Stoic Or Glutton, But Not Both

What if they invented a pill that mitigated every negative effect of overeating? What if, after taking the pill, you could eat Twinkies all day long and still look like Brad Pitt circa Fight Club?

It would still be worth it to eat fruits and vegetables, and just barely enough of them.

You can't be both a Stoic and a glutton, friend. So take your own advice. Are you stronger than a Twinkie? No, but you could be...

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!

The Three Phases of Anger

Some unknown redditor gave me the best Stoic advice of my life. The poster said something like "The first blush of anger is an impression; you can't do anything about that. The second step involves a decision. Will you act on it? The third step is the action and, if you submit anger, the result is beyond your control."

If you are the original poster please make a note of it and accept my heartfelt thanks.

Anyway, I was reminded of this advice when reading cleomedes' reply to a recent post and saw that he linked to this page, which contains the following quote from Seneca's "On Anger:"

"IV. Furthermore, that you may know in what manner passions begin and swell and gain spirit, learn that the first emotion is involuntary, and is, as it were, a preparation for a passion, and a threatening of one. The next is combined with a wish, though not an obstinate one, as, for example, “It is my duty to avenge myself, because I have been injured,” or “It is right that this man should be punished, because he has committed a crime.” The third emotion is already beyond our control, because it overrides reason, and wishes to avenge itself, not if it be its duty, but whether or no. We are not able by means of reason to escape from that first impression on the mind, any more than we can escape from those things which we have mentioned as occurring to the body: we cannot prevent other people’s yawns temping us to yawn; we cannot help winking when fingers are suddenly darted at our eyes. Reason is unable to overcome these habits, which perhaps might be weakened by practice and constant watchfulness: they differ from an emotion which is brought into existence and brought to an end by a deliberate mental act."

The original source material!

Cleomedes reminds us that "The Stoics divide emotions into two classes, impressions (sometimes 'feelings') and passions. See here. Impressions are emotions that happen to you, so trying to control them is a mistake, but passions are the result of your judgements, your beliefs about good and bad. These judgments are explicitly listed as things 'under your control'."

So if I have this right then this is how the process of becoming angry works:

First: You recieve an involuntary impression. "Bill calls me an idiot and I am angry." This is not in your control. You can no more avoid this first feeling of anger than you can avoid yawning. It's automatic.

Second: You assent to the impression or  you reject it. "Bill has wronged me. I will avenge myself." Or you could think "Bill made sounds with his mouth that aren't true. That's nothing to me." Or you could think "Bill has a point; perhaps I shouldn't play with matches at a gas station. I'll stop that." 

If you decide to avenge yourself then you have created a passion. If not life goes on as normal.

Third: You have created or avoided a passion. If you have created one it is no longer in your control. You tell Bill to go play in traffic and then you question his parentage. Now both of you are angry and things may escalate.

You only control Step 2. You may choose reason or passion.

I can't tell you how many times an understanding of this model has saved me real trouble. I have a problem with my temper, but now when I receive an angry impression I think about the three steps. I ride out the first impression, I reason my way through the problem and then I generally avoid creating a passion. Except when I don't.

An example: I don't like overstuffed drawers and cabinets. Yesterday I had a drawer that wouldn't close and felt that first rush of anger. I thought about the three steps and ARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!! slammed the door shut, breaking a hinge. Then I felt stupid. So, not a perfect record...

Another example: On the other hand, a few days ago a person on the street swore at me. I hadn't done anything to deserve it (I hadn't done anything at all). I felt the first flush of anger, remembered the three steps, and determined that unwarrented aggression probably meant that the person was having a tough day. I said as much.

"Yeah," he said. "I just broke up with my girlfriend."

"That's rough," I said. "Good luck to you."

He nodded and seemed to feel better.

Now that could have turned ugly in a hurry. This person was looking for somebody to take his misery out on, but when I refused the bait and instead offered understanding it diffused him.

That's Stoicism in action. It's powerful.

You'll have to excuse me. I need to go buy a new hinge.

Massimo Pigliucci's Meditation Regimen

This comes from Ryan Holiday's blog, "Meditations on Strategy and Life." Mr. Holiday conducted a very interesting and useful interview with Massimo Pigliucci, who seems to be one of the foremost Stoics of our time.

Holiday asks Pigliucci about his daily meditation practice. Here is the answer, condensed:


First: he contemplates the challenges he's likely to face that day. He contemplates which of the four cardinal virtues he's likely to call on (courage, self control, equanimity, wisdom).

Second: he visualizes Hierocles' Circle, picturing his concern for himself, then his family, then his friends, and then the world.

Third: he does premeditatio malorum... he visualizes a bad thing that might happen that day.

Fourth: he meditates on a Stoic Maxim.

Fifth: he ends the day with a Marcus Aurelius-syle journal, which is not intended for publication. He reviews the day's events and his own performance.


Pigliucci credits Stoic week with designing his practice, and says he's only modified it slightly to suit his own tastes.

Holiday's interview contains a number of other gems, but I'll let you read it for yourself.

The Parable of the Un-castrated Athlete

Discourses Book 1, Chapter 2, Verses 25-29 (Robin Hard's translation):

"It is in this way that a certain athlete behaved too, when he was in danger of dying if his genitals weren't cut off. His brother (who was a philosopher) came to him and said, 'Well brother, what are you planning to do? Are we to cut off this part of you and go to the gymnasium as usual?' But the athlete wouldn't submit to that, but set his mind against it and died. When someone asked, 'How did he do that? Was it as an athlete or as a philosopher?', Epictetus replied: As a man, and as a man who had been proclaimed as victor at Olympia, and had fought his corner there, and had passed his life in such places, rather than merely having oil smeared over him at Baton's training ground. But another man would be willing even to have his head cut off, if it were possible for him to live without a head. This is what is meant by acting according to one's character, and such is the weight that this consideration acquires among those who make a habit of introducing it into their deliberations. 'Come now, Epictetus, shave off your beard.' If I'm a philosopher, I'll reply: I won't shave it off. 'Then I'll have you beheaded.' If it pleases you to do so, have me beheaded."

What I take from this odd parable is that, in Epictetus's time, it was part of a boxer's character to have a set of wedding tackle. It was part of a philosopher's character to have a beard. Perhaps the boxer wouldn't mind cutting off a beard and perhaps the philosopher wouldn't mind cutting off the wedding tackle, but each held to the excellence of his own way of life despite all hazard.

Later on in the same chapter Epictetus tells us that he's no Socrates, but that if he tries to be Socrates and ends up "not too bad" it's good enough for him.

Maybe we're the people at Baton's training ground getting oiled up and trying to be the un-castrated athlete, though we have no real chance of actually attaining our aim, and maybe we'll learn to be content with being "not too bad."

I'm very open to further interpretation!

Self-esteem or Self-respect Part II

There is a lot of anger in Mr. Elam's article, isn't there?  For me it is a very un-Stoic article containing a very Stoic truth.

One of the things that I've found interesting about the "manosphere" is its embrace of Stoicism. A wide variety of movements within the manosphere umbrella seem to see our philosophy as a counterpoint to their perception of modern Feminism's embrace of emotion over reason. That said, there IS a lot of anger there, and anger isn't our way.* 

The value I take from the article itself is that self-esteem does seem to get more play in modern discourse than self-respect, but that self-respect is probably the worthier of the two concepts. That is very perceptive. As far as I know it's an original thought, and I don't run into too many of those. 

After I read the article I did a search of the Discourses and the Enchiridion on the subject of self-respect and found that Epictetus had a lot to say about it. Epictetus in fact seems to have considered self-respect to be one of the main attainments of a Stoic philosopher. I reference Chapter 24 of the Enchiridion to support this.

A very moving example of Stoic self-respect appears in Discourses 1.2. Florus approaches Agrippinus asking whether or not he (Florus) should attend one of Nero's grotesques. I take it that Florus considers the activity to be beneath his moral standards, but on the other hand nobody wants to provoke a violent madman.

"Go," says Agrippinus.

"But why aren't you going yourself?"

"Because I've never even considered it."

Agrippinus's boundaries are well-defined. His self-respect will not even admit the possibility of debasing himself. That is a thing of beauty. That is virtue. That is excellence, and Mr. Elam's article led me to it.

*It IS Mr. Elam's way... I can't remember where but I watched some of his videos and he considers anger to be an important component of the men's rights movement.

Self-esteem Or Self-respect?

Paul Elam has penned this article on the difference between self-esteem and self-respect, and I think it's worth a look.

For those who don't know Mr. Elam runs a Canadian organization called "A Voice For Men." AVFM is a men's rights organization. If you would like to have a conversation with or debate a men's rights activist you will find good hunting ground at their site. I'd prefer not to here. I will just say that I read widely, and that I have found some useful ideas in Mr. Elam's article.

Elam has some harsh things to say about the mental health industry's relationship with self-esteem, things which a reasonable person might disagree with, but what really stands out, for me, is this:

"Self-respect, on the other hand, is about how you treat yourself and what kind of treatment you will tolerate from others. It is clearly and unmistakably measurable. And more importantly, it is completely attainable regardless of outside influences."

That strikes me as a very stoic paragraph. Our philosophy teaches us that we are all a part of a great whole, that we are designed by nature* to exist in community, but that we ourselves are responsible for ourselves. We ourselves are sufficient. We have the power to bring ourselves in line with nature.

Self-respect must be a part of that. Mr. Elam has it exactly. If we value self-esteem as the more important of the two concepts then we place our fate in the hands of emotion, and emotion is subject to our impressions, not to our reason. If we value self-respect as the greater of the two then we place our faith in a set of principles. Principles are less subject to outside influence, and if they change the change is more apt to result from reasonable consideration of the evidence.

Mr. Elam follows this up with:

"That truth leads to an unassailable fact. You can instinctively handle most anything life throws at you if you respect yourself enough to keep your own best interests at the forefront."

I'm not sure that I should keep my own best interests at the forefront, but let's continue:

"In fact, I think it more than fair to say that you could take the average man, put him through a gender studies program, send him through a nightmare marriage with a personality disordered basilisk, take his children and his assets in the divorce and drive his own family and friends to blame him for the entire mess, and his self-respect would still be within relatively easy reach."

The meat of what he is saying is that self-respect is always attainable, no matter one's circumstances. That is deeply Stoic and I think it's true. It's a deeply reassuring thought.

How do we attain it? How do we reach this thing that is always within reach? According to Epictetus we achieve self-respect through the exercise of our own will. We just decide to do it and then we do it.

In Book 4, Chapter 9, Versus 15-18 of the Discourses Epictetus compares the student of Stoicism to an athlete being trained by a wrestling master:

"The boy has taken a fall: 'Get up,' he says, 'and resume the fight until you grow strong.' You too should think in some such way as that: you should know that there is nothing more tractable than the human mind. You only have to exert your will, and the thing comes about, and all is put right; whereas on the other hand, you only have to doze off, and all is lost. For ruin and deliverance alike come from within.

"'And after all that, what good will I gain?'"

"And what greater good could you seek than this? Where once you were shameless, you'll have self-respect; where once you were faithless, you'll become faithful; where once you were dissolute, you'll have self-control. If you're looking for anything other than things such as that, continue to act as you're now acting; for not even a god could still be able to help you."

Elam's hostility toward what he considers to be the excessive influence of modern feminism is what it is, and his views are not my own. His insights into self-esteem and self-respect, however, are a revelation to me. He has taken something which was hovering just beyond my ability to articulate and articulated it, and for that I am very thankful. 

*Whether it be conscious or unconscious

It's Good Training

"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid."

Epictetus


Maxims are important. It is advisable to have a supply of them at hand when times get tough. When we enter the stress response, when our adrenaline starts pumping and our heart starts beating our higher cognitive functions are shoved aside by our lower instincts. At these times maxims are a workaround back to rationality. They're a cheat code.

I find that the maxim which rises through my mental muck the most often is "This is good training."

I don't know exactly where I picked it up. I know that Epictetus advises us to repeat "It is for this that I trained" when we encounter tragedy, so it's probably related to that. Also, when I was in the military and somebody did something stupid all the NCO's would mumble "it's good training." More sweat on the training field means less blood on the battlefield, as they say. Make your mistakes when the stakes are low and you won't make the same mistakes when the stakes are high.

Hmm... so I guess I DO know where that comes from. Strange how writing a thing down can clarify it.

Anyway, I save "It is for this that I trained" for the big tragedies and "This is good training" for everyday annoyances.

Suppose, for example, that somebody asks something unreasonable of me. Suppose that I'm neck deep in a project and they want me to drop it all for a low priority task. I could swallow my rage and do it or I could blow up at them and call them selfish or I can repeat "it's good training," center my mind and work on a new skill.

"I understand, but this is my priority. I can talk to you about your thing later. I have to get back to this."

It's measured. Who can argue with it? It's not even mean. I'm just letting a fellow creature know what I'm thinking.

So what about when I lose my cool and do something stupid? Well, that's life.

If I want to improve, I must be content to be thought foolish and stupid. It's part of the game. I will make mistakes and people will see me make them. Some of those people will think that I am foolish and stupid. It WILL happen, so I will prepare for it. It's good training.

Nobody shows up to a golf course on Day 1 and smacks 300 yard drives time after time. They bounce balls off of trees, hit them straight up, plough divots everywhere... failure is part of the deal. If we can internalize this idea then failure will have less power over us. We will use it rather than subjugate ourselves to it. We will learn and move on.

It's good training.

Lazy Stoicism And The Viper's Tongue

I've got a mouth. I don't mean that I literally have an orifice which allows me to breathe and ingest nutrients, though I certainly have that. I mean it in the Southern sense: "That fella's got a mouth on him."

I'm sarcastic. In our age this trait is often characterized as a plus. I have a buddy, for example, who dates online and he says he's amazed by how many people list "sarcasm" as a positive personality trait. This perplexes him. Why would he want to date an openly sarcastic person? Why sign up for mockery?

"So I just scraped my car's rim against a curb, right? So not only do I have a scratched rim but my date is laughing at me and cracking jokes. Not attractive."

That one didn't work out. Now as a good Stoic I would try to develop myself to the point that neither the scratch nor the date's laughter mattered, of course, but his point is well taken. If the world is filled with potential dates why choose a sarcastic one? Why add to your burden?

My grandmother once told me that I have the tongue of a viper. She was herself a sharp-tongued German lady from North Dakota, brought up hard in an unforgiving environment  amid naturally Stoic people. Her world view was an unusual combination of deeply humanitarian impulses and high cynicism. She would feed every kid in the neighborhood but they would all fear the sting of her words if they stepped out of line. She passed this on to my father.

"A pessimist is never disappointed," he would tell me. He would also tell me to "watch my mouth" on a regular basis. I got his mouth, he said, and he got his mother's mouth... who knows how far back the mouth goes? No doubt some Teutonic tribeswomen once stood along the banks of the Danube taunting her nephew for skinning a hog the wrong way, and she begat me.

I can't relate that without admiration, though... I think that what people appreciate in a sarcastic comment is the fact that the originator had the nerve to make it in the first place. Perhaps sarcastic people come off as confident, or superior... I don't know.

As a supposedly practicing Stoic I make a conscious effort not to use my mouth. Sarcasm is insincere, after all. It's not kind and in my case it betrays irritation and insecurity.

I'd been doing pretty well in the last few months, but there came a day when I hadn't gotten enough sleep and I'd had one too many annoying personal interactions and my Stoicism failed me, or rather I failed it.

Whatever. In any case, I said something really sarcastic. My target pointed this out without replying in kind. It was embarrassing... for a moment.

"Well," my Stoic self said, "we don't want to do that again. Apologize, learn, and move on."

Which is what I did. Then we both felt better.

It was automatic. I didn't go home and lose sleep, I didn't mull it over with a friend, I didn't do an internet search on how to be less sarcastic... I just recognized the mistake, made a complete apology and vowed to do better.

It was easy. It felt lazy.

I think this stuff is working. I think that by deliberately thinking a certain way I am actually forming a mental habit. My default state is becoming more Stoic.

It's weird that this surprises me, but it does. I had a similar experience recently when I lifted up my youngest son. It didn't hurt like it used to. I started lifting weights two months ago and now I'm stronger. I must have secretly believed that it wouldn't really work, and then was surprised when it did. Same thing with my Stoicism...

A Public Face And A Private Face

One of my favorite books of all time is The Compleat Gentleman, by Brad Miner, now Senior Editor of The Catholic Thing. In his book Mr. Miner spends one of his chapters discussing a manual for courtiers written during the Italian Rennaissance by Baldassare Castiglione, who coins what I think is a very useful term: Sprezzatura. I am forever in Mr. Miner's debt for this (and for a number of other ideas of his that I've incorporated into my life).

Sprezzatura is the art of concealment. It is doing difficult things and making them seem easy. In Castiglione's own words it "conceals art, and presents what is done and said as if it was done without effort and virtually without thought."

Consider this scenario: You're eating a picnic lunch by the river. A truck pulls up and a man lumbers out, trips on a rock and staggers to the back. He drags out a canoe and drops it on his foot, swearing. He hauls the canoe over rocks, scraping and sliding, until he plops it in the water. It starts to drift away. He swears again and wades in, and perches the canoe half up on the bank. He looks around, confused, and then wanders back to the truck. He rummages around for a paddle, finds it, lumbers to the canoe, plops in and almost capsizes it, and then paddles off, the little boat zig-zagging with every stroke of the paddle.

Now this: a man pulls up in a truck, lifts a canoe out of the back, perches it on the bank, returns for a paddle, sits down and effortlessly slides off into the current with a low "swish."

The second man exhibited sprezzatura.

Now as Stoics should it matter? No... I suppose not. On the other hand we're not Cynics. We aren't throwing lentil soup on people to make a point, as Crates did to Zeno.

I submit that since the Renaissance saw a resurgence of interest in Stoicism, and since virtue involves becoming an excellent human, we might consider doing what we do with a little style.

"But all is opinion."

True, but that statement is NOT synonymous with "It doesn't matter what other people think."

If a Stoic takes part in public life, for example, what other people think "matters" a great deal, since the Stoic is attempting to influence them. Remember that we are not meant to sit alone on our mountain tops in quite contemplation. We're meant to be serving our brothers and sisters, down in the belly of society. To do that it may be useful to be thought of as dignified and competent.

Take as your example our very own philosopher king. I suppose that Marcus Aurelius probably appeared in public in tunic AND toga, the formal garment. He certainly appeared so for his bust. Why bother? Because he wasn't a Cynic. He was the Emperor of Rome. He had a role to play. He LOOKS like an emperor.

Now he did this simply and modestly. He sold off imperial treasures to fund wars rather than raise taxes. He avoided gaudy display. He was both aware of his image and he was stoic about it. He controlled how he presented himself and other people controlled how they percieved him.

He also displayed Sprezzatura in his philosophical life. He doesn't seem to have been a Stoic evangelist. He was widely admired for being the same at the end of his reign as he was at the beginning. He had a reputation for fair play and magnanimity. He concealed the source of his excellence: Stoicism. His great work was meant to be destroyed with him. Had his friends not disobeyed him The Meditations wouldn't exist. That, friends, is sprezzatura. That's style.

Take as another example that descendant of the Roman emperor: the Pope. One thing that Pope Francis has been widely praised for is his simple dress. Notice, however, that he still looks like the Pope. He's dressing to be seen, but he dresses simply. Sprezzatura.

* * *

All images are public domain

Would Rufus Wear Tshirt and Jeans?

Musonius Rufus was very utilitarian in his dress, and he advises us to be as well. I'll take my lesson from "Musonius Rufus, translated by Cynthia King," Lecture 19.

Rufus tells us that we should wear a chiton and a himation and call it good (he lived in Rome a good part of his life, so I think he may be referring to the tunica and the toga). In fact, if we can manage it, Rufus says that it's better to go about in a himation alone.

We should never wear two chiton, and we should only wrap up in shawls if we are ill. It's good to get a little cold in the winter.

And no shoes, if possible; shoes hamper agility.

Here is how that would look (sans sandals... this gentleman lives in luxury!):

Rufus tells us not dress to attract attention. Rather, "...one should use clothing and footwear in the same way that one uses armor: to defend the body, not to show off."

If I walked around in a tunic and toga I would most certainly attract attention. So what to do? What is the modern day equivalent of a tunic and toga?

The tunic was worn informally, either indoors or for rough work, while the toga was seen as more of a public garment. With that in mind, I propose two configurations. Please note that I am NOT saying that Neo Stoics will wear this and only this, or that they will even wear this at all. Dress how you like. I'm just saying that I've been doing this lately as a Stoic exercise and to me it seems worthwhile.

First, for informal wear, I submit to you the humble T-shirt, jeans and windbreaker:

Second, for more formal occasions, I suggest the chino trouser (or "khaki"), button-up sport shirt and sport jacket:

Suggesting this uniform isn't at all revolutionary, and that's the point. These clothes are seen everywhere, all the time. They don't attract attention. And where I live if you go to a wedding in shirt, trousers and sport coat you'll present a more formal appearance than at least half the men there, so I imagine that these clothes could suit a person for most occaisons, most of the time.

Rufus advises us to buy cheap as well, because it will free up money to "...help many people, both publicly and privately. "...isn't it more praiseworthy to help a lot of people than to live expensively?"

Fair enough. If you were to buy the T-shirt and jeans at Walmart you'd spend $17. You'd spend another $25 for the windbreaker. Sport Shirt and Chinos would run you $25-30 and a sport coat can be obtained from a thrift shop for $10-20. Job done. Or is it?

"Cheap" might be a relative term here, because in Rufus's time clothing was not cheap. It was hand woven and hand stitched, often by slaves. Sweatshop labor in our terms. How can clothing produced by slaves, or by virtual slaves, be worn ethically?

Here is what Walmart claims about its overseas factories:

• They meet or exceed our requirements
• All labor is voluntary
• Children aren’t used in the production of merchandise for Walmart
• Workers are properly paid for all hours worked
• Hours aren’t excessive and are consistent with local laws or regulations
• Factories provide safe and healthy working conditions

They claim that all of this is verified by an independent auditing organization. Then there's this:

That's not good. So what to do?

The Ethical Consumer scores clothing manufacturers on five criteria:

1. Is the manufacturer good to the environment?
2. People? Is it fair trade?
3. Animals?
4. Does the manufacturer respect democratic principles?
5. Is the product sustainable?

Of course we could debate all of these points. If you are going to "score" ethics numerically you are going to have to draw some arbitrary lines in the sand. Leave that for another day... who scores highest according to TEC?

People Tree Organic Cotton Clothing, scoring a 16 out of 20.

Simple Men's T-shirt: $42 US

Ewan Trousers: $120 US

We haven't even contemplated underwear, socks and shoes yet.

OK, is there a more affordable option? How about Cock & Bull? They score lower at 14.5, but maybe that means that they are more affordable?

Persian Easy T-shirt: $37.50 US

Hemp Jeans: $180

Nope.

How about American Apparel? Made in the USA? Sweatshop free? I don't know how they score, but I like "sweatshop free."

Fine Jersey Short Sleeve T-shirt: $7-18 (Now you're talking!)

Regular Fit 100 Jeans: $92 (um...)

Here is a page which tells us where to buy fair trade clothing. The list seems populated by hip 20 year olds in $40 T-shirts. Skinny T-shirts. Not for me.

Ah, I know! Carhartt!

Relaxed Fit 5 Pocket Jean: $39.99

Maddock Non Pocket Short Sleeve T-shirt: $15.99-$17.99

So far so good, but you'd have to check the label because apparently some of their clothing is made in Mexico.

So I don't know. It's hard to find fair trade clothes that are also cheap, but then on the other hand what is "cheap" to an ancient Stoic? $100 jeans might very well have been cheap.

I have some thinking to do.

As a post script, how do the Stoics of Stoic Week dress? Pretty much how I've laid it out here.

And a final post script: I'm a man and my article is clearly geared towards members of my own sex. I would not presume to advise women on how to dress.

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the New York Public Library.

T-shirt, jeans and windbreaker are from Wikimedia Commons and attributed, respectively, to Camisetas, Juanmac, and Ingolfson

Sport shirt, sport coat and chinos are from Wikimedia Commons and attributed, respectively, to ChristianGlaeser, PKM and Ed Yourdon

Only Apologize Once

I read this excellent entry at Manly Distribution on apologies and it got me thinking about my own apology practice.

I've noticed that my best apologies occur one time. I admit fully and completely my mistake and I say that I've learned from the experience. After that if the person brings it up again I say something like "yeah, I remember that" or "I thought I already apologized for that." The other person may accept or reject my apology. The relationship may continue or it may stall, or it may cease all together, but I won't grovel.

The key here is to own the behavior completely. Some people use an apology as a sort of get out of jail free card. They insult you, then they off handedly say "just kidding." Then they insult you again. The apology isn't sincere. I've done this myself and it makes me feel cheap. So the goal is a sincere, complete apology delivered one time only.

This practice isn't universal; if I do something major I understand that my apology will be a process rather than a one-off event. This hasn't happened in recent memory, but in the past I have occasionally said something horrible and it took some time to convince the other party that I was speaking without thinking and that I was truly contrite. Then there was that time I backed my uncle's van into a solid post. That was a tough one. Then there was that time I got a guy's expensive radio controlled airplane stuck in a tree...

What I'm talking about here is different; I am describing the everyday apology. We're all human and we all make mistakes. Sometimes the people we have wronged need to hear that we understand that we have wronged them, that we care about them and that we will try not to wrong them in the future. This keeps relationships alive and, in my experience, can even strengthen them.

As Stoics, of course, we think about being "wronged" differently, but the idea still holds relevance for us. Suppose I lend something to my friend and he breaks it. He doesn't apologize and he doesn't replace it. I've learned not to lend him anything. That's good information to have. Suppose, instead, that he breaks it, apologizes and maybe even offers to replace it. I will likely lend him something again. I've seen some reflection on his part, so that particular aspect of our relationship may continue. This is also good information to have.

Apologies are, therefore, necessary and useful. What is NOT useful is grovelling. If we wrong others and they can't let go of the wrong, or if they bring it up over and over again they are trying to punish us. Fair enough, if that's what they want to do, but if the act in question was a minor one and if we apologize fully for it the matter is now their problem, not ours. We've done all we can do.

Of course this also means that I must accept the sincere apologies of other people with as much grace as I expect from them, and I do. I actually feel pretty good about it. Letting go of past hurts is, after all, a very Stoic thing to do.

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the New York Public Library

Stoic Yoga

"It shows a lack of natural talent to spend time on what concerns the body, as in exercising a great deal, eating a great deal, drinking a great deal, moving one's bowels a great deal or copulating a great deal. Instead you must do these things in passing, but turn your whole attention toward your faculty of judgment." -Epictetus, Enchiridion 41


There are two things to take from this passage. The first is that Epictetus assumes that we will take physical exercise, eat, drink (wine, presumably), use the toilette and enjoy physical love. The second is that he sees these things as mere incidentals, not goals in and of themselves. For him the needs of the body should be met, but not dwelt upon.

I'm pretty good about not dwelling on these things, but I'm not very good at meeting them.

I want to set up some simple systems to care for my body without requiring obsessive amounts of time and effort. I want to be a good steward of it, but I don't want to build it into my life's work. I don't want my body to be a monument to my will.

So what have I done to further this goal?


1. Green smoothies to up my fruit and veg consumption

2. Walk three miles three times per week

3. Body weight and fitness band exercises twice per week

4. Calorie limitation using myfitnesspal.com

I'm getting to the point that these things are becoming habit. I don't have to think about them too much. I believe that this is in keeping with Epictetus's teaching.

There's one thing left to deal with: pain.

There is a very realistic older man where I work, a man who tells the truth all the time. He doesn't volunteer it freely; he's pretty self contained. If you ask him a question, though, you'll get a straight answer.

Once I asked him what it's like to be an older man.

"I'm in constant pain," he said. I thought he was talking about psychological pain. He may have had regrets or failures of character. I said as much.

"No, I mean physical pain. The older I get the more everything hurts."

There is some truth to it. What we cannot change we must accept, right, fellow Stoics? But what if we CAN change it?

I try to do a simple yoga routine at least once per week. Notice that I say "try." What I really ought to do is to commit to doing it twice per week. I've noticed that when I do yoga my joint pain decreases and my back pain sometimes dissappears.

So I have a goal: I will do yoga twice per week. This seems moderate, and I know that it will produce real results, a claim which seems to be  backed up by science.

Here is a sequence I've been using, and it seems to work pretty well:

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the New York Public Library

Admiral Stockdale's Take On His Debate Performance

I found an interview that James Stockdale did with Jim Lehrer in 1999. The transcript is here.

I'll let the Admiral speak for himself, but a few things did jump out at me.

1. He considered character to be far more important than specifics. A man of character can deal with specifics. He says that he doesn't get up in the morning thinking about Social Security.

2. He was a placeholder because Ross Perot needed a warm body in states that required a declared VP. He never expected to be in a public debate, and he wasn't terribly thrilled about it.

3. He and Perot never ever talked about politics.

4. He considered physical courage to be very important. If he ran a presidential debate he would ask the candidates about a time when they had to demonstrate physical courage.

5. He was very realistic about his performance. He was surprised to be there, but that's where those other guys lived. It is what it is.

6. He describes his time in the big central prison as the founding of a new civilization. They lost everything and had to start over. He is proud of what they accomplished.

7. His experience during the VP debates caused him to feel emotion. There were highs and lows. His way seems to have been that you experience the emotion and then you deal with it. The emotion seems to happen whether you like it or not, and then you use philosophy to manage it.

So for anyone who wants to know "How does a Stoic handle X or Y?" This is how a Stoic handles it.

* * *

The images used are official US government property, so I think that they are in the public domain.

Studying Philosophy While Married: If A Homeless Guy Can Do It...

Should a Stoic get married? Rufus says yes.

I've been hitting Musonius Rufus pretty hard lately, using Cynthia King's excellent translations. I would buy this work as one of the essential texts of Stoicism. For me a good place to start is the Enchiridion, Meditations, and Rufus.

Why? Because Rufus explicitly discusses practice. He tells us what to wear, how to eat, what to do (he thinks that we should all be farmers)... I'm not saying that we 21st century Stoics should blindly follow him*, but it does make for some interesting introspection.

Anyway, in his 14th lecture Rufus tells us that marriage is no hindrance to philosophy, and points to Crates as one of his examples.

Crates was a famous and respected Cynic who taught Zeno, our philosophy's founder. Stoicism has sometimes been described as a more reasonable and moderate form of Cynicism*, so it's worth our time to consider this very strange man, whose sole possessions seem to have been a thin cloak, a chiton-style tunic, and a satchel.

Rufus tells us that even though Crates had no home, property or money, he married a woman anyway and lived with her beneath the public stoas of Athens.

Crates' wife was herself a Cynic philosopher. Her name was Hipparchia of Maroneia. She fell in love with Crates against her parents' wishes and gave away all her money to live with him a life of poverty. She donned the clothes of a man and together they had two children... apparently conceiving them right out in the open in typical cynic fashion. Here's a woman who took her philosophy seriously.

Rufus then goes on to say that if this fellow can practice philosophy while homeless, why should marriage be a hindrance to those of us who have homes and maybe even servants? What's our excuse?

Not only was Crates able to study philosophy, he was also able to teach it and thus to contribute to his city. We are not meant to live like wolves according to Rufus. We aren't meant to exist in community just to better our odds of surviving; we are meant to live like bees. We are meant to contribute to the well being of our brother and sister humans.

"A virtuous person," he says, "displays love for his fellow human beings, as well as goodness, justice, kindness, and concern for his neighbor--given all this, shouldn't each person, out of concern for his city, create a family with the well being of the city in mind?"

So, according to Rufus, a virtuous Stoic marries and has children for the good of the city,* even if that Stoic is homeless.

By the way, if you find a suitable partner and you choose to propose in the style of Crates simply strip naked and declare to your love that this is all you own in the world. I didn't do that, but then I'm not a Cynic...

All this makes me wonder if I've ever met a latter day homeless Crates in the streets of my city. I probably avoided him or gave him a quick, pitying smile and moved on.

* * *

Images are public domain

*It's interesting how some modern Stoics respond to the smallest perceived simplifications and inaccuracies with outrage... is that a very Stoic thing to do?

Depressed and Dateless

I saw this post on Reddit and felt compelled to reply:

"I'm 20, and i'm just not good looking. So I haven't had an intimate or sexual experience with women yet. This feels awfully distressing since the vast majority of the people my age have had these experiences, from a kiss, to a date, to sex; and therefore seems like most guys my age are 'preferred' and are hence of greater value than myself. I have trouble accepting this, but I know i'll have much more peace of mind once I do and just forget about women. Which is why i'm here. I want to be a student of Stoicism so I don't have to put up with such emotions causing me distress. I hope someone can help."

Here is my advice:

"Problem: you want a date. You don't think a date wants you because you are ugly.

"Solution 1: Accept that you are undatable. There are 3.5 billion women on planet Earth and not one wants to date you. You can't control this, so you must accept it. Now I happen to know that the likelihood that this is true is absolutely zero, but you don't, so this seems to be the way you're headed. Don't do it.

"Solution 2: Sort yourself out. It's not terribly complicated.

"You need to be clean. Shower, haircut, brush the teeth, use deodorant, clip your nails. Do this every day. There's dignity in it.

"You need to work out. If it doesn't improve your physique it will at least improve your mood. Walk two miles and listen to pod casts. Next day do Mark Sisson's basic primal workout. Rinse and repeat.

"Read nonfiction. Just trust me.

"Eat more fruits and veg. Avoid sugar and processed food.

"Wear clean clothes. I like a black button up shirt, jeans, and black shoes with socks that aren't white. Iron your jeans flat but don't crease them. Iron your shirt.

"Work. Work hard.

"Go where women are. Act calm and confident. Say hi, with no expectation that they will say hi back. Do this 100 times.

"Put a dating profile online. Expect rejection. Expect Battle of Britain levels of getting shot down. All part of the game. You are a beginner. There are hard knocks to be taken. Part of Stoic practice is to put yourself into difficult positions. This is not a retreat from the world. This is the conquest of your own fears.

"Google ALL of this to learn how to do it better. We're baby stepping here.

"Do this and it will happen. But what if it doesn't? Then it doesn't. Go down swinging. But you've already tried! No you haven't, not like this you haven't.

"Good luck, brother Stoic. We're on your side here. Check back in with us."

I followed on with this:

And by the way, lest I swerve into holier-than-thou insincerity, here's how I stack up:

Hygiene: On point! I'm clean.

Work Out: It's finally a habit... I do exactly what I've written and it takes me 3 hours per week.

Nonfiction: This has been my habit for awhile.

Fruits and Veg: This is what I'm working on now... hence the green smoothie post.

Wear Clean Clothes: On point!

Work Hard: Roger that!

Go where women are: I live with one, whom I am married to, so check!

Dating Profile: I'm insulted!

Google all of this and learn more: That's what led me here!

Under my current understanding of Stoicism it isn't meant to separate us from the world. It's meant to make us more virtuous while living our everyday lives. It should allow us to function better in the world. It is natural to seek out a mate, whatever that may mean to you, and fear shouldn't prevent you from doing it.

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of Public Domain Archive, a great place to find public domain images

Green Smoothies: Magical Elixer

Musonius Rufus offered some very interesting lifestyle advice to we Stoics:

"On diet he used to speak often and very earnestly, as of a matter important in itself and in its effects. For he thought that continuence in meats and drinks is the beginning and groundwork of temperance. Once, forsaking his usual line of argument, he spoke as follows:"

He goes on to advise us to eat fruit in season, grains, plants (greens?), vegetables, herbs, milk, cheese and honeycombs. He specifically advises us to eat these foods raw. He calls these foods "cheap," because they don't derive from slaughtered animals. Meat was enormously expensive in the ancient world.

What results may we expect from following his advice?

"It is those who use the cheapest food who are the strongest. For example, you may, for the most part, see slaves more sturdy than masters, country-folk than town-folk,poor than rich - more able to labour, sinking less at their work, seldomer ailing more easily enduring frost, heat, sleeplessness, and the like. Even if cheap food and dear strengthens the body alike, still we ought to choose the cheap; for this is more sober and more suited to a virtuous man; inasmuch as what is easy to procure is, for good men, more proper for food than what is hard - what is free from trouble than what gives trouble - what is ready than what is not ready. To sum up in a word the whole use of diet, I say that we ought to make its aim health and strength, for these are the only ends for which we should eat, and they require no large outlay."

My response to Rufus's advice (and I mean it; it's really why I started this whole thing) is to embrace the green smoothie. So far I'm very pleased with the results.

Of course there's nothing magical about them. Green smoothies are nothing more than a combination of water, fruit and veg. You could eat the ingredients separately, drink a glass of water and achieve the same effect. You'd probably be more Stoic. Still, I didn't ever do this consistently. I find that smoothies are a way to sneak fruit and veg past my taste buds, and I'm grateful for them.

So far here is what I've found:

1. I eat less... I track what I eat on myfitnesspal.com and there has been a significant drop in my caloric intake, a drop that has taken me down to weight loss levels.

2. I have more energy... way more. This may be the placebo effect. Good for the placebo effect! I'm understating the effect... my body seems to tingle with energy. It's weird.

3. It's better to drink one in the morning. I have a cup of coffee and a green smoothie, and that's it. For the rest of the day it's like my body is plugged into an energy generator. I'm more aware, I do more, I look FORWARD to working out. If I skip the morning smoothie I'll have one in the afternoon, but my day is better when I drink one in the morning.

There is a very good chance that this is all the zeal of a convert. What happens when the novelty wears off? Who can drink green smoothies every day for the rest of their lives?

Well, I drink coffee every day, and the recipe never changes: plain coffee, cream and sugar. I haven't gotten sick of that yet. Why should I get sick of smoothies, especially when they can be made with such variety?

It's early days, but so far so good. And even if I don't lose weight I feel better and I'm following solid Stoic practice.

One of the really great benefits is that you can plug in to an online community without paying for a program, buying frozen food, or ordering strange supplements. The knowledge is free, and you likely already own everything you need. So give it a try.

How to:

For the purist: blend until smooth 1 cup of spinach, 1 frozen banana and 1 cup of other fruit (apples and pears work well).

For the beginner: use a coconut water base, or even do coconut water and orange juice, or plain water and OJ. If these things don't taste good you won't keep drinking them.

For everybody: freeze the fruit, especially the banana. Frozen bananas have a consistency like ice cream when blended. 

* * *

Green Smoothie Links:

Incredible Smoothies

Simple Green Smoothies (this includes a very useful recipe chart)

Will Power and Discipline

I haven't vetted the whole site, but what I have read of Remez Sasson's self improvement blog is very good. He seems to be very honest. He has an openness of mind and a scholarly bent that I don't often find in the self help genre.

His article Will Power and Self Discipline could have been written by a Stoic. I'll let you read it yourself for the particulars, but the gist of it is that we build our willpower by practice. We practice doing things that we don't want to do.

Don't put the dishes off until later; do them now. Don't pay the bills later; pay them now.

He also mixes in some Stoic practice suffering. If you like sugar with your coffee, don't use sugar for a week, for example. This is familiar to us, but maybe the doing of unpleasant chores is less familiar.
We Stoics put ourselves into uncomfortable situations, but I don't know that we emphasize doing uncomfortable things. I don't, anyway.

Mr. Sasson does seem to be looking for at least a token worldly result... maybe I am mistaken about that. Wikipedia tells us that he quit a lucrative bank job to follow his dreams, so maybe not.

It's worth a look.

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the New York Public Library

Stoic Week Ends: I've Said This To Other People, But...

Sometimes in my line of work I have cause to counsel people. If I'm speaking to a person who wants to change something about themselves I often use the byline quoted on the top of this page: first decide who you would be, and then do what you have to do.

I have changed quite a few things about myself (with the help of a lot of people, one of them a professional). What I've noticed is that when I try something new it exposes weaknesses in the old me, and I make more mistakes, not less.

It makes sense. You decide to learn to fly fish and you make more daily mistakes than you did before. You learn to fly a plane and you make seventy total mistakes per day instead of three. It's part of learning.

Physician heal thyself. Why did I think that it would be any different for me?

There is, I have learned, a vast difference between being a serious practicing Stoic and a person who knows a little about Stoicism. My mistake count has gone up. I'm more sensitive to other people, now that Stoic cosmopolitanism has made me more aware of them, and I've learned that sometimes I'm not very kind. It's difficult because I realize that I could have been this way all along had I come to Stoicism earlier. One of the hosts of "The Painted Porch" says as much, I think in Podcast 4. How much better would his life had been had he found Stoicism in his twenties?

But the past is gone. I can't change that. I've felt real personal growth as a result of this process, and that is a thing to be grateful for, not a thing to regret.

Somewhere Epictetus compares himself to a doctor, and he compares we students to suffering patients. There's something to that.

* * *

Image is public domain

Fate Permitting

It’s Friday of Stoic Week (The Painted Porch calls this week the most important week in the Stoic liturgical calendar... tongue in cheek of course). Today’s lesson was about the “Stoic reserve clause.”

A Stoic lives in the here and now. The past is to be learned from but not worried about, because it is beyond our power to control. The future hasn’t happened yet. All we have is right now.

This does not mean that ancient Stoics were inactive; far from it. The 2014 Handbook tells us that Stoics were often thought of as political trouble makers because they always insisted on acting from moral principles. They just realized that the actions we take may bear fruit, or they may not.

So we prepare for the future, but we recognize that our plans may be disrupted, and if they are, they are.

A Stoic says “I’ll see you Saturday, fate permitting.” It's a useful reminder.

There is a parallel here with Christianity and Islam. When I was in Ireland I often heard older country people say they would do something “please God,” or if God pleases. I think that in Islam practitioners often say “Insha’Allah,” or “If Allah wills it.”

Of course if you go around saying “If fate permits it” all the time you may seem strange to other people. That’s fine if you do, but on the other hand it may draw attention to yourself, and that attention might be a replacement for Stoic virtue. In other words you may be doing it to grandstand. On the other hand it might be a nice icebreaker, useful for introducing Stoicism to people. I don’t know.

The Handbook gives us another phrase to use, though: “If nothing prevents me.” I like that.

See you next time, if nothing prevents me.

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the New York Public Library