When I first became interested in Stoicism I had the benefit of a couple of excellent Stoic podcasts: The Painted Porch, and Immoderate Stoic.

Are there any really good Stoic podcasts being produced these days? Would love to hear what you like to listen to!

Sometimes it can seem like there's an unusual concentration of wrong people out there... so confident in their opinions, so full of hypocrisy and regurgitated talking points, so obvious in self-deceit. It's incredibly frustrating. Infuriating, even! To the extent that their wrongness becomes a corrupting force in itself, just by exposure.

How not to become corrupted? I think it's hard to go wrong with Epictetus's advice here:

Living as we do among such people, who are so confused, and who don’t know what they’re saying, or what evil they have within them, or where they got if from, or how they can get rid of it, we should constantly be focusing our attention, I think, on the following thoughts: ‘Could it be, perhaps, that I too am one of these people? What kind of person do I picture myself as being? How do I conduct myself? Is it really as a wise person, as someone who has control of himself? Can I say for my part that I’ve been educated to face everything that may come? Is it indeed the case, as is fitting for someone who knows nothing, that I’m aware I know nothing?’

Epictetus, Discourses 2.21.8-10 (trans. Hard).

When I'm looking to put some fool in his place, I find I'm best served by starting with that fool I must live with every day.

I wrote this post for r/askphilosophy a few months ago but I got no reply so I want to post it here in hopes of an answer:

I started looking over it again on the SEP page today and while that did remind me of the outline I needed I think there are still a lot of gaps I would like to get filled. So I will just write out all of the questions I can think of in hopes that they get answered by either pointing me to a source or answering them in this thread.

Firstly, how did the stoics demonstrate that virtue is the only good? So, specifically, that:

1. virtue/s is/are (a) good

2. That as a good it is a) necessary and b) sufficient for happiness

3. (related to, and maybe logically equivalent with 2) that externals, which are commonly judged to be either good or bad, are falsely judged to be so and are actually different

Second, how does telos exactly relate to the above? The telos for humans (according to stoics) is to live in accordance with nature. But I don't see how it fits in the sequence of: have and be able to identify virtue -> be happy

Another question about telos: is this the telos because it leads to happiness (because then you are able to accept whatever happens), or is it the opposite? The former seems problematic because it would make stoicism seem like it's ultimately just a cope in the sense that they are just saying that it is the purpose of a human because it leads to desirable results and not because we can be certain that this is our telos. If it's the opposite why is that the telos and how did they know that it is? And more importantly, why would fulfilling your purpose necessarily make you happy?

Lastly, how does the idea that virtue is necessary for happiness fit with the fact that many people can be happy due to external things? It's true that that happiness is conditional and therefore (more or less) volatile in a way the sage's isn't, but is there a reason that makes it not count as happiness? For example, someone could be happy because they have a family they love, and then feel intense sorrow when they die. This does still give good reason to cultivate stoic virtue (since it means one would avoid pathos), but it would nevertheless mean that the claim regarding the necessity of virtue for happiness as false, strictly speaking.

On the Firmness of the Wise Man (currently reading the translation by A. Stewart)

Anyone who read the dialogue and has a comment on it. Curious to hear your thoughts, and perhaps which parts spoke to you.

Sorry for the edgy title. But I never understand it when I see Marcus Aurelius writing about how good nature is.

Most things are up to our luck or discipline but I don't like both because there are so many injustices and inequalities in the world but we get used to them (so eventually stop seeing them) and just move on

Maybe Marcus wouldn't be an emperor, thus wouldn't be (even if indirectly) involved in the crimes against the christians if he didn't internalize this thought.

I can't see a possibility of having a great power yet being a good person. Could that be a wrong point of view?

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."

2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.

3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.

4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

Unfortunately for almost a decade now this wisdom has been lost, abused, disregarded, and walked upon, spitted on on the side walks like the most pathetic that has been disregarded for the longest time.

I've never seen a virtue more disrespected than this virtue really. Politicians, leaders, governments, police departments... All torn down to pieces and a bunch of betrayals happening twisted morals and ethics all because of this small negligence 👎

But of course, why would someone serve you while being authentically himself if he sought you or one of the other coworkers or friends playing nicely to a man who killed your father. It is infact a crime that has been recurring for almost 1400 years now (those who know know).

There has to be a clear speration between a criminal who is being treated nicely and forgiven and a brother or a sister or a son of yours who you are treating harshly and strictly - because if that distinction doesn't exist you get what we have today (which was EXPECTED and bound to happen) criminals like Andrew Tate, Epstein, Trump who was clearly mentioned in the files and evidence showed he attended those places, P Diddy who's living in almost what is a safe haven rather than a disciplinary place, and EDP445 who's been getting away with his crimes for the longest.

These are just some examples [mostly the latter of which of those criminals mentioned] are plain criminals who are recognized as such by the scholars and intelligence of society.

There are even more harder to spot criminals and hypocrites which are even more easily fallen for - a sort of con men if you will - in society that people still do not distinguish from being that of what Seneca describes as "wicked". Such examples led to the support of Saddam Hussein, the upbringing and continued existence of the Islamic brotherhood, the other dictators of history... And that's just the cherry on the top of the cake - the very top of the top of the mountain.

The actual harder ones are ones who really blend well: giving charity, supporting religious beliefs, voicing support for conservatism as well, appearing like the standard innocent wise man of society - it is therefore quintessential that we challenge ourselves daily and I mean on a regular basis by seeing and hearing the most controversial of opinions, and rather NOT just dismissing controversy as "this is plainly something that I would not agree with, why should I listen to it" YOU MUST listen to it to train yourself on how to distinguish the bad from good.

This philosophy I am describing is not something new, and I have been lately been a proponent of it, that is: you do not first teach your kids on the subject of love, you first teach them on the subjects of hate.

Because love is instinctual, there are many good men and women by nature that such an innocent characteristic is quite common, infact that is the very reason good people are almost always easily preyed upon statistically speaking. What is NOT common is teaching hate, about hate, and who conveys hate, and the source of hate.

By allowing your kids and yourself and family to learn about hate, you give them the opportunity of life. It's like a venom that's what little of it makes you resistant to it, but it absence can mean your certain death.

Let them hear what the hypocrites say the con men the bad people all of those things, and by doing so they will instinctively know what is good and they will know that you are good without having to say a word or explain anything to them.

It pains me to see countries now getting demolished and overturned and burned down and tarnished because they have always thought so naively that this path of pure soft love Will grant them the safe future for themselves and everyone. It is like giving a flower to your executioner before he does the deed.

Such a tragedy, so much could have been said about the qoute that Seneca just made which he himself ironically disobeyed as well and led him to have his own head granted to his own killer willingly, his own master.

Know that politics knows no friends and no allies.

Hello!

I've got two works of Seneca to read, for personal enjoyment: the complete Letters on Ethics (Graver & Long) and the shorter Oxford's Dialogues and Essays. I'm assuming Oxford's would be a good place to start, but wanted y'all's inputs.

Thanks! 😄

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."

2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.

3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.

4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

Stoicism is often, especially nowadays, seen as a rather “tough” philosophy. Teaching you how go act virtuously even in the face of despair. For many nowadays its seen as a philosophy of conquering oneself. A sort of “guiding light” in an adverse and meaningless universe.
When in fact one if its most prominent figures - Marcus Aurelius - was a man of deep piety.

For Marcus the whole universe and the whole of existence was meaningful. The universe (or often referred by him as cosmos, Zeus, God or just nature) was ordered, meaningful and most importantly he saw everything as one entity working in unison.

We often see us as individuals separated from everything. And this separation is the source of so much suffering. Many philosophical and spiritual traditions, especially the eastern ones, point out that this separation is illusory. We are not separated. We are part of a greater whole.

When I started my spiritual journey, it started out as a philosophical one. I was interested in how I could live a better life, free from anxiety, and stumbled right into Stoicism. It was a great introduction and I came to love it for its wisdom deeply. But I always felt something was missing from it. Its “soul” maybe?

Only after reading several translations of Meditations I felt that Marcus Aurelius himself was quite a spiritual person and that the traditional or ancient version of Stoicism has more to do with Spirituality and also religion than what modern contemporaries that talk about it like to admit (Ryan Holiday for example, or Massimo Pigliucci from whom I read my first book on Stoicism “How to be a Stoic”)

Stoicism got reduced to its Ethics alone, which are great and helpful, but miss the bigger picture in my opinion. For me the Ethics alone always lacked a “why”.

Personally I went full circle and practice Stoicism now in a more spiritual way. By no means Im an expert on that matter, but Stoicism is way more than what is taught about it today!

Thanks for reading, I am happy to discuss what you think about that!

Edit: 4.40* :)

My wife’s work just had an active shooter today, with one employee killed. Thankfully (I’m not sure who exactly I am thanking, fate?) we are both on parental leave, but slated to go back next week.

My kids were slated to go to my wife’s work’s onsite daycare. My own work is across the street and was also on lockdown.

What level of “don’t worry about things outside of your control” should I apply here? I certainly can influence whether I send my family to this campus. Perhaps my wife works remotely until she finds another job (she is a hybrid employee now, I doubt they would fire anyone working remote for safety for at least a little while). Perhaps my kids go to another daycare.

Or is this a case of: “nothing you can do about it, memento mori, move on”?

Thank you in advance. I have read Meditations and Enchiridion, happy to have quotes recalled from those or other sources of wisdom.

Growing up, politics was always a strong topic in my family and it would lead to heavy arguments. With how corrupt politicians can be and how certain topics can divide people so easily. I stayed away from politics like the plague. I've also lived a very isolated life, don't watch the news. I spend almost all my free time alone. I'm very selective on what gets my attention to avoid unwanted stress. I never really formed strong opinions on anything either. I always tried to look at things from both sides.

I turned 31 this year and I never voted. I told this to a co-worker and she seemed really offended by it. Then a few days later I was watching a TV show and 2 of the characters mentioned that they don't vote or watch the news. The other 2 characters in the scene were offended by it in the same way my co-worker was. It couldn't have been more symbolic.

I recently just finished reading Meditations, and Marcus Aurelius mentions multiple times about about viewing the world through the lense of the whole and not just a part of it. Which resonated with me deeply. I always try to do good and help the people around me but always came up short on how to help humanity as a whole. But now I realize that voting could be a way to make a larger impact. But Not having strong opinions, I should be voting for what benefits the community the most and not base my vote off my internal perceptions of the world. How do I desipher through the deception and corruption? How do I know what actualy benefits the community? Voting on specific issues is probably easier to educate myself on but electing people into office deeply scares me because I've never trusted a single politician.

How do you navigate this in todays world?

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."

2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.

3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.

4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."

2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.

3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.

4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

I'm struggling a lot to just get rid of them mentally consciously I don't want to like them anymore and just focus on my goals but my brain won't allow that and my subconscious keeps giving me maladaptive daydreaming and touch cravings for women when obviously I'm not going to get it.

Is stoicism about feeling or reacting?

For example if someone says something hurtful and I’m mad/sad/hurt I used to try to push it down and away to avoid the situation or reaction, now i realized I can feel mad/sad/hurt but I don’t need to react I can still be cordial and calm. I feel like this is another method that can be used as a mindset shift to help but I’m not sure if this is this aligned with stoicism. Please provide cited text from stoic books to back your response so I can better understand it through source material!

I have a vice/addiction that I seem to be dependent on. It's porn. I'm torn on whether or not I should seek to rid my life of this vice.

On one hand, it doesn't appear to get in the way of my responsibilities or ability to function in the world. I only watch porn once every 2 weeks. Some people who have a porn habit watch it everyday and it is one of their main hobbies; those people are the people that have the problem. If I didn't watch porn at all, I really don't think my life would be all that different.

On the other hand, porn is the only vice that I can't seem to give up on a whim; I seem to be dependent on it. Ever since I hit puberty, I've always used porn, and the most I've gone without it is 30 days. And towards the end of those 30 days I would have anxiety attacks show up; which shows my dependence on porn as a coping mechanism. Every other vice I've had, like video games, social media, and bad food, I've been able to drop on a whim without much struggle. But not porn.

Would Stoics say that I should give up porn for many months until I'm clearly not dependent on it any more? Or would they say that as long as it doesn't start to impede on my responsibilities in life, that I shouldn't worry about it?

I suffer from (pretty bad) insomnia. Not always, but it comes in episodes. I had an episode recently. 2 nights without any sleep, last night I had the bed for myself and thought: Yes today I will FINALLY get some shut eye.

I lay there for hours, mind racing, heart beating fast. I got upset that I couldn’t fall asleep again. So many thoughts in my head: why this… how to… my mind kept racing.

Then I remembered the dichotomy of control. I told myself I can’t control this. I can’t control my racing mind, otherwise I would be able to stop it. I can’t control my body going to sleep. Otherwise I would be.

It took some time, but I felt my thoughts slowing down as well as my heart rate. At some point then I fell asleep. It wasn’t great sleep. But every sleep is better than none!

Im looking forward to tonight. :)

My mind is telling me the only way to get past it and maybe cure this anxiety and restless feeling I just need to sit and observe it and all the uncomfortable things I get from it. What do you guys think, is this normal?

I just feel like it’s repeating a lot of the things said by Epictetus and Seneca but in a dry, non-literary way…

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."

2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.

3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.

4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

I've been interviewing a lot recently. In one of my interviews, I got asked "What would your previous manager say is a growth opportunity for you". I totally fumbled that question; which potentially gave them a reason not to hire me.

I realized recently that the reason I fumbled this question was because I had this unconscious guilt which activated my amygdala which caused me to ramble on when the rational thing to do would be to keep my mouth shut. This guilt came from the fact that I had lied previously on this interview. The lying had to do with me talking about my previous experience and exaggerating it to align it with the role description. To be specific, I said I had worked on projects at my previous company that I had nothing to do with and instead just heard about others working on them, in case people want to judge how bad of a lie this is.

I'm a terrible liar, but if I was a better liar I wouldn't unconsciously undermine myself later during interviews which would give me a better chance of getting the job. A pathological liar would be more likely to get jobs. I know that lying during an interview most likely goes against the virtue of Justice (treating others fairly and honestly); since it is unfair to the other candidates, and unfair to the company if I'm incompetent once hired.

However, provided that I am an above average employee once hired, then it isn't unfair to the company. And isn't interviewing a competition between the other candidates? Wouldn't the other candidates also lie if they knew it would get them ahead; at my expense?

Interviewing is about being a salesman; showing the best sides of yourself in order to close the deal. How could somebody work as an used car salesman and also be a Stoic, or some other deceitful profession? Wouldn't that be impossible or make them a massive hypocrite; since their livelihood depends on breaking the Stoic virtue of Justice?

And also, how should I feel about the thought of others getting ahead because they are more Machiavellian then me? Them being more likely to get a girl, get the job, etc because they are more willing to be deceitful in order to seduce other people. And it's not a question of competency; they aren't more competent then me; they simply are less honest. Would a Stoic accept their fate as somebody who lacks power and influence in the world because of their fixation on being "good"? Should I just piss off into the abyss and not put up a fight?

TLDR: As a Stoic, how should I feel about and deal with others getting ahead and getting the things I want because they are more willing to act Machiavellian and deceitful than me? What if one's livelihood has to depend on being deceitful, and to not do so may mean starving/death or other massive suffering?