PHRL 498 (Religion & Philosophy Capstone) - Intellectual Autobiography: From Pre-existence to Existence to Essence

 Introduction

The day after Halloween in 1992, my father drove me to a farm on the other side of the Snake River to Fruitland, Idaho. My appointment was with a man named Chad Clark and he was to give me a Patriarchal blessing, which, for Mormons, acts as a type of life roadmap for a person, and which not only is to guide the individual in the future but also pronounces from whence that person came. In the opening paragraph of my blessing, I was informed, “Prior to your mortal birth you lived in the world of spirits. It was there that you prepared for mortality. You associated with many great and important spirits. You grew to maturity and exercised your free agency, made covenants and were foreordained to positions of responsibility that are being shown to you as you proceed through life.” Being born into Mormonism (officially known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) meant my essence was defined before I even had a chance to consider it. Many aspects of this religion formed and shaped me, however, I came to a point, around the age of 38, where I felt it did not serve me well anymore. This would become the starting point of my philosophical exploration and journey.

I began seeing a therapist named Laura McPherson, who not only gave me the space to express my feeling and thoughts, but she also recognized and acknowledged that I work for, live in and associate with a Type A company, a Type A community and Type A religion, meaning these organizations’ and communities’ populations tend to be comprised of people who exhibit traits such as aggressiveness, competitiveness, ambitiousness and authoritarianism (Sissons, 2022). To manage the anxiety and stress of these environments, she taught me a number of techniques as informed by Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). This was my first pitstop in my philosophical journey. As I studied CBT, I found the linkages to Stoicism and how I could redirect my locus of control to within. This exploration sent me down a path of defining my true existence, as well as a deep dive into Hellenistic philosophy between the years of 2014 and 2021.

As I studied Stoicism, and in particular the idea of eternal recurrence (Durand et al., 2023), I came across references to Nietzsche’s doctrine of the same name (Wilkerson, n.d.) and how he used it as a litmus test to determine if an individual loves his fate and is living his best life. This discovery was the catalyst to widen my philosophic aperture to study not only Existentialism, but other philosophies. In 2021, I enrolled in American Public University (APU) and have since been studying philosophy and thinking about what my essence is and should be.

This essay will explore the three phases of my intellectual autobiography, with the first phase delving into Mormonism and my so-called pre-existence, phase two exploring Stoicism and how it helped me to delineate my existence, and phase three discovering Existentialism and how Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre have guided me to define my own meaning and essence.

Pre-existence and Mormonism

I was thrown into a Mormon family. Heidegger would say I was “never in control of [my] own being” and that I could not “determine or control biological or cultural factors that constrain possibilities” for myself (Wheeler, 2011). As such, I was indoctrinated into believing that I had pre-existed, meaning I had a life before I was born. And this is not in the sense of reincarnation, rather, it was in a spiritual, non-physical sense. In this pre-existence, there was a war of ideas with Jesus Christ on one side and Lucifer on the other. Mormons believe this war of ideas began as all humanity debated on the plan for existence (The Pearl of Great Price, 2013/1851). At the center of this plan was personal agency. On one side, Lucifer intended to remove choice and guarantee the salvation of all, while Christ intended to defend personal agency, but then provide a way for salvation to those who misuse their volition and consequently need to repent of sin. Christ would enter the mortal world, atone and pay the consequences of all humankind’s sin, and resurrect himself, thus breaking the chains of spiritual and physical death. Without fully explaining the intricacies and dogmas of Mormonism, I concluded that the most important virtue in the church is obedience. If a believer wanted to return to God’s presence (gain eternal life and happiness), as they were in the pre-existence, then they need to obey and follow the path outlined before them.

The Mormon faith teaches that happiness comes through obedience to teachings, commandments, and rituals. The long list of obedience includes attending church, scripture study, prayer, baptism at age eight, worthiness interviews during adolescence, missions and marriage, and making temple covenants to name a few. The most important blessings for Mormons are those found in the temple, and no one can attend the temple unless they commit 10% of their income to the church for their entire life – a Mormon’s salvation is entwined with lucre. And then parenthood renews the cycle, as raising children in the faith becomes integral to spiritual salvation. Happiness remains tied to lifelong obedience and generational continuity.

While this plan seems organized and clear, there are aspects which jeopardize one’s pursuit of joy. Not only must an individual stay on the straight and narrow path, but he has a responsibility for other people’s salvation, which can cause profound negative spiritual and mental effects if someone else’s choices put his own salvation at risk. The Doctrine and Covenants (2013/1851) notes that parents have a duty to baptize and rear their children in the religion. However, if parents fail in their efforts, the sins of the child will be on the parent’s heads. Furthermore, an early leader of the church, John Taylor, taught members, “If you do not magnify your callings, God will hold you responsible for those whom you might have saved had you done your duty” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2025). The central concept of the war of ideas in the pre-existence and the fight for one’s agency stand in stark contrast to the authoritarian mindset of obedience and guilt which are hallmarks in the religion’s modern teachings. For me, I could not exist authentically in this religion, nor did the virtue of spiritual obedience to a leader in a far-off city make logical sense to me.

Existence and Stoicism

After meeting with a psychotherapist for several weeks and discovering the linkages between CBT and Stoicism, I procured a copy of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations (2014). Only a few passages were clear and meaningful to me when I read it the first time. Someone recommended that I read Pierre Hadot’s The Inner Citadel (2001) to fully comprehend all that Marcus Aurelius wrote. One chapter of Hadot’s book focuses entirely on Epictetus since he had such a profound impact on Aurelius. I then obtained a copy of Epictetus’ writings and from this point on, my library bloomed with books on Stoicism.

The single most important doctrine of Stoicism is the demarcation of what is “up to us” (Epictetus & Long, 2018) and what is not. Epictetus notes that our abilities to judge, our motivation and desires and aversions are the things that are up to us. But our body, possessions, our lot in life and even our reputation are not up to us. As I read this passage the first time and then repeatedly, I felt an immense sense of relief as I comprehended such a clearly defined locus of control which stood in contrast to the guilt-tripping, manipulation and expansive locus of duties required in Mormonism. Epictetus’ lesson on delineation pervades Aurelius’ Meditations and is expanded upon by Hadot. Once I understood this demarcation, I realized I could truly exist and set boundaries between my innermost self and other people and events.

My studies further deepened as I discovered The College of Stoic Philosophers. Their courses taught me Stoic physics, logic and ethics. During these classes, I began to learn the language and subjects of philosophy. I was introduced to Skepticism, Epicureanism, Neo-Platonism and other schools of thought. However, I was not expecting to encounter Existentialism while studying Stoicism.

While studying Stoic physics I learned of the idea of eternal recurrence (Durand et al., 2023), and how Nietzsche’s doctrine of the same name (Wilkerson, n.d.) was used to great effect to help individuals determine if they truly love their fate and are living their best life. Hadot (2001) also made the same connection. The longer I contemplated the concept of amor fati and saying “yes” to my life repeatedly and endlessly, I realized there was perhaps more work to be done in terms of discovering my essence.

Essence and Existentialism

My first act of asserting a definition of my essence was to apply at APU and enroll in my first philosophy course. Philosophy 101 did not discuss Existentialism, but a posting by one of the students referred to Kierkegaard and how his writings had a profound impact on her life. She listed Sartre, Camus and other Existentialist philosophers as notable influences in her life as well. While I had come across Camus and Nietzsche a few years before, I knew nothing else about Existentialism. After taking several required philosophy classes, by June 2023 I enrolled in a course on Existentialism; perhaps my favorite course of all the classes I’ve taken.

Stoicism’s mantra of “living according to Nature” (Sellars, 2014, p. 125) nicely sums the aim for life, but implicit in that motto is a trust in the universe that all was intended to be exactly as it occurs. For some, the effort in trying to discern reasons for why the universe dishes out breath-taking hardships can be too much for their schema of existence. To me, Camus’ assessment of the universe seems a smidge more honest than the Stoic assessment. His definition of the absurd, which explains the tension of humanity’s relentless quest to find meaning despite the fact that the Cosmos forever remains silent, resonates more deeply with me. Rather than being forced to find a meaning for one’s strange circumstance (Stoicism), one is free to admit the absurdity of existence and is liberated to define one’s own meaning and essence. 

Later in my course on Existentialism, I learned that I had been living in “bad faith” because I was largely dependent on other’s norms and values (Overthink Podcast & Anderson, 2022) and I was only dreaming of my essence (Flynn, 2006). Even though I had been liberated from Mormonism, I realized I was largely finding comfort in my fate or facticity, and I was denying that I had a responsibility to positively create my meaning and essence instead of remaining fixed in my circumstances. In July 2023, while on a business trip in India, I came to a profound realization I was shirking my responsibility and that I needed to begin to live in good faith and act on creating my essence (Putnam, 2023). Since writing that essay, I enrolled in a number of psychology classes at APU, and I am about to complete my college degree in philosophy. I have also solidified my plans to retire from my corporate career by the year 2031 and enroll in a Master of Counseling program with the intent to become a licensed professional counselor (LPC). Beyond this next phase, I intend to practice my craft in a hospital or university setting, helping other people through life’s challenges as well as assisting them in finding their own meaning project.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay explored the three phases of my intellectual autobiography, with the first phase delving into Mormonism and my so-called pre-existence, phase two examining Stoicism and how it helped me to delineate my existence, and phase three uncovering Existentialism and how Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre guided me to define my own meaning and essence. 

References

Aurelius, M. (2014). Meditations (M. Hammond, Trans.). Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books.

Durand, M., Shogry, S., & Baltzly, D. (2023). Stoicism (E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman, Eds.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/#CosmCyclConf 

Epictetus, & Long, A. A. (2018). How to be free : an ancient guide to the stoic life : Encheiridion and selections from Discourses. Princeton University Press.

Flynn, T. R. (2006). Existentialism : a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Hadot, P. (2001). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (M. Chase, Trans.). Cambridge, Mass. London Harvard University Press.

Overthink Podcast, & Anderson, E. (2022). Sartre’s theory of bad faith. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUXXmHkI-Ug

Putnam, D. (2023). Time and Existentialist Creation. Rockyrook.com. https://www.rockyrook.com/2023/07/rel-411-time-and-existentialist-creation.html

Sellars, J. (2014). Stoicism. Routledge.

Sissons, B. (2022, September 30). Personality types: Type A and type B traits. Www.medicalnewstoday.com. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/type-a-vs-type-b.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2025). Chapter 18: Service in the Church. Churchofjesuschrist.org. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-18?lang=eng 

The Doctrine and Covenants. (2013). Doctrine and Covenants 68. Www.churchofjesuschrist.org. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/68?lang=eng (Original work published 1835)

The Pearl of Great Price. (2013). Abraham 3. Www.churchofjesuschrist.org. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng (Original work published 1851)

Wheeler, M. (2011). Martin Heidegger (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

Wilkerson, D. (n.d.). Nietzsche, Friedrich | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/#H7

On Abandonment

"Nothing veils a star" (Aurelius, book 11, chapter 27) and we too, should confront existence with no intermediary. Indeed, we are "thrown into existence" (Aho, 2023) and in that existence, we immediately are encumbered with veils in the forms of pre-conceived meaning, religious and philosophical shackles, genetic predispositions, cultural responsibilities and expected duties. Many of these veils were placed there by our parents. Some of us willingly accepted the veils, while others of us have been figuring out ways to cast them off in order to see existence clearly and with our own eyes. Fortunately, for some, the beginning of the un-veiling takes place in the form of abandonment.

Abandonment can take a couple of forms. Whereas an individual relied on some notion for guidance, and that concept or belief failed to prove accurate or useful, then that person experiences abandonment in the form of broken trust. The other form of abandonment would be pure and simple subtraction of an idea, a person or a belief. Sometimes a single event of abandonment may fit both descriptions.

Abandonment may trigger fear and anxiety, or perhaps instill confidence. Regardless, the opportunity for growth and resilience are present with each abandonment, in that the definition and clarity of existence moves from low-fidelity to a higher fidelity until one can, eventually, comprehend existence as it is.

When Nietzsche declared the death of God, he was observing what had already transpired in the hearts of men for quite some time - that "God may have been an illusion, but ... a necessary illusion" (Gravil & Addis, 2007, p. 21). While God supplied aim, values, emotional relief and fortitude and even a future, the lived experience of man could not be fully supported by those dogmas. What he was taught on Sunday did not fully equip him on Monday, Tuesday, or any other day of the week. God abandoned man. Truthfully, however, all along, God was a creation of man and man abandoned that creation. Even for the Christian Kierkegaard, God could not be objectively ascertained (2007). Therefore, while some men may proclaim God is alive and well, he nonetheless must admit that his experience is one of faith and, at best, a belief, else eight billion people might agree on the definition and objectivity of God like they agree the sun shines.

All people must be abandoned or experienced abandonment. If they have the will to live and exist, each abandonment yields a stronger, sharper existence. While some abandonments are temporary, and others are permanent, with each successive sense of isolation, the individual is forced to use his own devices or seek help from others in his sphere - he must swim, or sink. His use of his rational thinking and volition (what is 'up to him') is what he must rely on if he is going to swim.

Below are a few reflections of milestone-abandonments, from my life, and how I dealt with each one.

I was seemingly fortunate in my childhood to avoid abandonments. Family, community, school, church and God were all relatively stable aspects of my life. My parents did not divorce, as did many of my friends' parents in the early 1980s and 1990s. There were no attacks on my religion or religion in general for that matter. My friends and I attended church on Sundays, went to school and played sports during the week, achieved our Scout badges and awards, served our community, and generally we got along and were decent kids. I felt secure in many aspects.

Certainly with visual reminders like the image to the side (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2023), my confidence in some mental and moral foundation rested in Christ. Entwined in that mental paradigm was family and community.

But despite religious reassurances, I still suffered temporary, local abandonments. Being the youngest of seven children, my older siblings all left for college while I was still in public school. Some of the older ones would come home to visit at times, and when the hour arrived for them to drive back to college, I felt an immense sense of abandonment. To this day, I feel the sting of tears in my eyes and the pain in my gut and heart as I sat on the porch and watched them pull out of the driveway, down the street and out of sight.

Leaving the nest of home to go to college and a church mission to Guatemala felt like a deeper abandonment. The structure of church and school and being with friends and like-minded people softened the blow, but despite these lifelines, the fear and anxiety of saying goodbye, first to my parents after they dropped me off at the MTC, and then later saying goodbye to my brother and sister at the San Francisco airport, en route to Guatemala City, brought a harsh new reality of feeling alone.

3000 miles away from home and 6000 miles away from my parents (who were in Prague), living in the lush highland jungles of Guatemala brough a fresh new realization of abandonment. My courage was fortified not only in Christ, but also by the words of the prophets in the scriptures and the leaders in the Mormon church, both local and global. More experienced missionaries also were a succor to my homesickness and longing for old comforts. At that time, I had not known of Seneca's toti se inserens mundo (Seneca, 2024, Letter 66) but I certainly tossed myself into the work and service in front of me. In fact, early on, while living in Zona 18 in Pinares del Norte, I was so overcome with homesickness, I took all reminders, photos and letters of my family and stuffed them in the bottom of a suitcase and vowed to never look at them until I got over these emotions. My focus and attention, directed at learning Spanish, talking to people and serving others, proved to be the solution for overcoming the sense of isolation and abandonment. And while the spiritual practices of prayer and reading scripture were helpful, it was attending to the matters at present which ultimately resolved the fear and anxiety.

If homesickness weren't enough, I also had to manage being ill in a foreign country. I don't know what it was, but a doctor informed me that I contracted a virus. Some 29 years later, all I remember is being very sick and having the worse migraine in my life. Someone made the decision to send me to a hospital and I ended up spending a night being cared for. The next day, I was released to the care of other missionaries who kept an eye on me while I made a full recovery. During that time, I met Moses Vargas, to whom I disclosed my homesickness and loneliness.  He helped me understand I was not alone and that I lived and worked and existed alongside several hundred missionaries in Guatemala. When I said my prayers at 6am, I was praying with all the other missionaries and that thought brought me comfort. It was something more real and tangible than the comfort the Holy Ghost or Christ could provide.

One good thing about abandonment is that it reveals how humans play games with humans in the name of God. When I threw myself into the work, or when Moses Vargas and others consoled me, people would reason that it was the Holy Ghost and God and Jesus who inspired me or those 'other people' to bring me comfort and support. Looking back on this, I realize they were simply imbuing social ethics with a smattering of divinity.

When a leader of the church takes credit for other people's choices and deeds in the name of God, they do so in an attempt to garner more power for the church, not necessarily for God. A relevant example of this is from Uchtdorf (2019) wherein he makes the argument that when people perform acts of kindness, they are doing so in the name of God, and more specifically the church. However, the logic does not work both ways. If the same person (e.g. a missionary or member of the church) provides service to others, the church will attempt to take the credit, but if that same person does something dishonorable in the eyes of the church (e.g. use their tithing funds to give to a soup kitchen rather than to the church), the church will deem this act as not in the name of God and may even discipline the member (e.g. excommunication). The key message from the church to the individual is this: "obey and we will take the credit and uphold you the best we can, but dissent or misalign, we disavow you and you are on your own."

This key principal, even if unspoken, is discerned more acutely after having served a mission for the church. There is significant management and stewardship of a young man or woman for the first 20 or so years of their life. There are checkpoints, interviews, and to-do items in order to keep the person on the right track. But after those first 20 or so years, you are left to your own devices to keep the program going. As long as you follow the program after serving a mission (getting married, holding callings, having kids and repeating the cycle), you will fall under the good graces of the church. But if you don't follow the program or even fit the mold of a 'good' member, you are abandoned since your usefulness to the church is no longer valuable.

For me, in 1997, I realized I was a tool for the church. My whole life had been a checklist with regular interviews to ensure I was checking off all the boxes. And then when I returned home from my mission to Guatemala, it all went silent; I was abandoned and truly left to my own devices. When you've been told how to think and how to live the first 21 years of your life and when it all goes silent, you feel lost and disoriented.

I stayed true to the program, for the most part. I dated, eventually married, and my wife and I began a family. We accepted church callings and did all the enduring to the end we could muster. Children were born, babies were blessed, family home evenings were held, church attendance was regular like a metronome. During the week, my wife raised and cared for our children, while I commuted to work in the morning, worked all day, and commuted in the evening. Dinner, playtime, reading books, watching movies, playing games, cleaning up, bed time and then repeat. If only I had read Camus early in life, perhaps I would have been better prepared for what was coming.

In his Myth of Sisyphus, Camus observes, "we get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking" (1979). A bit later in the book he describes what I eventually would feel after 10 years of living the Mormon program. "Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm - this path is easily followed most of the time. But one day the 'why' arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement" (1979). For me the 'why' was eternal life with my family and before that, I was yearning for confirmation or refinement or even sanctification. But there was no whiff of this to be found. The weariness became almost unbearable and the platitudes Mormonism offered did not outweigh the church's never-ending demands for more time, more money, more of my soul, more sacrifice on my part only for the benefit of the church. In a time when I needed support and energy or even relief, I only ever heard calls for more sacrifice. I felt abandoned. Confronted with metaphysical abandonment, I perceived that my choices were limited and I could not see any resolution other than death.

I began seeing a therapist in May 2014. She helped me see that I was enough - that existing and being there for my wife and kids and others was sufficient. And while she helped me correct some faulty value judgements I had been making, I recognized the space in which I could simply exist. I finally existed before landing on essence. Between 2014 and 2015, I deconstructed my beliefs and eventually I abandoned Mormonism, at least in my heart and mind. Never have I grown so much, emotionally, philosophically, mentally, than in those years of truly discovering myself and what my values were. I finally could choose my essence, rather than conform to what someone else decided for me.

By 2019, my wife and kids were also "out" of the church. The last time we attended services was December 2018. On a Monday in January 2019, the lay leader (bishop) came to our home, unannounced, and correctly claimed that we were less than honest about our temple recommend responses and he demanded we surrender recommends to him. This was tantamount to a slap in the face and an abject judgment of what our church thought of us after all the sacrifices in time and money we gave it. We were abandoned by our church. There were no questions about how we got to that point and there were no offers of succor to bring us back to the 'right' path. We had been fully abandoned and we could not be happier.

2020 brought a new kind of abandonment. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced isolation policies which effectively brought a type of abandonment many had never experienced before. The only people we could come in contact with were our families, and friends and neighbors at a safe distance. The days seemed long as we sat by our computers, working remotely, and watched the evening news reports of the thousands of deaths from people who succumbed to the virus as well as people who died because of isolation polices (e.g lack of medical care). Politicians and medical experts played on our fears. Panic spread as people tried to hoard supplies and many resources became scarce.

Working for an oil and gas company during the pandemic was surreal, especially when the price of oil inverted (Gaffen, 2022). Radical changes and ruthless prioritization became the norm. Many outsourcing and offshoring projects, which had only been planned for in the coming years, became a rough-shod reality. Expats living in the United States were quickly abandoned by the corporation and were hurriedly repatriated with little to no concern for safety protocols for them or their families. Normal ranking of employees, in which a very small percentage are put on improvement plans, were flipped to become tools for cutting workforce. People who had been planning to retire in an organized fashion were shamelessly forced to quit or retire early.

When things began to somewhat stabilize in late 2021 and into 2022, those who remained with the company had to begin picking up the pieces. After losing so many people, help was hard to find. Having endured multiple rounds of complaints from his staff, one manager reportedly told his group of 300 employees "no one is coming to rescue us; we have to save ourselves." I can think of no better existentialist motto than that. While some have the luxury of creating layers of security, friends, people, processes and tools around them like a cocoon, eventually all of that gets stripped away and the individual is abandoned and he realizes no one is going to live his life for him - no one is going to provide all the answers - he is on his own, so he might as well accept it and begin rescuing himself.

Toward the end of 2022, nearly two years ago from the time of this writing, my mother died and abandoned me. To be fair, I had mostly abandoned her in my mind, but not in my heart. I loved her dearly and often remember fondly my times, memories and experiences with her. Eventually I came to see her as not only my mother, but simply another human, with flaws, insecurities, her own narrative and philosophy for life. And while it was more emotional than I had expected, her passing to me brought a new-found fortitude and love for life. As I recalled her life through my perspective, I realized how much light she gave me. Whether she intended it or not, the fact remains that I have instilled in me an unending source of motivation to seek the sunny side of life because of how she raised me. A mere glance at the sun, and feeling the rays on my face, reminds me of her. I don't know if I would have had this blessing if she had not abandoned me when she died. She died November 10, 2022 and the sun still shines.

My father still lives at the time of this writing, but he inches toward his own death. After my mother passed away, my father seemed to have a tough time adjusting. On one hand, he seemed to have a new lease in life and claimed he would live to 140 years old and even verbalized aspirations of going back to college to pursues a masters degree in psychology after he heard a speech by a trained psychologist. His need for companionship endured after mother's death and every attractive woman he met, regardless of age, became the one he was going to marry. He dominated in cornhole tournaments and he loved to sing for all the other residents in the assisted living home. He spent his days visiting and trying to inspire the remaining members of The Greatest Generation. He has always sought a way to be useful and to help others. This undying zest for life has been an inspiration to me. While amusing, his fight to continue to live and exist even to the age of 140, teaches me to also fight for meaning and existence. This passion for life is even more extraordinary knowing that his father psychologically abandoned him through anger and lack of conveying love and care to my father. Alas, my father, too, will pass; life will abandon him and when that day comes, I'll be an orphan and know that my own death will someday arrive.

All experience abandonment, even the Christian god Jesus. As Camus (1956) writes in The Rebel, even the son of God experienced the most exquisite abandonment. Believing he was solving two of mankind's greatest problems, evil and death, after he hung on the cross in agony and in utter despair, Christ came to conclude that all are abandoned no matter the divinity, luxury or privilege. Hence he gut-wrenchingly yells out the lama sabactani (see Matthew 27) and is awestruck at his total and complete isolation. Camus sardonically notes Christ's "agony would have been mild if it had been alleviated by hopes of eternity" (1956). When I read this passage a few weeks ago, it struck my like a lightening bolt. I imagined Jesus experiencing an unexpected and panicked brush with reality. After having believed his own message for over 30 years, he came to realize that he too would suffer the same fate that billions before and after him experienced. He was not who he claimed to be. No one is immune from abandonment.

Since we are all abandoned, we must all stand on our own. No one is going to fully live your life for you. You must seek out your own meaning and purpose, especially when you come to find out that no one knows what this absurd existence really means. If you come from GenX, like me, you will probably never forget the message from Dead Poet's Society (Wier, 1989): carpe diem! Seize control of your life! Make your own meaning! Exist since no one else will nor can exist for you.

In conclusion, I leave this thought and quote which conveys the idea of: no one has found an instruction manual for life and you're on your own.

The problem for Kierkegaard is entwined with our fundamental abandonment in freedom. Man is a free project: which is to say that there is no ‘world-historical’ source of instruction and no pellucid God-ward imperative. In what concerns us most deeply we are thrown back on our own decision. The speculative reason says, Kierkegaard, cannot help us in the matter of existence, for to speculative reason, existence ‘is a matter of infinite indifference’. Furthermore, I am utterly alone in my plight (Gravil & Addis, 2007, p. 47).

References

Aho, K. (2023, January 6). Existentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

Aurelius, M. (2021). Meditations (R. Waterfield, Trans.). Basic Books.

Camus, A. (1956). The rebel : an essay on man in revolt (A. Bower, Trans.). Alfred A. Knopf.

Camus, A. (1979). The Myth of Sisyphus (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1955)

Gaffen, D. (2022, February 24). Analysis: Oil’s journey from worthless in the pandemic to $100 a barrel. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oils-journey-worthless-pandemic-100-barrel-2022-02-24/

Gravil, R., & Addis, M. (2007). Existentialism (1st ed.). Humanities-Ebooks, LLP.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2023). You Are Never Alone. Churchofjesuschrist.org. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/mormonad-you-are-never-alone-4a54532?lang=eng

Seneca. (2024).  Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. Uchicago.edu. https://artflsrv03.uchicago.edu/philologic4/Latin/navigate/129/7/4/

Uchtdorf, D. F. (2019). “You Are My Hands.” Churchofjesuschrist.org. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/04/you-are-my-hands?lang=eng#p1

Weir, P. (Director). (1989). Dead poets society [Film]. Touchstone Pictures.

Rel 411 - Jean-Paul Sartre: Breaking the Mold, Living Authentically

 Jean-Paul Sartre: Breaking the Mold, Living Authentically

Sartre contends existence precedes essence (Sartre). Coming from a Mormon background, I was taught I pre-existed, which simply meant my essence came before my existence (Marshall 197). From the moment I was born, my essence would be defined by others and God. But after 38 years of living Mormonism, I came to realize I was not living authentically – there was a gap between who I intrinsically felt I was and what others (family, religious leaders, neighbors and peers at work) thought I ought to be. The first step was to accept that my existence came prior to my essence. Afterward, I began to reconcile the gap and unify my psyche. This process has taken several years and is still a work in progress. In brief, I recognized I needed to “radically escape bad faith”, and subsequently I realized I had freedom to take steps to break the mold in which I was raised and to begin to live authentically (Detmer 88).

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or more commonly known as the Mormon church, one of the underlying doctrines of the faith is the concept of pre-existence. This dogma is taught to all members from a very young age, and then reinforced throughout their lives. Members of the religion are taught they are “spirit children” of a “Heavenly Mother and Father” (Marshall 197). Before humans’ physical existence, God had laid out a plan for his children, which included daily activities and various milestone rituals and “practices [which] intricately cross sect members’ physical, temporal, and social planes of existence” (197). This plan for each member is the essence of who they are and what they must become. In other words, each member, assuming they remain in the religious fold, never has a chance, from the beginning of their life, to define what their essence is or will become. In short, in the Mormon faith, essence precedes existence. However, as experienced by myself and thousands of other Mormons, placing essence before existence creates problems. One of Jean-Paul Sartre’s pillars of his existential philosophy is to emphasize that existence precedes essence.

In his well-known lecture entitled “Existentialism is a Humanism” Sartre lays out his argument for placing the recognition of one’s existence before defining one’s essence. He uses an analogy of a creator of a book or paper-knife conceiving those objects in his mind. This conception, in the creator’s mind, is the essence of those objects, and before those objects are produced with physical material, one can claim their essence precedes existence. Applying the analogy to God and humankind, theists, like the Mormons, claim that humanity’s essence was conceived by God prior to humans taking mortal form. However, in all of humanity’s existence, it has collectively never agreed or settled on the definition of God, nor has it found proof of God’s existence. While all discussion on God has been conjecture, what is known to humanity is its own existence – we exist. And even if granted the premise of God’s existence, humanity still lacks access to the mind of God in order to ascertain human essence. Thus, Sartre argues “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards” (Sartre). Given the individual exists first, he is then faced with the prospect of establishing his essence – this is his life project. This project involves blunt honesty with oneself in a perpetual struggle to live with authenticity. To live authentically, one must be on the look-out for “bad faith” actors and paradigms in one’s life.

While the individual’s life project to define his essence remains in flux, he must be alert to outside impositions, self-deceptions and perpetual dreaming with no action (Flynn 72-74). These forms of bad faith span two poles, one which is the “facticity” of the individual and the other is his “transcendence” (74).  Outside imposition (living for others) and self-deception (“dull resignation to one’s fate”) fall under the form of bad faith of facticity, while perpetual dreaming with no action falls under the form of bad faith stemming from transcendence (73).

For me, having been raised in the Mormon faith, I realized I was suffering from bad faith in the form of facticity.  My religious leaders, parents, friends and neighbors sought to impose a specific role on me. They made demands of my life and argued it was my duty and obligation to be Mormon. In a similar vein, Sartre uses an example of “service industry” roles “which [demand] of all persons in the service industry that they give up their status as autonomous human beings and exhaust themselves utterly in serving their social function” (Detmer 79). The other form of bad faith from the facticity pole is resigning oneself to his fate – a lazy argument, in a sense. All too easy for me, and a line of thinking I continually battle today, is to lie to myself by leveraging any and all stories which are “selective and slanted” toward what I think I cannot change about myself (Detmer 81). Overcoming this form of bad faith, for me, is to constantly battle the Mormon “autopilot” programming of my first 38 years of existence (Marshall 205).

The other form of bad faith I must fight is that of “the dreamer” (Flynn 74). Having left the Mormon faith, I was left with a new-found freedom to make myself who I wished and intended to be. Through the course of the last several years, I have dreamed of becoming either a teacher of philosophy, a life coach or a psychoanalyst, despite the fact that I’ve worked in the Information Technology field for over twenty years. While I am prone to making plans and dreaming, I must overcome this bad faith and work towards making those dreams into a reality. While working towards a degree in philosophy is a good first step, I must continue to define my essence as someone who is knowledgeable in philosophy, psychology and their application towards helping others overcome bad faith and define their own essence.

Living authentically means maintaining a tension between the two poles and not “insisting [life is about] either transcendence or facticity” (Flynn 74). Authentic living must emphasize and rely on freedom.  Sartre notes, “the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest for freedom itself” (Detmer 138). This simply means that I have the power and the duty to choose who I will be as an individual. I can no longer throw my hands in the air, pointing to God or my religion or any other fact of my existence, and blame them for who I am. Nor can I admire my dreams of who I think I should be, while never acting on them. Indeed, my existential freedom demands I accept my circumstances – my facticity – and to prod myself towards the future by exerting my freedom and will – my transcendence. Between these two poles, “living authentically involves living without regret” (Cox 138). Lastly, living authentically is not a one-and-done choice, rather it is a constant re-commitment through an ever-evolving life. “Authenticity is the continued task of choosing responses that affirm freedom and responsibility … [and] continually resisting the slide into bad faith that threatens every project” (139). It is simply not falling into another pre-defined mold.

In conclusion, Sartre contends existence precedes essence, which frees the individual to life authentically. Living authentically is keeping oneself ever wary of falling into bad faith. The project of life, like a jazz song, jibs, jives and riffs and is ever moving. Sartre’s character in Nausea comes to this realization: “what summits would I not reach if my own life were the subject of the melody?” (Golomb 145). The aim of life is not reaching a destination, but rather one of breaking the mold and creatively improvising off one’s circumstances.

Works Cited

Cox, Gary. Sartre: A Guide for the Perplexed, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1749842.

Detmer, David. Sartre Explained : From Bad Faith to Authenticity, Open Court, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=684197.

Flynn, Thomas R. Existentialism : A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Golomb, Jacob. In Search of Authenticity : Existentialism from Kierkegaard to Camus, Taylor & Francis Group, 1995. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=168270.

Marshall, E. Brooks "The Disenchanted Self: Anthropological Notes on Existential Distress and Ontological Insecurity among Ex-Mormons in Utah." Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, vol. 44, no. 2, 2020, pp. 193-213. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fdisenchanted-self-anthropological-notes-on%2Fdocview%2F2281579584%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-019-09646-5.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism, 1946.” Marxists.org, 2019, www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm.

Letters from a Stoic 60 - On Harmful Prayers

On Harmful Prayers

Recall: a Stoic achieves his own good because it is entirely up to him.  Moral virtue and excellence of character are the sole good.  The rest are indifferents to him.  While some may be preferred indifferents, they are nonetheless not needed to achieve the good.

Observe: what other people desire and pray for.  I'm not familiar with all Christian religions, but having lived Mormonism for over 30 years, I was taught and I believed in what I have come to know as "the prosperity gospel."  In sum, it is the belief that God will help you prosper (i.e. crops, wealth, etc.) if you obey the commandments.  One of the books of scripture for Mormons is the Book of Mormon and in that book, this teaching is repeated over and over again.  The first instance comes from early in the book:  "Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise" (1 Nephi 4:14).  For all the other references, one may perform a search on their website using "prosper in the land" and most search results will reinforce the teaching of obedience to God's commandments leads to prosperity (i.e. wealth).

Observe: if a Stoic would pray, he would pray for greater courage, wisdom, justice and temperance.  He would pray to see the world as is really is and that his will is the same as Nature.  A Stoic would probably not pray to God for wealth and prosperity - he would not pray to God to grant him indifferents, preferred or not.  In fact, we can read Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus and in five particular stanzas, glean correct reason.

..., Thou canst

Make the rough smooth, bring wondrous order forth

From chaos; in Thy sight unloveliness

Seems beautiful; for so Thou hast fitted things

Together, good and evil, that there reigns

One everlasting Reason in them all.

The wicked heed not this, but suffer it

To slip, to their undoing; these are they

Who, yearning ever to secure the good,

Mark not nor hear the law of God, by wise

Obedience unto which they might attain

A nobler life, with Reason harmonized.

But now, unbid, they pass on divers paths

Each his own way, yet knowing not the truth,—

Some in unlovely striving for renown,

Some bent on lawless gains, on pleasure some,

Working their own undoing, self-deceived.

O Thou most bounteous God that sittest throned

In clouds, the Lord of lightning, save mankind

From grievous ignorance!

Oh, scatter it

Far from their souls, and grant them to achieve

True knowledge, on whose might Thou dost rely

To govern all the world in righteousness;

Here is an alternate version of Hymn to Zeus (translated by Frederick C. Grant), one which I particularly like.

Therefore: in this light, we can read Seneca's Letter 60 and understand why he calls prayers for indifferents "harmful."  If others were to pray for me, then I would hope they pray to grant me more wisdom, courage, temperance and the ability to grant justice where it concerns me, but not that I get a promotion or greater wealth.  But we were born in a polluted world that desires indifferents.

Do you still desire what your nurse, your guardian, or your mother, have prayed for in your behalf? Do you not yet understand what evil they prayed for? Alas, how hostile to us are the wishes of our own folk! And they are all the more hostile in proportion as they are more completely fulfilled. It is no surprise to me, at my age, that nothing but evil attends us from our early youth; for we have grown up amid the curses invoked by our parents.

He then gets into humans' boundless desires.  We simply can't or won't check our appetites.  Yet we continue to demand of the gods for more.

How long shall we go on making demands upon the gods, as if we were still unable to support ourselves?

He notes that bulls and elephants need just a bit of land to live on and they do just fine.  But humans comb the world over for food and the delve into the sea and cast up big stores of grain.

Man, however, draws sustenance both from the earth and from the sea.  What, then? Did nature give us bellies so insatiable, when she gave us these puny bodies, that we should outdo the hugest and most voracious animals in greed? Not at all. How small is the amount which will satisfy nature? A very little will send her away contented.

Seneca seems to advocate for a simple life; one that is not dissimilar to Henry David Thoreau when he lived in the woods.  I'm not blind to the needs of people.  Much of the world still faces hunger in the year 2021 and we are still susceptible to famines.  I'm not advocating everyone live like Thoreau, but I think Seneca has a point and we can learn to live rationally and minimally without impacting the environment.  We can make mindful and informed decisions and change our behaviors.

Seneca quips about our desire for excess:

It is not the natural hunger of our bellies that costs us dear, but our solicitous cravings.  Therefore those who, as Sallust puts it, "hearken to their bellies," should be numbered among the animals, and not among men

He talks of food, but I think cravings for all kinds of indifferents applies - cravings for fame, recognition and wealth.

The Stoic aims to help - this is his social duty.

He really lives who is made use of by many; he really lives who makes use of himself.

While others, who do nothing but collect stuff are not really living and we might as well inscribe an epitaph on their fireplace mantel instead of their gravestone.

Those men, however, who creep into a hole and grow torpid are no better off in their homes than if they were in their tombs. Right there on the marble lintel of the house of such a man you may inscribe his name, for he has died before he is dead. 

Letters from a Stoic 27 - On the Good which Abides

On the Good which Abides

As mentioned on this blog before, I used to be quite religious, actively attending the LDS (Mormon) church most of my life.  I used to hear an analogy on the subject of regularly attending church services every Sunday.  People would say that going to church was like going to the hospital.  We are all ill and need to help each other get better.  This analogy was brought up in response to people who said that 'you need to be perfect or good to attend church ... if you were unworthy, you should not attend.'

I generally agreed with the analogy, but I had a bit of a problem with how many people said they were 'ill too' but then proceeded to talk and act like they weren't.  Therefore, there was a lot of finger-wagging and not much humility.  When moral failures occurred, they were hidden, so as to allow leaders to keep some moral high ground, upon which to preach.  But eventually the moral failures were revealed and there was no acknowledgement and the high ground was lost.

The correct way of looking at moral teaching and learning is how Seneca describes it in this letter (my emphasis added).

No, I am not so shameless as to undertake to cure my fellow-men when I am ill myself. I am, however, discussing with you troubles which concern us both, and sharing the remedy with you, just as if we were lying ill in the same hospital. Listen to me, therefore, as you would if I were talking to myself. I am admitting you to my inmost thoughts, and am having it out with myself, merely making use of you as my pretext.

Realistically, you should not compare your moral learnings and failures with other people.  What ultimately matters is the progress from your younger years to your elder years.  A worthy goal is to have your faults die before your body does.

Count your years, and you will be ashamed to desire and pursue the same things you desired in your boyhood days. Of this one thing make sure against your dying day, – let your faults die before you die.

And if you can eliminate your faults, this will allow virtue within you to grow.  Virtue replaces vice turning to inner peace and good flow, regardless of external circumstances.

Virtue alone affords everlasting and peace-giving joy; even if some obstacle arise, it is but like an intervening cloud, which floats beneath the sun but never prevails against it.

This work can only be done by you.  There's no way to buy this path.  You have to trod it on your own.  Seneca talks of a man who tried to gain knowledge by paying for slaves to read books and memorize them.  And then he would have the slaves stand around him and at his demand, they would repeat the memorized passages.  Now, before you laugh at this, how is this any different than what many of us do today (including me)?  Rather than spend the time in books and study, we say to ourselves that we have the knowledge in our pocket - in our internet-connected smart phone.  With a few swipe and taps, we instantly have information.  Any we pay for this!

To be clear, I'm grateful for the massive about of history and knowledge we have at our disposal.  But do we use it wisely?  Are we transferring the wisdom of the ages into our brains and hearts?  Or do we flick through social media ego feeds and only decide to search for something [useful] when the need arises?  We aren't so different than the old man Seneca critiques.

No man is able to borrow or buy a sound mind; in fact, as it seems to me, even though sound minds were for sale, they would not find buyers. Depraved minds, however, are bought and sold every day.

We sell our time to pass it.  Tech companies buy our time to re-program us.  I'm not so sure that their programming is based on ancient Greek wisdom.  Therefore, we all should pursue sound, wise, rational philosophy.  By my investigation, I've found it's available for the taking.  What is undecided is whether to choose to seek it or not.

Notes and What I Learned From: Philosophy as a Way of Life - the essay "Spiritual Exercises" part 4: Learning to Read

This is part 4 of 4 of my review of the essay "Spiritual Exercises" from the book "Philosophy as a Way of Life" by Pierre Hadot.

Learning to Read

All of the spiritual exercises previously described are based on one premise: that humans are "consumed by worries, torn by passions" and do not "live a genuine life" and they do not truly know who they are.  To rectify these ailments, humans ought to reign in their inner dialogue, work to increase their mental concentration, seek a genuine life and work to transform themselves in order to "attain a state of perfection" (p. 102).

Not unlike today's fitness centers we athletes train in order to improve in the real game, if we are to strengthen our mental fortitude and resilience, we must establish habits practices of spiritual and mental exercises in order to perform well in every-day life.  If that analogy doesn't strike a chord with you, perhaps a sculpting analogy will:

The quest for self-realization, final goal of spiritual exercises, is well symbolized by the Plotinian image of sculpting one's own statue.  Its is often misunderstood, since people imagine that this expression corresponds to a kind of moral aestheticism.  On this interpretation, its meaning would be to adopt a pose, to select an attitude, or to fabricate a personality for oneself.  In fact, it is nothing of the sort.  For the ancients, sculpture was an art which "took away," as opposed to painting, an art which "added on."  The statue pre-existed in the marble block, and it was enough to take away what was superfluous in order to cause it to appear (p. 102).

Hadot also notes how the god Glaucos was a similar metaphor of the soul that was revealed through the process of subtraction.  And like the exercise of spiritual death, when we separate ourselves from the passions and desires of the body, our soul and thoughts become more pure (p. 103).

We can obtain "complete liberation from the passions" along with "utter lucidity, knowledge of ourselves and of the world" as we practice these exercises.  We become more wise and yearn for and love wisdom.  However, many of the ancients believed that this state of complete liberation was impossible.  People who obtained this state were considered sages.  While those who sought to enter the path, but perhaps never attain this lofty goal were considered philo-sophers - lovers of wisdom.  Therefore, to make progress, one must "take up" these exercises again and again, "in an ever-renewed effort" (p. 103).

Philosophical schools were established, to help people fully focus on their total transformation.  These practices "implied a complete reversal of received ideas: one was to renounce the false values of wealth, honors, and pleasures, and turn towards the true values of virtue, contemplation, a simple life-style, and the simple happiness of existing.  This radical opposition explains the reaction of non-philosophers, which ranged from the mockery we find expressed in comic poets, to the outright hostility which went so far as to cause the death of Socrates" (p. 104).

Therefore, "when we read the words of ancient philosophers, the perspective we have described should cause us to give increased attention to the existential attitudes underlying the dogmatic edifices we encounter" (p. 104).

Learning to read (correctly) also implies understanding the context of the text.  "One did not read the same texts to beginners, to those in progress, and to those already having achieved perfection, and the concepts appearing in commentaries are also functions of the spiritual capacities of their addressees.  Consequently, doctrinal content can vary considerably from one commentary to another, even when written by the same author.  This does not mean that the commentator changed his doctrines, but that the needs of his disciples were different" (p. 106).

The sum total of all this, therefore, is to state that Philosophy, as seen through the ancient texts, was designed as a method for actively "training people to live and to look at the world in a new way.  It is an attempt to transform mankind" (p. 107).  Much of what people think of Philosophy today, is rather stuffy and academic.  But this was not the original intent.  Hadot explains how this came to be.

The reason for this is that, in conformity with tradition inherited from the Middle Ages and from the modern era, they consider philosophy to be a purely abstract-theoretical activity.  Let us briefly recall how this conception came into existence.

It seems to be the result of the absorption of philosophia by Christianity.  Since its inception, Christianity has presented itself as a philosophia, insofar as it assimilated into itself the traditional practices of spiritual exercises.  We see this occurring in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, and monasticism.  With the advent of medieval Scholasticism, however, we find a clear distinction being drawn between theologia and philosophia.  Theology became conscious of its autonomy qua supreme science, while philosophy was emptied of it spiritual exercises which, from now on, were relegated to Christian mysticism and ethics.  Reduced to the rank of "handmaid of theology," philosophy's role was henceforth to furnish theology with conceptual - and hence purely theoretical - material.  When, in the modern age, philosophy regained it autonomy, it still retained many features inherited from this medieval conception.  In particular, it maintained its purely theoretical character, which even evolved in the direction of a more and more thorough systematization.  Not until Nietzsche, Bergson, and existentialism does philosophy consciously return to being a concrete attitude, a way of life and of seeing the world (p. 107-108).

And now to Hadot's point and key question: "how is it possible to practice spiritual exercises in the twentieth century?" (p. 108)

He quotes Vauvnargues, who said, "A truly new and truly original book would be one with made people love old truths" (p. 108).

"Old truths ... there are some truths whose meaning will never be exhausted by the generation of man" - they are "simple" and "banal" and most importantly "for their meaning to be understood, these truths must be lived, and constantly re-experienced.  Each generation must take up, from scratch, the task of learning to read and re-read these 'old truths'" (p. 108).

This is why Hadot and all his work rings true for me.  All my life, I have been searching for ancient rock, upon which I could build my "inner citadel."  It would seem that Hadot and all his excellent work, has uncovered this foundation.

Perhaps this is why Mormonism struck near the mark, but still didn't quite "hit it" for me.  The idea of some unchanging ancient, albeit restored, truths, upon which I could live my life, brought out a desire within me to live better.  It seems to me, now, that I had to dig a bit deeper than Mormonism and even deeper than Christianity, to find some real "old truths."  And as Hadot notes, this work has to be taken up individually and across every generation.

I echo his lament, about how many today have lost some wise practices.  He said, "we have forgotten how to read: how to pause, liberate ourselves from our worries, return to ourselves, and leave aside our search for subtlety and originality, in order to meditate calmly, ruminate, and let the texts speak to use.  This, too, is a spiritual exercise, and one of the most difficult.  As Goethe said: 'Ordinary people don't know how much time and effort it takes to learn how to read.  I've spent eighty years at it, and I still can't say that I've reached my goal'" (p. 109)

Epictetus Discourses 2.15 - To those who hold stubbornly to certain decisions that they have reached

To those who cling obstinately to the judgements which they have once formed

Marcus Aurelius once wrote to himself, "If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change.  I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one's own self-deception and ignorance" (see Meditations 6.21).

Similarly, Epictetus reminds us that we should listen to reason and not just "adhere unswervingly to every judgement that [we] have formed (v. 2, p. 103).  Rather, it is more important to first make a sound judgement before stubbornly sticking to it.

He tells someone, "If your decision is justified, look, here we are at your side and ready to help you on your way; but if your decision is unreasonable, you ought to change it" (v. 6, p. 104).

Substitute the word 'decision' with words such as: culture, tradition, religion, or the way things ought to be, and the advice applies.

So many people don't challenge their assumptions - including me!  We must challenge our assumptions with sound reason.

Epictetus responds to the person who says, "we must stick with a decision."

"Don't you wish to lay a firm foundation at the beginning, by examining Whether or not your decision is sound, and then go on to establish your firm and unwavering resolve on that foundation? But if you lay down a rotten and crumbling foundation, you shouldn't try to build on that, but the bigger and stronger the edifice that you heap upon it, the sooner it will come tumbling down (v. 8-9, p. 104).

Further reading: www.rockyrook.com/search/label/Mormonism

On Happiness - Part Two: Stoic Style

The Dichotomy of Control

The first time I read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, only a few passages made sense to me.  It wasn't until I read Pierre Hadot's The Inner Citadel a couple of times before I connected with and "got" Meditations from start to finish.

Hadot spends quite a few pages setting the scene for his analysis of Meditations.  One of his chapters is entirely devoted to Epictetus - a powerhouse among Stoics.  We learn some very important and fundamental principals of Stoicism from Epictetus.  One of those important principals is the dichotomy of control.  In his Encheiridion or "handbook", he starts with:

Some things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions—in short, whatever is our own doing. Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or our public offices, or, that is, whatever is not our own doing. The things that are up to us are by nature free, unhindered, and unimpeded; the things that are not up to us are weak, enslaved, hindered, not our own. So remember, if you think that things naturally enslaved are free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted, miserable, and upset, and will blame both gods and men. But if you think that only what is yours is yours, and that what is not your own is, just as it is, not your own, then no one will ever coerce you, no one will hinder you, you will blame no one, you will not accuse anyone, you will not do a single thing unwillingly, you will have no enemies, and no one will harm you, because you will not be harmed at all. 

In learning and attempting to practice Stoicism, I've come to learn that there are a lot of things out of my control.  And what a refreshing change to see something so clearly defined and apparent as opposed to the guilt and anxiety that was instilled in me while learning Mormon dogma.

Early in my sessions with my therapist, she reminded me of the serenity prayer, which is quite Stoic:

God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.

When these words finally sunk deep enough into my brain, I realized that much of my anxiety was based on things out of my control.  So many voices told me to be worried about dozens of different things and how I was supposed to act and what I was supposed to be worried about in the past or in the future.  My brain was like a fruit tree that had over-grown and had been choked by a vicious  bramble-week.  Epictetus' words (along with all the other Stoics) were like a chain-saw that cut away all the useless and what was left was a well-balanced, trimmed tree, producing good fruit.

This is the first lesson of Stoic happiness: always, in all things, separate things that are in your control from those things that are out of your control.  Then focus on the things in your control - this is the start of the path to contentment.

The Inner Citadel, your hegemonikon or Empedocles' Perfect Sphere

If you observe closely, you will have noticed that Epictetus' list of things in our control come from within.  Therefore, happiness and contentment, no matter what happens, comes from us!

There is, within each of us, a true self - our true soul if you will - that gets to decide our reality, our opinions and what we ultimately decide to accept or reject.  And no matter what any outside force or event occurs, we have the ultimate, final say in how we view those things.

Marcus Aurelius wrote the following in Meditations:

Book 4, 4
"things cannot touch the soul (mind)"

Book 5, 19
"Things cannot touch the soul at all.  They have no entry to the soul, and cannot turn or move it.  The soul alone turns and moves itself, making all externals presented to it cohere with judgements it thinks worthy of itself."

Book 6, 52
"things of themselves have no inherent power to form our judgments."

Book 9, 15
"Mere things stand isolated outside our doors, with no knowledge or report of themselves.  What then reports them?  Our directing mind."

To quote Hadot,

When he (Aurelius) speaks about "us" and about the soul, he is thinking of that superior or guiding part of the soul which the Stoics called the hegemonikon.  It alone is free, because it alone can give or refuse its assent to that inner discourse which enunciates what the object is which is represented by a given phantasia.  This borderline which objects cannot cross, this inviolable stronghold of freedom, is the limit of what I shall refer to as the 'inner citadel.'  Things cannot penetrate into this citadel: that is, they cannot produce the discourse which we develop about things, or the interpretation which we give of the world and its events.

As Book 9, 15 alludes to, these external things and events are "outside the door" of our inner citadel and we hold the key to that door!

This understanding - this realization - this lesson - is the next key to our Stoic happiness.  We must realize there is a hard boundary between events and our opinion.  And we get to decide what our opinion and our attitude is.  In the vast majority of people's minds, they jump to conclusions and assume too much.  They do not exercise much discipline in their value judgments and therefore introduce sadness, anxiety and worry into their own lives.  And other people know this!  They use it to great effect to induce guilt in others.  These are "the games" we humans play.  We must realize, however, we don't have to play these games!  We can fortify our inner citadel and exercise extreme security measures when it comes to letting in thoughts, assumptions and conclusions into our directing mind.

Marcus makes mention of Empedocles' "perfect round" which through the vortex of external events, and our constant vigil, that boundary remains inviolate.  Our discipline in keeping a strong border ensures the integrity and contentment of our inner citadel.  In Book 12, 3 Marcus writes,

There are three things in your composition: body, breath, and mind. The first two are yours to the extent that you must take care for them, but only the third is in the full sense your own. So, if you separate from yourself - that is, from your mind - all that others say or do, all that you yourself have said or done, all that troubles you for the future, all that your encasing body and associate breath bring on you without your choice, all that is whirled round in the external vortex encircling us, so that your power of mind, transcending now all contingent ties, can exist on its own, pure and liberated, doing what is just, willing what happens to it, and saying what is true; if, as I say, you separate from this directing mind of yours the baggage of passion, time future and time past, and make yourself like Empedocles' 'perfect round rejoicing in the solitude it enjoys', and seek only to perfect this life you are living in the present, you will be able at least to live out the time remaining before your death calmly, kindly, and at peace with the god inside you.

How do we ensure the integrity of that boundary?  How do we prevent thieves and burglars from entering our inner citadel?  We learn the Stoic Discipline of Assent.

Discipline of Assent

To get directly to the point, the discipline of assent is the process of strengthening our hegemonikon to assent (agree) with only valid impressions and to disagree or ignore invalid or incorrect impressions.

The world is filled with external events.  We are confronted with and bombarded by these events incessantly.  These events "propose" an idea or opinion to us and then we have to decide if we agree or not with that proposition.

Examples are best to better explain this concept.

From Marcus Aurelius Book 8, 49:

Do not elaborate to yourself beyond what your initial impressions report. You have been told that so-and-so is maligning you. That is the report: you have not been told that you are harmed. I see that my little boy is ill. That is what I see: I do not see that he is in danger. So always stay like this within your first impressions and do not add conclusions from your own thoughts - and then that is all.

From Epictetus Discourses 3.8

Just as we practise answering sophistic questions, so should we train for impressions every day, as they implicitly pose their own questions.
‘So-and-so’s son died.’ (‘The question’).
Answer: ‘Since it’s nothing he can control, it isn’t bad.’
‘So and so’s father left his son nothing when he died.’
‘Not something the son can control, so not bad.’
‘Caesar condemned him.’
‘Outside his control – not bad.’
‘He lamented these events.’
‘That is in his control – and bad.’
‘He withstood it like a man.’
‘That is in his control – and good.’
If we make a habit of such analysis, we will make progress, because we will never assent to anything unless it involves a cognitive impression.
‘His son died.’
What happened? His son died.
‘Nothing else?’
Nothing.
‘The ship was lost.’
What happened? The ship was lost.
‘He was thrown into jail.’
What happened? He was thrown into jail.
‘He’s in a bad situation’ is a stock comment that everyone adds on their own account.

This same thought process can and ought to be applied in every day circumstances as well as life-altering events.

When a driver cuts you off in traffic, all you can say is that they cut you off.  When you add, "what a jerk!" then you have introduced that value judgement.  You have allowed the event to enter your inner citadel and disrupt your peace.

When you receive notice that you've been fired from your job, all you can say is that you've been fired from your job.  When you add, "this is really bad!" that is you who has added the value judgement.  You can still excel at being an excellent human being (arete) by having a positive attitude about being fired and looking for opportunities to make this work to your advantage.  But you won't get to this point quickly unless you exercise the disciple of assent.

I love Epictetus' frame of mind when describing the discipline of assent.  Your directing mind is like an inner citadel and you employ a guard who has complete control over who can enter your citadel.  Epictetus says, "Don’t let the force of an impression when it first hits you knock you off your feet; just say to it, “Hold on a moment; let me see who you are and what you represent. Let me put you to the test” (Discourses 2.18).  Have you ever heard the phrase, "living rent free in your head"?  This is a very similar idea.  When someone is living rent-free in your head, you've allowed them to "get to you" to annoy you or disturb you, and you've failed to realize that you can kick them out whenever you want; you can kick the free-loader out!  All it takes is mental toughness and discipline and practice at not letting those impressions in to begin with!

Allow me to pause and make a few contrasting points between Stoicism and Mormonism.  As I've analysed my mental health between the years 2014 and 2018, I would say that learning and practicing the discipline of assent has been the biggest benefit.  Growing up Mormon, I was fed a constant diet of value judgements.  I was told, constantly, what it meant to be good or bad.  "Choosing the Right" was front and center in Mormon culture.  Believing in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost; believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is an historical and truthful record, that Jesus Christ visited the ancient Americas, that the American aborigine is a descendant of the Lamanites, that the current Mormon prophet is the only authorized "mouthpiece" of God on the earth today ... and that you were "good" if you believed and testified of these things and "bad" if you did not.  These beliefs are the beginning qualifications of "good" in Mormonism.  If you believe these things, you "choose the right" but if you don't believe these things and verbally say so, then you do not "choose the right."

After these basic, fundamental teachings, you would prove your belief and worthiness by acting on them.  You are "good" if you say your prayers morning, afternoon and night.  You are "good" if you read the Book of Mormon for 30 minutes every day.  You are "good" if you praise and testify of Joseph Smith.  You are "good" if you obey all the commandments, and "bad" and "apostatizing" if you break any commandments.  Everyone is measured and re-measured against the beliefs and commandments in Mormonism.  Good if you believe and live them, bad if you don't.

I never took an opportunity to evaluate those value judgements until 2014.  From birth, through childhood, teenage years and through my 20's and 30's, I only ever let the "Mormon" value judgements into my consciousness.  In essence, I turned over "guard-duty" to whoever my teacher or leader or prophet was at the time.  And in many cases, these peoples' opinions and views were subject to change.  Learning and practicing the discipline of assent has allowed me to perform a hard re-set on my value judgements.  Mental-health-wise, I've never been healthier.  For the first time in my life, I am seeing things as they are.

Discipline of Desire

I am, by no means, a Stoic sage.  But I do feel better-armed, knowing about the dichotomy of control and the discipline of assent.  Up to about the year 2014, what gave me direction and motivation in life was Mormonism.  I was given a long list of things to do, and I set about checking those items off.  That worked pretty well for me until it didn't!  My Mormon worldview and foundation crumbled and in that void, I needed to ensure I rebuilt on solid rock.  But how do I find the right motivation; the driving force to power my desires and action?  Enter the Stoic Discipline of Desire.

At this point, I'd like to share a sequence that demonstrates how assent, desire and our will to act are intertwined.

An impression (external event) occurs → we assent (or not) → desire is triggered (or not) → we act (or not) on that desire.

Many times, that process happens instantaneously and before we know it, we are acting on impressions.  Almost subconsciously, we agree and desire something, and then immediately act.

People who want to sell you something, will play on your basest fears and desires in order to rob you of time and money.  They tell you that material possessions, power, prestige, health, eternal life and salvation are "good" and should be sought.  In many cases, you assent to these impressions thinking they will make you content and happy.  Stoicism helps you regain control over that process and instructs you on what you should desire (and not).

I really like how Chris Fisher puts it (source):

The discipline of desire helps us stop the train of passion before it leaves the station and builds a full head of steam. That is why Epictetus taught that controlling our passions, through the discipline of desire, is the “most urgent” of the three disciplines.

"[Desire] is what brings about disturbances, confusions, misfortunes, and calamities, and causes sorrow, lamentation, and envy, making people envious and jealous, with the result that we become incapable of listening to reason." (Discourses 3.2.3)

The Discipline of Desire includes two very important distinctions.  Marcus Aurelius often wrote about our own nature and universal nature (see Book 5.25, Book 6.58 and Book 12.32).  Personally, I like to think of these as micro-desires and macro-desires.  Others have called them common nature and universal Nature or human will and cosmic will.  The key idea is that, we have two areas of desire to focus on: our own, and that of Zeus/God/Providence/the Universe.

Micro-desire
I've already discussed the dichotomy of control, which is based on the opening chapter of Epictetus' Encheiridion.  Chris Fisher organizes this chapter into a table-like format, which makes it very easy to consume

This table succinctly informs us where our micro-desires should be focused.  The list of things in our control, and subsequently where we can place our desires, is small.  But the outcomes are significant.

Macro-desire
The other aspect of the discipline of desire is that of Universal or cosmic nature.  Some might call this the will of God or Providence.  Much thought and debate has gone into this topic.  There seems to be an active debate on-line between the Modern (agnostic/atheistic) Stoics and the Traditionalist (deist) Stoics.  The Moderns have seemingly tried to re-invent Stoicism by taking Zeus/God/Providence out of the equation, while the Traditionalists have pointed to the ancient Stoics as well as the academic studies of ancient Stoicism, to state that Stoicism absolutely claims there is a Providence or consciousness in the Universe and it is active.

Furthermore, the discipline of desire asks the Stoic follower to seek, understand, desire and live with the will of the Universe.  This is a key difference, in my opinion, in how a person might choose to live a resigned, stoic (lower-case 's') life versus an active, fulfilling Stoic (upper-case 'S') life.  Stoics (big-S) will seek to see how everything is useful for the Whole (earth, universe, etc.) - they can remain indifferent to these events, but love them and even want them to happen!

Pierre Hadot describes how a practicing Stoic might view cosmic events:

Everything that happens to the part is useful for the Whole, and everything that is "prescribed" for each part is, almost in the medical sense of the term, "prescribed" (V, 8) for the health of the Whole, and consequently for all the other parts as well.

The discipline of desire therefore consists in replacing each event within the perspective of the Whole, and this is why it corresponds to the physical part of philosophy. To replace each event within the perspective of the Whole means to understand two things simultaneously: that I am encountering it, or that it is present to me, because it was destined for me by the Whole, but also that the Whole is present within it. Since such an event does not depend upon me, in itself it is indifferent, and we might therefore expect the Stoic to greet it with indifference. Indifference, however, does not mean coldness. On the contrary: since such an event is the expression of the love which the Whole has for itself, and since it is useful for and willed by the Whole, we too must want and love it. In this way, my will shall identify itself with the divine Will which has willed this event to happen. To be indifferent to indifferent things-that is, to things which do not depend on me-in fact means to make no difference between them: it means to love them equally, just as Nature or the Whole produces them with equal love. (The Inner Citadel p. 142, emphasis added)

Even though it's been pointed out by many people that Friedrich Nietzsche excoriated Stoicism, I still think his "amor fati" quote encapsulates well the idea of loving the will of Providence/Universal Nature:

Eudamonia
Some people might assume focusing on micro-desires and macro-desires will bring a person happiness.  So far in this essay, I've been using the terms "happiness" and "contentment."  I think it is time to clarify this point.  The Stoic philosophers used the word eudaimonia to describe the outcome living according to Nature.  Some have interpreted the word eudamonia as happiness, but it has a more precise meaning in "human flourishing" or "good flow."  Zeno of Citium called it "good flow of life" (source).

Stoicism does not promise elation or joy or eternal bliss or never-ending happiness; which is what many religions seem to offer for a price.  Rather, Stoicism seems to say, "here are things in your control and things not in your control.  If you focus on things out of your control, you'll find disappointment.  If you focus on things in your control, you'll live life with eyes wide open."  Stoicism also confronts us with the cosmic view and challenges us to adapt to Universal nature, not with promises, but with rationality.

There is other another aspect, which I have not addressed yet, which is a key ingredient in the pursuit of eudamonia.  It is the pursuit of arete or excellence in character by practicing the only moral good: that of virtue (discipline, courage, justice, wisdom).  I'll conclude this essay discussing how the Stoics view virtue as the sole good.  But before I get to that conclusion, there is one more discipline to discuss - the Discipline of Action.

Discipline of Action

I am not well versed in Epicureanism, but I have heard and read many other aspiring Stoics discuss the differences between Stoicism and Epicureanism.  The Epicureans believed pleasure was the sole good and believed the best way to accomplish this was to "to live modestly, to gain knowledge of the workings of the world, and to limit one's desires." (source)  One way to achieve this was to disengage with society and seek tranquility in a garden or peaceful place.  Indeed this sounds wonderful and peaceful; however Stoicism offers this same peace and tranquility while engaging with society.  For the Stoics, virtue is the sole good and the only real way to practice virtue is in society.  One cannot practice discipline, courage, wisdom and justice unless there are other human beings around, who would give the aspiring Stoic opportunities to practice said virtues.

Furthermore, Stoics would bring others into their circle of care by wanting others to flourish.  The technical Greek term for this is oikeiôsis.  It can be roughly translated as "familiarity" or "affinity".  Practically speaking, it means each of us as individuals, are naturally programmed to care for ourselves, physically and logically.  While we practice to be better at that, we can also extend our circle of affinity to those closest to us, then on to an ever-widening circle, until we have that same affinity to all citizens of the cosmos; we become true cosmopolitans.

With these two principals in minds, (acting with virtue in the context of society and viewing all people as "in our circle of care"), Stoicism gives us the tools to enter the world every day and engage with others and keep our tranquility.

Many people, including myself, love this particular passage from Marcus Aurelius, who must have often given himself this pep-talk in the morning:

Say to yourself first thing in the morning: today I shall meet people who are meddling, ungrateful, aggressive, treacherous, malicious, unsocial. All this has afflicted them through their ignorance of true good and evil. But I have seen that the nature of good is what is right, and the nature of evil what is wrong; and I have reflected that the nature of the offender himself is akin to my own - not a kinship of blood or seed, but a sharing in the same mind, the same fragment of divinity. Therefore I cannot be harmed by any of them, as none will infect me with their wrong. Nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him. We were born for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. So to work in opposition to one another is against nature: and anger or rejection is opposition.

Virtue is the Sole Good

Corresponding to each Stoic discipline is a virtue.

With the Discipline of Desire, we are provided a structure and philosophy for demonstrating the virtues of courage and self-discipline.

With the Discipline of Assent, we can practice the virtue of wisdom.

And with the Discipline of Action, we have opportunities to demonstrate the virtue of justice.

Armed with the concepts and ideas of the three Stoic disciplines and the Stoic framework, we are ready to wake up each morning and look for opportunities to practice virtue.  The study of Stoic philosophy and meditating on these concepts is important.  We ought to express gratitude to God for our lot in life and for everything God has provided us.  We ought to meditate and reinforce Stoic principles every day in a journal.  We ought to study what each of the cardinal virtues mean.  But all of that studying and meditating is useless to us and to our fellow brothers and sisters if we fail to exercise virtue in our every-day lives.

A typical day for an aspiring Stoic might have these activities:

• spend a few minutes thinking of something for which they are grateful
• write in a journal, anticipating events that might not go as planned (up to and including death)
• reading a reminder from a Stoic sage or writer, such as Aurelius, Epictetus or Zeno
• go to work, play; live in the world, drive around, interact with people
• look for opportunities to practice the three disciplines
• exercise virtue (demonstrate self-discipline, share wise advice, treat others with kindness and respect)
• at the end of the day, reflect on what went well and what didn't; using the lens and measuring stick of virtue to determine what was good or bad; with kindness, congratulate yourself for things well-done and coach yourself on how you could do better the next day

The real fruit of Stoicism is being more mindful of striving to live a life of virtue.  And to be able to accomplish that goal, one must learn and practice.  And practice is found in living virtuously every day and engaging with other people every day.  One cannot live a life of virtue by himself.  He needs friends, family, co-workers, other drivers, people on the street, vendors.  He needs traffic, rain storms, calamities, illness, cosmic events, life-altering events.  He needs the world and the universe and everything in it.  This is the domain to practice Stoicism and to attain arete.

Conclusion

In talking about Stoicism with various people, inevitably the conversation drifts towards the topic of how similar Stoicism and Buddhism are.  What is fascinating to both me and the other people with whom I discuss this, is that two cultures, from different sides of the planet, arrived at very similar conclusions.  Both philosophies have also withstood the test of time and have brought millions of people to enlightenment.  Anyone would be hard pressed to find adamant detractors of either philosophy.

To me, this means there are timeless and useful principals; they do not change and have proven beneficial and truthful time and time again.  They are like solid rock, on which someone can build their mental fortress.

This has been my deepest desire: to place myself on solid rock.  To be able to rely on a philosophy that supports me every day of my life today and for the remainder of my days, no matter the circumstance.  I suppose this is why one particular passage from Meditations rings so true with me and why I think of it often each day and through every week:

Be like the rocky headland on which the waves constantly break.  It stands firm and round it the seething waters are laid to rest.