Stoic Week 2018 Demographics Report by Tim LeBon

One main activity of the Modern Stoicism organization is carrying out research on the impact of adopting Stoic practices, perspectives, and principles on those who do so.  Every year we run the Stoic Week online class, and we also gather valuable data through the surveys before and after participants engage in the class.  Tim LeBon is our lead quantitative researcher, and he does invaluable service in compiling and interpreting the data collected, producing a set of Stoic Week Reports.  This is the first report for this year.


Stoic Week is over, we hope you enjoyed it and found it helpful.  This is the first in a series of articles reporting on what we  learnt from it. Today we have answers to the following questions

  • How many people took part? Were there more men or women? Which gender is more Stoic?
  • How old are the participants of Stoic Week? Do you get more Stoic as you get older?
  • Which countries took part and which countries are the most (and least) Stoic?
  • Do people take part in Stoic Week more than once? Are people more Stoic the more times they do Stoic Week?
  • Why do people take part in Stoic week?

How many people took part? Were there more men or women? Which gender is more Stoic?

Gender Total 2018






Average SABS score


Male 2283 62 65 66 373
Female 1375 37 34 33 368
Decline to state 27 1 1 1 (364)
Other 21 1 0.5 (383)

Table 1: Stoic Week 2018 by gender  (*Percentages in this and other tables may not add up to 100% due to rounding)

  • More people completed the Stoic Week questionnaires than in 2017. 3899  people did so, an increase from 2860 in 2017 which was more than the 1798 in 2016. This was despite a longer SABS questionnaire to complete and the requirement to ask for GDPR consent. 3555 did not finish the questionnaires although they started and only 196 denied consent. This gives a total figure for 7650 people who accessed the questionnaires.
  • The ratio of males to females was 62% to 37%. This compared with 65% to 34% last year showing a slight increase in number of females talking part.
  • Men were marginally more Stoic then women as measured by SABS scored, though those who identified as “Other” ((admittedly a very small sample) were the most Stoic.

How old are the participants of Stoic Week? Do you get more Stoic as you get older?

Age 2018






Average SABS score 2018
Over 65 7 381
56-65 14 17 (was over 55) 13 (over 55) 381
46-55 20 18 17 375
36-45 22 22 21 372
26-35 23 27 25 366
18-25 13 15 22 366
Under 18 1 1 1 (369)

Table 2: A wide range of ages take part in Stoic Week. It does seem that you get more Stoic as you get older.

 Which countries too part and which countries are the most (and least) Stoic?

Country No % Average SABS Score
United States 1388 37 382
United Kingdom 832 22 363
Canada 310 8 377
Australia 158 4 376
Germany 155 4 356
Russian Federation 75 2 346
Netherlands 68 2 358
France 61 2 370
Spain 39 1 372
Ireland {Republic} 38 1 384
Sweden 34 1 364
New Zealand 31 1 363
Switzerland 31 1 361
Brazil 30 1 366
South Africa 29 1 379
Italy 23 1 370
Ukraine 22 1 344
Denmark 19 1 364
Poland 19 1 368
Belgium 18 0 369
China 17 0 376
India 17 0 376
Argentina 16 0 374
Finland 16 0 355
Austria 15 0 369
Portugal 15 0 377
Japan 14 0 376
Mexico 13 0 386
Norway 13 0 372
Czech Republic 12 0 335
Israel 12 0 363
Singapore 11 0 402

Table 3: Stoic Week 2018 by country

For the first time we obtained specific country data. Table 3 shows all countries with more than 10 participants in Stoic Week. Of these, the most Stoic were Singapore, Mexico, the Irish Republic and the United States. Least Stoic were the Czech Republic, the Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

Do people take part in Stoic Week more than once? Are people more Stoic if they’ve taken part a number of times?

Number of times participated in Stoic Weeks previously 2018% 2017% 2016


0 73 79 77 366
1 17 13 14 384
2 6 5 6 396
3 3 2 3 399
4 or more 2 1 1 423

 Table 4: Stoic Week 2018 : Previous participation

More than 70% of participants are first-timers, but those who do take part appear to be significantly more Stoic as a result.

How much do participants say they know about Stoicism?

Knowledge of Stoicism 2018 2017%  2016   % SABS
None 10 9 11 348
Novice 28 30 33 359
I know a bit 42 41 39 374
I know quite a bit but not an expert 19 19 16 398
Expert .8 0.5 1 429

Table 5: Stoic Week 2018

Most people say that know a bit about Stoicism, which as many as 10% doing Stoic Week without knowing anything about it. There is a strong association between how much people know about Stoicism and how Stoic they are according to the SABS.

Identification with being a Stoic 2018 SABS
Definitely not a Stoic 6 335
More not a Stoic than a Stoic 10 347
Neutral or I don’t know 37 356
I am more a Stoic than not a Stoic 38 388
I consider myself to be a Stoic


11 421

Table 5: How Stoic do  participants rate themselves? How closely does this connect with their SABS score?

For the first time, we asked people to what extent they identified as  a Stoic. Interestingly, about the same number are neutral as think they are more Stoic than not Stoic. A relatively small number consider themselves to be a Stoic whilst as many as 6% are doing Stoic week despite definitely not being a Stoic, which is perhaps surprising.

Why did people take part in Stoic week?

Below is the “word cloud” for the reasons given for taking part in Stoic Week.

Recent Blog Pieces on Stoicon 2018

This year, at Stoicon 2018 in London (organized by John Sellars, assisted by Amy Valladres) , we again hosted over 300 participants and fielded a number of talks and workshops!  In the weeks following, quite a few people wrote about their experiences at the conference, the conversations they had, the talks or workshops they attended, and what they learned.

Since Stoicon is one of the main events planned and put on every year by the Modern Stoicism organization, I thought what these participants had to say would likely be of interest to our readership, particularly those who could not attend the conference.

Below is a list of the longer pieces about Stoicon 2018 out there at present.  Several are in other languages, but if you can’t read those, there’s always the translate function in your browser, or Google Translate!

Retour sur la Stoicon 2018 à Londres by “Zenon” (in French).  This is a quite detailed, very thorough, in-depth overview of each portion of the conference, from the first session to the plenary address.  A host of excellent photos as well.  In my view, if you read only one piece on the conference, this is the one to select.

Londyński zlot stoików by Piotr Stankiewicz (in Polish).  I don’t read Polish (unfortunately), but I do know Piotr, so I had a strong sense it was going to be good.  When I was able to read this piece in translation, that was the case.  A good discussion of the plurality of modern Stoicism

What the Hell is Stoicon? by the author of “The Will To Freedom” blog.  Another excellent overview of the event, along with some background and a discussion about travel as well.

So far, I haven’t seen any other longer pieces discussing the conference.  If I’ve missed any, by all means, send them my way, and I’ll read them, then add them to this listing of recommended posts.

On Judge Kavanaugh, and Why We Need a Stoic Sage on the U.S. Supreme Court by Ronald Pies

Americans seem to agree on very little, these days, as was vividly demonstrated by the recent appointment of Judge Bret Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. But I suspect that almost any American acquainted with the term “stoic” would agree that Judge Kavanaugh’s emotional testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee1 was, well— not very “stoical.”

To be sure: Kavanaugh was dealing with a situation that virtually anyone would find emotionally overwhelming, and that few of us could face with equanimity. And yet, I want to argue that the kind of person we need on the Supreme Court is one who embodies the even temperament and high moral values of the ancient Stoic philosophers.

But wait—aren’t “stoics” people who deliberately quash all their emotions and never allow themselves to feel joy or sadness?  Aren’t they, like Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, obsessed with logic at the expense of intuition and empathy? Why would we ever want such an emotionally stunted individual on the U.S. Supreme Court, which, after all, deals with such emotionally-charged issues as abortion, religious freedom, and gun control?

But, as most readers of this website know, the popular stereotype of Stoics and Stoicism is far removed from the school of philosophy that flourished in ancient Athens and Rome, and which profoundly influenced modern-day figures like Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale, who endured seven and a half years of imprisonment and torture in North Vietnam.2,3

No, the ancient Stoics—men like Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca—did not believe in suppressing emotion or eradicating joy and sadness. Rather, they argued that maintaining the proper mental attitude would lead, quite naturally, to a state of equanimity and emotional balance. The proper attitude, for the Stoic sage, meant seeing the world for what it is: a place filled with unpleasant people and events, but also a place of joy—if only we keep a clear head, and act in accordance with Nature and virtue.  For the Stoic, it is not things or events or people that upset and unhinge us, but our attitude toward these things. As Marcus puts it:

Things do not touch the soul…our perturbations come only from the opinion which is within…4

The Stoics placed little value on material possessions, fame, or wealth, arguing that acting in accordance with virtue was the only lasting and genuine good. Indeed, the Roman statesman Seneca taught that:

A good character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness.5

The Stoics had a keen awareness of human mortality, and its central role in shaping our behavior. Marcus Aurelius cautioned that:

since it is possible that you may depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly.4

Finally, the Stoics believed in the sacredness of the common bond that unites all human beings. As Marcus Aurelius put it:

A man’s joy is to do what is proper to man, and man’s proper work is kindness to his fellow man.6

Some people link the Stoics with a kind of fatalism or determinism—as if the Stoics believed we must accept things as they are, no matter how bad, and have little power to change them. This, too, is a misunderstanding of Stoicism. It’s true that the Stoics saw the universe as strictly governed by the law of cause and effect. But as the scholar of Stoicism, A.A. Long has pointed out:

…fate is not assigned to me independently of who I am and what I do.  We co-determine our fate by the decisions that we [make] and by the responses we give to our circumstances.7

The Stoics firmly believed in opposing cruelty and injustice, while also acknowledging that sometimes our best efforts will fail.8

 Judge Kavanaugh Measured Against the Stoics

Now as to Judge Kavanaugh: I do not know whether he does, or does not, embody Stoic virtues in his everyday life, or in his approach to interpreting the law. Yet for me, as an ethicist—and entirely apart from the allegations of sexual abuse made against him— Kavanaugh’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee raised serious questions regarding his temperament and character. The historian Nils Gilman, writing in The American Interest, makes important points about the kind of person we ought to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing a number of quintessentially Stoic traits. A Supreme Court justice, Gilman writes,

…must be above suspicion, at numerous levels. Politically, they must seem reasonable and neutral. Intellectually, they must be clear and open-minded. Morally, they must be above reproach… Instead [in Judge Kavanaugh], we were greeted by a man barely able to contain his emotions, claiming partisan victimhood, and all but explicitly vowing revenge. This…was simply an unacceptable moral posture for anyone seeking a Supreme Court appointment, regardless of the underlying truth of the charges leveled against him. What Kavanaugh’s speech indicated—what it in fact performed—was a traducing of the moral values we expect a Supreme Court justice to embody: solemnity, equanimity, maturity, forbearance, and yes, sobriety (in the moral sense). Even if he was a man wronged, Kavanaugh’s conduct was, to use a moral concept often deployed in the military, “unbecoming” of a Supreme Court Justice.9

The Stoic Sage and the Supreme Court

In an important discussion of the “Stoic Sage”, philosopher Massimo Pigliucci raises many caveats, if not objections, regarding the whole notion of the “Sage.”10 He cites the wonderfully acerbic comment by Cicero:

It happens more often that a mule begets than that a Sage comes into existence. (On Divination 2.61).

For the Stoics, perhaps Socrates came as close to being a Sage as was humanly possible.

Notwithstanding these concerns, we can arrive at least a rough “character sketch” of the Stoic Sage, in terms relevant to the sort of person we ought to seek for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. A short list of requisite traits would surely include the five cited by Gilman: solemnity, equanimity, maturity, forbearance, and sobriety. But a much more comprehensive list can be extrapolated from the virtues Marcus Aurelius lists, at the beginning of his Meditations. (These are essentially the principles of character and comportment that Marcus himself absorbed from the most important people in his life). As I would summarize the most important of these character traits, they include:

  • Showing good morals and the governance of one’s temper
  • Acting with modesty
  • Showing piety, beneficence, and abstinence (not only from evil deeds, but from evil thoughts), and simplicity in one’s way of living
  • Avoiding partisanship (“…to be neither of the green nor of the blue party at the games in the Circus, nor a partizan either of the Parmularius or the Scutarius at the gladiators’ fights…”)
  • Enduring labor and having few desires
  • Refraining from meddling in other people’s affairs, or readily listening to
  • Not busying oneself about trifling things
  • Refraining from showing oneself off as a disciplined and benevolent person
  • Being easily pacified and reconciled with respect to those who have offended one, once they have shown a readiness to be reconciled
  • Maintaining undeviating steadiness of purpose, and remaining oneself, even under adverse conditions (“…to be always the same, in sharp pains, on the occasion of the loss of a child, and in long illness…”)
  • Looking to nothing else but reason as a guide
  • Being both “most resolute” and yet yielding, and not peevish in giving instruction
  • Conveying gravity without affectation
  • Looking carefully after the interests of friends, and tolerating ignorant persons, and “those who form opinions without consideration”.
  • Never showing anger or any other passion, yet being affectionate toward others
  • Refraining from fault-finding and chiding others in a reproachful way
  • Loving truth and justice, and respecting the freedom of the governed
  • Maintaining cheerfulness, mildness of temper, sweetness and dignity, in all circumstances; and doing one’s duty without complaining
  • Taking reasonable care of one’s bodily health
  • Being “…able both to abstain from, and to enjoy, those things which many are too weak to abstain from, and cannot enjoy without excess.”

[Quoted material is from the translation by George Long 4]

I leave the reader to decide how close Judge Kavanagh came to evincing one or more of these traits in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (A full transcript of his opening statement and a short video clip are available online, via the New York Times11). My own impression of Kavanagh’s demeanor and comportment before the Committee is similar to that of Nils Gilman. I do not believe that Judge Kavanagh demonstrated anything like “solemnity, equanimity, maturity, forbearance, and sobriety.”

That said, it is possible that in his comportment “on the bench”, and in the substance of his judicial rulings, Kavanagh exhibits some or even all of the traits Marcus Aurelius embraced. Certainly, some colleagues have attested to Kavanagh’s good character. For example, Sarah Day, who worked with Kavanagh at the White House between 2002-2006, described him as:

…smart, funny and kind. He is generous with his time, compassionate towards others, diligent in his work, and the kind of person you hope will advance to the highest levels of his profession…He is a thoughtful leader, a champion of others, and exactly the type of person you hope would be nominated to the position of associate justice.12

Perhaps. We will need to reserve final judgment until we have more “observational data”, based on Kavanagh’s comportment, demeanor, and, of course, the quality and tenor of his judicial decisions, after sufficient time on the Supreme Court. Indeed, a rush to judgment would be both unfair and “un-Stoic”. As Marcus cautions us:

A man must be well informed of many points, before he can pronounce surely about the actions of others. (Meditations, Book 11, no. 18).13

That said, it remains unclear whether, in approving Kavanagh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Senate was “well informed of many points”, or whether it acted largely out of haste, passion, and ignorance.



  4. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Translated by G. Long. Boston, Shambhala, 1993. Available at:
  5. Seneca, Letters from a Stoic. Translated by Robin Campbell, Penguin Books, 1969.
  6. Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. Translated by A.S.L. Farquharson. New York. Knopf, 1946.
  8. Pies R: Everything Has Two Handles. Hamilton Books, 2008

Ronald Pies is Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Lecturer on Bioethics & Humanities at SUNY Upstate Medical University and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Tufts University School of Medicine. He is the author of Everything has Two Handles: The Stoic’s Guide to the Art of Living and The Three-Petalled Rose.

The One Habit of a Highly Successful Stoic by Brian Earl Johnson

The Quest to Get Organized

When I was starting graduate school, I was very concerned about how I was going to manage it all. I had already worked hard as an undergraduate, sometimes juggling six classes a semester. But, I knew that the workload was about to get tougher because I was headed off to a graduate school that proudly sold t-shirts emblazoned with “Where fun goes to die” and “Hell does freeze over.”

Detecting my uncertainty, a buddy recommended that I get organized with a day planner. He was a fan of the Franklin Planner system and he urged me to take the seminar. I definitely like what I saw in the seminar, especially its emphasis on determining what my values are. Since I was already planning on studying philosophy with an emphasis on ancient ethics, I felt entirely comfortable defining my values. One of the clearest then was a commitment to lifelong learning.

While the Franklin Planner brought some measure of order in all I had to do, something wasn’t quite working, either. The paper planner was cumbersome, especially since it had two full pages for each day. Since it made sense to carry a full semester or quarter at a time, it was a heavy book that had to go around with me to my classes. At that time, there were certainly electronic organizers (Palm Pilots), but I did not find those satisfactory either. Paper was both tactile and larger so it engaged my senses better; I have felt vindicated about that dissatisfaction now that an emerging set of studies show that we learn better when we write by hand and when we use printed books as opposed to ebooks.

And, something else was awkward for me with the planner: as a student, my schedule was relatively fixed so the primary “action” of my planner was in the sprawling to do list. In the paper planner, the to do list is kept in a kind of bookmark that one moves with each day. My list felt out of control because it was constantly having new items (such as reading assignments or test preparation) and it seemed so Sisyphean to keep re-writing it on new cardstock.

In my third year of graduate school, two books came my way at just the right time to help me solve this ongoing puzzle about how to organize my life.

First, I read Stephen Covey’s The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. I read the book because I had decided to work over the summer at a retail store where the Franklin Planner company sold their products. The had merged with Stephen Covey’s organization to become Franklin-Covey. (Although they are now out of the brick and mortar storefronts, the company remains by having returned to its roots in offering seminars on getting organized). I liked many ideas contained therein from the so-called “big rocks” exercise to its approach to negotiating: win-win or no deal

But, I was most taken with how Covey approached getting organized. Not only did he prefer the broader week-at-a-glance approach, but he urged that we organize our life around our roles. He writes that

We each have a number of different roles in our lives – different areas or capacities in which we have responsibility. I may, for example, have a role as an individual, a husband, a father, a teacher, a church member, and a businessman. And each of these roles is important.” (from the chapter, “Begin with the End in Mind”)

He adds that, when we draw up a mission statement for our lives (a common practice in the “get organized” literature), we should look at each of your roles. “What are the values that should guide you [in those roles]?”

Second, in my Greek reading group at school, I was assigned the job of translating and commenting on Epictetus’ Discourses 1.2, “How may a man preserve his roles on every occasion?” That discourse resonated powerfully with the approach I had already learned from Covey. I had been experimenting with organizing my life around my roles and I had found, exactly as Epictetus declared in Discourses 2.10 that once we know our roles, it is often immediately obvious what to do. In turn, this role-bound approach helped me to see with greater clarity what was more important (as opposed to what was merely urgent but not important) — another helpful idea I had picked up from Covey.

It was the confluence of these two books that started me on my path of researching Epictetus, eventually yielding my own book on him, The Role Ethics of Epictetus: Stoicism in Ordinary Life.

The Habit of Epictetus: Identify and Prioritize Your Important Roles

Foundational to Epictetus’ account of roles is his distinction between two sets of roles: one set contains a single member, our role as a human being. The other set includes the myriad of our specific roles such as sister, brother, citizen, teacher, soldier, and so on. These latter roles entail natural relations of family but also acquired roles of marriage, friendship, and our profession.

From the get go, Epictetus insists that our human role is the most fundamental and we must never compromise our humanity — lest we become wild beasts, sheep, or worms. This role requires that we must act as human beings. For ancient philosophers, being human is a normative concept: a human being is not whatever a human being does. If we act like beasts, for example, we have failed our humanity and become no better (if not worse) than a dumb animal. For a Stoic, that is a fate worse than death.

What does our role as a human being require of us? Here are some highlights according to Epictetus:

—To be rational. Epictetan rationality has both an internal and an external aspect. Internally, rationality pertains to how we use our mind; we must be logical. Externally, rationality means that we deal with each other by means of persuasion instead of by the fist. Of course, I may have to raise my own fist to protect myself against those who are blatantly irrational, but force is always the last recourse. Animals, by contrast, have violence as their first and only recourse.

—To act as a citizen of the world. Cosmopolitanism was first explicitly identified as a virtue by Diogenes the Cynic, but it was the Stoics who made it a universal value. We should all recognize that we are citizens of the world first and then, secondarily, citizens of some local state.

—To treat externals as indifferent. The Stoics readily accept that life presents us with a wide array of preferables (health, political freedom, family, etc.) and we should pursue them. But, we should not, they held, treat such externals as ethical goods. By this stance, he believes, we preserve our volition and our inner freedom. We also eliminate the passions.

—To engage in self-reflection, that is, to examine our actions from an ethical point of view.

About our various specific roles, Epictetus has much to say, but I would like to extract two key ideas for this blog post.

First, Epictetus is emphatic that we limit our specific roles to our capacities, to what we can do. He considers this aspect utilizing both a humble and a grand-scale example. On the humble scale, he talks with a man who unrealistically fantasizes about outfitting his city with civic structures because it has need of them. Epictetus replies that the city also has need of shoemakers and blacksmiths. It is:

sufficient if each man fulfill his own proper function … ‘What place, then, shall I have in the State? says he. Whatever place you can have and at the same time maintain the man of fidelity and self-respect that is in you. (Handbook, 24.4, Oldfather translation)

Epictetus similarly wonders about the grand-scale role of Socrates, a role that demanded immense prowess. In looking to that role, Epictetus urges us to recognize that not all horses can become swift (Discourses 1.2.24). We should recognize that Socrates was a kind of Olympian of the spirit and surely only a few have the talents to compete in the Olympics.

In both cases, I am reminded of Cal Newport’s iconoclastic book, So Good They Can’t Ignore You in which he argues, in almost Stoic fashion, that basing your career on passion is dangerous. Newport urges that we should adopt the mindset of a craftsman who utilizes deliberate practice to make his abilities so good one can’t be ignored. Or, as Epictetus puts it:
Yet a bull does not become a bull all at once, any more than a man becomes noble, but a man must undergo a winter training, he must prepare himself and must not plunge recklessly into what is inappropriate for him. (
Discourses 1.2.32).

Second, these roles define who we are and they are absolutely worth living for and dying for. This life and death language is especially dramatic in Discourses 1.2 where Epictetus is debating about an imperial order that all philosophers shave their beards. For Epictetus, a philosopher’s beard has the same status as, say, a modern Sikh and his beard and turban. Epictetus sardonically observes that the Emperor may cut off Epictetus’ head but not his philosopher’s beard because Epictetus’ role is not up to the Emperor (1.2.28-29). In much the same way, Epictetus praises the Olympic athlete who chose death rather than a life-saving medical castration because such s castration would have meant giving up his role as an Olympian (1.2.25-26). Better a dead Olympian, than a role-less man.

Epictetan Success

By appealing to our roles, Epictetus has hit upon a language that his listeners evidently found meaningful and intuitive. Given the popularity of Stephen Covey’s work, this role language still resonates. We should ask, then, what is the highly successful Stoic? On Epictetus’ terms, such a Stoic is four things:

  1. One is fundamentally a good person because one’s humanity is the bedrock of all action.
  2. One is a motivated person; that is, one is motivated to realize one’s roles because it is essential to who one is. Our roles determine what we see as reasonable or unreasonable. Epictetus points out how we can endure anything we find to be reasonable (1.2.1-8).
  3. One is a realistic person; by selecting roles that match our talents, we set realistic goals about what success for us should look like. In rather inspirational language he says, “For I shall not be a Milo [a great wrestler] … and yet I do not neglect my body ; nor a Croesus [an extremely wealthy King], and yet I do not neglect my property ; nor, in a word, is there any other field in which we give up the appropriate discipline merely from despair of attaining the highest” (1.2.37)
  4. One is a patient person; what matters is playing one’s role well. “Remember that you are an actor in a play … For this is your business, to play admirably the role assigned you …” (Ench. 17)

Roles without Stoicism?

Although Epictetus was quite the purist about Stoicism and he could be quite austere — even morbid (cf. fragment 26) — in his advice, he seems to have been open to the possibility that appealing to roles is meaningful even for those who are not Stoics.

Epictetus reveals this side when he says: 

for I should not be unfeeling like a statue,  but should preserve my natural and acquired relations as a man who honors the gods, as a son, as a brother, as a father, as a citizen” (3.2.4; my translation).

And, he puts that into practice in Discourses 1.11, “Of family affection,” when he talks with a father who ran away (owing to grief) from a sick daughter. It would have been all too easy for Epictetus to tell this father that his daughter is not a good, that she is a matter of indifference (cp. 3.3.5-10). Instead, he engages the father (dare I say with empathy?) in an exchange about what it is most natural for a father to do: to care for his child.

This side of Epictetus has always been welcome news to me since I do not, in fact, consider myself a Stoic. But, in committing myself to the fulfillment of my roles, I readily consider myself an Epictetan. It was Covey who taught me that roles are the key to getting organized, but it was Epictetus who taught me that roles are the key to realizing virtue.


Brian Earl Johnson is an associate professor of philosophy at Fordham University in New York City. He earned his doctorate from the University of Chicago in 2007 and specializes in ancient Greek and Roman ethics. Johnson is the author of The Role Ethics of Epictetus. He has contributed an essay, “The American Diogenes: Mark Twain’s Sacred Profanity” in the volume, Mark Twain and Philosophy. He also appears in chapter 2 in Mark Adam’s hilarious book, Meet Me In Atlantis; therein, Adams and Johnson discuss the origin of the Atlantis myth in Plato.

Stoicisms Ancient and Modern by Tony (A.A.) Long

Each year, after the Stoicon conference, we ask the speakers and workshop leaders to provide transcripts or summaries of their presentations, so that our readership can enjoy some of the same opportunities for learning as the conference attendees.  This year, I am particularly pleased to be able to start that series with the talk given by our keynote speaker, who generously provided the full transcript of his talk in advance! – G. Sadler, Editor


Hello everyone! This is my first Stoicon – my first encounter with people who are seriously committed to living a modern version of ancient Stoicism day by day.   It’s great to be here and to have the opportunity of sharing some Stoic thoughts with you. I am truly amazed and delighted at how this event and “Modern Stoicism” have caught fire, helpfully touching so many lives.   The stories and observations in Patrick Ussher’s Stoicism Today collections are inspirational.  They are a terrific testimony to the adaptability of ancient Stoic teaching to contemporary conditions and predicaments.

This event would have been unimaginable when I began to study ancient Stoicism more than fifty years ago. My interest in the Stoics at that time was entirely academic.  I had fallen in love with philosophy as a schoolboy. Within a few years, thanks to a sequence of happy accidents, I found myself teaching classics and ancient philosophy at the distant University of Otago in New Zealand.  One of my first assignments was a graduate class on Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations; this work is our best surviving source for the ancient Stoics’ theory of emotion (a topic now brilliantly discussed by Margaret Graver, who spoke at last year’s Stoicon in Toronto, and of great interest to many of you).  As I wondered what to do as a long-term research project, I received the following advice from David Furley, a fine scholar and teacher of mine at UCL: “You should study Stoicism because it is (at the date of 1964) the most neglected of all the ancient schools of philosophy”.

How so?  Had people back then stopped reading Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. These authors were being read occasionally and unsystematically, but it was not neglect of them that Furley had urged me to repair.   The Roman Stoics’ philosophical doctrines derive entirely from theories first elaborated in the Athenian Stoa some 300 and more years before.  It was that – the teaching of those remarkable Greek-speaking immigrants to Athens, Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus – that Furley meant by describing Stoicism as the school most in need of recovery. The recondite and haphazard conditions of survival were one reason for scholars’ neglecting the founding fathers of Stoicism. But other and much deeper things were responsible, making your Stoicon inconceivable fifty years ago.

One factor was the widespread British and American belief around 1950 that early Stoicism was of no interest as academic philosophy.  That belief has proven to be hopelessly incorrect; in ethics and in logic the ancient Stoics were way ahead of the game.    Much more than scholarly prejudice, however, was and still is at stake.  Outside universities as well, Stoicism had become the Cinderella of ancient philosophy. The once famous works of Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius – the very books that have captured your attention – were completely out of fashion in the middle years of the twentieth century. Far from being taken seriously as a timelessly practical guide to life, Roman Stoicism was widely reputed to exhibit “monumental moralizing dullness” (Gerard Watson’s expression in 1966).  What we are now experiencing, in the current Stoic revival, is a really extraordinary paradigm shift.  The Roman Stoics and Greek Stoicism have become one of the hottest things both in philosophy and in popular culture.

How and why has this happened?  No one fifty years ago was talking about “philosophies of life” especially in the no-nonsense UK (recall he show “No sex please, we’re British”), or talking about Stoicism as therapy or mind training. Writers who paved the way for “Stoicism Today,” including Hadot and Foucault in France, Stockdale, Nussbaum, and Irvine in the US, Robertson in the UK and Canada, were not even a blip on the horizon.   All those years ago none of our Stoic focus as academics was practical.  We loved to analyze Stoic ethics, physics and logic, but simply as wonderful and intriguing intellectual constructions.  It was extremely exciting to be at the forefront of recovering ancient Stoic philosophy.  Working, as I also did at the time, on Epicureanism and Scepticism, I was sometimes asked which one of the three schools I fancied for myself.  Please don’t be shocked at my flippant reply: “I am a stoic lower case (!)in the morning when I write, a sceptic in the afternoon when I teach, and an epicurean in the evening when I have fun.”

Some forty years ago, at the end of the Soviet era, I met a Hungarian journalist who told me that {I quote} “Stoicism (meaning the ancient Stoa) is the philosophy for our time”.  Like Lipsius in the year 1600 or so, the journalist meant that inner freedom, equanimity, and self-mastery are especially meaningful and urgent when the external world has become fraught or turbulent or you have actually lost political freedom.  At the time I encountered the Hungarian, it was still reasonable for a Brit or an American to view our own social and political world with a fair degree of optimism, to think by and large that things were getting better; at least that was my mind-set.  Today (O tempora, O mores) I have come to share the Hungarian’s view that Stoicism is also the philosophy for my time.  So I can completely sympathize with those of you who have come to that same realization.  I have also as a teacher and author lived with Epictetus (even lecturing on him to prisoners in San Quentin Gaol), so now I constantly ask myself: What would Epictetus say to me at this moment?

There are, of course, many (lower case) stoicisms, and many ways of approaching ancient (upper case) Stoicism.  Lower case stoicism was not invented by Zeno, when he began teaching in the Athenian Stoa 2300 years ago.   Making the best of things, sticking to a goal through thick and thin, drawing on inner resources of mind and will, prizing excellence of character  – these had been Greek values long before.  Homer’s “much-enduring and resourceful” Odysseus was an honorary Stoic hero, while Socrates, whom Zeno was primarily inspired by (and who populates the pages of Epictetus), died a hundred years before the foundation of the Stoic school.   Or from our own times, take the lower case stoicism of Irving Berlin’s great song: “I got the sun in the morning and the moon at night.  Got no money in the bank, got no mansion, got no yacht, still I’m happy with what I got”.

As for upper case or official ancient Stoicism, it had many voices, as you know from your focus on the Roman Stoic philosophers. We have Seneca’s polished rhetoric and caustic wit, Epictetus’s dialogical brilliance and wake-up calls, and the moving and stalwart meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.  All three are quite individual in their style and appeal.  To these three voices we can go back in time for distinctive upper case Stoic voices. I think of Cicero’s eloquent treatment of practical ethics in his De officiis, one of the first books to be printed in 1465, with its theories drawn closely from a work by the Stoic Panaetius.   I think of Cleanthes’ great Hymn to Zeus. And I think of Chrysippus’s rousing paeon to the natural and immutable law of right reason.

Many ancient Stoic voices then, and many variations of tone and emphasis. They encourage us to express and enact Stoicism in our own way. They don’t presume that any of their readers could be close to becoming a sage, a perfectly Stoic person.  Ancient Stoicism was a philosophy of progress, leaving each individual to try to make the best of themselves according to their own personalities, aptitudes, and real life situations.

Yet, the ancient upper case Stoics, allowing for their individuality and circumstances, all sang the same basic tune.  Don’t be misled by the notion I sometimes read in modern writers that ancient Stoicism was thoroughly eclectic, letting you pick out choice bits and discard the rest. Greek and Roman Stoics were in complete agreement about three reciprocal doctrinal principles: (1) the rational and providential structure of the universe, (2) the special status, responsibilities and challenges of being human (endowed with reason), and (3) our innate potentiality and goal – to live well together in all circumstances. Those common principles were underwritten by three big ideas that I have chosen to focus on here in the following order: the beauty of virtue and its sufficiency for happiness; social utility; and cosmic connectedness.

Virtue as Beauty and Sufficiency for Happiness

We are all familiar with the ancient Stoics’ claim that virtues of character (prudence, courage, justice, and moderation) are central to a flourishing human life.  You can read in some modern accounts of ancient Stoicism that virtue is the “highest” good.  Actually, no! That proposition fits Plato and Aristotle, not Stoicism. Plato and Aristotle admitted lower level goods – goods of the body (health and fitness etc.) and goods of external circumstances (wealth and reputation etc.). The Stoics disagreed. So-called lower –level goods are naturally attractive and necessary for our sheer, physical existence, they said; but they are not absolutely essential to our moment-by-moment lives as rational and autonomous agents.

If we are to be authentically or upper case Stoics I think we must accept this stark distinction between goodness and other values, difficult though it is.  (Is it compatible with the philanthropy and communitarianism on which ancient Stoics laid such stress?  Keep that question in mind, but let’s interrogate the doctrine concerning the attribution of goodness to nothing but virtue.) The ancient Stoics were adamant that virtue is not the highest good; it is the only good.  Far from being a quibble, as this thesis may sound on first acquaintance, it was a point of huge contention between Stoics and their philosophical rivals.  It was also the point that most decisively marked the Stoics’ philosophical identity and made them special.

As Epictetus states so trenchantly in the first sentences of the Manual, bodily and external things are “not up to us”, meaning things we are totally in charge of and capable of bringing about.  There are no bodily and external goods in Stoicism; there are only mental and moral goods. Epictetus distinguishes between the things “up to us” (our mental and moral life) and the things “not up to us” (our bodies and external states of affairs).

This distinction may be our single most important legacy from ancient Stoicism. It makes us, our individual selves, not good luck or good fortune, primarily responsible for our happiness and unhappiness. It restricts human goodness to excellence of mind, motivation, intention, character, and will – the things that are up to us; and it also restricts badness, correspondingly, to things that are up to us: namely, deficiencies of mind, motivation, character and will.   Things not up to us – such as health, wealth, family, country – these are all areas in which Stoics are required to exert themselves by acting as effectively and beneficially as possible. [More on this crucial point, in due course.] But the success we should naturally aim at in these areas, and which we would naturally like to achieve for ourselves and for others, is not “up to us”.  Success depends on other things besides our individual minds and motivations and plans (such things as our physical health and strength, the people around us, impersonal circumstances, and accidents). Therefore successful achievement is not itself a good, a credit or benefit to us as individual agents.

The Greek Stoics expressed the restriction of goodness to virtue in the striking words monon to kalon agathon, literally: “Only what is beautiful is good”.  How are we to understand these words?  What has beauty to do with goodness, happiness, and the virtues of character? Were the Stoics saying that they could or should try to win beauty competitions?  If the competition were for ethical beauty, then absolutely yes!  According to the ancient Stoics goodness and beauty are logically equivalent.  This means that you cannot have one of them without the other.  Beauty and goodness are mutually implicated and connected.  Does that tight bond make beauty and goodness synonymous?  Not in the least. Each term retains its distinct meaning, according to the Stoics’ lexicon. Goodness signifies optimal function, benefit, acting supremely well. Beauty signifies perfect balance and symmetry, completeness, nothing out of place, sheen or resplendence.

Ethics and aesthetics are inextricable from one another in these thoughts.  Epictetus as usual stated the point most memorably: “As a human being, you are not flesh or hair, but prohairesis (will, choice, decision, or intention); if you get that beautiful, then you will be beautiful” (3.1.40).  His word kalos, as the context makes clear, should be translated by “beautiful”, not by a less striking word like honorable or fine.  Stoic virtue is beautiful because it is perfect (“has all the numbers”); and it is beneficial because it necessarily and always benefits the doer and the object of one’s doing.  Each individual virtue is in sync with all the others. You cannot, according to ancient Stoicism, have one virtue without having the rest as well, be courageous, for instance, and not also be fair minded, balanced, and prudent.   The Stoics’ justice, courage, temperance, and prudence beautify their actions, and in beautifying their actions the virtues benefit those whom they affect.  How exactly do they “beautify”?

The core idea connecting goodness and beauty is harmony.  Harmony  was to the fore when the early Stoics formulated their goal of life as “living in agreement” (homologoumenos), “not being conflicted”. The agreement, they said, was with nature (physis), and the terms of the agreement were twofold: first, to be in harmony with one’s identity as a rational being, and second, to be in harmony with external nature or the way things happen by the processes of physics and biology.

I have moved in my words from goodness and benefit to beauty and harmony, but remember that these terms all refer to the same thing, namely virtue and virtuous action.  Moreover the Stoic word for harmony, homologia, also means agreement in the political sense of a treaty or compact.  The Stoic cosmos was not a mechanistic system composed of lifeless elements but a vast organism animated and activated and structured by the rational force that they called Zeus or divinity.  In advocating harmony with external nature, the Stoics envisioned the divinely animated and activated world as their home in an extended sense or their community, and not only their home or community but also their guardian.

Living in harmony with nature was not just a metaphor for coping with the accidents of fortune; it was endorsing the natural course of life from birth to death as a compact or contract that we implicitly undertake with the world’s causal processes and the basic facts of life. The compact, as Seneca says, included mortality among its terms, or having a foot, as Epictetus says, that will sometimes get muddy.  The compact required that we submit willingly to the natural/inevitable course of events, accepting that there is always a role for us to play beautifully (kalos, Epictetus’s word again) in the world’s economy.

Zeno found evidence of divine providence in the world’s outstanding beauty (eximia pulchritudo), in Cicero’s translation of his words.  The statement does not mean that the cosmos is beautiful in every part and detail, but that the beauty and harmony the cosmos does exhibit overall is superb and evidence of a divine artist’s handiwork.  In their moral aesthetics – the identity of human beauty and goodness – the ancient Stoics took themselves to have an analogue and model in the beauty and beneficence of external nature.  There are numerous passages to this effect that you doubtless know in Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus.

The beauty of virtue has largely disappeared from our colloquial discourse, and it doesn’t seem to be emphasized by modern stoics.  It needs to be brought back not only to modern stoicism but also to ethics as such.  The beauty of prohairesis, as Epictetus envisioned it, takes human goodness to be glamorous, as it were, admirable and choiceworthy because it displays human identity at its best.  The virtues, according to Stoic doctrine, were not introverted or self-regarding qualities but visible to observation.  Nothing in the least is narcissistic about the virtues’ beauty. Their context and scope were intended to be socially beneficial through and through.

We will understand this social dimension if we remove from ancient Stoicism, as modern Stoics are successfully doing, the old connotations of lower case stoic apathy and repression.  Stoic philosophy from the outset, unlike its Epicurean rival, was socially and politically engaged.  It was designed for action in the world and, at the limit, for exemplifying something splendid.  That is why Socrates and Cato, in their very different ways were exemplary.   Seneca served for years as an imperial adviser, Epictetus trained young men who would enter public or military service, and Marcus Aurelius was emperor.  When Cicero at the end of his life inveighed against Julius Caesar and Mark Antony (vainly pleading for the continuance of the Roman Republic and against one-man rule) he turned to upper case Stoicism, writing it into De officiis, which he dedicated to his feckless son.

It is true, of course, that patient acceptance and emotional fortitude are prominent values in some of our ancient Stoic literature, and they are understandably popular in Stoicism Today. You can be splendid or beautiful as a Stoic in prison or hospital or on your deathbed or on refraining from anger. Given the human condition and “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” the consolatory and therapeutic application of Stoicism was and remains absolutely right, proper, and authentic.  The point I want to get across here is that action, not resignation, least of all self-absorption, was the original driver of the Stoic movement.  According to Stoic doctrine, the wise man will engage in public life if the opportunity arises.  In the order of preferential lives, being a monarch ranked first, second came statesman, and professor only third.

Times change, and I leave it to you to figure out how a modern Stoic would or should be an activist.  “Ought”, as philosophers say, implies “can”.  Epictetus advised his students to make such decisions on the basis of clear-headed self-assessment of their strengths and weaknesses: “If you are Agamemon, then lead the host”, and I could imagine him going on, “If you are Thersites, then be a stand-up comic”.  We have to figure out the specific role that we can play best and beautifully, but no ancient Stoic would want to be a solitary or a hermit. The general point Epictetus makes, bringing us back to the beauty of virtuous action, is not to settle for being merely ordinary: “Whatever you encounter that is painful or pleasant or popular or unpopular, keep in mind that now is the contest, and here right now are the Olympic games, and that postponement is no longer an option, and that your progress is saved or ruined by a single day and a single action”.  These are fighting words, applicable to all imaginable experiences.

The flip side to the beauty and happiness making of virtue is the ugliness of acting contrary to the norms of human nature.  The Greek word opposite to kalos is aischros, which straddles observable ugliness and lack of shame or dishonour.  Epictetus uses it, in order to challenge his students to objectify unethical actions, to see how ugly they are.  Like the modern philosopher Bernard Williams (in his book, Shame and Necessity) Epictetus prefers shame to guilt as the more effective moral sanction.  Like Williams again, Epictetus socializes our inner life by insisting that we are never alone.  Williams populates the mind with what he calls “the internalized other” as witness to potentially shameful actions.  Epictetus declares that “you are never alone” because “god and your own divinity” (meaning the voice of reason) “are within” (1.13.14), so you cannot escape their observation.  We are familiar with the notion of letting oneself down, not coming up to scratch.  Ancient Stoicism was singularly effective, psychologically spot on, by expressing ideal self-respect in terms of looking beautiful to any witness, whether external or internal, your friends and acquaintances or just yourself.

Social Utility

Ancient Stoicism, I have been saying, was designed to be a philosophy of action.  We are born for community, Marcus regularly tells himself, and Epictetus said: “we are so constituted that we can attain none of our own goods unless we contribute something to the common interest” (1.19.15).  This sounds almost like Victorian utilitarianism, the philosophy that advocated the greatest happiness of the greatest number.   Yet if, as I was explaining, Stoic goodness is confined to the beauty of virtuous action and nothing else is good or strictly “up to us,” how do we in all consistency contribute to the common interest?  Is it rational for Stoics to care about other people’s welfare, taking welfare to include health care, decent standards of living, education and so forth, none of which, according to Stoic value theory are beautiful, good, and creditable in themselves?

We need to respond to this question with a rousing affirmative if ancient stoicism is fully applicable to contemporary life.  I can answer it here with just two quotes from the ancient sources.  Here first is Chrysippus: “The wise man will engage in public discourse and conduct policy as if wealth and social esteem and health were good things” (LS 66B).  Interpret this statement as follows. Stoic politicians do not aim at moral rearmament or converting the world to Stoicism. They aim at benefiting their constituents in ways that are conducive to people’s mental and physical welfare. Health and wealth are not morally good in the special Stoic sense, but they are naturally preferable to poverty and sickness. Therefore it is morally good to make welfare a principal objective of political action – to try to benefit people in all the ways that are naturally appropriate to flourishing human life and that conform to equitable distribution of resources.

My second quote from Antipater runs thus: “We should do everything in our power continuously and undeviatingly to obtain the predominating things that accord with nature” (LS 58K).  Those things, as in the previous quote, include health, wealth, and social esteem or dignity. The quote is sometimes interpreted as if the virtuous effort were simply for oneself – striving mightily for my own health and wealth and dignity; but this makes no sense of Stoic communitarianism and philanthropy or the utility of virtuous action.

Virtuous actions in ancient Stoicism constituted happiness for the agent, but they were not self-regarding or selfish in motivation: you do not act fairly and courageously as a Stoic in order to feel good.  The joy that the virtues generated was a byproduct, not their raison d’etre. The virtues derived their beauty and goodness from the agent’s character and intentions, which were entirely internal to the mind; but their aim and orientation were external –  (1) to maximize naturally and objectively preferable states of affairs, and (2) to equip the agent to be socially effective by freeing him or her from debilitating and harmful emotions.  Ancient Stoicism, therefore, in its understanding of social utility, fits the humanitarian activism of such organizations as Doctors without Borders, Unicef, and Human Rights Watch.

Cosmic Connectedness

This socially relevant utility brings me to the third big idea of ancient Stoicism that I propose to discuss, perhaps the biggest and most challenging idea – cosmic connectedness. This idea comes up all the time in the ancient texts, sometimes by the postulate that we human beings are parts of the whole or citizens of the world, sometimes by describing us as links in the chain of fate, or even as children of God.  I have left cosmic connectedness to the last because it often appears in theological contexts that seem to some interpreters to be unhelpful and unacceptable to modern Stoics. Can we moderns, agnostic as many of us are, relate sympathetically to a philosophy whose physics are founded on fate or universal determinism, divine and omnipresent causality, cosmic teleology, and providence?

Larry Becker, author of the book A New Stoicism, has argued that modern Stoics need to reject “the notion that the natural world is a purposive system with an end or goal that practical reason directs us to follow.”  Such a notion, he says, is out of touch with modern science.  I am always worried when people speak like that because modern science is full of holes and uncertainties.  My Berkeley biological friends tell me we are still hugely unclear about the origins of life and the connections between biochemistry and consciousness. Forget about science then, for the moment, but do ancient Stoics, in Becker’s words, specify an “end or goal of the natural world as such”?

Marcus Aurelius, may seem to do so when he writes: “Everything that is harmonious for thee, O Nature, is harmonious for me” (4.23) – amor fati, as it is sometimes called.  But Stoic philosophers do not typically assign a goal to nature as such, to global nature as if it were a super entity in itself.  The goals of nature, in typical Stoic understanding of the expression, are the optimal functioning of the living beings that populate the planet– the fertility and fruits of crops, the healthy behaviour of animals according to their species, and the deployment of human reason in ways appropriate to oneself and one’s company – ways that pay due attention to understanding oneself and one’s mental impressions. Our goal as human beings is not to identify nature’s goal (the world spirit, as Hegel would say, or the thoughts of God) but to live in agreement with our own human nature and our own external circumstances.  We are not meant to second guess the natural world’s goals, to play catch up, as it were with God’s business, but to “live according to experience of natural events” (Chrysippus’s expression) – which means applying ourselves to the world in the beautiful and useful ways that I have already outlined.

Because the Stoic world is a fully determinate structure –a closed system of causes and effects where nothing is simply random or by chance – every external situation that we face could not be otherwise than it is.  Stoic  fate amounts to saying: “This is what it was bound to be for me at this time and place – breaking my leg, getting offered this job”, etc. But fate is not assigned to me independently of who I am and what I do.  We co-determine our fate by the decisions that we take and by the responses we give to our circumstances. Our past, up to the last second, is settled, and therefore no grounds for rational regret or congratulation; but our future will depend crucially on how we decide to act – the one thing that is fully and uniquely up to us, and that Stoics take God/ Nature to have delegated to us as individual persons.

I am, as I say, a bit wary when people tell me that ancient Stoicism is scientifically hopeless.  It seems to me to be pretty good in regard to the science that we need for living in agreement with nature day by day.  Forget about God or providence, if you like; but consider the inter-dependence and connectedness of ecological systems, the problems we (not fate or God) are causing by global warming and environmental degradation; consider the prevalence of disasters from human error and from lack of planning or forethought (e.g. Hurricane Karina). We are biologically and vitally interconnected by breath, and light, and heat, and water and vegetation.

The planet would be much better off and we would be much better off if we acknowledged and cherished these natural blessings.  When Epictetus urges his students to give thanks to providence and acknowledge divine agency, he starts by remarking on the interconnectedness of earth and sky, seasonal change, the sun’s rising and setting, and living bodies’ dependence on these things.  As a modern Stoic you don’t need to credit Nature with divinity and providence, but if you are inclined to do so, take a walk in the country and read Wordsworth’s great poem The Excursion, for instance:

One adequate support
for the calamities of mortal life
exists – one only; an assured belief
that the procession of our fate, howe’er sad or disturbed, is ordered
by a Being
of infinite benevolence and power; whose everlasting purposes  embrace
all accidents, converting them to good.

Or read Mark Garvey’s lovely essay in Stoicism Today, vol. 1, p. 60:

If you are one who finds God talk troubling, all you need to muster, in order to benefit from Epictetus’s advice, is some level of appreciation for finding  yourself in a cosmos you did not create and in which you are given, along with your share of trouble and strife, bountiful opportunities for wonder     and joy.

So let’s talk about Stoic virtue as beauty, Stoic utility as social welfare, and Stoic cosmic connectedness as living wisely according to experience of natural events.

Tony (A.A.) Long  is Professor of the Graduate School, Chancellor’s Professor Emeritus of Classics, and Irving G. Stone Professor Emeritus of Literature at the University of California – Berkeley.  His writings on Hellenistic philosophy have made significant contributions to the field for over half a century.  His latest books are How to be Free; An Ancient Guide to the Stoic Life (2018), Greek Models of Mind and Self  (2015), and the translation (with Margaret Graver) of Seneca’s Letters on Ethics To Lucilius (2015)

Stoicon Today and Stoic Week To Follow!

Today marks the seventh annual Stoicon – the world’s largest gathering of modern people interested in understanding and applying the ancient philosophy of Stoicism! It brings together academics, practicing psychotherapists, professionals of other sorts, and people of all walks of life in an intense one-day set of talks, workshops, and conversations, capped off each year by a longer talk by an author who has made major contributions to the understanding of Stoicism  (this year, it is Anthony Long).

If you couldn’t make it to Stoicon in London this year, never fear!  We’ll be videorecording some of the talks and workshops and posting those as they become available.  We’ll also be publishing transcripts and summaries here in Stoicism Today over the coming months, starting with Professor Long’s keynote address.

Here are the talks and workshops – and the people providing them – at Stoicon this year.

  • A Welcome to the Conference by John Sellars
  • Report on Stoic Week by Tim LeBon
  • Imagining the Worst: Strategies of Visualisation in Seneca’s Letters by Catharine Edwards
  • Stoicism and Sustainable Development by Kai Whiting
  • How Buddhist is Stoicism? by Antonia Macaro
  • Marcus Aurelius: How to Think Like a Roman Emperor by Donald Robertson
  • How Seneca Can Help you Manage Anger and Frustration by Tim LeBon
  • The Stoic Heart: Stoicism and Partnered Relationships by Greg Sadler and Andi Sciacca
  • The Proper Application of Preconceptions: Curing “the Cause of All Human Ills” by Greg Lopez
  • Stoic Rationality in an Irrational World by Walter Matweychuk
  • Happiness, Stoic and Aristotelian by  Chris Gill and Gabriele Galluzo
  • Lessons in Stoic Leadership from Seneca by Liz Gloyn
  • A Stoic Approach to Travel and Tourism by William Stephens
  • Comparing Stoicism to Minimalism: Two Paths to Virtue by Dan Lampert
  • Two Great Misinterpretations of Stoicism: Ascetic and Conservative by Piotr Stankiewicz

And of course, our keynote address, Stoicisms Ancient and Modern by Anthony Long!

Stoic Week follows almost immediately after Stoicon, and runs from Monday, October 1 to Sunday, October 7.  If you haven’t already enrolled in the Stoic Week online class, here’s the link to do so.  It’s free, and it’s a great way to “Live Like A Stoic” (the original title, back in 2012).

There are also local events happening all over the world that you might be able to participate in, depending on where you live.  Here is our listing of them so far:

Upcoming Stoicon-X Events Worldwide

Thursday and Friday, October 4 & 5- Bonn, Germany – Stoic Camp Bonn.  Hosted by Dr. Markus Rüther and Ralph Kurz at the University of Bonn.  Come for a set of talks, workshops, and discussions.  Email Dr. Markus Rüther or Ralph Kurz  or go here for more information.

Sunday, October 14, 2:00-4:00 PM – San Lorenzo, USA – StoiconX Bay Area – Information Day, includes an introduction to Stoic philosophy and for an opportunity to learn about The International Stoic Fellowship, showcasing local groups including San Francisco-Berkeley, Fremont and Sunnyvale. Location is the San Lorenzo Library, Learning Center.  For more details, go to their meetup site

Sunday October 21, 1:00-5:00 PM -Worcester, USA – StoiconX New England.  Includes an overview of Stoicism, 5-minute “Lightning Speeches” and discussions, readings from Stoics, and a host of discussions. Location is 90 Main St. Worcester, MA 01608, and cost is $10 per person. To purchase tickets or get more information, go here

Sunday, October 28, 10:00 AM-5:00 PM – Brisbane, Australia – StoiconX Brisbane – A full day of events, including an interview with Massimo Pigliucci, presentations by Alex Magee, Allan Hare, Brian Pringle, Peter Oram, Shannon Murray, and Lars Andersson.  For more details, go to their meetup site.

There may be additional Stoicon-X events in other locations.  We’ll add them to the list as soon as we have full information about them.

Upcoming Stoic Week Events WorldWide

Saturday September 29, 1:30 PM – Seattle, USA – the Seattle Analytic Philosophy Club has invited Thomas Opryszek to give a talk on Stoicism in Action and Stoic Week 2018.  Location is the  Seattle Public Library, Northgate Branch.  For more information, see their meetup site.

Sunday, September 30, 4:00 PM – New York City, USA – the New York City Stoics and the Stoic School of Life will be hosting Dr. Massimo Pigliucci,  discussing Stoic practice, to celebrate the upcoming Stoic Week.  Location is 550 Madison Avenue, New York City.  For more information, see their meetup site.

Monday, October 1, 7:00 PM – Orlando, USA – The Orlando Stoics will be hosting an “Open House Monday” at the Panera Bread Cafe, 296 E. Michigan Street, Orlando FL  32806.  For more information, see their meetup site.

Tuesday, October 2, 6:00 PM – Denver, USA – The Denver Stoics will be hosting a meeting, “Stoic Week: The Big Picture and How to Practice” at Coffee at the Point.  More information available here

Tuesday, October 2, 6:00 PM – Edinburgh, Scotland – Scotland Stoics are meeting  for a discussion of key messages for Stoic week and for a brief review and feedback on Stoicon.  Location is Monbodos, Bread Street, Edinburgh. More information available here.

Tuesday, October 2, 6:30 PM – Greeley, USA – The Department of Philosophy at the University of Northern Colorado will host a guest lecture and discussion by Evan Oakley in  Ross Hall 1040.  For more information, email Nancy Matchett.

Wednesday, October 3, 7:30 PM – Chicago, USA – The New Acropolis Chicago will be hosting a workshop, “Can You Trust Your Feelings?  Mastering Your Emotions”.  More information and tickets available here.

Thursday, October 4, 7:30 PM – Chicago, USA – The New Acropolis Chicago will host another workshop, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want? – The Stoic art of Contentment”.  More information and tickets available here.

Friday, October 5, 7:30 PM – Chicago, USA – The New Acropolis Chicago will host a third workshop,”Stoic Love – Stoic Guidelines for Successful Relationships”.  More information and tickets available here.

Friday, October 5, 8:00 PM -Poços de Caldas, Brazil -The Poços de Caldas Stoics will he hosting a “A Night with the Heroes” at Rua Paraibuna, 21 – São Benedito – Poços de Caldas.  More information and tickets available here.

Saturday, October 6, 8:00 AM – Winnipeg, Canada – Stoicism Winnipeg will be hosting a discussion of Stoic Week at the Forks Market at a booth close to the Fools & Horses coffee bar. More information is available here.

Saturday, October 6, 3:30 PM – Milwaukee, USA – The MKE Stoic Fellowship and SOPHIA-MKE are sponsoring a talk by Gregory Sadler, “Stoic Philosophy and the Value of Money”, at the central branch of the Milwaukee Public Library.  More information and tickets available here.

Saturday, October 6, 9:00 PM – Orlando, USA – the Orlando Stoics will be hosting a “Stoics Night Out” at the Universal City Walk, 6000 Universal Blvd, Orlando, FL 32819. For more information, see their meetup site.

If you’re planning an event, email me with the details, and we’ll add it to our list and to the post right before Stoic Week.

Groups, Institutions, and Organizations Meeting In Stoic Week

Here are the groups, organizations, and institutions that will be meeting at least once to participate together in the Stoic Week class together:

Stoic Week Discussion Group: London, UK – organized by Bryce Peterson, meeting daily 1-6 October in Bloombury.   A survey is available to determine what times people would like to meet.  Time and location TBD at this point.

The Colorado Springs Stoa, USA – organized by David Emery, meeting several times over the course of Stoic Week at Peak Place, Colorado Springs.  More information available here.

University of Northern Colorado, USA – organized by Nancy Matchett, meeting on campus. For more information, email Nancy Matchett

Houston Stoics, USA – organized by Andrew Sauls, meeting on Tuesday, October 2nd.  For more information, email Andrew Sauls or check their Facebook page.

Vancouver Stoics, Canada – organized by J.B. Bell, meeting Wednesday, October 3 to discuss Stoic Week.  For more information, check their meetup page.

Aims Community College -partnering with the University of Northern Colorado, meeting several times in Stoic Week at UNC with members of the Philosophy Club.  For more information, contact Bridgette Peterson  or Evan Oakley

Praetoria Stoics, South Africa – organized by Leon Stander, they will be meeting virtually and in person through Stoic Week.  For more information, go to their Facebook page

Steps into Stoicism by Igor Novokreshchenov

Leading up to Stoic Week this year – which runs from Monday, October 1 to Sunday, October 7 – we are publishing a series of shorter weekday posts, focused on the theme of “Happiness”.  Are you interested in writing a 300-600 word post, well-informed by Stoicism, on that topic? Email your draft to me, the editor of Stoicism Today.  We have posts running up to Stoic Week, but if we get more in, we’ll run additional short posts during Stoic Week as well.  And now, Oliver’s post!


Bertolt Brecht said about himself that he was a Marxist before he actually became acquainted with Marxism. In a similar way, I was a Stoic before I read a single line from Seneca or Epictetus.

The beauty of philosophy is that everyone discovers it naturally, through the very process of living. There are Phenomenologists and Existentialists who never heard of Heidegger or Sartre; Platonists who have only a vague idea of who Plato was; Pragmatists who could not care less about Dewey; and so on. Each one arrives at the school most suited to their character as shaped by their experience.

Into the Stoa Poikile one arrives via the path of reasoned disposition. Philosophers use reason for a wide variety of purposes, but only the Stoics advocate it as the primary means to vanquish tears, experience joy, and attain virtue – and with it, happiness, or, rather, “good-spiritness”, the eudaimonia.

Virtue is an antiquated concept. It brings to mind images of medieval chivalry and exalted Christian devotion. But before knight- and sainthood -became its memes, in the time when the Roman eagle spread its wings from Britain to Syria, virtue was synonymous with the nobility of character. And one’s character is revealed in everyday action.

Stoics do not really believe in episodic heroism, one-time feats.  Such episodes are incidental, hence, no true experience can be sourced from them. Everyday life, on the other hand, offers endless opportunities. Laziness, boredom, procrastination, anxiety, anger, depression, meaninglessness – we all have experienced some of it, and know how hard they are to fight. But Stoics teach that we need not fight: we need to reason. Otherwise we can as well end up beating ourselves on the head: these are our emotions, but they need not be in control over us.

And that’s the first step. Isn’t it ridiculous, says Epictetus, that our emotions from our own heads enslave us? Shouldn’t we recognise them as our emotions – and nothing more? That we aren’t compelled to re-live them again and again?

“But the circumstances make us feel it!”, many will argue. True enough, circumstances are often bigger than us, we can’t master them. But aren’t we big enough for ourselves to manage? Even when a situation is disturbing or outright terrible, we can’t fail to notice that we are still not entirely in the grip of emotion, that there is a part of us that remains observant, and therefore calm – the part of reason. Even in the most discouraging of circumstances we remain free to choose which one to endorse. That is the unassailable inner citadel of which Marcus Aurelius spoke.

When we understand it and accept it, we make the second step.

Having one’s own inner fortress with walls that no one can breach is comforting. One is tempted to remain within. But part of us is still unsatisfied. We sense that something is not right, that our joy is incomplete. From the ramparts we observe our fellow humans suffer, and we feel sorry for them. We realize that no man is an island or, as Seneca put it, that our society is an arch where each stone is meant to support another.

Once again, we are faced with a choice: forever remain under siege, or venture out. But choosing to remain means subjecting ourselves to the pangs of guilt over our cowardice. The paradox of freedom: the deeper one understands, the fewer the options become. Stoics explain that that is because we are intrinsically altruistic, that ethics is inseparable from reason.

And that is where we make the third step, of duty to humankind, and complete our induction.

From here onwards, as Seneca explained in his 30th letter to Lucilius, we’re expected to live our own Stoical lives. Liberated from the tyranny of circumstances and emotions, we can endeavour to be what we should: humane individuals, caring, compassionate, and steadfast against the odds.

Free, and eudaimonic about it.

Igor Novokreshchenov is a social anthropologist, community development worker and homeless activist based in London. 


“Happiness – Is It a Birthright?” by Oliver Harper

Leading up to Stoic Week this year – which runs from Monday, October 1 to Sunday, October 7 – we are publishing a series of shorter weekday posts, focused on the theme of “Happiness”.  Are you interested in writing a 300-600 word post, well-informed by Stoicism, on that topic? Email your draft to me, the editor of Stoicism Today.  We have posts running up to Stoic Week, but if we get more in, we’ll run additional short posts during Stoic Week as well.  And now, Oliver’s post!


Thomas Jefferson espoused in the Declaration of Independence that happiness is an unalienable right and indigenous endowment warranted to all citizens. This expectation is a striving for most of humanity.

Seneca the ancient Stoic states that there can be “no happiness without constancy and prudence.”  How as individuals do we navigate this natural right to be happy? According to Stoicism, it demands having Stoic dogmata, principles that supports the sorting of phantasiai, which are sense impressions that emanate from within and without.

Happiness, therefore within the philosophy of stoicism is a byproduct of virtuous choices but to harness it as a virtue requires an incorruptible and indestructible ability to discipline oneself through a regimen of practical knowledge and reasoning.  Not an easy task for the faint at heart or the impressionable mind. The cultivated inner fortress developed is a refuge for the stoic against the ubiquitous unsorted sense impressions that can torpedo the virtuous pursuit of happiness.

Can the common man be happy?  Is happiness a possibility for the practicing Stoic or must we advance to the level of a Sage to be happy?  Happiness in the worldview of Stoicism is deemed a pattern of life, a style of being, and an existential trajectory that betrays the universal implications of Thomas Jefferson’s constitutional decree. Marcus Aurelius sees it as a distinctive set of disciplines that transforms the stoic “into another life” where the individual inner discourse, insights, and patterns of being are unified.

Seneca in his wisdom maintains that human happiness is founded on wisdom and virtue; the former being:

that right understanding, a faculty of discerning good from evil, what is to be chosen and what to reject, right judgment and the latter, that perfect good which is a compliment of a happy life, the only immortal thing that belongs to immortality; the knowledge both of others and itself; an invincible greatness of mind, not to elevated nor dejected with good or fortune.

These attributes are not stumbled on but acquired through a resolute mind disciplined in thought and deed, deeds done not because of ostentation or public opinion but of conscience.  Happiness cannot be outsourced and when lived on one’s own terms may constitute the good life.

In the ancient text of Proverbs, it states that “wisdom is the principal thing” and we need to get it, which suggests that when we live consistent with our values and deliberate before deciding we can make choices that resonate with sound reason. In Stoicism, wisdom is the sine qua non for happiness because it is an internal operational paradigm that governs the faculties with constancy and prudence and manifested without passion but with reasoned deliberations and congruity of actions.

In the pursuit of our unalienable right to happiness, it seems that a philosophy of life is mandated, an operational lifestyle that depends less on external things while incorporating wisdom and virtue as foundational tenets to guide us to a fuller expression of ourselves as we navigate life’s obstacles and sense impressions. A philosophy of life is a serum against the infectious implications of life’s unintended consequences.

Personally, I share the view that virtue and wisdom can place you on a path towards happiness, and each day as I row gently down the stream of life I indulge in rituals at dawn and at dusks that comfort and guides me to affirm and accept life’s beauties and infirmities. I have come to learn that my happiness is my responsibility and to enjoy its momentary experiences will be contingent on my choices.

Happiness ultimately is probable for us all if we are willing to employ our faculties to navigate the minefield of self- imposed obstacles armed with a practical philosophy in Stoicism.


Oliver Harper is the Executive Director for National Foster Care Agency, and the author of Parenting Proverbs for Instructional Living and Time: A Traveler’s Companion: Strategies To A Meaningful Life.  His new publication Life’s Blind Side: A Selection of Antidotes from Stoic Philosophy, is appearing in 2019

Unwavering Happiness by Logan Vallandingham

Leading up to Stoic Week this year – which runs from Monday, October 1 to Sunday, October 7 – we are publishing a series of shorter weekday posts, focused on the theme of “Happiness”.  Since we’ve had so many submissions, we’re running one of them in place of our longer Saturday post this weekend

 Are you interested in writing a 300-600 word post, well-informed by Stoicism, on that topic? Email your draft to me, the editor of Stoicism Today.  We have posts running up to Stoic Week, but if we get more in, we’ll run additional short posts during Stoic Week as well.  And now, Logan’s post!


We all yearn for happiness. However, happiness sometimes seems to come and go, with the tides or with the wind. We might be happy because of an upcoming event, like going to the movies or out on a date. It might also come in the form of some radical changes in our lives, such as moving to a new home or starting a new job. Of course, these give us excitement and energy. A sense of eagerness. Yet, this fleeting happiness attributed to such external events really does not compare to the stable and steadfast deep internal happiness one experiences from living in accordance to nature.

“Let us therefore inquire, not what is most commonly done, but what is best for us to do” – Seneca, Of a Happy Life, Book 2

Waking up each morning, knowing that our actions and intentions will be virtuous and consist of no ill repute, gives us the foundation on which to move forward and enjoy every moment of the day. We must act the way we wish to act. This alignment of actions with our own moral compass gives a sense of calm not available to us from anything else. No longer worried we will be “found out,” or angry that someone treated us in a certain way. No, rather, we are happy that all life has to offer during our moment here on this earth comes to us and comes to pass. The experiences enrich our lives, and teach us new skills and wisdom along the way.

The drop of life that has been given to the select few of us here on earth is such a precious gift. It is utter nonsense to throw it away in an immoral lifestyle filled with remorse, stress, anger and contempt. Let us rather build our lives on solid ground, a firm foundation in the virtues. Thus, regardless of what situations may be placed before us, we have already chosen the ability to have our lives filled with true unwavering happiness.


Logan Vallandingham is a PhD candidate in Health Care Logistics in Trondheim, Norway. He is currently learning about and trying to apply Stoicism in both his professional and private life. He also has ambitions of starting a Stoic community in Trondheim.

Some Senecan Realism About Happiness by Paul Stanley

Leading up to Stoic Week this year – which runs from Monday, October 1 to Sunday, October 7 – we are publishing a series of shorter weekday posts, focused on the theme of “Happiness”.  Are you interested in writing a 300-600 word post, well-informed by Stoicism, on that topic? Email your draft to me, the editor of Stoicism Today.  We have posts running up to Stoic Week, but if we get more in, we’ll run additional short posts during Stoic Week as well.  And now, Paul’s post!

When you were first learning to write at school, did your teachers steer you away from the adjective “nice”? Mine did. “Try to find a better word!” they said. “Don’t just say that on your holidays you went to a nice farm, and ate some nice ice cream, and saw a nice goat, and had a nice day. Try to find some other words.”

For “nice” you could substitute any number of jack-of-all-trades words: “great”, “awesome”, “enjoyable”. “Happy” risks being one of those words. We sort of understand what it means, and it generally seems like it must be a good thing. But it’s a slippery word, and because it means so much it also means very little.

In everyday thinking, happiness is associated with a variety of positive emotional states (pleasure, joy, contentment, laughter) and the absence of others (pain, depression, tears). And those states are associated with things that happen in the world: the things that make me happy or sad. The “happy ending” means a wedding; a funeral makes a “sad ending”.

Stoic thought calls this a trap. After all, the “happy ending” is not an ending. After the marriage, what? Well, after the marriage, at some point, illness, misfortune and – yes – in the end, the funeral. As Seneca puts it (Letter 59):

In everyday speech we say that we derive great joy if someone close to us becomes a consul or gets married or if his wife has a child. But these are not really joyous, but often the start of future sorrow.

It is in this sense that Stoics “believe pleasure is a problem”, as Seneca puts it. If we think of happiness this way, we can’t be happy for long. If we chase emotionally pleasurable states we are in a bind, because this sort of positive emotion is like an ice-cube in the sun: it always melts.

We can get off the roller-coaster if we stop understanding happiness as a pleasurable emotion kindled by external events, and aim instead for a sort of calm maintained from within. When Seneca says, later in the same letter, that the wise person is “full of joy, happy, and calm, untroubled” he is not imagining an odd emotional cocktail which combines joy (in the sense of pleasurable excitement) with calm. Instead, he is proposing that viable happiness is calm, not just an emotional high that depends on particular events, achievements, or emotions.

Perhaps that is true happiness? Seneca seems to think so, since he contrasts it with the “false joy”. But I’m not sure that true and false are the right words here. The important point is that calm happiness is maintainable, whereas – thanks to the “facts of life” – the see-sawing emotional highs that depend on external events needs must be intermittent and temporary. The only sort of happiness that we can reasonably rely on is the sort that comes from learning to approach the various things that are bound to happen to us in such a way that we can be inconcussus (the word I have translated as “untroubled” above, but which could also be translated as “not shaken” or “not knocked sideways”).

Of course, how we cultivate the attitudes and reactions that will enable us to achieve this (truly) happy state is another question. But it’s important to know where we should be headed.

Paul Stanley is an English lawyer who has been increasingly drawn to stoicism over the past two years, largely through this blog. He first read Seneca when studying Latin at school, but has only gradually come to see that he is more than a sanctimonious Roman aristocrat, and that our humanity can build bridges to distant antiquity which can still support the weight of our experience.