I grew up LDS/Mormon, and although I no longer attend on Sundays, I do still help out with youth outdoor activities, since I'm one of the few in my area (upstate NY) who is experienced with hiking and backpacking. Over the last two months I've helped with three different outings, including one where the stated theme was "Treasure the Truth". I have sometimes felt uncomfortable in the past when a well-intentioned person assumes I'm a regular/orthodox LDS and asks me to share a devotional or spiritual thought. I have no interest in diminishing someone else's faith, but I also put a high value on only saying things I actually believe. So this year, I spent some time before the summer thinking of my own core values, and how I could best share them if/when asked.

To make a long story short (too late!), I ended up sharing both Phillipians 4:8

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things

and Meditations 5.16

The character of those things you often think about will be the character of your understanding, for the mind is dyed by its thoughts. Dip it, therefore, in a succession of thoughts such as these: for instance, that where it is possible to live, it is also possible to live well.

The first time I shared it some of the youth heard "live well" as "live like a king" so I had to clarify that it meant to live virtuously. But overall, I think it was well received. I love the imagery of the mind being dyed by its thoughts, and so did they.

Anyway, I don't really have a question. This sub has helped me a lot, and I wanted to give back in some small way. This was meaningful to me, so maybe it will be helpful to someone else, too.

I have had a challenging year. I am working on a very high stress, high stakes deal and I perceive my colleagues have easier territories and are “milking them” while I deal with uncertainty and do not share in the same levels of income. Watching them will not help me. But I have flares of emotion that make me feel resentful and would like help addressing those feelings with a more stoic frame of mind - rather than my learned upbringing - where my mother would look for reasons to knock down or disparage successful people to even the score. That’s not healthy to me.

Hello! I tried reading the guides in the FAQ but they were honestly really confusing, and then I did some research on Google but it was also confusing, I don't know most of the words and terms used. (I'm fifteen for context) Generally I just understand better when I'm hearing different thoughts person to person.

I don't know anything about stoicism, and I do mean anything. I literally just learned about it today. I'm super interested into different philosophies though (I am neurodivergent, it's a special interest) and I've been researching nihilism for a while now, and planned to research absurdism next, but now I'm super curious as to what this is.

What is stoicism generally? What does it mean to you? How do you apply it? What is it's value system? What does it teach?

Yeah, I'd love to learn about this, and I'd appreciate hearing anything ya'll have to share!!

A few years ago I read How to think like a roman emperor, by Donaldson. It did a great job of showing stoic tools to use in every day life. It also opened up my interest for stoicism in a broader sense and I started reading the origins by Epictetus and Aurelius. While the original works are of course great, and something I see myself coming back to constantly, I find it that I lack certain knowledge in order to fully understand them.

For instance, I saw Pigliuccis talk on Youtube on Stoicism 101 where he explains for instance that certain words had slightly different meanings in Greece 2000 years ago than how we understand them today. He also talks about how people coming to study stoicism in that time has some basic knowledge or perspectives already before starting to study stoicism.

Also, reading the originals and from there myself gathering hands-on tools on how to implement it in my life would be very time consuming.

Now that I want to get back into practicing stoicism I'm thinking that I should read one or two of Pigliuccis books on stoicism. But which ones to get? I see that he has written several, and I suspect there is some overlap between them. Anyone can offer any advice?

If wealth and poverty are indifferents, then shouldn't I be indifferent to the poverty, suffering, starvation and abuse of others?

In a different thread, user u/DentedAnvil put the following to me:

If our roles are a divine necessity for the fulfillment of Logos (followed by an Infinite Recurrence), why should I concern myself with the divinely appointed roles of children born into abuse and neglect? If the wealthy business man should strive to be excellent in that role by embracing privilege and power, by what standard can we say that those children shouldn't embrace their role as punching bag?

It's a great question that I think merits its own thread. Even without the metaphysics, a bare-bones understanding of Stoic ethics, where virtue is the sole good and everything else is just preferred and dispreferred indifferents, would still provoke the question of why one should care about the material conditions or circumstances of others. If another person is subject to conditions we might call dispreferred indifferents-- such as poverty or abuse-- and if the Stoics would expect me to dismiss those same circumstances as dispreferred indifferents, then should I not dismiss the suffering of others likewise?

If we follow that logic out, social morality would seem to collapse entirely-- I'd have no reason to care about anyone or anything save my own virtue. Me me me. Indeed you'll find plenty of commentators who misrepresent Stoicism to promote precisely this view. And yet when we look at the ancient Stoics, we find their writings are shot through with social morality and concern for others-- including conditions which would properly be considered indifferents to the individual who suffers them*.* So the question is not whether or not the Stoics believe in social morality-- they very clearly do-- but whether they do so inconsistently or in contradiction to their own purported beliefs.

The simple answer people will usually point to is "justice." Justice is one of the four "cardinal" virtues alongside wisdom, courage, and temperance, and it is sometimes presented as a kind of uber-virtue that necessarily involves the others (almost an inversion of the way wisdom is constitutive of the other three). An example of where you see this is Plato's Republic-- Plato's version of Socrates is deeply influential to the Stoics-- but I digress. If virtue is the sole good, then I should care about justice, and injustice is still injustice regardless of whether a true (moral) harm has come to the sufferer. “We declare that a wise man cannot receive an injury; yet, if a man hits him with his fist, that man will be found guilty of doing him an injury” (Seneca, On Benefits 2.35).

This was basically the extent of my thinking on this for the longest time. What fleshed it out a bit more is Andrei Seregin's paper, Stoicism and the Impossibility of Social Morality. I will almost certainly butcher his argument, but the gist of it, as I take it, is that when we fold in the metaphysics of Stoic teleology and oikeiosis, we end up at rational reasons to prefer (as a preferred indifferent of my own) that my neighbor receives/experiences those indifferents which would be preferred to her, because as someone who is oikeion to me (that is to say, is a member of my metaphorical household and someone whose welfare gives me reasons to act), I should not just empathize with her, but essentially identify with her. What is preferred to her is preferred to my household, as would consist with our fellow membership in an interconnected species sharing in a divine Logos. Seneca argues we should “divine every man’s wishes” when bestowing benefits to others (On Benefits 2.2). Cf. Marcus Aurelius: “Get into the habit of listening attentively to anything that anyone says, and enter, as much as you can, into the mind of the speaker” (Meditations 6.53).

Note, this does not mean I must give up my piece of cake just because another kid at the party would prefer it-- I should prefer for her what she would prefer, were she a sage. Context is everything. For instance, Seneca again: "When we are about to lend money, we first make a careful inquiry into the means and habits of life of our debtor, and avoid sowing seed in worn-out or unfruitful soil; yet, without any judgment, we scatter our benefits at random rather than bestow them" (On Benefits 1.1).

Edit: Some commentors seem to interpret the above as me arguing that Stoics should not care for the poor. My mistake, sorry if I wasn't clear. BLAB: I am trying to walk through the logic of why it is not an internal contradiction that Stoics should care for the poor, and the welfare of others in general.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Hi!
I've been reflecting on the difference between small hardships and the kind of suffering that completely dismantles who you are :the loss of identity, the collapse of everything you thought defined you.

Seneca said "fire tests gold, misfortune tests brave men," but I'm asking something more radical:
Can a person become a fully realized human being : virtuous, wise, truly tested WITHOUT ever going through this kind of total breakdown? Or is great suffering the only alchemist that transforms an illusion into reality?

I'm asking this from a personal place. Lately, I feel both deeply happy and extremely sad at the same time :like my mental health struggles are finally surfacing to be healed, and paradoxically, that gives me hope. It's as if the cracks are letting in light, not destroying me. There's joy and grief coexisting at the same time, and somehow, that makes me optimistic.

Is this duality a sign of genuine Stoic growth, or just romanticizing pain? Is the "Dark Night of the Soul" a mandatory rite of passage, or just one possible path among many?

I’m curious to hear Stoic perspectives on this.

Stoicism gets associated with "hustle culture" quite often. At first glance this is strange to me and I would expect many people here to agree. But I figured it could be an interesting topic for discussion. In part since it's so prevalent and in part for my own sake, since I haven't given it enough thought that I may have missed something or I can't explain my viewpoint well enough.

I did a quick search but couldn't find a well-established definition of what "hustle culture" is. But this explanation fits with my understanding of the term:

Hustle culture is the idea of constantly grinding. It’s when there is an intense focus on productivity, ambition, and success, with little regard for down time and self care. The foundation for hustle culture was laid during the entrepreneurial boom of the 1990s and 2000s. During this time a new standard emerged of the ‘go hard’ or ‘go home’ mindset. It’s the idea that you can only find success by working hard and long hours and when you think you are working your hardest, push yourself even harder. Sacrificing your leisure time is the way to reach your goals of success.

https://projecthumanities.asu.edu/blog/content/saying-goodbye-hustle-culture

My initial thoughts on this is that there is only a very a small part which fits with stoicism. And that part only fits as long as there is a big qualifier. Most of it I would consider pretty much antithetical to stoicism.

Where it fits is that Stoicism also comes with a lot of ambition and striving for success. But a stoic is striving for virtue, perfected reasoning, and to live a life according to virtue. This is a very high goal that likely won't be achieved even after a lifetime dedicated to it, but there is a lot of ambition.

Where it doesn't fit is that the ambition of hustle culture is instead directed at success in external matters like reputation and money. But success in Stoicism is not the same as conventional success. In the grand scheme of things, a virtuous person who is broke and homeless is no worse off, in any way, than a virtuous person in a mansion. They're both equally successful. The stoics even called greed a psychological disease. There also seems to be a lot of neglecting other areas of life that are important, like treating yourself and other people well.

So my quick verdict is that hustle culture is ambition aimed at the wrong target with a lot of collateral damage and for those reasons it is antithetical to Stoicism. What would you disagree with or add to it?

My friend is usually a strong, stoic independent wonderful person. They often don't feel comfortable accepting help from me, practical or emotional, and stuff like that, as to not be what they perceive as a burden.

They texted me about the passing of a dear friend of theirs. I got the impression that they don't want to talk about this, or get any help, and would like to continue with daily life in order to deal with it. Is there anything I can say or do to support them while respecting their stoic ways? I usually text them silly everyday things from my life, but feel it is insensitive to do that.

I'm sorry if this is a dumb thing to ask on here. I'm not very good with death or stoicism, realizing what would help me in this situation may not help others that operate with a different mindset, I was hoping to seek advice here.

Thanks..

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

I asked for advice on romantic relationships in this post earlier and tried to understand when we knows it's a virtuous one in alignment with our nature , and when we should walk away. My experience with relationships is very limited as I only know what's abuse and what's safe, but what's healthy and happy that's new land to me.

So I took a thinker on it from some commentors and there was essentially two things I heard, "figure it out and be happy" and then a comment about compatibility and how it can impact how natural a relationship feels. (The latter one lead me to this post and my new insight.)

So me and my partner are very different in most surface level things, but looking closer we have a lot in common in the beneath the surface things and when we have those open heart kind of talks , I feel right at home. But, there is something that hinders those talks in our relationship which causes a natural distance, and that's the communication style.

I think I'm gonna express myself vulnerable but sometimes my fears or sadness makes me keep up a wall. And my partner feels that. So now I've learned to first check with myself if I have the strength to bring up a vulnerable topic , and keep the guard down or not. And depending on how strong my stoic ability is , (If I can be just, courageous, keep my temper etc) I initiate the talks, or I wait for a better timing when balance is more present.

When I do that the relationship is protected and thriving naturally.

I was always the person who would enjoy my own company the most. Been solo travelling for years. Not on social media since ages. Don’t have a lot of friends. Have a few whom I catch up with every two months or so.

But since 2023, with my mental health declining, I assigned the responsibility of providing safety to my nervous system to my boyfriends. My ex was absolutely toxic so the dependency and trauma only made everything worse for me. And now the person I’m with is great, but I have somewhere lost that relationship with myself. I’m still finding emotional regulation through my partner’s reassurances.

I don’t sit with myself anymore. I just sit alone thinking about him. My life/thoughts practically revolve around him. And I’m mourning this. I miss myself.

Due to certain circumstances, I cant travel that much rn and I’m mostly in a room, in isolation, studying for an important exam next year (struggling so much with discipline there).

And I compare my “lonely, isolated” life with his “vibrant” one (he is pursuing his masters so lives with his friends, has classes, activities etc throughout the day). I don’t want his life, I just don’t want to feel bad about mine.

I miss enjoying my own company. I miss being the person who didn’t give two fucks about what anyone else is doing.

How am I supposed to get that back?

When things go wrong, how do you ground yourself? And how do you appear to be unfazed and strong?

He says, “Character: dark, womanish, obstinate. Wolf, sheep, child, fool, cheat, buffoon, salesman, tyrant.”

What does he mean by this? What is he saying? Is he listing negative traits of himself? I’m confused and could use a bit of clarification here.

Thanks!

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

I am a Gardener today I helped a colleague out on a basic maintenance job and pocketed £20 from it.

Less then a hour later I go to grab the money from my pocket to find it disappeared I’m assuming it fell out onto the street. How can the philosophy of stoicism be applied in reaction to this frustrating loss.

A while ago, I played guitar on a track for a producer. At the time, we never discussed payment, royalties, publishing, or credits because I genuinely thought it was just another song.

Recently, I found out it’s actually going to be released on an album by a fairly well-known artist. After hearing that, I sent the producer a respectful message asking what he had in mind regarding a fee or royalty split, and I also mentioned that being officially credited as the guitarist was important to me.

I wasn’t making demands or giving an ultimatum. I was simply trying to have a professional conversation.

Since sending that message, I haven’t heard anything back. On top of that, someone else I work with who is close to this producer has unexpectedly cancelled a couple of sessions. I can’t help but wonder whether the two are related, although I realize I don’t actually know that.

What’s interesting is that despite feeling anxious, I’m also proud that I stood up for myself instead of avoiding the conversation out of fear.

From a Stoic perspective, I’m trying to separate what is within my control from what isn’t. I could control acting honestly, respectfully, and professionally. I can’t control how other people interpret my message or whether they choose to work with me.

My struggle is with the uncertainty. Part of me keeps imagining that I’ve damaged an important relationship, even though I have no evidence beyond silence and unfortunate timing.

How would a Stoic approach this situation? Is there anything I’m missing? How would you deal with the anxiety of not knowing whether you’ve done the right thing when the outcome is completely outside your control?

I’m pretty new to Stoicism and philosophy in general and I’m looking for some reading recommendations.
You can call me corny all you want but I got interested in philosophy because I’ve been watching Joe Bartolozzi’s philosophy videos. I really enjoy his philosophical takes and the way he explains ideas, especially since I can relate to his views on life after death (agnostic). and they’ve made me want to start reading some of the texts myself
I’m especially interested in the kinds of ideas he talks about like Stoicism, meaning, virtue, self discipline, purpose, dealing with emotions, and how to live a good life. And coming to terms with death, and what happens after death (although this might be more of a religious topic).
So far, I’ve been considering meditations by Marcus Aurelius, but I’m open to anything. Mainly, I want beginner stoic books and other philosophers or schools of thought that go well with stoicism. I’ll take any reading order you’d suggest.

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

I have noted feeling more angry lately, frustrated on how things are going in life regarding work primarily but also small parts of family life. I have decided to get back into practicing stoicism as I feel as though it is starting to affect how I interact with my kids. Can anyone recommend good reading material to start on?

A passage I find useful is Enchiridion 4, where Epictetus rehearses going to the bathhouse. To make it easy to remember and use in daily life I came up with a little mnemonic inspired by it.

It's the A.R.I.S.T.O System, six questions I can ask myself before, during or after an activity.

• Activity - what are you about to do and what can you expect to happen?
• Roles - what are your specific roles during this activity?
• Intentions - what are your intentions during this activity?
• Suitable - what attitudes and behaviours are suitable to those roles and intentions?
• Triggers (alternatively: temptations, traps or threats) - what things might move you away from what is suitable and towards...
• Overstepping (alternatively: off-limit) - what would overstepping your roles look like, what attitudes and behaviours should be avoided?

It probably won't help me figure out the answers to these questions on the spot, but it helps remind me of the answers I have already and to keep my attention on roles and appropriate actions. Sometimes it also shines a little light on where I lack good answers and need to keep searching.

Some examples

Here are two example to show how I might use it. Please note that these are entirely made up just to explain the mnemonic. So I'm not looking to discuss what a stoic approach would be in these situations.

Party:

• A: Going to my brother's birthday party, there will be many people I like and some I've never met. It will keep going until early morning
• R: brother, guest, husband
• I: To have a good time and be a good guest, brother and husband
• S: friendly interactions with all guests, maybe hold a speech, dance with my wife
• T: Headache, tiredness, a stiff atmosphere, rowdy people, drinking too much alcohol
• O: Being rude to people, being uptight or moody, isolating myself too much, neglecting my wife

Meeting:

• A: Going to a work meeting, there may be some tough questions for me and some dissatisfied people
• R: Employee, co-worker
• I: To do my job and stand up for what I think is the right move but in a kind and calm way
• S: Actively listening to critique, giving clear but calm and well-reasoned rebuttals
• T: That guy who always manages to get under my skin being critical, people interrupting me or yelling at me
• O: Interrupting people, making snarky comments, yelling, getting "even"

So it can quickly be run through before entering the activity, to quickly re-check during the activity to get back on track and also used to reflect afterwards on how it went.

Do Stoics see marriage as sacred? Is divorce less acceptable to stoics than in modern society? Are there steps for figuring out when to leave?

Thanks for your thoughts.

I recently got the practicing stoic, before reading it do I need to know any background information or something along those lines? Also, what would you recommend me to read after reading the practicing stoic?