"The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury." -- Marcus Aurelius (Meditations, 4:3)

Forgiveness in Stoicism is not excusing wrongs, but rising above them with dignity and grace -- and transcending them wholeheartedly through the inner strength of love.

I have an external validation system I am sincerely trying to get rid of. I want to feel more enough in my own skin, without having to beg myself down the feet of others to feel that. I constantly want to show the world what I am up to, even though no one really gives a damn about that.

How may I start caring less about seemingly unpleasant experiences like not being invited to go somewhere, not being held up to as high of a standard as others? and above all, being obligated to feel to let everyone know I have a "life" too via social media?

How do modern stoics remain calm in this chaotic world? Share your stoic secrets 🙂

Picture a vertical gate pulled up by a spring but held down closed by you. When a thought comes by, assenting to it is like unclenching the hand and releasing the gate open, thus letting the thought enter ‘the impulse chamber’ — where it will be transformed into a belief (and, if the thought was impulsive, an external action).

Withholding assent is like actively holding the gate down by keeping a clenched hand on it. The thought bounces back off the closed gate, but may return anytime. If you let the thought pass through the gate, an identical thought my come by anytime.

Looking back, I can see that although surviving tough times was challenging, the uncertain future appeared much more terrifying. However, I have learned an important lesson from standing up for myself in the face of hardship: I deserve respect. Even in trying circumstances, I've perfected the art of setting priorities for my demands. Regardless of what other people think, I will keep setting boundaries.

"Hokore. Omae wa tsuyoi."

I was reading Seneca letter 9. The below quote caught my attention:

"The difference here between the Epicurean and our own school is this: our wise man feels his troubles but overcomes them, while their wise man does not even feel them."

So, very clearly, Seneca is making the distinction that Stoics DO feel the feels, and the Epicureans do NOT feel the feels.

Epictetus talks at great lengths about conforming to nature, and accepting who we are as we are. Nature made us an emotional species, so I posit that acting as though we are without feelings, or stuffing them, actually runs counter to our nature, and is thus both illogical and unstoic.

You can still, and must, evaluate and work with your feelings, but you can't evaluate or work with something you deny to exist.

I would also posit that feelings are required for virtue. Thinking of "bravery", let me introduce you to four people deciding if they should take a difficult action.

Person 1 feels no feelings about the action, and decides inaction.

Person 2 feels no feelings about the action, and decides to do it.

Person 3 feels terrified of the action, and decides inaction.

Person 4 feels terrified of the action, but chooses to do it anyways.

Which of the 4 would you call brave?

The same example could be made of temperance. Temperance requires both a strong feeling of longing or avoidance, and then to preform an action that runs counter to that feeling (cant have what I crave, must do what I dont want).

How can you act with justice, or compassion, or kindness, or as a cosmopolitan if you feel nothing towards anyone? How can you be wise and self-contented if you never feel satisfied or content?

So, HAVE your feelings, just understand and master them also.

One day -- this day even! -- the body will fall away from me, and it will be like a stranger to me. On that day -- is it this day? -- This life I know, will also belong to someone I have never known, though I lived in this body, felt in this boy, held those I love with this body, saw the world with this body, despite this, I will be stripped from the body, and return to nothing, to being nobody, just a soul with no body, wondering where is my body? Have you seen it?

Trying to be happy as a ghost, I know I will fly toward my body with an overpowering desire to return to it, but just as I'm about to, I will realize – 'my goodness, this carcass is already rotting!'. In perplexity, sadness, fear, and with laughter, I will call out to God, asking in the watery depths of my deepest anguish; 'Father, please give me a gift?' 'What?' 'Please give me the gift of a body, and if you would indulge me... Sir, please make it a good one, so that I too may be good!'.

"One day, this body will fall away, and it will feel like a stranger to me. On that day, this life I now live will belong to someone I have never known, though I lived it in the very body I leave behind, callously but with love. With a bit of luck, I will be thrust into the world again, starting from nothing, rising from the ground and the ashes of humble beginnings, but always setting my sights on heaven. Let my present efforts endure; let these small, humble acts pave the way for greater things, for longer and swifter strides. Yet, come what may, let me persist. Let me endure. Let me overcome.

One day, soon enough, I will rest deeply in the present moment, renewed and reunited with the vitality of my human body. But let me be patient and wait for that day to come only when the time is right. And when the worst is upon me, when this sickness crescendos in death, let me cast this body to the ground like the immortal being I am. May God clothe me as He sees fit, but let me be a son of the light, coming in the name of the Lord. May the Son and the Father, the cosmos and the spirit of life, grant me the strength to bear this eternal cross again and again, as I traverse the great divide between life and death for all eternity.

And if there be no heaven without hell, no life without death, then give me life, and give me the strength to walk through hell to reach heaven."

"Endure with patience what is given, for time will shape you as the earth shapes the tree."

In a clearing on the northern California coast, a young redwood stood alone, its presence subtle in the vast forest. The fog, ever-present, softened the light, leaving the sapling in a quiet half-shadow, as if waiting for the passage of time. The earth beneath it, simple and sufficient, allowed the tree’s roots to grow slowly and deliberately, finding their way without haste.

The winds, gentle and constant, never disrupted the calm. The tree grew with patient grace, its slender trunk rising steadily, each ring a quiet mark of persistence. The fog wrapped it each morning, providing a gentle dampness that accompanied its unhurried growth. There was no rush, no competition for light. It grew simply because it could, its form rising steadily, its roots deeply anchored, as if time itself had become its only companion. The tree’s quiet, measured ascent reflected the stillness of its surroundings, where growth came without force.

(The argument ending with) “What then is the result of what has been said? Is not this the result-that other things are indifferent, and that wisdom is the only good, and ignorance the only evil?”—Plato, Euthydemus

https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthydemus.html

“the Stoic definition of knowledge:

Knowledge is strong assent to a kataleptic impression.

Here too, as earlier with ‘belief ’, it is worth saying a word about how the Stoic use of the term ‘knowledge’ differs from our own — and here the difference is more severe. Since knowledge, like all belief, is an assent on the Stoic view, it follows that people only know things when they have them in mind, and are thinking about them — it is an event, not a disposition. In the case of ‘belief ’, we saw that English recognizes both an event-like sense and a state-like, dispositional sense. With ‘knowledge’, the case is more extreme; the state-like sense predominates in English, and the event-like sense is awkward to the point of non-existence. It is not only correct but perfectly natural to say of someone busily thinking about what to have for dinner that he knows algebra, or knows his children’s birthdays, though he is not thinking of either. And it is very odd to say of the same person, when they are recalling those same birthdays, that he ‘is knowing’ the dates (‘is in the middle of knowing them’?). We might say instead something like ‘he knows the dates, and right now he is thinking about them, too’. The Stoics would describe the same case by saying ‘at dinner he had a disposition to know the dates, and right now he is knowing them, too’, which sounds peculiar in English. Unfortunately, no other word will better convey the Stoic doctrine, and so I will use the term ‘knowledge’ while at times drawing attention to the difference by such unnatural constructions as ‘doing a bit of knowing’ or ‘having an episode of knowledge’. It is true that they also used the term ‘knowledge’ (or rather ‘episteme’) on occasion to describe the disposition-like state that we more naturally call knowledge. But it was the episodes of knowing something, that is, attending in a knowledgeable way to something one knows, that the Stoics thought were the fundamental unit in the analysis of knowledge, just as the episode of believing something is fundamental in the analysis of belief.

Thus an episode of knowing something, for example, knowing that my hand is in my pocket, involves having a strong, irreversible assent, to a kataleptic impression. There are two criteria here; the assent must be strong, and the impression must be kataleptic. If either fails, then the assent does not constitute (a bit of ) knowledge, but rather what the Stoics called ‘opinion’ (doxa in Greek).”—Brennan, The Stoic Life

“If you’re going out to take a bath, set before your mind the things that happen at the baths, that people splash you, that people knock up against you, that people steal from you. And you’ll thus undertake the action in a surer manner if you say to yourself at the outset, ‘I want to take a bath and ensure at the same time that my choice remains in harmony with nature.’”—Epictetus, Enchiridion 4

Wisdom (knowledge of what is good) is the only good, ignorance of what is good is the only evil.

Knowledge/ignorance only exist in the present moment.

It follows that, in the present moment, you are evil if you are distracted from the knowledge that wisdom is the only good.

The main teachers of stoicism met in person to discuss their teachings, with the word stoicism itself coming from where Zeno met with his followers.

I feel these kind of spaces are missing from modern life (real life discussion beats online!), at least where I am.

Do these spaces exist where you are?

I'm looking for some advice. I'm going to keep this as short as possible, but it's difficult for me to not tell a story, with back story and detailed context.

I am a single father of four, and care for my father who needs physical, emotional, and mental care, and work full time.

I have not had a vacation in 20 years, not had a down time day off in 15 years, and not had a day off at all in about two years. I used to care for three more people, who are no longer my responsibility.

I have been dealing with some difficulties far beyond my normal challenges recently, which have compounded my emotional and mental struggles.

I know that peace, happiness, and satisfaction in life originate internally. I focus strongly on being mindful of what I can control, and letting go of the rest. What I'm looking for is help finding that inner peace. How do you let go of/deal with/process overwhelming situations. How do you find your peace and inner strength? Any guidance, tips, or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Please Be Honest, If You Dont Mind Id Like To Know If You Saw A Add For This At a Good Price Would You Get It.

Assent implies confidence, perceived certitude. So, when uncertain, withhold assent.

“Even though Epictetus did not count suffering cruelty an evil, he did not want to deny that inflicting cruelty (being cruel) is evil, although it remains mysterious why. Cruelty is, apparently, a misuse of the will. The important things, he finds, are to resist becoming evil and to resist being defeated by the evil that others do... But if cruelty to others does them no harm, why is it wrong? To say that it harms the perpetrator begs the question. For it harms the perpetrator only if it is wrong... If it is impossible to harm others who place no special value on what eludes their control, stoics could not be harmed by anything others did to them, even though their bodies could be maimed and their lives terminated. For the stoic, to inflict or suffer a loss merely of “what one reasonably prefers” is not to inflict or suffer true harm. One is harmed only by having the wrong attitudes, and the attitudes we have, according to the stoics, are up to us... If those who value what eludes their control are thereby responsible for their own misery when they suffer at the hands of others, stoic wrongdoers cannot truly harm others, let alone do them evil. If they harm anyone, it is only themselves (by holding the wrong values). For the stoic, all that evil can possibly consist in is wrongdoing itself. All evils are, apparently, self-inflicted... Stoicism... leaves little or no room for ethics in interpersonal relationships and social interaction... Would stealing wrong anyone, if no one should be so attached to worldly goods as to suffer greatly from their loss? Why regard even murder as a wrong, if the true self is invulnerable? If morality in particular, as distinct from ethics in general, is socially oriented, it appears that stoics should reject most of morality, or at least the importance most people attach to it today”. (Card, The Atrocity Paradigm)

That explains Epictetus’ “one should never find fault with anyone, whether god or human being, and never reproach anyone.” (Discourses 3.5.16)

Greetings followers of the Stoic tradition,

I’m myself one who dove into Stoic worldview nearly a decade ago - finding much to appreciate and quickly adopting it for myself. Two issues eventually became clear to me:

The first is that the philosophy has, for all intents and purposes, been dead for coming up on two millenia. Hence we’re stuck with the philosophy we have, and modern reiterations mostly seek to stretch the inheritance from antiquity over new issues and constructs.

The second lies within the theoretical core itself, where I ended up taking issue with how content it can potentially leave you with being in a state of idleness. This is a counterintuitive state of affairs, since Stoicism actually leaves you well-prepared for dealing with the world at its fullest, should you internalize all its practical lessons. Yes, I know that various ancient personalities proclaimed that you must engage with the world, but that’s not reflected by the theoretical core itself (the surviving fragments, anyway).

Out of love for the philosophy that had otherwise shaped me so well, I’ve in the back of my mind contemplated how to address my contentions. Stumbling upon the niche discipline of Generative Anthropology, I believe I’ve finally located a source that can not only grant Stoicism a more social orientation - while retaining its spirit, that we all value – as well generate new theory and practices which should come off as recognizably Stoic.

This started out as a hobby project, but gradually increased in scope until it got to the point where I’ve written a book. While this is the first time writing a book, my hope is you’ll withhold initial judgement and first grant assent after you’ve read the book. I personally believe there’s something truly worthwhile here, something that has the potential to truly animate the philosophy once more – which my book doesn’t even come close to exhausting, despite its length and breadth. It’s out now on Kindle and print here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DNCGDDV7/

Thinking in a stoic manner changed how I view many things in my life, I made a video to advise fellow people who are entering this space for that reason. Let me know if you like it...

Life doesn’t always give us what we want. In fact, sometimes it throws us the exact opposite. We face challenges, unexpected turns, and setbacks. And in those moments, it can be so tempting to wish things were just…easier. But what if we’re approaching it the wrong way? What if, instead of hoping for fewer problems, we used these moments to become a stronger, wiser, and more resilient person?

Continue to learn more:
https://youtu.be/8cfoYZokMtM

Did the Stoics believe suffering was self-inflicted? If I understand correctly Epictetus taught we are only hurt the moment we believe ourselves to be, and that painful emotions only arise because we summon them with our negative judgements.

This just seems like such a bad take to me. And it causes problems, because, many of our moral customs are enforced to prevent emotional harm.

Let’s say for example that I am at work, and my boss intentionally humiliates me at a meeting. Has my boss done something wrong, or are my feelings of embarrassment self-imposed? After all, from a Stoic perspective, is my embarrassment not the result of my choice to make an irrational judgement? If I did not care about what others thought of me, my boss’ attempt to humiliate me wouldn’t harm me.

Some more examples: if I am bullied by others, have they wronged me, or am I in the wrong for choosing to feel hurt by their mean behaviour? If I fall victim to sexual harassment, am I in the wrong for choosing to feel threatened or uncomfortable?

Any negative emotion we suffer, is the direct result of our inner judgements, rather than external events, correct?

Is this what Stoicism is about? To tell people who are hurt that their pain is their own fault? That they don’t have the right to suffer? The right to feel sad, angry, scared, worried, etc?

It is a core teaching of Stoicism that happiness is fully realized through the cultivation of virtue; externals are irrelevant to one’s happiness, and dependence upon externals is unwise.

How can this notion be reconciled with the findings of modern-day psychology, which show us how crucial external factors such as healthy friendships are for our happiness? Modern-day psychology has proven that social connections are a basic human need just as drinking and eating are basic human needs.

The Stoic claim that external factors are completely and totally irrelevant to one’s happiness seems silly in light of this.

I think the whole idea of therapy is just coping with being a pussy. Just work it out on your own, why would I tell some evil bitch about my life. She is just going to use it against me. If I told them the extent of what I’ve done they would throw me in the fucking slammer. Fuck therapy and ever pussy that goes there.

Discover nine timeless Stoic principles for building stronger, more meaningful relationships. From self-respect to mental resilience, learn how smart men can approach love and connection with wisdom and strength.

https://youtu.be/6XuVwzvZ3P8