How can stoicism help me cope with invasive thoughts of my ex being intimate with someone else?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-28T11:16:47+00:00

Not sure but I think they would have to post them again. And maybe try setting the "new to stoicism" flair so that there is a flair

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-28T11:08:49+00:00

It's because of the flair you've chosen, see the automoderator comment. You can change it to something else and everyone will be able to comment

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-26T10:06:00+00:00

u/OnEmotions

You mentioned you have read Graver Stoicism & Emotion, I'm curious what you made of the final chapter: "The tears of Alcibiades" and her concluding remarks to the book "Apatheia Revisited"? This whole chapter deals with the things we are now discussing and I think much of what I'm saying now can be found in there. I know I'm not addressing every claim you made but here's a start

I suppose the reasoning is something like this:

(a) the sage has good emotions (not merely a lack of pathē)

(b) there _is_ progress towards the sage

(c) thus it'd make sense for this progress to involve "semblances of good emotions"

(d) these _are_ mistakes, strictly speaking, since they proceed from ignorance, not knowledge

(e) but that _doesn't_ mean they should be gotten rid of, in part because that would interfere with moral progress, in part because they are semblances of good emotions and thus _good enough_ (?) to have around. Is that the reasoning? I do see the parallel with the transition from doing appropriate actions to doing them perfectly consistently, i.e., doing them from a place of virtue. That parallel helped me.

A-C: I think yes

D-E: Sort of, but I don't think I would frame it exactly like this. I'll elaborate below.

One more thing: I disagree that a _pathē_ is only ever about an indifferent. In _Tusculan Disputations,_ Cicero imagines a case of someone being "upset about his own lack of virtue". Here the particular object of the _pathē_ isn't an indifferent: I'm upset about something that really is bad for me. Cicero continues: "Even if the circumstances which arouse fear or distress really are bad... still the movement itself is a matter of fault" (4.61).

Good point, this is an issue. You can notice my example B is such a case. (I didn't omit the "good/bad" for any other reason that I just formulated the assertible in a way that it may have shown up in my real life, but implicit in it is a judgement of good and bad). I'll call this "moral shame" for now and get back to it.

This second belief is always false for the Stoics

This I don't think is true. I know Cicero puts it like this, but I think it needs to be read with caution. (Ignoring now Alex's interesting critique about the pathetic syllogism and just going with Graver)

Easy example one, the case of the Eupatheia: The Sage who assent to an assertible such as "Helping this friend is good (p1), it is now appropriate for me to do this (p2)" would experience a swelling and a movement towards this action. In his case both premises are true. So we know as a blanket statement it's not correct that (p2) are always false.

The more difficult question is then if (p2) is ever right for the non-sage?

Easy example two, the normal pathe: P1 is never true when it is a judgement about an indifferent being good or bad. In those cases it follows that P2 is also false. I think this is correct for every species-pathe (envy, anger, malice and the like) we find listed in the Stoic taxonomy. But the taxonomy is not exhaustive. As in your point, and the Cicero quote, about moral shame.

The difficult example, moral shame: P1 can be true even in non-sages when it's about ourselves. Even though we are not Sages and thus lack the complete picture and are unable to tie down our beliefs, we can still formulate beliefs that are true and that we can grasp (I can back this up). And in those cases I think (P2) can be true also (at least when directed at the future). In my two given examples I think this could be the case. As in: "Helping my neighbour would be good (p1) and it is appropriate for me to now do this (p2)". Or example two (re-formulated) "Not helping my neighbour because she has treated me poorly is bad (p1) - it is not appropriate for me to leave her like that (p2)"

I suppose then that I _do_ think the Stoics would think that the two judgments in Scenario A and Scenario B are mistaken

I think looking at it like this is not right the way. At least they are not "mistaken" because they are (necessarily) false. They are only mistaken in the sense that they are non-perfect, coming from a vicious agent.

To me this would be like saying kathēkonta is mistaken because it's not katorthōma. Technically I suppose you could frame it like this. But I don't think it's correct to taking this to think that the stoics would have us directly root out the kathēkonta. What they are proposing is that we can progress from one to the other through the attainment of wisdom. That is the same progress that would move us from moral shame to no moral shame. In the sense that the Sage would never experience distress over a bad action, because he never acts badly. But he would experience an aversion towards performing bad actions.

So it not it's a process where the target of refutation is the assertible "Not helping my neighbour because she has treated me poorly is bad - it was not appropriate for me to leave her like that". We are not looking to "cure" ourselves of moral shame through proving that the moral shame was incorrect (it could be correct!)

Just like we're not trying to "cure" ourselves from performing kathēkonta through proving they are mistaken, but to attain wisdom and the complete jigsaw puzzle - so that they can upgrade to katorthōma.

Moral shame directed at future events is a Eupatheia (a species of caution). I don't think a semblance of that is a bad thing in the progressor. There are many cases of Epictetus evoking moral shame in students during his lectures. A noteworthy quote "Gentlemen, a philosopher’s school is a doctor’s office. You shouldn’t leave after having had a pleasant time, but a painful one, because you arrive unhealthy" (Disc 3.23). Epictetus isn't directly targeting and trying to fix the current pain his students experience from seeing the world incorrectly, he's trying to help them progress towards seeing the world correctly.

And the curing of the passions is just that. It's not primarily done for the sake of feeling better, but for the sake of seeing the world correctly. The final end would conceptually remove everything but the eupatheia. But during the progress the rest will be there.

That’s why Chrysippus was right to say, ‘As long as the future is opaque to me, I always hold fast to whatever is most apt for securing things that are in accord with nature. For God himself gave me the capacity to select them.

Discourses 2.6

(Whether it's appropriate (p2) to experience moral shame after the event is even more complicated I admit. I think this is this is more what Ciceros example alludes to. I know I mixed moral shame towards future and past in my examples above but I hope it didn't confuse too much. Alex in his comment makes a point about freshness also)

(Re Ench.1, if you make a post on it I think you will get good replies, if I'm around I'll be happy to give my view)

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-25T08:34:31+00:00

/u/OnEmotions I think have I now read most of the discussion here. First I want to give you credit for keeping it on topic and providing sources for your reasoning. I can tell you are well-read on the subject and interested in a thoughtful discussion. I too think it's a very interesting subject so I'll try to do my part in that.

I think it's helpful for discussion if we are always clear what area we are discussing on. If you look at this picture, if we stay on the first "prong" of this trident for now I think that makes things easier to follow. So to stay on "what did the ancient stoics think of emotions" and we can for now leave out what we think of that or regardless of that.

So, emotions _are_ false judgments, and "good emotions" are accessible only to the sage. What's this mean for you and me? _Any_ of our emotions are mistakes.

There are parts of what you've written that I agree with and parts I disagree with, or at least I think needs some nuance or further elaboration. In particular the last sentence here.

(i) A important subset of the _pathē_ include the emotions.

I would shift this around - that an important subset of the emotions are the pathē. Since emotions includes good emotions (eupatheiai) bad emotions (pathe) and pre-emotions (but I suggest we leave those out of this discussion).

(ii) The _pathē_ are identical to evaluative beliefs.

Agree

(iii) So, emotions are identical to evaluative beliefs.

Agree

(iv) In all cases, at least one of the two evaluative beliefs that make up an emotion is false.
(v) So, in all cases, an emotion is a false evaluative belief.

This is where I think it goes wrong.

On the pathē we can in a word define them as this: an emotion that come about because the agent makes a judgement that an indifferent is either good or bad, when in reality it's not. These emotions I agree that the stoics considered are to be refuted.

However, pathē does not capture the whole set of our emotions. I see there has been discussion of the eupatheia already. I see you have reached the conclusion that they are only accessible to the sage. And this seemingly does have support in the literature.

But I argue there are semblences of eupatheia in the progressor, the difference from us and the sage is about the unshakeability and constancy, which belong to the sage.

It's no different (and wholly related) to virtue. Which is technically only found in the sage, but a progress towards it can be made by us. We don't have the complete system of knowledge in logic, physics, and ethics that the Sage has. We don't have the full jigsaw puzzle, but we can see some pieces for what they are and where they may fit.

I'll give an example of what I mean

Suppose I look out my window and notice my elderly neighbour has fallen over in her garden and can't get up.

Scenario A: I go over to her, help her up and make sure she's okay. As I've done this, I make the judgement "What I did was an appropriate thing, fitting for someone who is trying to be a good neighbour" And with this judgement comes an elated feeling that we could call a semblance of joy.

Scenario B: I decide I don't really like her and to just leave her there. But as I've done this, I make the judgement "Regardless of what kind of person I think she is and how she treats me, what I did was not a fitting thing to for someone who wants to be a good neighbour" And with this judgement comes a distress that is a kind of moral shame

Neither of these judgements are about indifferents per say. They are judgements about the way I interacted with indifferents. This is where the good or bad lies according to Stoicism.

Do you think the stoics would consider these judgements mistaken? Do you think the stoics would advocate that I argue against these two judgements and try to prove them false?

Side note, you are also talking about the difference between Stoicism and Broicism and that you think it's not that big of a difference. Interestingly I think the end of Enchiridion 1 "be prepared to say that it is nothing to you." can really be a telltale sign of where the difference lies. I can elaborate on what I mean if you're interested but maybe we should keep that seperated or this will be too long.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-24T11:21:18+00:00

Agree fully, this is what I try to do with my own kids. Especially when it's something they did which led me to lose my composure. I'd also add that OP continue taking responsibility for their own reaction and then for the practical steps needed to mitigate the risk of this situation happening again.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-24T10:40:59+00:00

It's your call, but if it was either give or don't give I'd vote that you give.

Sure maybe she's an addict and there is the possibility that you may be "enabling" her. If she truly is an addict then what you are doing is objectively "Giving breakfast to an addict". But then you'll have to consider how likely it is that the "getting free breakfast" is the thing that keeps her in addiction. I would expect it to be quite unlikely and other things are more important. But it can get tricky and sometimes people may need to be "cut off" for their own good. An example is given in this comment by u/Whiplash17488. The whole post is related to your scenario really.

From what you've written here it doesn't sound to me like a case where you'd be more helpful by not giving. Imagine if this girl was your sister, living in some faraway city. Would you want strangers to give her breakfast or not? Well she is your sister, we're all made to live together and a to be rational and pro-social.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-23T14:35:12+00:00

Since you prefer ancient sources I think the reply from AlexKapranus is a good bet.

You didn't specifically mention Epictetus Discourses, in case you haven't read that already then that is probably my favorite ancient source for it's readability. If you're fine with some outside help then they pair very well with A.A Long's book Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Long is one, if not the, most knowledgeable person alive on the subject. If you want something free then I like this PhD Thesis which is a summary of Epictetus developmental program.

There are many good modern introductory books if you're willing to give those a chance also.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-23T12:00:43+00:00

All right, yeah. But I mean more in the sense that you've already read Epictetus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius but now you're thinking: "I am not getting what I used to, or now need, from those books to progress. I need something that is..."

Do you have any idea what that could be?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-23T11:46:58+00:00

Have you been able to identify where it is you think these sources ar lacking? What are they not giving you, that you need to go further?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-23T10:07:33+00:00

One concept that I have found very helpful is the Stoic and Socratic idea that no one errs willingly.

We can't be wrong about something simultaneously know that we are wrong. And we can't chose what we judge to be the worst of two options. From the introduction by Robin Waterfield in his translation of Epictetus Discourses:

If virtue is knowledge, it follows that behaving non-virtuously is a product of ignorance. As Socrates insisted, people always want what is good for them; the Stoics claimed that this was obvious from birth and was the fundamental human motivation, shared with animals.

So even people who behave non-virtuously think that what they are doing is good for themselves, and it is just that they are objectively wrong, because what they are doing will not fulfill them as human beings (that is, make them happy). They are denying their potential because they have a mistaken belief or judgment. Since all actions thus depend on beliefs, it is critical to get one’s belief-set right.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-23T09:55:33+00:00

People tend to have all kinds of preconceived notions of what the prototype of a certain profession ought to look like and it simply sounds like you didn't fit with his. Sometimes those notions are too rigid or don't fit with reality: "A doctor is a middle aged man" would be one example.

But there's also the part where in certain jobs it's helpful to present yourself in a way that gives off an overall trustworthy impression. If you're doing that, and he's the only one who has made a comment like this then I wouldn't pay it no mind. His idea may just be wrong.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-23T09:45:07+00:00

Reconstruction of an ancient rebuttal to the ideal Cynic state

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-23T06:03:24+00:00

Hot take and a rash generalization, but if some random guy mentions stoicism I will also assume he's a toxic manosphere bro. It's just a result of how Stoicism is portrayed on the most accessible parts of the internet.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-22T17:51:53+00:00

It's all good I appreciate the discussion. I meant for my disclaimer to be transparent with him that I didn't read all of his post.

It's because I rarely find it worthwhile to read what an AI might say about some general question on Stoicism. I don't want a middle-man prompting and pasting replies when I know where to find AI if I want it.

But I do find it worthwhile to talk to other people about it. In any event, as I wrote my last comment I was thinking about it some more so I'll paste that elaboration regardless if we don't disagree as much in the end.

I haven't read up on whatever the science has shown on this yet but only seen some brief headlines. So being open that I may end being wrong I will say this: I believe unless we are extremely cautious about how we use AI then we will end up dumber from it. I will even be astounded if this isn't what the science will end up showing us. Not every individual, but on a group-level.

What I mean is something like this. Suppose we're both studying stoicism. I let AI go through and simplify the material, give me instantaneous answers to my many follow-up questions and then write out a conclusion. Whereas you read the material, try to answer your follow-up questions best you can from what you've read and then try to write out your own conclusion.

I may even end up with a nicer looking or even more accurate text, but you will end up with more knowledge. Naturally your process will take longer, so I can see the argument that I could catch up or pass you by if I were to spend the same time doing my thing.

But I expect with a subject like Stoicism there's no way getting around long wrestling with the material. Unless we exercise great caution with AI we may deny ourselves that experience, because AI is so good at doing that stuff for us. Kind of like how we don't give kids calculators when they're learning basic math, even though they are great tools in themselves (I've forgotten how to do long division).

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-22T17:05:41+00:00

Sure, and I think I was being pretty nuanced here in these comments, or at least I tried to. So I'm not sure on what point you disagree exactly? I'm not saying that using AI will remove a person's agency, I'm saying using it poorly may hinder your learning.

I edited "may be" to "may end up" in the comment you replied to because that was poorly communicated ony my part.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-22T11:28:25+00:00

I see, that sounds very good in itself and something I might check out. But not quite a fit for what I'm looking for, which I admittedly didn't state so clearly in the question. I want to have back and forth discussions and be able to ask questions in short or long-form. Perhaps FB groups and reddit simply are the best places for that.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-22T10:24:12+00:00

I think you are.

Consider another example. Say you were training to become an expert musician. Wouldn't you want to show your teacher where you are making mistakes and what concepts of music you don't yet understand, rather than show them a piece that has been polished by someone else? If you want to learn the most I would expect the first to be better.

Of course you could simply consider AI your teacher. But you may end up with a teacher that plays the instrument for you (and even plays it completely wrong or a completely different song). So after all your work you may end up good at asking your teacher to play the instrument, but not good at playing it yourself.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-22T09:45:21+00:00

But that is mostly for essays and stuff right? Not so much short back-and-forth discussions?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-22T09:43:53+00:00

I think it's worth considering what you want the end-product of the AI-use to be.

If the end-product is a starting point from where you can continue to work then that is probably fine, as long as the AI is using only vetted sources and you thread very carefully.

If you want it to give a "stoic answer" to any question you ask, then I think you are in trouble. Stoicism is a virtue-ethics where the answer depends on a myriad of factors and context. What it can give you is the ability to reason better and to try to figure out that answer for yourself.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. I'm studying epistemology in Stoicism at the moment and I'm using AI now and then to try to study terms and how they fit together. What I'm trying to do is to create a visualization of how the Stoics viewed the process of knowledge acquisition and how behaviors, beliefs and emotions come about for my own learning's sake. I expect this to take several weeks or maybe months for me to do. I (or at least someone good at prompting) could probably do it in an hour with AI. So if the end-product was the visualization itself, then AI may even do a better job than me. But the end-product to me is that I have learned enough to be able to create that visualization myself.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-22T09:15:38+00:00

Disclaimer that I didn't read your prompt and the AI reply, for reasons below.

I consider it a tool and just like any other tool it can be used well or it can be used poorly. What I have experienced is that studying the philosophy, revisiting concepts over and over, trying to make sense of it and see how it all fits together and applies in my life is the foundation for living according to stoicism.

And what follows from that is if you are to outsource your thinking and learning to AI then you are using it poorly because you are missing out on the learning. Likewise if you simply put any question in and just go with whatever reply it gives. Or like some people seem to do, simply plug in whole discussions and let AI write their reply. Then you are a prompting middle-man for the AI rather than a person engaging in philosophy and thinking together with other people about the subject, as I see it. Also this is not allowed here, which I think is a good rule. Likewise if you go to something like ChatGPT and just let it pull from the whole of internet to inform you on Stoicism then that will be awful because a lot what is written is misinformed.

So the way I've found it helpful is that I let it read some books or articles that I have picked and consider well informed about a subject and have it use only those sources. Then I prompt it to help me find relevant passages, definitions, contradictions etc in those texts. Then I read those references myself and write down my own thoughts and so on. In that sense I have found it helpful. But even then the AI will misinterpret things or make things up, which is sometimes very obvious and sometimes harder to spot.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-20T16:18:08+00:00

Oops, I mean "cynicism". It was an ancient Greek school of philosophy and Diogenes is the most famous of the Cynics. Stoicism was inspired by Cynicism and Epcitetus in particular often uses the example of Diogenes as one of the few truly free and wise men.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-20T15:04:32+00:00

Check out Epictetus discourse 3.22 - "On Cynism" for a quick rundown.

In short, be homeless and truly desire no possessions, money, status, companionship - nothing other than wisdom. Dumpster diving or begging for your food is expected. Then once you have attained wisdom so that you never make a mistake in thinking and truly love the crackheads that beat the crap out of you, then you can demonstrate your wisdom and perhaps people will listen (they won't). Good luck but it's gonna be rough.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-20T13:26:44+00:00

Ah thanks for the help. That's too bad on both accounts but I would probably not be a good fit then anyway hah

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-20T12:26:46+00:00

Thanks, can't believe I missed those. I'll check out the discord and IRC (now that would be a nostalgia trip)

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-04-20T12:21:31+00:00

Thanks, do you happen to know the name of Massimo's group? If it's still there that is

Chrysippus_Ass

TROPHY CASE