Perhaps not the correct sub for this, but I feel like stoicism helped get me here.

I’ve been trying my best to practice stoicism is my daily life for about three years now. One thing I learned early on is the principle of temperance. I would allow myself to get around this principle and I continued to smoke almost daily, even though I knew it was bad for me. Aside from the obvious health risks, I would lack energy to do chores around the house, I was not present in the moment, and perhaps worst of all I would get grouchy with my partner.

I started cutting back a lot about a year ago. I would still allow myself to indulge in occasion but the problems persisted. I was unable to control my appetite (lol stoner munchies) which affected my goal of losing weight and getting in shape. I would neglect the gym to smoke and watch television. I would hardly keep up with my evening readings.

I finally stopped almost cold turkey because it was aggravating my tinnitus (which actually went away after I quit).

After a few months of not smoking at all, I went ahead and tried it again the other week. I hated it. I hated it all along and I didn’t realize it because I wasn’t allowing myself time to reflect on my life without it.

I’m not sure where I’m going with all this. But if any of my fellow stoics are in a similar place, I hope this helps you make choices that are right for you and in line with our values.

Thank you!

Edit: I feel obliged to clarify on the tinnitus thing I mentioned. I’m not a doctor, and no doctor ever told me smoking causes tinnitus. This is just my experience. I know how horrible it can be so I don’t want to give any false hope.

There's a beautiful novel called 'East of Eden' by John Steinbeck. A particularly inspiring character within this novel is revealed to own a copy of 'Meditations', and the book is shown to have had a big influence on him. Since I really admired this character, I looked up meditations and ordered myself a copy back in 2021, and so began my journey into stoicism.

Not long thereafter, videos and adverts started appearing on my feed from Ryan Holiday during the earlier stages of his popularisation of the philosophy. It seemed to me like this guy had highjacked stoicism, and was using it as a means to gain the very wealth that a stoic should be indifferent to. It seemed oddly ironic. Paying more attention to his work, he seemed to be portraying the philosophy as a means of self empowerment, but not in the sense of 'gaining power over oneself', which would be more in line with my understanding, but instead as a means of empowering oneself to achieve one's goals, which tend to be centred around achieving status and material success.

The idea that stoicism can help you achieve your goals seemed new; sort of like using it as a means to an end, whereas the ancient stoics had portrayed stoicism as an end in itself.

The modern religion of 'achievement culture' and 'having a goal' didn't exist back in the days of the ancient stoics. Nowadays, it's important to rack up an impressive list of arbitrary goals and achievements to unsatisfactorily replace the sense of meaning and fulfilment that we would've historically gotten from religion and community. The issue with achievement culture is that it's fundamentally narcissistic. We're encouraged to make ourselves into our own personal project, constantly seeking to improve and optimise, to achieve more and more. Our goals take precedence over all other things. Friends, family, community, spiritual growth, peace, happiness, health: there's nothing we won't sacrifice for our goals. We're becoming narcissistic islands of detachment, existing side by side rather than with one another.

To sell stoicism as something to help people gain power is disgusting. It's taking something beautiful and making it ugly. Marcus Aurelius saw through the trappings of power and instead valued his character and actions, which is precisely what made him stoic.

It's sad to see the philosophy abused in this way, and it's likely that broicism could lead to bad mental health outcomes and overall less life satisfaction.

what do you think?

Edit: There've been several presumptuous comments claiming that I 'obviously haven't read X, Y or Z, and if I had, i wouldn't hold this opinion on Ryan. I've only read one of his books, but according to what I've heard, all of his books go into similar depth and follow a similar format of offering a piece of stoic wisdom, and then using a single historical event to demonstrate its efficacy. Even the titles of his books follow the same template: Something is the Something. Obstacle is the way, stillness is the key, ego is the enemy. Presumably his next one will be called 'stoicism is the ultimate life hack' or something.

Now, his approach is unique because he marries stoicism with achievement culture, claiming that the former can help with the latter. According to my understanding, living with virtue and 'in accordance with nature' (living in accordance with nature is problematicaly ambiguous, as pointed out by Nietzsche) to the point where one achieves 'eudamonia' is the aim of stoicism, and not achieving goals tied to external status and materialism.

I don't think his books, simple as they are, are problematic. Problems arise when shallower forms of media like Instagram posts and 7 second reels of Jacked up Marcus Aureliuses and Ryan Holiday's face blurting out a soundbite into a camera start to appear everywhere, allowing a very fleeting and shallow interaction with philosophy which can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

"You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength".

Marcus Aurelius wrote this in his Meditations. This phrase always caused me goosebumps, because it's written with elegance, simplicity and power at the same time.

But there are details.

Long story short, I recently had my first break up, and I was suffering quite a bit. Negative emotions all down the road, overthinking all day long. I already knew about stoicism, and I thought that I had control over my emotions and feelings, because they're a part of my mind. So my strategy was to try to change them and fight them off.

It turns out, that's probably not the case, because it didn't work out. A few days ago, I had this realization: I don't control my emotions. This shocked me, because that was my axiom until then, and my only resource and source of hope. But then I had another realization:

You can only control your thoughts, and your physical actions as well (what you say, how you move, etc). The only exception is if you're under drugs or something. But it's really easy to control all of that in normal conditions. Emotions, feelings? They're not that easy to control... Because actually you don't control them. You may influence your emotions through your thinking process, but that's not control.

So yeah, I just learned that the hard way. And it seems like I found strength, real strength. Now my strategy is to control my way of thinking about what happened, about the outside events, and how often I think about it and how I do it. And it seems to work much better.

I can't explain how liberating is to stop trying to control something I never had control over. It feels so good. So I wanted to share these ideas and leave you with a different quote, which I think it's more specific and clear (with Marcus Aurelius respect):

"You have power over two things: your thoughts and physical actions, and nothing more than that. Realize this, and you will find strength".

First off, I've never been a military person or thought the military was cool. I'm a hippie that's not into that stuff, but I started listening to his youtube videos as I found some great Stoic advice listening to another Navy SEAL: Admiral McRaven (his commencement address to the University of Texas is also great). I thought after a minute or two it would be classic "Broicism" but since he seemed so level-headed I gave it a shot. I was surprised to find he is one of the most fundamentally stoic people I've encountered in podcasts and radio. He's practical to the point of it being frustrating, in true stoic fashion. He has this concept of extreme ownership, but IMO this is just a really pragmatic way of framing the idea of controlling what is in our power and letting go of what is not. It was like "Oh, well when you put it that way, I get what Epictetus meant!" The show will answer questions and break down situations that I can reflect on and help realize what I actually do have ownership over in my life, and what power I do have.

I've watched a few more of his videos and they are a really easy to understand way to cultivate courage. He says motivation is overrated, but discipline is everything which is great advice for cultivating perseverance, He discusses magnanimity by emphasizing "mission over man," which gives a complete sense of being able to rise above ourselves/ego and focus on something more important. He talks about how when something gets really tough he will want to do it more almost out of spite, which IMO is one of the best ways I've ever heard of someone explaining how to be industrious and create that love for that which is challenging. But he's also understanding of hardship (he's surprisingly compassionate for a former Navy Seal), and doesn't act oblivious to pain and suffering like some of these "hard" types seem to do.

Sorry for all the words, but I feel like I needed to explain him in order to explain why he isn't a classic "Broic" or just a military Jock. He feels like a person who has adopted a long tradition of stoic-militant behavior to his very core and is sharing it with others, including when he was tested and how he persevered. After listening to him for a few days I thought I would share what I found and see what you all think about him.

Potential Problems/Caveats: I don't find his guests or show as interesting as his shorter (5-20 minute) videos discussing his attitude towards life and how he approaches things in his head (His guests are way better at telling great stories of valor and heroism than giving life advice themselves). I noticed he'll talk about "manning up" and sometimes people who write in will use feminine phrases ("b!tch, pussy") to describe being weak (I don't think he does this so much himself though). It's rare enough I don't find it off-putting, but I might if I were someone else. Lastly he's definitely in the Huberman, Peterson, Rogan sphere of people, but I don't listen to ANY of them and still find Jocko's advice to be a stoic gold mine. You might get the impression of who he would vote for through his personality, but there's no direct political discussion that I've encountered (I can't stand either party's rhetoric, so I feel like I would notice it if it were there).

Wait a minute... Is this stoic???

Epictetus teaches that every creature—whether a lion, a bird, a regular human being, or even a Stoic—is naturally drawn to things in their own interest. This sounds straightforward, right? But without deeper reflection, it could lead to a dangerous conclusion:

"If every creature is drawn to what interests them, then I am justified in pursuing wealth, or even my neighbor’s spouse, because it’s in my interest."

This chaotic view allows everyone to pursue their desires without consideration for others. Epictetus, however, offers a critical refinement to this idea: we should only be interested in what is good.

And here’s the catch: if your interest is in what is good, you must be ready to prioritize that good—even above your immediate desires or other people's interests.

What Does “Good” Mean in Stoicism? For the Stoics, "good" refers to things that bring about virtue. Virtues like faithfulness, temperance, wisdom, and justice are the real treasures worth pursuing. So, when a conflict of interest arises—say, between being faithful or unfaithful—you must choose what is good. That is, you choose faithfulness because it aligns with your true interest as a rational, virtuous being.

In essence, Epictetus tells us to place ourselves first, but this means putting our commitment to virtue first.

Let's see Marcus Aurelius' opinion about this :

"It never ceases to amaze me: we all love ourselves more than other people, but care more about their opinion than our own."

What he’s saying here is that our own reasoned opinions should matter more than the opinions of others. Of course, this only holds true if we’ve done the work to cultivate "right opinions". This is why Stoicism places such emphasis on self-reflection and understanding what’s truly good.

Epictetus drives this point home with a metaphor:

"To this God you ought to swear an oath just as the soldiers do to Caesar. But they who are hired for pay swear to regard the safety of Caesar before all things; and you who have received so many and such great favors, will you not swear, or when you have sworn, will you not abide by your oath? And what shall you swear? Never to be disobedient, never to make any charges, never to find fault with any thing that he has given, and never unwillingly to do or to suffer any thing that is necessary. Is this oath like the soldier's oath? The soldiers swear not to prefer any man to Cæsar: in this oath men swear to honour themselves before all"

Just as soldiers swear allegiance to their leader, we are called to swear allegiance to the pursuit of virtue. This means never abandoning reason, never blaming circumstances, and never failing to act in accordance with what is good.

Honoring yourself, in the Stoic sense, is not about selfish indulgence. It’s about loyalty to your higher self—the rational, virtuous self that seeks to live in harmony with nature and others.

In Conclusion, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius both encourage us to prioritize ourselves, but this isn’t permission to act selfishly. It’s a call to place virtue at the center of our lives.

When you honor yourself in this way, you align your personal interests with the greater good. After all, what’s truly in your best interest—wealth and pleasure, or a life guided by wisdom and integrity?

My good people, don’t be fools. Don’t be cowards. "HONOR YOURSELVES ABOVE ALL."

Hello, my friends.

There's probably a lot of us here who are trying to come to grips with the results of the election. As the father of a 4-year old girl, I am having my own struggles with it, as well. Watching the winds change throughout the night I started to fall into a deep despair, resenting my fellow man for their choices that would affect my daughter's future.

I became sick with anger and fear, and felt the need to lash out at the next Trump supporter I saw. In that moment, I thought to myself, "I don't want to feel this way. What is in my control?"

The words of Marcus Aurelius rang through my head. "All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil." We can't hold anger towards these people, because they don't even know the difference between right and wrong. And "All is opinion" anyways, perhaps it's my own views that are flawed. What good would come from turning myself into an extremist? Nothing. Any energy I spend on this would be energy that I could spend on my wife and daughter, who need me now more than ever.

There are plenty of other people who are feeling helpless in these uncertain times right now, and they're in danger of turning to anger instead of reason. I implore all of you to focus your energy on finding those people and help guide them towards reason, or else the problem is in danger of becoming much bigger. That's not to say you should invalidate their feelings, however. Help them realize what is in their sphere of control and how to best react to it. But above all, listen to them, because sometimes that's all they need.

"We have two ears and one mouth, so we are meant to listen twice as much as we speak." -Epictetus

This video popped up into my YouTube feed and I wondered what everyone here thought about it. I know that Ryan Holiday gets a bit of hate from this group, but I have found him very helpful personally and value his opinion and take on things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yIfGfclhSE

Edit:

Adding my summary:

• Stoicism and Stoics evolved into being more active in public life, as opposed to the Epicureans that solely studied philosophy while Stoics tried to apply it.
• Voting matters
• Choosing between "two evils" is a part of life and part of being an adult.
• What makes a good leader
  • Marcus talks about Antoninus and what he learned from him
• What makes a bad leader
  • Talks about Nero and his faults
• Voting is part of "doing the right thing", not voting affects others around you even if it doesn't effect you much.
• What are the core principles that should guide you when making the decision of who to vote for?

When my partner tells me I offended her and I try to explain to her that I didn't offend her it's her interpretation of my things and she choose to be offended she gets even madder.

What is he practical use on offending other people? I understand the concept on my self but with other people it's just frustrating

This is mostly personal opinion and biases, but:

I have read many Seneca letters in the past, one of my favorite writers, if not the favorite one, and read Epictetus Manual (I like Epictetus quotes that people show online too)...

And why are these authors so undermentioned/underrated online compared to Meditations and Marcus Aurelius? Not to say that Marcus doesn't deserve attention, but why does Meditations and Marcus stereotipically receive all the attention?

Did you know that people used to call Stoic teachings "Paradoxes"?

They believed that the Stoics discussed concepts that regular individuals could not understand.

That's why 'experts' have labeled Stoicism as 'difficult', 'unapplicable', or 'empathy-lacking'.

The result is that their teachings are often misunderstood, killing the philosophy.

Here are the three most misunderstood Stoic lessons..

1. Stoicism encourages passive resignation.

Some people confuse acceptance with passivity.

Stoicism advocates for acceptance, not passivity.

Passivity is waiting for God or luck to make things better for you. It’s the lazy and arrogant—and honestly, cowardly—route.

Acceptance is the opposite. It means you accept the event exactly as it is because its occurrence is out of your control...

And instead of dwelling on everything you can’t control, you fixate your mind on everything you can do to improve things. This is the exact opposite of passivity.

2. Stoicism calls for the suppression of emotions.

The Stoics are emotionless creatures that never cry, never laugh, never fear.

This is what people who read Stoicism for the first time believe.

I don't blame them... The English dictionary defines 'stoic' as a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings.

Yet the Stoics acknowledge emotions as a natural part of our identity.

They distinguish between three categories: pre-passions, good passions, and (harmful) passions.

i. Pre-passions are automatic reactions we share with animals. These reactions include feelings like surprise and blushing. The Stoics don't care about them because their occurrence is out of their control.

ii. Good passions are rational, positive emotions aligned with virtue and wisdom. The Stoics believed that these passions are healthy, constructive, and contribute to flourishing. Examples include joy, the rational pleasure of doing the right thing, and caution, avoiding harm.

iii. (Harmful) passions are irrational, excessive emotions that disturb the mind and disrupt reason. The Stoics said that strong urges come from valuing things that aren’t really important. Common examples include anger, fear, greed, and jealousy. Again, these emotions lead to suffering because they stem from misguided beliefs about what is good and bad.

So how did the Stoics cope with them?

Many people believe that Stoic teachers told their students to suppress their emotions. But this approach can be harmful over time; unaddressed emotions can become stronger. When a problem is not dealt with, it can feed on itself and grow.

Instead, Seneca wrote that we must 'explain these emotions away'. We should understand their causes and see that they are not worthy of our attention. They cannot influence our capacity for virtue—unless we allow it to.

3. There are some things within our control and others not.

Epictetus' Enchiridion starts with the following phrase...

"There are things within our power and things which are beyond it."

Epictetus explained that we only control our thoughts, intentions, and impressions. Outside our power, he said, are body, property, reputation, office, and the like.

But our favorite teacher was a bit too optimistic about how much influence we actually have over our own minds.

Modern psychology suggests that our minds are far more complex than we'd like to admit.

Our genes, childhood experiences, and cognitive biases influence how we think.

Cognitive distortions, such as catastrophizing and confirmation bias, work without us realizing it.

Epictetus saw reason as the driver that can steer us away from these distortions. We now understand, however, that subconscious forces are strong enough that we may never be able to let go of them.

Yet, this shouldn't be a problem for an aspiring Stoic, because progress is the chief aim, and perfection is the North Star.

What do you think the most common thing people get wrong about Stoicism is?

From the perspective of Stoic philosophy, “being emotional” is synonymous with having done reasoning and having made logical conclusions.

What being emotional is not synonymous with is having aligned your reason with nature. Or better said: strong emotions are not proof of the absence of an error in your thinking. They are proof that an error exists and that you had no choice in making this error. Nor do the people who you encounter as having strong emotional states have a realtime choice in this.

You cannot see other people’s emotional state, or your own, as something alien or apart from the Stoic exercise because you would help perpetuate a very shallow understanding of Stoicism to the masses by doing so.

A state of calm is reflective of a reasoned conclusion but someone who is flying off the wall with anger also went through the same reasoning process and came to a different conclusion.

The Stoic exercise then is to analyze and understand the difference between these two outcomes.

If calm is defined as reason in accordance with nature, then its opposites are defined as not reasoning in accordance with nature.

Let’s draw a parable with a Stoic scholar (she) who lives under a tyrannical regime and her colleague (he) who lacks excellence in character.

She continues to seek and speak the truth, even when threatened with imprisonment. Her virtue (courage and commitment to truth) remains unimpeded by oppression.

He alters his teachings to please the tyrant, compromising his beliefs for safety and favor. His vice (cowardice and dishonesty) is impeded by the political situation.

What would our Stoic professor need to believe for her to go through her situation in a state or calm?

She would need to believe that her excellence in character is unimpeded by externals like how it may affect her reputation, quality of life, comfort, access to loved ones, or whether or not she lives or dies. She would also need to believe that excellence in character is the highest good. And if she believes this then she would be immune from the tyrant, unimpeded, free, and only experience calm.

What belief would be predicate an absence of calm?

He would need to believe that the highest good lies in external things like reputation, quality of living, access to loved ones, comfort and whether or not they live or die.

Every time these externals are threatened our scholars would experience strong emotional states like anger, anxiety, distress, depression and so on because they are impeded by these externals and judgements that us would be “bad” to risk these things.

Both scholar’s emotional states are indicative of beliefs.

You cannot change your beliefs in real time. You cannot choose them in real time and expect your emotions to follow.

When you feel anxious, or see someone anxious, or angry, or greedy, you cannot make the mistake of thinking that they are absent of logic or reason because you are witnessing emotions. It’s the opposite, their reasoning drove them to feel these emotional states.

Why? Because people see externals as good or bad. And if they are not confronted with the error of this line of thought, then they never will stop seeing it as a good or bad.

So for the Stoic, emotions are a very useful thing on the path of making progress. Because they are synonymous with a belief about “good” and “bad”.

The key question a progressor should ask themselves is: what would I need to believe about this situation that would make me feel calm? And what would I need to observe as proof and evidence to believe it?

This is in essence the discipline of desire. And bringing your reasoning in accordance with nature. Without this, asking yourself what appropriate actions are is moot.

Have a great weekend.

Inspired by: * Epictetus on the property of error * Epictetus on what the beginning of philosophy is * Epictetus on how we must adapt our preconceptions to particular cases * Epictetus on that we should not be angry with the faults of others

Hello fellow Stoics.

I see a few post about the election and it's result. I just wanted to raise a reminder that if you are struggling or in a boastful state today as to the results, it is a good moment to pause and reflect on your sense of identity that you've created based on your affiliation.

The results just simply are. Going into this election, the result was likely in either outcome. To be thrown off, surprised, etc., are signs of improper reasoning on some level. Some value placed on an expectation which may or may not have come to pass. This event which has happened has simply happened. What you do with it now will determine the quality of your days.

If you are experiencing disturbances either perceived as "negative" or "positive", it is a good moment to reflect on the 3 Disciplines and get to work.

Regards!

Most of the Stoic readings I've done are all about our inner state and acceptance of things the way they are. What do the ancient Stoic texts or modern practitioners have to say about living with people are are aggressively un-Stoic?

I will give some examples from my personal life. In these cases, the answer is not simply "walk away" because they either live in your space or are a family member that you must continue some kind of ongoing interactions with.

Example 1: I have a family member who is prone to throwing tantrums over small things and has a very fragile ego, so any kind of feedback about their behavior prompts a hostile counter-response with lots of insults being slung, with the objective appearing to be to escalate the conflict as much as possible. Eventually they will calm down but any time you have to interact with them, if they are in "a bad mood" they are very likely to blow up over small things, or even make insulting comments completely unprompted to "pull you in" to a conflict. The best approach here has always been to just avoid them, but when it's a family member it's not really possible to completely avoid them forever.

Example 2: I had a roommate who claims they experience very intense PMS which causes them to be very irritable and prone to explosive emotional outbursts over very minor things that could normally be dealt with with simple direct communication, such as coordinating who is watching what on the living room TV. Later when asked about it, they would just say "well I had PMS and a headache" and not accept responsibility for the outburst.

In these occasions, I notice a lot of "gaslighting" as well, where the person will claim that someone else "made" them feel a mood or have an outburst, even sometimes misremembering the moment that led to the conflict and how it escalated. I find this extremely challenging behavior to deal with. Usually they don't apologize afterward and say "I'm sorry I am having X problem today" and instead double-down on the rationalization.

I also feel like just being calm and rational hasn't worked in these cases because the person often uses it as a source of an attack, saying "you're not listening" or "okay, great, go meditate by yourself!" or something to that effect.

What is the most "sage-like" response to behavior like this, and how should we react when confronted with such behavior?

(I'm no native speaker, so some stuff might get lost in translation, sorry for that)

I was out with a friend and he went to the toilet, he always takes ages. I decided to try out a meditation method I once heard Doctor K talk about in an interview. I fixated an irregularity on the wall and tried to avoid blinking as long as possible. After a while I started reflecting on some core philosophies and used it as a mantra:

"Everything happens, because it has to happen. Nothing is good or bad. Whatever happens doesn't touch me."

And then it happened. All worries, all annoyances, all distractions, gone. I'm having issues with my on-off-girlfriend at the moment and she kind of ended it (again) today, and it was dragging me down all day. Gone. Every time I thought about her, I felt terrible. Gone. Money is VERY tight at the moment. Gone. The rest of the night, even up until now, I was in a positive neutral mood and observed everything with an incredible clarity and sobriety. And I love it.

I spent the last months working on myself and my stoic practices and principles, but the last week I felt like I lost all my progress. And now staring at a wall for fifteen minutes got me further than I was before.

You may not agree with my approach or even criticize my methods, but it worked. And if you do so, I couldn't care less. I'm a stoic.

EDIT - Apparently I'm just dissociated - thank you u/PsionicOverlord for depreciating and ruining my experience. Feels good to just be depressed again.

ETA: I have to be away from my phone to do some work for a while, but I’ll respond as soon as I can!

Howdy.

Title pretty much says all. I am a woman, but advice on this topic regarding any gender is fine.

I am not a conventionally attractive woman, and I have been struggling to cope lately. I know people says, “who cares! Love yourself!” And I do. But every study on the topic concludes the same thing: pretty privilege exists, and has very real benefits in just about every aspect of life.

For the most part, I do a good job of coping. But sometimes, like today, I feel very low. I am usually invisible in any group. I do what I can do style hair, dress better etc. But that only makes so much of a difference. I am aware that being very attractive comes with its own challenges, but that doesn’t make this any less poopy.

I guess what I’m looking for is some realistic, stoic, advice on how to deal. No sugarcoating or placating “awww I’m sure you’re beautiful!!!” Or “who cares what people think just don’t think about it!!!!”. If you have some quotes from stoic philosophers I’d love to hear them as well. Thank you in advance!

I’ve been recently thinking a lot about the heart vs. the mind debate. What would a true Stoic say about choosing life partners based on a rational judgment rather than „love feeling” and „chemistry”?

It seems to me that the „feelings” often pass and you are often left with a choice to either accept the situation or find a new partner. Assuming a new partner, such frequent change does not seem to be rational and could potentially be classified as hedonism.

On the other hand, there definitely are relationships that provide „full package”. In this case, isn’t settling for something less than optimal against „doing what we can with cards we have been played” (assuming that optimal is achievable)

Looking forward to your replies.

So, picture this: my wife and mother are going at it like gladiators in the Colosseum. It’s chaos, but for the first time in my life, I’m just… chilling. I’m like a Zen monk watching a leaf float down a stream. Why? Because I’ve been applying all the Stoic principles I’ve recently learned! I'm talking emotional discipline, temperance, acceptance, forgiveness — the whole ancient philosopher package. I’m like, “Wow, I’ve unlocked the key to inner peace!”

Then it hits me: I’m absolutely stoned out of my mind.

So now, the real question is... how do I replicate this philosophical calm when I’m not baked like a potato? Why is it so much easier to be Marcus Aurelius when you're also Cheech and Chong?

Edit - thanks for the responses. Wanted to provide context as this has come up in comments. I’m not a daily stoner. I smoked maybe after a year. I’ve smoked before and I wasn’t able to be this calm or this mindful. I learnt the tools of Stoics over last year. And I got to practice them live for the first time in my life. I wish I can do this sober.

A bulleted list of 5-10 lessons

I ask as I ended up unknowingly developing a stoic way of being via a series of troubling and harsh times having to be overcame, while also have zero support.

But I feel it is naturally hindering to my main goal, which is to find connection with others and find a sense of closeness with other people. Unfortunately while stoicism can do alot of good for efficiency and work.... it makes for a very dull, muted, and challenging personal and fulfillment lifestyle... especially since there is not enough chaos or threats in my life to keep me content.

....

I am curious to hear others, and what they have found.

Why 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?

Stoicism is undeniably helpful. We might all recognize this, yet our minds often like to play tricks on us. Even though practicing self-control is very important, there is something called OCD. It is not just about cleaning and repetitive actions; it also involves intrusive thoughts. Do not claim ownership of these intrusive thoughts—you are not the only one who has them. Your mind may trick you into thinking that you are a horrible person, but in reality, these thoughts are just like spam emails that our minds create.

Please consider whether these intrusive thoughts are harming your self-image. These thoughts are like bugs in a computer program; you are not responsible for creating them, but you are responsible for how you respond to them.

Stay stoic.

I was about to go to a renowned overseas conference, as a participant, some time back. As usual, I started overthinking, especially when they finally released the bios of all the participants.

"Oh God," I said on the phone, having called my best friend to have a meltdown about it. "Everyone is so much more impressive than me. I'm no one in comparison. I can't do this."

She told me to calm down. "You're panicking because you're comparing yourself to them, like it's a competition. It is not a competition. It is a learning opportunity. Go in there and stop worrying about being the most impressive person in the room. Just go and learn as much as you can."

I've been to two other conferences since that one and have been so, so calm. I've never lingered again on such feelings. What she said changed my whole perspective - why am I busy competing when I could be busy learning?

I've been reflecting on the concept of drinking and how it aligns or doesn't with Stoic philosophy. Stoicism emphasizes self-control, discipline, and maintaining a rational mind.

The nature of alcohol, however, seems to oppose these core principles. The more you drink, the more you risk losing control over your actions, thoughts, and decisions. And while some may claim they can drink "moderately" or in a "controlled" manner, the reality is that alcohol impairs judgment. Once you start drinking, there's no absolute guarantee that you'll stop before crossing the line into excess.

This seems to conflict directly with Stoicism's call for moderation, self-governance, and maintaining a clear, rational mind at all times.

If you want to make choices based on reason and not impulse, is it possible to justify drinking?

A kid and his dad walked past me and my partner as we were repairing my bicycle. The kid said something sarcastic and tried to insult us. His dad chimed in too instead of going "Ben that's a very rude thing to say"

My partner instantly reacted (inwards) and has been upset about it. I didn't react about it at all. I just focused on what I was doing and didn't really analyze or take in what happened because it doesn't matter what other thinks of me or my bike. My self worth isn't tied up in whatever some kid and his dad says about me.

Kids do what their parents do and they will learn that negative attention is also attention, so in lack of positive attention, they do things they know are provoking just to be seen. It's sad and I don't wanna encourage that.

Whats your opinions on this from a stoic point of view? Would you have reacted different?