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
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
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.