On 'We Need Jesus to Return'

Introduction

It is an annual tradition in our home to celebrate Halloween by watching It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (Melendez, 1966). In this cute story, Linus believes the Great Pumpkin will visit him on Halloween, if he only believes it will come. Linus manages to dupe Sally into his delusion and they both are ridiculed by Lucy and the others who go trick-or-treating. Of course the Great Pumpkin does not come and Sally catches on pretty quickly that she has missed out on all the candy. Linus passes out after he thinks he sees the Great Pumpkin, when in fact it was just Snoopy. Linus' responsible sister, not only got candy for him while she was trick-or-treating, but she also woke up in the middle of the night, retrieved him from the pumpkin patch, brought him safely home and tucked him into bed.

Human history is fraught with people predicting some event, only to be proven incorrect. While some predictions may have low stakes involved, others pull many people into their orbit and can be the catalyst for the start of a new religion or movement. Most of the time, people who believe in an imminent second coming of Christ are dismissed as fringe cultists, while the majority of Christians seem to believe it is inevitable, but perhaps only in the distant future.

In this essay, I'll briefly review and summarize the many failed Second Coming predictions during the last several hundred years, after which I'll discuss how Mormonism approached the subject and more specifically how I personally experienced this subject for the last 30 years. And in contrast to how I was taught about perceiving and discussing the Second Coming, I will review a few anecdotal experiences I've observed in the last few years, and the increase in the number of instances I've observed of close relatives invoking God in prayer to send his son again to earth. Then I will offer a few thoughts on why people would want Christ to come again, and how this desire seemingly abdicates personal responsibility, agency and can even be viewed as breaking the first great commandment (Matthew 22:37).

The Increasing Number of Failed Predictions

The history of the Second Coming of Jesus is marked by a substantial number of failed predictions spanning nearly two millennia. While it's impossible to give a precise, definitive total, the number of publicly documented, notable failed predictions, or periods of intense expectation, is well over a hundred—with some lists containing over 200 different claims.

These predictions have consistently failed because the predicted date or event passed without the physical, visible return of Christ as expected by the claimants. In response, followers often experience what is known as the Great Disappointment, or the claimants simply recalculate the date or reinterpret the prophecy.

The following is a timeline summary of some of the most prominent failed Second Coming and Millennial predictions, grouped by historical periods (Wikipedia Contributors, 2025).

In the early Church and Middle Ages, between the years 500 and 1492, there were many predictions of Christ's return, with most of those focused on significant numerical milestones, biblical numerology, or political events. For example, Hippolytus of Rome, Sextus Julius Africanus, and Irenaeus predicted Christ would return 6000 years after the world was created. This pegged the year at 500 CE. But Christ did not return that year.

The next significant year would be 1000, when various Christians, including Pope Sylvester II, figured Christ would return one millennium after his birth. When Christ did not return that year, they moved the date to 1033, based on the fact this would be 1000 years after his death.  But Christ did not return then either.

Next in this period are a few Christian mystics who predicted 1200–1260, 1290, and 1335 as years Christ would return. When these years passed without fanfare, they too moved the dates to later years, which also passed without event. During this same period, Pope Innocent III assumed Christ would return 666 years after the rise of Islam, in the year 1284, but there was no Second Coming that year either.

Lastly various Russian Orthodox Christians using the Byzantine calendar, believed 1492 to be the end of the seventh millennium since the creation of the world, which they took as a sign of the world's end and the Second Coming. This belief was so strong the Russian Orthodox Church temporarily stopped calculating the date of Easter beyond 1491. But the only significant event that year was Columbus sailing the ocean blue.

During the Reformation and Early Modern Era between the years 1500 and 1840, the history shows new predictions of the second coming were often tied to celestial events, religious and political upheaval, and increasingly specific numerical calculations. The astrologer Johannes Stöffler observed planetary alignment in Pisces (a water sign) as a sign of a great flood and the Millennium and predicted the coming of Christ on February 20, 1524. There was no flood and no visitation from Christ on that day. A German mathematician named Michael Stifel figured Judgement Day would be on October 19, 1533, but that date too passed without fanfare or judgement.

Then a number of people (William Aspinwall, Johann Jacob Zimmermann, John Mason, and Henry Archer) foresaw Christ's return in 1673, 1694 and 1700, based on their readings of the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. None of those years heralded Jesus' return. Lastly, Joanna Southcott made the remarkable claim she was carrying the Christ child and that he would be born on December 25, 1814. However, no babe from her womb was born that day and in fact, Southcott died on Christmas day of 1814. An autopsy would prove that she was never carrying a child.

From 1840 onward, the world has seen a significant uptick in increasingly complex, and repeatedly revised predictions of Christ's return. This era of failed prognostications could be divided into The Great Advent Movement and then the Modern Times period.

William Miller and the Millerites tried to wrest knowledge from the Bible and the Book of Daniel to establish the specific date of October 22, 1844. However, they experienced the "Great Disappointment" which led to a fracturing of the group, including the creation of the Seventh-day Adventists. A number of other less well-known diviners such as George Rapp, Joseph Morris, John Wroe, Charles Taze Russell, and a Piute Indian named Wovoka claimed Christ would visit Earth again in 1847, 1861, 1863, 1874 and 1890. One creative way in which Charles Taze Russell managed his failed prediction was to claim that Christ indeed returned, but was invisible.

Then there is the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith and his followers. In 1835, Smith prophesied to the twelve Mormon apostles that "the coming of the Lord, which was nigh - even fifty-six years should wind up the scene," which translates into the year 1891 (Smith, J., & The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2022). Eight years later, Smith received another revelation from in which he was told by God that if he lived to be eighty-five years old, Christ would appear again (Smith, J., & The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, n.d.). This would have put the date at 1890. Regardless the imprecision, both 1890 and 1891 passed with not even a hem of Jesus appearing on Earth.

Many followers of Smith received their Patriarchal blessings, including my own grandmother, in which it was stated they would live to see the second coming of Christ. My grandmother was born in 1917 and died in 2004.  Her blessing said, "thy life shall be prolonged and thou shalt be permitted to see Zion redeemed and of seeing and assisting in the building of the Temple in the Central Stake of Zion, where the Lord will come in His glory and thou shalt be permitted to assist in the great work under the personal supervision of the Savior and shall be satisfied with thy life's work."

In 1831, the Catholic Apostolic Church predicted Christ would return after the last of the 12 founding apostles of its church died. The last Apostle died in 1901, but Christ did not return that year. The Jehovah's Witnesses church believes Christ has invisibly returned in 1914. In the following year in 1915, John Chilembwe who was a Baptist educator, believed the 1000 year period of peace, known as the Millennium, would begin. This epoch of peace has largely been associated with the return of the Christ. Herbert Armstrong made several failed, revised and failed again predictions in the latter half of the 20th century. And a sect within the Seventh-day Adventist believed Christ would return in 1964. Benjamin Creme went with the precise date of Monday, June 21, 1982 as Christ's return. But when he did not return, Creme fell back on the excuse that the world was not ready for his return.

Then there was Edgar C. Whisenant, who was a former NASA engineer who published "88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988." When he was proven wrong, he tried again with another publication called "The Final Shout: Rapture Report 1989" which also proved inaccurate, so he tried one more time with predicting the return of Christ in 1993 with updated calculations but Christ did not return that year either.

The Nelson Megalomania

I could go on. There are at least 16 more instances of failed predictions documented between the years of 1994 and 2025. And this brings me to the reason why I'm writing this blog post. In 2024 and 2025, my wife and I began to notice subtle expressions, every so often, of a soft plea of prayer from friends and family for Christ's return. Every bit of perceived misfortune would be acknowledged with a sigh of "we need Jesus to return."

At first, we thought it was a bit odd and we didn't understand why these expressions were increasing. In our formative years, it seemed the Mormon church had learned its lesson of going out on a limb by predicting and talking frequently of Christ's return, only to be proven wrong with failed predictions. The prevailing doctrine (somewhat strictly enforced by leadership) was to declare no one except God the Father, knew when Christ would return. This doctrine and policy kept the fringe believers away from speculation, and prevented further splintering of the church. However, if there were going to be any signs of Christ's return, one generally accepted sign of Christ's imminent return would be two witnesses or perhaps apostles, being killed in Jerusalem, and their bodies would lay in the street for 3 1/2 days before being resurrected for entire world to witness. If I recall, this prophecy is based on Revelation 11. But alas, these days, there are no witnesses or apostles in Jerusalem in 2025.

So, why this change from not talking about Christ's return to infrequent sighs and moans calling for his return? My theory is that the recent president of the Mormon church, Russell Nelson began talking it up more during his tenure. It seems to have begun in October 2018, after Nelson emphasized the need to use Christ's name when referencing the church, as opposed to common designations, such as the Mormon church. In this sermon, he notes the Mormon church's purpose of preparing the world for the Second Coming of Christ. Also, he placed a lot of emphasis on the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's first vision, which would be celebrated in 2020. Of course, this anniversary, coupled with the global pandemic might have further spurred speculation of a Messianic return.

Recent history shows that in the 2012 church general conferences, the topic of the Second Coming was not referenced a single time. And between the years of 2013 and 2017, it was referenced no more than five times each year. And this trend was fairly average for all church general conferences between 1982 and 2017. But with the beginning of Nelson's October 2018 sermon, the topic of the Second Coming began to be referred to many times. In fact, the 5 year rolling average indicates that the topic of the Second Coming in the Mormon general conferences has been the highest in 50 years, aligned with the calling of Russell Nelson as president of the church (General Conference Analytics, 2025).

With Nelson's opening 'Second Coming' salvo, many other speakers began to follow suit and began talking 'Second Coming preparation.' One solid example is Renlund (2025) exhorting members to personally prepare to meet Jesus. He cites Nelson and scriptures in an effort to help people feel prepared for the return of Christ. Interestingly, in his sermon he advises members to be wary of "pretenders [who] would try to deceive the very elect and that many disciples would be duped. We should neither believe those who falsely claim divine sanction nor venture into metaphorical deserts or secret chambers to be taught by counterfeits" (2025). The irony of this admonition is rich coming from a leader of a church that is worth north of $200 billion (Semerad, 2025). It is no small fact that the church has tried to hide and even deceive its own members of the vast amount of wealth it possesses, despite Christ's explicit admonition that man (or church) cannot serve both God and Mammon (Matthew, 6:24).

You have the resources to deal with that which has been given you

As I mentioned before, anecdotally, my wife and I have noticed friends and family express a desire for Jesus' return. A review of messages from the last several months show examples such as, "I think it's time for the savior's return!" and "We just need the savior to come" and "only Jesus can save us now" and similar other requests and statements. As we thought about these 'prayers' we began discussing what they truly mean.  What is the best way to comprehend these statements? Are we to take them literally, or are they made in bad faith?

Most, if not all, of these statements were expressed in the context of life challenges, world events or other perceived difficulties. And, as I mentioned in the previous section, they were expressed in the context of church leaders choosing to focus on preparing for the return of Jesus. So, given all this context, it can be challenging to determine if this is "prophetic programming" or if indeed, these are personal expressions of what they are thinking and feeling. However, regardless of which is the best interpretation for how to interpret these expressions, I contend there is a higher, more rational path which might be more aligned with keeping the first great commandment, to use Christian vernacular.

Deconstructing this thought ('we need Jesus to return'), it seems to be synonymous with an abdication of responsibility. Exactly what is the problem for which we need a divine, super-power entity to come save us? This expression has been the verbal response to incurable cancer, political unrest, war, murders and assassinations. However, the world has, for centuries, experienced all these events and more and Christ did not return in response to those happenings. I would argue these recent events are minute compared to so many other atrocities humanity has previously endured. Indeed, we (humanity) have collectively confronted and addressed these issues before and we will continue confronting them and trying to resolve them. It is up to us; we have the ability to respond to each and all of these events - it is our responsibility.

Indeed, the universal gift God has granted each of us is the ability to "deal with that which has been given to [us]" (Epictetus, Discourses 1.29.39). What is up to us is the use of our rationality and choice in deciding which virtue we should exercise in response to an event, such as incurable cancer, political unrest, war, murders and assassinations. In fact, if one reads the entirety of Epictetus' Discourses, one will come away with the strong impression that Epictetus was dead set against complainers, gripers and anyone who would bemoan their lot in life (e.g. complain against God). Anyone who complained about his lot in life, was deemed to be malcontent by Epictetus. The righteous way; the pious way of living life, according to Epictetus, was to "die in a god-like way .. endure disease in a god-like way" (Discourse 2.8.28) and never find fault with God who has given him his lot and fate in life.

Consider this passage from Discourses 1.6.41-43.

[41]Possessing these faculties as you do, free and as your own, you fail to make use of them, however, and fail to perceive what it is that you have received, and from whom, [42] but sit there grieving and groaning, some of you blinded towards the giver and not even recognizing your benefactor, while others are led astray by their meanness of spirit into making reproaches and complaints against God. [43] And yet I can show you that you have the resources and equipment that are needed to be noble-minded and courageous, while it is for you to show me what occasion you have for complaint and reproach!

Or this rebuke about someone who thinks the will of God should be anything than what it is (Discourses 3.8.6).

‘But Zeus is not acting rightly in all of this.’—Why? Because he has given you the ability to endure things, and has made you noble-minded, because he has prevented these things from being evils, because he has made it possible for you to suffer them and still be happy, because he has left the door open for you, for when things are no longer good for you? Go out, man, and don’t complain.

In brief, God "has no need of a spectator who is always complaining about his lot" (Discourses 4.1.108).

I contend, whether someone proclaims to be a Christian or not, that to desire for Jesus or God to descend to earth in order to 'save us' breaks the first great commandment. We should be ashamed like little children who appeal to some authority to fix things for them. It is one thing for kids to act this way; it's entirely disgraceful for fully rational adults to abdicate responsibility for what is up to them.

Consequently, both the ancients and Jesus taught us how we are to approach trials, injustices and people who are vicious. We are to love what God has sent our way - we are to love our circumstances and those in our lives. And when it comes to loving who are in our lives (not the ones we naturally love, but the vicious), we are to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile (Matthew, 5:29, 41-42). When it comes to challenges and trails in life, we love them and God by demonstrating which virtues (courage, discipline, temperance or wisdom) are best suited for a given event. And when it comes to dealing with other people who choose or live poorly, we can do our part to teach and correct them. Epictetus (2015, fragment 5) provides an excellent example of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus.

Who among us doesn’t admire the saying of Lycurgus the Spartan? For when he had been blinded in one eye by one of his fellow citizens, and the young man was handed over to him by the people for him to exact whatever vengeance he might wish, he refrained from doing so, but gave him a proper education instead, made a good man of him, and presented him in the theatre; and when the Spartans showed surprise, he said, ‘When I received him from you, this man was offensive and violent, and I’m returning him to you as someone who is well behaved and public-spirited.

Conclusion

To conclude, human history is filled with predictions of Christ's Second Coming which ultimately proved false. It seems Mormonism learned its lesson to not emphasize the Second Coming as much, but in the recent years, church leaders have begun to underscore the importance of preparing for Christ's return, which has seemingly had the effect of causing some members to wish or pray for God to send His Son back to earth. However, I have argued this desire can sometimes function as an abdication of personal responsibility and agency—perhaps even contradicting the first great commandment to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37). Rather than acting helpless to the challenges of life and supplicating for Jesus to save us, we should recall we have God-given gifts to deal well with our lot and fate in life. In fact, what we have been given was given by God! These challenges and events are ours to deal with and therefore, to love them, is to love God. And as for those who God has placed in our life, we are to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile in an effort to demonstrate the virtues which are up to us.

References

Epictetus. (2014). Discourses, Fragments, Handbook (R. Hard, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

General Conference Analytics. (2025). General Conference Analytics. Github.io. https://cgood92.github.io/general-conference-stats/#/search-trends?speaker=&start=1971&end=2025&searchTerms=second+coming&searchTerms=

Nelson, R. M. (2018, October). The Correct Name of the Church. Www.churchofjesuschrist.org. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng

Melendez, B. (Director). (1966, October 27). It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.

Renlund, D. (2025, April). Personal Preparation to Meet the Savior. Churchofjesuschrist.org. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/25renlund?lang=eng

Semerad, T. (2025, April). Why the LDS Church soon may not need tithing anymore to cover its global programs. The Salt Lake Tribune. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/04/01/lds-church-wealth-day-soon-may/

Smith, J., & The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2022). History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838], Page 564. Josephsmithpapers.org. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/18

Smith, J., & The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (n.d.). Doctrine and Covenants 130. Www.churchofjesuschrist.org. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng

Wikipedia Contributors. (2025, October 22). Predictions and claims for the Second Coming. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming

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.

Stoic Optimism on Fate

I'm a mentor for students taking the Stoic Essentials Studies course at the College of Stoic Philosophers.  Because this question keeps coming up with nearly all my students, I decided to capture my thoughts on this topic.

At some point, whether at the beginning of the course or some time during it, a student will express some version of this concern regarding the Stoic view on fate: it's hard to believe that everything happens for a reason.

Every time a student shares this concern, I share what A. A. Long wrote on the subject along with my perspective.

Long, who has perhaps studied Stoicism longer than anyone alive today, makes this observation:

"If Nature's providence is all-embracing then any event which causes injury or suffering has to be interpreted as something which, if all the facts were known, would be recognized as beneficial by rational men. As Pope, following Shaftesbury, wrote: 'All discord, harmony not understood, all partial evil, universal good.' But all the facts cannot be known and therefore the supposed value of much that happens must be taken on trust. This optimistic attitude towards natural events, no matter how terrible they may seem, is one of the least palatable features of Stoicism. It is one thing to say that human vision is limited, unable to grasp the full cosmic perspective. But even at its noblest, in the writings of Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, there is something chilling and insensitive about the Stoic's faith that all will turn out well in the end. They were the only Greek philosophers who tried to find a rationale for everything within their concept of a perfect, all-embracing Nature" (170, emphasis added).

I don't have an answer for people who express this concern, as this aspect of Stoicism weighs on my mind too.  The way I choose to look at fate is this: it is what it is and the sooner I can accept events as they are, the sooner I can pivot to focus on how I choose to react and move forward.  Perhaps the Stoics belief in 'all will turn out well' is just a short cut to get to acceptance.

Work cited

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

Letters from a Stoic 96 - On Facing Hardships

On Facing Hardships

Complain - To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.

Have you ever deeply analyzed why you complain (assuming you do)?  Have you ever, just once, asked yourself why you complain?

For each of us, I would contend our soul presumed to exist, rather than not exist.  Once we came into existence, this fundamental question must be asked and answered fairly often: do I continue to exist or not?

Assuming the answer is to continue to exist, the next question becomes: should I exist well or not?  This is what philosophy attempts to answer - how to love and live wisely.

We may have set expectations, but those expectations should be challenged and interrogated.

Complaining is an indication that our expectations and reality may be misaligned.  It then becomes an exercise of determining if they can be aligned and how to go about doing so.  All of us need to wrestle with this.

From a Stoic perspective, complaining usually means we are not living in agreement with Nature.  Perhaps our desires and aversions have become too much.  In this vein, Seneca wishes to provide some toughening to Lucilius.

Seneca tries to get at the root of Lucilius' discontent.  The only real evil he is exhibiting is his complaining.

in all the evils to which you refer, there is really only one – the fact that you do chafe and complain ...  I think that for a man there is no misery unless there be something in the universe which he thinks miserable.

Seneca tries to live by the idea of "live in agreement with Nature."

when everything seems to go hard and uphill, I have trained myself not merely to obey God, but to agree with His decisions. I follow Him because my soul wills it, and not because I must.

In this, we can see the sentiment which was first expressed by Zeno in the analogy of a dog being pulled by a cart.

They too [Zeno and Chrysippus] affirmed that everything is fated, with  the following model. When a dog is tied to a cart, if it wants to follow it is pulled and follows, making its spontaneous act coincide with necessity, but if it does not want to follow it will be compelled in any case. So it is with men too: even if they do not want to, they will be compelled in any case to follow what is destined (LS 62A).

The thing 'up to us' is our attitude.  Fate or Nature will drag us along regardless.  But what is 'up to us' is our choice and perspective of the reality of the situation.  Complaining may help drive out, to some extent, whether you can influence some circumstance or not, but to be perpetually complaining would be tantamount to acting like a dog being dragged unwillingly along with the cart.

If you choose to exist, there will be things which you must admit in your life.  With existence, comes poor health.  Seneca calls this a tax.  You could either complain about the tax and still have to pay or, or you can simply pay it and get on with life.  He writes,

It was disease of the bladder that made you apprehensive; downcast letters came from you; you were continually getting worse; I will touch the truth more closely, and say that you feared for your life. But come, did you not know, when you prayed for long life, that this was what you were praying for?

We are not genies in a bottle and get everything we wish for in life.  That would be denying reality as it is.

"I wished to live, and at the same time to be immune from all ills."

Life is a battle.  We are to be tried and tested - to use what is 'up to us' and to demonstrate that unique gift which we have: agency to determine our attitude and excellence of soul (or not).

Reference:

Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (January 01, 1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers.

Letters from a Stoic 67 - On Ill-Health and Endurance of Suffering

On Ill-Health and Endurance of Suffering

Premise: the good is desirable

Premise: to be courageous under torture is good

Therefore: we should desire torture

More or less, that is the claim Lucilius seems to be making, to which Seneca replies:

there is something in them that is to be desired. I should prefer to be free from torture; but if the time comes when it must be endured, I shall desire that I may conduct myself therein with bravery, honour, and courage. Of course I prefer that war should not occur; but if war does occur, I shall desire that I may nobly endure the wounds, the starvation, and all that the exigency of war brings. Nor am I so mad as to crave illness; but if I must suffer illness, I shall desire that I may do nothing which shows lack of restraint, and nothing that is unmanly. The conclusion is, not that hardships are desirable, but that virtue is desirable, which enables us patiently to endure hardships.

The concept of "preferred indifferents" emerges strongly in this passage.  The Stoic knows that Fortune or Fate will make us prosperous or poor; it may ravage our body with sickness or grant us long-lasting health and life; it may cause war and famine to sweep over our country or it may grant us peace.  Regardless of these circumstances, we, rational beings, will choose how we react to each event - this is 'up to us' - we choose (or not) to exercise moral virtue.  But, back to the point that Lucilius raises and Seneca addresses.  Ought a Stoic to desire torture?  Seneca would respond: 'no, but she ought to desire to demonstrate excellence of soul if her fate placed torture in her path.'  In this example, 'torture' would be a "non-preferred indifferent."

Sellars quotes Cicero:

All other things, he [Zeno] said, were neither good nor bad, but nevertheless some of them were in accordance with Nature and others contrary to Nature; also among these he counted another interposed or intermediate class of things. He taught that things in accordance with Nature were to be chosen and estimated as having a certain value, and their opposites the opposite, while things that were neither he left in the intermediate class. Th ese he declared to possess no motive force whatever, but among things to be chosen some were to be deemed of more value and others of less: the more valuable he termed “preferred”, the less valuable, “rejected” [i.e. “non-preferred”]. (Acad. 1.36–7) (see Sellars, Stoicism, p. 111).

While a Stoic may voluntarily endure hardships to toughen herself, she does not seek them out per se.  She would prefer life over death; health over illness; peace over war.  But regardless of what Fate sends her way, she will act with virtue in every case.

Many in the ancient world clearly knew that all of us will reap the same, ultimate fate: death.  Therefore, what many sought and preferred, was to die for a cause (as opposed for no cause, or needlessly).  A stark example today would be: would you prefer to die of a heart attack while eating ice cream and cake or would you prefer to die by throwing yourself on a grenade to save your platoon?  One death demonstrates a preference for vice while another demonstrates courage and love of brother.

Do you doubt, then, whether it is best to die glorious and performing some deed of valour? When one endures torture bravely, one is using all the virtues. Endurance may perhaps be the only virtue that is on view and most manifest; but bravery is there too, and endurance and resignation and long-suffering are its branches.

In many cases, Fate throws surprises at us and in a single reaction, we demonstrate an amazing act of virtue - such as taking a bullet for a brother.  Other acts of Fate are slow and the Stoic who demonstrates a deep understanding of cause and effect, knows what awaits him and still makes the rational choice to demonstrate excellence.

There, too, is foresight; for without foresight no plan can be undertaken; it is foresight that advises one to bear as bravely as possible the things one cannot avoid.

Seneca's words from ancient Rome echo still today.  What we witness on social media, in public and on television is an unending stream of examples of people seeking pleasure at all costs and avoiding virtue.  A wise person will pause and reflect on the perspectives of aimless people as well as how a excellent human being appears.

withdraw for a little space from the opinions of the common man. Form a proper conception of the image of virtue, a thing of exceeding beauty and grandeur; this image is not to be worshipped by us with incense or garlands, but with sweat and blood.

Seneca concludes with a couple of examples and admonishes us to amor fati.

I think of our friend Demetrius, who calls an easy existence, untroubled by the attacks of Fortune, a "Dead Sea."  If you have nothing to stir you up and rouse you to action, nothing which will test your resolution by its threats and hostilities; if you recline in unshaken comfort, it is not tranquillity; it is merely a flat calm.

The Stoic Attalus was wont to say: "I should prefer that Fortune keep me in her camp rather than in the lap of luxury. If I am tortured, but bear it bravely, all is well; if I die, but die bravely, it is also well."

Letters from a Stoic 61 - On Meeting Death Cheerfully

On Meeting Death Cheerfully

While a brief letter, it is packed with wisdom!  I'll take the entire letter in chunks and share a bit of my thoughts on each part.

Let us cease to desire that which we have been desiring. I, at least, am doing this: in my old age I have ceased to desire what I desired when a boy. To this single end my days and my nights are passed; this is my task, this the object of my thoughts, – to put an end to my chronic ills.

With age comes wisdom.  As children, we focused largely on pursuing and getting various Stoic indifferents.  Some of us, myself included, continue the struggle of this pursuit well into our adult years.  We want to be famous, to wear nice clothes, to be popular, to have a great body, to drive a nice car, land a great job or career, make lots of money, buy better cars, a nice home, the latest technology or tools, to dine at the best restaurants.  The list of desires is endless.

But with the pursuit of wisdom, your eyes open a bit more and the more you think about it, the more you realize how short life is and how much time is wasted on stuff that doesn't matter.

It seems that, even in his old age, Seneca realizes there are still "chronic ills" he has to end.

I am endeavouring to live every day as if it were a complete life. I do not indeed snatch it up as if it were my last; I do regard it, however, as if it might even be my last.  The present letter is written to you with this in mind, – as if death were about to call me away in the very act of writing. I am ready to depart, and I shall enjoy life just because I am not over-anxious as to the future date of my departure.

In his late years, his practice of memento mori is even sharper and pronounced.  Indeed, any day could be his last.  I recall the many friends and acquaintances who have died suddenly.  From the man who hired me (who died from a heart attack after parking in his driveway; who was going to retire in a few days), to my son's soccer coach (who died of a stroke at around the age of 40, who was the epitome of fitness), I have witnessed death come unannounced and unexpected.  If such can be the fate of those near me, it can be mine too.

Therefore, we must suck the marrow out of each day.  We must not forget the fragility of life and instead, place emphasis on what matters most.  And we must be ready to depart at a moment's notice.  This is what makes philosophy all the more urgent and why so many suffer terribly.  But if we can get to the point of welcoming death and are ready, then we may be in a good spot.

Before I became old I tried to live well; now that I am old, I shall try to die well; but dying well means dying gladly. See to it that you never do anything unwillingly.  That which is bound to be a necessity if you rebel, is not a necessity if you desire it. This is what I mean: he who takes his orders gladly, escapes the bitterest part of slavery, – doing what one does not want to do. The man who does something under orders is not unhappy; he is unhappy who does something against his will. Let us therefore so set our minds in order that we may desire whatever is demanded of us by circumstances, and above all that we may reflect upon our end without sadness

Some people will remember the dog and the cart analogy.  The dog is tied to the cart and there is nothing the dog can do about getting the rope cut.  What is left to him is to decide whether to be dragged behind the cart or to go along willingly.  If you can *want* to do what fate demands, then you will be like the dog who willingly walks along with the cart.

This concept is the essence of amor fati.  When the Stoics say 'live according to Nature' in one sense it means accepting one's fate and that the Stoic accepts and even loves the events of the Universe.  A.A. Long makes an interesting point about this concept.

If Nature's providence is all-embracing then any event which causes injury or suffering has to be interpreted as something which, if all the facts were known, would be recognized as beneficial by rational men. As Pope, following Shaftesbury, wrote: 'All discord, harmony not understood, all partial evil, universal good.' But all the facts cannot be known and therefore the supposed value of much that happens must be taken on trust. This optimistic attitude towards natural events, no matter how terrible they may seem, is one of the least palatable features of Stoicism. It is one thing to say that human vision is limited, unable to grasp the full cosmic perspective. But even at its noblest, in the writings of Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, there is something chilling and insensitive about the Stoic's faith that all will turn out well in the end. They were the only Greek philosophers who tried to find a rationale for everything within their concept of a perfect, all-embracing Nature. (Hellenistic Philosophy, p. 170).

Long aptly notes that the concept of amor fati requires "trust" and "faith."  When I first read this passage, I had this sinking feeling that I was turning to religion again!  I have had too much experience in life to quickly believe anyone who says "trust me."  Yet, that is kind of what the Stoics are saying with this concept of amor fati.  Long calls it "chilling and insensitive" and I cannot disagree.  My response to all this is: this is a brutal truth.  In other words, we are dogs tied to a cart and there is not a damn thing we can do about certain things (death, causes and effects, etc.).  But what is 'up to us' is our attitude and reaction to these things.  And in this space, we can either take a bitter, harsh attitude about events or we can make the pivot and attempt to make the best out of a given situation and take a positive attitude about circumstances.  And if my purpose is to demonstrate an excellent character at all times, then, when I think 'excellence,' I think positive, not negative.

We must make ready for death before we make ready for life. Life is well enough furnished, but we are too greedy with regard to its furnishings; something always seems to us lacking, and will always seem lacking. To have lived long enough depends neither upon our years nor upon our days, but upon our minds. I have lived, my dear friend Lucilius, long enough. I have had my fill; I await death. Farewell.

Whether you call it "lowering your expectations" or "looking for the silver lining" the idea is the same.  When we recognize a minimum appreciation, it makes everything else savory.  If you think on death often and become comfortable with the idea, then every added day of life is all the much more appreciated.  This is the purpose of the movie "A Wonderful Life" as George Bailey gets to see what life is like without him in it!  And when he realizes this, even though his circumstances remain unchanged, his attitude did not.  He made the pivot from the negative to the positive.

Several years ago, when I was a huge NBA fan and avidly followed the Dallas Mavericks, I often found myself upset when they lost.  But upon reflection, I came to realize that the best part of the game was in the middle of it while I was enjoying the tension and suspense.  I just needed to figure out how to not be disappointed by something out of my control.  I discovered this little mind trick: if it was a close game and it was uncertain if 'my team' was going to win or not, I would pause and reflect about how entertaining the game has been up to that point.  And I would tell myself: "I am satisfied; the entertainment has been good."  Then regardless if my team won or lost, I found an appreciation for the time I invested in it.  I think this is similar to what Seneca is attempting to point out when he says, "I have lived ... long enough.  I have had my fill."

Epictetus Discourses 4.4 - To those who have set their hearts on living at peace

To those who have set their hearts upon living in peace

You are travelling during the summer, on vacation.  After a long day of travel, you arrive at the hotel, check-in and then take your luggage to the room.  Immediately you love the room.  It's clean and cool; the beds are made and the window shows a great view to the beach.  Your thoughts and desires drift towards, "wow, wouldn't it be nice to wake up in this room, to this view every day!"  But then another thought wrings you back into reality; "Well, we will only be here a week, so I'll enjoy it while I can, and we check-out at the end of the week, I'll do so with gratitude and good memories in my heart."

It is this attitude of not wanting to hold on - this reserve clause of acceptance - that we need to embrace with regard to everything that is outside the sphere of our control.  And not only can this be applied to things that we desire, but it can and ought to be applied to things we may want to avoid.  And in this way, we can keep a constant, steady attitude in life.

"Remember that it is not only desire for office and wealth that debases men and makes them subservient to others, but also desire for quiet, and leisure, and travel, and learning ... what difference does it make, then, whether you set your desire on becoming a senator, or on not becoming one?" (v. 1-2, p. 239)  "Someone else is afraid that he won't gain office, while you're afraid that you will.  In no way should you be afraid, man!" (v. 19, p. 241)

"Nothing characterizes happiness better than the fact that it isn't subject to interruption or obstruction." (v. 6, p. 239)

No matter what happens, you should be steady; and even content with events.  "If this is what God pleases, so be it!" (v. 21, p. 241).  Your task is to "be happy, and be free from hindrance and obstruction." (v. 22, p. 241)

And, "if you attach value to anything at all that lies outside the sphere of choice, you've destroyed your choice.  Not only is [the appointment to] office outside that sphere, but also freedom from office; and not only want of leisure, but also leisure itself." (v. 23, p. 242)

If you are thrust into the commotion of every day life, it is in your power to change your attitude about the situation.  You can "think of it as a festival" if you wish, but "don't be irritable, don't be oversensitive about what comes to pass." (v. 24-25, p. 242).

Or, "if things turn out in such a way that you find yourself living alone, or with few companions, call that peace and quiet, and make use of those circumstances as you ought; converse with yourself, work on your impressions, perfect your preconceptions.  But if you get caught in a crowd, call it the games, call it a public gathering, call it a festival and join in the festival with everyone else." (v. 26, p. 242)

What is in your power?  The "ability to deal with impressions." (v. 28, p. 242)

"Haven't you heard it repeatedly stated that you must completely eradicate desire, and direct your aversion solely towards things that lie within the sphere of choice, and that you must give up everything, your body, possessions, reputation, and books or commotion, and office or freedom from office?  For if you turn aside from this course, you've become a slave, you're subject to others, you're liable to hindrance and constraint, you're entirely in the power of others.  No, you should keep the saying of Cleanthes at hand, 'Guide me, O Zeus, and thou, O Destiny'.  Is it your wish that I should go to Rome?  To Rome I go.  To Gyara?  Then to Gyara.  To Athens?  Then to Athens.  Into prison?  Then into prison." (v. 33, p. 243)

But who is Zeus, God and Destiny?  What if there is some person who claims they know the will of Zeus or God and they are telling me what to do?  Should I do so without thought?  I've made a note in my book on page 243.  "I'm ok with this if the 'divinity within me' is the part of the God who is directing the Universe and Destiny.  I don't want another man speaking for God, to me."  And to be clear, I believe there is a part of God that resides in me - the divinity within.  Marcus Aurelius references this several times in Meditations Book 2.13, 2.17, 3.4, 3.7, 3.15-16, 5.10, 12.1.  Practically speaking, this is hard work - trying to understand what God wants you specifically to do in this world.  Some might call it a personal calling.  Some might say that we were fated to do something.  Being true to this is what I think of as 'the divinity within.'  It is 'the god particle' if you have read God's Debris.

"There is one path alone that leads to happiness - and keep this thought at hand morning, noon and night - it is to renounce any claim to anything that lies outside the sphere of choice, to regard nothing as being your own, to surrender everything to deity, to fortune, to consign the administration of everything to those whom Zeus himself has appointed to carry out that task, and to devote yourself to one thing alone, that which is your own, that which is free from all hindrance." (v. 39, p. 244)

Live your life - go about what you think you should be doing.  But don't set your heart on things that are outside your control.  Go to school, get a job, marry, raise a family, go to work and contribute to society, but don't ever lose sight of the fact that all that you gain (health, wealth, fame, etc) can be lost and that if you lose it, you should view it as leaving a hotel room with a nice view.  Furthermore, events will conspire to "call you" to do something.  You may be called to lead an effort, or project at work or for the government or for your family.  You can choose to refuse, but you must look inside your heart - to the divinity within - to see what God has to say about it.  At some point, we have to act and not act.  We can't simply just drift in life aimlessly - or have others tell us what to do or not do.  So act!  Understand what the divinity within you says, find your unique calling and don't hold onto desires so harshly and don't avoid pain and discomfort at all costs.

The happy and industrious person "refers all his efforts to his own ruling centre, as he strives to bring it into accord with nature and to keep it so." (v. 43, p. 244)

Epictetus Discourses 3.5 - To those who leave because of illness

To those who leave school because of illness

One of Epictetus' students is ill and wants to go home; Epictetus teaches him an important lesson: "if your ruling centre can't be kept in accord with nature, your little piece of land at least could be.  You'll add to your small store of cash, look after your father in his old age, hang around in the marketplace, hold public office; and being of bad character, you'll do everything else badly" (v. 3, p. 153).  His point being, if the student (us) cannot first control our ruling center, then we won't do anything else, no matter what we focus on, well.

While some want to die in the act of enjoying something they love (i.e. racing, travelling, etc), Epictetus wants to die in the act of improving his character.





He wants to be:
unperturbed
unhindered
unconstrained
free

If he falls ill, he will do so without complaining.

He will always have a smile on his face; ready to accept any fate assigned to him; being full of gratitude; willing to see and appreciate all of God's works and accept God's "governing order" (see v. 9-10, p. 154).

Socrates said, "As one person rejoices in improving his land, and another his horse, so I rejoice day by day in observing that I myself am becoming better" ... never finding "fault with anyone, whether god or human being, and never [reproaching] anyone, and always [having] the same expression on [my] face (v. 14-16, p. 154).

"Who of you sets this as his purpose, then?  Because if you did, you'd willingly undergo illness, hunger, and death" (v. 18, p. 154).

Epictetus Discourses 2.16 - That we fail to practice the application of our judgements about things that are good and bad

That we do not practise the application of our judgements about things good and evil

I'm simply going to quote some moneyball quotes from this chapter, with a smidgen of commentary.

"Where does the good lie?  'In choice.'  Where does the bad lie? 'In choice.' And that which is neither good nor bad? 'In things that lie outside the sphere of choice.' (v. 1, p. 105)

"a lyre-player ... knows how to play his instrument, and sings well and has fine robes to wear, but trembles nonetheless when he has to come on stage.  Yes, he knows all of that, but he doesn't know what a crowd is, or understand the nature of its shouts and jeers.  He doesn't know, indeed, what this anxiety itself is, and whether we ourselves are responsible for it or other people are, and whether or not it lies in our power to put a stop to it.  And so he leaves the stage puffed up with pride if he receives applause, but his conceit is soon pricked and deflated if he meets with jeers" (v. 9-10, p. 106).

"Has God given you nothing to help you in this predicament?  Hasn't he given you endurance?  Hasn't he given you greatness of soul?  Hasn't he given you courage?  And yet, being equipped with the hands that you have, do you still look for someone else to wipe your nose?" (v. 13-4, p. 106)

"What is it, then, that weighs down on us and makes us lose our minds?  What else than our judgements?" (v. 24, p. 107)

"What are [true judgements]?  Those that a person should reflect upon all day long, so that, feeling no attachment to anything that is not his own, whether comrade, or place, or gymnasium, or indeed his own body, he may keep the law constantly in mind and have it forever before his eyes.  What law?  That of God; to preserve what is his own, and not lay claim to what is not his own, but to make use of what is granted to him, and not long for what is not granted; if anything is taken away from him, to surrender it willingly, and be grateful for the time in which he has enjoyed the use of it" (v. 26-28, p. 108).

"Can you see anything better or greater than the sun, the moon, the stars, the entire earth, the sea?  And if you understand the one who governs the universe, and carry him around within you, why should you still yearn for some pieces of stone and a petty rock?" (v. 32-33, p. 108).

"If he is free to leave the banquet whenever he pleases and abandon the game, will such a man lament while he remains?  Won't he stay as one does in a game, only as long as it continues to amuse him?  Such a man could surely face up to permanent exile, or to death, if he were to be condemned to that" (v. 37-38, p. 109)

"As the expression goes, be ready to lose your head, man, for the sake of happiness, for the sake of freedom, for the sake of greatness of soul." (v. 41, p. 109)

Another translation has a sharper point to it ... "Listen, as the saying goes, it's crisis time: make a last desperate effort to gain freedom and tranquility - to be Stoic."

"Raise up your head at last as one who has been freed from slavery; dare to raise up your eyes towards God and say to him, 'Use me just as you will from this time onward; I'm of one mind with you; I'm yours.  I refuse nothing that seems good to you.  Lead me where you will, wrap me in whatever clothes you wish.  Is it your wish that I should hold office, or remain a private citizen, that I should stay here, or goo into exile, that I should be poor, or rich?  I'll defend you before my fellow men in every case; I'll show what the true nature of each thing is.'" (v. 41-43, p. 109)

The above passage reminds me of a similar attitude which Marcus Aurelius expressed: "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." (Meditations 4.23)

"If Heracles had sat around at home with his family, what would he have been? ... It was accordingy in obedience to [God] that he traveled around the world purging it of injustice and lawlessness" (v. 44, p. 109).

"Cast fear and distress from your mind, along with desire, envy, malice, avarice, effeminacy, and intemperance.  These you cannot cast out in any other way than by lifting  up your eyes to God alone, and devoting yourself to him alone, and faithfully carrying out his commands" (v. 46, p. 110).

This last quote reminds me of another quote I recently read: "If you will not have rules, you will have rulers" (link to tweet)

Epictetus Discourses 2.14 - To Naso

To Naso

I had a manager a few years ago, who loved to use the "sausage machine" analogy.  We assembled several reports and stewarded several groups.  Our reports were intended to be used by upper management.  My manager would always talk about the goal of the end product - a nicely assembled, easy to read and informative report.  All the work that went into it, was boring, tedious and time-heavy.  All that work was the bloody sausage machine while the end product was the cooked sausage.

Epictetus, similarly, teaches that the practice of any skill is boring to the uninitiated.  Similarly, learning and discussing philosophy and "good" and "bad" things can be tedious and boring.  But the end product is amazing.

He defines the goal of the philosopher as one who "should adapt his own will to what comes about so that nothing happens against [his] will, and so that nothing fails to happen when [he] wants it to happen" (v. 7, p. 101).  In other words, the goal of a philosopher is to exactly align his or her own desires and aversions with the desires and aversions of the universe/god(s).  And furthermore, to "resemble them as far as possible.  If [the gods are] trustworthy, he too must be trustworthy; if free, he too must be free; if beneficent, he too must be beneficent; if magnanimous, he too must be magnanimous.  And so thenceforth, in all that he says and does, he must act in imitation of God" (v. 12-13, p. 101)

He compares this life to a "festival" and as it sounds, it would more aptly be described as a state fair in today's vernacular.  At the festival, the express purpose is to buy and sell cattle.  But there are so many other things going on too.  If you observe the cattle, all they care about is the food.  You could say the same about many people who attend the festival.  Then there are those who "are capable of reflection" and want to figure things out - what is going on, how is it organized, and managed.  Thus they spend their spare time learning as much about the festival before it ends.  Whereas the cattle and some people would simply laugh at the reflective people.

Life, therefore, is full of people who care only about food, pleasures, wealth, status, etc..  Whereas, there are some who are more interested in how life is organized, ruled and administered - what is the purpose of life.  These are the philosophers who simply want to align their will with the organization of the world/universe/'the rule and organizer'.

As said many times before, Nietzsche succinctly summarizes the goal as: amor fati.

Epictetus Discourses 2.6 - About indifference

Of indifference in things

Discourses 2.6 feels like a continuation of 2.5, in that he continues to talk about things that should be indifferent to us.

"Life is indifferent, but the use that one makes of it is not" (v. 1, p. 81).

If you recall from 2.5, Epictetus distinguishes between the platform and equipment from what we do on the platform and with the equipment.  One of the best examples I can think of that demonstrates this concept is found in Ender's Game.  If you're not familiar with the book or movie, I'm sure you can find a good summary of them on Wikipedia or YouTube.  Ender Wiggins is sent to battle school.  In the school, the students practice war games.  Virtually everything is done to make it un-fair for Ender.  But he consistently controls the one thing he can: his attitude.  The platform (the battle school, as well as the practice battle ground) are indifferent to him.  By use of creativity and team work, he is able to use the seemingly un-fair disadvantages thrown at him, to his advantage.  Also, while in battle school, Ender is given a computer tablet with games on it.  Again, the tablet represents a platform that is out of his control.  Through his reasoning and creativity, he is able to learn amazing things about himself via this tablet.

So too, life is a platform.  The events in it, from traffic, accidents, illness, weather events and what other people say or do, are all things out of our control.  How we interact and use the platform to demonstrate our attitude and virtues, is what matters (virtue is the sole good).

"Always remember what is your own and what is not, and you'll never be troubled" says Epictetus (v. 8, p. 81).

We ought to work to get to the point (mentally speaking) where what happens in the universe is exactly what we wish for.  "If I, in fact, knew that illness had been decreed for me at this moment by destiny, I would welcome even that" (v. 10, p. 82).  What an amazing attitude!  Many of us wring our hands and moan about things that happen, which we interpret to be bad.  But what if the universe wanted those things to happen, in order to bring about something greater?  That is an attitude we could embrace if we so chose.  If the event is going to happen either randomly or with intent by the universe, it still is going to happen.  What's left is our choice of attitude about the event.  If we so choose to view it as fated, intended by the Universe or God, then it may change our perspective and attitude.  Alternatively, we could choose an attitude of "this sucks!  The universe is always out to get me; why try?"  But that does not seem so very productive to me, rather, "we suffer our lot with tears and groans" (v. 16, p. 82).

"Can anyone compel you to think anything other than what you want to think?" (v. 21, p. 83).  Really take the time to think about that question and decide your answer and what that means.

"Just remember the distinction that must be drawn between what is yours and what is not yours.  Never lay claim to anything that is not your own.  An orator's platform and a prison are two different places, one high and the other low; but your choice can be kept the same in either place, if you want to keep it so" (v. 24-25, p. 83).

Epictetus Discourses 2.5 - How greatness of mind may coexist with carefulness

How are magnanimity and carefulness compatible?

Epictetus instructs us that there are things in our control and things out of our control.  The things out of our control are called externals.  These are materials for our use of our reason; they are the platform to demonstrate our virtues and attitude.  Therefore, he states, "materials are indifferent, but the use that one makes of them is by no means indifferent" (v. 1, p. 78)

How are we to interact with externals.  He gives multiple examples of how life is like something and how there are things that are in our control and things out of our control.  He was Forest Gump's mama before there was a Forest Gump!

Life is like a card game or dice ...
The dice and cards fall where they may - they are out of our control.

What is in our control is our reaction to them: "to be attentive and skillful in making use of whatever does fall, that is now my task" (v. 3, p. 78).

Life is like an ocean voyage ...
You can choose the captain, the boat and the day you set sail and even the best time to sail.  "Then a storm descends on us.  Now why should that be of any concern to me?  For my role has been completed.  This is now somebody else's business, that of the helmsman.  But now the ship begins to sink.  So what can I do?  What I can and that alone, namely, to drown without fear, without crying out, without hurling accusations against God, as one who well knows that what is born is also fated to perish.  For I am not everlasting, but a human being, a part of the whole as an hour is part of the day.  Like an hour I must come, and like an hour pass away.  So what difference does it make to me how I pass away, whether it be by drowning or a fever?  For in some way or other, pass away I must" (v. 11-14, p. 79).

Life is like a ball game ...
Ballplayers do not value the ball, but rather focus on the skills needed to excel at the sport.  "If we're anxious or nervous when we make the catch or throw, what will become of the game, and how can one maintain one's composure; how can one see what is coming next?" (v. 17, p. 79)

We don't get to choose the ball, but we do get to choose whether to play the game or not, so too in life, we don't get to choose if we are imprisoned, exiled or executed.  We don't get to choose if our wife dies and our children become orphans.  We may play with one "ball" for twenty years and then the judge takes it away and gives us another.  The excellent athlete keeps his concentration and coolness and keeps playing, despite the change in equipment.  He uses the ball, but he does not grow attached to it - the ball is just a means for demonstrating skill.

Life is like weaving...
The weaver does not make the wool; rather she makes the "best use of whatever wool she's given.  God gives you food and property, and can take them back - your whole body too.  Work with the material you are given."

You are like a foot ...
The foot can only be useful in the context of the full body.  So too, the human can only be useful and understood in the context of community and the whole universe.

It is according to nature for the foot to be cleaned, to tromp through dirt and mud to step on needles.  It is also according to nature for the foot to be amputated, if the need arises.  You want your foot to be there to do those things.  You want your foot amputated if it puts the rest of the body at risk.  You do not want a foot that says, "I cannot walk today, I'd rather soak in a tub" - especially when you need it to run the race!

Similarly, if you view yourself as part of the whole, then "it may be in the interest of the whole that you should now fall ill, now embark on a voyage and be exposed to danger, now suffer poverty, and perhaps even die before your time.  Why do you resent this then?" (v. 26, p. 80).  Humans are part of a community of gods and men - in a community - it a city - in a state - in a nation - in a world - in the universe.

In sum
"For it is impossible, while we are in a body such as ours, and in this universe that contains us, and among such companions as we have, that such things should not happen to us, some to one person and some to another.  It is thus your role to step forward and say what you ought, and to deal with these things as they turn out.  If the judge then proclaims, 'I judge you to be guilty,' you may reply, 'I wish you well.  I have fulfilled my role, it is for you to see whether you have fulfilled yours.'  For he too runs some risk: don't forget that." (v. 27-29, p. 81)

Epictetus Discourses 2.1 - That confidence does not conflict with caution

That confidence does not conflict with caution

I tried reading this chapter a few times; I'm not entirely sure I've understood it perfectly, but I'll do my best to explain how I read it.

It begins with a paradox: "we ought to combine caution with confidence in all that we do" (v. 1, p. 70).

He later explains that it is not paradoxical when explained like this: "Where things that lie outside the sphere of choice are concerned, there you should act with confidence, but when it comes to things within the sphere of choice, there you should act with caution" (v. 5, p. 70).

How I understand this: If you have a clear understanding of what is not in your control, then you should be able to behave confidently.  For example, death is out of our control.  Therefore, we do not need to let our fears control us with regard to death - in other words, we can be confident we are going to die and there is nothing we can do about it; the matter is settled.

And, with regard to things in our control (our use of impressions; our attitude; our desires), then we ought to exercise caution and be sure we are judging impressions correctly; that we recognize our attitude ought to be adjusted by ourselves and not swayed by things outside our control.

With this understanding, we can now review Epictetus' statements throughout the rest of the chapter.

In verses 10 to 12, he explains that we all ought to know that death, banishment, pain or ignominy are things outside our control - they could happen to any one of us and our efforts to ward them off will be futile.  In this, we ought to be confident!  But, as so many people do, we allow sure knowledge to turn into "rashness, recklessness, foolhardiness, impudence" and we allow fear to creep in our lives.

Later, he says, "it isn't death or pain that is frightening, but the fear that we feel in the face of death or pain.  It is towards death, then, that our confidence should be directed, and towards the fear of death our caution" (v. 14, p. 71).

Socrates called such things as fear of death, "bogeys" which are similar to masks that frighten children.  Children are afraid of such masks because they lack experience and knowledge.

Continuing on the subject of death, "What is death?  A bogey.  Turn it around and you'll find out; look, it doesn't bite!  Sooner or later, your poor body must be separated from its scrap of vital spirit, just as it was formerly.  Why be upset, then if it should come about now?" (v. 17, p. 71)

"And what is pain?  A bogey; turn it round and you'll find out.  Your poor flesh sometimes undergoes rough treatment, and sometimes gentle.  If you don't find that to be to your profit, the door stands open" (v. 19, p. 72).

What do we get when we apply this reasoning?  "a true philosophical education, namely, peace of mind, fearlessness, and freedom" (v. 21, p. 72).

"No one who lives in fear, then, or distress or agitation, can be free, but anyone who is released from fear, distress, and agitation is released by the very same course from slavery too" (v. 24, p. 72).

We must be able to demonstrate that we have learned from philosophy.  The focus ought not to be on how well we remember or write, but how we applied what we learned.  "Show me how you are in relation to desire and aversion, and whether you never fail to get what you want, and never fall into what you want to avoid" (v. 31, p. 73).

"See how I never fail to attain what I desire, see how I never fall into what I want to avoid.  Bring death before me and you'll know.  Bring hardships, bring imprisonment, bring ignominy, bring condemnation" (v. 35, p. 73).

"Let others study how to plead in the courts, or how to deal with problems, or with syllogisms, while you study how to face death, imprisonment, torture, and exile.  Do all this with confidence, placing your trust in the one who has called you to this task, and has judged you worthy of this position, in which, once you have taken it up, you'll show what can be achieved by a rational ruling centre when it is ranged against forces that lie outside the sphere of choice" (v. 38-39, p. 74).

I like another translation of this same passage:

"Your duty is to prepare for death and imprisonment, torture and exile - and all such evils - with confidence, because you have faith in the one who has called you to face them, having judged you worthy of the role.

"When you take on the role, you will show the superiority of reason and the mind over forces unconnected with the will."

Epictetus Discourses 1.30 - What should we have at hand that help us in difficult circumstances?

What aid ought we to have ready at hand in difficulties?

After I read the chapter a few times, I would have entitled the chapter: What's the Point of it All?  And by 'it' I mean life.

If you were to be judged by anyone or even by God, the judgement might be like an oral examination - to determine what you have learned.  This would be the first point of life: did you learn something?

One of the first questions of the examination would be about how you judged certain things.  What did you think of: exile, imprisonment, chains, death and disgrace.  In the context of 2018-2019, that list seems pretty harsh.  Who of my peers and friends has been sent to exile?  Who has been sent to prison?  Who is in chains?  Who has died ... well, plenty have died, but what did they think about death?  And who, of my peers in 2018-2019, is disgraced?  What do these terms means in a post-modern society?  Let's examine them.

What does exile look like in corporate America?  Perhaps it looks like what happened to Steve Jobs in 1985.  "They basically stripped Jobs of responsibilities and gave him an office that he referred to as 'Siberia.'"  Similarly, today, we could be stripped of authority and the ability to make change in a company - our ranking could tank.

What does imprisonment look like?  Well, we still have prisons in 2018, but I think the idea implies being imprisoned unjustly - when you are actually innocent.  Rubin "Hurricane" Carter lived this.  Or perhaps we have been sentenced to a different kind of prison.

Do people actually wear chains in today?  Physically - maybe not.  Chains are simply devices that restrict our body.  Perhaps an illness casts a certain sort of chain on our bodies.

Disgrace has lasted well through time - people were disgraced centuries ago and they are still disgraced today.  In fact, the current President of the United States has used 'disgrace' multiple times in his first few years in office - firing cabinet members and staff at a whim.  At my company, I have seen a few examples of people who have fallen from grace.

Now - do any of these things really matter?  Or should we view them as "indifferents"?  If you were to pass the examination by God, you would need to view them as indifferents.  Indifferents are things that should not matter to you or me.  And why do they not matter?  Because these are things that are not in your control or my control.

Therefore, what should matter to you?  Focusing on things that you can control is what should matter to you.  And what can you control?  You can control your will and your impressions (your attitude).

Lastly, God might ask, "what is the goal of life?"  And if you can honestly respond with "to follow God" or "to love my fate", then you may have passed the examination.  And that is the point of it all.

*******

I thought part of  the text of this chapter was so succinct and worth reading, I've copied it below.

What did you call exile, imprisonment, chains, death, and dishonour in your school?

These I called matters of indifference.

So what do you call them on the present occasion?  Have they changed in any way?

No they haven't.

And have you yourself changed?

No.

Tell me, then, what is meant by matters of indifference, and what follows from that?

They're things that lie outside the sphere of choice, and they're nothing to me.

Tell me further, what were the things that you regarded as being "goods"?

The right exercise of choice and right use of impressions.

And what is the end?

To follow God.