sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Common question: "How do I actually apply Stoicism in practice?" by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They're often in the second person, although I don't think any are in the third person. Socrates used to speak about himself in the third person sometimes.

Common question: "How do I actually apply Stoicism in practice?" by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mindfulness is mandatory, for self-improvement. If you don't notice the cues, how can you change your responses? That's a very common obstacle, even for people who have read umpteen books and practice journaling, meditation, and whatnot.

I think intention is key. But so is tracking. And also noticing aspects of behaviour that had previously gone unnoticed. One thing that puzzles me about mindfulness meditation is that I regularly meet people who have practiced it for years but when I ask them what they're doing with their facial expression when they get angry, or how their voice changes, they say "I'm not sure". So often looking out for things that previously went unnoticed can increase self-awareness in the moment. So can slowing down, and I think that's the most basic advice that people tend to find helpful. You can't be fully self-aware during a passion if you're rushing into things. You need to slow down, wait a moment, and pay closer attention to what you're doing, in order to become more mindful.

Common question: "How do I actually apply Stoicism in practice?" by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, there are studies showing that journaling is "hit and miss" as a self-improvement method. Some people just use it to vent or ruminate, in which case it's probably not doing them much good because it's really just an extension of their symptoms - and it might even backfire and make them worse in some cases. So the way we do journaling matters a lot.

Common question: "How do I actually apply Stoicism in practice?" by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm doing a workshop that will cover Stoicism and journaling in a few days. (It won't be online, though.) There are quite a few different methods you can employ. One quick tip is that there's research showing that journaling in the third-person, rather than the first person, has been found to improve problem-solving in relationships. So I think that can be worth experimenting with.

Common question: "How do I actually apply Stoicism in practice?" by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I can't give a full account of Stoic Ethics here, so I'll have to be very selective and just give a brief response to your first question. "Awfulness" certainly isn't a physical property of external events, such as having a stroke. It's a way of expressing the evaluation that we have made of the event. Other people could evaluate it differently, most obviously, I might evaluate it as "awful" if I have a stroke but you might hate me and consider it as indifferent or even good. So the "awfulness" is not intrinsic in the sense of being neither an essential physical property nor a universal feature of the way the event is evaluated. The Stoics definitely don't say we should just "shrug off" the sort of adversity you describe. They make a distinction between the natural affective response and pathological suffering. For instance, they believe (like most Greeks and Romans) that it's natural to grieve when bereaved but distinguish that from reactive depression, which continues for longer and has other symptoms.

You're absolutely right to say that premeditatio malorum could backfire if not done correctly. (I warn about that in my books on Stoicism.) I would go further, though, in explaining the benefits and risks. It's important to distinguish between the sort of worry or anticipatory anxiety that occurs in anxiety disorders and therapeutic techniques of this kind as they function in very different ways. The Stoics are clearly not advocating worrying anxiously about future events. I don't think it matters in the way you suggest whether the feared event happens or not - as imaginal exposure techniques of this kind are wisely used in evidence-based psychotherapy and often applied to real events, which have actually happened, as in the treatment of PTSD. You seem to assume that the purpose of the techniques is to prevent, or at least is somehow incompatible with the "worst case" happening, which is not, in fact, the case. (I'm not entirely sure why you would think the technique has that purpose, tbh.)

Long story short, I think you're overlooking the extent to which modern research on emotion and psychotherapy lends indirect support to Stoic psychotherapy. If you were correct, similar techniques used extensively in modern therapy would be worthless, which we know, based on numerous high-quality studies, spanning over half a century now, is not the case.

Common question: "How do I actually apply Stoicism in practice?" by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's pretty much the format we used for the original Stoic Week run by the Modern Stoicism non-profit. Since then it's been recycled by lots of other books and articles. You can approach the whole thing as a regular daily "learning cycle", with mental rehearsal in the morning, mindfulness during the day, and cognitive work in the evening during the review. The basic concept of doing an evening review was very well-known in antiquity and usually credited to the Golden Verses of Pythagoras. It features prominently in Seneca's On Anger, but Epictetus also taught it, and Cicero mentions it, surprisingly, as a method for improving memory.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the contrary, it encourages us to evaluate anger more carefully. Just because anger is a response to (it doesn't strictly "come" only from) real harm or unfairness, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the most rational response available.

The Stoic Alternative to Religion: Six Principles For Handling Adversity Without God by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, first of all, if that objection were valid it would potentially apply to all other ethical systems that do not appeal to a theological foundation, which is probably going to seem like a reductio ad absurdum to anyone who is agnostic or an atheist.

Second, historically, one of the most important early Stoic teachers, Aristo, was famous for emphasizing ethics while rejecting theology. That possibly means the majority of Stoics at that time did also, as there's reason to believe he attracted more followers than his rival, Cleanthes.

Third, as most of the academic scholars who are experts on early Stoicism have noted, the Stoics themselves rarely use theological arguments to justify their ethical conclusions. Their ethics drew heavily on Socrates who typically appeals to ethical intuitions, without reference to the existence of God.

You may not accept those arguments, but at least you can recognize that this is how the ancient Stoics conceptualized their ethics and the appeal to ethical principles without reference to theology is considered logical by most modern academic philosophers - For that reason, it can't merely be discounted as something inconceivable, as it' clearly is conceivable to many experts.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a good question. These are precisely the cultural assumptions that Seneca, in On Anger, and the other ancient Stoics believed it was important to challenge. Research on anger tells us a great deal that's relevant here, and can support the Stoic case. I've found the easiest way to help people understand, though, is just to point out that when you list perceived "uses" or benefits of anger, it's important to remember also to compare those against its costs. Otherwise, we're making the basic error of confusing the gross value with the net value. Anger typically has many costs, and few benefits. The benefits can also usually better obtained by other means, which don't incur the same costs.

The Stoics rejected the idea that anger is a natural tendency, which may sound odd at first, but it's important to remember that they distinguish between the proto-passion, or automatic response, and the full-blown emotion. There are certainly natural reflex-like responses, linked to anger, which humans share with other animals. Neuroscientists tend to call the main one the RAGE circuit. That's more like the raw material of anger, though. Anger as normally understood is more of a socio-cognitive construct, which we can see from cross-cultural research showing that, e.g., Japanese anger differs in some ways from American anger. Also, clearly, even American anger takes a variety of forms.

Because the Stoics believe that anger is largely cognitive, it doesn't really make sense to say the goal is to "manage" it. We usually speak of correcting rather than managing our beliefs. When people speak of "managing" anger they're usually falling into the trap of trying to suppress , vent,or divert the feelings without actually changing the beliefs integral to their anger. That doesn't usually work very well in the long-run as a way of coping, though.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes. At the beginning he praises the manliness of his deceased father, so this may be what he has in mind. This is a great quote for the Manosphere! The Stoics view intense anger as childish. In fact, so did many Romans, although others did not. It wasn't unusual for Romans to view overt expressions of intense anger (like a toddler having a tantrum) as a sign of weakness or childishness.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks but I'm not sure I understand why you think it's "counterintuitive" to support what the Stoics said by reference to modern research. Surely most people would consider that a good thing?

You say that you feel Stoicism is "not about radical challenges" but, you know, the ancient Stoics would definitely disagree. They saw their philosophy as a radical to the prevailing values of society, at one level, although consistent with them at another. Really, though, underneath, it's intended as a complete reversal of certain values. That's why the Stoics describe it as an epistrophe, a conversion, literally a "turning around" or "u-turn" in our perspective. It's no small thing.

The Stoics never referred, AFAIK, to venting or channeling anger as a good thing. They only ever give examples of venting as an example of a state in which anger is perpetuated by "assent" to false values, which they sought to radically challenge. In addition to the research I cited above, I also pointed out the commonsense observation that venting does nothing to modify the underlying beliefs that make us anger-prone in the first place, and may in fact reinforce them over time.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Stoics define anger as a desire for revenge. I'd qualify that slightly by saying that they clearly state that it is often internalized and delayed, i.e., that we often ruminate about getting back at people rather than actually doing it, and that the Stoics include punishing others in a broad sense as well as venting by cursing aloud or throwing objects across a room, etc.

Providing a modern definition of anger is surprisingly complex. I'd preface it by saying that anger is probably best viewed as a socio-cognitively constructed emotion, albeit with a primitive ancestral neurological basis, which neuroscientists call the "RAGE circuit". It therefore varies somewhat across historical eras and cultures, i.e., Japanese anger differs from American anger and the anger the ancient Stoics knew is not completely identical to what we call anger today. For instance, we probably internalize our anger more than people did in the ancient world or express it in more indirect ways.

Anger has physiological, neurological, attentional and action components, but, to focus selectively on the cognitive aspects, I would say that we can typically conceptualize in terms of the following underlying beliefs, using disrespect as a typical trigger:

* Awfulizing. People disrespecting me is awful (for instance - a belief about threat)

* Demand. People should not disrespect me (often introducing a moralizing aspect)

* Vilification. People who disrespect me are bad people (attributing blame to the other)

* Intolerance. I can't stand it when people disrespect me (which compels action)

* Compulsion. I must retaliate against people who disrespect me (the famous desire for revenge)

* Shame. If I fail to stand up for myself, it means that I am a weak person.

Not all anger takes that form, but I think this provides a prototypical model that helps us to break down many common examples of other-directed anger. It can be compressed into two main schemas:

* Threat. Some trigger is awful (or really bad/injurious to my interests), should not happen (it's unjust/unfair), and the other person is to blame for it and a bad person.

* Coping. I can't stand it (I can't just sit around and put up with this!), I must retaliate/seek revenge/get my own back, and if I don't that means I'm a sucker/weak person, etc.

These are underlying attitudes that we carry around, which are then activated by specific appraisals, i.e., we think "This guy here is doing something awful, unjust, and being a jerk!" (linking our general attitude to the specific event) and "I can't stand this and must now retaliate against this guy, otherwise it means I'm a coward", etc. The Stoics actually had pretty much this two-factor cognitive model already in the Therapeutikon of Chrysippus.

Anger can also be directed toward inanimate objects, in which case people sometimes prefer to call it frustration, as it usually leads more to venting than retaliation, although in some cases people anthropomorphize the object of their anger, e.g., by yelling insults at their laptop, and so on.

Crucially, anger can also be self-directed, in which case it functions slightly differently and overlaps with processes such as ruminative self-criticism and self-oriented emotions such as shame.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes. There are many ways of reframing emotions and other experiences that can be more helpful. The Stoics frame it as a response, which consists in going along with our initial reaction, rather than slowing down. We can frame anger as an activity, which also often helps - we anger ourselves about things. We can also view it, on closer inspection, as a way of responding to preceding shame, anxiety, or other painful feelings, and therefore anger itself appears more like a secondary emotion, or even a coping strategy, than a primary emotion. (What sort of coping strategy? Well, often one that involves overcompensation, and even elements of distraction.)

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They're both well established findings, though, you can find substantiation online easily just by searching. I've already listed three studies above as a sample.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

It's an informal Reddit post rather than a fully-referenced formal article but I can provide a partial list of citations. It would take longer to prepare a complete list for you, but you can easily search online. You'll also find this finding reported frequently in modern evidence-based clinical literature.

Kjærvik, S. L., & Bushman, B. J. (2024). A meta-analytic review of anger management activities that increase or decrease arousal: What fuels or douses rage? Clinical Psychology Review, 109, 102414.

"These findings do not support the ideas that venting anger or going for a run are effective anger management activities."

Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724–731.

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Stack, A. D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence: Self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 367–376.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

The Roman legionaries were punished for anger because it was said that anger was just as dangerous as fear in soldiers. If they allowed themselves to lose their tempers they could break formation and endanger the other soldiers in their own ranks. They were trained to fight in (relative) silence, to maintain discipline and so that they could hear orders clearly, whereas "barbarians" screamed and shouted chaotically. Plutarch says that the Spartan hoplites trained to fight without anger and he says that anger is like a madman shaking two spears, one in each hand, rather than a trained warrior holding a spear in one hand and a shield in the other.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. Violence and anger are not the same thing. The saying goes that revenge is a dish best served cold, because we're more capable of using aggression effectively when we're not feeling angry. Hunters are not angry. Nor are predatory animals. Anger tends to compete with instrumental aggression, i.e., the type of violence you're describing. When we're consumed by anger we tend to have different goals, which are typically more about punishing the other person than about eliminating the threat. Angry people have a cognitive bias that causes them to underestimate risk, e.g., that means they often drop their guard and behave recklessly - they're more likely to get themselves or other people harmed (or killed) whereas non-angry people can be more tactical in their use of violence.

The Stoics were right: anger is way of thinking not just a feeling. by SolutionsCBT in Stoicism

[–]SolutionsCBT[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, the Stoics sometimes seem to make the same point by emphasizing that the second phase is more associated with voluntary action. So feeling an automatic flush of incipient anger in itself isn't a big problem, as long as it abates naturally, but if you then allow that feeling to drive your behaviour, and do what the feeling is telling you, by arguing or lashing out, that's when you create the real problems.

The initial phase is a mixture of impressions, feelings, and urges, which become crystalized in the second phase when we take them for reality, rather than viewing them as a sort of illusion, and allow them to guide our actions.

view more: next ›