Notes and What I learned from "The Present Alone is Our Happiness" - Philosophical Discourse as Spiritual Exercise by Pierre Hadot

This is part 6 of a 12 post series reviewing the book "The Present Alone is Our Happiness"

For those who have read other Hadot books, the quotes from this chapter will sound quite familiar.  He discusses the genesis of the idea and phrase "spiritual exercises."

He notes books from Paul Rabbow and Jean-Pierre Vernant who spoke of spiritual exercises as based on ideas from Saint Ignatius and Empedocles.

He defines spiritual exercises "as voluntary, personal practices intended to bring about a transformation of the individual, a transformation of the self" (p. 87).

These exercises prepare the individual "for the difficulties of life ... to be able to bear the blows of fate, sickness, poverty, and exile" (p. 87).  And ultimately, "to do philosophy is to train to die" as he cites the Phaedo. (p. 88).

Furthermore, these theories and practices are developed into "instructional discourse" and "inner discourse that orients our actions" (p. 88).

Repeating maxims, engaging in dialogue and question and answer, leads one to learn "how to reason" and "allow the object of investigation to become, as Aristotle would say, perfectly familiar and connatural, that is, ultimately to interiorize knowledge perfectly" (p. 89).

The listener of maxims and dialogues must "make an inner effort at the same time" or else the theoretical learning goes to waste.

"The Greek philosophers did not aim, above all, to provide a systematic theory of reality, but to teach their disciples a method with which to orient themselves in both thought and in life" (p. 90).

"In fact, this effort at systematization was meant to allow the disciple to have at hand the fundamental dogmas that guide action, and to acquire the unshakable certainty given by the impression of logical rigor and coherence" (p. 90).

"The intent is often to make the disciples practice a spiritual exercise - mnemotechnic, as it were - intended to provide a better assimilation of the dogmas that determine a mode of life, and to enable them to possess these dogmas within themselves with certainty" (p. 90).

He cites Plato who said, "These dialogues aim not to inform but to form."  More precisely "for the mind, to teach it to recognize problems and methods of reasoning" (p. 91).

"For the Greeks, what counts is the education of the body and the mind" (p. 91).

"Philosophy was the effective, concrete, lived exercise: the practice of logic, of ethics, and of physics.  Real logic is not the pure theory of logic, but lived logic, the act of thinking in a correct way, of exercising one's thinking in a correct way in every day life.  There is thus a lived logic, which the Stoics would say consists in criticizing representations, that is, the images that came from the outside world - to avoid rushing to say that a given thing that happens is evil or good, but to reflect, to criticize the representation" (p. 94).

The same is said of ethics - "ethics lived in life with other people" and the same is said of physics - "a certain attitude toward the cosmos ... seeing things as they are - not from an anthropomorphic and egotistic point of view, but from the perspective of the cosmos and of nature" (p. 94).

Shortly later he says lived physics "consists in becoming aware of the fact that we are a part of the whole, and must accept the necessary unfolding of this Whole with which we identify, because we are one of its parts."  And the related exercise of "contemplating the universe, in its splendor, recognizing the beauty of the most humble things" (p. 95).

While we may glide through life, unaware of all that surrounds us, to practice "real philosophy is to learn to see the world again" and thus this exercise becomes a "transformation of perception."  We can begin to look anew and "perceive things as strange" and free ourselves "from habit and banality."  We thus "transcend our biased and partial point of view, to bring us to see things and our personal existence in a cosmic and universal perspective, to resituate [ourselves] within the immense event of the universe" and view "the unfathomable mystery of existence" - this is "cosmic consciousness" (p. 96-97).

Notes and What I learned from "The Present Alone is Our Happiness" - Philosophical Discourse by Pierre Hadot

This is part 3 of a 12 post series reviewing the book "The Present Alone is Our Happiness"

In this chapter, Hadot continues to explain one of his big purposes: to understand historical, philosophical texts in their proper context.  He notes that over time, philosophical writings such as letters, consolations, and hypomnematas to oneself, gradually disappeared and were replaced by "systematic treatises."  The key loss in this change, is philosophy as a mode of life.

He says, "You ask if there has not been a loss from this point of view.  We will return to this question later, but there is the partial but very real loss of the conception of philosophy as a mode of life, as a choice of life, as therapy as well.  We have lost the personal and communal aspect of philosophy.  Moreover, philosophy has progressively entrenched itself in this purely formal path, in the search for novelty in itself at all costs.  The philosopher must be as original as possible, if not by creating a new system, at least by producing a discourse that tries to be highly complicated in order to be original.  The more or less skillful construction of a conceptual edifice has become an end in itself.  Philosophy thus has progressively distanced itself from the concrete life of humans" (p. 56).

It was "Thomas Gataker and Meric Casaubon [who] both saw right away the real literary genre of the works of Marcus Aurelius; they used the Greek work hupomnemata, which designates notes one takes for oneself.  Furthermore, they saw that they were exhortations that Marcus Aurelius made to himself" (p. 57).

This works has lead to the "recovery of the idea that Marcus Aurelius was attempting to awaken in himself the Stoic dogmas that were to govern his life, but that had lost some of their persuasive force; thus it was necessary to attempt to constantly to persuade himself anew.  His goal was to have the Stoic dogmas at hand in an efficient manner - in particular, the three fundamental precepts of Epictetus: never let anything into the mind that is not objective, always take the good of the human community as the end of one's actions, and make one's desires confirm to the rational order of the universe" (p. 57).

Also, these hypomnematas need to be "short and [produce a] striking formula that gives them life again" (p. 58).

Later he states, "the philosophical works of Antiquity were not written to set forth a system, but in order to produce a formative effect" (p. 59).

These are written to "change [one's] mentality and transform his way of seeing things" (p. 59).

Stoicism in Six Points

Often, people ask me for the summarized version of Stoicism.  The intent of this post is to get right to the heart of the Stoic disciplines without compromising the framework as a whole.  While the how is far more important, you will have a greater appreciation for Stoicism if you understand the why.  In this post, I will try to explain the why.  Then, in another post, I will explain the how.

the goal

First off, the goal of Stoicism, is to seek a flourishing, fulfilling life through excellence of character (arete).  It is also said the goal and end is eudaimonia, which is defined as happiness or well-being.  This is the summum bonum of philosophy, including the philosophy of Stoicism.

the framework

The framework of Stoic philosophy includes logic, physics and ethics; and this framework must be kept whole, to derive the full benefit of the philosophy.  It has been compared to an egg as well as a garden.

In the egg analogy, the logic is represented by the shell, keeping faulty reasoning from entering the garden.  Physics is represented by the egg white, which provides the nurturing power by way of knowledge of the world and bodies and ethics is represented by the yolk, the ultimate practice of Stoicism.

In the garden analogy, the logic is represented by the fence physics is the dirt and ethics is the fruit produced from the garden.

Furthermore, each branch of Stoic philosophy is associated with a discipline.  These disciplines encapsulate practices, which when coupled with the demonstration of virtues, the Stoic lives arete (excellence) in his art of living.

With this framework in mind, I'll lay out how each branch of Stoic philosophy is related to a discipline.  With the three branches and three related disciplines, the why of Stoic philosophy can be explained in six points - hence the #StoicSix.

logic

Stoic logic is important because it lays out the foundation for how humans learn (cognition).  Related to cognition is perception of experiences and impressions.  If we understand how humans perceive and how perceptions, impressions and value judgments are made, then we begin to understand what truly is in our control.

The key thing you need to understand is the process of the four stages of assent.  Below is a summary of those four stages based on John Sellars book Stoicism on page 67.

1. “a perception of an external event or state of affairs”
2. “an almost involuntary and seemingly unconscious value judgement that is made about the content of the perception”
3. “the presentation to the conscious mind of an impression in the form of a proposition that is composed of both the perceptual data received from the outside and the unconscious value judgement”
4. “the act of assent or rejection of the impression”

For a fuller treatment on Stoic logic, see my notes here.

discipline of assent

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.  But before we agree or disagree, we need to deconstruct events and things.

The best way to practice this discipline, is to lengthen the pause between event/thing and your impression of it; and then decide to agree or disagree.

Epictetus said, "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).

Another quote that I quite like goes, "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."  I've heard this has been attributed to Viktor Frankl, but I'm not sure if that is confirmed or not.

In other words, we must mind the gap between perception and assent.  The more we can 'slow' that four stage process down, and the more we practice it, the better position we are in to make wise and accurate assents to a valid impression.

physics

From Stoic physics we gain an understanding of Nature.  We learn and understand our own nature as human beings - that we have both a physical and rational nature about us, and that we are part of a social order, which is a part of the cosmos - which is Nature itself.

From Stoic physics, we learn of fate, both simple fated and conjoined fated.  Simple fated things are “necessary and [are] a product of the essence of a thing.”  An example would be death – all mortals will die.  Conjoined fated things are more complex and involve “two types of causes” called internal and external.  External causes would be things external to human nature that would impact the outcome.  Internal causes are things inherent to human nature (see Sellars, p. 104).

We also learn of differing levels of tension, which relate to an order of organisms, with nearly inanimate beings at one end of the spectrum and human beings at the other end of the spectrum.  The key idea here is that humans' true nature is that they are rational beings and that they must put their rational self-preservation above their physical self-preservation to truly live according to their unique nature.

As rational beings, humans are tasked with the responsibility to live according to and in harmony with both their own nature and Nature (with a capital N).

Nature is the Stoic god.  It is not a Christian, Islamic or Hindu or any other deity in the religious sense.  Rather, Nature is the cosmos.

For a fuller treatment on Stoic physics, see my notes here.

discipline of desire

Your desire for self-preservation needs to be grounded in your nature as well as the desire of Nature

The desire of Nature is found in macro/global/universal events that are out of your control.  You should work to align your desires with the desire of Nature (the cosmos).  This can be difficult in some circumstances, but the Stoics would say, "Universe, your harmony is my harmony: nothing in your good time is too early or too late for me. Nature, all that your seasons bring is fruit to me: all comes from you, exists in you, returns to you." (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.23)

Pierre Hadot puts a unique perspective on this by making macro events exceptionally personal.  In his book, The Inner Citadel, he writes,

This brings us back to the theme of the present. A particular event is not predestined for me and accorded with me only because it is harmonized with the World; rather, it is so because it occurs in this particular moment and no other. It occurs in accordance with the kairos ("right moment"), which, as the Greeks had always known, is unique. Therefore, that which is happening to me at this moment is happening at the right moment, in accordance with the necessary, methodical, and harmonious unfolding of all events, all of which occur at their proper time and season.

To will the event that is happening at this moment, and in this present instant, is to will the entire universe which has brought it about. (see p. 143, as well as p. 75, 260)

Regarding your personal desire, you should desire and yearn for opportunities to practice virtue and excellence of the human soul.  Arete (virtue/excellence) is the sole good, according to the Stoics.  Therefore, in every event and circumstance, you should desire and be motivated to practice some virtue (wisdom, justice, discipline, courage) according to the how the situation and context dictates.  This demonstrates how excellent your soul is, given a fated circumstance.

When this is connected to the discipline of assent, we learn to lengthen that pause, we then need to ask ourselves, "what can I learn from this?  What virtue can I exercise given the situation?"

By practicing the discipline of desire, we place our rational nature above our physical nature and we learn to see our proper place in Nature (the cosmos).  Successfully practiced, our soul is content and at peace, leading to eudaimonia.

ethics

Stoic ethics is the action or the practice the philosophy.  It is based on how humans are oriented - namely that human beings have an impulse for self-preservation.  And the ultimate self-preservation for human beings is to preserve their rational nature by living a life of arete.

In ethics we learn that arete is the sole good.  It is demonstrated with virtue, such as wisdom, justice, courage and temperance.  It is also demonstrated by avoiding vices.

Anything that does not fall into the categories of virtue or vice, falls under the category of indifferents - things that do not ultimately matter.

One thing that set the Stoics apart from other philosophy schools was their division of indifferents into preferred and non-preferred.  Preferred indifferents generally support the self-preservation of the body, such as health.  But even without preferred indifferents in a Stoic's life, he can still seek after the sole good of virtue and attain eudaimonia.  Cynics reject the notion of preferred indifferents and take a stauncher approach to virtue as the sole good.  Aristotelians lean in the other direction and support the seeking of preferred indifferents in the pursuit of happiness.

So what does all of this have to do with ethics?  Remember, the basis for action is self-preservation.  Humans share the need for physical self-preservation with all animals, but what makes our nature truly unique, is our rational nature.  We preserve our rational self when we pursue a life of virtue and excellence.  Therefore, all our actions should be viewed through the lens of arete.  Just as drinking clean water is good for the body, so to is living a life of arete good for your soul (your rational nature).

The other important idea regarding Stoic ethics is social oikeiosis.  Once a Stoic understands how to truly preserve himself (rational self-preservation), he will extend that circle of care and compassion to those nearest him.  From there, he casts a wider net of concern for his neighbors, then to strangers and other people in the world and he continues to cast a wider net of concern until he see himself as a true cosmopolitan of Nature.

For a fuller treatment on Stoic ethics, see my notes here.

discipline of action

Having lengthened your "pause" in judgement and having learned proper desire, you are now willing to act.

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 social 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.

Albert Einstein provides a great visual for circles of compassion:

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

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.

action required: stoic exercises

The ancient Stoics, especially Epictetus, were very keen on putting their doctrines into practice.  Musonius Rufus made it clear regarding which was more important: theory or practice.  He asked people if they would rather be healed by a physician who can expound on all sorts of medical theory, but lacks vital experience, or would they rather be healed by an inarticulate doctor with loads of experience and a good track record.  It's rather clear, that most would prefer the experienced over the inexperienced (see p. 33, Sellars, Stoicism).

Similarly, Epictetus made the point using an athletic analogy.  "Come now, show me what progress you're making in this regard.  Suppose I were talking with an athlete and said, Show me your shoulders, and he were to reply, 'Look at my jumping-weights.'  That's quite enough of you and your weights!  What I want to see is what you've achieved by use of those jumping-weights" (p. 11).

In sum, Stoics need to walk the talk, and they demonstrate the walk with Stoic exercises or practices.  Then, as you make these exercises a habit in your life, you will begin to see the benefits as you go through the day by day events and you will be prepared for life altering events - both preferred and non-preferred.  You will be an artist whose media is lived experience.

Stoic exercises help you make the transition from theory to a lived philosophy, in all that you do.  For a detailed treatment on Stoic exercises see my post Stoicism in Practice.

conclusion

I know I may have taken a bit more time to explain all that, but hopefully the read wasn't too long.  If you want more in-depth analysis on this, I suggest you read my blog post On Happiness - Part Two: Stoic Style.

Also, I highly recommend The Path of the Prokopton Series by Chris Fisher.

#StoicSix

Notes on Stoic Logic from Stoicism by John Sellars

The different parts of classical Stoic logic were “reason, language or argument – in all of its forms, including formal arguments, rhetorical arguments, speech, grammar, philosophy of language and truth (i.e. epistemology)” (p. 55, Sellars)

Today’s logic is usually understood to be “the formal analysis of arguments.”

For the Stoics, logic was divided into two principal divisions: rhetoric and dialectic.

Rhetoric is defined as: “the art of speaking or writing effectively” (Merriam-Webster).

Dialectic is defined as: “discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation” (Merriam-Webster).

The central them of Stoic logic is “the acquisition of knowledge” (p. 79, Sellars).

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge – “the process by which the individual gains knowledge” (p. 64-65, Sellars)

Birth of Cognition

At birth, human infants possess little to no knowledge.  Jean Piaget’s knowledge experimentations on babies conclude infants are born not knowing much.  To quote a Time magazine article, “Piaget's work led him to conclude that infants younger than 9 months have no innate knowledge of how the world works or any sense of "object permanence" (that people and things still exist even when they're not seen). Instead, babies must gradually construct this knowledge from experience” (The Brain: What Do Babies Know? Time, Monday, Jan. 29, 2007).  The article later notes modern experimentation have drawn the same conclusions as Piaget.

Humans gain information about our world, largely through impressions and sensations – through experience, as stated in the previous point.

Empiricism is defined as: “a theory that all knowledge originates in experience” (Merriam-Webster).

Regarding the epistemology of the Stoics, Sellars notes, “Whereas most impressions are assumed to come from sensation, and so the Stoics might broadly be characterized as empiricists in epistemology, they do also acknowledge impressions received from the mind that are the product reasoning” (p. 65, Sellars).

An example of an inadequate impression might be light coming into a room and someone thinking it is day, when in fact, they’ve not gone outside to check that it is night, and it was a fire or street light causing the light to enter the window.

An example of an adequate impression would be someone thinking it is day while they are standing outside at noon, with the bright sun over their head.

The Stoic response to the Skeptics’ claim that we can never know if an impression is adequate, would be to “reply by saying that over time it will become possible to develop a certain ability to recognize adequate impressions.  One might not be infallible at first, but one might eventually be able to become highly accurate with certain sorts of impressions” (p. 70, Sellars).  Therefore, a Stoic can point to the sun directly above our heads and be absolutely certain that it is day; while at the same time, the Stoic can accept the possibility of mistakes by suspending judgement when uncertain (see p. 73, Sellars).

When we give assent to an impression, the impression is called an adequate impression (p. 73-73, Sellars).

When we withhold assent to an impression, we are suspending judgment (p. 73, Sellars).

The Greek word for cognition is katalepsis (p. 70, 164, Sellars).

An instance of cognition is “an assent to an adequate impression; a building block for knowledge” (p. 70, 164, Sellars).  It is the mental process of knowing (by experience or through reasoning) by giving assent to an adequate impression.

For the Stoics, knowledge (episteme) is more substantial than cognition.  To me, it represents putting experience from cognition together into a system or structure.  Cognition provides the basis and building blocks to make something – knowledge – which is to see a wider, bigger picture as it were – something greater than the individual part.

Cognition Analysis

Sellars states “An adequate impression is an impression that is so clear, vivid and distinct that it is its own guarantee of its accuracy” (p. 69).  We can also guarantee the accuracy of an empirical impression by observing the “causal history” and ensuring that nothing has interfered with “one’s sense organs, the object in question, and all the other variables involved are not obstructed or in an abnormal state” (p. 69).

“The impressions we receive that present external objects to us are not within our control.  We do not have the power to choose them; instead they force themselves on us.  However, we do have the power to choose whether to assent to these impressions or not” (p. 66, Sellars).  Stoics will often be forced to confront these external circumstances and will at least have the choice to behave virtuously and serenely, but this does not mean they will choose to do so every time.  Because “first movement” emotions come to all humans, many people do not question or analyze these emotions and propositions before assenting to them.  The Stoic will try to pause and reflect on the emotions and proposition from the “first movement” before fully assenting to or rejecting an external object.  Assuming a Stoic consistently practices this pause before assent, then over time, the Stoic will act correctly (virtuously) and serenely more often than not.

The four stages of assent are (p. 67, Sellars, emphasis added):

1. “a perception of an external event or state of affairs”
2. “an almost involuntary and seemingly unconscious value judgement that is made about the content of the perception”
3. “the presentation to the conscious mind of an impression in the form of a proposition that is composed of both the perceptual data received from the outside and the unconscious value judgement”
4. the act of assent to an adequate impression or we suspend judgement of the impression

Propositions have corporeal and incorporeal aspects.

• The corporeal aspect would be physical utterance or written word of the proposition.
• The incorporeal aspect would be the meaning of the physical element presented.
• Incorporeal propositions subsist, if they are never spoken or written and remain as a cognition in our mind.

"The meaning or sense of a proposition is a sayable", which is purely in the mind of the utterer and listener, is incorporeal.  “Sayables only subsist” (p. 79, 63, Sellars).

Sellars notes, “What is perhaps unique to the Stoic position is their rejection of meaning as something that exists.  As incorporeals, sayables only subsist” (p. 63).  How does this explain how the meaning of words can cause action?  The key aspect would be in the assent of the person comprehending the sayable.  A man shouts a warning to a woman that a ball is being thrown her way.  She hears the words the man shouts, she comprehends the sayable, she assents to the meaning and therefore chooses to act, either to catch the ball or move out of the way to avoid being hit by the ball.

There are two kinds of sayables – complete and incomplete (p. 62, Sellars).

1. A complete sayable would be: Rocky is typing on his computer.
2. An incomplete sayable would be: is typing.

Complete sayables are used in dialectic.

Dialectic

“An assertible is a complete sayable” (p. 58, Sellars).

The four important characteristics of assertibles are (p. 58-59, Sellars):

1. True
2. False
3. Simple assertibles can be
• affirmative
• negative
4. Complex which include logical connectives
• conditional ... if
• conjunction ... and
• dis-junction ... either/or
• pseudo-conditional ... since
• causal ... because
• comparative ... more/less-likely

While not characteristics, all assertives can be distinguished by their modality:

• possible - an assertible which can become true and is not hindered by external things from becoming true
• impossible -  an assertible which cannot become true or which can become true but is hindered by external things from becoming true
• necessary - an assertible which (when true) cannot become false or which can become false but is hindered by external things from becoming false
• non-necessary - an assertible which can become false and is not hindered by external things from becoming false

The four kinds of assertibles listed above are the propositions that can be combined to form Stoic arguments for systematic scientific knowledge of the world.  These arguments are called syllogisms (p. 59, Sellars).

Summary of Stoic Logic (p. 79, Sellars)

1. “the mind at birth is like a blank sheet of paper”
2. “via sensory experiences or impressions … we gain information” of an external event or state of affairs.
3. we experience "first movements" which are almost involuntary and unconscious value judgements
4. “the impressions we [initially] assent to are presented to the mind in the form of propositions” which are composed of the perceptual data and the unconscious value judgement.
5. we either assent or reject the impression as either adequate or inadequate.
6. "a proposition is a physical entity” or corporeal [spoken or written] which carries meaning/sense, which subsists and incorporeal.
7. Sayables are the subsistence of the meaning of the proposition.
8. Sayables are either complete or incomplete.
9. Complete sayables are called assertibles used in Stoic dialectic.
10. Four kinds of assertibles (true/false/simple/complex) can be combined with other assertibles to form syllogistic arguments.

Syllogistic arguments “form the foundation for systematic scientific knowledge of the world.”  A syllogism is an argument with premises and a conclusion.  Aristotle was the first to use the syllogism (p. 56, Sellars).
Aristotelian syllogisms used universals with letters, whereas Stoic syllogisms could use either universal or particular assertibles for their propositions. In Stoic formal logic, ordinal numbers replace propositions, not individual terms. (p. 57-59, Sellars).

An argument may be valid “in its logical form” but if we doubt the premise, the conclusion may not be true. So, we can just say, "no." :)

An example of a logically valid argument that is untrue would be:
All Texans are human;
All humans are male;
Therefore, all Texans are male.

An example of the 3rd Stoic argument using ordinal numbers:
Not the seventh and the eighth;
The seventh;
Therefore, not the eighth.

The above example would contain a complex negative conjunction assertible as one premise and a simple assertible as the second premise.

An example from the physical world of the 3rd argument would be:
The temperature is not both hot and cold;
It is hot;
Therefore, it is not cold.
 
Examples of the other four arguments (1, 2, 4, 5):

If the man is in Texas, then he is in the United States;
The man is in Texas;
Therefore, the man is in the United States.

If the boat is sailing, then it is on the water;
The boat is not on the water;
Therefore, the boat is not sailing.

Either is it night or it is day;
It is night;
Therefore, it is not day.

The animal is either a mammal or a reptile;
It is not a reptile;
Therefore, it is a mammal.

More on Stoic Logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_logic

Notes and What I Learned from "How to Think Like a Roman Emperor" PART 3

Get the book: How to Think Like a Roman Emperor by Donald Robertson

Pain is Inevitable and Stoicism Can Help

• Marcus went to war when he was almost 50 years old; he was already a frail person
• "He'd been preparing himself to face this inner battle for most of his life ... gradually [learning] to endure pain and illness by utilizing the psychological strategies of ancient Stoicism." p. 156
• regarding pain, "the wise man neither strikes a tragic attitude nor whines about what befalls him." p. 160
• he reflected on how Antoninus died ... he "was always contented, always cheerful.  It's said that even as he lay dying, with his last breath he whispered the word equanimity to his guard." p. 161
• Epicurus was also a model philosopher regarding suffering well; he "didn't complain or dwell on his symptoms.  In fact, he used his illness as an opportunity to converse in a dispassionate manner about how the mind can remain contented while the body suffers terrible pain and discomfort." p. 163
• Meditations 7.64 is an excellent quote about Marcus reminding himself: mind over body
• use your opportunities of pain to learn to cope ... examples include, running, lifting weights, playing sports such as basketball, enduring long hours (being drowsy).  "everyday tolerance of minor physical discomforts can help us build lasting psychological resilience" p. 165
• Learn to "withdraw" or "separate" your mind from your body
• Epictetus' leg!  his leg was "cruelly twisted" by his master; "Epictetus didn't react but remained completely composed.  He merely warned his master that the body was about to snap.  Epaphroditus continued twisting it" until it did snap.  "Rather than complain, Epictetus responded matter-of-factly: 'There, did I not tell you that it would break?'" p. 166

Stoically Learning From Pain

1. Cognitive Distancing
• "it's not events/things that upset us, it's our judgments of those events/things"; therefore, suspend judgement when it comes to pain and pleasure
• be indifferent to indifferent things
• it's not a matter of suppressing the pain (or pleasure), but rather to "not assign judgments to them as good or bad" p. 171
• "neither to suppress or worry about unpleasant feelings ... accept them while remaining detached" p. 172
• "The Stoics want us to go through a radical upheaval in our underlying values so that our supreme goal is to live with wisdom and its accompanying virtues." p. 172
• "When your conscious mind, your ruling faculty, invests too much importance in bodily sensations, it becomes 'fused and blended' with them and it is pulled around by the body like a puppet on strings." p. 174
• I didn't notice if Robertson mentioned or quoted this in his book, but I find Encheiridion 41 to be very important in this regard: "It is the mark of a crude disposition to spend most of one's time on bodily functions such as exercise, eating, drinking, defecating, and copulating.  These are things to be done just incidentally.  All your attention should be on your mind."
2. Functional Analysis
• After some cognitive distancing, you can now perform some functional analysis, or in other words, evaluating the consequences of your thinking - your opinion of judgments
• "the fear of pain does us far more harm than pain itself because it injures our very character." p. 174
• "to live life fully, you have to get out of your comfort zone, as we say today.  Fear of pain makes cowards of us all and limits our sphere of life." p. 174 ... in other words, show some courage in the face of pain.
3. Objective Representation
• look at pain objectively "as if [you] were describing the problems of another person" p. 175 ... don't say "My leg is really hurting" but perhaps call yourself in the 3rd person when describing the pain (in plain language)
4. Depreciation by Analysis
• again, use the discipline of assent to break things down into parts that don't have as big an impact as the whole; divide time into the present moment
• view the pain in the context of "the view from above"
5. Contemplating Finitude and Impermanence
• "physicalizing" pain; "by attributing an arbitrary shape or color to" the pain p. 177
• similar to the view from above, you can limit the pain in both time and space
• "this too shall pass"
• Either you can endure this pain now, or you won't and you will die, in which case you won't feel anything
6. Stoic Acceptance
• "actively accept" the pain
• the dog and the cart ... be the dog walking with the cart, instead of the dog being pulled by the cart
• "pain becomes more painful when we struggle against it" ... instead we should "accept the sensation and relax into it or even welcome it." p. 178
• this is where hugging cold statues, taking cold showers and such comes into play.  by doing these hard exercises, we expose ourselves to discomfort and therefore we become more accepting of pain when it comes our way
• tackle pain head on; like stamping out a fire or "grasping the nettle"
• "struggling against things we can't control does us more harm than good" p. 181
7. Contemplating Virtue
• get into the habit of asking yourself, 'what virtue or capacity do I have, that I can exercise in this circumstance?' ... in the context of pain, you might ask, "what resources do [I] have that might help [me] cope better with pain?" p. 182
• we can look at others who might be in the same situation and are facing it with equanimity and see how they endure it ... then we can emulate them
• What we face in life can be bearable; when we have a reason to bear the pain, it become easier.  Nietzsche said, "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." p. 183

The Large Black Spot

a large black spot is drawn on a piece of paper.  this represents pain, a toothache, sciatica, melancholy, etc.  if you acknowledge it, then you draw a circle around the spot.  subsequent affirmations of the the spot, draw subsequent lines around it ... thus it actually grows!  if you continue to fear it, worry about it and looking for ways to avoid it, more is added on.

"One exaggerates, imagines, anticipates affliction," wrote Seneca.

"Do not let us build a second story to our sorrow by being sorry for our sorrow." p. 185

"he who knows how to suffer suffers less" p. 185

Notes and What I Learned from "How to Think Like a Roman Emperor" PART 2

Get the book: How to Think Like a Roman Emperor by Donald Robertson

The Fork, Lucius vs Marcus and the Choice of Heracles

Marcus' brother Lucius partied hard and was not a virtuous man.  However, Marcus still learned from him.  "Marcus says only that he's grateful for having had a brother 'who by his character was able to stimulate me to cultivate my own nature.'" Marcus "became more determined to strengthen his own character after observing his brother's vices spiraling out of control." p. 116

We see many in life who chase after pleasures, whether to avoid emotional pain, or to distract "themselves from or [suppress] unpleasant feelings or as a way to escape" p. 117.  Stoics know that "chasing empty, transient pleasures can never lead to true happiness in the long run" p. 117.  Instead, Stoics choose to seek a life that enjoys "authentic happiness or fulfillment" which they called eudaimonia.

This fork in our road, whether to choose a life of ease and pleasure, or to choose a life of true, enduring happiness, is what many of us face.  The Stoics and Robertson portray this fork as "The Choice of Heracles"

Donald Robertson has done a nice video of this allegory:



And so you too face this same choice.  Do you pursue a life of ease and pleasure to achieve happiness or is it "more rewarding to face hardship voluntarily and cultivate strength of character"? p. 121

Heracles is a Stoic hero, as he cheerfully faced challenges and hardships and was able to achieve "a profound sense of inner satisfaction knowing that he was fulfilling his destiny and expressing his true nature.  His life had something far more satisfying than pleasure: it had purpose." p. 121

Marcus decided to choose the same path, as Heracles, when he was faced with that fork; "the goal of his life [was] not pleasure but action" p. 123

On Friends

Marcus "picked his friends carefully, based on the character traits he most admired rather than what seem congenial to those of his social class.  His friends' company wasn't always fun - sometimes they spoke plainly and criticized him - but he embraced them because they shared his values and helped to improve him as a person." p. 124

The Stoics Side with Heracles and the Country (Hill) Mouse

If you haven't figured it out by now, the Stoics argue a life of challenges, hardships and action is what is best.  This is why the Stoics repeatedly say "virtue is the sole good."

Aesop's fable of the country mouse and city mouse underscore this key point.  "The country mouse says he would rather dine like a peasant than risk being eaten alive by ravenous dogs."  Marcus makes the same observation in Meditations Book 11.22 when he wrote, "The hill mouse and the house mouse - and the frightened scurrying of the house mouse."

Greed, pleasures and the like won't lead to sustained happiness.  It is a false hope.  On the other hand, a life of virtue and equanimity and facing adversity with cheerfulness will lead to genuine fulfillment.  This is wisdom.

"The wise man's sense of delight comes from one thing alone: acting consistently in accord with virtue."  Marcus also notes that two other sources of joy which come from contemplating virtue in others and welcoming your fate. p. 132-133

Stoic Practices for Changing Desires p. 135-150

1. Evaluate the consequences of your habits / desires in order to select the ones you want to change
• it's not just identifying the ones you want to drop, but it's also identifying ones you want to introduce in their place
• learn self control; other virtues ... especially courage and moderation
• look at the habits in the long run
• write down the pros and cons of the bad and good habits
• picture the positive consequences of dropping the bad and replacing them with the good
2. Spot early warning signs so that you can nip the problem in the bud
• self-monitoring is key ... use Stoic mindfulness
• keep a journal of emerging desires (date/time/place, early warnings, scale of the urge, scale of the pleasure, other thoughts)
• "study yourself" and know your triggers and high-risk situations, looking for "signs that typically precede the desire"
3. Gain cognitive distance by separating impressions from external reality
• simply notice the delineation between your perspective/impression and the external reality of the situation ... this leads to separating our values from external events.  Personally, I call this "minding the gap."
• Whatever this impression of your's is, you need to "apostrophize" it by telling it "you are just a thought and not at all the thing you claim to represent" ... recall when Kakia approached Heracles, she called herself Eudomonia.  This is the same thing ... the impression is not real, it is false.
• by "defusing" these thoughts, you weaken the desire
• if it helps, imagine a role model or your trusted mentor is watching you and imagine what they would say ... this is a form of using accountability to distance yourself from your impression
• use the Discipline of Assent to break the impression of the thing down into something that isn't so impressive ... a divide and conquer or depreciation by analysis.  This is where a purple robe is just cloth with the shellfish blood dye in it; wine is just dead grapes, etc.
• don't use such rhetorical language like "I'm dying for some chocolate.  Why is it so good?  It tastes like heaven!  This is better than sex!"
• perhaps think of yourself like a scientist and view desires and impressions of things from a detached, clinical, perspective
• regarding sex, Marcus described it as "the rubbing together of body parts followed by a convulsion and the ejaculation of some mucus.  Not very romantic, but that's the point - he was aiming to neutralize inappropriate sexual urges ... the point isn't to obliterate all desire but rather to moderate unhealthy or excessive desires." p. 146-147
4. Do something else instead of engaging in the habit / desire
• remind yourself often that you are always free to do something else
• "do something that gives you a sense of genuine accomplishment"
• "replace unfulfilling habits and desires with activities that you find more intrinsically rewarding"
• when thinking of habits we want to instill in our lives, "we should be guided more by the qualities we admire in other people and our true values" p. 149
• "if you want to be a good role model for your children, you should ask yourself what sort of person you are and what qualities you want to exhibit." p. 149
• "we aim for wisdom and strength of character not because we're hoping to gain something else but simply because that's who we want to be in life." p. 149

Addition of the Improvement Cycle

• Like Marcus did in Book 1, set aside time to think about the qualities in others that you love and wish to add to your character
• visualize and contemplate these qualities and how you might instill them in your life
• GRATITUDE plays a big role in the management of desires, by imagining you've lost certain things; keep a gratitude journal
• Morning Meditation
• picture how you will cope with the day's challenges ahead and what virtues you will use and how you will instill the desired characteristics in your life for that day
• During the Day
• be mindful, look for triggers and signs for impressions and desires
• every day is practice!  every day is an opportunity to become better!
• Evening Meditation
• Review your day's events three times
• Identify what you did well and what you didn't do so well
• Praise yourself for the well-done and coach yourself for the ones that need improvement, imagine your mentor coaching you
• With the above 3-step improvement cycle, you have the foundation and system for improving yourself and becoming more Stoic

Epictetus Discourses 4.1 - On freedom

Of freedom

July 4th is the celebration of the United States of America's independence from England.  One of the well-know revolutionary cries comes from Patrick Henry, who passionately argued, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

The American revolutionaries were pursuing governmental freedom and justly achieved their cause.  Epictetus argues there is a higher, more difficult freedom to attain.  And in this post-modern America in 2019, when so many desires are easily and effortlessly obtained, the freedom Epictetus describes is much more difficult to achieve.  While our Founding Fathers gave us freedom from tyranny, we are left with the task of throwing off the shackles of desire and ease.

I suggest you read the entire chapter (here if you don't have a copy).  For my own benefit (and yours), I have shared the more impactful parts of the chapter below (from the Robert Dobbin's translation).

"That person is free who lives as he wishes, who can neither be constrained, nor hindered, nor compelled, whose motives are unimpeded, and who achieves his desires and doesn’t fall into what he wants to avoid." (v. 1, p. 217)

So far, so good!  I mean, who doesn't want that?  But there is much more to it!

Epictetus gives some examples of real slavery and real freedom.

"'A little wench’, he says, has enslaved me, a cheap one too.  Me whom no enemy has ever enslaved.'
Poor wretch, to be the slave of a young girl, and a cheap one at that!  Why do you still call yourself a free man, then?"  This passage is in reference to a mighty military leader, whose enemies cannot conquer him, but rather, he is conquered by a cheap prostitute.  Until this man can learn to "escape from desire and fear, how could he be a free man?" (v. 21-23, p. 218-219)

When we look at animals in the zoo or birds in a cage, a part of us feels sorry for them.  They are not free!  Others might say, "but the animal is safe; gets its food delivered to it; has a place to sleep!"  Indeed, the animal is living a "soft life" like many humans do.  But "the softer the life, the more it is a slave."  (v. 24, p. 219)  It cannot really do what it wants to do.  It must do what the zookeeper demands.  Indeed, "that is why we call free only those animals that won't put up with captivity, but escape through death as soon as they're captured." (v. 29, p. 219)

Diogenes remarks accordingly somewhere that the only sure means to secure one’s freedom is to be happy to die, and he writes to the king of the Persians, ‘You cannot enslave the Athenian state,’ so he says, ‘any more than you can enslave the fishes.’  —‘How so? Can’t I capture them?’—‘If you do,’ he replies, ‘they’ll immediately leave you and be gone like fish. For as soon as you catch one of those, it dies; and if the Athenians come to die when they’re caught, what good will you gain from your armed force?’  This is the language of a free man who has examined the question in all seriousness and, as might be expected, has found the right answer. But if you look elsewhere than where it is to be found, why be surprised that you never find it? (v. 30-32, p. 219)

We see that the American revolutionary sentiment is radically similar to fish and Athenians.  Freedom is so precious, death is the only alternative.  There is another example of a revolutionary who wanted freedom.  April 2019 was the 100th anniversary of his assassination.  Emiliano Zapata relentlessly pursued his dream of freedom and land, rallying Mexican peasants: "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir de rodillas [I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees]"

Returning to Epictetus; beginning in verse 33, he describes the life of a slave and the desire for freedom.  When granted his freedom, the slave leaps from the boiling water of servitude and into the frying pan of other "masters" such as making a living, paying taxes, working at a marriage, giving military service, and eventually into living in servitude again - this time as a senator in the government.  The point of this example is that this slave thinks he can find happiness in externals.  And so he spends time, effort and anxiety trying to be free of slavery, then of making a living, then of raising a family, then of military service and finally governmental service ... and he never is content; never gets what he desires.

Indeed, we all want "To live in peace, to be happy, to do all that one wants without being subject to hindrance or constraint."  (v. 46, p. 221)  And we attain that peace, not by seeking freedom in externals, but by focusing on things that are in our absolute control.  And this can be proven: Viktor Frankl found meaning in life despite the most unbearable circumstances; and we can all think of uber-rich celebrities, tycoons and politicians, who despite having everything are still malcontent.  These malcontents are true slaves.

if you hear him say ‘master’ from his heart and with true feeling, even if the twelve fasces are being carried in front of him, then call him a slave; and if you hear him exclaiming, ‘Wretch that I am, what things I have to suffer!’, call him a slave too. In a word, if you see him wailing, complaining, and living unhappily, call him a slave in a purple-bordered robe.  If he does nothing of that kind, however, don’t yet declare that he is free, but get acquainted with his judgements, and see whether they’re in any way subject to constraint, or hindrance, or unhappiness; and if you find that to be the case, call him a slave on holiday at the Saturnalia.  Say that his master is away from home; but he’ll be back soon, and then you’ll see what this man suffers!  Whoever holds control over anything that the man desires, and can procure it or take it away [is that man's master].—‘Do we have so many masters, then?’—Yes, so many. For even before these human masters, we have circumstances as our masters, and there are any number of those.  Because in truth, it is not Caesar himself whom people stand in fear of, but death, banishment, confiscation of their property, imprisonment, loss of civil rights. Nor does anyone love Caesar himself, unless Caesar happens to be a man of great worth, but it is riches that we love, or a post as tribune, praetor, or consul. As long as we love, hate, or fear these things, it necessarily follows that those who have power over them will be our masters. For that reason, we even worship such people as though they were gods, because we suppose that anyone who has the power to confer the greatest advantages on us is divine. And then we wrongly lay down this minor premise, ‘This man has the power to confer the greatest advantages.’ It is bound to follow that the conclusion drawn from these premises must be false too. (v. 57-61, p. 222-223)

You may be reading this and saying to yourself, "who is free then?  The way Epictetus describes things, makes it sound like we are all slaves!"  Now we are ready to learn!

Epictetus asks, "do we have nothing that is exclusively within our power, or is that the case with everything, or are there some things that are within our power while others are within the power of other people?" (v. 65, p. 223)  This is how we have to view everything in our life!  What is under our absolute control and what is not.  Then and only then will we begin to understand where true freedom lies.  This is "the dichotomy of control" or as William Irvine more succinctly puts it, the "trichotomy of control" (see links: here, here, and here)

1. Things entirely, 100% in our control
2. Things completely, 100% out of our control
3. Things in-between, partially in our control, and partially out of out control

Do you have power over your body to perform perfectly anytime you want?  NO.  But you can control what you eat and how your exercise.

Can you have as much land as you want? NO.  But you can control some actions to gain land.

Can you have as many clothes, houses, horses, cars, family, friends as you want?  NO.  But you can control some actions to acquire these things.

It sounds like we don't have complete control over anything.  What do we have control over?

"Can anyone make you give your assent to what is false? - 'No one can.' ... Can anyone force you to direct your impulses towards anything you don't want? 'Indeed he can.  For when he threatens me with death or imprisonment, he can force me to it.'  If you were to despise death, however, or  chains, would you still pay any heed to him? - 'No.'"  (v. 69-71, p. 224)  Therefore, if you can control your attitude about death and prison, you can control your attitude about anything!

The point: "that which is not in your power to procure or keep as you wish is not your own.  Keep not only your hands well away from it, but first and foremost your desire; otherwise you've delivered yourself into slavery, you've put your head under the yoke, if you attach value to anything that isn't your own, if you conceive a desire for anything that is subject to anyone else and is perishable." (v. 77, p. 225)

Practice and be prepared to distinguish everything into two categories:

1. what belongs to you, what you can control
2. what does not belong to you, what you cannot control

And for those things partially in your control, be prepared to have a "reserve clause" and keep your eyes wide open to recognize that things may not go as you'd expect.

After time, and much practice, you will will be able to "distinguish those things that are not your own from those that are ... [and you will be able to] keep your desire fixed on [those things that are in your control] ... [there will be no one] left whom you need fear." (see v. 81, p. 225)

Marcus Aurelius spoke of a "fortress" when speaking of our will and attitude.  He said, "Remember that your directing mind becomes invincible when it withdraws into its own self-sufficiency, not doing anything it does not wish to do, even if its position is unreasonable. How much more, then, when the judgement it forms is reasoned and deliberate? That is why a mind free from passions is a fortress" (see Meditations Book 8.48).

Epictetus draws a similar comparison and how that fortress is not demolished from the outside, but rather from the inside.

"How is a citadel destroyed, then?  Neither by iron, nor by fire, by by judgements.  For if we pull down the citadel in the city, have we also pulled down the citadel of fever, the citadel of pretty girls, or, in a word, the citadel within us, and shall we have driven out the tyrants whom we have inside us, who we have exercising their sway over us day after day, sometime the same ones, sometimes different?  But this is where we must begin; this is where we must set out from to destroy the citadel and drive out the tyrants: we must give up our poor body, and it various parts and faculties, and our property, reputation, public posts, honours, children, brothers, and friends, and regard all of that as being not our own.  And if the tyrants are driven out from there, what need do I have to raze the citadel?" (v. 86-88, p. 226)

Epictetus more succinctly describes this process:

I have submitted my impulses to God. It is his will that I should have a fever? That is my will too. It is his will that I should direct my impulses towards a certain thing? That is my will too. It is his will that I should desire something? That is what I want too. It is his will that I should get something? That is what I want too. He doesn’t want that? Nor do I.  And so it is my will that I should die, my will that I should be tortured. Who can still hinder me, then, contrary to my own judgements; who can constrain me? No more than that would be possible with Zeus. (v. 89-90, p. 226)

We learn and gain this trust by "observing the wishes of God and his governing order." (v. 100, p. 227)

He continues with this line of reasoning and how God sent us to earth "with a small portion of flesh" to "observe his governing order, and accompany him in his procession and take part in his festival for a short period of time ... then, after having beheld his pagaent and festival for the time that is granted to you, to take your leave when he conducts you away, after having first paid obeisance to him and having thanked him for all that you've heard and seen." (v. 104-105, p. 228)  Then we depart this life, "grateful and reverent" to "make room for others." (v. 106, p. 228)

But while you are here, if the conditions "don't suit you, go away.  He has no need of a spectator who is always complaining about his lot.  He needs people to join in his festival and dances, so that they may, on the contrary, greet them with applause, and view them with reverence, and sing hymns in praise of the assembly.  As for the grumblers and cowards, he won't be sorry to see them gone from the assembly; for even while they were present, they didn't behave as though they were at a festival, and didn't fill their proper place, but lamented instead and found fault with the deity, their lot, and their companions, unconscious of what had been granted to them, and the powers that they had received for the opposite use - greatness of soul, nobility of mind, courage, and the very freedom that we are now investigating." (v. 108-109, p. 229)

And as for the externals God has given us (our body, and possessions, etc) use them!  But "don't get attached to them."  And to succeed in not getting attached to them, Epictetus says that we should reflect morning and night that these externals are dispensable.  "Begin with the smallest and most fragile things, a pot, or a cup, and then pass on to a tunic, a dog, a horse, a scrap of land; and from there, pass on to yourself, to your body, and the parts of your body, and to your children, your wife, your brothers.  Look around you in every direction, and cast these things far away from you.  Train yourself in this way, day after day ... [as a] slave on the way to emancipation.  For this is the way to true freedom." (v. 111-115, p. 229)

And then, if God or fate calls upon you to lose all these things, and you are tortured, flogged, jailed or beheaded, then you may be called "a noble spirit [who] comes off with added profit and advantage, while the person who is truly harmed, and suffers the most pitiful and shameful fate, is the one who, instead of being human, turns into a wolf, a viper, or a wasp."  (v. 127, p. 231)  In other words, you who suffer at the hands of others, are the ones who profit and show the true qualities of a human being.  While the ones who do the torturing, flogging, jailing and beheading are wolves, vipers and wasps.

Verses 130 and 131 summarize it all:

The person who isn't subject to hindrances is free ... who desires nothing that is not his own ... those [things] that are not within our power, either to have or not to have ... our body ... our property ... this is the road that leads to freedom, this is the only deliverance from slavery, to be able to say one day with your whole heart, 

Guide me, Zeus, and thou, O Destiny,
To wheresoever you have assigned me.

Diogenes was the perfect example of a person renouncing externals.  "Diogenes was free.  He had cast off everything that could allow slavery to gain hold of him to enslave him.  Everything that he had he could easily let go; everything was only loosely attached to him." (v. 153, p. 234)

"His true ancestors, the gods, and his true country ... the universe." (v. 154, p. 234)

Socrates is another excellent example of a man focused on the right things.  We can wave our hands and say Diogenes had it easy - he had no wife or children to care for.  Fair enough - so lets look at Socrates, "who had a wife and young children, but didn't regard them as being his own." (v. 159, p. 235)  He was drafted to serve in the military.  He served and "exposed himself to the dangers of war without sparing himself in the least." (v. 160, p. 235)  When "he was sent by the Thirty Tyrants to arrest Leon; being sure in his mind that such a deed would be shameful, he never even contemplated it, although he was well aware that he might meet his death as a result, if things turned out that way.  But what did that matter to him?  For there was something else that he wanted to preserve other than his body, namely his character as a trustworthy man, as a man of honour." (v. 161, p. 235)

"And when he had to drink the poison, how did he behave then?  When he could have saved himself and Crito said to him, 'Make your escape for the sake of your children,' and what did he reply?  Did he regard that opportunity as a godsend?  Not at all, he thought only about what would be proper for him to do; the rest he didn't even consider or take into account.  For he didn't want, so he said, to save his poor body, but to save that which finds growth and is preserved through right action, and is diminished and destroyed through wrong action." (v. 163, p. 235)

While many of us may have rationalized, when confronted with death, that if our life were spared, we would be able to help many people, but that if we are dead, we are of no use to anyone.  But if we look to Socrates, we know that "now that Socrates is dead, the memory of him is no less useful to the human race, or even much more useful than all that he did and said while still alive." (v. 169, p. 236)

Epictetus pleads to us to "reflect on these things, these judgements, these arguments, and look at these examples, if you want to be free, if you desire freedom in accordance with its true value." (v. 170, p. 236)

"For the sake of true freedom, which is secure against all treachery and is inviolable, won't you return that which God has given you when he demands it back?  Won't you not only, as Plato says, practise to die, but even to suffer torture, to go into exile, to be flogged, and in a word, give up everything that is not your own?  Otherwise, you'll be a slave among slaves." (v. 172-173, p. 236)

See for yourself - experiment if you must.  Once you have gained what you desire (health, wealth, fame, fortune, ease, the next gadget, etc), you will only be met again with a new desire for "what [you don't] have.  For freedom is not attained through the satisfaction of desires, but through the suppression of desires." (v. 174-175, p. 236)

Epictetus Discourses 3.20 - That advantage may be gained from every external circumstance

That it is possible to derive advantage from everything external

This is an important chapter about resilience.

"The good and bad are in ourselves, and not in external things" (v. 1, p. 177).  Your choice, as to how to react to the world and to your body and surroundings, defines everything.  You can either choose to exercise virtue or vice.  If you choose to exercise virtue, it will be to your advantage.

Take the simple understanding "that knowledge is good, and error is bad, so that even in regard to what is false, something good arises: that knowledge that it is indeed false" (v. 3, p. 177).

The same can be applied to health, illness, death, lameness and all externals.

Seek for and draw advantage from illness, death and lameness.  Dig deep and you will gain the advantage - you will improve as a human being.

"Cease to attach such value to what is purely material, and cease to make yourselves slaves of things ... and ... of the men who are able to procure them for you or take them away from you" (v. 8, p. 177).  If you cease to deeply value such things, they will not hold you enslaved.

Just as you can derive advantage from a sparing partner, you can derive advantage from any event in life.

The man who insults you, becomes your training partner.  He trains you in patience; he helps you abstain from anger and he helps you remain gentle (see v. 9, p. 178).

Your neighbor who is a bad man is "bad to himself" but not to you (v. 11, p. 178).

Your attitude toward everything in life should be: "bring me whatever you wish, and I'll turn it into something good.  Bring illness, bring death, bring destitution, bring abuse or a trial for one's life, and ... all of that will become a source of benefit" (v. 12, p. 178).

Confronted with death, "make it something that can bring you honor" (v. 13, p. 178).

Confronted with illness, then remain steadfast and serene and don't even pray for death (v. 15, p. 178).

"Whatever you present to me I'll turn it into something blessed and a source of happiness, into something venerable and enviable" (v. 15, p. 178).

Be sure to check this post out: http://www.rockyrook.com/2017/09/commentary-on-meditations-b58.html and watch the video of Johnny Cash's song Sue.

Epictetus Discourses 3.19 - What is the position of the layman, and what that of the philosopher?

What is the position of the layman, and what that of the philosopher?

There is not much to this chapter other than a reiteration of: it is not things that disturb me, but my judgement of those things.

In this chapter, he discusses the practical matters - when we complain how we suffer due to a parent, or sibling or boss or some external event.

We should not think or say that these things cause our suffering.

Rather, we should say, "Ah, how I suffer because of myself" (v. 2, p. 176).

We should always "blame ourselves for it and remember that nothing except our own judgement is capable of causing us to become disturbed or confused" and if we do this, then "we've made progress" (v. 3, p. 176).

Epictetus Discourses 3.18 - That we should not allow news to disturb us

That we ought not to allow any news to disturb us

"Whenever any disturbing news is brought to you, you should have this thought ready at hand: that news never relates to anything that lies within the sphere of choice" (v. 1, p. 175).

News falls under the category of "things outside our control" and therefore, since it is outside our control, the thing can't actually hurt us (mentally - from your hegemonikon's perspective).

Epictetus goes on to elaborate this point through the rest of this chapter.

We should "mind the gap" between stimulus (disturbing news) and our response to it.  The more we practice being mindful, the more quickly we are able to determine that news should really not disturb us.  Rather, we ought to view all news objectively.

Epictetus Discourses 3.17 - On Providence

Of Providence

"Whenever you find fault with providence, just give the matter some thought and you'll recognize that what came about was in accordance with reason" (v. 1, p. 174)

After Epictetus said this, the student's reaction was, "Yes, but someone who is unjust comes off better" (v. 2, p. 174).

This part of the dialogue sums up, in my opinion, the vast majority of conversations and misunderstandings about life and events in life.

In my review of Mormonism, Christianity and religion in general, over the past few years, I have lost count the number of times people who got upset because God did or didn't do something.

People will say God answered their prayer when:
- they found their lost keys
- their loved one was healed
- they financially prospered
- their home was protected from weather

People will say God cursed them when:
- they lost their stuff
- their loved one died or had cancer
- they lost money or were poor
- their property was damaged

Yet other people, in those same "unfortunate" circumstances will say that these are trials God has given them to strengthen their faith in God.  A subset of this group will have their faith strengthened if things indeed "turn around" while another subset of these people might exercise faith in God, pray, fast, etc. but when their desires to find something, or to have a loved one healed, aren't realized, they turn bitter.

I've also seen many people complain how God is in the details of our life and helps us find our lost keys, but then God totally ignores the massacred Jews in WWII, the Rwandans in 1994 or people who died in earthquakes or hurricanes or drought.  They say, "if God can intervene in someone's life on such a small scale of lost keys, why could He not intervene on a macro-level?  Is He only powerful on a small scale and powerless when it comes to large-scale events?"

The Stoic philosophy rises above these mis-guided arguments.  The Stoics accept that God/Zeus/Providence/the Universe will proceed the way it wants to proceed.  Try as we might, we humans will not have much of an impact on guiding Cosmic willpower.  Rather than focusing on something entirely out of your control, you ought to focus on what is in your control - which is your reaction to Providential events, while also recognizing that there is still a human element at play in this universe.

Always keep in mind what Marcus Aurelius said in Book 4.1:

Wherever it is in agreement with nature, the ruling power within us takes a flexible approach to circumstances, always adapting itself easily to both practicality and the given event. It has no favoured material for its work, but sets out on its objects in a conditional way, turning any obstacle into material for its own use. 

Rather than choosing to look at events with a "blessed/cursed" mindset, we ought to look at them, at all times, as opportunities to exercise some virtue.

Also, when someone "comes off better" you have to ask yourself what you are actually judging - what game is being played.  If the game is "win all the money" and someone sells their soul or body to gain money, then there will be plenty of people who are better at that game than you.

But if you are trying to judge the character of a person and you choose to be "trustworthy and honest," (see v. 3, p. 174) then the person who sold their soul or body for money is not better off than you who have not sold your soul or body for money.

To put a finer point on this, Stoic philosophy says "virtue is the sole good."  This means the only game that matters is: are you winning at exercising virtue (courage, justice, wisdom, temperance, etc).  Nothing else matters.

If you play this game, then wealth, health, prestige, honors, power will not matter to you.  If someone is better than you, then they will have more courage; they will be wiser and have more justice; they will be disciplined and self-controlled.  They will adhere to a moral and honest life, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, healthy or sick, maimed or strong, powerful or simple.

If you base your judgments about people and events on virtue, then you will see who the real winners and losers are.

Key Concepts, Ideas and Quotes on the Discipline of Assent

hēgemonikon

a Greek word that represents the idea of a person's ruling center, commanding faculty, and rational faculty.

another definition is:  'commanding faculty' of the soul; the centre of consciousness, the seat of all mental states (source).

Pierre Hadot mentions "hēgemonikon" nineteen times in his book The Inner Citadel.  Here are a few of the relevant passages:

"the hegemonikon ...is the principle which directs all being. This is that principle of thought and judgement which makes us independent of the body, and the principle of liberty which delimits the sphere of "that which depends on us," as opposed to "that which does not depend on us." (p. 49)

"a guiding principle (hegemonikon) ... It is within this guiding principle that freedom and our true self are located. It is also there, and only there, that moral good and evil can be found, for the only moral good and evil are voluntary good and evil." (p. 83-84)

"[the hegemonikon] 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 Marcus says, the things outside of us "stay still"; they "do not come to us"; rather, in a way, "it is we who go toward them" (XI, II)." (p. 106-107).

In this prior passage, we note that Hadot is calling the hegemonikon the inner citadel.  This is the center of our mental universe, which dictates our reality.  Therefore, it is crucially important that we see things as they really are!

boundaries between things in your control and things out of your control

The first practice you ought to master in the Discipline of Assent is circumscribing or drawing a boundary between your hegemonikon - which is in your control - and things outside your control.  This is how you practice "the dichotomy of control."  Hadot writes of four circles, while Epictetus lists out examples.  Regardless of how you frame it, the constant practice of categorizing things in your control vs. out of your control, is crucial.

Hadot's for "circles" or boundaries are:

(1) others
(2) time past and future
(3) involuntary emotions
(4) the course of time or Destiny

others
We cannot control how other people act or what they think.  We must guard against assumptions about what people are thinking.  You would never want people to assume what you are thinking and you must grant others the same courtesy.  Much of our confusion in communications is due to assuming what other people are thinking.

the future or past
You simply cannot change past events; you cannot re-live the past and change what you have done.  Similarly, you do not know what will happen in the future, and therefore cannot control it 100% of the time.  Indeed, you can plan, but you cannot know exactly what will happen.  Ultimately, the only time span over which you have some modicum of control is the present.

involuntary emotions
Our bodies are subject to instinctive reactions which we cannot control.  The fight or flight reaction many experience cannot be controlled completely 100% of the time.  Some may train to control these powerful, instinctive reactions, but they are largely out of our control.  The key point, though, is to not let those emotions linger.  The more practice we put into to questioning our instinctive and reactive emotions, the better we become at controlling our emotions.  I'll discuss more of this further below (impression→assent→impulse).

Destiny / Universal events
The complexity of events in both the world and the Universe are out of our control.  We cannot control asteroids, solar flares and cosmic events.  We are subject to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, winds, rain, fog, cold and heat.  We don't have any real control over wars, elections, political scandals and culture.  We are living in a river, as it were, and we don't control where it goes or how it flows.

Besides, Hadot's four circles, Epictetus lists things in our control and out of our control in his first chapter of the Encheiridion.

Some things in the world are up to us, while others are not. Up to us are our faculties of judgment, motivation, desire, and aversion - in short, everything that is our own doing.  Not up to us are our body and property, our reputations, and our official positions - in short, everything that is not our own doing.

Note the similarities between Hadot's circles and Epictetus' list.  Our body, falls under the "involuntary emotions" circle.  Our property, perhaps, falls under the "Destiny / Universal" events circle.  Our reputation might fall under the "other people" circle, while official positions might fall under "others" and "Destiny" circles.

reserve clause

I think both Hadot's circle and Epictetus' list serve as a good framework for thinking about the dichotomy of control, but the hard work will come down to you as an individual.  Many things aren't so black and white.  Sometimes, something might be 60% in your control and 40% out of your control, and you have to act accordingly - knowing that there are certain things you can do, but knowing full well a set of variables exist that might disrupt the desired outcome.  This idea is called the "reserve clause."  Implementing "reserve clause" thinking, is another practice of the Discipline of Assent as well as the Discipline of Action.  Donald Robertson has a good write up about this: Action with a “Reserve Clause” in Marcus Aurelius.

impression→assent→impulse (to act or react)

Really take some time to think about the order of operations above.  Many of us have been trained to immediately jump to impulse after some impression hits us.  In a sense, we have let the our monkey or reptilian brains do the thinking, instead of letting the rational, reasoned side or our brains do the thinking.

Case in point: Your child haphazardly spills milk all over the counter top, and almost instantaneously, you begin to berate and yell at the child for being so clumsy!  In this case, you have let the emotion of anger take over your state of mind.  You have automatically judged the milk being spilled by your child as "bad" and have proceeded to let this judgement turn into an emotion, which then turned into a reaction, which formed into words coming from your brain, out of your mouth and into the ears and brain of your child.  You eventually come to your senses and you may apologize to your child for over-reacting.

You now get a do-over.  What do you do differently?  Would you like a longer pause between impression and reaction?

A quote, largely attributed to Viktor Frankl (but unsubstantiated) says: "Between stimulus and response there is a space.  In that space is our power to choose our response.  In our response lies our growth and our freedom."

What we need to do, is to "mind that gap" and practice growing it.  I like to think of this as the Stoic Pause.  The more technical term for it is Prosoche.

Prosoche

There is lots of information, as well as overlap in other philosophies and religion, on the topic of prosoche or mindfulness.  To put it succinctly, this exercise is all about becoming constantly mindful of your impressions, desires and actions.  We are bombarded with stimuli and events and people all day long.  Getting a handle - a very good handle - on your judgement of those things is crucial to becoming a true Stoic.  It is the practice of being aware of Hadot's "circles" and Epictetus' list and ensuring you have a true understanding of things, so you can assent and then re-act and act appropriately.

There has been plenty written on this topic.  I will link to a few articles that I have found helpful:

Prosoche: Illuminating the Path of the Prokopton

Sati & Prosoche: Buddhist vs. Stoic “Mindfulness” Compared by Greg Lopez

The Philosophy of Stoic Mindfulness by Patrick Ussher

How you practice mindfulness is up to you.  Journaling, writing, planning and reviewing your day, breathing, counting to ten before saying something, and meditating are all useful practices for becoming more mindful.  The more you are mindful of your circumstances and your emotions and attitude, the more you will be able to "slow things down" a bit - to give yourself time to decide whether you agree with an impression or not.

Epictetus best sums it up: Whenever the impression of some pleasure comes into your mind, guard yourself against being carried away by it, just as you should do with impressions in general.  Let the thing wait a bit, and give yourself a pause." (Encheiridion 34)

Epictetus Discourses 3.15 - That we should approach everything with circumspection

That we ought to approach each separate thing with circumspection

"In each action that you undertake, consider what comes before and what follows after, and only then proceed to the action itself" (v. 1, p. 171).

In this chapter, Epictetus intends to convince people to give themselves wholeheartedly to what they intend to do.  He wants us to think about things fully, before acting.  It later becomes clear in the chapter, that he specifically speaks to those who want to pretend to be philosophers, and never really fully devote themselves to becoming a Stoic.

Athletes must consider all the pains, injuries, and hardships they must ensure if they are to reach the pinnacle of success.  And they can only focus on one thing.  You cannot become the best player in basketball and baseball.  Some have tried, but none have succeeded.  Those who wish to become Stoic sages must do likewise.

"For your own part likewise, you're sometimes an athlete, sometimes a gladiator, then a philosopher, then an orator, but nothing at all whole-heartedly; no, in the manner of an ape, you imitate everything that you see, and one thing after another is always catching your fancy, but it ceases to amuse you as soon as you grow accustomed to it.  For you've never embarked on anything after due consideration, nor after having subjected it to proper examination and tested it out, but always at random and in a half-hearted fashion" (v. 6-7, p. 172).

He lays out the type of training a Stoic philosopher must endure in order to win the prize.  This list is actually a really good list of Stoic disciplines that even us Moderns can attempt to become more Stoic.

"Do you suppose you can eat as you do, drink as you do, lose your temper as you do, and be as irritable as you are?  You must stay up at night, toil away, overcome certain desires, become separated from those who are close to you, suffer scorn from a little slave, be laughed at by those whom you meet, and come off worse in everything, in power, in honour, in the courts" (v. 10-11, p. 172).

The prizes of endurance in these practices?  Serenity.  Freedom.  Peace of mind.

Epictetus concludes, "you must be one man, either good or bad; you must devote your efforts either to your ruling centre or to external things" (v. 13, p. 173).