The invulnerable mind

The Stoics seem to think that the mind is invulnerable, in contrast to the body.  The body can be harmed, but it is not a problem because you retain your ability to reason, and to act correctly.  From what I've read, Stoics seem to set the mind apart from the body.

Stoicism is an early philosophy, and so can't really be faulted for not knowing what we in modern times know: there is no mind that is distinct from the body.  Brain trauma can alter our memories and even our personality (sometimes in a good way).  Our mind is more important than the body, sure.  But it's also likely to have problems, and then Stoic wisdom will not come in handy, because we have lost our ability to think rationally.

Marcus Aurelius writes:

You are a little soul, bearing about a corpse.

But actually, it's more like we're just a corpse.

Imagination

Marcus Aurelius writes:

Wipe away all imagination.

It's actually there in his Meditations three times.  Maybe this is a mistranslation.  But, wipe away all imagination?  I don't really understand with what imagination has to do with Stoic philosophy.    I think I agree more with Einstein, who wrote:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. 

Imagination is one of those creative forces that is really useful to us.  It's how knowledge expands, it's how we can solve unique problems.  Imagination is a tool, just like any of the other natural gifts we humans have.  How we use this tool is the real test, but by itself it's just a tool.  And of all the tools we have, imagination is one of my favorites.

So I have no idea what's up with this idea of wiping away imagination.  Hopefully one day a Stoic expert will come along this blog and enlighten me.

Thanksgiving

I wonder how a Stoic would feel about Thanksgiving.  Giving thanks for all the nice stuff we have is very pleasant, and certainly helps us appreciate the things we have.  But wouldn't a Stoic say that these things we are thankful are not ours?  Today I'm thankful to be in good health, for instance, but tomorrow that could be taken away from me.  To be thankful is to acknowledge that we desire something, and to desire something that is outside of our power to affect will only bring us misery later on.

Still, this seems to me to be taking things too far.  Giving thanks may not lead to desire.  We can appreciate things that are ultimately unimportant.  We have to, and the Stoics at least in some circumstances seem to agree.  Epictetus writes:

But, Epicurus knew that, if once a child is born, it is no longer in our power not to love and be solicitous for it.  

Some things, like children, are just inherently lovable.  We can't not have them because doing so will force us to value something outside of our own actions.  It's natural for us to be appreciative of our family, our health, and everything good in our life.  I think the key is to value them in the moment, and not to value them in the future.  That's where the moral danger comes in, because desire is based on future valuations.

I'm happy now with the things I enjoy, but I will try not to value that which should not be valued.

The Edge

There's a great movie written by David Mamet called The Edge.  One of the interesting things about the movie is just how impressive the protagonist, played by Anthony Hopkins, is.  He's extremely knowledgable about a vast array of topics, he's a genuinely nice guy, and he's very wise.  In the movie, he ends up lost in the Alaskan wilderness after an airplane crash with a younger, handsomer, but fundamentally weaker companion.

The Anthony Hopkins character, who has many of the qualities of a master Stoic, has a great saying: "What one man can do, another can do".  I've also felt this was a very powerful statement of the possibilities of accomplishing both the large tasks in life, as well as the little things.  I was interested to see that Marcus Aurelius has a similar quote:

If a thing be hard for thee to do, think not that it is beyond man's power.  Rather, consider that whatever is possible to man, and conformable to his nature, is attainable by thee also.

On reflection, this tends to be true but is not universally true.  The hand of fate and opportunity is not the same for all.  You might want to be as rich as Bill Gates, but he was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, with the right ideas.  There's no guarantee that opportunities like that constantly exist.  Still, for most things, I think the advice is sound.  What one man can do, another can do.

Conservatives love Stoics, Part 3: Religion

The notion that conservatives are religious while liberals are not is a stereotype, and an over-simplification.  The truth is, most Americans are religious.  It seems to me that most atheists are liberals (citation needed), but atheism isn't a huge fraction of the American population.

The Stoics seem to be a pretty religious bunch.  Almost every page of their writings have references to their gods.  Of course, these are what Christians would call Pagan gods.  Christians, in fact, seemed to have both respect for Seneca's philosophy and scorn for his Pagan status.  John F. Hurst, in an introduction to Seneca's writing, states:

[...] his philosophy is the final and hopeless exhibition of the inability of the pagan mind, after its long but futile attempt, both to solve the mysteries of our being and to establish safe rules of conduct

Ouch.  Reading this is amusing, because Christianity certainly doesn't do much to solve the mysteries of our being.  Science does that.  As far as safe rules of conduct, Stoicism seems to do pretty well (although the advice seems to be general to a fault).  I don't really think that any philosophy or religions is particularly good on that question.  And science is a long way from tackling these kinds of questions, although it is starting with research into game theory and similar subjects.

At any rate, for their time, the Stoics were religious, no doubt.  But I can't say that they were religious in a way that is more like a James Dobson (of Focus on the Family) than a Martin Luther King.  Therefore, I don't think their religion is particularly relevant to a discussion on whether the Stoics were closer to modern-day conservatives or liberals.

Reading news, or not

News should inform, educate, and spur us into action.  Not all news is equal, though.  I see many articles that seem to have no purpose.  As Thoreau writes in Walden:

Hardly a man takes a half hour's nap after dinner, but when he wakes he holds up his head and asks, "What's the news?" as if the rest of mankind had stood his sentinels [...] After a night's sleep the news is as indispensable as the breakfast.  "Pray tell me anything new that has happened to a man anywhere on this globe," — and he reads it over his coffee and rolls, that a man has had his eyes gouged out this morning on the Wachito River; never dreaming the while that he lives in the dark unfathomed mammoth cave of this world, and has but the rudiment of an eye himself.

Most of us crave news, but the news we seem to crave the most is the worst for us.  Hearing about a local fire, some senseless tragedy, or some sports incident gives us the feeling we are learning.  But we aren't learning anything.  These things are all constants.  Every day there will be a local fire in some place.  Tragedy is universal, and you can count every year to have at least one or two major international tragedies.  Sports news happens constantly, but the games go on unchanging year after year.

Some news isn't even news.  How often do I hear news that the government is considering doing this, or the opposition may respond with that.  This isn't even news!  It's mere speculation about future news.  It is wise to ignore these kinds of stories whenever you see them.

Daily news seems to be not worth it.  Better to pay attention to the long-term trends, and educate yourself on them.  If you do that, you'll be more educated than most everyone else, and you'll have a better chance of acting correctly in matters of politics.

Walden

I finished reading Walden lately:



Thoreau seems to be a natural Stoic, or at the least a Cynic.  A true Cynic.  Cynicism, like Stoicism, has come to mean something quite different.  Today it signifies a distrust of everything, a certain sourness and a relentless pessimism.  Modern cynicism is an easy stance, requiring no thought and not involving any mental risk.  It's impossible to be pleased with modern cynicism, but also impossible to be hurt.  I don't recommend it.

But the classic Cynicism wasn't like that.  Epictetus writes:

Suppose we sent you as a scout to Rome.  But no one ever sends a timorous scout who, when he hears a noise, or sees a shadow, runs back frightened, and says "The enemy is at hand."  So now, if you should come and tell us, "Things are in a fearful way in Rome; death is terrible, calumny terrible, poverty terrible; run, good people, the enemy is at hand;" we will answer, Get you gone, and prophesy for yourself; our only fault is that we have sent such a scout.  Diogenes was sent as a scout before you, but he told us other tidings.  He says that death is no evil, for it is nothing base; that calumny is only the noise of madmen.  And what account did this spy give us of pain, of pleasure, of poverty?  He says that to be naked is better than a purple robe; to sleep upon the bare ground, the softest bed; and gives a proof of all he says by his own courage, tranquility, and freedom, and, moreover, by a healthy and robust body.  "There is no enemy near," he says; "all is profound peace."  How so, Diogenes?  "Look upon me," he says, "Am I hurt?  Am I wounded?  Have I run away from any one?"  This is a scout worth having.  But you come, and tell us one tale after another.  Go back and look more carefully, and without fear.

The description of Diogenes seems much like Thoreau.  In Walden, he lives a life that to most would be abject poverty, but turns it into a glorious experience, recording his experience with Walden Pond and the surrounding areas throughout the seasons, along with friends who visit, his bean field, animals that he sees, and other recollections.   He writes:

I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of.  Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in.

Thoreau seems to be a natural Cynic.  The very opposite of a modern-day cynic.  Someone who says that you can be happy with nothing.  The book is a beautiful meditation on life, philosophy, and nature.  When reading it, keep in mind that to read it you don't need to possess it: it is free to all and not under any copyright.  Also keep in mind Thoreaus's advice:

To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will task the reader more than any exercise which the custom of the day esteem.  It requires a training such as the athletes underwent, the steady intention almost of the whole life to this object.  Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written.

Quotes from Coaches

For some reason, great coaches tend to give Stoic-like advice.  Here's a quote from the book Born to Run by Christopher McDougall, from Dr. Joe Vigil, running coach:

There are two goddesses in  your heart ... The Goddess of Wisdom and the Goddess of Wealth.  Everyone things they need to get wealth first, and wisdom will come.  So they concern themselves with chasing money.  But they have it backwards.  You have to give your heart to the Goddess of Wisdom, give her all your love and attention, and the Goddess of Wealth will become jealous, and follow you.

Recently I also saw a few interesting Stoic-like quotes from UCLA basketball coach John Wooden:

Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.

Some criticism will be honest, some won't.  Some praise you will deserve, some you won't.  You can't let praise or criticism get to you.  It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. 

It's quite interesting that coaches, who have jobs that are all about maximizing performance, encourage that laser-like focus on being good.  Not succeeding, just being the best you can be.  It must be more than just true, it must also be effective advice to focus on those things that are under our control.  Worrying about things that are out of our control is merely wasted effort.

Should modern society be commenting and improving on Stoicism?

From Walden:

Some are dinning in our ears that we Americans, and moderns generally, are intellectual dwarfs compared with the ancients, or even the Elizabethan men.  But what is that to the purpose?  A living dog is better than a dead lion.  Shall a man go and hang himself because he belongs to the race of pygmies, and not be the biggest pygmy that he can?  Let every one mind his own business, and endeavor to be what he was made.

This is a pretty persuasive argument for us moderns to be intellectually bold.  I'd go further: we have the advantage of large amounts of science, history, and literature to help us along.  I think we have a good chance of advancing Stoic thought, ridding of it's ancient superstitions, putting it on a solid footing, and mass-communicating the message.

Of course, it could go wrong too.  With the modern emphasis on productivity, we might just corrupt Stoicism to be merely another one of the "habits of effective people", and reduce it to a life-hack.  That would be useful, but a great disservice to the main message of Stoicism, which is to make us morally better.

A Stoic Blog

These musing of mine are suitable for a very limited audience.  I don't put much as much time into this as I should, and I don't write nearly as well as I need to.  See, there?  I just ended a sentence with a preposition.  I'm ashamed of myself.  But I'm working on getting better, and certainly I hope this blog will improve.

In the meantime, this is certainly not the only Stoic blog out there.  There's not many, but there are a few, and they tend to be pretty good.

One I've been reading lately is Letters From a Stoic, which offers modern retellings of Seneca's advices.  It's written in a particularly thoughtful way, with a dreamy sort of style.  The blog has been in existence since 2008, and is still being updated.  Check it out for some nice meaty thoughts to chew on.

Conservatives love Stoics, Part 2: On Foreign Policy

A continuation of Part 1.

One of the hallmarks of conservative thought has been a tough foreign policy.  Since there seems to be some admiration of Stoic thought from conservatives, I'm interested in thinking through what Stoic thought would be about foreign policy.

Stoicism is about morality first and foremost.  With the Stoic, if there is a choice between doing the right thing and benefitting yourself, then we must always just do the right thing.  The "right thing", though, is open to debate.  Maybe peace is always the right thing.  But it didn't seem so in WW II.  Maybe aggressive protection of allies is.  But that was a catastrophic failure for Europe in WW I.  This stuff is hard to judge accurately at the time.

Marcus Aurelius was the only Stoic that I know of that actually could make foreign policy decisions.  He did defend Rome in the Marcomannic Wars.  I never got the impression from his writings, however, that he tried to apply Stoicism to foreign policy.  But I would assume he brought the same logical thinking to foreign policy that he brought to his personal philosophy.

Imagining international relations as interpersonal relations is a good exercise, though, even if it is over-simplifying.  Would a Stoic attack another except as a defense of themselves or others?  It seems unlikely.  He certainly wouldn't attack someone because he feared an attack on his own.  Nor would he meddle in other's lives as the U.S. has meddled in the politics of countless countries around the globe.  But, as I stated, perhaps this is an over-simplification.  Maybe we can't think at that level, and can only think in terms of how we should think about philosophy as citizens.

As a citizen of a country, a Stoic should not be swayed by emotion or illogical arguments.  Many of the arguments used to support aggressive foreign policy are based on fear (such as fear of terrorism), or demonization (of the current enemy).  Stoicism is a logical philosophy as well as a moral one.  It's hard to see a Stoic supporting an aggressive foreign policy, since that requires both illogical emotions to sustain, as well as being ethically dubious.

Remember, for the Stoic, death was preferable to the compromising of principles.  Maybe conservatives see that as warlike: I'll fight to my death for this country.  And there might be truth to that.  But another interpretation is: I'd rather let myself and my country die rather than fight an unjust war.

Veterans Day

Today is Veterans Day. Our veterans, and the military in general, certainly trend to have part of the Stoic thing down pat. They do what is needed to be done, and they don't complain. There is more to being a Stoic than that, of course, but the willpower and toughness are probably the hardest part of Stoic practice.

Thanks, guys, for the sacrafice. 

Conservatives love Stoics, Part 1: On small government

I'm guessing it's because of Stockdale.  Or because of the overt religiosity in Stoic writings.  Or maybe it's the emphasis on personal responsibility.  Whatever the reason, conservatives loves Stoics.

This may be a mistake, I think.  But I want to write a few blog posts to help me think through this.  To start, my view of the hallmarks of modern American conservatives are a preference towards small government, aggressive foreign policy, pro-religion and anti-environmentalist.

To keep this blog post short, lets just talk about small government.

I don't believe any of those positions really align with Stoic philosophy, and some outright violate it.  Small government can be argued: certainly a Stoic wouldn't demand a bunch of government programs to help him.  On the other hand, Epictetus did state that it's sometimes necessary to comfort and sympathize with non-Stoics.  In the face of suffering, you can't just insist everyone become Stoics.  And, let's face it, just about everyone is a non-Stoic.

There is a world of difference in insisting that Stoics should bear sufferings in a certain way and insisting that it's acceptable for those sufferings to occur in general because everyone should be able to bear it.  I haven't seen any evidence yet that Stoics felt that their philosophy was anything else that a private philosophy, to be taken up by free choice.

Just because I haven't seen evidence, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I haven't actually read that much Stoic writings yet.  I'm working on it.  Let me know if I get this wrong.

Stoicism in the face of insults

When I read Irvine's book on Stoicism, I was somewhat amused by the chapter on insults.  I can't remember the last time I really got insulted.  And I live in New York, which is known for being a bit confrontational.  Since I mostly avoid any sort of confrontation, I seem to be pretty good at avoiding situations in which I might get insulted.

These days, it seems the most likely place to get insulted these days is on the internet.  If you haven't noticed by now, people on the internet are... well, this Penny Arcade comic seems to explain it pretty well.

Achieving serenity in internet discussions is possible.  Here's what I found works:

• Allow people to have their own opinions without challenging them (see this classic xkcd comic).  Most people will not be swayed by whatever you have to say. Just let them be and do not engage.
• If you somehow find yourself being challenged, do not get angry.  You can ignore the reply entirely, but if you do, you cannot continue in the same conversation.  That's just bad form.  The standard response to a challenge in internet conversations seems to sometimes contain a defense of the point, but much more often contains an offensive move.  It's better, though, if you just confine yourself to a direct response that is to the point and do not stray beyond it.
• Observe discussion respondents.  Engage those respondents proportionally to their rationality.  Don't feed the trolls, and don't argue with idiots.  But it someone is rational and disagrees with you, it often is worth it to engage in a reasonable, friendly discussion.  You might learn something.
• Don't get caught up in details. Argue the large point, and defer technical discussions to experts.  If you find yourself straying into details of a discussion where neither you nor your opponent have expertise, do not attempt to win by learning just enough to win.  That way is fraught with danger, since your opponent may know just enough to get you into trouble.  You can't go wrong with deferring to the experts.
• Avoid the urge to immediately respond to a post, however wrong it is.  Wait for a little while and come back to it later.  Hopefully you will be disassociated enough to let it go.

And of course remember: if you are insulted and don't respect the insulter, then the insult is meaningless.  If you do respect the insulter, than attempt to take the insult to heart and better yourself.

Natural instincts

Marcus Aurelius writes:

...naught that is evil can be in harmony with Nature.

and

Make bold to follow Nature in every word and deed... 

When I read things like this, I felt I could not disagree more.  If it was natural to be good, and natural to be a Stoic, Marcus Aurelius would have nothing to write about, since all his meditations would be natural instinct.  There would be no need for a Stoic school of philosophy, since all would gravitate to the correct course of action.

But we don't.  We live in ignorance, fear, and hatred.  This is the natural state, allowing our primitive natural instincts to rule our actions.  Of all of us, how many are enlightened and live by logic alone?  A few, a very paltry few.

On reflection, though, I think the "Nature" that Marcus Aurelius writes about is not human nature, which is all too often the animal nature.  No, it's a higher level.  It's the Nature of the balanced ecosystem, the self-correcting feedback loops, the various the cycles of life, the slow dance of the stars, and the beauty of the physical laws.

I believe that when we destroy the environment, that is just our "nature".  Consuming resources is what life does.  But even though these actions are in harmony with our "nature", is not in harmony with "Nature" itself.

At least, that's how I read it.  If anyone has read & understood the original in Latin, they can perhaps clarify the text.

William B. Irvine's Writings on Stoicism

I first encountered William B. Irvine's book A Guide to the Good Life via BoingBoing.



Something about Stoicism interests me, probably because it seems to fit with ideas I already have, and my personality.  I decided to check out the book, which turned out to be a really good read.  It's not just about Stoic thought, but also about a more modern take on Stoic thought.  Prof. Irvine shows how to ditch the religious basis of Stoicism, and elegantly replace it with underpinnings more in line with modern science.  He explains Stoic thought to a modern reader, in modern terms.  It was really educational and illuminating.

Prof. Irvine went on to write a few articles on BoingBoing that talk about some of the points in the book.  You can see his guest contributions to BoingBoing here: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

I highly recommend this book.  It's quiet clearly written, and immensely practical.  If I had never read it, I would definitely not be writing this blog.

Should Stoics wash their hands?

One of tenets of Stoic thought is that situations you cannot control cannot themselves be evil.  To take just one quote among the very many the Stoics offer, Marcus Aurelius writes:

It is no more an evil to suffer change than a good to come into existence through change.

For example, if you get a cold, that is not evil.  It is merely a change, which should not disturb your tranquility.  This attitude seems a bit disturbing, though.  If it isn't an evil, why avoid it?  To continue the example, why would we wash our hands to avoid getting a cold, if that cold isn't a bad thing?

I'm not sure I have a good answer for this.  I'm just a beginner in Stoic thought, so it is quite likely this philosophical question has been answered elsewhere.

My guess is that we should in fact wash our hands, because it is part of the activities that will promote health, and working to promote good things such as health is a good deed.  But I'm not sure I completely buy this argument, because it seems to disassociate the practice and the desired outcome, when it is obvious to me that they must be linked.  It doesn't answer the question why we work to avoid something that is not bad.

Maybe we should just admit that it is bad to get a cold.  This seems fairly obvious to me.  But we shouldn't let things that are admittedly bad have a negative effect upon our mind.  This draws a distinction between a physical, objective evil and an emotional, subjective evil, and what Marcus Aurelius is talking about is merely the subjective evil.

Still, I think there's something I'm missing here.  But I'm still going to wash my hands.

Post-Election Day

The day after election day is usually an emotional one.  But Stoics would caution us not to be upset about matters we cannot control.  And although we can vote, work on a campaign, and donate money, ultimately we don't control the elections.

So, if you are upset, then realize there is no point in being upset.  Sure, much of the country may not agree with you, but being correct is more important than being popular.  Any stoic will tell you that.

If you are happy with the results, well that's fine.  Your responsibility is not to be on the winning side, though. You should just strive to be correct in your actions and your opinions.

Voting is a special right of citizens, and because we vote, we have a special interest in politics.  The stoic thing to do is to be the best citizens we can be.  Here's a few suggestions that should fit the rationality of the stoic:

• Stop demonizing the other side.  All Republicans are no racist, and all Democrats are not anti-American.  The extremes are always the most visible group, but in truth they are a small minority.
• Learn critical thinking.  Those issues you believe in?  Think them through.  Many of your opinions are wrong.  With our limited knowledge and faulty-by-default reasoning, how could they not be?  If you can't think of any opinions that you have that may be wrong, you are not trying hard enough.  Seek out opposing viewpoints and think logically until you succeed in challenging your beliefs.
• Ignore the entertainment aspects of politics.  The back story for politicians, the juicy scandals, the sound bites.  The way to understand how to act in politics is through studying the issues.  Most everything else, including the candidates themselves, are just a distraction.
• Stop criticizing opponents unless you have a good idea of what they can do differently.  Remember, the goal isn't to make yourself look smart, it's to accomplish something concrete.  If you aren't doing that, then there's really no point in saying anything about politics.

The Stoics lived in a time when their leaders would frequently exile or kill anyone they didn't like.  They didn't complain about it.  So stop whining about taxes, oppression, or anything else that seems so outrageous to you.  The politicians can't take away your happiness, so be a good person, a good citizen, and enjoy life!

The beginnings of my interest in Stoicism

Not many people encounter Stoicism, except perhaps as a concept in a college course on ancient philosophy.  Recently, though, there have been a few books that have helped spark a revival of interest.  Well, a small revival.  Let's not kid ourselves.

First we have Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus's Doctrines in a Library of Human Behavior by Admiral James Stockdale.



For those of you old enough to remember a few election cycles ago... yes, that Admiral Stockdale:



I haven't read this book, but it promises to be quite fascinating.  I plan to read it as soon as I can.

That reportedly inspired the surprise appearance of stoic philosophy in A Man in Full:


I read this book several years ago.  Tom Wolfe isn't my favorite writer, but his books tend to be interesting and well-written (once you get used to his style).  In the book, a major character becomes a full-fledged Stoic after encountering Epictetus in prison.  His quest on how to apply the teachings of Epictetus in the harsh environment of prison was one of the best parts of the book.  After reading it, I was somewhat interested in Stoicism.  But I'm interested in a lot of things, and I didn't pursue my interest further.

I'll discuss further developments of my interest in Stoicism in a subsequent blog post.  I'd love to hear how others first encountered Stoic philosophy, so share any story you wish.

The practice of good and bad habits

Epictetus writes:

Thus the practice of immodesty develops an immodest character; knavery, a knavish one; slander, a slanderous one; anger, an angry one; and fraud, a covetous one.

For this reason, philosophers advise us not to be contented with mere learning, but to add meditation likewise, and then practice.

This was one of the best things I read so far in Epictetus.  He said something very clearly, and what he said was a new thought to me.  When we persist in bad habits, we don't merely fail to improve, we are actually practicing those habits.  We're getting worse.

Reading and pondering is not enough.  We need to correct our faults, and do it now.

This finally gave me the impetus to try out some changes.  As a smartphone-loving engineer, I immediately thought that there must be an app that allows us to track our habits.  I use an Android phone, so I found the app Habit Streak.  The app is fairly simple: define certain habits you want to keep (or avoid).  At the end of the day, mark whether you succeeded.  The app keeps track of how long your streak of good days is per habit.

I started off with the habit of not getting angry.  I often lose my temper briefly, to the detriment of those around me, and to my own peace of mind.  Anger seemed like a great bad habit to start with.  So I created a goal of not getting angry.  I had a streak of two days before I broke it yesterday by an angry outburst while in some ridiculous, unimportant argument I found myself in.  I'll keep trying.  I suggest you do the same with your bad habits.