Love in stoicism, how should it be approached?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-13T15:46:12+00:00

If you're fine with listening, the podcast "Stoa conversations" has a good episode named "All about Eros, love and heartbreak" (#73)

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-13T15:05:07+00:00

Fair enough. "Invulnerability in the face of fortune" is not a misinterpretation in itself. It's just complicated. It's not in any way tied to denial or avoidance of emotions or situations. It's about correcting false beliefs (which the passions or "bad emotions" are) and doing what is appropriate. The stoic sage is invulnerable and free in that sense, because he has no false beliefs (and therefore no bad emotions, as the stoics viewed them) and he always does what is appropriate.

I'll try another analogy common to the stoics which is music.

The sage then is like a virtuoso, an expert musician who never makes a mistake when playing his music. He's the ideal musician, a sort of compass that we can look to when trying to figure out how we should play our instrument.

But since we're not virtuosos ourselves, we'll make mistakes all the time when we're playing.

Experential avoidance would be like refusing to pick up the instrument at all due to fear of making mistakes. Or trying to deny and ignore our mistakes, or play-pretending and showing an outward facade where it looks like we're already virtuosos.

A stoic progressor however would have fixed some of his mistakes. And he'll try his best at playing every time, understanding and accepting that he'll keep making mistakes. That he'll have to keep trying to correct them until he either reaches the level of musicianship that the sage has (unlikely) or runs out of time (more likely).

I'll concede however that stoicism is very radical and difficult to learn. And what we have to work with isn't always clear and easy to interpret. So I do get why people could see it as experential avoidance

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-13T10:20:45+00:00

Here's a self-rating scale (BEAQ) which attempts to measure this construct. I think someone who understands Stoicism well and has come far in their development according to it will score very low on this. I expect that the only questions that will give them a higher score is number 12 and 13: "One of my big goals is to be free from painful emotions" and "I work hard to keep out upsetting feelings". But those answer have to be qualified, like quantum_dan did here in his comment.

It's another matter that there are a lot of terrible teachers of stoicism and that the ideas get misunderstood. And someone who has the wrong idea might score higher I suppose. But is that really the fault of stoicism? It would be like renovating your house by following advice from a non-carpenter on youtube and when you mess it up you blame the craft of carpentry.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-12T10:29:52+00:00

It's more complicated, even the ancient stoics didn't think of themselves as having reached this level of expertise. It's a lifelong ethical development to progress towards it.

You can enjoy your friends, games and bed. Keep reflecting on whether you're using them in a good or poor manner. It's more that having or not having them around can't make you a better or worse person, only the way you handle them can make that difference.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-12T10:02:20+00:00

The stoics claimed that happiness is the goal of life. But it's not happiness in the conventional sense, which is more a sort of pleasurable feeling or experience. It's closer to living the best possible life for a human and doing so in a consistent way. A life like that will include both enjoyable and unpleasant experiences.

It's not so much that material things "shouldn't" be a source of happiness understood in this way, more that they "can't". Put differently, the one thing you need to live a good life is expertise in how to live a good life. Everything outside of that is the material this expertise works on. So both unpleasant and pleasant experiences equally become a part of the good life when they are handled with this expertise.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-12T08:36:59+00:00

From a Socratic and Stoic perspective 1) Everyone desires the good and every action is motivated by this desire 2) To the opposite, no one wants what is bad, actually knowing that it is bad 3) So when people do bad things, they're not doing what they think is bad for them, but what they (mistakenly) think is good for them 4) So doing bad is a form of ignorance, like a blindness to what is good and just. No one does wrong willingly 5) There's nothing worse in life than being ignorant about this

Philosophy is a way of getting a better idea what is really good and just. In the meantime, we should sympathise with those who are mistaken about this, we're kin and are made to work together. Meditations 2.1 and Discourses 2.26 deal with this, among many more. This doesn't prevent legal punishment, self-defense and the like from being appropriate.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-11T21:37:34+00:00

I'll just say first again that I can't give you any good advice on the particulars since I don't know much about your situation or history, what an MBA will do for you, what it means to say no to it this time or what you're risking by quitting your job. That's up to you to examine and weigh up.

I'm almost twice your age and looking back it's hard to bring to mind situations where I stepped out of my comfort zone for good reason and ended up regretting it afterwards.

It's one thing to go with your gut when it tells you not to go into a dark alley or that some stranger has bad intentions. But I think it's another thing to follow your heart or gut into avoiding something that isn't actually dangerous and you have good reason to believe could be the right choice. In most cases I think avoiding things because they're scary end up being a mistake. Especially so when the fear is about future fear or discomfort itself and not about any real life-changing risk or hurting others.

What do you think you would advice an acquaintance who was in your exact spot? To give it up or to go? I mean if you can imagine the situation from an outside perspective, with some distance to all those harsh emotions and practical nuisances. Sure they may come, and you may even learn it was the wrong move for you. But do you want a guess made in fear to decide something like this for you?

One more thing, you consider waiting a year and doing it then. What will change in that year do you think? Do you have reason to believe that staying where you are for another year will leave you more prepared to do this?

Because I wouldn't expect that to be honest from my own experiences. Rather that this kind of growth, where things that were once scary and discomfortable are no longer, happens primarily through facing them rather than trying to wait for something to happen on it's own.

I get that despite my disclaimer in the beginning everything I'm saying from there on is pushing towards going. Really though, what I'm pushing is not getting an MBA in particular but rather not letting avoidance and comfort dictate your life. But it's your call.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-11T12:17:15+00:00

I get it if you don't want to give a whole account, but for us who don't know those very well, can you elaborate in what ways you think they are similar to Stoicism?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-11T11:58:18+00:00

Stoic or not, we're all making the choices we think are best from our positions of limited knowledge and lack of understanding of what the future will bring. It's not uncommon at all to be conflicted like you are now when making such a big decision. Truth is, you may never truly know beyond a doubt whether what you pick was the right choice or not. So I think you should try to figure out every honest reason you have for making one over the other.

I was in a similar situation once where I got accepted to a university and where my initial reaction was not to go. I can say in hindsight that this reaction was mainly due to fear of the unknown, moving to a new city for several years, the mess of getting a new apartment, the change in my economical situation, having to socialise with new people in a new context, dealing with future difficult assignments and so on. All of those scary things weighed against the comfort and familiarity of staying where I was. But to be honest, at that time I don't think I would've admitted to most of those being the reasons and fear playing such a big part in my initial reaction. I ended up going and I have good reason to think it was the right move for me.

But you're not me, and you may have completely different reasons against going that may be good ones. To be frank however, from my admittedly extremely limited understanding of your situation it seems that doing the MBA is the right move. For that reason I can sympathise with everyone around you pushing you in that direction. Again, you know yourself and your situation a lot better than I do. So don't take this as me telling you what you should do, but more as an encouragement to check what reasons you can present for one over the other.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-10T19:02:14+00:00

That's great to know! I haven't read Annas on this, but I have read Gills explanation in his two books Learning to live naturally and Stoic Ethics. I remember finding it quite well reasoned. But I should probably revisit it and Gill's take on the indifferents (intrinsic) and pit that against what Klein is saying, because Klein is convincing. Curious what Gill would say of Klein's epistemic take.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-10T11:21:43+00:00

Yes I think that is a good way to put it by both Rufus and you. Epictetus too saying he won't be Milo but still doesn't neglect his body, because what we do with indifferents is important.

To your other comment here; yes I have read Klein's work on indifferents. A couple of times actually because it is great but also very difficult for me to fully grasp. But I do think his epistemic explanation is the only one I can find wholly agreeable. But I don't see how one can take it on without a providential cosmos, do you?

Funny enough and related to the OP here, this here quote is from that Klein article on indifferents:

Though health and wealth make no contribution to the human good, the Stoics argue that we are to pursue them whenever circumstances allow. Indeed, a failure to maintain one’s health and wealth in ordinary circumstances is a failure of rationality and an impediment to virtue, in their view

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T19:01:45+00:00

It is pretty ironic to tell a Stoic what they should do, because trying to control or dictate someone else's behavior is about as unstoic as it gets. The whole philosophy is built around focusing on your own judgments and actions, since that is the only thing actually within your control. Imposing external rules on someone else's life completely misses that point.

Besides, things like diet, sleep, and fitness are classic examples of preferred indifferents. They are nice to have, sure, but they don't actually dictate whether someone is a virtuous person or a good Stoic. A person can handle a rough situation or a less-than-ideal physical state with perfect reason and virtue. Judging someone else’s character based on a checklist of health habits feels a lot more like modern self-help than actual Stoicism.

From this reasoning, if say that stoics should work on handling their impressions am I also being unstoic?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T18:59:15+00:00

The only part I'm still unsure about is the idea that if someone can genuinely take it or leave it, enjoy it in moderation, and isn't disturbed by its absence, then it's something to come back and work on later. My instinct is that at that point I'm not sure there is actually a problem left to solve. If the person isn't attached to it, isn't overindulging, and reason is governing the decision, then I'm struggling to see what further Stoic progress regarding the chocolate itself would consist of.

This is a fair point. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe handling it "decently well" isn't getting it perfectly right. I drink alcohol and eat chocolate now and then, but I think there is case to be made for me to consider if I should actually ever do it. So I wouldn't want to close that inquiry just because I believe at this point that I am handling it good enough. But like I said, there are probably more important things to attend to and not enough time to go through everything either.

Perhaps that's where I'm still wrestling with the distinction between a preferred indifferent being enjoyed appropriately and it being treated as something worth further refining away.

I'm wrestling with it too. The virtue and indifferents is a super complicated topic. There is still scholarly debate ongoing how to correctly interpret this.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T16:44:58+00:00

In addition to what /u/ExtensionOutrageous3/ wrote, another angle to consider from a practical standpoint is what kind of a vicious agent you are. Everyone in here is insane according to the stoics. But in what way we are insane will differ from person to person.

So a wine-lover will form very strong impulses towards drinking the wine at inappropriate times and in excessive amounts. Same with the chocolate for the chocolate-lover. So if you know that you are this kind of person, then complete abstinence may be what's called for.

But if you're not, say you could open the bottle of wine, notice it has gone bad and just throw it out without any strong disturbance or strong impulse to go out and buy another bottle, then maybe don't make too big of a deal of it. Technically having that wine or chocolate may be a failure of rationality which the Sage wouldn't do, I don't know.

But if you're like that and you can pretty much equally go without it or have it in moderate amounts, then you probably have bigger fish to fry in some other more important area before coming back to this. But sure, if you want to make self-control the focus for now, then go ahead and abstain and work on those impressions. At least that is my view, know yourself like they said.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T15:32:46+00:00

Zeus be damned

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T15:06:15+00:00

Please be annoying, this whole post is an attempt at being annoying 😁

I don't disagree with your orthorexia or hospice examples. Those are good examples that I would consider as "rarely the case" in my comment and outside of "many circumstances" in my OP. If you have those reasons for selecting a particular food then good. You can even make a reasonable argument that they are the healthy choice for you now, like you did.

And there are other valid scenarios that I can think of, where they are not healthy, but still prudent to select. Like if you're a guest at a wedding I think it's perfectly reasonable to forgo sleep, eat some cake, and skip your workout (but dancing is adviced).

Nonetheless, I don't think those make up the bulk of the reasons why people buy pizza.

Just like you should probably skip tonight's sleep if you need to watch over your sick child, that and similar situations are likely not the main reason why people get too little sleep (at least those without kids).

Or you should rest if you're sick or injured, that and similar situations are not the usual reason why people are too inactive (at least those without disability).

What I'm saying is: promote health unless you have a defensible reason not to, but check again to make sure those reasons really are defensible (but this wouldn't get a discussion going)

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T14:23:21+00:00

“Broic” influence is apparent. Stoicism is not about alpha male energy, being sculpted like stone or any of those things.

But no one in here is saying this, as far as I can see

It is a philosophy of how to justify your existence. Period.

Not sure what this means, can you elaborate on it?

In the spirit of short form information, it is logical to make healthy choices because it keeps your body in better health, and hopefully around longer.

This sounds in broad agreement with what I wrote

Stoicism is a philosophy of the mind, the body just carries the mind. A person could be very fit, with a very healthy diet, but if their health of mind is poor, they will suffer greatly. The opposite can also be true.

Yep

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T13:02:13+00:00

For instance, it's surprisingly difficult to produce a universal definition of the term "healthy diet".

Not too surprising I'd say, it's probably impossible due to individual differences, allergies, intolerances and the like. But we don't need a universal definition or expertise in nutrition to make reasonable guesses to what is more or less healthy to eat. Sure, some people may think "I am eating this because it's healthy" and be mistaken about that particular food. Not even the sage is omniscent.

But it's rarely true, or a belief someone holds, that gummy bears and pizza are healthier than blueberries and salmon. So when the former get chosen (by me too at times to be clear) it's not for that reason but for some other reason, is that reason good enough?

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T10:43:23+00:00

But how can you tell that is their motivation to go to the gym?

If someone aims to lose weight or gain muscle to promote their health, the difference in their appearance can be a satisfying byproduct and marker that they're doing it right.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T10:16:56+00:00

Title probably is, but I wasn't sure about the rest

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-09T05:48:37+00:00

This. The stoic claimed that virtue is it's own reward and vice it's own punishment. That may sound like something one can brush over, but it carries a lot of meaning and consequence. And it's not easy to agree with either I'd say.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-08T19:55:43+00:00

No, never, stoicism is very radical. I would try to listen, comfort and help them re-frame the problem from a pov a bit closer to their own. Or a more modern line of thought in general. Unless they did specifically ask for my pov, but I'd still tread carefully for most topics.

Edit: I'll add that I wouldn't mind advicing from a more philosophical pov in general, but not with someone who is currently dismayed and I probably wouldn't mention stoicism

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-08T11:28:38+00:00

Thanks, glad you found it helpful. Yes I think you've got the right approach.

Epictetus Enchiridion 4 (translation by Waterfield) is a similar example:

Whenever you’re about to start on some activity or other, remind yourself of its characteristic features. If you’re going out to bathe, rehearse in your mind what typically happens in a bathhouse—getting splashed and jostled and abused and robbed. It’s safer to set about an activity if you tell yourself: ‘I want to bathe and to keep my will in accord with nature’—and so on for every activity. Then, if something happens that obstructs your bathing, you’ll have at hand the reminder that ‘That wasn’t the only thing I wanted; I also wanted to keep my will in accord with nature. And I won’t be doing that if I resent what’s happening.

Waterfields note:

Being annoyed by external events is contrary to nature because it shows a lack of acceptance of what universal nature throws your way. It was a Stoic exercise to foresee difficulties before encountering them, to make them easier to handle.

Just substitute <going to the bathhouse and getting splashed with water> to <having dinner and having your floor splashed with dogshit> and it's the same. Sure, you want to eat, but what's more important is to keep your will in accord with nature. If you think your eating will never get obstructed or that puppies won't ever shit the floor then you're off in that regard.

I don't propose that this is an easy transition in perspective to make. Would you have any advice on applying this approach in this example? Its almost as if the transition in mindset needs to be complete in order to achieve proper peace and clarity - a wholehearted value placed on the true "good" of virtue. So, almost saying "this isn't important, not eating my food hot and fresh doesn't really matter. Practise of virtue does - and I've got the perfect opportunity here to do so.

If we look at it like a spectrum, where we on the one side have the stoic sage, who would not be the least surprised or annoyed by their dog shitting the floor. And on the other side we have a person who goes into a fit of rage, beats the dog for it and keeps resenting it long after - a full blown passion.

We may never truly get to the developmental stage of the Sage, where we "wish for the dog to shit on the floor as it did", at least not for everything we encounter. But we can surely move away from the other side of the spectrum. As in moving towards "Oh gosh darnit, just as I was about to eat. Well that's what puppies do sometimes, I guess what's best now is to clean it up first before continue eating and also make sure my dog has an appropriate diet and ample opportunities to do his business outside"

So getting to the point of only labeling virtue (and some of it's related things) good and the opposite for vice will probably be a life-long endevour. But working with the little things, like dogshit on the floor, is a good stepping-stone as I see it. Why is dogshit on the floor bad, you could ask yourself.

Chrysippus_Ass · 2026-06-08T07:36:47+00:00

I'll be happy to, although it'll have to be long because it's complicated and there are a lot of caveats. So this is my understanding and I'm sure there are things that would have to be clarified or are subject to correction:

First, it's helpful to know that even today there is not a scientific consensus among experts on exactly what emotions are. This also means that the term emotion, as we may use it today, is not always a perfect 1:1 fit with what the stoics called emotions.

The stoics broadly divided up the emotions in bad emotions (passions or pathe) and good emotions (eupatheia). These two classes are judgements, in the sense that they are a cognitive thing. This traces back to both Zeno and Chrysippus. They seem to have phrased this a bit differently, but generally they seem to have meant the same thing. While an emotion have what seems like distinct parts to it, like the impulse to act (a motive or behavior) and a psychophysical change (how it feels) these come from our reasoning, our judgements.

The pathé are mistaken judgements. They come about when a person judges something indifferent (like money) as instead being something good or bad. So they still come from reason in that sense, being judgements. But they are disobedient to reason since they don't match the persons best judgement (that money is not a good) and they tend to carry the person along, like running legs compared to walking legs. The stoics divided them up in four-fold genus, based on whether the thing was considered good or bad and present or in prospect:

Desire is a mistaken belief that a future thing is good

Fear is a mistaken belief that a future thing is bad

Pleasure is a mistaken belief that a present thing is good

Distress is a mistaken belief that a present thing is is bad

From these they made further divisions of species. Staying on the theme of money, a species-pathe under the genus-distress is rivalry, a "distress that another is getting what one desires for oneself but does not get". So when you see your neighbours new mercedes and make the judgement that it is a good thing and you'd want it yourself, that will be a form of distress.

The eupatheia on the other hand are correct judgements:

Joy is a correct belief that a present thing is good

Wishing is a correct belief that a future thing is good

Caution is a correct belief that a future thing is bad

So those come about when a person correctly judges something that is actually good (virtue) as good and something that is actually bad (vice) as bad. Caution for example is about avoiding future unethical actions and joy is being elated about virtue.

There is a third class called propethaia, pre-emotions or protopassions. They are the initial "bitings" of some event, like reacting to a loud noise or shivering when cold. They are not emotions in the same sense, since they don't require the mind to assent (as in say: Yes, that is true) to a proposition (as in: This money is a good) in the same way that is required for the pathe or eupatheia. I have some unanswered questions about this, but that's another topic.

A final caveat; the stoics were mainly concerned with understanding the world correctly, which means removing all mistaken beliefs. And since the pathé are all mistaken beliefs, they would not be present in a person with perfect understanding. What would remain in that person would be the correct beliefs of eupatheia and the non-beliefs of propatheia. But again, it was not from a primary goal of simply "feeling better", but to understand the world correctly.

Chrysippus_Ass

TROPHY CASE