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

Phil 405 term paper - The Consolation of Stoic Optimism

The Consolation of Stoic Optimism

    A sudden or expected death of a loved one, war, terror attacks, physical assaults, and violent car accidents are types of shocking events which confront individuals at least once in their lifetime (Bonanno, 20). Stoic metaphysics embraces an optimistic view that all events, including the ones listed, will ultimately work out well. However, one of the most prolific modern academics of Stoicism, wondered if this is a problem with the philosophy. After detailing Stoic metaphysics, including the properties of Nature, pneuma, and the philosophy’s optimistic view on providential determinism, A.A. Long mentions “one of the least palatable” characteristics of the philosophy: “trust” in Nature that all is well (170). He goes on to observe the “chilling and insensitive” attitudes of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius which embrace a “faith that all will turn out well in the end” (170). Does a belief in Nature, fate, and that all events will ultimately unfold well help the individual secure a eudaimonic life? Or is this belief inconsiderate and does it minimize the emotions one feels as a result of his fate? With the right perspective, beliefs and attitude, one can achieve a flourishing life regardless of circumstances without necessarily minimizing one’s emotions.

    If one embraces Stoicism’s metaphysical framework, beginning with the concept of pneuma pervading everything through the forces of unity, life, movement and rationality, which logically leads to the idea of Nature or God as one whole, then one can rationally conclude a deterministic fate, in which humans participate in the fate of the Cosmos. Furthermore, despite a deterministic view, at least one research paper offers some evidence that a disbelief in free will can lead to moral behavior and empathy, thus countering the lazy argument (Caspar). One modern day psychologist bolsters this view with arguments from Spinoza and Joseph Wolpe. Therefore, taken as a whole belief system, assuming an optimistic perspective about conjoined fated actions and determinism, humans can flourish and be resilient (live an excellent life) regardless of circumstances and they can even experience a flowing self-determination in the face of any adversity, including death, loss and violent events. Indeed, this has been confirmed by some modern research. Because of their optimism, humans mostly exhibit resilience (Bonanno and Zimmerman). The entire argument, from metaphysical beliefs to determinism, to conjoined fated actions, to obtaining eudaimonia leads to the promise Epictetus gave his students: “[securing a] desire that never fails in its aim, aversion that never falls into what it wants to avoid, motivation that accords with one’s duty, purpose that is carefully weighed, and assent that is not over-hasty” (Discourses 2.8).

    At the very core of Stoic metaphysics is the substance pneuma. In brief, it simply and literally means wind or breath (Liddell and Scott). Long uses various phrases which expand on the literal definition, by describing pneuma as “fiery breath”, “artistic fire”, “the active principle”, “vital spirit … hot breath … vehicle of the logos”, “force or energy”, “‘field of force’ activating matter” and “intelligent director of everything” (150-164). John Sellars defines pneuma as “identified with God and reason” and “a conscious and rational organizing principle” and as “the soul of the cosmos” (97).  He cites Aetius who described God as “creative fire (pur technikon)” and Stobaeus who called it the force “causing growth and preservation” (98-99). Implicit in these descriptions is movement and action.

    Pneuma is in “perpetual motion” and therefore is the cause of other movements in the cosmos (Sambursky 21). Furthermore, this motion not only exists in bodies, but is also the framework for how the cosmos operates.  The motion is like that of waves or ripples after a pebble is tossed into still water. Quoting Stobaios, Sambursky writes, “It begins in the centre of the body and extends outwards to its boundaries, and after touching the outermost surface it turns back till it arrives at the same place from which it started” (31).

    Besides being in perpetual motion, pneuma is considered the active element and mixes with passive elements (fire, air, water, earth) and binds itself to them causing bodies to exist. Pneuma may be mixed with elements to three varying degrees. First is mingling which could be described as a “mechanical mixture” like that of a mosaic, second is fusion, which mixture causes “a new substance,” and third, “complete interpenetration” in which all parts are “jointly occupied by all the components in the same proportion” (Sambursky 12-13). Additionally, depending on the extent to which pneuma is mixed with passive elements will determine how alive an object is and if it has a soul or not (Sellars91). In sum, the extent of pneuma in passive elements determines if an object has simple forces of unity, or is living, or has movement or possesses rationality.

    Given that pneuma is in constant motion, mixes with passive elements, and is the cause of tension and the coherence of everything, the cosmos is one unified whole. Like the glove and hand analogy, whereby the glove would represent the passive elements, and the hand would represent the active force, the cosmos is set in motion and is active by virtue of pneuma. Sambursky succinctly summarizes this idea and notes how the cosmos is one whole because Nature is unbroken in time and space.  Referring to pneuma, he wrote, “It was divine power (viz. Force) impressing a definite state upon matter on the one hand, and causal nexus linking the successive states of matter on the other, and in both these aspects it revealed itself as a spatially and temporally continuous agent” (Sambursky 37). Given their view that the cosmos is one “agent,” the Stoics believed that fate was tied up with Nature - a topic on which Chrysippus had a few things to say.

    Regarding fate, Chrysippus aligns with Zeno’s position, Zeno being the founder of Stoicism.  In some fragments which remain of his writings, we learn Zeno said, “fate is the chainlike cause of existing things or the reason in accordance with which they are ordered … [and is] the moving power of matter according to identical rules and in the same way and it does not differ from providence and nature” (Gould 142). Chrysippus reaffirms Zeno’s stance by calling fate “a certain natural order of all things, following closely upon one another and moved in succession from eternity, and their intertwining with one another is unalterable” (143). Rival philosophical schools attacked Chrysippus’ views on fate arguing that free will was removed and that since fate has been decided, human agency becomes irrelevant (i.e., the lazy argument). In response, Chrysippus would refine his argument with the ideas of “proximate” and “perfect” causes along with the idea that certain things are “in our power” and others are not (149).

    A proximate cause might be the proposition of eating a large unhealthy meal or committing adultery, but the perfect cause would be the individual assenting to the proposition, or not. Chrysippus would expound on this idea with the cylinder analogy. A cylinder may be sitting on a slope and the “initial force” to start the rolling process would be the proximate cause (i.e., the proposition of an unhealthy dinner or the opportunity at committing adultery in the previous example) (149). But “the cylinder’s own form” would be accountable for the ongoing movement down the slope, which would represent the proximate cause (i.e., assenting or not to eating the unhealthy dinner or committing adultery in the previous example) (150). Sellars makes this distinction even clearer by explaining Chrysippus’ ideas on “simple fated things and conjoined fated things” and by providing an example of a mortal being (Sellars 103). He writes that while “Socrates will die” is a “simple fated thing” it is not certain that “Socrates will die this afternoon” because he will opt to visit a doctor and therefore his actual chance of survival is termed his “cojoined fate” since Socrates has some choice in the matter (104). While Chrysippus did much to bolster his views to counter the lazy argument response on fate, modern research also provides a few other reasons which counter the lazy argument on determinism and fate.

    One research study investigated the relationship between people’s belief or disbelief in free will and how their moral actions aligned with those beliefs. In this study, the researchers instructed all participants to complete various questionnaires to determine where their beliefs resided on a scale of belief in free will, determinism and fate. When the participants arrived at the lab, two large groups were formed: the Control group and the No Free will group. In the Control group, participants read a passage from a book which explained how “psychologists tried to develop a method to assess consciousness” while the No Free Will group read a passage from the same book about how “human behavior is totally determined by genetics” (Caspar, et. al. 3). They were then placed in groupings of three individuals in a room: one as “agent,” one as “victim,” and one as “experimenter” (3). The selection of the roles was random, and all participants eventually played one of the three roles. In every situation, the agent was given money if the agent delivered a painful shock to the victim, but if they did not deliver the shock, no money was given. In these sub-groupings, there were two conditions the agent was presented with: the free-choice condition, in which the agent was totally free to give the shock or not, and the coercive condition in which the experimenter told the agent to give the shock, in which case the agent could decide to give the shock or not.

    The results of this experiment indicate “the No Free will group inflicted fewer shocks in the free-choice condition than participants in the Control group” (6-7). While gender does seem to play a factor, the results still indicate that when given a free choice, participants who believed they had no choice in fact demonstrated greater prosocial or moral behaviors. The study further noted that “the reduction of immoral behavior in the no free will group for female participants stems from the induced beliefs” as opposed to their “core beliefs” (7). Additional conclusions from the study show that vengeful behavior was also reduced in the same No Free will group, “and that the higher female participants scored on free will, the more vindictive they were” (7). In sum, this research study reveals that a disbelief in free will does not necessarily lead to one adhering to lazy argument thinking, but it also reveals deterministic thinking can even lead to higher prosocial thinking and behavior.

    If one believes that much of their life and circumstances are determined by things beyond their control, then perhaps they will focus their efforts on empathy and improving societal and environmental conditions which promote improved moral behaviors, rather than seeking to instill punitive forms of persuasion. Indeed, it seems deterministic thinking can cause one to have more compassion and understanding. Donald Robertson, a modern-day psychologist, observed the connection between determinism and empathy by drawing parallels in the ideas of Spinoza and a 20th century psychiatrist named Joseph Wolpe. He noted that to understand the world rationally “is to do so by reference to … the essential idea of Nature itself.” He then quotes Spinoza, whose metaphysical beliefs are similar to the Stoics: “we can desire nothing save that which is necessary, nor can we absolutely be contented with anything save what is true: and therefore insofar as we understand this rightly, the endeavour of the best part of us is in harmony with the order of the whole of nature” (Robertson).

Robertson then notes the relationship between determinism and living in harmony with Nature, to the ideas of the psychiatrist Wolpe, who said this of determinism and empathy:

Objectivity, empathy, and sensitivity to suffering are intrinsic to the behaviour therapist’s approach to his patients. The objectivity follows from the knowledge that all behaviour, including cognitive behaviour, is subject to causal determination no less than is the behaviour of falling bodies or magnetic fields. […] To explain how the patient’s neurosis arose out of a combination or chain of particular events helps [empathic] understanding (Robertson).

The point to this long thread about determinism and empathy is to counter the idea which Long calls “chilling and insensitive” about the idea that “all will turn out well in the end” (170). Taking an optimistic perspective is not disturbing and inconsiderate, but rather it is a rational way for the individual to arrive at acceptance of events as they are and empathic understanding for himself and humanity.

    Furthermore, this thread of thought on determinism and empathy ought to inform the individual to not only validate his own emotions and those of others when they perceive that much is beyond their control - that these perceptions don’t have to be distressing and indifferent -but that we can experience greater and deeper understanding of our shared human experiences and help others see the higher fidelity of existence. The higher fidelity in thinking and perception allows us to truly grasp and comprehend what is up to us, and in that space, we can adjust our attitude towards an optimistic perspective which will lead to resilience in the face of adversity. In fact, resilience seems to be the default human reaction to adversity.

    Humans are a tough and resilient species. One study of 67 potentially traumatic events, such as “mass shootings, hurricanes, spinal cord injuries,” observed that two-thirds resiliently recover from the event (Zimmerman). The article which references this study concludes by noting what psychologists have observed in people who are resilient and flourish in virtually any circumstance: they have a “positive, realistic outlook … [and] look for opportunities in bleak situations, striving to find the positive within the negatives” (Zimmerman). A professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University’s Teachers College, George Bonanno, conducted this research on human resilience in the face of traumatic events, and observed “multiple pathways to resilience” (25). Of note are his findings which align with the optimistic perspective on Stoic determinism. He noted that “hardiness” which includes commitment “to finding meaningful purpose in life” and “that one can learn and grow from both positive and negative life experiences” are hallmarks in those who demonstrate resilience to adverse events (25). These traits align with the Stoic perspective that all events and circumstances can work out for the best. And closely related to this optimistic view, Bonanno further observes, are those responses of “positive emotion and laughter” which have the effect of “quieting or undoing a negative emotion” after an “aversive event” (26).

    To tie all these threads together, the idea that ultimately all works out well (Stoic optimism), not only embraces determinism, but also reminds the individual of what is up to him, namely, his attitude and the ability to grasp the reality of his situation. This higher fidelity in thinking allows him the space to be more empathic with his own situation and that of others. This empathy can counteract the “chilling and insensitive” perspective Long mentions (170). Furthermore, this cognitive space empowers the individual to breed a growth and learning mindset regarding all events in his life, including traumatic events. This optimism, in the form of seeking meaning and purpose, along with the optimistic characteristics of “positive emotion and laughter” can equip the individual to resiliently endure most events in his life (Bonanno 26). Being psychologically prepared and equipped with this mentality, the individual thus gains confidence in his pursuit of leading a fulfilling and flourishing life – he knows when tough times come, these events will provide meaning and opportunity for him to practice excellence in living.

    In conclusion, the entire argument, from metaphysical beliefs to determinism, to conjoined fated actions, to securing eudaimonia leads to the promise Epictetus gave his students: “[securing a] desire that never fails in its aim, aversion that never falls into what it wants to avoid, motivation that accords with one’s duty, purpose that is carefully weighed, and assent that is not over-hasty” (Discourses 2.8). This mindset is not disturbing nor callous, but rather optimistically equips the individual to be psychologically and emotionally durable and possess the confidence to face any adversity. Not only can one wisely respond to any desire, aversion, or event in his life, but he can also feel confidence and gratitude in his mental paradigm. Lastly, Marcus Aurelius compares this robust self-determination to that of ocean waves colliding against the cropping of rocks.

Be like the rocky headland on which the waves constantly break. It stands firm, and round it the seething waters are laid to rest. 'It is my bad luck that this has happened to me.' No, you should rather say: 'It is my good luck that, although this has happened to me, I can bear it without pain, neither crushed by the present nor fearful of the future.' Because such a thing could have happened to any man, but not every man could have borne it without pain (Meditations Book 4, chapter 49).

Works Cited

Bonanno, George A. "Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have we Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events?" American Psychologist, vol. 59, no. 1, 2004, pp. 20-28. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Floss-trauma-human-resilience-have-we%2Fdocview%2F614384211%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289, doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20.

Caspar, Emilie A., et al. “The Influence of (Dis)Belief in Free Will on Immoral Behavior.” Frontiers in Psychology, no. 8 20, 17 Jan. 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00020. 

Epictetus, et al. Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Gould, J B. The Philosophy of Chrysippus. 1970. Netherlands, Brill Academic Pub, 1971.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, a Greek-English Lexicon, πνεῦμα.” Www.perseus.tufts.edu, 1940, www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpneu%3Dma. Accessed 12 Feb. 2023.

Long, A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy : Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. University Of California Press, 1986.

Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, et al. Meditations. Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books, 2014.

Robertson, Donald J. “Spinoza’s Philosophical Psychotherapy.” Stoicism — Philosophy as a Way of Life, 26 Sept. 2019, medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/spinozas-philosophical-psychotherapy-94ff758f6f15. Accessed 18 Feb. 2023.

Sellars, John. Stoicism. Routledge, 2014.

Zimmerman, Eilene. What Makes Some People More Resilient Than Others: RESILIENCE. ProQuest, Jun 18, 2020, http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fblogs-podcasts-websites%2Fwhat-makes-some-people-more-resilient-than-others%2Fdocview%2F2414234236%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D8289.

Phil 302 Four Epictetian Analogies Explaining Stoicism

Four Epictetian Analogies Explaining Stoicism

Born in 55, Epictetus was enslaved early in his life or even from birth, as he was taken to Rome “as a boy” by Epaphroditus (Seddon).  As a slave, he was introduced to and studied Stoicism with Musonius Rufus, who some modern scholars call “the Roman Socrates” (Gaius Musonius Rufus and Lutz, 4). Prior to 89, he was freed and then sometime between 89 and 95 he was part of the group of philosophers who were expelled from Rome by the emperor Domitian (Long, 9).  From Rome, he fled to Nicopolis where he founded his philsophy school and taught there for the remainder of his life (Seddon).  Epictetus’ student Arrian wrote much of what survives of his teachings today.  Arrian wrote them “as a literal record of Epictetus’ teachings, based on the notes he took as a student” (Epictetus, et al., ivvv).  If nothing else could be said of Epictetus, the one idea he relentlessly taught was to live Stoicism.  In the Handbook, he emphasizes that the only pride one ought to have is not for the ability to read and understand the teachings, but to apply them (Handbook 49).  Because of his impact on his students, he earned a legendary reputation and was more popular in his day than Plato was in his (Seddon).

Stoicism is learned and lived in three parts: logic, physics, and ethics.  All three work together to explain the whole philosophy.  Early founders of Stoicism used analogies to explain the three topics.  One analogy is that of an egg where the shell represents logic, the egg white represents ethics, and the yolk represents physics.  Two other analogies compared philosophy to the body (bones and sinews as logic, flesh as ethics, and the soul as physics), and a fruit field (wall as logic, fruit as ethics, land, and trees as physics) (Long and Sedley, 158).  The point of these analogies was to show that all three are necessary and one could not truly understand or live Stoicism with only one or two topics.

In similar fashion, Epictetus used analogies to teach his students how to learn and apply various aspects of Stoicism.  This essay will focus on four examples, which provide a rough explanation of the philosophy.  The first will focus on logic as a standard for knowledge and the analogy of knowing what a measurement is and how to use tools to measure.  The second and third will focus on physics and how one can live in agreement with Nature or God, as well as living in agreement with one’s individual nature by using the analogies of visiting one of the seven wonders of the world as well as being a vivid thread.  And lastly, the fourth analogy will focus on how ethics ought to be lived and not merely discussed, by using an analogy of a carpenter who truly builds something rather than merely discussing it.

Logic and the use of senses help one learn how the world works and really is, which help an individual to use his volition to make the best choice.  Epictetus compares logic with understanding how to measure or weigh something.  If an individual’s goal is to build or bake something, then that person must have a sound understanding of the concepts of measuring and weighing, as well as how to use the tools to accomplish good measurement and weighing.  If one does not know what measurement or weight is, or what a ruler or scale does, then how could he begin to build or make something?  In Discourses 1.17.7, he teaches, “unless we start off by establishing what a unit of measurement is, and what a balance is, how shall we ever be able to weigh or measure anything?”  Applied to philsophy, one must know the standard of knowledge and how to use the tool humans have been given (their mind) to demonstrate sound judgement and volition.  Equipped with standards and the correct use of his mind, the individual begins to distinguish the things which up to him and which are not.  From this knowledge, the person begins to comprehend how he is a minuscule part of the Whole and begins to gain an appreciation for the spectacle of the Cosmos, or the Stoic god.

Because much of the world and Cosmos is “not up to us” the individual ought to assume the wise attitude of following and seeking to understand Nature as opposed to seeking to control it or complain about it (Handbook 1).  Part of living this wise attitude is to appreciate Nature rather than wasting time complaining about it.  In another analogy Epictetus compares one’s attitude to that of visiting a sculpture of Phidias, who sculpted one of the seven wonders of the world (Jordan, 77).  While many people would endure heat, crowds, rains, shouting and “other irritations” just for the chance to see the work of Phidias, when it comes to appreciate the works of Nature directly in front of them, they have no desire to comprehend them, but would rather complain about the trials and hardships of life (Discourses 1.6.23-28).  Therefore, just as people endured all types of hardships for the chance to see one of the seven wonders of the world, so too should they endure much to learn, appreciate, and live according to Nature.  And not only are people to follow Nature, but they are to align their individual wills or their inner daimon with the greater Cosmos (Bonhöffer and Stephens, 13)

Part of aligning one’s will with Nature is to determine who one really is and stand out by performing his own unique part in life.  In the third analogy, Epictetus teaches that one ought to learn his unique role and then be the distinctive thread in a cloth.  One should say to himself, “I want to be the purple, the small gleaming band that makes all the rest appear splendid and beautiful” (Discourses 1.2.18).  Epictetus similarly teaches one should learn his unique talents and not ignore them (Handbook 37).  Lastly, one learns that he may have an assigned role which he is to play and rather than complaining about what parts he does not get to play, he ought to learn his part and play it well (Handbook 17).  The unifying concept in many of these analogies is action.

Philosophy is to be lived, not merely studied.  If one were only to study philosophy, but not live it, he is no better than a person who expounds about the process of building, but never actually builds something.  “A builder doesn’t come forward and say, ‘Listen to me as I deliver a discourse about the builder’s art,’ but he acquires a contract to build a house and shows through actually building it that he has mastered the art” (Discourses 3.21.4).    In the same passage, Epictetus continues by enumerating many duties a Stoic ought to perform in order to live an ethical life, including how to eat, drink, take care of oneself, rear a family, participate as a citizen, endure insults, and tolerate family and neighbors when they behave badly.  All duties relate back to the core virtues.  The best practiced volition is one that demonstrates justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom regardless of circumstances (Hadot, 233).

While this essay only focused on four analogies, Epictetus’ wide and varied use of parallels can be seen throughout all his works.  This essay focused on a subset of comparisons, which guide the reader in a general direction of how Stoicism can be explained and lived.  Epictetus used measuring to demonstrate how one ought to be familiar with logic, concepts, and tools.  He compared visiting one of the wonders of the world, as well as a vibrant thread for how one ought to view life in general.  And lastly, he compared living one’s philosophy to a carpenter who truly builds something rather than merely talking about it.  When the student actually sees the wonders of life, or a vibrant thread, or a measuring ruler or a carpenter, then perhaps he will be more likely to remember Epictetus’ teachings and strive to live them.

Works Cited

Bonhöffer, Adolf Friedrich, and William O. Stephens. The Ethics of the Stoic Epictetus : An English Translation. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, 2021.Epictetus, et al. Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Epictetus, et al. Discourses, Fragments, Handbook. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Gaius Musonius Rufus, and Cora E. Lutz. Musonius Rufus - “the Roman Socrates.” Yale Univ. Press, 1947.

Hadot, Pierre, and Michael Chase. The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, Mass. London Harvard University Press, 2001.

Long, A. A. Epictetus : A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Clarendon Press, 2013.

Long, A. A., and David N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers Commentary. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Jordan, Paul. Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, Taylor & Francis Group, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=1683541.

Seddon, Keith H. “Epictetus | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 3 Jan. 2003, iep.utm.edu/epictetu/.

Raphael's School of Athens: Is it Heraclitus or Epictetus?

Towards the end of 2020, while doing some work on a college research paper, I found an image of Epictetus I had never seen before.  I was exploring my college's various research engines and one of my searches yielded an image from the British Museum; an drawing of Epictetus.

You can find the print here: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1935-0828-5

The description states, "Epictetus: bearded man seen head and shoulders, head resting on his left hand; on white ground; detail from the School of Athens, after Raphael"

The artist who drew this image of Raphael's School of Athens is Antonio Regona and he would have drawn it sometime between 1775 and 1853, according to the site's data on 'production date.'

He drew other objects from the School of Athens; see this link to his works at the British Museum: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG191367

• Epicurus
• Zeno of Citium
• Diogenes
• Plato

Now to the question.  As I've studied a bit about the painting, I've come to learn that there seems to be wide consensus that the image that Antonio Regona claims is Epictetus, is in fact Heraclitus.

The wikipedpia page on the painting claims it is Heraclitus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens

The site Art in Context claims it is Heraclitus: https://artincontext.org/the-school-of-athens-raphael/

But perhaps the best information or analysis on this figure comes from the BBC and talks a bit more extensively about him: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200910-the-school-of-athens-a-detail-hidden-in-a-masterpiece

This article, too, claims he is Heraclitus, but also notes that this figure and many of the other figures are deliberately ambiguous.

So, perhaps, Antonio Regona may have known more about this figure or he chose to not claim this figure as Heraclitus, but Epictetus.  Perhaps Regona had seen another image of Epictetus by William Sonmans - the image that many of us may be more familiar with (link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epicteti_Enchiridion_Latinis_versibus_adumbratum_(Oxford_1715)_frontispiece.jpg)  This image would have been created prior to 1715 and would pre-date Regona's drawing.

Both images show Epictetus, holding his head up with his left hand, while writing.  Perhaps these two clues are why Regona claims the figure in the School of Athens is Epictetus and not Heraclitus.

In conclusion, it's a interesting mystery and piques my curiosity about why would Antonio Regona call that figure Epictetus and not Heraclitus.

Letters from a Stoic 80 - On Worldly Deceptions

On Worldly Deceptions

Because the people in Seneca's life are off enjoying the games and boxing, Seneca has time to himself, uninterrupted.  He then observes:

my thoughts may march safely on, – and that is all the more necessary for one who goes independently and follows out his own path. Do I then follow no predecessors? Yes, but I allow myself to discover something new, to alter, to reject. I am not a slave to them, although I give them my approval.

Said differently, he indeed follows predecessors, but he also reflects on what has been discussed and he feels the freedom to agree, reject or alter it.  He simply asserts his independent thought.  I admit I've suffered from a "going-along mindset" for much of my life.  It feels that I spend most of my time reviewing what has been discussed, said or thought, and then I agree, reject or add a nuance.  I don't think I'll ever come up with some novel philosophical idea.  And even if I do, the chances are likely that it's simply a matter of having not yet discovered who has previously thought it!

He next ponders the amount of time and effort people spend on their bodies, but don't dedicate as much time and effort on the mind.  The premise is that humans' unique nature is the rational.  We share the physical with beasts, but they do not share the rational with us.  Therefore, if we are to live according to our unique nature, we ought to spend our time in the rational area of our lives.  Seneca writes:

How many men, I say to myself, train their bodies, and how few train their minds!  What crowds flock to the games, – spurious as they are and arranged merely for pastime, – and what a solitude reigns where the good arts are taught! How feather-brained are the athletes whose muscles and shoulders we admire!

Epictetus notes in Enchiridion 41,

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.

How many people are willing to train and torture the body for a few minutes of fame in the arena.  Ought we not to spend more time training our minds to withstand the "blows of Fortune"?

if this can be done, how much more easily might the mind be toughened so that it could receive the blows of Fortune and not be conquered, so that it might struggle to its feet again after it has been laid low, after it has been trampled under foot? ... Yonder athletes must have copious food, copious drink, copious quantities of oil, and long training besides; but you can acquire virtue without equipment and without expense. All that goes to make you a good man lies within yourself.

All that is needed to make progress is to wish for freedom from Fortune.  And the first areas to overcome are freedom from death, and poverty.

shall you not be eager to attain liberty at any price, seeing that you claim it as your birthright? ... freedom is possessed neither by those who have bought it, nor by those who have sold it. You must give this good to yourself, and seek it from yourself. ... First of all, free yourself from the fear of death, for death puts the yoke about our necks; then free yourself from the fear of poverty.

You may look on those who have much wealth and think them happy.  But you do not know if they truly have freedom or not.  Don't be so hasty to fall for the trap in thinking wealth brings happiness and freedom.

in every case their happiness is put on like the actor's mask. Tear it off, and you will scorn them. ... if you judge a man, do you judge him when he is wrapped in a disguise? ... If you wish to see what he amounts to, and to know his full worth, take off his diadem; much evil lurks beneath it. But why do I speak of others? If you wish to set a value on yourself, put away your money, your estates, your honours, and look into your own soul.

The only thing that is up to you, is your soul.  You cannot accurately judge yourself by using the standard of health, wealth, status or fame.  Your lucid judgement and discerning assessment of events, things, people and circumstances and how you react to these is what is up to you.  This is never so simple, and can only be ascertained through much thought and objectivity - seeing things from the perspective of Nature.  Do not let such worldly deceptions deceive you.  Always look to wisdom to guide you.

Stoicism in Practice

In my previous post, Stoicism in Six Points, I discussed the framework and why of the Stoic philosophy.  That post ended with a call to action.  The Stoic philosopher will not be content with only learning the philosophy, he will also be motivated to put it to use.  He wants to show how floods, riches, poverty, excellent health and contracting the corona virus don't make him happy or sad.  Rather, he wants to show how he can retain equanimity regardless of circumstance (self-preservation of his rational nature).  He wants to show the world and Nature how he can demonstrate his excellent character through moral fortitude.  He wants to show the world and Nature how he can be modest, trustworthy, high-minded, unshakable, free from passion, imperturbable, unhindered, unconstrained and in a a word: free.

action required: stoic exercises

To get to that unassailable position, the Stoic must train, practice and prepare.  In this post, I've compiled a list of Stoic practices or exercises the Stoic philosopher will incorporate into his life - this is the how of Stoic philosophy.  And as he practices and prepares for life to happen, he will begin to see the benefits.  The Stoic will rise each morning from his bed, ready to encounter anything that Nature throws at him.  The obstacles placed in his path, become the material he puts to good use.  He will plan and make goals and he will look for opportunities to demonstrate to the world and Nature what a good human being looks like.  As he progresses, he ultimately embodies the Stoic philosophy.

As I continue to find exercises in Stoic books I read, I will continually add to and tweak this post.  Many of these exercises will seemingly overlap and you also may find that you too will tweak various practices to fit your lifestyle and preference.  Feel free to share your ideas in the comments.

click to jump to a section

changing desires
circles of compassion
contemplation of virtue
distancing
gratitude
journaling
levels of control
meditation
memento mori
mindfulness / acceptance / prosoche
pain and discomfort management
part of the whole
planning with a reserve clause
premeditatio malorum
present moment
remaining calm
values identification & clarification
view from above

journaling
(assent)
back to top

There are many forms of journaling.  Some write out their meditations, some use it as a method of planning and reviewing their day.  Below is an example of journaling while planning and reviewing the day.

• Plan in the morning; look at your day ahead and note where you might need to exercise virtue
• If time allows, use some negative visualization to anticipate how you should appropriately act (i.e. traffic, grumpy managers, a headache, hunger, pains, etc); this could lead to identifying something for which you are grateful that day
• At the end of the day, review your day, two or three times and ask yourself some key questions:
• What did you do badly (ruled by irrational fears or unhealthy desires, etc)?
• What did you do well (progressed towards wisdom, courage, self-discipline, etc)?
• What would you have done differently if you had a do-over (how would have you reacted differently to the things you did badly, did you miss opportunities to practice virtue)?

mindfulness / acceptance / prosoche
(assent)
back to top

This practice is looking at the world objectively; viewing reality as it is; "it's not things that upset us, but our opinions of them"

• Write down your thoughts as they occur and just observe them without judgement
• Plainly state the emotion you are currently feeling

distancing
(assent)

back to top

• Write your thoughts on a white board and stand on the other side of the room and look at them from a physical distance.
• Will this / these thoughts matter in an hour?  A day?  A week?  A month? A year? Or years from now?
• Evaluate the 'pros' and 'cons' of an opinion … evaluate them with detachment
• What would Marcus Aurelius (or a wise person or friend) think of my situation? 

view from above
(desire)
back to top

The effort to see from another perspective: 'the view from above' was practiced by Marcus Aurelius while he was emperor of the Roman Empire.

The sight of Earth from the perspective of a space craft or satellite was not available to Marcus, but we have all seen pictures of our planet. When you see earth from a distance in both time and space it aids one in setting aside personal, political, and cultural prejudices. To see the world from the perspective of a god helps feeling less stress about the minutia of life.

Consider this tweet from Stoic in New York City (@stoicin / link to tweet):

Or, also consider the view from above in terms of time.  Meditations 7.23 asks us to consider how everything is like wax that is molded, melted and molded again and again.  This helps us appreciate the impermanence of everything.

We don't know why Marcus developed this technique, but it would appear to be especially useful to one who's daily decisions could affect the lives of millions. Because of its proven effects, something very similar to this ancient practice of distancing oneself from one's thoughts is still used today in modern psychotherapy techniques such as cognitive behavioral therapy.

present moment
(desire)
back to top

Throughout the day practice bringing your attention back to the present moment. Pretend you are seeing the world for the first time or this is your last day of life. The present is all we have. As Marcus Aurelius said, "He who sees the present has seen all things, both all that has come to pass from everlasting and all that will be for eternity: all things are related and the same" (Meditations 6.37).

Become mindful in the present space at the present time ("I am in a room, with four walls, a fan on the ceiling; the fan is moving; there is carpet on the floor; I'm sitting in a leather chair … etc.)

meditation
(assent)
back to top

There are dozens of ways to meditate.  The ultimate goal of meditation is to see the world objectively as well as to help you lengthen the pause between an event occurring and you reacting and assenting to the event.  This is simply widening the gap between stimulus and reaction.

levels of control
(desire)
back to top

Self-control is related to the domain of desire and aversion – one is responsible for what one does, so one should be in charge of what one does.  Man as an ape has appetites that consume him; but man as a thinker can see the endless servitude therein. Appetites and fears chain man to worry and give others power over him; all these, then, constitute a kind of slavery.  Self-control is a first step towards freedom from impulse and domination by others, towards being one's own natural self and one's own master at the same time.

This exercise reminds us of just what kind of control we have over something. Daily, in every situation and decision, the first question to ask is: "How much control do I have over this?" Epictetus repeatedly emphasized that we have no control over anything except the will; all else is up to Fate.

The benefit of this exercise, which increases after it becomes habit, is the tranquility we experience. Most of the things we worry about are out of our control, so we can learn to drop that habit and accept external events with greater calm. We cannot prevent what another person does to us, but we can choose to remain calm and carry on.

remaining calm
(assent)
back to top

It is one thing to claim that we have various levels of control, that we can act or not react, but what are some of the methods we can use to help us remain centered and calm? Here are two methods:

1. Self-deprecation. This is the method made popular by Epictetus, who said that if someone accuses you of having some flaw in your character you should tell him its a good thing he doesn't know you well enough to point out even the worst flaws you have. Through quick, humorous, self-deprecation, attacks are swiftly deflected. If I want to say to you that you are evil or, at best, ignorant, you could reply with, "Why can't I be both?" Self-deprecation works on accusations that are untrue and true. If the accusation is true, be grateful that a flaw has been pointed out to you, while at the same time, using humor to deflect the sting of the remark.
2. Correction. As parents, we correct our children when they misbehave. If we are supervisors at work, we correct our workers of errors so that they can perform their work correctly. In the case of children, even if we are not the parent, we may find ourselves in a position to take part in their formation for life in society. Teachers also fill such a role. Epictetus recommends that we instruct others who are misbehaving as we would a child. No one has to put up with bad behavior. Instruct. The instruction can be firm without being personal or emotional.

negative visualization or premeditatio malorum
(assent, desire)
back to top

All negative visualization can become a positive realization once it has been performed. Remembering that people, places, and things we love can be taken from us, we realize that nothing is certain. There will be loss in our lifetime so it is a good thing to prepare ourselves for them and we can do this by imaging what it would be like to have lost these things right now.

This exercise prepares you mentally and emotionally for the changes in fortune that are a part of life, and it lessens the sting of the loss if that loss happens in the future. The plus side to the exercise is that it can actually be positive in that it reminds us to appreciate what we have now while we still have it.

1. Start with a coffee cup or small object that you love or a "what if …" scenario
2. Visualize that you've lost it; or broke it or it was stolen … it no longer belongs to you or the "what if …" scenario happened
3. Process your reaction, emotions and evaluate them
4. Think about what an appropriate reaction should be if you were to lose that thing or if that event happened
5. Start small and move to bigger things; a cup, a loved outfit or shirt, a backpack, a laptop or smart phone, bigger items in your home, a car, your whole home, your career or job, your land, an injured limb, your health, your child, spouse and then your life
6. All of this takes time and can be quite emotional, but often take time to visualize losing these things
7. This practice falls under the Discipline of Assent and Desire … breaking things down; seeing things objectively; and then "checking" your desires to ensure they are appropriate.
8. All of these things are preferred indifferents

gratitude
(desire)
back to top

A side benefit of Negative Visualization is gratitude.  After thinking about losing various things, you will come back to the present moment and circumstance and you will have a greater appreciation for what you have.

remembering you are mortal / memento mori
(desire)
back to top

A specific form of Negative Visualization that specifically focuses on the fleeting nature of mortality and how it is nothing to fear.

According to Wikipedia, memento mori began in classical times. “Plato's Phaedo, where the death of Socrates is recounted, introduces the idea that the proper practice of philosophy is 'about nothing else but dying and being dead.' The Stoics were particularly prominent in their use of this discipline, and Seneca’s letters are full of injunctions to meditate on death.” Notice that memento mori refers to the proper practice of philosophy. This is what we're doing.

values identification & clarification
(desire)
back to top

This comes from Donald Robertson's How to Think Like a Roman Emperor p. 108.

• What's ultimately the most important thing in life to you?
• What do you really want your life to stand for or represent?
• What do you want to be remembered for after you're dead?
• What sort of person do you most want to be in life?
• What sort of character do you want to have?
• What would you want written on your tombstone?
• What do you want said in your eulogy?

Write out a list with two columns:

1. Desired: values and virtues you most desire for yourself in life
2. Admired: qualities which are praiseworthy and commendable in other people

contemplation of virtue
(desire)

back to top

In Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, in Book 1, he observes all the admired qualities in other peoples' lives which he would presumably want to incorporate into his life.

This practice may begin with a list of desired and admired values and qualities (in the previous exercise).  Then the exercise would shift to observation as you find people in your circle of life who exhibit these qualities and noting them, similarly to how Marcus noted them.

changing desires
(desire)

back to top

As you begin to pivot your desires and aversions away from indifferents and towards virtue, consider these steps found in Robertson's How to Think Like a Roman Emperor in chapter "The Choice of Hercules."

1. Evaluate the consequences of your habits or desires in order to select which ones to change.
2. Spot early warning signs so that you can nip problematic desires in the bud.
3. Gain cognitive distance by separating your impressions from external reality.
4. Do something else instead of engaging in the habit.

planning with a reserve clause
(desire)

back to top

1. Select something you are planning to do
2. Imagine the obstacles that could stand in your way and accept that these could happen
3. Rehearse saying to yourself “I will do ____” adding the caveat “…fate permitting.” This is a reserve clause that accepts the role of fate in the outcome of all externals.
4. If the obstacles do get in your way accept the outcome as it happens

In chapter 4 of the Encheiridion, Epictetus says,

Whenever you are about to start on some activity, remind yourself what the activity is like.  If you go out to bathe, picture what happens at a bathhouse - the people there who splash you or jostle you or talk rudely or steal your things.  In this way you will be more prepared to start on the activity, by telling yourself at the outset: ‘I want to bathe, and I also want to keep my will in harmony with nature.’  Make this your practice in every activity.  Then, if anything happens that gets in the way of your bathing, you will have the following response available: ‘Well, this was not the only thing I wanted; I also wanted to keep my will in harmony with nature.  I shall not do that if I get angry about what is happening.’

An important nuance about the reserve clause.

From James Daltrey in the Living Stoicism Facebook group

"[reserve clause is] related to the discipline of desire.

• The Stoics didn't internalize their projects.
• If you start on a project you DON'T KNOW how it will end out.
• Whatever happens is what you want to happen.
• You can never be disappointed.

In sum:

• The reservation DOES NOT relate to hedging against failed expectations.
• The reservation relates to lack of knowledge

Two scenarios

1. You apply for a job, you hope you will get it, but you prepare for not getting.  You don't get the job.  You have prepared for your failed expectations.  You have mitigated things going wrong.
2. You apply for a job, you don't [know] if you will get it, and understand that you cannot know.  You don't get the job.  Not getting the job is the best possible outcome from which to proceed with the rest of your life.

Everything went perfectly.."

The first example is about hedging against failed expectations, while the second is based on lack of knowledge.

pain and discomfort management
(desire)

back to top

Injury and illness may come into your life.  Additionally, your life may have become too "soft" and one day, you may lose the comforts of modern life due to uncontrolled circumstances or fate.  Preparing for that fate will go a long way to deaden the pain, worry and stress that comes with hardship.

As for immediate illness or pain, below is a list from Donald Robertson's How to Think Like a Roman Emperor from the chapter "Grasping the Nettle."

• Separate your mind from the sensation, which is called “cognitive distancing,” by reminding yourself that it is not things, or sensations, that upset us but our judgments about them.
• Remember that the fear of pain does more harm than pain itself, or use other forms of functional analysis to weigh up the consequences for you of fearing versus accepting pain.
• View bodily sensations objectively (objective representation, or phantasia kataleptike) instead of describing them in emotive terms. (“There’s a feeling of pressure around my forehead” versus “It feels like I’m dying—an elephant might as well be stamping over and over on my head!”)
• Analyze the sensations into their elements and limit them as precisely as possible to their specific site on the body, thereby using the same depreciation by analysis that we used in the previous chapter to neutralize unhealthy desires and cravings. (“There’s a sharp throbbing sensation in my ear that comes and goes,” not “I’m in total agony.”)
• View the sensation as limited in time, changeable, and transient, or “contemplate impermanence.” (“This sensation only peaks for a few seconds at a time and then fades away; it will probably be gone in a couple of days.”) If you have an acute problem like toothache, you’ll have forgotten what it felt like years from now. If you have a long-term problem such as chronic sciatica, you’ll know it sometimes gets worse and so at other times it must be less severe. It makes a difference if you can focus on the notion that this shall pass.
• Let go of your struggle against the sensation and accept it as natural and indifferent, what is called “Stoic acceptance.” That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take practical steps to deal with it, such as using medication to reduce pain, but you must learn to live with the pain without resentment or an emotional struggle.
• Remind yourself that Nature has given you both the capacity to exercise courage and the endurance to rise above pain and that we admire these virtues in other people, which we discussed in relation to contemplating and modeling virtue.

Other, intentional practices of hardship will also go a long way in preparing for the worst to come.  Examples include:

• fasting, intermittent or extended fasts
• cold showers, ice bathes
• tough, physical exercise, yard work, chopping wood, lifting weights, running, etc.
• living like a pauper or homeless person, in which you try to live as minimally as possible
• sleeping on the floor, with no blanket
• walking barefoot
• in ancient times, some embraced cold statues, with no clothes on - be mindful of decency laws in your country and city :-)

Seneca practiced poverty regularly.  In Moral Letters to Lucilius #18 he wrote,

Set aside a certain number of days, during which you shall be content with the scantiest and cheapest fare, with coarse and rough dress, saying to yourself the while: "Is this the condition that I feared?" 6. It is precisely in times of immunity from care that the soul should toughen itself beforehand for occasions of greater stress, and it is while Fortune is kind that it should fortify itself against her violence.

circles of compassion
(action)
back to top

The basis of Stoic desire is self-preservation, both physical and rational.  However, we ought to hold our rational self-preservation to be more valuable.  Once we have secured freedom for our rational natures, we ought to concern ourselves for those in our social circles.  This means helping others with self-preservation both at the physical and rational levels.

Einstein conveyed this message well when he said,

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.

you are a part of a whole
(action)
back to top

Marcus Aurelius spent time thinking that he was a limb playing its unique part in a greater whole body.

Rational beings collectively have the same relation as the various limbs of an organic unity - they were created for a single cooperative purpose. The notion of this will strike you more forcefully if you keep on saying to yourself: 'I am a limb of the composite body of rational beings.' If, though, by the change of one letter from I to r [melos to meros], you call yourself simply a part rather than a limb, you do not yet love your fellow men from your heart: doing good does not yet delight you as an end in itself; you are still doing it as a mere duty, not yet as a kindness to yourself. (Meditations 7.13)

While to many, the idea that a person is just a 'cog in the wheel' is offensive, it actually is an appropriate perspective.  Is a car truly a car when it is missing one or more wheels?  Don't take the analogy too literally.  The spirit of the exercise is to appreciate your position in the cosmos.

conclusion

I'll simply conclude this post with a thoughtful analogy Epictetus used as he tried to get his students to commit to real change in their lives.  It is from Discourses 3.21

Those who have taken in the principles raw and without any dressing immediately want to vomit them up again, just as people with weak stomachs bring up their food. Digest them first, and then you won’t vomit them up in this way. Otherwise they do indeed become nothing more than vomit, foul stuff that isn’t fit to eat. But after having digested them, show us some resulting change in your ruling center, just as athletes show in their shoulders the results of their exercises and diet, and those who have become expert craftsmen can show the results of what they have learned. A builder doesn’t come forward and say, ‘Listen to me as I deliver a discourse about the builder’s art,’ but he acquires a contract to build a house, and shows through actually building it that he has mastered the art. And you for your part should follow a similar course of action: eat as a proper human being, drink as a proper human being, dress, marry, father children, perform your public duties; put up with being abused, put up with an inconsiderate brother, put up with a father, a son, a neighbor, a fellow traveler. Show us these things to enable us to see that you really have learned something from the philosophers.

***

Notes on Stoic Ethics from Stoicism by John Sellars

The beginning, the foundation and basis for Stoic ethics is oikeiosis.  This is “the nature of living beings.”  Roughly translated into English, it means ‘orientation’ and ‘appropriation’ (see p. 107, Sellars).

The theory of oikeiosis is that animals, including human beings, first and foremost have a desire and impulse for self-preservation – they love to physically exist and wish to protect that desire.

With this innate impulse to survive and to continue existence, humans will ascribe good and bad values to things that will help them preserve their existence.  Platonism, alternatively, “posits the existence of an absolute, transcendent concept of ‘the Good’ to which all value ascriptions may be referred” (p. 108, Sellars).  It is on this basis that Platonism looks to in order to understand everything else.  The Stoics, on the other hand, will honestly and seriously consider “the primitive behavior of animals and human beings, and [they do] not try to pretend that selfish motivations are not at the heart of most people’s actions” (p. 108, Sellars).

As discussed in the previous chapter on physics, we learned pneuma has different levels of tension; and the levels of tension increase in complexity from cohesion up to having a soul.  The nature of humans is unique in that self-preservation not only exists for the physical body, but it also exists for our rational nature.  As Sellars states, “If I am to survive as a rational being and not merely as an animal then I must pursue those things that will help preserve my rationality as well as those things that will preserve my body” (p. 108).  And furthermore, humans will put a higher priority on their rational existence over their physical existence.  Therefore, if an individual’s freedom as a rational being is put at risk with the threat of physical death, then the rational choice may be to commit suicide rather than give up rational independence.  This was the choice Socrates, Cato the Younger and Seneca faced, and all chose suicide.

“Zeno divided things that exist into three groups:” (p. 110, Sellars)

1. good / virtue / arete / and things that participate in virtue
2. bad / vice / kakia / and things that participate in vice
3. indifferents / adiaphoron – things such as life, reputation, health, poverty or wealth, external objects

arete / virtue is the only good.  A broader translation would be “excellence” or “an excellent disposition of the soul … perfect rationality” (p. 110, Sellars).
 
Just as food is valuable because it ensures the viability of our physical body, virtue is valuable because it “contributes to our survival as rational beings” (p. 110, Sellars).

There are three reasons why virtue is the only good: (see p. 110-111, Sellars)

• First, as the basis of self-rational-preservation, exercising excellence in rationality preserves this unique trait in rational beings.
• Second, indifferents are a means to an end – either for good or for bad, therefore they are not inherently good.
• Third, externals cannot guarantee happiness in rational beings.  But virtue can.

Indifferents were divided into three categories: (see p. 111, Sellars)

1. preferred
2. non-preferred
3. indifferent

It is natural to prefer wealth, health and respect to the non-preferred indifferents of poverty, illness and ill repute.  In a sense, these things bring value to physical well-being of rational beings.  They can also bring an added measure of happiness in one’s life.

There are no varying degrees of vice.  If something is bad, it is all bad (see p. 112, Sellars).

The Cynics, Stoics and Aristotelians are on a rough spectrum when it comes to what brings happiness in a rational being’s life.  On the one end, the Cynics strictly adhered to the notion that virtue is the sole good and “they would reject any attempt to prioritize among the indifferents.”  One the other end, the Aristotelians “argued that such things [indifferents] are necessary along with virtue for a happy life.”  The Stoics do not go to either end of the spectrum, and say externals are not necessary for a happy life – that virtue alone is sufficient – but they do recognize that preferred indifferents add to the value of a physical life (see p. 112-113, Sellars).

Epictetus categorized the good, the bad and the indifferent into two categories: things that are “up to us” and things that are “not up to us” (p. 113, Sellars).

Epictetus said that spending time and effort choosing between preferred and non-preferred indifferents was not a good use of time and energy.  We would be much better off if we spent “all our attention on developing the only thing that is genuinely good, namely our virtue or excellence.”  Furthermore, he would contend that there is a slippery slope from “frustration to a violent emotion” for those people who would pursue preferred indifferents (see p. 114, Sellars).

The one thing that is good (virtue / arete / excellence) is also found completely within our control by means of “our faculty of ‘choice’ (prohairesis)” (p. 114, Sellars).  This means, we can always choose virtue and live virtuously, no matter the circumstance or what preferred or non-preferred indifferents we possess.

Zeno held emotions to be the product of judgments instead of thinking emotions are judgments (as Chrysippus contended).  Zeno’s reasoning is more reasonable due to the notion that people’s actual emotions of an event (say a death of a parent) will usually fade over time.  But, the person’s opinion of the death of their parent may be that the death was still a terrible thing, even years later.  Therefore, if we assume judgments are emotions, then it would stand to reason the emotion from an event, should be just as strong (years later) as at the time of the event.  But since this is usually not the case, we can conclude the judgement causes emotion instead of judgement being emotion.

The process leading to the formation of an emotion (p. 115-116, Sellars):

1. “receive impressions that present external objects to us” over which we have no control
2. “we make a judgment” and “sometimes we add an unconscious value judgement to our impressions”
3. “if we assent to impression that includes one of these unconscious value judgments then we shall create an emotional response”

First movements are “immediate physical responses” people will sometimes experience “before they have had a chance to form a judgement about what is happening” (p. 116, Sellars).

The difference between first movement and a genuine emotion is the gap in time and thinking of the presentation of the external event or object.  Seneca notes that genuine emotion is in the act of surrendering to these snap, unconscious judgments (see p. 116, Sellars).

The more often we practice proper reasoning, in order to avoid mistaken judgments and “assents to impressions that include unwarranted ascriptions of value” the better off we can control our emotions.  And since our rationality and ability to judge and assent are entirely within our control, our emotions can be entirely within our control (see p. 117, Sellars).

The three good emotions are: joy, caution and wishing (p. 118, Sellars).

Caution can be a good emotion as “rational avoidance” in counter to fear.  Caution is good (wise) as one takes measures “to prevent the loss of ones’ virtue” (p. 119, Sellars).

The three good emotions produce six good emotional states as follows:

• joy --> mirth and cheerfulness
• caution --> modesty and reverence
• wishing --> benevolence and friendliness

A rational being preserves oneself as a rational being “by cultivating virtue” (p. 120, Sellars).

The names of the two types of appropriate actions (kathekon) that one should pursue are middle or intermediate (meson kathekon) and perfect or completely correct (katorthoma) (see p. 120-121, Sellars).

According to Stoics, non-rational animals can pursue appropriate actions, but they cannot pursue completely correct actions (see p. 121, Sellars).

When two people perform appropriate actions throughout their life, in exactly the same way, but the first person does so “without much conscious thought or consideration” and the second person acts consciously and deliberately and has “come to a firm conclusion that these are the most appropriate actions to undertake” then the second, ‘conscious’ person is said to have taken “completely correct” action and their behavior would be preferable to the first person’s.  Furthermore, the second person would be able to explain exactly why they have taken appropriate action – they would be able to explain their art and craft of living and would be able to sustain their way of life in the future (see p. 121-122, Sellars).

Sellars writes, “Being virtuous is good because in some sense it is good for me to be virtuous” (p. 122).  Returning to the basis of Stoic ethics is the idea of self-preservation both physically and rationally.  Not only should rational beings not harm themselves physically or rationally, but they should do what must be done to promote well-being within themselves in both the physical and rational sense.  In other words, they would want to flourish physically and rationally.  Therefore, choosing a life based on arete and striving for that excellence in living is good for (beneficial for) the rational being.

“The Stoics, like the vast majority of ancient philosophers, are “eudaimonists.”  Eudaimonia has been translated to mean ‘happiness.’  “It refers to a substantive well-being in one’s life … [and] is sometimes translated as ‘well-being’ or ‘flourishing’” (p. 123, Sellars).  Ancient philosophers considered eudaimonia to be universally desired and therefore there was no reason to explicitly state that the end of all philosophy was to achieve eudaimonia.  They simply viewed it to be “the summum bonum, namely that ‘for the sake of which everything is done but which is not done for the sake of anything else’” (p. 123, Sellars).

Regarding the translation of arete to ‘virtue’ – it would be better to simply use the word arete as there is no precise translation and the meaning is much broader than ‘virtue’ alone.  Sellars defines it as “an excellent disposition of the soul” and sometimes the translation is shortened to ‘excellence.’  In sum, one should educate himself of the full definition and meaning of the word and use the word rather than simple English translations.

Eudaimonia (translated as happiness) is the end-all of philosophy.  It is not some external benefit (i.e. preferred indifferent) like health and wealth.  Since the Stoic can act with excellence of soul and thus possess eudaimonia, and this effort is entirely within the control of the rational being, happiness, therefore, is not an external benefit – it is the end.
 
The Stoics, beginning with Zeno, have stated that to achieve the summum bonum one must live in harmony or consistently with Nature.  There are three aspects to living according to Nature (see p. 125, Sellars).

1. “living harmoniously with oneself … living consistently and free from internal emotional conflict”
2. “living in accordance with one’s own nature … as a rational being” and actively pursuing this rather than “passively reacting to external forces”
3. “bringing oneself into harmony with Nature as a whole”

There are two aspects to human beings: the physical and the rational.  Sellars only discusses the rational.  But one could say that a human should live in harmony with their physical nature.  Choosing to live free from external physical conflict by doing what should be done to promote a healthy, sound physical body.  Sellars gets close to addressing this on page 128 when he writes, “Thus it is in harmony with Nature (my own nature) to choose those things that will contribute to my own self-preservation, things such as health and wealth …”  And he goes on to clarify that it is in the choosing that we remain in harmony with Nature, and that actually obtaining those things is beyond our control.

We become cosmopolitan when we widen our circle of self-preservation to those nearest to us and then extending that concern outward to neighbors, communities, cities, states, nations, then eventually the world and the universe.  This is known as “social oikeiosis” (p. 131, Sellars).

Albert Einstein shared a similar sentiment when he consoled a grieving father who lost his young son to polio.  Einstein wrote, “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” (source).