Mythic Warriors

My kids love this show. We pause it and talk about it.

This one is about Prometheus and Pandora. The show leaves out the bit about Prometheus bound, having to suffer being eaten by eagles every day. That's the most interesting part, so of course I filled the boys in. They were very sorry for Prometheus.

They were pleased that Zeus let him go.

The dramatic arc of the story is simple but powerful: Prometheus stands up to power in the name of kindness and is proven justified, and in the end he is reconciled to his king. Something to that, folks...

President Obama Defends Free Speech

"...being a good citizen... involves hearing the other side and making sure that you are engaging in a dialogue."

On the "certain strain of militant political correctness" sweeping college campuses the President says "And I disagree with that."

"That's a recipe for dogmatism, and I think you're not going to be as effective."

"The purpose of that kind of free speech is to make sure that we are forced to use argument and reason and words in making our democracy work. You don't have to be fearful of somebody spouting bad ideas; just out argue them. Beat 'em. Make the case as to why they're wrong. Win over adherents. That's how things work in a democracy. And I do worry if young people start getting trained to think that 'if somebody says something I don't like... if somebody says something that hurts my feelings that my only recourse is to shut them up, avoid them, push them away, call on a higher power to protect me from that..."

"You're not going to make the kinds of deep changes in society that those students want without taking them on in a full, clear and courageous way."

Well said, Mr. President!

FIRE

I'm not for hate speech, but I am for free speech. As far as I can tell this organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is bipartisan and really lives out its principles.

You ought to be able to say unorthodox things on a college campus. Face the social consequences, sure, but things have gone to far. That's obvious.

Trigger warnings... I hope my sons never feel pressured to offer trigger warnings.

Eat Like A Roman And Live Forever

That title is deceptive. It's probably more accurate to say "Eat Like A Greek Peasant in 1820," but this is a Stoic blog, so...

My doctor recommended a book to me called "Good Food, Great Medicine." It's author, Miles Hassell M.D., uses evidence to make the case for the Mediterranean diet.

Doctor Hassell is deeply suspcicious of fad diets. Instead he bases his advice on high quality studies from peer reviewed journals. These studies teach us that the Mediteranian diet produces:

1. Lower total mortality
2. Less heart disease, artery disease and stroke
3. Les diabetes
4. More sustainable weight loss
5. Less depression
6. More active elderly people
7. Less cancer and better cancer outcomes

In broad strokes Doctor Hassell recommends that we avoid processed foods, sugar, refined grains, and hydrogenated fats.

Instead we should eat whole foods which would be recognizable 150 years ago. We should eat plenty of vegetables, fruits, nuts, and animal protien. Whole grains are fine and dark chocolate is mandatory. He advises that we drink 2-6 cups of coffee per day and one alcoholic drink (probably red wine, probably with dinner). Cheese and eggs are great.

We shall see, folks...

Hassell emphasizes simplicity in cooking. Most of his recipes seem unfussy and very doable. That's pretty Stoic.

If you're interested Wikipedia has an excellent article on Roman cuisine. Made me want to try making puls. This article claims that modern Romans eat a puls made of boiled farro grain in coffee and cream. I would not have thought of that combination.

This nice hipster lady wants to lay some science on you:

Turns out that interest in the Mediterranean diet started in Crete after World War II:

Image is by Sailko and is used under some sort of public domain license

The Private Life of the Romans

I've been enjoying this 1932 work by Harold Whetstone Johnston. I particularly enjoy the chapter about Roman houses. Worth a look.

The Fight-Through

I don't remember where I read this, but I've found it to be true.

When changing a habit the first bit is easy. It's different and that's interesting. This is the "honeymoon period."

Next comes the hard part, the "fight-through" phase. Fight-through requires will power. People often cycle through the honeymoon period and the fight-through and fail and then rinse and repeat. That's part of the process.

If you survive the fight through you have yourself a habit.

For me, Stoicism is like a habit. It's a lens through which you view the world, yes, but keeping the lens on full time is quite the feat. It's not easy.

I cut off chunks of it and then fight through until they become habits. I'm very, very far from the goal, but I am making progress.

Good luck!

Averi Designs Aurelius Ring

It's a great ring, custom made and sized and crafted to a high standard. I paid him sixty five dollars but he treated me as if I'd paid him a thousand. Brant is eager to please and he works quick. My highest recommendation.

Averi Designs

Brian Martin and Irvine's Insult Pacifism

Brian Martin has written an excellent review of William Irvine's method of "insult pacifism." This is the "starve a bully" theory. I know that Irvine takes a lot of heat from some Stoics for his somewhat unorthodox take on the philosophy, but I've found him to be a very good source of wisdom. I actually emailed him about a personal issue and he responded, and his advice was very useful.

When dealing with low-level bullies I have found his insult pacifism to be fairly effective. What this involves is to either ignore an insult, say "thanks," or agree and amplify.


"You're fat."

--------

"You're fat."

"Thanks."

"You're fat."

"I'm enormous!"

I would add to this the "laugh along with them" technique.

"You're fat."

"Ha ha ha! Anyway, about this report..."


I'm not a pacifist. I think that there are times when a threat needs to be met head-on. Still, for low-level bullying I've found insult pacifism to be very effective. This is especially true with adult bullies.

What a bully wants is your humiliation. They want to feel superior to you. If you are nonreactive then you starve them without openly challenging them, and they'll often hunt somewhere else. In addition, anybody who sees your non-reactivity is likely to view you as more mature, more in control. That's also useful, because bullies don't just want to humiliate you, they want to do it in front of an audience.

In my particular social setting it is highly unlikely that a bully will actually assault me, and it is very likely that bullying behavior will be cloaked as friendly teasing. Typically this teasing happens in a group (in my experience); adult bullies generally want to raise their stock in front of an audience; they're very unlikely to bully people one-on-one.

Insult pacifism provides a mild reproof. The bully feels a little awkward, but not so awkward that he or she will be rejected from the group. The group will just think that the bully is having an off day, or perhaps feels a little cranky.

That's an important thing to remember in any conflict, actually. Always keep the audience in mind. You probably won't change the other person's mind, but you certainly can bring the undecided over to your side.

That said, I've gone nuclear on adult bullies three in my life. In all three cases I talked to them privately and said in no uncertain terms that I didn't like how they treated me. In all three cases they became immediately conciliatory. One guy admitted that he was doing it and said that he needed to grow up. We hugged. The second guy became incoherent and barely spoke to me after that, and when he did he was always polite. The last guy denied bullying me at all and thought I was a little crazy, and then took great pains to point out his own flaws. That's when I realized how sad and lonely his life seemed to him.

I had to actually think about that one. Was I wrong? I don't think so, but I talked to a friend of mine who was a part of the bully's audience and he thought it was just heavy teasing.

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way the guy backed off.

Now if I were a sage I would do as Marcus Aurelius advises.

“Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.”

So ultimately a Stoic will practice insult pacifism because the Stoic recognizes that the bully simply doesn't know any better. The bully is our brother. We are meant to live in harmony. That's a beautiful thought. 

That's the target; that's what we are to work toward. 

But then again I'm not a sage. And sometimes, if I'm honest, I'm the bully.

Physician heal thyself.

Should a Stoic Share Feelings?

This might be useful, gentle reader. In response to a post by Frebel on the Stoic Reddit I offer the following:

Was it Epictetus who said that going to see a Stoic philosopher is like going to see a physician? Perhaps a person's feelings are their symptoms. I expect that the philosopher might use Socratic methods to help the person understand that they are worried about things that aren't up to them. Hard to do that if the person doesn't share.

This of course assumes that these feelings aren't preferred.

And from my work in the SES course I learned that Stoics did endorse three feelings (or emotions... I'm using them interchangeably here): joy, caution and wishing.

Wishing produces feelings of benevolence and friendliness. Joy produces mirth and cheerfulness. Caution produces modesty and reverence.

We Stoics may actually be well advised to share these feelings with the world. Personally I like seeing things clarified this way, because when I experience the three "authorized" feelings (I know, I know) I feel very much at peace with the world. Stoicism allows us to increase the intensity and duration of these feelings, right?

If nothing else my participation in the SES course would have been worth it simply for this observation (though it has brought me so much more than this!). We Stoics can expect an increase in benevolence, friendliness, mirth, cheerfulness, modesty and reverence for our trouble.

Not a bad bargain, that.