Random quote 1

The practice of randomly selecting a part of a holy book and reading it is great for those books that have very little cohesiveness but plenty of wisdom on each page.  Stoic books are like that, and I think picking out random quotes and discoursing on it for a while would be a good exercise.

OK, I'm randomly choosing Epictetus to start (actually that part wasn't so random).  Out of a 250 page book, I randomly choose a page, and get page 202.  Hm.  I see a problem.  This page has the end of one major paragraph and the start of another one.  I guess I'll choose the start of the paragraph (with a few transitional parts elided).

... a man ought to study all day long, for as not to be attached to what doth not belong to him; neither to a friend, to a place, an academy; nor even to his own body: but to remember the law, and to have that constantly before his eyes.  And what is the divine law?  To preserve inviolate what is properly our own : not to claim what belongs to other : to use what is given us; and not desire what is not given us : and, when any thing is taken away, to restore it readily; and to be thankful for the time you have permitted the use of it; and not cry after it, like a child for its nurse and its mamma.  For what doth is signify, what gets the better of use, or on what do you depend?  And in what are you superior to him, who cries for a puppet, if you lament for a paltry academy, and a portico, and an assembly of young people ; and such like amusements?  Another comes, lamenting, that he must no longer drink the water of Dircè.  Why, is not the Marcian water as good?  "But I was used to that."  And in time you will be used to the other.  And, when you are attached to this too, you may cry again, and set yourself in imitation of Euripides, to celebrate, in verse.

 I have to apologize for the completely crazy punctuation.  That's what you get with free books.

This paragraph is pretty typical of a Stoic philosopher.  No real surprises here.  But there are parts of interest.  Note that Epictetus says that we ought to study all day long.  What exactly does he mean by this?  It must mean that we have to constantly remind ourselves of these truths, as oppose to literally study.  Or maybe he really did want everyone to devote their lives to the philosophy.  Certainly Seneca said similar things.  But, reasonably speaking, we have our activities we have to perform, and studying Stoicism is not going to be our main activity.  The question really is how to "study all day long", in other words, how do we constantly remind ourselves of the Stoic philosophy?  We definitely need it, since it is so easy and natural to be attached to what doesn't belong to us.  This is where a daily journal as Seneca recommends (and I tried) may come in handy.  Maybe we should ask ourselves every day if we are valuing the right things.  I personally found journaling not very fruitful, but I didn't ask myself this question specifically.

The thought that our own body doesn't belong to us is another common one with Epictetus in particular.  The image is powerful, though.  If we don't even own our own body, we truly own nothing except our actions.

Epictetus's random quote has proved useful. The philosophy here is nothing new, but now I'm thinking about how this related so things going on in my life.  The random quote seems like a success!  I'll do it again soon.

A month of journaling

I mentioned at the start of this month that I would start a daily review journal for a month to see how it goes.  It's now been a month, and I'd like to summarize how it went.

The method I used was to just write a few paragraphs about my day in a text file.  I usually did my journal close to when I went to sleep.  I'd write about what I think went well (such as that I avoided eating any sweets), or what didn't go well (such as problems focusing at work).

I'll start with the bad points.  Of course, doing a journal entry every night was kind of a pain, even if it didn't take too long.  It was another thing to remember and to do.  One night I just skipped it because I was feeling sick (I had a minor cold), and another night I skipped it because I was just too tired, and once I just came home too late and didn't bother with it.  The worst part is that many days I felt like I had nothing new to say in my journal.

Even though it was hard to do every day, there were benefits.  Writing things down is simply real in a way that merely thinking is not.  In my experience, thoughts that are written down are clear thoughts, and my best thinking is typed out on a keyboard.  Perhaps Seneca could do a daily review in his head, but I'm not yet capable of it.

After thinking of what I did well or badly that day, I then spent some time thinking about my own death.  That was an interesting experience.  It made me realize that I really have to focus and do things that are noticeable and have high impact.  It made me a little restless with how little good I've done in my life.

I'm not sure what is next this month.  I made continue the journal in a slightly different form.  I need to take some time to think of it.  No, not thinking.  Writing.

On the anger of atheists

Although this doesn't necessarily have much to do with Stoic philosophy, this speech by Greta Christina at Skepticon was interesting to me, because it touches on anger as a useful and justified response to injustice.



I think Greta Christina does a great job in putting forth an argument on the usefulness of anger.  Watching it, though, I couldn't help thinking of Seneca's On Anger, in which, after describing the harm of anger at length, says:

... It is to purpose.  "It is a sad thing", we cry, "to put up with these injuries, and we are not able to bear them;" as if any man that can bear anger could not bear an injury, which is much more supportable.  [...]

To be angry at offenders is to make ourselves the common enemies of mankind, which is both weak and wicked; and we may as well be angry that our thistles do not bring forth apples, or that every pebble in our ground is not an oriental pearl.  [...]

 But "may not an honest man then be allowed to be angry at the murder of his father, or the ravishing of his sister or daughter before his face?"  No, not at all.  I will defend my parents, and I will repay the injuries that are done them; but it is my piety and not my anger, that moves me to do it.  I will do my duty without fear or confusion, and I will not rage, I will not weep; but discharge the office of a good man without forfeiting the dignity of a man.  If my father be assaulted, I will endeavor to rescue him; if he be killed, I will do right to his memory; and all this, not in any transport of passion, but in honor and conscience.  Neither is there any need of anger where reason does the same thing.

 Furthermore, Seneca goes on to more directly refute Greta's argument:

Some people are of the opinion that anger inflames and animates the soldier; that it is a spur to bold and arduous undertakings; and that it were better to moderate than to wholly suppress it, for fear of dissolving the spirit and force of the mind.  To this I answer, that virtue does not need the help of vice; but where there is any ardor of mind necessary, we may rouse ourselves, and be more or less brisk and vigorous as there is occassion: but all without anger still.

And as if Seneca was anticipating Godwin's law, he invokes the example of the Germans to settle the point:

There is not upon the face of the earth a bolder or a more indefatigable nation than the Germans; nor a braver upon a charge, not a hardier against colds and heats; their only delights and exercise is in arms, to the utter neglect of all things else: and yet upon the encounter, they are broken and destroyed through their own undisciplined temerity, even by the most effeminate of men.

Personally, I'm think Seneca is right that it is best not to be anger.  Sure, as Greta says, atheists roused to righteous fury can be very effective.  But that same anger can be used against us.  The same feelings are used by governments to dehumanize other nations and lead us into war.  Anger is simply too irrational to control, and my current view is that Greta is wrong to try and make use of it.  If any movement should lead by an example of rationality, it is the atheist movement.

The daily review

This month I want to try out a new practice, this one most thoroughly Stoic: the daily review.

Seneca writes:

It is dangerous for a man too suddenly, or too easily, to believe himself.  Wherefore let us examine, observe, and inspect our own hearts, for we ourselves are our own greatest flatterers: we should every night call ourselves to account, "What infirmity have I mastered today?  What passion opposed?  What temptation resisted?  What virtue acquired?"  Our vices will abate of themselves, if they be brought every day to the shrift. Oh the blessed sleep that follows such a diary!  Oh the tranquility, liberty, and greatness of the mind that is a spy upon itself, and a private censor of its own manners!  It is my custom (says our author) every night, so soon as the candle is out, to run over all the words and actions of the past day; and I let nothing escape me; for why should I fear the sight of my own errors, when I can admonish and forgive myself?  "I was a little too hot in such a dispute: my opinion might have been as well spared, for it gave offense, and did no good at all.  The thing was true, but all truths are not to be spoken at all time; I would I had held my tongue, for there is no contending either with fools or our superiors.  I have done ill, but it shall be no more."  If every man would but thus look into himself, it would be the better for us all.  What can be more reasonable than this daily review of a life that we cannot warrant for a moment?

All that is left is to determine the method.  Before sleep, like Seneca suggests, seems natural.  I'll try to type it up, otherwise I feel I wouldn't be as thorough as necessary.  I don't know yet how long it will take. The first night I try this is tonight, so this will be the next thing I do.

I'm looking forward to seeing how effective this is at improving myself.

Reflections on a month of meditation

I've been meditating for a month.

I started this at the beginning of the month, as you may remember.  Every day, for anywhere from 10 to 25 minutes a day, I've been meditating.  I missed 5 days last week, due to me being on a business trip, but other than that, I didn't miss a day.

After a month, I can say that meditation helped me.  To note one example, I made a mistake at work, resulting in someone getting mad at both me and my boss.  I felt pretty bad about it.  Ordinarily, that emotional reaction would cause me a lot of stress, and I'd end up making further sub-optimal decisions.  Instead, I was able to keep my cool thanks to the meditation.  I corrected the problem without much fuss, and didn't let it bother me too much, and I don't believe there was any lasting harm done.

That was the most striking example, but throughout this month, I've felt that I've been more calm and more rational overall.  It really struck home how good a practice meditation is to the practicing Stoic.  Increasing tranquility and tranquility is what it's all about, Stoically speaking.  In a sense, though, meditation reverses the Stoic cause & effect.  The Stoics would encourage us to be rational, which will lead to tranquility.  Meditation increases tranquility directly, which leads to rationality.

This next month I have another practice I'm going to try, which I'll write up shortly.  I intend to keep up the meditation.

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs died today.

He was one of the great visionaries of our time.  During his Stanford commencement speech, he reveals the reason why: he's focused on his own death.  Even from before he was diagnosed with cancer.

The notion of our death is one that we never think of.  Yes, we know it intellectually, but it's never in the forefront of our minds.  After all, it is likely many years away, and quite unpleasant.  But looking at our death can bring clarity. We have a limited lifespan, and time is precious.

Seneca wrote:

... you will find that the largest portion of our life passes while we are doing ill, a goodly share while we are doing nothing, and the whole while we are doing that which is not to the purpose.  What many can you show me who places any value on his time, who reckons the worth of each day, who understands that he is dying daily?

Steve Jobs was such a man.

Ask yourself if you are also ready to stare death in the face and make the most of your time.  Starting now.

For we are mistaken when we look forward to death; the major portion of death has already passed.

Specific meditation practice

I've been doing meditation on and off for about half a year now.  More off than on, but I've done at least a month of 10-minute daily meditation.  I think it had a beneficial effect of calmness which seems to be wearing off after many months of doing almost no meditation.

A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to see Kamal Sarma, who gave a talk on leadership.  His talk was better than I thought, and actually had some nice insights about leadership.  Before the talk, I picked up Kamal's book, Mental Resilience, and I've read through it since then.  Overall, the book was an excellent introduction to meditation that gives just the right amount of information.  More importantly, it has a specific recommended regimen for meditation practice, along with a CD.  It's not the perfect meditation book; I'm still looking for a book on meditation that has no bullshit at all, and I'm afraid that even Kamal's book has some bullshit, but it's less than most.  I can live with it.  

That's specifically what I'll be doing for this month.  This is day 2.  I've been meditating at work, which has been challenging.  Twice, people walked in on me meditating in an empty conference room today, which threw me off a bit.  I need to find somewhere a little more out of the way.

Action for October

The Stoic philosophers could not be clearer: Stoicism is not a philosophy for analysis and debating.  It's a philosophy to be applied to life.

Partly, Stoicism is an outlook, a consistent view on life that should affect the way we respond to events, and the way we view our lives. In that sense, Stoicism is a passive philosophy.  Stoicism does have an active component, though.  Besides just waiting for events to come to you, you have to prepare.  There are things we need to do in order to keep us on a good path.

It is my intention to explore these active techniques.  So far, I haven't made a serious effort, since I'm primarily interested in Stoicism, and I do not self-identify as a Stoic.  But I think Stoicism is interesting enough to test practically, not just intellectually.

Now is the start of October, and I'd like to make a change for the next month.  I plan to meditate at least 20 minutes each day.  I know meditation is not classically Stoic, but the practice seems to align pretty well with Stoic thought, as I've written about before.  Perhaps next month I'll do a more traditionally Stoic activity such as nightly reviews, or negative visualization.

I'll write more about my meditation practice in the next entry, and I hope by the end of the month I'll have something interesting to report about the effects of meditation.

Stallman

My last post was about someone I considered a true modern philosopher, but I didn't say who the someone was.   The person I had in mind is Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation.

Maybe it seems strange to call him a philosopher.  As far as I know, he's never said anything about the meaning of life, or the best way to live, or stuck his neck into the esoterica of more modern philosophy.  But he has a very well-defined philosophy of software code ownership.  Like all things, the modern world is all about specialization.  He doesn't have to have an opinion about everything.  The important part is he had a strong opinion, one based in morality, about a new force in our lives, and he's been fighting for his vision ever since.  His core idea is that our computers should only run software that we have the source code for.  If you don't know, and can't modify, what your own computer is doing, you shouldn't be running it.

I've been lucky enough to meet Richard Stallman.  He seems to talk like how I would imagine a philosopher would talk.  He speaks precisely (using the terms libre and gratis instead of the more generic word free), never lets something go that he considers wrong, and plainly admits when he doesn't know something.  He can forcefully argue his point, and is utterly uncompromising in his core beliefs.  For instance, he will not carry ID.  For someone who travels a lot and often goes into large institutions to speak, this has got to be inconvenient.  But he doesn't ever make that tradeoff of beliefs for convenience that we all make in so many ways.  Similarly, even though he was a legendary coder, he's never attempted to parlay that into any sort of career.  He doesn't make much money, and lives simply.

To many software engineers, his stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise is a problem.  They can't live such morally perfect lives.  The GNU licenses are seen as too constraining for business.  He's seen as someone who has some good ideas that he takes way too far.  I don't agree with that, though.  Stallman has to pursue the pure path of his ideals.  Otherwise he wouldn't be a philosopher, he'd just be a guy with opinions, and his ideas would probably have not been as influential as they are.  Due to Stallman, we have GNU/Linux, we have the GPL license, and his ideas have influenced other licenses even in non-software contexts, such as the Creative Commons license.

For further reading on Richard Stallman, I recommend his open-sourced biography, Free as in Freedom.

A modern philosopher

The great era of the popular philosopher is far gone.  Who do we have that has the ideals, the ideas, and the impact of Socrates? Not many, perhaps none. We've left our philosophy to the academics.

But I'd like to nominate one among us, still living, who I think fulfills all that a philosopher should be.  He has created powerful new ideas about a subject that did not exist in ancient Greece, but is a major force in modern society.  He's pursued those ideas for a lifetime, constantly forgoing material reward for the sake of fighting for those ideals.  He is unwavering and uncompromising, and is subsequently widely disparaged by his colleagues.  And he's undoubtedly changed the world already.

Best of all, he even has a beard.

Have you guessed who it is yet?

I'll reveal the answer in my next post.

Personality, Part 2

In a previous post, I wondered whether personality can be overcome.  I doubted that it could.  Reading Seneca's Epistles (aka Letters from a Stoic), I came cross the following in Epistle XI:

That which is implanted, and inborn can be toned down by training, but not overcome.

 And later in the same Epistle:

Whatever is assigned to us by the terms of our birth and the blend of our constitutions, will stick with us, no matter how hard or how long the soul may have tried to master itself.

Seneca seems to have reached the same conclusions.

Switching to a modern scientist, I recommend reading Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate for much more on this topic.  In fact, I should re-read it.  It's one of those books that makes a powerful argument against some very nice-sounding but in fact harmful ideas on human nature.

Remember, we can't change our personality, nor our faults.  But we can mitigate them, and sometimes to a large degree.  My own personality has shown itself to result in many careless mistakes in my work.  I don't think I can overcome this, but I can be aware of it, and I can control my actions. I've gotten into the habit of forcing myself to double-check my work, which has helped a lot.  Even though I am careless, I have found a way around it as long as I can keep up an artificial carefulness.

Less is more

The happiness of staying in cheap hotels amongst other travelers is the subject of David Brooks' recent column The Haimish Line.  Those who spend more on luxury only get luxury, and miss out on the real warmth and congeniality of the simpler lifestyle.  It's one of those examples of less is more.  We have been conditioned to think that nicer & fancier is unquestionably better.  But it doesn't bring any more happiness.  This is the sort of thing that reminds us that Stoicism is not a philosophy of self-denial, it is one of self-fulfillment.

McAfee on possessions

We all know McAfee's virus software.  Evidently the man was quite rich, but lost almost all of it in the recession, according to an ABC news article.  On the way, he learned a Stoic-like attitude.  I especially like the quote at the end of the article:

"I think most people don't sit down and ask, 'What do I need?" not "What do I want?" Because we all want everything," he explained. "But what do we need? We don't need very much. We really don't ... The things we want and the things we need are two different things."

Cyberstoic

I discovered a promising new Stoic blog, Cyber Stoic, through one of my Twitter followers, @NeoStoicism.  I'm looking forward to reading more!

Dwarf Fortress

Normal person: I must win.
Stoic: Winning isn't important.
Dwarf Fortress fan:  Losing is fun!

The recent story in the New York Times about a game called Dwarf Fortress strikes some Stoic chords.  The authors of the game aren't particularly concerned with becoming famous.  They just want to create an interesting game, even if it takes 20 years to finish.  The fans of the game aren't concerned with winning.  They just like creating a world, managing it, and then watching as it all inevitably goes horribly wrong.  It's a different approach to gaming.

I still don't think it's a great idea to spend much time playing games, but reading about this game seems refreshing.  I hope the ideas here catch on.

Personality

Sometimes I wonder if Stoicism, as a philosophy, can be taught to anyone.  I know several people that are decidedly non-Stoic. Not bad people at all, just people that are natural worriers and pessimists. They fret over things that they have no control over, repeatedly bashing their heads against the walls of their problems.

That's just their personality. And I don't believe you can change personality to any great extent.

Could these people be taught Stoicism? I haven't attempted it.

I wonder what the success rates were in the days of Epictetus?

Stoicism and sexual desire

Interesting article I found today via Reddit: The Spirit is Willing, And So Is the Flesh, about the philosophy of Viagra.  It explicitly mentions some of Seneca's thoughts about impotence.

Would Seneca really have advised against taking Viagra?  Impotence is really a medical issue.  If you want to have sex, and you can't, but there's a way to make it better, then why not make it better?  Seneca wasn't the equivalent of a Christian Scientist, so he doesn't have any issue with medical treatment in general.

Seneca's point is that the lack of desire for sex is not a problem, and in fact may be a good thing.  If there is no desire, and there is no ability, then there is also no problem.  I think Seneca would say that taking Viagra is fine, as long as you really have sexual desire.  But don't take it because you want to have sexual desire.

The whole desire thing gets even more complicated when other people enter the equation.  If you are a wife, but have lost all sexual desire due to medication (it is a common side effect to some drugs), then is that OK or not?  Based on my reading of Seneca, as I stated above, the lack of desire is not a problem.  But let's assume that you are young, married and this lack of desire is medically abnormal.  This lack of desire affects not only you but your husband.  To solve it would be helpful to him, even if it shouldn't matter to you.  Is Seneca's advice really applicable?

Seneca didn't have these complexities to deal with.  From what I understand about Stoicism, I think the answer is that if sexual desire is gone, and we can't get it back, then we can be thankful that we've rid ourselves of a basic desire.  If we can get it back, we should, but we need to keep that desire under our control, and only use it in morally correct ways.

This articles makes me think about the positive effects of desire.  Stoicism sometimes seems anti-desire, but I think that's an oversimplification.  I think it's more about channeling our desires in a constructive direction.  I should probably write more about this in a future post.

Vacation

That long silence wasn't just me being lazy, it was me being lazy in a pre-planned manner.  In other words, vacation!

It's not very Stoical to take a vacation.  Epictetus writes:

But you take a journey to Olympia to see the work of Phidias, and all of you think it is a misfortune to die without having seen such things.  But when there is no need to take a journey, and where a man is, there he has the works before him, will you not desire to see and understand them?  Will you not perceive either what you are, and what you were born for, or what this is for which you have received the faculty of sight?  But you may say, there are some things disagreeable and troublesome in life.  And are there none at Olympia?  Are you not scorched?  Are you not pressed by a crowd?  Are you not without comfortable means of bathing?  Are you not wet when it rains?  Have you not abundance of noise, clamor, and other disagreeable things?  But I suppose that setting all the things off against the magnificence of the spectacle, you bear and endure.

On the other hand, research into happiness shows that vacations are rated as happy times by those recalling them, even if at the time they were experienced they were no happier than normal (maybe even less).

To take a vacation is to leave our normal routine, and if only for that, it is valuable, for in leaving our routine we can examine it from afar, and thus change it.  In Stoic theory, vacations may not be necessary, but we're never as perfect as the Stoics would hope we are.  They remain worthwhile, and that's not a bad thing.

Skepticism and debate

I really enjoyed this article by Daniel Loxton on the efforts, both current and historical, of many in the skeptic community to tone down the confrontational aspects of skepticism.  Too many of us treat skepticism as a way to ego-boost.  Instead of trying to instruct, they try to make themselves the winner of the debate, and show everyone how much smarter they are then the other guy.  Maybe this works to make them feel superior, but it never actually wins arguments, it just makes the other side more entrenched.

The issue with skepticism is that we're really arguing against ignorance.  It's hard to be tolerant of ignorance, especially the willful ignorance of many true believers out there.  Most of the time, it's best to either not get involved, or to make sure and reply unemotionally.  As the article points out, it is all too easy for skeptics to go too far, and wind up saying things that are either unsupported or flat-out wrong.

In debates, our duty must be to the truth.  Not to winning the debate, and not to making ourselves feel better.  The truth is what matters, and the skeptics should be able to see that the clearest of all.

Stoicism expressed in a flowchart

I loved this simple flowchart, from the great blog Boing Boing, that expresses a key aspect of Stoicism:

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/17/do-you-have-a-proble.html

Weiner

The latest U.S. political scandal is Antony Weiner's sexting / phone sex with various women, including evidently coaching women to lie about it.  And not understanding that things posted to Twitter are public.  This scandal really hits home.  I live in Rep. Weiner's district, and I've been very happy to have him as my representative.

I felt that way about former Governor Spitzer, who was a really great Attorney General for New York.  His governorship didn't turn out so well, when it was revealed he visited prostitutes on the side, and split up payments to avoid detection.  The story is almost exactly the same, and I'm tired of having my political heroes brought down so easily, thanks to their own lust.

These guys are fighting the good fight, but for them it's not enough.  They have to pursue their every desire. How do they figure they can get away with this behavior, when we've seen the same situation played out in politics over and over?  Why do they lie when they know their lie cannot possibly hold up?  They doom themselves; are they not politically savvy enough to see it?  Or are they just incapable of restraint?

The stupidity on display here infuriates me.

Still, we shouldn't let this sort of thing become more than it is.  Yes, they can't restrain themselves.  Neither could notorious womanizer Martin Luther King.  Neither could Clinton.  These are great guys, though, and we're better off for having their careers be intact.  Let's not fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.  Just because Weiner is a not trustworthy around women, and just because he'll lie and coach others to lie, doesn't prove that he'll be unethical in political situations.

This isn't just about Weiner and other politicians.  As an observer, I have a moral duty too.  I must be careful to judge everyone the same way.  If a Republican or anyone else I disagree with has a similar problem, I have to make sure I apply the same standards to them.  Politicians are highly social creatures, and highly social creatures are probably much more likely to have affairs. This sort of thing just comes with the territory.  Maybe we should just look at it like a Stoic would, and accept this as a fact of nature.

Cautionary tales: Rajat Gupta edition

Stoic writings tend to write about those who uphold Stoic ideals.  They rarely seem to show examples of those who fall victim to greed, lust, or any of the sins decried by Stoic writers.  My guess is that these failures are so commonplace that they don't really need explanation or illustration.

Still, I think such examples can be occasionally useful, and the story of Rajat Gupta, as portrayed in Business Week, is one of them.  Rajat Gupta is someone who had a great reputation for honesty, but he only achieved great success and became rich.  Those around him were even richer, and his need to catch up to them apparently lead him a conviction of 14 counts of fraud and conspiracy.

Everything is relative.  How rich you are in absolute terms doesn't seem to matter as much as relative earnings. We're social creatures, and even if we're better off than 99.99% of everyone else, we still measure ourselves against our peer group.  Psychology and social pressure is a hard thing to fight.  Maybe it's best to not associate with the rich.  If we do, we're going to have to be remarkably good Stoics to help guard against the inevitable social pressures.

Bill Cunningham New York

Movies are rarely about happy people, but a new documentary called Bill Cunningham New York is an exception.  It's about a man who does what he loves, lives a simple but interesting life, and is simply happy.  I haven't seen this yet, but it would be interesting to approach this documentary from a Stoic perspective to see what must be an exemplary lifestyle.

This makes me wonder.  There are of course some Stoic methods of increasing happiness, such as living in the moment and rejecting greed, fame, lust, and other forms of harmful desires.  I wonder if chronically happy people are similar in adopting these principles.   It seems likely to be true on average, because how could someone be truly happy if, for instance, they always wanted more money?  But I'm not aware of any actual study that's been done that confirms this.  Does anyone know of any?

It reminds me of the famous opening lines of Anna Karenina:

All happy families resemble one another, every unhappy family is unhappy after its own fashion.

The Myth of Stress

Once you read the Stoics, lots of philosophical and psychological ideas seem relevant to their teachings.  My latest example of this is a book I recently came across: The Myth of Stress by Andrew Bernstein.  I haven't read this book yet, I've only seen his website, and watched one of his talks.  The idea seems to be that we get stressed out because we have an opinion that what actually is happening shouldn't be happening, and this upsets us.

To rid ourselves of stress, Bernstein advises us to reason about why what is happening should in fact be happening, and figure out how we can change that.

The ideas here seem very Stoic-influenced to me, especially, the realization that it isn't the situation that causes stress, it is the opinion about the situation.

Here's his Leading@Google talk:



If you watch the Q&A section of the video, it feels like the audience is a bit skeptical.  Bernstein doesn't profess to be an expert in psychology, and I'm unsure what his degree is in.  If he's done experiments with this technique and has data to back up his assertion that it works, that'd be great, but he doesn't seem to mention more than anecdotal reports.  Maybe it's in the book.  Also, his example of stress being caused by fight or flight responses that are essentially subjective seem sketchy to me.  If I see a tiger about to pounce on me, I don't think that an opinion will be formed, at least consciously.  The fight or flight response is quite instinctual, so his example seems to work against him.  Whether a looming deadline is anything like a pouncing tiger is something I'm unsure of.

Still, even with my skepticism, the ideas are interesting here.  I haven't tried Bernstein's technique, which he calls ActivInsight, but I may give it a try the next time I'm feeling stressed out about something.

New follower, new resources

This blog's readership has grown amazing 100% in the last few months, making it one of the fastest growing blogs out there.  Yes, we're up to two readers!

Reader Michael Daw is now following, and not only that, he kindly provided a link to a list he maintains of recommended Stoic readings.  This is a great resource, and he's pointing to several interesting free works that I haven't read before.  Especially interesting is the link the book A New Stoicism.  I haven't even heard of that book yet, and the name of this blog has no relationship to the book.  But the book seems philosophically aligned with what I believe in, so it should make for a good read.

The Stoic community isn't much, yet.  A few mailing lists, a few books.  A handful of blogs.  Maybe it's the start of a bigger movement, or maybe this is just all background noise.  The movement doesn't need to be large, though.  It just needs to be there for those who could use it.

Thanks for reading, guys.

Mother's Day

As for my mother, she taught me to have regard for religion, to be generous and open-handed, and not only to forbear from doing anybody an ill turn, but not so much as to endure the thought of it.  By her likewise I was bred to a plain, inexpensive way of living, very different from the common luxury of the rich.

Marcus Aurelius here writes in praise of his mother.  This is a great example for us.  Expressing gratitude, especially through the written word, is not only a good deed, but it's emotionally helpful.  This Mother's Day, take a moment and actually write out a few thoughts on why you are thankful for your mother.  Write it and save it to your computer, or just write it out on paper and throw it away.  Just the act of doing this will be helpful.

I'll follow my own advice here, and give a few thoughts on my mother.

My mother wasn't particularly religious, for which I'm very thankful.  She did have a good moral sense, though, and I was raised to know right from wrong.  She spent countless hours cleaning, driving me to activities, helping me with whatever I was doing.  When I was in 6th grade, she bought me a computer, which was pretty much the pivotal experience in my life.  She cared for me when I was sick, and amused me with her unique humor when I was well.  She put up with my bad humors and craziness with the patience of a saint. Kids never really understand how much work is involved in taking care of them, and I'm not exception.  I realize it now, though.  Thanks, Mom!

If you see the Buddha on the side of the road, kill him!

Recently, I heard about an intriguing self-help book: If You Meet the Buddha on the Side of the Road, Kill Him!  Actually, it's more of an anti-self-help book.

I haven't read it yet, but it looks intriguing. From what I understand, the basic idea is that you fundamentally cannot solve some of your problems.  You can't do it, and no one else can really help you, because the problems are unsolvable.  To quote from a reviewer on Amazon:

Whether giving or receiving therapy, this book reminds us that we are all humans -- nobody has all the answers. The eschatological laundry list (which I've seen roaming around the web, but never attributed to Kopp) has become a classic.
1. This is it!
2. There are no hidden meanings
3. You can't get there from here, and besides, there's no place else to go
4. We are all already dying and we'll be dead for a long time.
5. Nothing lasts!
6. There is no way of getting all you want.
7. You can't have anything unless you let go of it.
8. You only get to keep what you give away.
9. There is no particular reason why you lost out on some things.
10. The world is not necessarily just. Being good often does not pay off and there is no compensation for misfortune.
11. You have the responsibility to do your best nonetheless.
12. It is a random universe to which we bring meaning.
13. You don't really control anything.
14. You can't make someone love you.
I'll stop there -- there's more in the book, and if you find the list discouraging, you need to read the book. If you find the words encouraging, you need to read the book. Add it to your list of books to give friends who are feeling glum and hopeless.

I think the basic outlook here should be interesting to anyone interested in Stoic philosophy.  I'm a big fan of this kind of realistic philosophy.  No, things don't have a meaning.  Life has no real purpose.  There is no grand plan.  When you lose the comforting illusions that you cherish, you can see the truth, and in seeing the truth, you can act appropriately.

I'll attempt to get a hold of it and read it and report back!

Bin Laden's death: to celebrate or not?

Last night Obama announced that Bin Laden had been killed.  I noticed that many Twitter users were wondering whether it was in bad taste to celebrate or not.  Most went ahead and decided to enjoy the moment.  My favorite tweet was from the great Roger Ebert:

I am against the Death Penalty. I rejoice that Bin Laden was killed. "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself." (Whitman)

Others maintained that an emotional response was incorrect. Even if it feels good, it is morally wrong to celebrate another's death.   And of course, most just gave into the momentary euphoria and celebrated a victory without second thoughts; it was the first good news in a while.

I'm not sure what my position is, or what the Stoic position might be. Seneca writes in his essay On Anger:

If anger was sufferable in any case, it might be allowed against an incorrigible criminal under the hand of justice: but punishment is not matter of anger but of caution.  The law is without passion, and strikes malefactors as we do serpents and venomous creatures, for fear of greater mischief. It is not for the dignity of a judge, when he comes to pronounce the fatal sentence, to express any motions of anger in his looks, words, or gestures: for he condemns the vice, not the man; and looks upon the wickedness without anger, as he does upon the prosperity of wicked men without envy.

From this, I think it's clear that at least Seneca would be cool with taking out Bin Laden.   However, justice is to be carried out emotionlessly. Seneca warns against anger, but perhaps this also applies to jubilation.

Maybe.

Seneca warns against anger because anger is so destructive, as he details in chapter after chapter of his treatise On Anger.  To me, it's not clear that happiness is destructive or harmful in any substantial way.  We can celebrate good news.  Happiness over the defeat of an evil enemy isn't a moral statement; it is not a step on the road to moral ruin.  It's just happiness, and that's one thing we need more of.

Attitude adjustment

And now, a personal story.

I've been trying to do a particular task for my work.  I initially thought it would take a week, but obstacles I've never dealt with before kept getting in my way, and I've had to slog through it slowly, and now my week-long task has turned into a two-month long task.  This last Friday, I was hoping I was almost done.  But no, someone discovered several significant problems remaining before my task was finished.  By the time I left on Friday, I was feeling very tense and frustrated.  I had thoughts of giving up the task as hopeless.

As I calmed down on the subway, though, I realized things weren't so bad.  Yes, I was continually struggling with new and strange issues, but that meant I was learning things.  And when I thought about it, what I was learning was kind of interesting.  From this other angle, instead of being confronted with a horrible successions of setbacks and problems, I was learning more and more about a complicated system.  Yes, I was failing to accomplish my task, but I was gaining expertise, and this expertise is valuable.

To be honest, this didn't completely alleviate my frustration.  My emotions still exert too much influence.  But in this case I was able to calm them down quite a bit through re-interpreting my. Perhaps this is the first concrete evidence of Stoic philosophy having a positive impact on my life.

I'll let the words of Epictetus end this post.

Men are disturbed not by the things which happen, but by the opinions about the things: for example, death is nothing terrible, for if it were, it would have seemed so to Socrates; for the opinion about death, that is terrible, is the terrible thing. When then we are impeded or disturbed or grieved, let us never blame others, but ourselves, that is, our opinions.  It is the act of an ill-instructed man to blame others for his own bad condition; it is the act of one who has begun to be instructed, to lay the blame on himself; and of one whose instruction is completed, neither to blame another, nor himself.

Uneven postings ahead

I've been trying to write a post every weeknight.  When starting this blog, I knew I wanted to be very diligent about maintaining it, both so that I can practice writing in blog form, and to force me to think about philosophical issues I otherwise would ignore.  I really dislike those blogs that start out full of incredible ambition and then peter out just a few posts in.

This blog is still important to me, but due to both tax time and some ideas I want to flesh out that are unrelated to this blog, I may try to relax my schedule a bit in the next few weeks.  I'll still try and put something out there a few times a week, and this altered schedule should only last a few weeks, I think.

Stay tuned, folks.

The Stoic diet

The Stoics didn't have diet advice. Not really. They didn't have the same problems. But, using their ideas, I want to put forward an idea of what they may advice for our present troubles.

Obesity has always been around as long as animals have been, but only lately has human obesity reached epidemic proportions. My theory on why this is involves only a human weakness and capitalism.

The human weakness is based on evolution. We're programmed to fill our belly. On evolutionary time scales, the short term gain of eating as much as possible outweighed the long term risk of obesity and its diseases.

Food companies want to make a profit, and keep the company growing. They do this by cutting costs and expanding sales. To really make cheap food you have to use cheap, industrially manufactured ingredients. And to expand, you have to tailor the food to appeal to our base desires. Sugars, fats, salt and of course quantity.  Our stomachs are fixed in size to some degree, but they can be expanded, slowly, which gives a greater market cap to the food industry as a whole.

All these forces are conspiring against us. We can't control the food industry. We can control ourselves, although it isn't easy.

As usual, practice can help. Perhaps it is the only thing that can help. We need to practice being the kind of people that do not overeat.

One concept that the Stoics talk about is hunger. We avoid hunger as a way of life. But, as the Stoics say, hunger is not so bad. It makes any food taste good, and we rarely have to put up with it for long.

My advice is this. Practice being hungry. Eat just enough so that you are hungry at the start of the next meal. To accomplish this, you will have to practice not eating. If you aren't hungry, don't eat.  If it is mealtime and you aren't hungry, you've lost this round, eat a small meal and try again with the next meal. This stuff sounds easy, but we've been practicing our bad eating habits our entire lives, and all our most basic programing is against us. It will take work, but so does every skill worth having.

From Epictetus:

Let the measure to you of all food and drink be the first satisfying of the desire; and let the food and the pleasure be the appetite itself: and you will neither take more than necessary, nor will you want cooks, and you will be satisfied with the drink that comes in the way.

Make your manner of eating neither luxurious nor gloomy, but lively and frugal, that the soul may not be perturbed, through being deceived by the pleasures of the body, and that it may despise them; and that the soul may not be injured by the enjoyment of present luxury, and the body may not afterwards suffer from disease.

Take care that the food which you put into the stomach does not fatten (nourish) you, but the cheerfulness of the mind: for the food is changed into excrement, and ejected, and the urine also flows out at the same time; but the cheerfulness, even if the soul be separated, remains always uncorrupted. 

Enjoy your meal, in other words.  Satisfy your hunger and your thirst (this is why you need to be hungry), and let that be your pleasure.  Don't take too much pleasure in the food itself, for it will soon be eaten and expelled from your body,.  You may not always have such nice food, but you can always have pleasure in your meals by following this advice.

Happiness, and whether to pursue it

In a recent article on happiness, Shirley S. Wang of the Wall Street Journal writes that

Happiness research, a field known as "positive psychology," is exploding. Some of the newest evidence suggests that people who focus on living with a sense of purpose as they age are more likely to remain cognitively intact, have better mental health and even live longer than people who focus on achieving feelings of happiness.

She then goes on to talk about Eudaimonia,

"Eudaimonia" is a Greek word associated with Aristotle and often mistranslated as "happiness"—which has contributed to misunderstandings about what happiness is. Some experts say Aristotle meant "well-being" when he wrote that humans can attain eudaimonia by fulfilling their potential. 

The point of the article is trying to be happy is not the point, leading a fulfilling life that in turn makes you happy is the point.  Reading it, I wondered what the Stoic take on this would be.

I think the Stoics would have mixed feelings about this article.  A "sense of purpose" is usually a good thing, because that phrase carries a moral connotation.  Getting rich, sleeping with hot chicks, winning fame would not normally be considered a sense of purpose.  Making the world a better place in some specific way is, I think, what a sense of purpose is all about.  We have to be careful, though, lest the pursuit of the sense of purpose devolve into meaningless goals.  Coincidentally, the xkcd webcomic had a similar point to make last week:

The relevant point is actually in the hover-text:

I never trust anyone who's more excited about success than about doing the thing they want to be successful at.

These are all good points.  Stoicism doesn't really stress having a focussed sense of purpose, but knowing how you want to make the world a better place can only be helpful for your own happiness and the world itself.

The Talent Code

Fundamentally, this blog is about self-improvement. I'm not a philosopher, I'm only somewhat interested in debating the finer points of various philosophical theories, but I'm primarily interested in Stoicism from a practical standpoint. I want to be a better person.

In furtherance of that goal, last Friday I picked up The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle. I came across Coyle's blog a few months ago and found it especially engrossing. The book didn't disappoint.

While this book mentions Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Stoicism near the end, it is not the focus of this book.  Coyle is writing fundamentally all about practice. Practice is one of those prosaic acts that gets more amazing the more you look at it. We get better at something merely by doing it. Yes, you have to put in effort to perform something many times, but the improvement just happens, as if by magic.

There's a few really great insights I got out of this book. One is that effective practice has to be at the boundaries of our talent, where we are straining and making mistakes. If we aren't spending time at that uncomfortable zone, then we aren't improving as fast as we otherwise could. So, stop reading self-improvement books, leave your distractions behind, and to improve yourself, put yourself in uncomfortable situations.  Start making mistakes, and then correct them.

I'm still thinking about whether there is anything particularly relevant to Stoicism.  They seemed to be big fans of self-improvement, though, and correcting our faults.  Doing the "deep practice" that Coyle writes about seems like the most efficient way to achieve those goals.

Advantage

Things that we cannot control, we must accept, and one of the core Stoic principles is that we can control nothing outside ourselves. A corollary of this is that there is no point in seeking to gain an advantage in controlling the outside world, since it is by nature uncontrollable.

Epictetus writes:

But show me that he who has the inferior principles overpower him to who is superior in principles. You will never show this, nor come near showing it; for this is the law of nature and of God that the superior shall always overpower the inferior. In what? In that in which it is superior. One body is stronger than another: many are stronger than one: the thief is stronger than he who is not a thief. This is the reason why I also lost my lamp, because in wakefulness the thief was superior to me. But the man bought the lamp at this price: for a lamp he became a thief, a faithless fellow, and like a wild beast. This seemed to him a good bargain. Be it so. But a man has seized me by the cloak, and is drawing me to the public place: then others bawl out, Philosopher, what has been the use of your opinions? See you are dragged to prison, you are going to be beheaded. And what system of philosophy could I have made so that, if a stronger man should have laid hold of my cloak, I should not be dragged off; that if ten men should have laid hold of me and cast me into prison, I should not be cast in? Have I learned nothing else then? I have learned to see that every thing which happens, if it be independent of my will, is nothing to me. I may ask, if you have not gained by this. Why then do you seek advantage in any thing else than in that in which you have learned that advantage is?

I think this overstates the point. We can control external events, at least to some extent. I may not be able to ensure I never get physically attacked, for example, but I can be alert, have martial art training, carry a weapon, or do whatever else may be necessary to protect myself. It's not a guarantee, but it helps. I think it therefore helps to try and gain advantages that pertain to the external world. But we need to heed the Stoic's warning, and judge those advantages carefully.

Sick

I've been sick with a cold these past few days. While at the worst of the cold, I wondered if I could really be "sick, and happy" as Epictetus put it. I thought about my happiness, and even though I was sick, I realized that I wasn't unhappy. I wasn't stressed. I was just unwell, and had to spend lots of time in my bed. I did feel bad, and it wasn't purely a physical ailment. Feeling so crappy, I wasn't able to concentrate, and couldn't really do much work. But, I still wasn't unhappy. In fact, there were a few things that happened during my sickness to make me pretty happy, at least briefly.

The last time I had a cold was just a few months ago, and I speculated that I couldn't be happy while being sick. I thought that to be sick was to be miserable. Now I realize that this is true, but it's not the whole story, since I conflated the sensations of my body and mind with my happiness. The sickness only makes you feel miserable, but happiness is not directly related to just how well you feel. These are almost different dimensions of feeling, except they are only partially independent.

The Stoics seem to be right in that you can be sick and happy at the same time, and I'm happier realizing that my happiness is not subordinate to my health.

Skepticism versus skepticism

As I've mentioned before, I've been reading about Skepticism, the classic Greek philosophy that advises you to hold off of judgements. This is generally good advice, but I think the philosophy on the whole is quite dangerous.

The Skeptical philosophy reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's philosophy of never thinking you know the answer to anything. Does God exist? Wilson didn't know. Do magic spells exist? Wilson didn't know, although he liked to dabble in such things. I admire Robert Anton Wilson quite a bit. He co-wrote the Illuminati Trilogy, as well as many other great books. He's one of my favorite people.

I'd like to compare Wilson against someone else I admire: James "The Amazing" Randi. Randi doesn't hesitate. Does God exist? No. Does magic exist? No. And not just no, but Randi is clearly willing to bet his money and reputation on it. Compared to Randi, Wilson seems too susceptible to bullshit, and his refusal to take sides seems like intellectual cowardice.

Robert Anton Wilson seems like the Greek-style Skeptic. James "The Amazing" Randi is the prototypical example of the modern-day skeptic. I like the modern version better. It's simply more useful.

Let's take as an example: Global Warming. This is the crisis of our time. Scientists know it, and they've tried to warn us. But it's just too easy to sow doubt and confusion, and the public no longer knows what to believe. Who would the Greek-style Skeptics side with? Probably no one. I know who the modern skeptics would side with: the scientists. I don't know about you, but I'm going to support the philosophy that would try to save the world.

Stoicism & Atheism

I'm an atheist. It's a little bit hard to make it through some Stoic writings, since they tend to reference God quite a bit. Sometimes, though, they make it apparent that even if you don't believe, Stoicism can still make sense. Marcus Aurelius writes

If Providence watches over all and may be inclined to mercy, render thyself worthy of celestial aid. But if leaderless chaos be all, rest content that in the midst of this storm-swept sea Reason still dwells and rules within three. And if the tide swirl thee away, let it take thy flesh and spirit, with all the rest; for Reason it cannot take.

I appreciate these little tidbits for the atheists. Since Marcus Aurelius wrote these meditations for himself, perhaps he himself was not quite sure of the true nature of things. It may be that sometimes he lost faith the divine powers, but with this line of logic, he can be sure that he still proceed according to reason. Or maybe he was just hedging his bets. He personally believed, but allowed for the possibility that he might not be right.

Meditation, Part II

This continues my previous post on Meditation.

For the most utilitarian of reasons, I've been wanted to start meditating for a while now. Perhaps meditation would help me maintain concentration at work, which is something that wanes more than I'd like it to. I sometime feel a little guilty that my goal is just for improved focus instead of inner peace or spiritual fulfillment. But, in the spirit of Stoicism, the more you can focus, the more you can help others, and the more rational you can be.

I've finally started a month ago. Every day I mediate for 10 minutes, which is all I think I can spare for now. I can't say I've seen any particular difference in my life so far, but it seems to be pretty good at breaking up bad thought patterns and sort of "resetting" my mental state. So far, this has been of some limited use.

One of the thoughts that often (and involuntarily) cross my mind while meditating is imagining the scene of a room full of monks meditating, who are watched over by their teacher, who occasionally hits them with a stick. I don't know where I've seen this, and I have no idea what this practice is called. I also have no clue as to why the teacher is hitting them. But I wonder if he just hits everyone. Imagine trying to meditate when you know you'll get hit at some random time. If you knew this, the only way to meditate successfully would be to live entirely in the present. Your focus would have to be very strong for this. If it is a real technique, it is a pretty interesting one, and I'm almost curious to try it. But I doubt I'll ever be good enough to attempt such a feat.

I haven't decided yet if meditation would be useful to Stoicism. In theory, I'd say it would be, since it would help with the Stoic detachment that is often necessary. In practice, I'm not sure what use I'm getting out of it. I'll keep meditation for another month or two and re-appraise the situation at a later time.

The Stoic way to eat out

Probably a Stoic would have no need to eat out. Certainly, no one with a kitchen technically needs to eat out. Thoreau, in Walden, survived his year quite Stoically eating mainly meals of simple breads made of just flour and Indian rye. Seneca writes

Coarse bread and water to a temperate man is as good as a feast

This is true, undoubtedly, but in this case men that temperate seem to be extremely rare.

For myself, I enjoy the variety and education I get when eating out. Yes, education. I learn about faraway cultures, I learn about ingredients and new ideas in cooking. None of this is strictly necessary, but I like it. Still, after reading up on Stoicism, I've tried to curtail my worst eating habits. I find that I almost always over-order in restaurants, and I feel that most people are even worse. A reasonable meal should be an entree per person, and perhaps a shared appetizer. No dessert. Really, though, one entree and an appetizer might suffice for a meal for two, if portion sizes are large. There's no need to leave a meal feeling stuffed, especially if one is paying top price for the food. Alcohol is usually marked up way too much, so I normally skip it.

One problem is going out with a group, though. Groups spend more at a restaurant, since everyone is sharing the costs. It's sort of a tragedy of the commons thing going on. I don't have a good solution to this. Socialization is important, and no Stoic is against that. Maybe just limiting the group meals to once in a while would help. Or just not going, and perhaps finding other ways to socialize. That would be too extreme, though. Eating with a group over food is one of the classic cultural social experiences, and I'd like to try to not avoid it.

Are there other Stoic restaurant ordering techniques that I'm missing?

Meditation

To live in the present is literally the only way. Our entires lives are composed of a succession of nows. We never quite reach the future, and the past is endlessly generated and endlessly remote. This was not lost on the Stoics. Marcus Aurelius writes:

You consist of three parts — your body, your breath, and your mind. The first two are yours to take care of, but the latter is properly your person. Therefore if you abstract from the notion of yourself, that is, of your mind, whatever other people either say or do, or whatever you may have said or done yourself formerly, together with all that disturbs you under the consideration of its coming to pass hereafter; if you throw the necessary motions of your carcass out of the definition, and those of the vortex that whirls around you, and by this means preserve your rational faculties in an independent state of innocence, free from the allotments of fate, holding close and steady to the virtues of justice, truth, and acquiescence; if I say, you keep your mind separate and distinguished from the objects of appetite and the events of time, both past and future, and make yourself like Empedocle's world, "Round as a ball in joyous rest reposing," and concern yourself to live no longer than your real life, that is the present moment; if you do all this, you may move on till death stops you, with credit, and in harmony with the deity within you.

The focus on the present is not often talked about in Stoic writings. Other philosophies put more emphasis on living on the present. Mindfulness meditation seems to be the key to this practice, according to some. I wonder what the Stoics would think of meditation, as a useful practice to train ourselves to live in the present. Was there any concept of this in ancient Greece or Rome? I've never heard of any. Somehow, mediations and Stoicisim doesn't seem like a natural fit.

I'm going to write up some more thoughts on mediations, as well as my experiences, in the next blog post.

Honey is sweet

I've been reading The Skeptic Way, as I've mentioned. It's full of interesting arguments, but arguments that I think are ultimately wrong. One of the precepts of Skepticism is the distrust of our very senses. If we can't trust our senses, can we really profess to know the truth? They believed not.

One of their example arguments was about honey. We claim that honey is sweet. But, it is not necessarily sweet to everyone. From Sextus Empiricus's Outlines of Pyrrhonism:

For example, the honey appears to us to be sweet. This we grant, for we sense the sweetness. But whether it is sweet we question insofar as this has to do with the [philosophical] theory, for that theory is not the appearance, but something said about the appearance.

This was interesting to me, since I have experimented with the Indian herb Gymnema Sylvestre, which is a sugar-blocker. If you eat it, you won't taste any sweetness for about an hour. It's a pretty lousy hour. After ingesting the herb, I ate a few sweet things, which were radically transformed. Sugar tasted like sand, and honey was just fairly tasteless glop. So, honey is sweet? It depends.

Still, the Skeptics would say that this proves we can't even say that honey is sweet, since it obviously was not sweet to me. And they would be true that the statement "honey is sweet to all humans all the time" is wrong. But "honey is sweet" is just shorthand for "honey is sweet to almost all people, almost all of the time", which is typical of the sort of hedging we would have to do if we wanted to lend our thoughts some precision. My experiences don't mean that honey isn't sweet, but it serves to define the cases in which honey would not be sweet. Knowledge is gained by the sugar-blocker experiment, not taken away.

This is, I think, the problem of the Skeptics. They are correct in not believing most of what they hear. But instead of approximating the truth, and then refining, they propose to not believe anything. This is far worse, I think. We need to believe things, since knowledge in general helps us lead lives that are benefitted from societies' collective wisdom. We just need to be open to new evidence, and to refine our beliefs when they are proven wrong.

The Moral Landscape, Part 2

As I mentioned in a previous post, I've been reading Sam Harris's book, The Moral Landscape. I finished it this last weekend, and wanted to post a few thoughts on it.

Sam Harris has a sympathetic audience in myself. I'm a big fan of science, and not a particularly big fan of religion. Throughout most of human history, religion set itself up as the arbiter of morality. Or so it would seem, and so Sam Harris argues. I actually think religion has little effect on actual morality. Our sense of what is right and wrong has changed fairly dramatically over the past thousand years, even as the religions involved have stayed mostly constant. So I think Harris gives religion a little too much credit as a driver of morality.

Science, Harris argues, should be able to answer moral questions. For example, should we administer corporal punishment? Well, the Bible tells us that if we spare the rod we spoil the child, but science tells us beating kids is not actually very good for them. Much of the book is devoted to persuading the reader that there is a right answer, and even if we don't know what it is, that's no reason to think we will never know what it is.

Some of the best parts of the book was where Harris goes on the attack, and criticizes those who attempt to make peace with the religious, and say that religion still has a role in determining morality, and how to live the good life, and that science cannot answer these questions. Or, he argues, the mere fact of fundamental religious disagreements about morality cannot mean the problem is not a factual one. It only means there is disagreement. I agree with all these points, and I love Harris's righteous fury against illogical religious appeasers.

Although Harris does not talk about ancient philosophies like Stoicism, I think his point holds in regards to these as well. Stoicism offers some sage advice about how to live your life. But, does it work? Does it work better than competing philosophies? This would be hard, perhaps impossible, to study. Nevertheless, there is an answer. We should try and find it out.

Philosophically, I think Harris is on solid ground. Practically, I'm a bit unsure about grounding morality completely in science. Morality would be a fairly difficult area to study, and some of the problems seem intractable to me. Worse, science often goes astray, and the media often report results later shown to be unreproducible or plain fraudulent. The public don't seem well equipped to apply the science of morality in any sane way.

The best way, I think, is to keep what we have now, which is surprisingly close to what Harris wants. He doesn't seem to realize it, though. Science does do research that affects our culture's views of morality. And those cultural shifts affect everyone. Yes, maybe it affects the religious people least, but it still affects them. Science is a powerful tool to shape morality, and I think it is already doing so, and will continue to do so. It's taking a while, but slow change is not necessarily a bad thing.

Koyaanisqatsi

Marcus Aurelius writes:

There are three things ever to be kept in mind. First, whatever thou does, see it be done not at random, but so that Justice herself could not have acted otherwise; and remember that all external contingencies are dispensations either of chance or Providence, and that it is folly to blame the former, and impiety to accuse the latter. Second, ponder the progress of every being from its generation to the hour when it receives a soul, and thence again to the time when it renders back that soul, together with the elements whereof all things are compound, and into which they must be dissolved. Third, reflect that were some sudden power to bear thee aloft to a pinnacle, whence thou couldst survey human life in all its multifariousness, after gaining withal a glimpse at the multitude of creatures that people the surrounding air and ether, the sight would inspire thee with contempt; and oft as the ascent might be repeated, the same spectacle would always meet they aze: monotony of form and brevity of time. These are the objects of our pride!

This third point makes me think of the movie Koyaanisqatsi, a beautiful movie that shows human life. It has no dialogue, no characters, and no plot. It's just videos of humanity set to a classic score by Philip Glass. Koyaanisqatsi is one of my favorite movies, and it shows that perspective that Marcus Aurelius is writing about, that high perspective from which we can see the smallness of our lives, the swarm of people in which we live, and the never-ending cycle of mindless living. Instead of just imagining, we can experience it by watching Koyaanisqatsi. And I recommend watching it every year or so, just so we can remind ourselves what the world is really like.

The Moral Landscape

I recently started reading Sam Harris's new book, The Moral Landscape. The basic argument that Sam Harris makes is that science can have something to say about morality. We can try and perhaps succeed at figuring out moral truths. He spends much of the first part of the book arguing against moral relativism. I actually didn't know that it remains so accepted in academic circles, since it seems pretty easy to refute in my opinion.

This reminded me of Epictetus's argument against the truth-denying arguments of the Academics:

Do you comprehend that you are awake? I do not, the man replies, for I do not even comprehend when in my sleep I imagine that I am awake. Does this appearance then not differ from the other? Not at all, he replies. Shall I still argue with this man? And what fire or what iron shall I apply to him to make him feel that is deadened? He does perceive, but he pretends that he does not. He is even worse than a dead man.

I'll write more on Harris's book later. I don't agree with some of his points, but his arguments against moral relativism are true. Like Epictetus's argument, that sort of blindness makes you want to just shake the relativist and make them see reason. They have taken a reasonable precaution and turned it into a rule that negates common sense or any logic.

DIY

After reading yesterday's post, my very first (and, let's face it, only) reader of this blog, Delodephius pointed me towards a great blog by Jules Evans that seems to often delve into Stoicism, The Politics of Well-Being.

This seems to be a really valuable blog, both frequently updated and with actual well-thought out content. I'll keep an eye on it and point out any particularly good posts.

While skimming the history, I came across this blog post on DIY philosophy. This interests me a great deal, because this blog is of course part of that movement. Doing things yourself instead of involving an actual authority figure is generally a way that practice can scale to the masses. Especially for something like philosophy, where actual practical philosophers are globally few and their time is limited. Compare with learning, for example, karate, where there are many qualified teachers in any city of sufficient size. So, if you want to do something with actual practical philosophy, DIY is the only way.

As Jules points out, issues of legitimacy and scientific integrity abound. I could claim that Stoicism changed my life, and that if you try it, it will make you a happier person. That may be my opinion, but it isn't going to be true. I haven't done a study that shows the effects of Stoic practices on happiness, nor do I know of a study. And even if there was a study, that wouldn't be enough. There really need to be a whole slew of studies to prove it. But it wouldn't prove any absolutes, surely. Maybe Stoicism would help 60% of people get 15% happier, for example. Those are the kind of truths we get from science; real truths that are never as simple as we'd like them. People read such truths and obviously find it hard to apply. So the random person on the internet who claims Stoicism is the answer gets too much trust placed on them, and may be held up as a sort of teacher or expert eventually. But their expertise is hollow, because it isn't based on actual evidence. At best, the expertise can be of knowledge of Stoic and related philosophies, but I fail to see how even that would lend one person's thoughts to be any more universal or true than any other random blogger. This is the problem with any practice too heavily weighted towards DIY. My only hope is that philosophy will encourage us to be more introspective than usual, and to avoid these traps.

One more thing. Since I now realize I'm part of the DIY movement, I realize I must grow a beard, wear hats, and move to Brooklyn.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

On the Wikipedia page for Stoicism, I learned that there's a kind of therapy called "Cognitive-behavioral therapy" that incorporates elements of Stoicism. This is quite interesting to me, so I looked around, and found a page describing it.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy is based on the idea that our thoughts cause our feelings and behaviors, not external things, like people, situations, and events. The benefit of this fact is that we can change the way we think to feel / act better even if the situation does not change.

CBT is based on aspects of stoic philosophy [...] Cognitive-behavioral therapy does not tell people how they should feel. However, most people seeking therapy do not want to feel they way they have been feeling. The approaches that emphasize stoicism teach the benefits of feeling, at worst, calm when confronted with undesirable situations. They also emphasize the fact that we have our undesirable situations whether we are upset about them or not. If we are upset about our problems, we have two problems -- the problem, and our upset about it. Most people want to have the fewest number of problems possible. So when we learn how to more calmly accept a personal problem, not only do we feel better, but we usually put ourselves in a better position to make use of our intelligence, knowledge, energy, and resources to resolve the problem.

I really like this logical way to think about issues, of calmly accepting problems. And I'm conversely not a believer in the need to vent anger. First of all, I think that acting angry only makes you more inclined to be angrier later. You are practicing anger. Second of all, from what little I've read on it, the evidence is that "blowing off steam" does not help. It's better to just calmly accept and deal with the problem.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy actually seems like the last vestige of Stoicism in modern times. But it's purely practical, and not concerned with morality at all. That's fine, though. This is not a philosophy, it's a therapy. Most of us won't be going to therapy sessions any time soon, but we can still benefit from this advice.

I'm going to try to read more into this therapy later. There is almost certainly quite a bit more to it.

Tales of Socrates

Everyone loves Socrates. Is there a school of Greek philosophy that didn't think he was the bees knees?

A few days ago I came across what is another example of his heroism, the tale of the arrest of Leon of Salamis. The group that ruled Athens at the time, called The Thirty, ordered Socrates and several others to bring Leon in for execution. Leon was known for his good character, and everyone hated the Thirty, a group installed by the Spartans after the Peloponnesian War. So, while the rest of the group went in search of Leon, Socrates simply went home.

In Socrates words,

I showed again, not in words but in action, that, if it's not crude of me to say so, death is something I couldn't care less about, but that my whole concern is not to do anything unjust or impious.

Socrates is most famous for drinking the hemlock as ordered by the government, but here he proves that the simple act of doing nothing can be a powerful statement for justice.

Maybe

From a collection of Zen stories on awakeblogger.com.

Once upon the time there was an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

“Maybe,” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

“Maybe,” replied the old man.
The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

“Maybe,” answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

“Maybe,” said the farmer.

I was going to point out how similar this is to Stoicism, but on a second read, it seems closer to classical Skepticism. In separate ways, both of these seem somewhat similar to Buddhism, and I'm certainly not the first to remark on this. This is something I want to explore in future posts.

Lenin

A little while ago, I read a biography of Lenin. What's interesting about Lenin, from a Stoic point of view, is that's he is a great example of someone who had many of the attributes of a great Stoic, but also fell short of the Stoic ideals in very fundamental ways. The great drive of Lenin's life was for revolution in Russia, a revolution specifically according to his ideas. And to have a revolution the way he wanted it, he of course had to be in charge. He devoted his life to this revolution. He betrayed his friends, and sacrifices his morals to achieve his goals. He succeeded because, first of all, he was brilliant and capable, and second of all, he wanted it more than anyone else. Enemies like the Mensheviks could have triumphed, perhaps, but they weren't ready to sacrifice everything to the cause. Lenin was.

A Stoic could not have made these sacrifices, I think, because there is nothing important enough that it would require compromising his ethics. Those ethics are all we as humans have, and trading them off for a better chance of controlling the world around us is fundamentally un-Stoic.

Like the Greek and Roman Stoics of old, Lenin did risk his life for his beliefs, and was in fact exiled and jailed because of them, on several occasions. But he was missing out on one of the key aspects of Stoicism, which is to understand and properly judge things. I think this is the fundamental problem that caused him to believe that his revolution and his power were the things most important, when in fact they could not have been.

The story of Stilpo

In Seneca's Of a Happy Life, he tells the tale of Stilpo:

Demetrius, upon the taking of Megara, asked Stilpo, the philosopher what he had lost. "Nothing" said he, "for I had all that I could call my own about me." And yet the enemy had then made himself master of his patrimony, his children, and his country; but these he looked upon as only adventitious goods, and under the commands of fortune.

"I have made my way," says Stilpo, "through fire and blood — what has become of my children I know not; but these are transitory blessings, and servants that are bound to change their masters; what was my own before is my own still. Some have lost their estates, others their dear-bought mistresses, their commissions and offices: the usurers have lost their bonds and securities: but, Demetrius, for my part I have saved all, and do not image after all this, either that Demetrius is a conqueror, or that Stilpo is overcome — it is only thy fortune has been too hard for mine."

And in this instance of Stilpo, who, when he had lost his country, his wife, his children, the town on fire over his head, himself escaping very hardly and naked out of the flames; "I have saved all my goods," says he, "my justice, my courage, my temperance, my prudence;" accounting nothing his own, or valuable, and showing how much easier it was to overcome a nation than one wise man.

One of my favorite stories of Seneca's.

Sniping

Roger Ebert has an excellent blog post today on the practice of internet sniping, which is what he calls the practice of anonymous, malicious criticism. Ebert, of course, is well positioned to understand criticism, and form criticism of the criticism.

Reading it, I was reminded of Prof. Irvine's reflections on how being a Stoic had changed his life. One of the things he said was that when replying to emails, he re-read his text and deleted anything that existed for only the purpose of self-promotion. Sometimes, he said, that ended up deleting his whole email.

Similarly, Roger Ebert makes a point that this sniping is mostly for the purpose of ego gratification. Tearing someone down is how many people get to feel better about themselves.

Obviously, the various snipers, trolls, and griefers out there aren't going to change anytime soon. There is essentially an endless supply of them. So, realizing that they exist and will always exist, we can make sure it doesn't bother us, anymore than any other constant of life should bother us. Furthermore, we should reflect on our actions when communicating, especially on the internet. Let's take Prof. Irvine's advice, and resist adding all non-helpful and ego-driven messages.

Skepticism

I recently picked up from the library Benson Mates's The Skeptic Way. I hadn't known about the the Pyrrhonic Skeptics, a philosophy advocated by Sextus Empiricus. I'm just reading about it now, so expect some summaries of what I learn to periodically be written about in this blog.

The Skeptics were opposed to the Stoics, but they also seem similar in some ways. Like the Stoics, the Skeptics advocated a particular practical mode of life from first principles. In this case, though, they felt that they didn't have enough reason to believe in anything in particular, so they felt that it was wrong to judge life as it came. So, in the end, they accepted the various fortunes of life like the Stoics did. But of course, that is just one aspect of Stoic thought. Once I get farther with the book, I should have more insight into the Skeptic way of thinking.

What drew me to the book is that I identify as a skeptic. Note the small 's'. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in things that seem improbable to me. I'd like to think I have a pretty good system for deciding what to trust or not. Such as system can never be perfect, but I feel my system is essentially a skeptical one. The belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the use of Occam's Razor, and the understanding of logical arguments are all key components of critical thinking, and skepticism as I define it is no more than critical thinking. This seems quite a bit different than the sweeping claims of Sextus Empiricus, I think. More on this later.

Annotated Meditations

Russell McNeil has written a pretty nice book on annotated Meditations, which has an accompanying website. I'd encourage anyone interested in Stoicism to check it out. The nice thing about it is that, first of all, Marcus Aurelius's writings can be dense at times. They were translated to English from Greek, a scholarly language that Marcus Aurelius wasn't completely fluent in. So, it's stilted for good reason. Moreover, since the Meditations were really just private notes to himself, they don't follow any sort of logical order. But Prof. McNeil's book actually groups similar passages together, which helps us form a coherent view of Aurelius's thoughts.

His book is brief, but his website compensates for my adding much more material. I would quibble with some of the interpretations in it, which don't quite jibe with how I read things. Then again, I truly don't know much about Stoicism, so I'm willing to give Prof. McNeil the benefit of the doubt.

The book and website are both a worthwhile read, but like Aurelius's writings on their own, it is strong medicine, and best absorbed slowly.

Seneca on flame-wars

Seneca of course never commented on internet debates, but if he did, I'm sure he'd realize how quickly they can lead to anger and fruitless discussion. In Of a Happy Life, he writes of reflecting on his past actions of the day:

"I was a little too hot in such a dispute: my opinion might have been as well spared, for it gave offence, and did no good at all. The thing was true, but all truths are not to be spoken at all times; I would I had held my tongue, for there is no contending either with fools or our superiors. I have done ill, but it shall be so no more."

I think that captures what would have been the Stoic viewpoint to internet discussion. I'd boil it down to one rule: contribute to discussions in which you can help. Correcting someone's ignorance can be a help, but actually make sure you are helping other people, not just gratifying your ego in some way. I personally find it is rare that I have anything to contribute to most discussions, so I tend to stay silent.

Environmentalism

Seneca seems to be an environmentalist, but a strange one. He maintains that nature is under man's domain. In On Benefits, he writes:

So many pleasant groves; fruitful and salutary plants; so many fair rivers that serve us, both for recreation, plenty, and commerce: vicissitudes of seasons; varieties of food, by nature made ready to our hands, and the whole creation itself subjected to mankind for health, medicine and dominion.

But he also gives this amazing portrayal of environmental destruction, in Of a Happy Life:

How long shall we covet and oppress, enlarge our possessions, and account that too little for one man which was formerly enough for a nation? And our luxury is as insatiable as our avarice. Where is that lake, that sea, that forest, that spot of land; that is not ransacked to gratify our palate? The very earth is burdened with our buildings; not a river, not a mountain, escapes us. Oh, that there should be such boundless desires in our little bodies! Would not fewer lodgings serve us? We lie but in one, and where we are not, that is not properly ours. What with our hooks, snares, nets, dogs, etc., we are at war with all living creatures; and nothing comes amiss but that which is either too cheap, or too common; and all this is to gratify a fantastical palate. Our avarice, our ambition, our lusts, are insatiable; we enlarge our possession, swell our families, we rifle sea and land for matter of ornament and luxury. A bull contents himself with one meadow, and one forest is enough for a thousand elephants; but the little body of a man devours more than all other living creatures.

Wow. This section has got to be one of my favorite Stoic writings. Notice he doesn't blame businesses, the government, or society. He places the blame on us, and our desires. Stoicism is a cure, but only on an individual level.

The Stoics can see the problem, but even they do not seem to believe that Stoicism will ever be universal. Because of this, it is not a practical solution for environmental problems. But all those that can recognize the truth, and can curb their own appetites should do so. Limiting our desires will not only help the environment, it will make us lead better lives.

Introduction to Stoicism

This blog kind of jumped right into things, because I was writing for myself. I still am (this blog has virtually no readership at the time of this post), but in case someone does stumble upon it, a summary of Stoic thought might be helpful.

First, I'm not an expert. Second, the Wikipedia entry is a fine place to begin. That entry is a well-rounded article, but here I am only presenting a very short summary of the facts that I find interesting.

The history of Stoicism starts with Zeno the Stoic at around 300 B.C., and became popular among the Greeks, and later, the Romans, being eclipsed by the adoption of Christianity not long after the death of the most famous Stoic, Marcus Aurielius. Most of the writings we have are from the later period of Roman Stoicism.

Modern usage defines Stoicism as a sort of dour unshakability. The unshakability part is right, but Stoics are really supposed to be joyful. I'll explain why shortly.

Stoic philosophy is based on logic. We have to really understand the truth, the reality of all we experience, and we do this based on logic and knowledge. From that logic, the Stoics have figured out a way of life that is designed to maximize our morality and our serenity.

The key insight promoted by the Stoics is to realize that we have no control of our destiny, and therefore by desiring things we cannot control, we invite unhappiness, anger, envy, and more. Because of this, we should not desire things that we cannot be guaranteed of having. Instead, we should desire only correct behavior from ourselves, and this is indeed within our reach (although difficult). So, for example, if you are filled with greed, instead of asking how you can become rich, it's better to ask how you can learn to decrease your dependence on money.

The Stoics take pains to point out how empty everything we work for. Fame is transitory; even the most famous will one day be forgotten. Money can only buy things, and the truth is that we don't need much.

Furthermore, we should prepare ourselves from the blows of life. We will eventually part with everything we love, because either we or they will be destroyed. Change is constant, and nothing we treasure will remain. Emotions such as grief are not to be suppressed, but neither should they grow beyond what is healthy. To be consumed beyond reason with grief is as bad as to give in to lust or avarice.

The Stoics invited us to detach ourselves from our fate, but they also wanted us to be involved in society. They were not hermits and were only somewhat ascetic. This is not a religion, although the Stoics tended to be religious. There are no sacrifices to be made here, except your desires.

According to the Stoics, accepting and practicing their philosophy will allow us live in morality and tranquility, whatever happens.

That's the basics. For a more thorough treatment, I highly recommend William B. Irvine's writings. From there, you can start to read the works of the Stoics themselves.