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.