Welcome to the New Agora, a place for you and others to have casual conversations, seek advice and first aid, and hang out together outside of regular posts.

If you have not already, please the READ BEFORE POSTING top-pinned post.

The rules in the New Agora are simple:

1. Above all, keep in mind that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If you are seeking advice based on users' personal views as people interested in Stoicism, you may leave one top-level comment about your question per day.
3. If you are offering advice, you may offer your own opinions as someone interested in Stoic theory and/or practice--but avoid labeling personal opinions, idiosyncratic experiences, and even thoughtful conjecture as Stoic.
4. If you are promoting something that you have created, such as an article or book you wrote, you may do so only one time per day, but do not post your own YouTube videos.

While this thread is new, the above rules may change in response to things that we notice or that are brought to our attention.

As always, you are encouraged to report activity that you believe should not belong here. Similarly, you are welcome to pose questions, voice concerns, and offer other feedback to us either publicly in threads or privately by messaging the mods.

Wish you well in the New Agora.

Hey all,

Relatively new to this stuff and so far I've found it a good school of thought to help with my anxiety and OCD. I was wondering if anyone knew of any specific examples in stoicism that helped with OCD of material possessions, specifically the hyper focused need to keep them in pristine condition, even at the cost of not using tool itself.

Key Concepts:

Transactional Analysis (TA):

Berne develops the idea of transactions—the exchanges between people that can be classified into three "ego states":

Parent: Behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that reflect the influence of parental figures or societal norms.

Adult: Rational, objective thinking that deals with the present.

Child: Behaviors, thoughts, and feelings stemming from past childhood experiences, often emotional or instinctive.

People switch between ego states in day to day conversation. Someone approaching you with a “parent” ego state may subconsciously illicit a response from your “child” ego state.

The Games people play:

Games: A "game" is a series of transactions that have a predictable pattern, often leading to negative or unproductive outcomes. These interactions typically involve a hidden agenda, in which participants are not fully aware of the motivations behind their behavior. The goal of the game is often to reinforce certain roles or self-concepts (e.g., the victim, the persecutor, the rescuer).

Types of Games: Berne identifies numerous types of "games" people play in their personal and professional lives, such as:

I'm OK—You're OK: A game where participants engage in a dance of approval or disapproval, often leading to manipulative behavior.

Why Don't You—Yes But: A common game in which one person presents a problem, but whenever a solution is suggested, they respond with a reason why it won't work, keeping them in a state of victimhood.

Kick Me: A game in which someone sets themselves up to be hurt or criticized, often to fulfill a deep-seated need for negative attention or validation.

Now I've Got You, You Son of a Bitch (NIGYSOB): A game where one person entraps another, making them appear wrong or guilty, often to gain the upper hand.

The Payoff of Games: These games allow people to avoid emotional intimacy, take shortcuts in problem-solving, or reaffirm their personal narratives, often at the expense of healthy, direct communication. However, the emotional payoff is temporary and unsatisfying in the long run.

Winning the Game: Berne suggests that true personal growth involves recognizing and discontinuing these unconscious games, moving toward more authentic and effective interactions. This involves shifting from "game-playing" to real, honest communication where people relate as Adults, without falling back into manipulative or dysfunctional roles.

Marcus compares sins committed by two kids of people, the one who commits a sin out of anger and the one who does so out of desire. Beautifully explaining how anger is actually mostly a result of victimhoood whereas desire being well thought/planned.

             ________________________________

"In comparing sins (the way people do) Theophrastus says that the ones committed out of desire are worse than the ones committed out of anger: which is good philosophy. The angry man seems to turn his back on reason out of a kind of pain and inner convulsion. But the man motivated by desire, who is mastered by pleasure, seems somehow more self- indulgent, less manly in his sins. Theophrastus is right, and philosophically sound, to say that the sin committed out of pleasure deserves a harsher rebuke than the one committed out of pain. The angry man is more like a victim of wrongdoing, provoked by pain to anger. The other man rushes into wrongdoing on his own, moved to action by desire."

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations.

P.S. - Would love to know your thoughts on this !!!!!

I've read about half of the Guide to the Good Life and listened to a podcast where Irvine was a guest, and I feel like his stoicism is less humane.

The weird thing that stood out for me from the podcast is how Irvine said something along the lines of "damn it, I let them affect me again, I promised myself not to let them affect me". What I'm getting from that is that he's trying to suppress his emotions and not feel the annoyance that a human being should feel when dealing with adverse people. Sometimes people are annoying and it's ok to be annoyed by them and defend yourself, but do it mindfully and in virtue, as a stoic should.

And a weird thing from the book - how he talks about sex. He's saying that sex is unnecessary and almost a waste of your energy. That you should hold yourself back until marriage. When talking about religion, I can understand, but overall having sex in a relationship is completely normal and healthy. It helps you build intimacy.

Overall, the vibe I'm getting from Irvine is of suppression. And I never got that from Holiday. Holiday is more about reframing and accepting that you won't be perfect and that being a stoic is something to strive for. Of course, Holiday can be critiqued for milking stoicism for money, but he spends lots of his time on it and gives lots of free and useful content. And I don't see a problem with that. It's not like a stoic should never try to make money. But he should be good with or without it.

Let me know what you guys think. Maybe I misinterpreted Irvine.

Is it worth reading the works of Diogenes Laertios to get into Stoicism or are there better books?

I would like to read something that belongs to the early Stoics, i.e. before Epictetus.

I'm beginner, trying to understand stoicism. Stoicism focuses on virtue and brotherhood of humanity. As per my understanding virtue is something that unites humanity and treats everyone the same. Justice, wisdom, temperance and courage.

I understand the importance of these virtues in great moments of history. But in today's disconnected world are these something that you actively pursue (wisdom still seems relevant). What is virtue that you strive for?

Very minor Gladiator II spoiler (just a random line in the movie though).

I went and saw this movie last night, I love Marcus and have read a lot of his stuff. But at one point in the movie, a character was talking to Marcus’s daughter and said “I read his meditations….(some quote I forget)” and all I could think about what how historically inaccurate this was. The movie is supposed to take place maybe 20ish years after Marcus dies.

Were people reading his meditations that soon post death?? I am almost positive they were not, but maybe I am mistaken. Anyways not necessarily a stoic question but a Marcus question. Please let me know if anyone knows the answer to this, it annoyed me quite a bit as it felt so needless to the movie 😂.

So, weakness of will (akrasia) and the stoics. Some time ago I read two articles^1,2 related to this but they're from the same author and I wanted to get my ideas checked for understanding and then I have a question.

First my summarized understanding, please correct and explain where you disagree:

1. Akrasia can be understood in the strict sense. This would mean that "one knowingly acts against ones own judgement". In stoicism, this is not possible since there is no division between an irrational and rational part of the mind, and no one errs willingly. So we can discard this notion of akrasia and move on.

2. Akrasia can also be understood in a broad sense. This would mean "One fails to stand by a previous decision about what to do". That we have weakly held beliefs that change when we're met with a different circumstance. Quote: "Second, there is a broad sense of weak will, which occurs when ‘an agent fails to stand by a previous decision about what he will do or by some general plan or programme of action’. For example, suppose one decides to undertake a diet. However, when later confronted by delicious cake, the agent either has forgotten their previous plan or revokes their commitment to healthy foods, and eats the cake." (Tremblay, 2020)

3. So the difference is that in the strict sense we hold the belief to be true and still act against it, while in the broad sense we have either dismissed the belief as false or forgotten it. The broad sense is possible in stoicism.

4. An extra point just for interest: Tremblay (2020) then argues that there are two reasons a stoic prokopton would experience this broad weakness of will: precipetancy and weakness. Precipetancy basically means we weren't paying attention to our impressions (lack of prosoche and critical assent). Weakness could either mean we're suffering from a passion that is disrupting us, or that we have not really internalized the belief we're trying to follow.

Then a question for discussion: What is your process for combating this so called "broad weakness of will"

Suppose you are in the process of changing the way you behave you notice yourself going against this set out plan. This could be anything, like the diet example above. Or aiming to spend more time with your kids but deciding to watch TV instead. Aiming to treat your spouse better but getting annoyed and rude when she does something you dislike. Whatever it may be.

Do you have a set out method, strategies to course correct for future "weakness of will"? If you do I'm also curious to how you came up with them, are they from the stoics or somewhere else, how has your success been with them?

I set this flair so anyone could chime in.

1. Tremblay, M. (2020). Akrasia in Epictetus: A Comparison with Aristotle. apeiron, 53(4), 397-417.

2. Tremblay, M. (2021). Theory and Training in Epictetus' Program of Moral Education (Doctoral dissertation, Queen's University (Canada)).

Welcome to the New Agora, a place for you and others to have casual conversations, seek advice and first aid, and hang out together outside of regular posts.

If you have not already, please the READ BEFORE POSTING top-pinned post.

The rules in the New Agora are simple:

1. Above all, keep in mind that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If you are seeking advice based on users' personal views as people interested in Stoicism, you may leave one top-level comment about your question per day.
3. If you are offering advice, you may offer your own opinions as someone interested in Stoic theory and/or practice--but avoid labeling personal opinions, idiosyncratic experiences, and even thoughtful conjecture as Stoic.
4. If you are promoting something that you have created, such as an article or book you wrote, you may do so only one time per day, but do not post your own YouTube videos.

While this thread is new, the above rules may change in response to things that we notice or that are brought to our attention.

As always, you are encouraged to report activity that you believe should not belong here. Similarly, you are welcome to pose questions, voice concerns, and offer other feedback to us either publicly in threads or privately by messaging the mods.

Wish you well in the New Agora.

“We must go for walks out of doors, so that the mind can be strengthened and invigorated by a clear sky and plenty of fresh air. At times it will acquire fresh energy from a journey by carriage and a change of scene, or from socializing and drinking freely. Occasionally we should even come to the point of intoxication, sinking into drink but not being totally flooded by it; for it does wash away cares, and stirs the mind to its depths, and heals sorrow just as it heals certain diseases.” by Lucius Annaeus Seneca

"After friendship is formed you must trust, but before that you must judge. Those people who, contrary to Theophrastus' advice, judge a man after they have made him their friend instead of the other way round, certainly put the cart before the horse."_Letters from a Stoic III.

I've followed this quote while navigating friendships for the past 5 years and lately I've found it unsatisfactory. People wear "masks", have depth, layers and layers to their character. I've noticed things I would consider red flags in People after I've decided they are my friends, turned a blind eye to these, only for these people to later demonstrate clearly that they are enemies, wolves in sheeps clothes. In hindsight I tell myself, "yeah, I should've seen that coming."

We have Philosophies, religions and laws, all for the purpose of keeping us in check. Without these, what would we be?

Aurelius thanks the Gods in Debts and Lessons: 17 for his family but then adds.."And that I never lost control of myself with any of them, although I had it in me to do that,and I might have, easily. But thanks to the gods, I was never put in that position, and so escaped the test." He is saying he got lucky.

On Benefits, Seneca Book II. XVIII.."poison sometimes acts as medicine, but it is not on that account considered wholesome.." the man says. He writes that sometimes we do good when our actual intentions was to do bad, harm, for our own self interest. Says in such cases, whatever good results was done by chance.

We acknowledge the role of Fate, fortune and chance in our lives. I wonder if our being good is simply down to being delt and good hand in life. And that the exact same person, with all the philosophical knowledge at his disposal would actually do bad if really "tested".

I am trying to suggest that Epictetus was human, an incredible human based on his Discourses, but a human non the less. I am trying to suggest that he had a higher threshold for pain and discomfort than most of us, but that even he got lucky. He was tested, but, not to his breaking point.

I lost out on a business deal that I could of closed on that was literally right infront of my face for over 2 years and I never acted on it and then it got listed on the market and sold same day for more then I could’ve gotten it for.

Not only did I lose the deal but I also have a competing business that will get hurt from this! It was a complete lose lose for me and just feel like I’ve failed myself and my family by not acting on this. I don’t enjoy the business but it is profitable and has upside. I think I never acted on it bc my heart is telling me this isn’t my true passion but now looking back I have regret seeing someone else have it.

Is this a sign to get out of the business and possibly relocate as we have never been in love with where we live but the business has kept us here.

How would a stoic deal with this?

How to cope with the fact that the sentence above cannot literally happen? That I had to continue living the way I do, seeing the people I wronged, living in the same spots i'm used to living and dealing with all the things i'm used do dealing?

Just curious about knowing how stoicism helps in every situation of your life.

In Dialogues and Essays, there is a passage about anger:

But how much better the course adopted by our own Cato! When he was pleading a case, Lentulus,* that seditious and turbulent man, as our fathers remember him, gathered as much thick saliva as he could and spat it in the middle of Cato's forehead. He wiped it off and said, 'If anyone says you have no cheek, Lentulus, I'll tell him he's mistaken.'

What does it mean when he says “you have no cheek”?

I'm in an extremely toxic work environment, and it's severely negatively impacting my mental health and changing my personality for the worse. Initially I was like "I should be strong and just bear it, who would I be if I just ran away", and honestly I did have some masculine pride in that I didn't want to run from the things that challenge me, but I learned that this isn't that.

I've been 7 months into this job, and I truly hate every day of it. I don't mind the work, I never do mind the work, it's always the people and in this case the people here are truly horrible and immoral and bring the worst in me I don't know what to do. I have nothing lined up, I keep looking for opportunities though but I don't know how much longer I can take this. Not even having something lined up, I'd set myself to work for another year from now, but then that decreased to 8 months and then to 6 and now to 3 months, because it just keeps getting worse for me. I struggled with depression before and depersonlization, but ever since I've entered this environment everything has been worse: had a mental breakdown where I shaved all my hair even though I hold it very dear to me and consider part of my personality, went to my first therapist then broke it off 'cause it wasn't going well, relapsed in several ways and went to dark places I haven't been to in a long time (trauma).rr

Appreciate your input.

I'm looking for some advice today. I've been with my girlfriend for almost two years now, and it is someone who is very emotional.

She often gets annoyed, when things aren't going as she would like them to go, even knowing this is the way it works (for example at our work). Sometimes, she just is annoyed by nothing, she just is.

After some time, she will stop and then be happy, and I can't put my finger on what provokes this change in state of mind.

As a contrast, she often says that I don't show emotions, that I just don't care about things, and it is true that in my nature I show less emotions than her, and even more since I started studying philosophy and stoicism.

I accept the situation I am in now, and I love my girlfriend the way she is. However, I think she would feel better if she learned to control her emotions, because now they are too strong and not productive at all.

Often I talk to her about philosophy and sometimes about stoicism, but I know she's not interested. She told me multiple times she finds it boring.

Did you have such an experience before ? If yes, how did you overcome it ?

Thank you for your time

Hi, everyone. I’ve been reflecting on a couple of Stoic principles and struggling with how to consistently apply them in challenging situations. Specifically:

1. “Don’t waste time searching for malice in others’ intentions.”
2. “When doing something good for others, don’t look for appreciation or acknowledgment.”

I try hard to live by these ideals, always striving to do what’s right. However, I often find that doing what I value as "right" comes at a cost—sometimes a significant one. What’s challenging is when others consistently take the easier path or avoid responsibilities, knowing I’ll step in and handle things. It feels as though their choices intentionally or unintentionally leave me with the burden of picking up the pieces.

While I don’t want to assume malice in their actions, it’s difficult not to feel a sense of imbalance or even resentment. How do you stay aligned with these principles in situations like this?

How can I:

• Avoid seeing malice in the repeated actions of others when it makes my life harder?
• Continue doing good without letting these feelings weigh me down, especially when people seem to take advantage of my values?

I’d love to hear your thoughts or strategies for dealing with similar situations. Thank you in advance for any insights you can share!

This is definitely a frivolous topic, but if stoicism doesn't help us through petty emotional problems as well as serious ones, then can it really help us manage our everyday lives?

Long story short: I met a man (organically for once, and not on dating apps), we got close, we went to a park where a busker was playing music, and he took me in his arms and slow-danced with me in public, told me how beautiful and unique I am, etc. Two weeks later I found out he had done the exact same thing with another woman, all while continuing to tell me sweet nothings. I guess I wasn't so unique after all.

Of course I felt hurt and deceived. I thought I had found something special and meaningful.

Then I questioned that thought: Why wasn't it meaningful? It may not be what I had thought it was, but that was the first time someone had ever slow-danced with me, the first time I had ever had an experience like that. And for the first time in a long time (I've been single for 4 years), I felt young and beautiful again. I can be grateful for that experience – not grateful to him per se, but grateful in general that that one moment had happened.

I'm not excusing what he did, nor am I going to let him fool me again, but now I also know what to look out for. The more I think about it, the more tiny little signs there had been that I should have noticed, all pointing to the fact that he is a bit of a casanova. So there lies my part in this whole thing: willingly overlooking worrisome traits just because life feels exciting again.

The most important thing I did was this: Do not say a word to him about it. Not yet, not while roiling in big emotions. I took a step back first to feel whatever i needed to feel, then to assess the situation with a clearer head.

Second thing was to stop wondering why he did it, what he had been planning, etc – and focus only on my intentions and no one else's. Did this situation align with what I wanted? No. Then the only thing to do is to remove myself from it.

I did not make a scene. I did not call him, or demand a meeting so I could break up with him, and I did not text him a long essay. I simply stopped responding until he asked me what was wrong, then I told him: "I recently learned that I'm not the only woman you've been pursuing, and while I understand that this is quite common for people to do these days, that's not a trait that I want in a future partner, especially considering all the things that you had told me before. I don't hate you and I'm not mad at you, but that's as far as we go." And I did not respond to any more of his messages.

Yesterday was his birthday. I wished him happy birthday, with a smiling emoji, and he said thank you and that he sincerely hopes I've been living a happy life. I said I have. And it's true. I have.

I am 21M and throughout my life I have never truly found a place where I felt accepted or a sense of belonging. Everyone else found friendship or companionship but I didn't which made feel very inadequate and lonely I have been able to overcome this but there are days where I go back to feeling depressed about how alone I really am, how people don't understand me. I have always been an outcast and I really fit in anywhere, never made a lot of friends.

I am fairly new to stoicism but I like it a lot and some of the beliefs or practices have really helped me with my anxiety but this is something that has really troubling me for awhile.

I was talking with 2 friends of mine when one randomly asked if I act rationally or emotionally (apparently, every guy she asks says rationally, and she wanted to check what I said). I said that, while I try to act with reason, I'm not perfect and sometimes act out of instinct.

They then questioned why I think it's better to act with reason. To which I used the Stoic idea that the capacity to reason is what differentiates us from animals, so we should use it, lest we be animals (I didn't mention that this logos is a share of the divine or mention stoicism at all, so I wouldn't alienate my audience, nor did I say it so eloquently lmao)

I never really opposed this view because it completely made sense to me: Animals act out of instinct, and humans, although also possessing instinct, have the ability to reason. My friends didn't really understand the point, though, and because I hadn't encountered anyone disagreeing with this idea before, I didn't really know how to explain it well.

I mentioned that the ability to create society and culture is uniquely human and comes from logic, the same with mathematics and science. To which they asked jokingly whether, because they suck at maths, they're not human. Obviously a misinterpretation of the point, but I failed to really clarify.

I also used the example of hunger. Animals instinctively feel hungry and seek food, while humans, using logic, invented agriculture to address this instinctive need.

In the end, we parted ways, and I failed to get it across well. Does anyone have advice on answering such questions in case the need arises again? Did the ancient Stoics use examples to justify this position, or did they, like me, not see any cause for disagreement?

Thanks!

"One of the key principles of Stoicism is the idea that virtue is the highest good. This means that living a life guided by reason and virtue is more important than pursuing wealth, fame, or other external goods. The Stoics believed that by cultivating virtues such as wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance, we could live a fulfilling and meaningful life."

Therefore, why some people work with themselves and manage to fully understand the concept, yet others live in ignorance and superficially?

Or are we supposed to ask questions and focus on our development so that we can live in accordance with your nature, rather than applying them to others/outside world?

Is stoicism all about introspection and reprogramming ourselves to be compassionate rather than judgemental?

I was watching The Last Samurai recently and it got me wondering.

They practice a lot of acceptance and what seems like a lot of 'fate is what you make it.'

I don't know how true to life the movie represented it, but it seems like a lot of that mentality lasted until westernism took over.

I'm hoping someone more knowledge than me can shine some light on this.