Lately, my YouTube feed has been flooded with AI-generated content. I don't intend to start a debate about the quality or utility of such content, but I would like to hear your suggestions regarding high-quality Stoic content creators (specifically, *not* AI).

Some of the authors I enjoy listening to are:

- Massimo Pigliucci

- DailyStoic (Ryan Holiday)

- Donald Robertson

- William Irvine

They are primarily writers on Stoicism who appear in interviews or podcasts. Since they don't produce the videos themselves, they don't always have the chance to expound on topics in depth—with the exception of Ryan.

Any recommendations?

I consider myself a very curious person with a well-trained mind; this gives me plenty of resources when it comes to problem-solving. In fact, I sometimes feel I have a knack for clear thinking, even across widely different fields.

The issue is that, more often than not, I end up "drowning" in all that information. I understand it and can explain it... but I struggle to turn it into actual practice, to truly integrate it into my daily life, as the Stoics advocated.

I know the principles and how they are supposed to be applied. While reading, I get excited, "Wow, I’m going to implement this" and I tell myself that the key is consistency, taking it one step at a time. Yet, within hours or days, I slip back into my old habits, finding it difficult to truly maintain and integrate the new ones.

That’s why my question isn't really about the teachings themselves, but about their practical application. Has anyone else experienced this and successfully broken the cycle? What techniques or fundamentals did you use? What obstacles did you encounter, and how did you overcome them?

I’ve tried using habit trackers, but they just end up sitting there as unused files. I’ve tried keeping an evening journal, but the habit fades after a few days or weeks. I’ve been trying to break this inertia for years.

I want to achieve what Marcus Aurelius once said: "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."

On one end, you have the early Greek Stoics, who were proto-anarchists. On the other end, you’ve got a bunch of Romans who either classical republicans or monarchists, but all fiercely dedicated to Rome.

But then over here, you’ve got this Phrygian named Epictetus:

>If there is any truth in what the philosophers say about the kinship between God and humanity, what course is left for human beings than to follow the example of Socrates, and when one is asked where one is from, never to reply, “I’m an Athenian” or “I’m a Corinthian,” but rather, “I’m a citizen of the universe”? For why say, in fact, that you’re an Athenian rather than just a citizen of that corner in which your poor body was thrown down at the time of your birth? Isn’t it obvious that you choose the place that is more sovereign, and not merely that little corner, but also your whole household, and, in a word, the source that your entire race of ancestors has come down to you, and on that basis you call yourself an “Athenian” or a “Corinthian”?

Epictetus, Discourses 1.9.1–3

But then over here you’ve got this dude Hierocles, who was probably Greek:

>After speaking of the Gods, it is most reasonable to show, in the next place, how we should conduct ourselves towards our country. For, by Jupiter, our country is as it were a certain secondary God, and our first and greatest parent.

Hierocles, Ethical Fragments, "How We Ought to Conduct Ourselves towards our Country." Trans. Taylor.

Here’s how I think about it… and I offer this not as a professional scholar, but as someone who proudly wears the uniform of his country and tries to think seriously about this stuff. Just so my biases are on the table.  

First, we have to be clear what we mean by this word patriotism. Even without getting into cliched distinctions from nationalism, patriotism itself might mean several different things depending on who’s talking:

• an emotional love for one’s country
• a desire for what is best for one’s country
• a sense of belonging to one’s country
• a sense of duty toward one’s country
• a belief in the inherent superiority of one’s country

Each of these reflects a different moral posture, and each interacts differently with Stoic ethics. So if we want a serious answer, we have to take them one at a time.

Patriotism as love for my country. Like love for parents or children, under normal circumstances the Stoics would likely consider love of country eupatheia, a “rational emotion.” Whether that love is rational depends on the truth of the impression underlying it. A Stoic would say it is mistaken to say my country is a good thing, or that its welfare is a good thing. These are “preferred indifferents” in the Stoic view. Still, it is perfectly rational to feel joy in the presence of one’s beloved country, just as it is rational to feel joy in the presence of a beloved friend. What would not be rational is becoming so emotionally “carried away” that one loses self-command or begins desiring unjust or inappropriate things for its sake.

Patriotism as a wish for my country’s welfare. From a Stoic perspective, it would generally be virtuous to prefer the welfare of one’s country. Indifference or hostility toward it, as often appears in certain scholarly communities, would miss something important about our social nature. Virtue is largely expressed in how we correctly recognize and select what is preferred or dispreferred. A country’s welfare normally belongs among the preferred; Seneca, for example, includes it with joy, peace, victory, and well-behaved children (see Letters 66.5, 36–7). The analogy to family is useful here; just as I would not want my child to succeed through bribery or injustice (I would not bribe school administrators to unjustly prefer my child), I should not want my country to flourish unjustly. A genuine wish for one’s welfare is a wish for their moral welfare. As a member of the community circle that is my country, I should support the fulfillment of its natural purposes, which includes both moral progress and the preservation of its physical and moral constitution.

Patriotism as a sense of belonging to my country. Epictetus’ line about being a citizen of the universe is often taken as anti-patriotic, but I think that reading is too thin. Stoicism does not deny our local identities; it situates them within a larger framework. It is correct to claim membership in one’s family. It is correct to claim membership in one’s country. These roles are meaningful steps along the path of moral development. The mistake would be to treat that as the highest or final identity. The Stoic ultimately identifies with what is most comprehensive and sovereign, the rational universe itself.

Patriotism as a sense of duty or obligation toward my country. Stoicism is deeply communitarian in practice. Belonging generates obligations. Just as family membership entails duties, so does citizenship. In fulfilling my own natural purposes as a rational and social being, I am required to support the fulfillment of my country’s natural purposes. That does not mean everyone must assume the same civic role. Some will serve as teachers, some as parents, some as soldiers or public officials, depending on circumstance and aptitude. Perhaps some as political agitators. But the baseline obligations of citizenship alone are substantial, and they are real. Everyone has a role to play, everyone contributes.

Patriotism as a belief in my country’s superiority. It’s reasonable to believe my country is better than others at some things. I might justifiably claim it has the best national parks, or that it produces the best Olympic swimmers or the best pickup trucks, but such factors are plainly irrelevant to the question of what makes one country ‘better’ than another. Reaching for something determinative, I might claim its economic system, its form of government, or its intrinsic cultural values are better aligned to the achievement of humanity’s natural purposes than those of its fellow countries. I might even be able to substantiate and defend these claims.

But none of this would convince a Stoic philosopher. And although it might seem appropriate to clarify ‘better at what?’ in a ‘whose country is better’ contest, this is not the question a Stoic would ask. A Stoic would inquire, in binary formulation, whether the countries in question are virtuous or vicious. Stoics are moral perfectionists; individuals falling short of moral perfection are equally imperfect. I think (this is just me talking here) if we apply the same standard to countries, then we would have to conclude that all imperfect countries (that is, all countries) are equally deficient in virtue; that which is not ‘straight’ is properly ‘crooked,’ as Seneca says. While I might acknowledge my country has made more moral progress than others, these claims remain irrelevant to the country’s status as virtuous or vicious, in the puzzling way Stoics look at virtue.

So what do we do with that? The Stoics’ moral perfectionism is often taken as paradoxical; it seems to run against basic intuitions and a functional concept of progress. But there are some practical takeaways for this question. First, all countries are works in progress; none is entitled to win any contest. As with any prolonged endeavor, a constant-improvement effort is required just to maintain steady performance (if we’re not getting better, then we’re getting worse—anyone who's played a team sport has heard this one). Further, only the deficient measures him/herself against an obviously deficient neighbor; those who are truly interested in virtue recognize all parties are flawed and success is earned through efforts that are sincere, consistent, and relentless.

So—is or is not patriotism Stoic? I argue that a properly reasoned patriotism is. Like courage or generosity, it merits discipline and moderation. As a citizen, I should want what is best for my country, which necessarily includes what is just. I can (indeed must) acknowledge special obligations to my fellow citizens, much like the special obligations I have toward family, without denying my broader obligations to humanity. I perceive my country’s properly understood welfare as consistent with, not opposed to, the welfare of all rational beings. Properly reasoned, patriotism is not blind loyalty nor is it parochial advantage-seeking, but instead it is a commitment to the welfare of community. This implicitly involves its moral welfare, or what we might call national honor. That, to me, seems entirely consistent with Stoicism.

A perspective shift that stopped my eczema from driving me to suicide.

I want to document a realization I had that gave me a reason not to use eczema as a justification for suicide via this post inspired by a comment left by u/Bataranger999. I personally have been watching the end of my rope grow shorter as eczema introduces me to new delights over the years and this users philosophy dissemination gave me an argument to stick around even with the expectation that it’ll keep getting worse.

For my whole life, even before I found stoicism, the sheer exhaustion from the burning pain of endless cycles of severe eczema had me looking for a way out; a cure. One thought from Seneca justified suicide if it was aligned with the natural response to extreme physical pain, but that lead to a mental trap of constantly thinking, *"I can always take the easy way out if it becomes too much”*.

Then I came across a perspective rooted in Stoic philosophy that forced me to look at my condition entirely differently.

The core realization is that we suffer twice: once from the actual physical flare-up, and a second time from the agonizing expectation that our lives *should* be healthy and comfortable. But the truth is, nature never promised us a baseline of perfect health. Perfect health is an external variable we can't control. For us, the hard reality is that our bodies developed this condition.

When you look at a healthy person and think you're being cheated, you're clinging to an unrealistic expectation of reality, and that expectation is what breeds the deepest frustration and despair.

Once you drop the narrative that you are a victim of an "unfair" universe, everything changes. Accepting this isn't giving up or rolling over. It's just recognizing the exact hand you were dealt. Eczema can dictate your skin, your sleep, and your comfort, but it cannot dictate your mind unless you hand over the keys.

Stoicism taught me that even in the absolute worst of the storm, we retain the power to align our will with reality and withstand it. Knowing that I have the ultimate agency over my own life gave me control, but understanding that I can choose to endure is what keeps me here. We weren't owed a flawless body, but we have just as much of a right to a meaningful existence as anyone else. You don't have to let an unpredictable external condition rob you of your mind. Stop fighting the unchangeable reality of your skin, look the suffering in the eye, and choose to outlast it.

TLDR: A stoic with eczema frames their judgements so that their will is aligned with the true Nature of reality. In doing so one gains the tools to escape suffering, and also the power to take control of the rest of one’s life. To know that killing oneself, if necessary, is an option, yes, but reminding one that you can withstand this. That eczema being out of your control is a test of your virtues. Temperance, Wisdom, Courage, Justice.

I have been wondering about this recently,did ancient stoics believed that stoicism had the ultimate truth in life or they actually thought that it wasn't perfect and but still chose to follow it?,

It’s simple. I’ve been practicing Stoicism for years. I’ve managed to cultivate a calm, automatic mindset, a way of reflecting on situations through a Stoic lens. When something bad happens, I ask myself: "Can I change anything?" If so, I act. If not, there’s nothing I can do; it’s out of my hands, so I stop thinking about it. I’m very good at that part.

But it seems to me we also have to accept that we’ll run into idiots, and that those moments (where the day gets spoiled) shouldn't really matter, because only I decided if they have power/impact over my life. That’s a simplification, of course. But there it is. That’s the part I struggle with.

Here’s the situation I encountered today: I saw a cat on the street. I tried to pet it; it was willing, so I did. Later, a car started up, scaring the cat away. That didn't bother me, I’d expected it, and I’d already given it plenty of cuddles. The driver even gave me an apologetic wave! But since the cat hadn't gone far, I went over to see if it wanted more attention. I was able to pet it again, and it even walked alongside me down the street. It stopped near a doorway; I suspected that was its home. The (garden) gate opened, and two teenagers came out. I looked at the cat, waiting to see if it wanted more petting. I petted it once more, then it walked a little further with me three steps, max before a guy called out to me. He asked if I knew whose cat it was (it didn't have a collar). I said no. He said it was his. I just said, "Oh, okay." And he looked at me again. He said, "So, you're not taking him, right?" I said no, that I was just petting him (I certainly wasn't going to steal that cat; besides, I’ve seen him around the neighborhood before it’s not the first time I’ve petted him). But he insisted that I shouldn't "steal" him, and he clearly stared me down until I left. As I was leaving, he laughed about me with his buddy, making a comment about my appearance as if I were disgusting. And that was it.

Now, that’s all I can think about, the accusation of stealing and that insult, even though I’ve had a thousand times more pleasant interactions with cats than with this human. And it was 15min petting vs 2min talking. And the insult ? I’d even been out with a friend earlier who had complimented my outfit. But now, whenever I think of the cat, I think of the insult. And it was just one sec turning bad a long petting session ! And the nice guys that apologied ! I know I’m the one giving it weight. I know it’s nothing. But I just can’t seem to apply Stoicism here.

My thoughts keep circling back to it, even though rationally I know better. Any thoughts? Experiences? Advice?

(I'm a girl, if that matter. Maybe they wouldn't have insulted me if I was a guy- just because they would thought about consequences, maybe ? They just had the confidence being 2 and being "better" so they can insult me (it was not said to me but him to his friend, but if was loud so I heard it))

I am at a quest to conquer all that i can in my life, be a man that doesnt seek power, money, sex, fame, drugs, you get the deal, i want to be autonomous, and if i decide for example to light a cigarette up, i want it to be because i want it, not because i need it, as i said, dont be dependent on anything, and in this regard, when can i tell i've sucessfully conquered something and am no longer driven by it? Nor am willing to(in a critical moment) give away all my principles in the name of it?

I’m a fit and healthy 23 year old man. I planned as anyone would, to live a long healthy life. To be able to pick up my grandkids in the future and to enjoy this world for a long time. I recently found out this is not the future set for me. I was diagnosed with a terminal Neuro degenerative disease called ataxia and this basically guarantees I will slowly progress towards becoming a cripple and losing full mobility and ability to do very much and then eventually slowly die. This is a grim outlook to have and very disappointing news to receive especially since I’ve watched this same disease slowly ruin my father’s life and leave him a crippled and sickly man. I am trying to find peace in the fact that this is not my fault nor something I can change but I am really struggling to accept how unfair this situation feels. Why was I and my dad for that matter cursed with this genetic predisposition. I had a 50/50 chance of inheriting the bad gene from him. Why couldn’t I have won this coin flip. I just don’t even know what to do or how to feel about this.

Hey I’ve been slowly getting into stoicism for the last few months. Starting with Meditations and I’ve been going through Discourses as well and at this point I feel a little stuck. Though I read only a passage or two at a time I feel like I am reading the same thing over and over again. Align with nature, do not let things outside your control affect your own reasonable action or thinking, nothing truly belongs to you except your mind etc. I know Epictetus was a teacher so this being recorded from several lectures has picked up a lot of the same elements and stoicism is a fairly repetitive philosophy (from what it seems to me but correct me if I am wrong), but I can’t help like feel like I’m having trouble gaining as I continue to read. Anything new at least. But is that the point? Is this not a book that says “Hey here’s another new way to think that will improve your life” and more a book to hone and guide your thinking through continuous representations and examples where these values are applied?

This isn’t a critique by any means stoic philosophy has brought me a lot of peace and understanding and I have learned much from it but I can’t help but feel like I’m not learning more. I’m only ask for input. Am I going at this with a right mind? Is there something I can do to improve my reading experience? Am I overthinking and I am going about it the right way ?

Thank you.

The text appears to be a work on Stoic ethics. It discusses human nature, self-control, learning, and moral growth.

So when you're stoic, I believe you don't subscribe to the belief in karma or blessings, right? Like things just happen because of events in the world that we cannot control. So do stoics often do things like donating to charity or helping out a random person? I'm asking because one of the reason many spiritual or religious people do good deeds is that they expect to get rewards or blessings from a higher power. So what would motivate a stoic person to do good? And like if someone asked for help with money and you said you don't have, but in actual sense you do, would you feel bad about it?

I hope my question doesn't sound as stupid as it sounds now that I've typed it out 😭

I was born in a 3rd world Islamic Middle Eastern country.

During my 22 years of living, I committed a lot of mistakes. In summer 2017, I deleted the YouTube channel where I had the filmed videos by me of my and my grandmas pets. Although I downloaded the vids before deleting, because I didn’t store them elsewhere when I factory reset my pc at fall of 2017 all the videos were gone.

Also in summer 2017 I released my pets at a human made pond so I couldn’t refilm the videos.

I also broke my ankle when I fell from scooter in 2024, I also accidentally broke my hard drive in 2025 that had a lot of media of my family and memories, I chose engineering in 2022 when I went to university and I hate it, we have giant class load of like 10-11 classes per semester, I went to exchange program and due to it I can’t graduate this year because I couldn’t take enough credits.

Whenever I see videos on YouTube uploaded 10 years ago, my heart aches since I could’ve had videos that long ago too but I was a compulsive 13 year old idiot.

Also I am a single child and my family micromanages me a lot. They didn’t let me convert to Christianity in 2023 and for 3 years I wasted my time not getting baptised. I am still dependent on them.

Now I am 22, I have no job, no wife (never even had a girlfriend) no achievements, can’t attend my religion, no respectability. My friends don’t even want to meet up much and when they do, they picked the time where I am having finals exams. So I meet with my friends 1-3 times a year.

Only thing I have is good language skills (I know 4 alphabets I can read and write in Ottoman Turkish but I wish I never learnt it, it’s useless and occupies my brain for nothing I have no use for it it’s a waste of space) I have good English skills and I know a tiny bit of Greek. I also know history and theology a lot.

What do I do?

PS: I have ADHD and GAD if its important.

My 4 month old daughter is growing and changing so quickly that I feel myself constantly grieving versions of her that I loved so deeply but do not exist anymore. She's not a squishy little newborn anymore and I can never get that version of her back ever again. She's getting her first tooth as we speak - no more gummy smile. Things like that.

The hardest part about being a parent for me is that I can't hold onto any of these versions of her that I love except the adult one. And by then, she'll have moved out and moved on and started a family of her own. It feels like near constant loss and I'm having an extremely hard time grappling with this. Any advice would be appreciated.

Welcome to r/Stoicism.

This community exists for serious discussion of Stoic philosophy. It is not a forum for general self-help, motivation, validation, or professional therapy. It is also not a platform for promoting your content, your app, your channel, or yourself.

1. Read the ancient texts. That's the baseline.
2. Search before posting. Your question has probably been discussed.
3. Show your thinking. Don't ask us to do the philosophical work for you.
4. Ground your claims in sources.
5. This is a discussion forum, not a generic advice dispensary or a content feed.
6. Participate in existing conversations before posting your own.

Welcome. We're glad you're here. Please keep reading.

 

Community Mechanics

• Karma threshold. New accounts and users without participation history in r/Stoicism may have posts automatically filtered. This reduces spam and low-effort content. Participate in existing discussions first, by commenting thoughtfully on others' posts, and this restriction lifts naturally.
• Flair restriction on advice threads. Posts flaired as "Seeking Personal Stoic Guidance" have a special rule, by which only users with Contributor or Scholar flair can provide top-level responses. This protects advice-seekers from guidance that misrepresents Stoic philosophy. Anyone can reply to flaired comments. To apply for Contributor flair, see the application guidelines for details.
• Text-based discussion only. No videos, no images (except for scholarly purposes), no memes. Summarize key arguments in writing and link sources as references.
• No AI-generated content. Stoic philosophy is a practice of your own reasoning. Posts and comments deemed overly reliant on AI output may be removed. If you use AI tools for research, the interpretation, argument, and words must be genuinely yours, and you must be able to defend them if questioned.

 

Before You Post

Note that new accounts and users without participation history in r/Stoicism may have posts automatically filtered; take some time to comment on existing discussions first, and this restriction lifts naturally.

ALREADY-ANSWERED QUESTIONS

These come up constantly and have been addressed thoroughly.

• "What books should I read?" See our reading list for a carefully sequenced guide. If you want the short version: start with Epictetus (Discourses, Hard translation), then Seneca's essays (Hardship and Happiness), then Cicero (On Obligations), then Marcus Aurelius (Meditations, Waterfield translation), then Seneca's Letters. Read the ancient sources before the modern interpreters. The reading list explains why this order matters.
• "What do you think about Ryan Holiday?" Search the subreddit as this has been discussed extensively. Popular authors can be a useful entry point, but this community prioritizes classical sources. If your understanding of Stoicism comes entirely from modern interpreters, you're missing critical aspects of the philosophy.
• "How can Stoicism help my problem?" This question is addressed at length in our FAQ section on advice. Stoicism is not a set of instructions for specific life situations. It trains your faculty of judgment so you can reason through situations yourself.
• "Do Stoics suppress emotions?" No. See our FAQ section on misconceptions. The Stoics distinguished between pathē (passions arising from false judgments) and natural emotional responses, including involuntary reactions like flinching, grief, or a sinking feeling, which the Stoics called "first movements" (propatheiai) and considered entirely natural and not within our control. The goal is correct judgment rather than emotional numbness.

For more previously discussed topics, see our frequently discussed topics page, which links to high-quality past threads on common subjects.

HOW TO ASK A GOOD QUESTION

This is a discussion community. We foster dialogue grounded in philosophy and not quick-hit advice dispensing. Don't copy-paste a description of your life situation and append "what would a Stoic do?" That's asking strangers to do the philosophical work for you.

Instead, show that you've done some thinking. What Stoic concepts or passages have you considered? Where specifically are you stuck applying them? What judgments are you making about your situation, and which ones are you questioning?

The following is an example of a good "Seeking Personal Stoic Guidance" post:

>"I read Enchiridion 5 about being disturbed by our opinions of things, and I understand it intellectually, but I keep treating my job loss as genuinely bad. How do others work through this gap between understanding the theory and putting it to practice?"

The following is not, because it lacks philosophical engagement:

>"I lost my job. What would a Stoic do?"

WHAT GETS REMOVED

• Generic self-help content. If your post could appear identically in r/GetMotivated with no changes, it doesn't belong here. We require engagement with Stoic philosophy specifically.
• Quote-dropping. A Marcus Aurelius quote with no citation, no interpretation, and no discussion prompt violates Rule 4. Quote posts require: (1) full citation (author, work, chapter/section, translator), (2) your interpretation, and (3) a point for discussion.
• Misattributed quotes. Many viral "Stoic quotes" are modern fabrications. Verify before posting.
• Videos, images, and memes. Summarize key arguments in writing and link sources as references. See Rule 6.
• Engagement farming. Posts designed to generate engagement rather than to pursue genuine philosophical inquiry (eg: vague provocative questions, polls with no philosophical substance, hot takes that invite argument rather than discussion) are removed. Accounts that show a pattern of this behavior across subreddits are banned.
• Self-promotion and content marketing. See next section.

THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM, NOT A PLATFORM

r/Stoicism is not a place to build your audience, drive traffic, or promote a product. This applies regardless of whether you think your content "helps people."

• All self-promotion belongs in the weekly Agora thread. This includes blogs, YouTube channels, podcasts, newsletters, courses, coaching services, books, and apps. No exceptions.
• Chatbot output, "Stoic AI" tools, and similar projects are not welcome as posts. We don't care that you trained a Marcus Aurelius simulator. Stoic philosophy is a practice of human reasoning and judgment. An AI that pattern-matches Stoic-sounding language is not Stoic practice, and promoting one here is self-promotion regardless of whether you charge for it.
• Implicit self-promotion is still self-promotion. If your post is functionally an advertisement (ie: if the point is to drive people to your profile, your links, your project, or your platform) it will be removed. "Check out my profile for more" or similar language pointing users toward your external content is treated the same as a direct link. We've seen every variation of this. Don't be coy about it.
• We ban engagement farmers. If your account shows a pattern of posting low-effort, high-engagement content across multiple subreddits to farm karma or followers, you will be permanently banned on sight. This is not a gray area.

If you have genuinely non-commercial work that you believe offers significant value and want to share it outside the Agora, message the moderators first.

 

What Stoicism Is (and Isn't)

Stoicism is an ancient Greek philosophy with a systematic doctrine covering logic, science, and ethics. Its central ethical claim is that virtue is the sole good, and that external circumstances (such as wealth, health, reputation, even death) are "indifferents." Stoic practice involves training your faculty of judgment to distinguish what is truly up to you (your reasoning, your choices, your assent to impressions) from what is not.

Stoicism is not "being tough" or suppressing emotions, a productivity system, "just focusing on what you can control."

If your only exposure to Stoicism is through social media quotes or YouTube videos, you've encountered a simplified version. We encourage you to engage with the actual texts. We encourage you to engage with this community in collective pursuit and refinement of Stoic study and practice; that's what this community is for.

For an accessible short introduction, see Donald Robertson's Simplified Modern Approach, Big Think's interview with Prof. Massimo Pigliucci on YouTube, or Stoic scholar John Sellars' Lessons in Stoicism.

For a thorough introduction, see our FAQ. For encyclopedic overviews, see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or the Routledge Encyclopedia.

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS FOR THOSE NEW TO THE PHILOSOPHY

These form the backbone of Stoic ethics. Understanding them will help you participate meaningfully.

• prohairesis — Your faculty of rational choice and judgment; the seat of moral character and the one thing truly up to you.
• impressions and assent — External events produce impressions (phantasiai) in your mind; your work as a practitioner is to examine these impressions before adding value judgments to them, testing whether what appears true actually is and whether you're treating indifferent things as good or bad. This examination is the seat of Stoic practice. Most of what this community does, in terms of analyzing situations and correcting misjudgments, comes back to this mechanism.
• virtue as the sole good — Wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation are the only things genuinely good. Vice is the only genuine evil. Everything else is an indifferent.
• preferred and dispreferred indifferents — Health, wealth, reputation are "preferred" but not good. Disease, poverty, disgrace are "dispreferred" but not bad. Your virtue is not determined by which indifferents you happen to have.
• oikeiosis — The Stoic theory of natural affinity, extending from self-concern outward to family, community, and all rational beings. The foundation of Stoic social ethics.
• prosoche — Vigilant attention, sometimes called "Stoic mindfulness." The ongoing practice of watching your own judgments and catching yourself before assenting to false impressions.

For deeper reading, see our FAQ and wiki.

 

Community Resources

Getting started:

• r/Stoicism FAQ — Comprehensive answers on Stoic doctrine, history, and practice
• Reading List — Recommended primary and secondary sources
• Subreddit Library — Free Stoic texts in the public domain
• Frequently Discussed Topics — High-quality past threads on common subjects (scroll to the bottom of the page)

Learning from the community:

• r/Stoicism Wiki — All community resources

Participating:

• Subreddit Rules
• Flair Application Guidelines
• Agora — Self-promotion and off-topic discussion

I've embraced stoicism since I came into the mindset 4 years ago, and the most troubling thing that I've found in it is telling the difference between what you can and can't control.

I question whether I can control anything at all, and that what we think we can control is nothing more than a consciously necessary perspective for us.

You could get fired from your job tomorrow, and you 'think' you can control how you react and interpret the circumstances, but how do you know that you aren't simply putting on a mask and burying a volcano of frustration deep down?

There are many things that we think we can control, and I'd say there are very few that we actually can. One, I believe, is our breathing and some bodily processes. Certain domains of body regulation we can control to various degrees.

It seems the things outside of our bodies are often what we might misconstrue as parts of us, so we think we can control them as well.

Question for you,

What you can and can't control, can you tell the difference? What's your understanding of control?

Stoic ethics are very useful, but ethics are tied to physics.

I can't rationally apply Stoic ethics if the belief in the physics that grounds the ethics isn't there. What I mean by rational, is not doing it simply as a coping mechanism(common critique in my community).

An example:

I don't believe that the pneuma(active principle) and matter(passive principle) are observed to us as the 4 elements(earth, water, fire, and air). Because we have modern science.

But, I believe in compatibilism and a teleology all humans have. Stoic ethics seems to require me to believe I have an intrinsic telos.

It's much easier to apply something I truly believe.

So, what in physics is necessary for me to accept to rationally apply some part of ethics.

I am new to the game, and definitely not being stoic.

My girlfriend broke up with me due to life circumstances, I accepted her decision and didn’t beg or get angry or anything like that. I’ve told her I’m here if she wants ect but she has no intentions of a relationship again.
I saw her last week to exchange some stuff, the last time I will be in contact and she looked so sad. How do I change my mindset to accepting a crap situation and letting it go, when my heart says hold on.

Human beings tend to overestimate the extent to which they authored themselves.

We speak as though our ambitions, preferences, convictions, anxieties, tastes, and habits emerged from some private chamber of independent judgment, when much of what we call the self is the cumulative residue of environments we never consciously evaluated.

The architecture of a personality is assembled long before the architecture of reason. A child does not choose the emotional temperature of his home, the seriousness of the people around him, the level of stimulation he is exposed to, the ideas treated as respectable, the fears treated as normal, or the ambitions made available to his imagination.

He absorbs them.

Slowly, repeatedly, invisibly.

Over time, repetition becomes familiarity. Familiarity becomes preference. Preference becomes identity. Then identity defends itself as though it had been chosen freely.

This is why conditioning is so difficult to recognize. Its greatest achievement is persuading the conditioned mind that it arrived at itself independently.

By adulthood, most people are already living inside a psychological room whose walls they cannot see. They call those walls personality, culture, instinct, common sense, morality, taste, discipline, laziness, ambition, fear.

The question becomes uncomfortable only after it is asked carefully:

how much of what you call yourself is actually yours, your ambitions, your idea of success, your fear of failure, your criteria for admiration and intimacy, your threshold for sustained effort, your orientation toward existence, your sense of personal possibility, your image of a respectable life, your instinctive shame, your private hierarchy of what is worth wanting?

How much of it was chosen, and how much of it was simply repeated into you until it began speaking in your voice?