening tranquility. Hall would come to observe too many situations where –
at least to his way of thinking – people rushed into conflict without first fully
weighing the issues at hand in the tribunal of conscience to decide if action
In addition to Heaven Upon
Earth, Hall wrote many other devotional books, including meditations upon
God’s work in nature – even watching a spider could be a prompt for deep
spiritual reflections. Gathering fame as an author, Hall began improving his
earthly fortunes, switching patrons from Robert Drury to Edward Denny (a future
Earl of Norwich). Through Denny’s influence, Hall obtained a new parish in
Waltham, Denny’s home base on the east coast of England. The pay was better
than at Hawstead, but Hall denied to his old patron Drury that his switch was
purely mercenary in motive. True, Hall’s discontent with his position at
Hawstead had started with the financial situation, yet his ultimate decision
for Waltham was based on the greater spiritual harvest to be gathered there.
Hall was also invited to London to preach to Prince Henry, elder
son of King James I, and was invited to become one of Henry’s twenty-four chaplains,
visiting Prince Henry one month per year to share his duties with a
co-chaplain. This brought Hall into the lively mini-court of the heir to the
throne. Like Hall, Prince Henry was a pious Calvinist. The Prince surrounded
himself with ambitious literary and practical men. Henry had a particular
desire to lead the Protestant forces of Europe in what we now know as the
lead-up to the Thirty Years’ War.
Professor Geoffrey Aggeler suggests that the English Neo-Stoics
tended to be Calvinists. Certainly, the circle around Prince Henry included
such Calvinist Neo-Stoics. King James noticed this, and warned his son against
“Stoicke insensible stupidity.” To Prince Henry and many of his associates,
Neo-Stoicism was a fighter’s faith by which one prepared for life as a
self-disciplined Protestant soldier or statesman. The Prince never had the
chance to be the chevalier of Protestantism, dying of an unexpected illness in
1612 at the age of 18. Many of the Neo-Stoic Calvinists in Prince Henry’s
circle would drift away from the monarchy, and toward Parliament, as their
preferred instrument for making England more Godly.
But not Hall. King James selected the now prominent and respected
cleric for important religious negotiations. In 1617, when James went to
Scotland (where he ruled as James VI), he wanted the famously-Calvinistic
Scottish church leaders to adopt certain practices, such as kneeling at
Communion, which Scottish Calvinists considered “papist.” On James’
instructions, Hall, who was in the king’s entourage, tried to persuade the
suspicious Scottish churchmen that these matters of ritual could be accepted
because they were adiaphora – matters
of indifference (the same term the old Stoics had used for indifferent matters
like health and reputation, though in this context Hall meant indifferent from
the standpoint of salvation). Hall had more credibility with Calvinists than
many other Church of England figures – which is why James used him as an
emissary – but Scotland was not religiously pacified.
James also sent Hall as one of the English delegates to the Dutch
city of Dordrecht (Dort) to address a dispute roiling the Protestant world. A
minister named Arminius defended the doctrine of free will in a challenge to
Calvinist doctrines of predestination and election. The 1618-19 Synod of Dort
upheld the Calvinist position, which Hall supported. However, Hall perceived a
tendency on the part of the disputing parties to fight with stubbornness and
acrimony on debatable points, which he warned against in a speech to the Synod.
He called for (Protestant) unity amidst the various factions of the time: “We
are brothers, Christians, not Remonstrants, Contra-Remonstrants, Calvinists, or
Arminians.” Hall was soon obliged to return to England for reasons of health.
He expressed his frustration at existing religious animosities in an
unpublished writing called Via Media (the
middle way): “I see every man ready to rank himself unto a side. I
see no man thrusting himself between them, and either holding or joining their
hands for peace. This good, however thankless, office, I have here boldly undertaken.”
Hall was quite willing to sacrifice religious freedom for the sake of religious
peace, supporting government censorship of fruitless religious debate.
1625, King James died. So long as the church had bishops and a
sufficiently-formal liturgy, James had been quite willing to allow Calvinism
among the clergy. Had Prince Henry survived, this situation might have
persisted – if Hall were non-Stoic enough to feel regret for the past, he might
have wished Henry had lived to inherit the crown and keep unity among English
Protestants. Instead, the crown was inherited by Henry’s younger brother
Charles, whom Henry has joked would make a better Archbishop of Canterbury than
a king. Sadly, even this snide put-down had been too optimistic.
of Charles I’s early actions was to make Joseph Hall the Bishop of Exeter, in
England’s southwest. But this appointment was made in 1627, during an early,
moderate phase of Charles’ reign. It was not long before Charles decided upon a
church policy different from Hall’s – a policy advocated by men like William
Laud, soon to be Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud and his faction rejected Calvinism
completely, embracing the “Arminian” doctrines the Calvinists detested. The
English Church was to be forced to accept free will whether it wanted to or
not. Anglican clergy were also pressured to emphasize high-church ritual rather
than preaching – unless the preaching was to Laud’s liking.
As bishop of Exeter, Hall strove to improve the number and quality of preachers of the Gospel in his diocese. He did not monitor his Calvinist clergy for strict liturgical compliance – many of these clergy followed a slimmed-down liturgy focusing on Bible-reading and preaching. Given that the Laudian faction was taking over the Church, Bishop Hall soon faced rumors that he was a Puritan sympathizer. In a memorandum, probably written for circulation among influential persons, Hall defended himself.
He defined Puritanism narrowly as meaning disturbers of the Church’s peace, and denied that Puritans in that sense were in his diocese. He had expelled such disturbers from, or kept them from entering, the diocese. Enforcing the Anglican Church’s legal monopoly on religious worship, Bishop Hall denied the right of anyone – Catholic or Protestant – to worship in a church separate from the Anglican Church. Within the Anglican Church, however, Hall was willing to be tolerant of most people who behaved themselves and maintained religious peace. Going on the offensive in his memorandum, Hall suggested that “Puritan” was a slur which lazy or corrupt clergy and laity employed to denounce people more Godly than themselves. The bishop said he would spend more effort on getting rid of drunken and profane clerics than on monitoring pious ministers for Laudian high-church conformity.
wasn’t simply facing pressure from Laudians who thought he was too Puritan, he
also had to deal with fellow-Calvinists who thought he wasn’t Puritan enough.
For example, the militant element of the English Puritan faction rejected the
office of bishop as an unscriptural relic of papism, advocating instead that
the English Church be governed by bodies of elders – “presbyters.” Liturgical
formality above the minimum should also be abolished, and special feasts (like
Christmas) should also be cast away, according to the militants. To answer such claims, Hall wrote in defense of episcopal
government against the advocates of presbyterianism, prompting angry responses
from various Puritan pamphleteers, including the poet John Milton.
1639, Bishop Hall published a booklet entitled Christian Moderation. Showing the Neo-Stoic connection between
personal moderation and moderation in matters affecting the body politic, the
bishop started out with a discussion about abating one’s individual passions. From
there, without going into specific doctrinal topics, Hall gave recommendations
for the proper spirit in which religious discussion ought to be conducted.
Bishop Hall rejected certain debating tactics which improperly inflamed the
passions but which had become all too common in religious disputation. These
included what we would today call straw-manning and guilt by association. Ad
hominem attacks, and exaggeration of the differences among the contending
parties, also met with Hall’s displeasure. Even if Englishmen couldn’t reach
theological agreement, “we should compose our affections to all peace…What if
our brains be diverse! yet let our hearts be one.”
When Parliament convened around this time, Bishop Hall attended
the House of Lords, of which, like all bishops, he was ex offico a member. The presence of bishops in Parliament was one
of the complaints of the radical Puritans in the House of Commons, and as the
conflict between King and Parliament grew hotter, the Commons passed bills to
kick the bishops out of the Lords. Hall and other bishops eloquently defended
their right to be involved in Parliamentary affairs, and the Lords blocked the
Commons’ bills. Attempting a new tactic, the Commons impeached Hall and other
bishops for governing the Church without Parliamentary consent.
Then as 1641 drew into December, angry London mobs threatened the
bishops when they tried to attend Parliament. Hall and several other bishops
signed a protest, declaring that until they could take part in Parliamentary deliberations,
free from mob intimidation, Parliament’s acts would not be valid. Now the
Commons impeached Hall and the other signatories for high treason, and the
House of Lords committed them to the Tower of London. Meanwhile, King Charles
had appointed Hall as the new bishop of Norwich, near the east coast and about a
hundred miles southeast of Hall’s old parish of Waltham. But for now Hall was
in a cell and could not visit Norwich. He did have the chance to preach from
the Tower to interested London citizens, and he wrote to express relief that
the Tower’s walls at least protected him from the mob.
In Heaven Upon Earth, Hall’s
words of comfort had included solace for prisoners, and Hall may have had
occasion to turn to his own words: “Am I in prison, or in the hell of prisons,
in some dark, low, and desolate dungeon?…What walls can keep out that Infinite
Spirit that fills all things? What darkness can be, where the God of this sun
dwelleth? What sorrow, where he comforteth?”
In mid-1642, after some wrangling between the Houses, Parliament
decided to release Hall and the other bishops without resolving the treason
charges. Hall had to pay five thousand pounds in bail – an enormous sum for
that time. Then, out of the frying pan and into the fire – Joseph Hall went to
Norwich to take up his new bishopric. Norwich was loyal to Parliament and would
raise troops for Cromwell in the soon-to-commence civil war. And Parliament had
just voted to deprive Hall and his episcopal colleagues of their property and
income, except for a shaky promise of annuities for their support.
Unsurprisingly, Bishop Hall was not allowed to remain unmolested
in the Norwich cathedral. Parliamentary supporters came to seize his property,
and to deface the “idolatrous” stained-glass windows and other papist-looking
church fixings. Hall and his family were evicted from the episcopal residence,
and ended up renting a house in nearby Heigham.
In Heaven Upon Earth,
Hall had given this meditation to think on in times of prosperity: “what if
poverty should rush upon me, as an armed man; spoiling me of all my little that
I had, and send me to the fountain for my best cellar” – i. e., drink water
from a fountain rather than getting a drink from his wine cellar – “to the
ground, for my bed—for my bread, to another’s cupboard—for my clothes, to the
broker’s shop, or my friend’s ward robe? How could I brook this want?” Hall didn’t
have to sleep on the ground, but he had been obliged to rely on friends and
supporters for his support as he once again took up his pen.
While Hall lived in retirement, the English Civil War raged and
was followed by the kingless and bishop-less Commonwealth where “prelacy”
(government of the church by bishops) was specifically denied the protection of
religious freedom. Hall busied himself in writing religious works, of which he
published several. In effect he was acting as a private person, though some
dissidents from the new regime may have quietly recognized him as still the
bishop of Norwich.
The dispossessed bishop made one final effort in healing the
country’s religious divisions in a work entitled The Peacemaker. In this book, Hall distinguished between essential
Christian doctrines and inessential doctrines about which quarrels were
dangerous: “It is possible I may meet with some private opinion
which I may strongly conceive more probable than the common, and perhaps I may
think myself able to prove it so; shall I presently, out of an ostentation of
my own parts (abilities), vent this to the world, and strain my wit to make it
good by a peremptory defence, to the disturbance of the Church, and not rather
smother it in my own bosom, as thinking the loss much easier of a conceit than
of peace?” The government should not tolerate authors or preachers who disturb the
religious peace – “how worthy are they to smart, that mar the harmony of our
peace by the discordous jars of their new and paradoxal conceits!” Hall
believed he had witnessed the link between verbal religious warfare and actual
warfare, and he wanted to nip the evil in the bud.
was eighty-two – quite an advanced age for that time – when he passed away in
1656. He had given Stoic advice for the alleviation of private and public
disturbances of tranquility, and had met such disturbances in his own life.
Geoffrey Aggeler, “‘Sparkes of
Holy Things: Neostoicism and the English Protestant Conscience,” Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et
Réforme New Series / Nouvelle
Série, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Summer / été 1990), pp. 223-240.
Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, “Popularity, Prelacy and Puritanism in
the 1630s: Joseph Hall Explains Himself,” The English Historical Review, Vol.
111, No. 443 (Sep., 1996), pp. 856-881.
Fraser, The Prince Who Would Be King: The
Life and Death of Henry Stuart (London: William Collins, 2017).
Hall (R. Cattermole, ed.), Treatises,
Devotional and Practical (London: John Hatchard and Son, 1834).
Hall and John Jones, Bishop Hall: His
Life and Times (London: L. B. Seeley, 1826).
Livingston Huntley, Bishop Joseph Hall
1574-1656: A Biographical and Critical Study (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer,
Dan Steere, “‘For the Peace of Both, for the Humour of Neither’: Bishop Joseph Hall Defends the Via Media in an Age of Extremes, 1601-1656,” The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 749-765.
Max Longleyis the author of Quaker Carpetbagger: J. Williams Thorne, Underground Railroad Host Turned North Carolina Politician (McFarland, forthcoming), For the Union and the Catholic Church: Four Converts in the Civil War (McFarland, 2015), and numerous articles in print and online.
Earlier this year, we published two posts containing excellent invited entries in an online symposium, focused specifically on the issue of “women and Stoicism”. The next three contributions by Liz Gloyn, Debbie Joffe Ellis, and Andi Sciacca bring that online symposium to a close, but leave some important issues still open for discussion. (Comments are welcome, and a great way of adding to the conversation, but do make sure to give the Comments Policy a read).
The general question to which all of the forum contributors responded to was: “Is Stoicism something equally useful for men and women?” In my call for contributions, I suggested a set of more specific questions that the authors might consider addressing, which included:
Does Stoicism seem to appeal to men more than to women in the present? If so, why?
Are there challenges women face that Stoicism would be particularly apt or helpful with?
Does modern Stoicism have a “women problem”, in any sense one would like to give that term?
What should we make of the emphasis upon traditional gender roles of some of the Stoic authors (e.g. Epictetus or Seneca)?
Can one be equally a feminist and a Stoic? Are there important tensions that have to be addressed?
what should we make of the use of Stoic authors and texts to promote misogynist “red-pill” movements and attitudes (sometimes called “broicism”)?
Here are the final three entries!
One frequent challenge to the applicability of Stoicism in the modern world is that Stoicism is inherently misogynistic. Seneca, for instances, talks disparagingly about “womanly” grief and other “womanly” behaviour (e.g. Consolation to Helvia 3.2, Consolation to Polybius 6, On Constancy 19.2); this is taken as evidence that he devalues women and that we should be deeply sceptical of the philosophy he espouses. Yet we must remember that he belongs to a culture which uses certain gendered words in a derogatory way. His adherence to social convention doesn’t mean he consciously agrees with this linguistically embedded sexism.
Compare the modern insult “you throw like a girl”. While Anglo-American society is becoming aware of the sexist implications of this statement, someone who uses this idiom is not irredeemably sexist. However, conscious-raising conversations around the use of language were not happening in first century AD Rome. Modern Stoics thus need to balance historical awareness of sexism embedded in the Latin language with the potential of the ideas Seneca uses it to explore.
This is especially clear in his Consolation to Helvia. This fascinating
piece of writing has received little attention; I can’t help wondering if its
marginalisation is related to its addressee – Seneca is not only writing to a
woman, but to his own mother. He writes between 41 and 49 A.D. from his exile
on Corsica, and seeks to comfort Helvia for his own absence – an undertaking he
admits is probably unique in the genre of consolations, usually written to
console someone on the death of a close relative (1.2). This text not only shows
us that Stoicism is just as useful for women as it is for men; it makes it
clear that this idea originates from the ancient Stoics themselves, even if
they did not follow through its implications to their logical conclusions.
The most striking thing about the Consolation is how that Seneca presents
Helvia as an intellectual equal. As he imagines what she misses in his absence,
he focuses on their shared intellectual life (15.1):
So now I lack the embrace of my dearest son; I cannot enjoy his presence or his conversation. Where is he? The sight of him cheered up my sad face, I entrusted all my worries to him. Where are the conversations, of which I could never get enough? Where are the studies, which I entered into more gladly than a woman, on more intimate terms than a mother? Where is he, coming to meet me? Where is that always boyish joy at seeing his mother?
Helvia refers to a joint pursuit of philosophical study which is intertwined with her maternal affection for her missing son; her longing for her intellectual peer and her son are almost inseparable. That said, the comment that she enters into her studies “more gladly than a woman” is precisely the kind of thing taken to prove Stoicism’s inherent misogyny. Yet within the Consolation, he critiques women who do not put philosophy at the centre of their lives, and thus fall into moral traps which Helvia avoids (16.1-5); this mirrors the scathing disapproval he offers of men who do not prioritise philosophical living and thus waste their time with things which won’t bring them happiness elsewhere in his writing. We must thus read this particular comment as part of Seneca’s broader didactic programme rather than as a specific indictment of women.
The supposed disjointedness of the text has
often struck readers – after beginning with an address to Helvia outlining his
reasons for writing, Seneca undertakes what appears to be a long digression on
Stoic ideas about exile before devoting the last third of the consolation to practical
advice on how Helvia might comfort herself. A common reaction is that the more
theoretical section on exile has been designed for the wider readership of the
consolation, not Helvia herself – but this reading rests on the assumption that
Helvia would not have been interested in philosophical texts! As Seneca makes
clear, Helvia has been his companion in his studies, and he urges her to go
back to them (17.4-5):
The foundations of
all disciplines are in place – now return to them: they will keep you safe.
They will console you, they will please you; if they come into your mind in
good faith, grief will never enter there again, and nor will anxiety or the
unnecessary bother of pointless suffering.
Seneca sees no conflict in advising Helvia
to seek respite in the presence of her children and grandchildren at the same
time as continuing her philosophical education. The only tension between family
life and Stoicism is Seneca’s father’s reluctance to allow his wife to pursue
her studies in any depth (17.4), which Seneca now rejects. Philosophy has the
potential to serve a meaningful role in Helvia’s life, and Seneca thinks she is
fully capable of taking advantage of all that it has to offer.
Despite his use of language which reflects the embedded sexism of his time, Seneca sees Stoicism as having real value for Helvia. Yes, she is framed as an outstanding woman – but Seneca frames his male addressees who pursue philosophy in a similar way, for instance calling his father-in-law Paulinus a racehorse in comparison to pack-donkeys (On The Shortness of Life 18.4). What makes Helvia exceptional is not that she has overcome her gender, but that she has understood the importance of pursuing her Stoic studies, a challenge which requires people of any gender to discard socially inculcated values concerning what truly matters in life.
Debbie Joffe Ellis
Many people may consider Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) to be a form of Neo-Stoicism combined with therapeutic techniques, with a manner of vigorous encouragement that is imbued with humanistic elements and saturated with acceptance and compassion for individuals, others, and life itself.
Its creator, my late husband, Albert Ellis PhD created REBT in the 1950s, and changed the world of psychotherapy. In his writings, and in the lectures and workshops he and we presented, we regularly credited Stoicism and the writings of the Stoic Philosophers as having inspired certain elements of his approach. This brief piece will speak of REBT’s views about issues pertaining to women. The other contributors to this forum on Women and Stoicism have written specifically on Stoic views, and I will be focusing here simply on the REBT views.
REBT’s assertions and recommendations about dealing with disturbed emotions, and its ‘how-to’s’ of experiencing more joy than misery in life, appears to appeal to both men and women equally. Gender doesn’t have a monopoly on the human tendency to think in both rational and irrational ways, and to make choices about which we will adopt. REBT reminds us that each person is responsible for creating his or her emotional destiny. REBT incorporates the Stoic stance that it is not an event or the behavior of other people that creates our emotional response, but our attitude or ‘perception-of’ the event or the words/actions of others, that creates the consequential emotions.
One of the profound gifts of REBT is that it clearly and precisely distinguishes between the healthy and unhealthy negative emotions (negative here implying unpleasant but NOT bad) and the techniques and tools for creating the healthy ones. It asserts that we create the unhealthy negative emotions when we think in irrational ways which include harboring demands, blowing things out of perspective, having low frustration tolerance and damning ourselves, others and life itself when things don’t go the way we think they should. The unhealthy negative emotions include anxiety, panic, depression, rage, shame and guilt.
Conversely REBT reminds us that when we think in rational ways when an adverse or unwanted event happens, we create the healthy negative emotions, which include concern, sadness, grief, disappointment, healthy anger, and regret. The elements of rational thinking include having preferences, refraining from stereotyping and overgeneralizing and thinking in absolutistic ways, having a sense of humor and keeping things in healthy perspective, having high frustration tolerance, and very importantly – adopting attitudes of unconditional self-acceptance, unconditional other acceptance and unconditional life acceptance.
Both women and men have equal capacity to harness their awareness, to think about their thinking, and to choose to think in healthy and life-enhancing ways in order to enjoy life more and suffer less.
In terms of issues that women face and that men do not – inequality would be high on the list when it comes to work role opportunities and pay. Though some improvements have been seen in recent decades in some countries, they are hardly sufficient.
In the case of a woman facing inequality in the work place, or in any other place for that matter, REBT certainly would encourage her to seek out and take any actions that she could take in order to receive equal conditions and payments. However REBT would encourage her to do so from a place of healthy emotion. If she comes from an unhealthy and self-defeating place of rage for example – she may make the situation worse for herself.
To prevent this, telling herself rational wisdom such as:
I can stand what I don’t like, I just don’t like it.
Life is often unfair and is often unjust, however I can make effort to create change while focusing on what still is good in my life.
No one can make me miserable without my consent, and I choose to do what I can about this situation, while accepting the reality that it is as it is at present – without liking it, and to empower myself by creating steady emotions through clear thinking.
Much civil change for the better has taken a long while to establish, and with persistence, and by refusing to catastrophize, I can continue to do my best to create healthy changes in my life, my society, my world.
REBT can be considered feminist in nature. From its get-go in the late 1940’s, Albert Ellis fought strongly for equal rights for women, and also for gay people, for people of every gender choice, for civil liberties, for an end to censorship, for the legality of inter-racial relationships – and more. Interested readers can learn more about his activities through reading All Out! – An Autobiography and/or some or many of his many other published books and articles.
Albert Ellis was vigorous and persistent in writing about and talking about the need for equality in ALL ways for women, including in the bedroom. He was part of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s and beyond, and educated women and men about the ways to pleasure a woman, about female orgasm, about relationship health and well-being, and about related topics that were not widely talked about at that time.
If he were around now, as he did all of his working life, he would loudly and passionately oppose the right of anyone other than a woman herself to make a decision about abortion.
Many women in this day and age who are part of religions or cultures, in which they are treated in second class ways, may choose to rebel and leave them, but many do not want to leave for a variety of reasons – despite any misery, anxiety or depression they may be experiencing. REBT would educate them that if they choose to remain in the relationships or family situations in which they are not treated as equal citizens – that they could nonetheless choose to empower themselves internally by mindfully accepting their situations, without liking them, and to find and focus-on elements of their lives for which they can be grateful – despite and including the injustices they may face. It would not be appropriate for an REBT therapist to instruct them to leave a situation, unless their lives were in danger, but the therapist can help them to feel like survivors and victors and NOT victims – despite their circumstances.
In this strange and unique day and age, when it seems like many things old are new again – not only for women, but also for men (and I am not referring to the good things!), it is vital that people who want to experience greater joy in life and less misery, make the effort to think in rational ways, thereby experiencing healthy emotions – despite and including any rotten circumstances. Then the actions we take may have a better chance of creating greater harmony locally and globally. In the profound words of Albert Ellis – let’s ‘push our arses’ to achieve more of that!
When I was first asked the question “Does Stoicism hold value for women?” my reply was immediate–and then I realized that my response could make me appear to be a bit tone deaf, out of touch, or even disloyal to my sex. In the context of recent indictments of Stoicism as an oppressively anti-woman philosophy, I do believe that yes, even in this age of #metoo #timesup #thefutureisfemale #believewomen #keepyourlawsoffmybody politics, the answer to whether or not Stoicism (especially Modern Stoicism) holds value for women is simply, “Of course it does. Modern Stoicism holds value for people–and women are people–so, yes–Modern Stoicism holds value for women. Obviously.”
But that got me thinking–is it so obvious? Is the value of Modern Stoicism actually as accessible to others as it seems to me? And, perhaps the better question might be this: Does it serve us in any way to try to identify whether or not ways of thinking / being in the world are best viewed through a lens that is, itself, far too complicated to be distilled into a simple category? Meaning this: Isn’t the only question I can really answer–honestly, effectively, with any kind of integrity or authority–whether or not Modern Stoicism has any value for *this* woman / person / me?
With that in mind, I do want to say, unequivocally, a few things.
First, that I am not reducing this important conversation to a relativist position–nor am I falling back on the highly restrictive (and not particularly useful) framework of identity politics.
Second, while I am not sure that a truly useful, definitive answer exists, I do think there is great merit in asking the question.
And third, I am not automatically taking a contrary response to (nor dismissing) anyone who thinks or feels differently than I do. There are numerous excellent posts and articles on this issue–some occurring in this very post and in the post that preceded it earlier this year. However, there are other people writing with a self-proclaimed authority on the issue that are really, really getting it wrong.
That said, you might be wondering what I might know about or have to say about this issue–or why I am making these claims. For starters, I am confident that Modern Stoicism has value for women because it is an opinion born from my experience. In my conversations with my philosopher-husband, in my work with our local chapter of The Stoic Fellowship, in my participation in ongoing discussions with other members of the Modern Stoic community, and, in my own personal course of study, at no point have I ever felt that there was a disconnect between my ability to access the value of the community as a biological woman and the ability of any other person to access that same value.
However, when I review the regularly occurring commentary on the Facebook groups–or get sent copies of the (seemingly endless) Petersonesque blogs about #broculture obsessions with Modern Stoicism and red pill / blue pill arguments that seems to consistently posit Modern Stoicism as just one more weapon in an arsenal of alt-right hyper-masculinity, I am definitely in the minority (at least among those taking the time to post / argue / respond). It would seem that my experiences with Modern Stoicism and the Modern Stoic community are very different than those of at least some of my contemporaries, colleagues, and peers.
Are there people are using the Modern Stoic ideas and ideals to secure their own positions in a Masters of the Universe sort of way? Of course. That exists (unfortunately) within any intellectual or theoretical arena. But is Stoicism inherently anti-woman or anti-person? No. Absolutely not.
And taking that first question further, are there some ideas and ideals that lend themselves more toward (or are even based upon) the oppression, subjugation, or devaluing of an entire group of people? Of course. Again, is Stoicism one of those? No.
Perhaps it’s easiest to attempt to agree on this: Until things change dramatically in our pursuit of a more just world, there will always be those who attempt to use ways of thinking to negatively impact the ways of being for both individuals and large groups of people. That is wrong. But that is not uniquely connected to Modern Stoicism.
And so, with the scene set, for this woman / person / thinker, I would suggest that it might be most useful to ask not whether or not Stoicism has value for women, but instead to consider the following three, more important / relevant questions below, only one of which I’ll address in this post (saving the other two for a future read). These questions are:
First, where are we at risk of misunderstanding Stoic writings in ways that serve only to polarize through misguided interpretations regarding the treatment of women?
Second, are there any specific lessons that might help us best understand how to apply the principles of Modern Stoicism in ways that encourage a better treatment of persons in our desire to understand one another with respect to our differences?
And third (and lastly, for now), what value does Modern Stoicism bring us as we attempt to navigate toward fairness in an unfair world?
If you’re in the blogosphere on a regular basis, the answer to the first question might seem to be, well, everywhere. But that is truly an unfair representation. There are many good (if not great) writings that are treating this issue in both intelligent and sensitive ways.
One example would be Massimo Pigliucci’s review (from roughly a year ago) of a text focused on Stoicism and Feminism, which points out the limits of culture and time, as offering opportunity for improvement within the Stoic community as we continue to view the teachings in partnership with other theoretical frameworks. Other examples of this kind of work can be found in texts by Larry Becker, Margaret Graver, Donald Robertson, as well as in posts from authors in Stoicism Today. Again, these are but a few, of many, that once can easily find if one simply looks for them.
So it is not that I am against those authors who would choose to take a position opposite my own. In fact I encourage critical debate, when it is done well. What is most concerning to me are those writers, bloggers, and pontificators who tend to bluster, assume, and–most troubling to thinking people–insert anachronistic interpretations and meanings where they simply do not belong.
As an example, when you do a simple search of the keywords stoicism and feminism, you will see that one of the recent posts that claims a good deal of web traffic was penned by Medium contributor “Hey Francesca” (AKA F.C. Archer) on the P.S. I LoveYou blog. The title is catchy, bold, and wholly inflammatory: Be wary of men who love Stoic philosophy. The example she uses to explain why this is so critical is taken from Epictetus:
But tell me this: did you never love any person, a young girl, or slave, or free? What then is this with respect to being a slave or free? Were you never commanded by the person beloved to do something which you did not wish to do? Have you never flattered your little slave? Have you never kissed her feet? And yet if any man compelled you to kiss Caesar’s feet, you would think it an insult and excessive tyranny. What else, then, is slavery? Did you never go out by night to some place whither you did not wish to go, did you not expend what you did not wish to expend, did you not utter words with sighs and groans, did you not submit to abuse and to be excluded?
Our blogger’s take on this passage is that it makes Epictetus “fucking creepy”(as she writes). Then she goes on to make the claim that this passage is also a clear indiction that he was blaming this unnamed female subject for entrapping him and causing him to fall for her. She even connects this to the idea that Epictetus is responsible for perpetuating the same kind of justification that blames rape upon the woman.
But from a purely text-based analytical perspective, what this author does, when making this claim, is to miss the point of the passage entirely. Simply put, the sex / gender of the slave is inconsequential to the point Epictetus is making. His query is not about the role of sex or gender in commanding acts that are of a subservient nature to the one whom is beloved (and possessed). Rather, it’s about the exchange of power and the decision to expend what [one] did not wish to expend by kissing feet or flattering those who are to be in / of service.
This position is highly problematic by itself, but continues on to indictments painting all men who read the Stoics (or engage in the study of classical philosophy, quite frankly) as misogynists. Yes, read that again. That is her claim, but as absurd as this may be, she goes still further. In fact, what concerns me more is the fact that this is an author (with over three thousand followers on Medium) who not only makes these absurd claims, but also admonishes any woman among her readers and followers who might question a man about their interest in Stoicism to remember that–unless these men fess up to their bullshit–they are either a closeted woman-hater, or a liar, or someone in denial. She writes, “It is not their conscious intention that you must fear. It is the subconscious at work that you must be aware of.”
So let’s question, push, and encourage healthy conversations about the spaces that greater inclusion should occupy within Stoicism. Let’s do what we need to do in order to insure that others who have occupied (and even continue to occupy) positions of subordination and marginalization have a space (or better space) at the table. Let’s use the writings of Stoics like Epictetus to help us solve problems in communication, in relationships, in social causes. And let’s not use cheap shots to discount an entire (and rich, engaging, and thoughtful) framework like the Modern Stoicism movement as an out-of-control kegger, ruled by fratty Chads, trying to make people (women) like me into slaves or missing persons.
Let’s, instead, take the good counsel offered in Epictetus’ Enchiridion and remember what he wrote in chapter 38, particularly as we make every reasonable effort to protect the ruling faculty of our minds…
When walking, you are careful not to step on a nail or turn your foot; so likewise be careful not to hurt the ruling faculty of your mind. And, if we were to guard against this in every action, we should undertake the action with the greater safety.
Dr. Debbie Joffe Ellis is a licensed Australian psychologist, licensed New York MHC, and adjunct professor at Columbia University TC. She presents and teaches in her home city of New York, throughout the USA and across the globe.
Andi Sciacca is the director of curriculum and program design for The Food Business School and the founding director of The Culinary Institute of America’s Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. She owns an educational consulting company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is a doctoral candidate in Philosophy, Art, and Critical Thought at European Graduate School.
It is not good to be entirely without experience of cold and heat, but one ought in some degree to feel the cold in winter and likewise the heat in summer and to seek shade as little as possible. –Musonius Rufus, Lecture 19.
[I]ndeed, philosophy is nothing but the practice of noble behavior. –Musonius Rufus, Lecture 4
One nice advantage of religious holy days and secular holidays is that they gives us the opportunity, year after to year, to think, honor, and feel gratitude, again and again, to men and women who have contributed in special ways across time to the common good of humanity. I know of no official Stoic holidays, though I recall that Epictetus sometimes mentions the Roman feast of the Saturnalia in December that celebrated an ancient golden age under the rule of the god Saturn. I know too that Marcus Aurelius happened to die on St. Patrick’s Day (two centuries before Patrick was born). In any event, I don’t see why we could not periodically celebrate some great Stoics at particular times of the year.
Now, we don’t know the exact dates of birth or of death for many of them, but since there are four great Roman Stoics from the period of the late Stoa (Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius), and these four are highly influential to modern Stoicism, I suggest that we could at least start our celebrations with a Stoic for all four seasons. If it remains within my control, I hope to write a series of four brief articles for each of the four seasons, and I’m starting right now with Musonius Rufus (c. 25 – 100 AD). So, if you have an ear for classical music, get Vivaldi’s Summer going gently in the background and prepare to start the summer with me and the man who taught and inspired Epictetus, a man called by some, “the Roman Socrates.”
I chose the summer theme for Rufus, not because he wrote extensively about summer, though you can see from the opening quotation that I was able to track down one little nugget, (that I, a great fan of not only shade, but of icy air conditioning, will try to put into practice this summer). The main reason I settled on summer for Rufus is that I have often read about, and have sometimes been asked to compose “summer reading” lists. I discovered Epictetus, Seneca, and Aurelius in my early 20’s and have enjoyed them for more than 30 years, but it was not until my mid-50s that I first read Rufus’s lecture fragments and sayings. I suspect he is still the least read and least known of the Roman Stoics (and would be intrigued by readers’ comments that might confirm or refute my suspicions), and though we do not have more than some dozens of pages of his philosophy, I have found them well worth the read, and re-read, and re-read, and I hope that you will too, if you have not already formed such a virtuous reading habit.
Rufus is one of the Stoic champions of the classic cardinal moral virtues. His teaching is rich in common sense and in focus on the practical application of philosophy for living a good and virtuous life. In The Porch and the Cross, my book on the four great Stoics and how they have influenced Christianity, cognitive psychotherapy, and modernity in general, I concluded by choosing among many possibilities one word to capture the essence of each of the four great Stoics. For Rufus I chose the word “sanity.” Rufus wrote that “thoughtlessness is very close to insanity” (Lecture 21) and I find him among the most thoughtful and sane persons I have ever read.
I must cut this praise short though and cut to the chase, for as Epictetus told us, “Rufus used to say, ‘If you have time enough to praise me, then I know what I am saying is worthless,” (Epictetus’Discourses, 3. 23). Rufus’s lessons are eminently worthwhile and he would clearly rather have us far too busy studying and living Stoic philosophy to waste our time even in well-deserved praise.
Next, I’m going to provide just a few samples of Rufus’s wisdom about a couple of the topics he’s rightly most famous for: the intellectual and moral equality of women with men and the need for us students of philosophy to live out and practiceevery day of our lives the truths that we acquire. I start with my own paraphrased abridgements from a few of Rufus’s extant lectures and then the briefest of commentary, excerpted with slight adaptations from my The Porch and the Cross. Hoping these snippets will have whetted or re-whetted appetites for Rufus’s Stoic wisdom, I’ll conclude with a list of recommended summer reading.
Lecture 3: Should Women Study Philosophy?
“Absolutely!” declares Musonius. Women have received the same gift of reason from the gods that men have, the same senses, most of the same body parts, the same capacity to know right from wrong, and the same inclination to virtue. Women no less than men are pleased by good and just deeds and decry what is base and shameful. Why would it not be appropriate for women to seek to live honorably and learn how to do so? That is what philosophy is all about. Should not a woman be good like a man?
A woman should have the practical prudence to manage a household or a state. She must be self-controlled to remain free from sexual improprieties, to avoid being a slave to her desires, argumentative, extravagant, or vain, so that she can control anger, preserve over grief, and become stronger than any emotion that seizes her. Any person, man or woman, who has studied and practiced philosophy, will display such a beautiful character. A woman who studies philosophy will become just as well. A female philosopher would be a just and blameless spouse, co-worker, and mother, thinking it worse to commit a wrong than to suffer one, who would rather suffer with less than be greedy for more, who would love her children more than life itself. It is appropriate as well for a woman to obtain the courage that training in philosophy brings. She will not bow down to the powerful and mighty, but will nurse and protect the children she brings forth, stand firm by her husband, and will not, due to haughtiness, shrink from work others might say is befit for only slaves.
Some said the study of philosophy might lead women to become haughty, quarrelsome, and frivolous, abandoning their proper duties, seeking out arguments or dissecting syllogisms in the marketplace, when they should be sitting at home spinning wool. Musonius said such actions are unworthy in men as well. True philosophical discussion is conducted for the sake of practical application. Women should do this just as men should and neither should abandon their duties to do it.
Here Musonius comes to the quotation we used to start this very chapter: “Just as there is no use in medical study unless it leads to the health of the human body, so there is no use to philosophical doctrine unless it leads to the virtue of the human soul.” Philosophy is powerful medicine for the soul, good for what ails both men and women. So, Yes! Women should study philosophy. Musonius concludes: “The doctrine of the philosophers encourages a woman to be happy and to rely on herself.”
Lecture 4: Should Daughters Be Educated Like Sons?
Perhaps you have guessed from the lecture above where Musonius is going with this. Contrary to the common Greco-Roman wisdom of his day, Musonius answers with another yes.
Trainers of dogs and horses don’t make distinctions in their training of males and females for the tasks they are to do, and neither should educators make distinctions in training human boys and girls in their main task of life, the acquisition of virtues. There is no one set of virtues for men and a different set for women. Both must be sensible and just. Lack of self-control from eating or drinking too much will be as shameful in a woman as it is in a man. Women need to be brave as well, and would not want to be inferior even to hens and other female birds that fearlessly do battle with any larger animal that threatens their chicks. Remember also the armed Amazon warriors. If some women lack courage, it’s not from their lack of natural endowment, but from their lack of practice.
Philosophy provides such practice for courage and for all the virtues, so as far as the virtues are concerned, sons and daughters should have the same education. Some will then ask if men should spin wool with the women and women should pursue the same gymnastics as men. Musonius does not advise it. He notes that some tasks, because of innate differences in the builds and the bodily strength of men and women, tend to be better-suited to each sex, which is why people have traditionally spoken of “men’s work” and “women’s work,” but even here there may be exceptions. He is talking about equal education for both sexes in the things that matter the most – like learning what is helpful and what is harmful, what should be done, and what should not, how to endure hardships, to overcome fear of death, to discern what is honorable and what is base and shameful. No man is properly educated without philosophy — and no woman is either. Women, like men, should develop good character and practice noble behavior, “since indeed philosophy is nothing but the practice of noble behavior.”
Lecture 5: Is Practice More Important Than Theory in The Pursuit of the Good Life?
We come toa point of the greatest importance to all four of our Greco-Roman Stoic moralists. To put it in a nutshell (well, three actually), Musonius poses three questions:
If you were ill, who would you choose between a doctor who can speak brilliantly about the art of medicine, but who has not treated sick people, or a doctor who cannot speak very well about medicine, but who is experienced in healing according to proper medical theory?
Who would you hire as your captain, a man who has never piloted a boat, but can speak authoritatively on naval theory, or a man who can hardly put two words together, but who has successfully sailed many ships?
Who would you hire to perform, a musician learned in musical theory who cannot play an instrument, or one who knows no theory, but plays a mean cithara or lyre?
Musonius assumes your answer in each case would be the person who has actual experience, the one who can clearly effectively practice, regardless of his capacity to preach. He applies this as well to philosophy, asking if it clearly isn’t better to be self-controlled and prudent than to be able to discourse about theories of temperance and prudence. Practice wins out over theory in philosophy because while understanding the theory behind virtuous actions enables one to speak about them, it is the practice of virtue that enables one to act virtuously. Theory is not without value, however, when it teaches one how to act and logically informs and comes before practice. Practical application should be in harmony with theory, but practice is more effective in leading people to action.
Lecture 6: How Does One Practice Philosophy?
It is one thing to know what the virtues of self-control, justice, courage, and wisdom are, and quite another thing live them. Anyone who claims to seek wisdom through philosophy must practice more fervently than one pursuing the art of medicine or any other specialized skill, because philosophy is of greater importance and difficulty than any other pursuit. Philosophy is the very art of living. How then does one practice and train?
We must train according to the nature of what we are. Humans are a composite of body and soul, and both of them must be trained. Most attention should be directed to the higher part of the soul, but some care should also be given to the body, lest one will be lacking in his full humanity. The philosopher must train his body in the capacity for virtuous work. The body is virtue’s instrument or tool. We train both body and soul when we discipline ourselves to withstand cold, heat, thirst, hunger, small portions of food, hard beds, to avoid pleasure and endure pain with patience.
The first step in training the soul is to make sure that the proofs of what things are truly good and evil are always ready at hand, and to accustom oneself to always distinguish truly good things from things that may appear good, but are not. The next step is to walk one’s thought, so to speak, never to run from what appears evil, but is truly good, nor to seek out what only appears to be good, while avoiding true evils and seeking true goods. All in all, a person practicing philosophy will seek to master himself, to overcome both pleasure and pain, to avoid clinging to life at all costs from a fear of death, and, in the case of goods or money, will not value receiving over giving.
A Bit of Commentary on Lectures 3 – 6
In his lectures endorsing female students of philosophy and the same fundamental moral training for males and females, we see Musonius’s clear declaration that men and women are endowed by the gods with the same gifts of reason and moral judgment. Note as well, that Musonius’s lecture 4 espousing equal moral training of children of both sexes does not speak of the education of “girls,” and “boys,” but rather of “daughters” and “sons.” Recall the Stoics’ goal of living in accordance with nature, which requires the understanding of the nature of things, including human beings. Musonius does not speak of merely “girls” and “boys”, but of “daughters” and “sons,” because even here, in this lecture on education, he remembers human nature. He does not speak of abstract groupings of “gender,” nor of young male and female citizens, as if owned by some state, but first and foremost of the fact that every girl and every boy is someone’s “daughter” or “son.”
In this regard, Rufus echoes Aristotle, who called humans both “rational animals” and “political animals,” but wrote that “man is naturally inclined to form couples – even more than to form cities, inasmuch as the household is earlier and more necessary than the city…” Who more than a parent should care that their children are raised up in a way that will cultivate the seeds of virtue within them, and who is more ultimately responsible? Time and again Rufus’s “family values” ring loud and clear through his lectures, and the way to best protect and promote family life per Musonius is through the pursuit of the cardinal virtues and the wisdom that embodied Stoic philosophy.
Lectures 5 and 6 make clear the value Musonius made of the practice of philosophy, valuing it so much higher than merely knowledge of it. The proof of a philosophy is in the pudding of actual virtuous lives lived out in accordance with reason and nature, bringing peace to the soul of the student of philosophy and benevolent deeds enhancing the lives of all of those around him or her. Still, Musonius does not by any means totally discount the role of knowledge and theory in living a life of virtue. We will better know what is truly good by a thoughtful search for the truth. But once a moral truth is found, it is far more important that is lived and not just learned.
I invite readers to ponder Musonius’ lectures as summarized above, or ideally as they are presented in full, to see what stands out as important to you, and I wonder what kinds of comments might you make and how Musonius’ wisdom might impact you this summer?
Recommend Reading for Your Stoic Summer
My own book that treats of Musonius Rufus in three chapters on his life, lectures, and his philosophical legacy across time is The Porch and the Cross: Ancient Stoic Wisdom for Modern Christian Living (Angelico Press, 2016).I must note as well that Rufus is of enduring value and well worth the reading for Christians and non-Christians alike. My own resources on Rufus at the time of writing were the excellent Cora Lutz and Cynthia King translations of Rufus’s extant works cited in the footnotes of this article. The Lutz translation was originally published in 1947, and the edition I cited has the benefit of the original Greek and English translations on facing pages. The more recent King book provides a more modern preface and introduction, and also includes other sayings attributed to Rufus from additional secondary sources (including, foremost, Epictetus). I also found J. T. Dillon’s Musonius Rufus and Education in the Good Life: A Model of Teaching and Living Virtue (University Press of America, 2004) a valuable resource on Rufus’s life and lessons. Just this year, I have discovered and enjoyed Chuck Chakrapani’s Stoic Lessons: Musonius Rufus Complete Works (The Stoic Gym Publications, 2018).
To conclude, I highly recommended that the next time you head for a chair on a hot sunny beach (or even for a recliner in an air-conditioned study), whether you are a woman or a man, young or old, religious or secularist, consider inviting Musonius Rufus to join you for a couple of well-spent hours heeding a voice of unusual clarity and sanity in a world that could certainly use some. You can be sure he will not hog the beach umbrella or ask you to turn up the air.
Kevin Vost is the author of twenty books on psychology, philosophy, theology, and physical fitness, has taught psychology and gerontology at Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee and the University of Illinois at Springfield.
In the search for Human flourishing (eudaimonia), meaning or significance is a necessary component. Meaning is what makes you who you are, what story you tell yourself about yourself. People find meaning in many forms: people, philosophy, religion, work, money, experiences, among others. The problem is that many people find their meaning in things they have no control over. They define themselves by their wealth, their jobs, their possessions or relationships.
If a person defines their meaning based upon things they have no control over then when they lose that thing that defines their meaning, they themselves become undefined. They lose the motivating factor in their story of self. Meaning, therefore needs to emerge from the self, and not from an external. One should then define their meaning in the context of one’s thoughts and actions, your knowledge, desire, aversion and motivation. In short the seat of meaning should reside within the realm of control.
Our Meaning should propel us through life and comfort us when the eventual setback hits us. Our meaning should never be able to be taken from us. Our meaning informs our agency in the world. Our meaning needs to be broad in order to fit into the many roles we must take during our life.
We all will fill the role of learners, doers, and teachers in our lives. All these roles equal and necessary in life and our meaning should be able to feed into each one of these roles. Our meaning must not be static or brittle. We may have it shift over time, to fit the dynamic of our lives. One may find their meaning shifting from a builder to a nurturer over time and this is fine as long as you can shift the material manifestation of your meaning from one subject to another.
If one understands levels of abstraction, one can find the proper level where to place one’s meaning. Abstraction is used in science where the primitives of one discipline are explained by another. For example Atomic Theory describes the atoms and all their primitive parts, electron, proton, neutron, orbitals etc. Chemistry is one abstraction level up. Its primitives are the atoms themselves. It uses those atoms to build chemicals. Going up a level of abstraction again Biology uses chemicals as building blocks for living organisms. Cell walls are made up of lipids, chemicals lined up in sheets, and our DNA just very long sequences of nucleotides, just more chemicals.
There are three major places that one can place their meaning in the levels of inner and outer life. At the most base level we have that of the inner self, defined by one’s reason and faculty of choice. A level of inner thought and contemplation before any action with the outside world.
Abstracting up to the middle level and we have our roles and duties within the community of rational beings. Here in the middle we have general duty based categories such as caregiver, builder, protector, organizer.
Going up once more and we have the manifestation of those roles. This manifestation are one’s job, one’s wealth, ones relationships, whatever is the physical output of that role. One can work toward improving their faculty of choice, but in order to live in accordance with nature we must interact with our fellow human beings. We fulfill that interaction with our duties, roles and their manifestations. If we keep our meaning in the middle level it matters not which form its physical manifests takes. The base and middle levels are within the realm of control. The highest level of abstraction is not.
If one is a builder then if matters not if any and all of your creations are destroyed or go to ruin. It is not in your power to preserve earthly things, but it is in your power to do the action of building. Your purpose is to build and create, be you a workman or engineer, tinkerer or architect, designer or craftsman. Nothing should stop you from being your meaning. You should be able to transfer the subject of your meaning, to a multitude of things and never lament when those things cease to be.
Your next project is little more than a hovel – then build it the best you can. Take as much care for this hovel as you would the project of a lavash house. If it is your meaning and duty to be a builder than build everything you can with excellence (arete). This building is done – good, move on to the next one. Do not boast of the building as if it is your own. It is an indifferent. One need to look no farther than the ruins of once great civilizations and remember the words of Percy Shelley’s “Ozymandias” to see how fleeting that is. Instead, if you are to say anything at all, say that “I have done the best work I could.” and leave it as that.
This city has been razed to the ground. Do not lament for that which is lost. There are people here now that need you. Do your duty and build for your fellow man, they need shelter from the elements now more than ever. Infuse your meaning into that which is your duty. You are not the building, nor the employee, nor the proprietor. The building can fall, you can lose your job, your company can fold. None of these events can take your meaning from you as long as you don’t put your meaning in these things. Fortify yourself by placing your meaning firmly within the realm of that which you control.
One day a builder will find that through circumstances outside his control he can no longer directly build. This is no problem, for as long as the mind is sound the builder can move to becoming a teacher or mentor who builds the builder. His meaning is retained even though his duty has changed. He should feel no resentment, but instead embrace the change with equanimity. The meaning flows like water into the vessel of the situation at hand.
On the other hand if his duty is to shift his meaning from one calling to another then the new meaning should also be self-defined within the world of the realm of control. Say now you have become an artist. Go forth and be the best artist that you can and fulfill your duty. If you become famous for your sculpture or paintings, or just have a regular job working to make art for marketing that matters not. Both can be good provided you act with excellence in your new meaning as an artist. You are not your art, you are your action. Pour your meaning into the action of work.
The existentialist philosophers sparred with this issue and came to varied conclusions. Albert Camus asserted that there is no meaning and that any attempt to assert meaning would only result in disaster. Here I disagree and am closer to Sartre’s position of “existence precedes essence,” i.e. that we create our own meaning and that there is no external meaning. That the meaning one has must be self defined. I assert that in order to maintain that meaning, the meaning has to be within one’s control. That in refinement to Sartre’s position, not only do we create our meaning but that a eudaimonic meaning must reside in the subset all possible locuses of meaning that are fully within one’s own control.
Of the things that are most correlated with a satisfying and meaningful life, one is contributing to something greater than yourself. These projects are personal, where you can see them having an effect on society, that provide peak challenging experiences, and will matter to more than just you.2 These projects could be a job or charity work or some sort of political organization, and they all lie outside the sphere of choice.
In order to gain the benefits of these projects without the potential of distress from their external nature we should abstract the location of the meaning we gain from them. If one places their meaning in the project itself, then it can be taking away from you, or the project can fail. Instead abstract up a layer and instead place your meaning in the work of moving a project forward. If your charity organization folds, then you can look at it as meaningful work that was done and that you can do more meaningful work with another charity. If your preferred political candidate fails, then work to promote another one for the next election. The outcome of the project does not matter, derive your meaning form your actions to promote a project.
When one looks at the research by Dr John T. Cacioppo and others, it indicates loneliness in older adults results in nearly doubling their mortality risk. They better define Loneliness as “perceived isolation and . . . more accurately defined as the distressing feeling that accompanies discrepancies between one’s desired and actual social relationships.” 1 If one moves their location of their desired social relationship away from an individual and towards a category, then one can change the location of the meaning one derives from specific relationships.
To be defined as the wife or husband of another results in an existence reliant on their spouse for meaning. Here one has placed their meaning in an external. One’s meaning is dependent on the health and opinions of someone else, not on anything one controls. A Stoic can still love their spouse, but would be wise to define their meaning in this regard as not so specific. Rather make your meaning to be a dutiful and loving spouse, or go up a level of abstraction to define your meaning as love and care for others. This change in relationship desire removes the discrepancy of loneliness. Then when one passes on, as we all will eventually, we don’t lose our meaning as well. Keep your meaning to the level of abstraction that remains within your realm of control and reap the health benefits.
Finally those who place their meaning in money are truly lost. Not only is money an external but an external which has no objective value. It only has value due to our inter-subjective reality, i.e. it only has value due to our collective agreement that it has value. It is a second order external, it is outside our control and it is dependent on others collective subjective agreement about it. At least first order externals like our bodies are only dependent on the physical world. A second order external is furthest from our control.
Those without meaning are like a ship out of harbor, beset by a storm. They are lost and in danger -in danger of being defined by others’ desires for them. In the storm they are at the mercy of the gust and waves, throwing them to and fro without direction of their own. The storms are jobs, money, relationships and any other other definition of meaning that on may take that can be taken away from them. If one has meaning that is dependent upon the self alone then they create a harbor against the worst storms and a harness for the storms that are advantageous and in harmony with your meaning.
Dan Hayesis a Stoic Prokoptôn, a VR Software Developer, and a Landlord, seeking calm within the storm of life through wisdom.
1. Luo, Y., Hawkley, L. C., Waite, L. J., Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: A national longitudinal study. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 907-914.
2. Martos T et al., “Life Goals and Well-Being: Does Financial Status Matter? Evidence from a Representative Hungarian Sample.” Soc. Indic. Res. 105, 561–8 (2012)
Nowadays, around half of all marriages end in divorce. The exact number varies from country to country and time to time, but having risen over the post-war era, it has broadly plateaued at a permanently high level.
Like many things, divorce exists on
a spectrum. For every couple who adopt the Gwyneth Paltrow / Chris Martin model
of “conscious uncoupling” and stay involved in each others’ lives, there is
another which re-enacts the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner film The War of the Roses.
Things are more complex when
children are involved and for every couple who manage to “co-parent”
successfully, there is another where one parent is cut out of the children’s
My divorce was the latter and I was
The settlement allowed me to send cards
and presents to my children 4 times a year but there was no corresponding
obligation on them. The situation continued for a couple of years until I
learned that my children had moved school. Then I learned they had moved house.
I re-engaged my divorce lawyer, who
in turn hired a detective. He found no trace of them but some hearsay evidence
they had moved abroad to one of two countries.
The matter was turned over to the
government, who, using the well established protocols for these situations, got
in contact with the government of one of the other states. Finally, they were
able to confirm that my children did actually live there.
Unfortunately, these things take
time and my children were located just after my daughter’s 16th birthday and 16
is the age when child abduction law ceases to apply. So, while I have gained an
idea of where my children are, I have also lost my ability to do anything to
get them back. I may be able to establish some contact with my son, who is
younger, but I have, probably, lost my daughter.
I developed an interest in Stoicism before my divorce and I’ve found it an enormous help during it. While I sincerely hope that no-one has to go through a similar experience, below are the 4 Stoic approaches that I’ve found the most useful.
1. The Dichotomy of Control
We are responsible for some things, while there are others for which we cannot be held responsible.
Epictetus, Enchiridion, 1.1.
An obvious place to start. One of
the core doctrines of Stoicism is to focus on what you control, and not to
worry about what you do not. Epictetus in the passage following the above talks
about judgement, impulse, desire, aversion and our mental faculties being in
the former camp, while the latter consists of our bodies, material possessions,
reputation and status.
A good example of his approach comes
in book 4, chapter 1 of The Discourses where
he writes in section 73:
Whoever told you ‘Walking is your irrevocable privilege’? I only said the will to walk could not be obstructed. Where the use of the body and its cooperation are concerned, you’ve long been told that that isn’t your responsibility.
If we do not control our own bodies
and actions, then, a fortiori, we do
not control those of others. Unfortunately, a divorce case, particularly
involving children, involves a lot of other people. There’s one’s soon-to-be-ex
spouse, one’s children, lawyers, a judge and any experts the court may choose
to consult. One of them at least, will not have your best interests at heart.
All of them have other things going on in their lives which may be more
important to them than your case. They may well reach conclusions which strike
you as illogical and ill-founded. And there is nothing you can do about it. The
decision in the case will not be yours.
All you can do is choose the best
lawyer you can, tell your side of the story to the best of your ability, try to
rebut the other side’s arguments where possible and to cooperate with the
process as far as you are able. After that, the matter is out of your hands.
Accepting this is a key part of process. Ultimately, you do not control the
outcome. In coaching parlance, all you can do is focus on the process and make
sure you do your best.
As Epictetus says in The Discourses II.5.28ff:
Your job then is to appear before the court, say what you have to say and then make the best of the situation. Then the judge declares you guilty. ‘I wish you well, judge. I did my part, you can decide if you did yours.’ Because the judge runs a risk too, don’t forget.
2. “The Olympics have started”
There’s a Buddhist proverb which
states that the 3 best teachers are failure, heartbreak and empty pockets. And
divorce certainly offers all three. However, one of the tropes of Stoicism is
that crises offer the chance to test oneself and improve one’s character. As we
know, the philosophy has an intensely practical nature prizing action in the
real world over “book-learning”.
‘Take the treatise On Impulse and see how well I’ve read it’ Idiot. It’s not that I’m after, I want to know how you put impulse and repulsion into practice, and desire and avoidance as well.
Epictetus, Discourses, I.4.14
Unfortunately, many of the virtues
are only really called into action in unpleasant circumstances. We cannot show
courage unless there is something to fear. Accepting a pleasant circumstance is
much easier than accepting an unpleasant one. It is at difficult times that we
have the most opportunity to learn and improve ourselves.
…Faced with pain, you will discover the power of endurance. If you are insulted, you will discover patience. In time, you will grow to be confident that there is not a single impression that you will not have the moral means to tolerate.
Epictetus, Enchiridion, 10
Divorce throws up many unpleasant
circumstances, but that offers many opportunities to improve one’s character.
Different parts of the process might call on different virtues and it helps to
see each new event as a chance to work on a particular area. As Marcus Aurelius
What is this which is now making its impression on me?…What virtue is needed to meet it- gentleness, for example or courage, truthfulness, loyalty, simplicity, self-sufficiency and so on?
Seeing divorce in that light serves
to lighten the pain, and one can think that while one will come out of the
experience poorer in many (indifferent) ways, one can also leave it a better
person than one started. By seeing it as a training course in life’s gym, one
can imbue the experience with positive meaning as it offers gains as well as
the obvious losses.
3. The Role of Father
It is well established in behavioral
economics that humans have an asymmetric approach to gains and losses.
Countless experiments have shown that we would far rather give up an
opportunity for gain to avoid a loss rather accept a potential loss as the price
for an almost certain profit. Unfortunately, divorce involves a lot of losses
As well as the material factors, one
also loses a role. One is no longer a spouse and the role (if it be such) of
“ex-spouse” depends almost exclusively on the circumstances regarding the
split. In my own case, not seeing my children also seemed to remove my role as
a father. But is this really true?
At one level, certainly not.
Whatever the current situation, nothing changes my genetic link to my children.
But looking at it in that, purely biological light, seems unsatisfactory as it
effectively equates fatherhood with sperm donation, and I think we would see
the two in slightly different lights. But a more expansive definition such as
“a male who brings up a child” seems flawed as well. A prisoner of war, for
example, is not involved in raising their child, but we wouldn’t say that they
stop being a parent during their incarceration.
Epictetus deals with parenthood in chapter 11 of Book 1 of The Discourses. There, he talks to a man who felt unable to stay with his sick daughter and describes his behavior as “not a rational act” (Discourses, I.11.20)
Now, any definition of a role in
terms of the actions it involves will fall foul of the Dichotomy of Control. As
noted above, there are circumstances in which one will not be able to fulfill
them. So, the role of fatherhood must be couched in terms of intentions and
desires. A father is someone who, for example, wants the best for his children
and endeavours to bring it about. It is in this second part that the father
whom Epictetus meets fails because, by giving in to his worry, he acts in such
a way as to reduce his ability to help and support his child.
This might seem a de minimis version of fatherhood and one
might wonder if Hierocles’ Circle does not lay a similar burden on us towards
everyone, not just our offspring. However, I think 2 points can be made in
reply. Firstly, the Stoics obviously placed family relationships in a special
position. The chapter referred to above is entitled Concerning Family Affection where he states:
Whatever is rational will not be in conflict with family affection Epictetus,
In this, he seems to be following
Musonius Rufus who writes in his lecture “What
is the chief end of marriage?” :
He said that the chief end of marriage is uniting to live together and have children [i.e. form a family unit]
Musonius Rufus, Lectures XIII.A.1
Further, while we may, as human
beings have an obligation to all other people, it is not clear that it is the
same as that owed to our families. If I fail to buy my children a birthday
present, I am probably a bad father. If I don’t buy a birthday present for
every child in my town, it is not clear that I am, therefore, a bad person.
So, if fatherhood consists of trying
to do one’s best for one’s genetic offspring, the change divorce has brought me
is not a loss of my role, it is rather a change in the way I can fulfil it. Our
performance of a role must be considered along with the realistic options we
have at any point in time. It must take cognizance of our practical situation.
For example, consider a father whose child is studying the Greeks. If he is
well-off, he might take her to Athens on holiday, and spend a week seeing the
Acropolis, the Agora and the museums to make sure she learns all she can about
them. The next year, she studies the Romans, but in the intervening period,
through no fault of his own, her father has lost his job, and his resources are
more straitened. Instead of a holiday to Rome, maybe all he can do is take her
to the local museum to see some relics. In the second year, he is doing less
for his daughter, but he has not thereby become a worse father. He is still
doing all he can, given the circumstances of his life.
My own situation means that I cannot
do many of the things we traditionally associate with fatherhood. However, it
does not stop me acting as a father. I can still endeavour to keep in touch
with my children’s education, for example. I can still intervene with those in
authority when I think it is to their advantage to do so. I can bear their
interests at the forefront of my mind, even in matters of which they will be
unaware and may never learn about. To misquote Dean Acheson, I may have lost my
children, but I have not yet lost my role.
4. Praemeditatio Malorum
The previous sections have dealt
with approaches to the problem, ways
of thinking about it which have helped me accept the situation. In this last
part, I will deal with a practice to help reduce distress.
Praemeditatio malorum or “the
visualisation of evils” is a standard part of the Stoic therapeutic arsenal,
consisting of intentionally imagining a situation which one fears or wishes to
avoid. The idea is that by repeated consideration of an event, one habituates
oneself to it, thereby reducing the distress it causes. If the event never
materialises, then one has at least reduced one’s fear of it while if it does,
not only should it cause one less distress, but by having rehearsed it
beforehand, one should also be able to react better, if for no other reason
than that it will not be a shock.
Not seeing my children is obviously
a continual situation, rather than a single event, so is hard to visualise. I
decided, therefore, to visualise dying on my own, having never seen them since
we parted. As I was lying there, not feeling too good about things, I realised
that, even in that extreme circumstance, I still had the opportunity to be
virtuous. I could die well, with courage.
And if I could be virtuous then,
then I could be virtuous at any time, no matter what was happening which I find
a very comforting thought. As Stoics, we’re supposed to aim for virtue and no
external circumstance whether it be divorce, loss or hardship can stop us
unless we allow it. As Marcus asks:
Can there be anything then, in this happening which prevents you from being just, high-minded, self-controlled, intelligent, judicious, truthful, honourable and free – or any other of those attributes who combination is the fulfilment of man’s proper nature?
And the answer is always, “No”.
Stewart Slaterlives in the UK. He has a degree in Classics and has been a practising Stoic for several years
One might wonder then:
Why another piece on the topic.
Hasn’t everything relevant already been said about the application of
Stoic philosophy to matters athletic, sporty, or exercise-related in those excellent
pieces here, as well as in myriad other pieces (ranging much more widely in
quality) elsewhere? After all, once Stoicism became a hot topic – guaranteed to
garner eyeballs on the internet – posts applying Stoicism to these matters of
the body have practically exploded in number, popularity, and readership. Why
write more of that sort of stuff, given how much of it is out there already?
Then again, perhaps a different sort of post would be
better. There’s always room for pieces
narrating and sharing one’s own story, by way of inspiration and personal example. After all, Stoicism is a philosophy of
practice and that means that it applies to particular individuals, who live out
and experiment with Stoicism’s general teachings. Or maybe a more exegetical post tallying up
and interpreting the many references to training, working out, and athletic contests
could be of interest?
This post will be something a bit different. While it includes some brief discussion about what classic Stoics had to say about exercise, athletics, and the body, and a good bit of personal narrative, the goal is to provide something more broadly useful. The audience I have in mind is less a high-performance athlete engaging and perhaps even competing in physical skills or sports. It’s not even the person who already has exercise as a central component of his or her lifestyle. It’s directed less towards readers in their teens and twenties – those years many of us look back on as ages of better bodily health which we may have taken for granted – and more aimed at an audience either approaching, solidly within, or past middle age. That’s not to say that it might not be useful or of interest for the types of readers I’ve mentioned.
The reflections that follow stem from my own experiences, insights, and reflections having to do with exercise. These are filtered through Stoic philosophy and practices, which I have relied upon over roughly the last year-and-a half of workouts at the gym we belong to (the Wisconsin Athletic Club, with a number of locations here in the Milwaukee area). My wife and I struggled for years to reincorporate consistent exercise into our busy lives. When dealing with heavy workloads, health challenges, and a slew of family matters, it becomes easy to sketch out plans for getting back into shape. It is equally easy to sign up for a gym membership, and perhaps even to go a few times. To stick with exercise, week after week, that’s considerably tougher. For me, reincorporating exercise in middle age turned out to be much more difficult and demanding than it was in my youth.
My workouts at the gym are pretty straightforward and unambitious. Some days, I make a circuit of 14-16 exercises using weights machines, generally doing three sets of 12-15 repetitions on each. That takes me anywhere from 1 hour, if I’m really moving, to 90 minutes. Other days, I put in an hour of cardiovascular exercise – 20 minutes on an elliptical, 20 minutes on a rowing machine, 10 minutes on a side-stepper, and 10 minutes on an inclined treadmill. Those workouts, supplemented by daily walking and occasional hikes, are as much as I can fit in, and I find them sufficiently challenging to be entirely uninterested in adding anything along lines of advice well-meaning people frequently suggest.
During those workouts, I find myself with plenty of time to reflect and ruminate. Since I study, teach, and produce content about Stoicism, ideas and issues from that discipline are often in my thought. Being at the gym also provides me with a lot of occasions to put Stoic philosophy into practice. I find myself having to deal with impressions, judgements, lines of thinking, emotions, desires, aversions, and my own habits. The fact that I have classic Stoic passages, principles, and practices ready at hand when I face these matters is, on the one hand, a sign that I am indeed making progress. The fact that I still routinely need to use those is, on the other hand, a sign that I have a lot more progress to make.
The reflections that follow may be useful for others who would like to bring Stoicism to bear on their own challenges in starting and sticking with regular physical exercise. I suspect that, given the challenges they stem from these reflections may be pertinent to other domains of life as well. In order to keep this piece to a reasonable length, I’ll discuss two of those sets of reflections today. In the coming week, I will add a few shorter follow-up pieces about yet other reflections.
Considering the Body
Classical Stoic thinkers employ many analogies likening the training of the mind with that of physical exercise and discipline. What did they think about training the body itself? One might think that they are of two minds about this. For example, you notice Epictetus asserting in Enchiridion 41 that one sign of an poorly developed person is spending much time on matters of the body. These include eating and drinking, but also engaging in exercise (gumnazesthai).
Seneca cautions Lucilius along these lines in Letter 15.
It is foolish. . . and unbefitting an educated man to busy oneself with exercising the muscles, broadening the shoulders, and strengthening the torso. . . . .Those who are obsessed with such a regimen incur many discomforts.
He does not suggest ignoring physical exercise, but rather
placing it within a proper framework.
There are ways of exercising that are easy and quick, that give the body a workout without taking up too much time. . . running, and arm movements with various weights, and jumping. . . Choose whatever you like and make it easy by practice. But whatever you do, return quickly from the body to the mind and exercise that, night and day.
Within classical Stoic philosophy, there is a clear, consistent, and uncompromising viewpoint on the human body. Those who focus upon it exclusively or even primarily are deeply mistaken, and whatever they may temporarily achieve or attain through the body, they are inevitably passing up any chance at real happiness, because they are closing themselves off to developing what really matters, and what we really do have some measure of control over. This is our mind, and in particular the nexus at its core that Stoics call by various names (picking out distinctive functions): the governing faculty, the rational faculty, the faculty of choice or will (prohairesis). Prioritizing and valuing physical exercise for its own sake, or for the sake of ends it leads to as a means (being strong and tough, attaining a certain look or body type, becoming more physically attractive, competing with others, etc.) is not inherently or absolutely incompatible with developing and exercising one’s mental and moral capacities, but for many people it turns out to be so in their specific cases.
Strictly speaking, the body is what the Stoics classify as
an “indifferent,” something that lacks intrinsic moral value, for good or for
bad. This is not to say that as an
indifferent it lacks value altogether, but it does not have the same sort of positive
or negative value as things that are genuine goods or bads. In their teachings and advice, Stoics
provided numerous examples of things that fit under this umbrella term of the
indifferent. Wealth and poverty, honor
and disgrace, positions and powers or being a “nobody” – these are all
Interestingly, if you look at many of the things that Stoics call “indifferents,” they pertain to the body in one way or another. Life or death, sickness or health, pleasure or pain, strength or weakness, attractiveness or ugliness – the body is not just one thing that is an indifferent, but rather a nexus of all sorts of indifferents. Quite a few of these are interconnected with each other. If we look at matters of the body along these Stoic lines, what do we make of hitting the gym then? Doesn’t whether we go or don’t go – or whether we exercise hard or slack off – also become just a set of choices that bear upon indifferents, so that really, they don’t matter very much (or perhaps at all)? In the grand scheme of things, does it matter at all if I do all of the repetitions in a set? Does it matter if I skip one of the weights exercises on any given day, or just row for 15 minutes rather than 20?
For Stoics, recognizing that things concerning the body are indifferents doesn’t lead them to think that how we approach them, how we deal with them, the decisions me make about them is itself something indifferent. There is the entire dimension of “use” (khresis), about which Epictetus tells us:
Materials are indifferent, but the use that we make of them is not a matter of indifference. . . . Are externals to be used carelessly? Not at all. This is again to the moral purpose an evil and thus unnatural to it. They must be used carefully, because their use is not a matter of indifference, and at the same time with steadfastness and peace of mind, because the matter is indifferent
In this discourse, Epictetus likens the conduct of one’s life to playing a game with a ball. The ball itself is an indifferent, but the way one choses to play is up to one, and does have positive or negative moral significance. One might look at one’s body in a similar light. Whether one chooses to exercise or not, one can experience pain, bad health, weakness, obesity, and ultimately death. In fact, as I often remind my students, you can get and maintain yourself in peak physical shape and get hit by a stray bus as you cross the street, or succumb to some unexpected pandemic. In many ways the body and its many connected indifferents is really outside the scope of our control. And yet, we can make prudent use of our bodies by engaging in regular physical exercise. We are responsible to some extent for the shape our bodies are in, and what we choose to do about that.
As a middle aged man, for whom physical exercise never comes as easily or effortlessly as I remember it did in my earlier decades, I have to remind myself that it is up to me what I do with this rather out of condition meat-machine I have been assigned. In my own case, I also have to keep in mind that the current state of my body is a result of not making the right uses of it in terms of exercise in the past, but that it is possible in the present to choose, to commit, to “use” better. Whether or not the parts of some machine of metal, plastic, and rubber get moved in this way or that by my bodily effort – that is definitely something indifferent. Whether or not my muscles, bones, circulatory system benefit in minor incremental manners from the physical activity I devote time to – that’s also indifferent. But what I decide to do with this body that I have – that is something up to me, something that is not indifferent.
Recognizing The Gym
As Shared Space
One main way in which I make use of Stoic philosophy at the
gym stems from a tendency that I have, and admit with some embarrassment, but
which I suspect many people can easily relate to. Nearly all of the exercises that I do at the gym
are on machines. Either they are weights
machines or they are machines set up for cardio. Like many gym-goers, I have my established
routines for how I cycle through using each machine in turn. I like to start my weight circuit with the
rowing machine, then the pulldown, then the shoulder press, and so on. I start my cardio workout on one of the
elliptical machines, and then move on to a rowing machine. There is no reason that the exercises that I
do need to go in any particular order.
It’s just a matter of habits that I have generated for myself over time.
Here’s what I find myself experiencing, still far too often,
but also find some remedies for in Stoic philosophy. It is a set of needless and unproductive thoughts
and associated emotions that arise within a particular context. These reveal some
of my own assumptions as well, judgements that I am working to erode over time,
because they are selfish, irrational, and harmful. In a strict sense, considered in light of
Stoic philosophy, they are also vicious – specifically foolish and unjust – and
setting them down in print makes this pretty clear. I have to go through a similar evaluative
process when I identify them and bring them up for review in my own mind, usually
as I’m laboring away at a physical exercise.
I will be on the machine that I’m currently using, laboring away at whatever exercise that machine is set up for, and I already have my eye on another machine – the one that comes next in my usual sequence. If someone else is using it, and I am getting close to finishing with my current machine, I find myself feeling emotions like annoyance, anxiousness, and impatience, often directed at that person on the other machine. It’s worse if there is some seeming legitimacy to those feelings – for example, when you see a person taking what appears to be an inordinately long time to knock out their sets, spending the intervals between dawdling on their phone.
Notice what I did just there, by using the term “dawdling”. In Stoic terms, that’s a judgement or opinion
(doxa or dogma, to use Epictetus’ terms) which might indeed be quite true,
but which could also be false. I’m
assuming something, or most likely, quite a lot of things, in making that
judgement. It’s also a way in which I’m
giving assent to what Stoics call an appearance or impression (phantasia), namely the impression that
the person on the other machine is wasting time doing something unimportant on
their phone, rather than getting on with the workout they ought to be engaging in,
if they’re on that machine. Practicing
Stoicism means identifying when one is engaging in this sort of unfounded
judgement-making, when one is reacting automatically or unconsciously to
appearances, rather than taking a pause to test them. It could be that the person is on their phone
for good reason. Perhaps they got an
important text, or an email came through that has to be attended to. Maybe they use an app to track their
Let’s say that the person in question really is wasting time, watching videos on YouTube about something trivial and totally unconnected with exercise. Let’s say that he or she is caught up in that, losing track of how much time is passing in between their sets. Why should that be upsetting to me? I rarely know any of the people I am sharing the gym space with. Nearly all of us have headphones in. How is it any of my business whether that other person gets a good workout in? It brings to mind Epictetus’ warning:
Somebody is hasty about bathing; do not say he bathes badly, but that he is hasty about bathing. Someone drinks a great deal of wine; do not say that he drinks badly, but that he drinks a great deal. For until you have decided what judgement prompts him, how do you know what he is doing is bad? And thus the final result will not be that you receive convincing impressions of some things, but give your assent to other things.
What other people do at the gym is really their own business. So why then do I find myself having these responses – before I am even finished with my own exercise – to another person using the machine I intend to use next? My desire is already stretching out into the near future to the thing I plan to use next. It’s not unlike a person who already has a plate in front of him, with a dish he hasn’t finished yet, looking over at the next dish he wants to eat, and getting upset seeing other people eating it. There’s something profoundly foolish about that, and even more so in the gym. Someone else might eat all the deserts while I’m polishing off my main course. But nobody is taking away my possibility of using an exercise machine by sitting on it. I just have to be patient, and sooner or later the machine will be free.
When I examine my own thoughts about these matters, in the
situation, what I realize is going on is that I have desires, emotions, and
thoughts that from a Stoic perspective could use some serious work. Human beings do tend to have a natural
self-centeredness, not just in terms of what we desire and what we value, but
also in the assumptions we make and the lines of reasoning we follow out, and I
am no exception. I have to remind myself
in these situations that I am the one who is allowing myself to become upset by
assenting to impressions I have of the situation, by failing to reflect upon what
might or might not be the case, by investing my desires into things I have no
control over, by making faulty assumptions about what ought to be the case, and
by inconsistently acting as if I am – if not the center of the universe – at
least the center of the gym.
Whether or not I do my exercises in the more or less
arbitrary sequence that I have settled into is really unimportant. The only thing that gives it some glamour of
significance is my own desire to do my exercises in that order. They can be shuffled around and no real harm
will come to me. The weights aren’t
going to be less heavy if I do the leg press last instead of in the middle of
my workout. The rowing machine will
function the same if I get on it at the end as well. Nobody is hindering or preventing me from
exercising by doing their own workout.
Marcus Aurelius constantly reminds himself – and Epictetus
and Seneca frequently teach – that we are all parts of greater wholes, systems whose
components can cooperate and harmonize with each other in productive ways, or oppose
each other and create conflicts. I’m not
claiming that somehow the Wisconsin Athletic Club is an organization in which
all of us members are working together for some common goal. But what it does provide is indeed a space
that we all share and have to take turns in.
It may sound quite silly, but I have to remind myself of the fact that I’m
definitely not the only person there to get a workout, and that it’s irrational
for me to be mentally laying claim on a machine that someone else is using,
when I’m still using another machine – one that yet another person might also be
waiting to use.
Through catching my own thought and emotional processes, recalling relevant Stoic teachings, and deliberately steering myself onto a path informed by those, I’ve noticed a difference over time. I still do find myself falling into this dynamic of worry over being able to move right from the machine I’m currently using to the one that comes next in my workout routine – and I’m not happy to admit a foible like that – but it does happen less often. And when it does arise, the emotional responses feel less intense and do not last as long. The thought processes are more tractable to being brought in line with better practical reasoning. And that is a sign that I’m making progress in developing what the Stoics call the ruling faculty of my mind, getting it too into better condition through appropriate and consistent exercise.
Gregory Sadler is the Editor of the Stoicism Today blog. He is also the president and founder of ReasonIO, a company established to put philosophy into practice, providing tutorial, coaching, and philosophical counseling services, and producing educational resources. He has created over 100 videos on Stoic philosophy, regularly speaks and provides workshops on Stoicism, and is currently working on several book projects