Your explanation of the dichotomy of control and how it applies to caring for others was very well-articulated. I appreciate your tackling common misconceptions about Stoicism while offering a practical guide for managing personal responsibility and compassion. It’s a powerful reminder of the importance of goodwill, even in the face of overwhelming challenges. I'm currently reading Ryan A Bush and find his perspective also widens my horizons.
I came across stoicism during a time of deep personal suffering. The nature of suffering and its effects on me and the world around me have become a constant companion for me. Thank you for helping me use the dichotomy of control to restructure my thinking about the suffering of others. This is the most impactful piece I've read about stoicism in a long time. Thank you for taking the time for sharing your wisdom with us.
“The dichotomy of control is an obvious place to start, but only when contextualized within virtue and living according to nature.” I love this, a great insight- thanks Brittany
What a great essay. I often struggle with the same thing. I just put in a copy of your new book and hoping to get it in time to read over the holiday break. Many thanks.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and stimulating reflection. Having read your words and met you briefly online recently I have taken the view that you must have a very shiny soul.
A few of the thoughts that surfaced while I was reading included:
Gnothi Seauton which amounts to an exhortation to know yourself in terms of what you are not.
Prosochê or strict continuous vigilance of one’s internal conversation and its emotional consequences, aiming to extirpate negative influences on our ruling faculty and its ability to make virtuous judgements.
The legal concept actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty" which implies that guilt is an emotion that follows on an action…..
Thank you for the kind words, Ricky! It was very nice seeing you yesterday, and I appreciate your insightful comments on my post. Glad to have an ongoing conversation on this difficult issue!
Thanks for sharing this! I've realized Stoicism is only half complete because it doesn't expand much on the female perspective. While the general framework may be applicable to everyone, the practical application probably looks different for men and women.
How to handle the suffering of others is a great example of that, as women generally focus more on relationships. Another that comes to mind is the catastrophic effects of sexual abuse. Hearing the female perspective on these topics is very important and helps improve everyone's understanding. Thank you!
one of the things missing, I suspect in modern stoicism is the idea that there might be a mystery behind events. In this particular case suffering (Christianity on the other hand is full of this idea/resonance). Making it very difficult to resolve through the modern rational mind.
Good point. Stoicism does acknowledge that individuals sometimes suffer for the good of the whole, but this is based more on acceptance and welcoming fate rather than mystery. I guess it depends on which way makes more sense to you!
A possible counter argument to Stoicism that I’ve thought of is that it’s odd to say that virtue is the only good if what virtue is about is proving material/external goods to other people—giving the poor money & food, giving people your time, etc. If virtue is the only good then wouldn’t a country’s policies not really matter? Or even worse, if a policy that caused hardship led to increased virtue (courage through suffering or something) it would be even better!
The above logic seems absurd. The Stoics did say we should genuinely prefer preferred indifferents though, so perhaps the concept of a preferred indifferent may be a tad suspect? I’ve heard Massimo P. say that while virtue is sufficient for a good life or a life worth living, it is not sufficient for flourishing.
I wonder if this gets into more Aristotelian ways of thinking though—Aristotle thought certain external goods were needed to have eudomania. Is the Stoic saying the eudomania is “the life worth living” or “flourishing”? It does seem that the Stoic would also say suicide is justifiable if the rest of your life would be torture and you were no longer able to contribute to the good of society.
Anyway, a bit of a ramble, but some things I have thought about. I wonder if there may be some eclectic position between Stoicism and Aristotelianism (I have problem’s with Aristotle’s ideas regarding the need for wealth, good looks, etc…)
Hi Matthew, good points. As I mentioned this topic probably deserves a blog post to itself because many people have similar objections. If you'd like an extended answer, please grab a copy of Stoic Ethics: The Basics. We anticipate many questions like this--after all, Chris has been thinking about these issues for 50 years--and provide some answers. But short answer: yes, the position you describe is very Aristotelian. Some people have tried to synthesize the Aristotelian and Stoic position (like Antiochus), but there are still objections to this hybrid position.
There are perhaps two parts to my response: one is that the Stoics said "the sage is happy on the rack"--only the sage. Most people have not reached this point, and it would certainly be cruel to expect them to be happy in this situation; therefore we do our best to help alleviate pain. The second part has to do with the way indifferents are defined as worthy of selection. The Stoics recognized that these form part of the background of our lives, and therefore that we need to make decisions regarding them. As Epictetus put it, indifferents are the material for our moral choices. Presented with the opportunity to help someone, we should pursue it. That would be a skillful use of indifferents. An unskillful use would be to deny help to someone when it's within your power to give it.
I hope this makes sense, but it's certainly a complex topic that defies short answers.
Your explanation of the dichotomy of control and how it applies to caring for others was very well-articulated. I appreciate your tackling common misconceptions about Stoicism while offering a practical guide for managing personal responsibility and compassion. It’s a powerful reminder of the importance of goodwill, even in the face of overwhelming challenges. I'm currently reading Ryan A Bush and find his perspective also widens my horizons.
Glad you found it useful, Jon!
I came across stoicism during a time of deep personal suffering. The nature of suffering and its effects on me and the world around me have become a constant companion for me. Thank you for helping me use the dichotomy of control to restructure my thinking about the suffering of others. This is the most impactful piece I've read about stoicism in a long time. Thank you for taking the time for sharing your wisdom with us.
Thank you, Drew. Your comment means a lot to me. Best of luck as you navigate this maddening but beautiful world.
“The dichotomy of control is an obvious place to start, but only when contextualized within virtue and living according to nature.” I love this, a great insight- thanks Brittany
What a great essay. I often struggle with the same thing. I just put in a copy of your new book and hoping to get it in time to read over the holiday break. Many thanks.
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed the essay, and I hope you enjoy the book as well.
Dear Brittany,
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and stimulating reflection. Having read your words and met you briefly online recently I have taken the view that you must have a very shiny soul.
A few of the thoughts that surfaced while I was reading included:
Gnothi Seauton which amounts to an exhortation to know yourself in terms of what you are not.
Prosochê or strict continuous vigilance of one’s internal conversation and its emotional consequences, aiming to extirpate negative influences on our ruling faculty and its ability to make virtuous judgements.
The legal concept actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty" which implies that guilt is an emotion that follows on an action…..
Once again, many thanks,
Virtus et areté,
Ricky
Thank you for the kind words, Ricky! It was very nice seeing you yesterday, and I appreciate your insightful comments on my post. Glad to have an ongoing conversation on this difficult issue!
Thanks for sharing this! I've realized Stoicism is only half complete because it doesn't expand much on the female perspective. While the general framework may be applicable to everyone, the practical application probably looks different for men and women.
How to handle the suffering of others is a great example of that, as women generally focus more on relationships. Another that comes to mind is the catastrophic effects of sexual abuse. Hearing the female perspective on these topics is very important and helps improve everyone's understanding. Thank you!
one of the things missing, I suspect in modern stoicism is the idea that there might be a mystery behind events. In this particular case suffering (Christianity on the other hand is full of this idea/resonance). Making it very difficult to resolve through the modern rational mind.
rereading this at the end of the year
Good point. Stoicism does acknowledge that individuals sometimes suffer for the good of the whole, but this is based more on acceptance and welcoming fate rather than mystery. I guess it depends on which way makes more sense to you!
A possible counter argument to Stoicism that I’ve thought of is that it’s odd to say that virtue is the only good if what virtue is about is proving material/external goods to other people—giving the poor money & food, giving people your time, etc. If virtue is the only good then wouldn’t a country’s policies not really matter? Or even worse, if a policy that caused hardship led to increased virtue (courage through suffering or something) it would be even better!
The above logic seems absurd. The Stoics did say we should genuinely prefer preferred indifferents though, so perhaps the concept of a preferred indifferent may be a tad suspect? I’ve heard Massimo P. say that while virtue is sufficient for a good life or a life worth living, it is not sufficient for flourishing.
I wonder if this gets into more Aristotelian ways of thinking though—Aristotle thought certain external goods were needed to have eudomania. Is the Stoic saying the eudomania is “the life worth living” or “flourishing”? It does seem that the Stoic would also say suicide is justifiable if the rest of your life would be torture and you were no longer able to contribute to the good of society.
Anyway, a bit of a ramble, but some things I have thought about. I wonder if there may be some eclectic position between Stoicism and Aristotelianism (I have problem’s with Aristotle’s ideas regarding the need for wealth, good looks, etc…)
Hi Matthew, good points. As I mentioned this topic probably deserves a blog post to itself because many people have similar objections. If you'd like an extended answer, please grab a copy of Stoic Ethics: The Basics. We anticipate many questions like this--after all, Chris has been thinking about these issues for 50 years--and provide some answers. But short answer: yes, the position you describe is very Aristotelian. Some people have tried to synthesize the Aristotelian and Stoic position (like Antiochus), but there are still objections to this hybrid position.
There are perhaps two parts to my response: one is that the Stoics said "the sage is happy on the rack"--only the sage. Most people have not reached this point, and it would certainly be cruel to expect them to be happy in this situation; therefore we do our best to help alleviate pain. The second part has to do with the way indifferents are defined as worthy of selection. The Stoics recognized that these form part of the background of our lives, and therefore that we need to make decisions regarding them. As Epictetus put it, indifferents are the material for our moral choices. Presented with the opportunity to help someone, we should pursue it. That would be a skillful use of indifferents. An unskillful use would be to deny help to someone when it's within your power to give it.
I hope this makes sense, but it's certainly a complex topic that defies short answers.