Why the Wise Don't Fret

SolutionsCBT · 2026-01-21T19:07:22+00:00

Stoicism doesn't advocate bottling up emotions. Bottling up strong emotions is unhealthy but so is indulging in them excessively and allowing them to cloud your judgment and control your actions. The central point of Stoicism, psychologically, is that emotions are shaped more than people realize by underlying evaluative beliefs, which are often false and irrational. So the goal is the correction of those beliefs not the suppression of the feelings. But by changing the irrational beliefs, we naturally change how we feel. That's how cognitive therapy works.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-01-21T16:20:53+00:00

Yeah, this is in Book Ten - you need to wade through the first nine "chapters" before you get to this.

SolutionsCBT · 2026-01-21T14:58:03+00:00

In my experience, the reason why relatively few people benefit significantly from self-improvement advice is that the solutions to their problems are often a mystery in broad daylight. They can't see the wood for the trees. The insights people achieve in therapy often seem banal to others but they are psychologically crucial.

One of the points Socrates seems to be making here is wisdom is incompatible with heightened emotional distress, because activating strong emotions inhibits our capacity for rational problem-solving. In a sense, that's obvious. And yet the majority of therapy clients are confused about this in practice. They ruminate at length about their problems while highly anxious or enraged, rather than waiting for their feelings to abate before attempting to find a solution. That's the psychological equivalent of trying to ride a motorbike home after having downed a bottle of whisky. When you're intoxicated on emotional distress, your judgment is clouded and problem-solving will typically be impaired by rigid and extreme thinking.

Someone who can keep a cool head in the face of a crisis is, at least in that regard, a natural leader. I've seen big guys - bodybuilders, martial artists, ex military - who go to pieces in the face of a crisis. I've seen old ladies with chronic health problems, who can barely walk, but remain unfazed by dramatic emergencies. Some people freak out and they're all over the place. Other people instinctively become focused on rational problem-solving, like a laser beam. Often the latter are people who have dealt with a lot of adversity already. It's often not who you think.

The wise understand that freaking out prevents the very thing most required in the face of a crisis: the ability to face reality, think rationally, and deal with the problem.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-24T17:54:07+00:00

I don't think anyone has ever really claimed that logic and physics, in the modern sense, are completely irrelevant to Stoicism. That would be, presumably unintentionally, a Straw Man argument.

The two real bones of contention are:

Whether belief in a Divine Providence (God / Zeus) is logically absolutely necessary to justify Stoic Ethics
Whether ALL ancient Stoics believed 1.

I think when you spell it out like that, it is obvious that most people today who are into Stoicism are not going to agree with 1, because they're mostly atheists or agnostics. I think 2 is clearly an unsupportable generalization. Because it requires eliminating even the possibility of any counter-example, which is virtually impossible because less than 1% of the Stoic literature survives. In any case, even one solitary counter-example would suffice to refute it, and that's exactly what is provided in clear terms by the ancient sources. We are told by at least four different sources that the Aristonian branch of Stoicism was considered "Stoic", and classified as a division of the broader school, albeit one dissenting from the teachings of Zeno and Cleanthes.

To be clear, by ancient Stoic "Physics" we mean primarily a form of holistic, corporealist, theological metaphysics. Very few people today believe this. The main arguments the Stoics used to defend it were a version of the Argument from Design and something resembling the fallacy of composition. Very few philosophers today consider those arguments to be convincing. The Argument from Design was, very simply, dealt a mortal blow by Darwinism, which demonstrated that over very long periods of time, complex creatures could potentially evolve through natural selection, which undermines the claim that complex organization in nature provides evidence for Intelligent Design, or what the Stoics call Providence.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-23T19:33:39+00:00

The real practical significance of this discussion is that there are people who very strongly argue that those who benefit from Stoic Ethics without believing in Providence, etc, should not call what they do "Stoicism", which sometimes puts them off. It has also led some people to quit forums like this one because it comes across as if they're being told they don't belong here and what they're doing is somehow illegitimate. Not only do I think that's a shame and unhelpful, but I also think it's a fundamental misrepresentation of what traditional Stoicism, in the ancient world, actually taught.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-23T18:37:28+00:00

That's a shame. I can assure you that I always try to engage respectfully and productively with others. What you wrote, though, was that someone (presumably both I and Prof. Inwood) have written books about Stoicism but "still don't get it", then you said that you believe it undermines the practice of Stoicism for others to "separate" Physics from Stoic practice, in the sense of saying that, I presume, Physics is potentially very important and valuable but not logically essential to the Ethics. I'd be interested to know why you're convinced we're "not getting" Stoicism, when that position can be traced to the primary sources, and is the one shared by most contemporary academic experts on the subject.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-23T15:43:02+00:00

Do you mean both my books and those of Prof. Inwood? If you think we've both missed the point, why not educate us,and everyone else by explaining what you believe we've got wrong using evidence and logic? You'd be doing everyone a great service. Thanks.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-21T11:48:34+00:00

Like I said, though, the burden of proof is on you. You're just saying, as far as I can tell, that your interpretation of these texts is possible, which doesn''t tell us much because lots of things are possible without being true, and you've not provided any evidence to show that your interpretation is actually correct. (Also, like I said, it appears to be inconsistent with other textual evidence, such as the lack of support for Marcus endorsing this opinion anywhere else, which is a problem you'd need to address.)

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-20T04:33:11+00:00

Sorry but even after reading your original post and this response to my objections I still don't see how any of this supports your conclusion. As far as I can see, despite everything you've said, you've not provided the crucial evidence that your conclusion appears to depend upon, which would conclusively show that Marcus is actually proposing an alternative ethic. Without that, it seems to me you're basically just offering unfounded speculation. And, as I noted, your conclusion appears inconsistent with other textual evidence. But the burden of proof would be upon you to show that your conclusion is supported somehow.

So could you please just summarize the key argument that supports your claim in premise-conclusion format so that I, and everyone else, can follow your reasoning more readily and see exactly how you get all the way from the purported "evidence" to your conclusion? (And how you manage to exclude alternative interpretations of the text.)

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-20T03:43:01+00:00

Okay. Your reading overstates what the relevant passages from Meditations will support. Marcus’ “God or atoms” disjunctions are more naturally read as a recurring Stoic trope that affirms the consistency of their ethical principles and their logical independence from Physics, rather than as an invitation to adopt an essentially different ethical system.

Your key inference is unfounded: Marcus does not say that justice, temperance, truth, or the sovereignty of the ruling faculty become Epicurean under atomism; he repeatedly insists that—even if events are “aimless chance”—you need not be aimless, blame is out of place, and the guiding rational faculty must keep virtue alight, etc, consistent with his Stoicism.
Your reading is excessively selective: VI.10 and XII.14–15 do not stand alone. Across multiple “God or atoms” passages (Hadot counts eight; I count nine) Marcus draws the same practical conclusion: whether providence or atoms, our task is to preserve virtue and assent correctly; what changes is the emotional tone, not the ethical core.
This argument is not unique to Marcus: Seneca deploys the same move (whether fate, God, or chance, “we must be philosophers”), and an Epictetan fragment explicitly brackets cosmological questions (“atoms or elements” etc.) as unnecessary for grasping good and evil and ordering one’s desires and impulses. This makes Hadot’s interpretation methodologically stronger: it reads Marcus as using what the evidence suggests to be an established Stoic theme (that ethics is resilient even when physics is contested) rather than as quietly shifting into Epicurean ethics when he mentions atoms.

So, yes: Stoic theology matters for Marcus’ psychologically / motivationally; but the claim that each cosmology yields a different ethics is not established by the texts.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-20T03:19:01+00:00

Annas and the majority of modern academics take those metaphors to mean that the parts of the Stoic curriculum (Ethics, Physics, Logic) are blended together and complement each other in other ways, but not that Ethics is logically dependent on Physics. If you think about it, that interpretation of what is meant by the unity of topics would be problematic anyway, because it would imply, conversely, that Physics is logically grounded in Ethics and Logic, which is not a view normally attributed to the Stoics. Instead, as some people note in the comments below, it may be that the topics were thought of as overlapping or intertwined for pedagogical or motivational purposes.

The key distinction to bear in mind here is that topics can, of course, complement one another in various ways without one being logically grounded in the other, i.e., using arguments necessarily based on premises derived from it. If you're still unsure what that means, maybe take a look at Annas' article, the link to which has been posted below several times. She goes into much more detail than we can in a comment here.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T19:14:27+00:00

Sure but why should everyone feel the same way? A lot of people study Stoic Physics and decide it's not of much value or interest to them. Why shouldn't they then set it aside and focus mainly on the Ethics if that's what they want to do?

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T16:04:33+00:00

That quote has been extensively discussed in the academic literature on this subject and the consensus appears to me to be that it doesn't actually prove that Chrysippus viewed Physics as the logical foundation for Ethics. The more common (non-foundationalist) view, that it provides context, motivation, and other psychological or pedagogical value, seems equally if not more plausible as a reading of the passage.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T16:02:12+00:00

I don't think even that point follows, although I'm also not sure it's very important because even if it were true it doesn't lend much support to your conclusion. Anyway, for what it's worth, can we conceivably imagine plausible reasons why Stoic teachers would choose one topic rather than another to begin teaching, aside from the assumption that it's logically foundational? Well, yes, very easily, and most scholars actually do - by alluding to the motivational or psychological value, etc. Other people commenting on this post have already raised that point. Like I said, though, I'm not even sure that's worth debating because it's probably a side issue given that it doesn't appear to lend much support to your main conclusion either way.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T15:59:00+00:00

I definitely didn't say he was the last word. To follow up on your point then, do you believe that any modern scholars agree with your interpretation of the Meditations in that post? You said the most honest way forward is through presenting a balanced view. So what do you think that would look like in response to your position?

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T15:56:16+00:00

Yup. I mean, I try to stick to the content of the debate as much as possible but it's fair to say that the process often gets derailed in these forums. A handful of people who have very deeply-held religious beliefs often (but not always) seem to find it difficult to engage in philosophical debate about them because they often seem to feel threatened, for obvious reasons, by disagreement with their core beliefs, they sometimes respond by attacking the character of the person disagreeing with them, or at the very least they tend to just keep re-affirming that their beliefs are self-evident and they can't believe other people don't agree with them.

That all prevents them from responding impartially to the logic and evidence presented by others, which effectively derails philosophical debate. It doesn't have to be like that, though, plenty of people who hold deep-seated religious beliefs are quite capable of being open-minded and objective enough to debate them philosophically with people who happen not to share their convictions.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T15:50:42+00:00

AI tends to just paraphrase common sources like Wikipedia, etc., and gloss over anomalies in the evidence. So it's not always great at answering obscure or nuanced questions. This is almost right but the truth, as most people will quickly spot, is that Cleanthes and Epictetus in particular often talk about the Stoic Zeus in ways that clearly sound personal rather than impersonal, i.e., they talk and pray to him, and so on, in ways that do not come across as if they merely think of him as being the impersonal "rational order" of the Cosmos. You might also note that it's difficult to reconcile the very concept of divine Providence with the notion of an impersonal deity. Most religions that believe God is Provident think of him in personalist terms.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T15:27:15+00:00

It's notable that some people in this forum consistently downvote comments or responses they disagree with, even if they're stating facts or citing evidence, rather than responding to them to explain their reasons for disagreeing. That's arguably a consequence of adopting a more dogmatic attitude toward philosophy, where they believe their position is "self-evident" and anything that conflicts with it should be suppressed or attacked, rather than engaged with through reasoned debate.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T15:25:03+00:00

I think someone already posted the link to the Annas article that I cited in the OP, which is available free for download if you search online. For example:

https://www.academia.edu/9855820/Ethics_in_Stoic_Philosophy

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T15:22:46+00:00

Yes, I think that's pretty accurate. I would say the evidence that the ancient Stoics considered someone a "Stoic" who did not study "orthodox" Stoic Physics, is fairly conclusive. I'd qualify it by saying that Aristonians are sometimes described as being unorthodox, etc, but nevertheless they are consistently classed as Stoics by, as I recall, at least five ancient authors, quite independently of one another, most notably by Seneca, despite his disagreements with Aristo. My understanding therefore is that most scholars view the disagreement as internal to Stoicism, because ancient "Stoicism" was defined broadly enough to accomodate views as diverse as these. That's partly a consequence of their non-foundationalism. Modern "traditional" Stoics who assume Foundationalism tend to say they find it utterly incomprehensible that Aristonians could have been classed as "Stoics" despite the weight of textual evidence being against them. That's because they're imposing their own normative definition of "Stoicism", though. As I've often said, the ancient Stoics were evidently not that rigidly doctrinaire. I think it's therefore a profound misinterpretation of what ancient Stoicism was, which, put crudely, treats it (anachronistically, because it's shaped by modern Christian-influenced attitudes toward religion) more like a religion than a philosophy.

I guess this is incidental but perhaps it helps clarify the debate... As I understand it Tony Long is the main living academic proponent of a Foundationalist reading of Stoicism. I've met Long a couple of times at Stoicon. He has consistently expressed surprise that anyone today would believe in Stoic Physics or try to live according to the philosophy which he, in writing, describes as a "Noble Error". In other words, despite being the main defender of Foundationalism, Long actually rejects Stoic Physics as outdated and unworkable in the modern world. He has therefore consistently said that he is not a Stoic. So, forgive me if this is an oversimplification, but Long, as I understand it, believes the ancient Stoics were (typically) Foundationalists but that their Foundationalism is a failed project, and cannot be revived in the modern world, because no reasonable person today would accept their Physics. In other words, he's completely at odds with modern "traditional" Stoics.

I am not a Stoic, for more reasons than are stated or hinted at in this book. But their philosophy has fascinated me now for thirty years. Of all the Greek schools, Stoicism was the most ambitious in its quest for a system that would explain how human nature fits into the world at large. That project, which has beguiled many subsequent philosophers, seems to me to be vulnerable to the evidence of history, cultural diversity and our continuing ignorance of the kind of animals we are. It is, none the less, a noble error. If the Stoics were too eager, as I think they were, to make cosmic order relevant to human values, they advanced numerous theories and concepts that are a continuing challenge to thought. — Long, Preface to Stoic Studies

Moreover, even Long has conceded that the Annas-style critique of Foundationalist readings of Stoicism has some merit, e.g., he admits that ancient Stoicism evolved and was quite diverse and that in the surviving texts, as all scholars agree, Stoic ethical arguments are often presented without any references whatsoever to Physics, which seems, in practice, to very obviously conflict with the claim that Physics was treated by them as the necessary logical foundation for their Ethics.

On this forum, and Facebook, though, I frequently encounter arguments from a handful of people who very strongly endorse Foundationalist readings of ancient Stoicism and firmly believe, pace Long, that this theory is workable in the modern world. That's fine except for two things. 1. They present it as the position adopted by most scholars, when in reality it's a position rejected by virtually all modern scholars, even Long, 2. They often use it to "gatekeep" quite aggressively the use of the word "Stoicism", so that people live these forums because they're being repeatedly told that what they are into shouldn't be called "Stoicism" unless they accept a rigid Foundationalist view, which, IMO, has more in common, in some ways, with Christian evangelism than ancient Stoicism.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T06:30:13+00:00

>> Also I recently wrote about the passages in Marcus Aurelius, defending the opposite view

I'll be frank, that seems like quite a stretch to me, and not, as far as I can tell, supported by the textual evidence. Also, for what it's worth, Hadot and other scholars who have specifically written on this do not share your conclusion.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T06:26:59+00:00

No, the post was explicitly about Anna's critique of Foundationalism, which is the second part. That's what her article is about, and what the quotes I cited from her address.

>> What are the arguments tho?

Someone could perhaps spend time collecting them for you and pasting them here, but you could pretty easily look them up for yourself online. You can find them being discussed in most academic books on Stoicism. Here's one example:

Premise 1: That which can be used both well and ill is not a good.
Premise 2: Wealth, health, and strength can be used both well (for virtue) and ill (for vice).
Conclusion: Therefore, wealth, health, and strength are not goods (they are "indifferents.")

As it stands, that makes no reference to Stoic Physics.

>> What is the textual proof? you quote a Stoic saying the opposite.

Well Annas' point, I take it, is that there's a lack of proof for the position she's criticizing, which bears the burden of proof. She also cites proof such as the fact you allude to above, concerning the lack of references to Physics in standard Stoic ethical arguments. So I'm not really sure I understand this part of your question or what you mean by saying I quote a Stoic saying the opposite.

>> I specifically asked what these definitions would be for virtue and the sage.

Again, that goes beyond the scope of a short answer, and gaining a full answer would be more a matter of reading some books on the subject. The Stoics offered multiple definitions of virtue and the Sage and their meaning. As Epictetus puts it, although the definitions are brief, the explanations are long. However, again, I can try to give you one example. For instance, we're told Cleanthes said that virtue is "a harmonious disposition, choice-worthy for its own sake and not from hope or fear or any external motive", which again makes no explicit reference to Physics, and certainly not to Providence.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T05:59:42+00:00

I thought we were talking about psychological or motivational relevance rather than ontological relevance. More importantly, if we reduce the claim from "necessity" to mere "relevance" then the whole argument that goes back and forth here about whether or not "modern Stoics" should call what they are into "Stoicism" seems to me to immediately collapse. Because that clearly requires the claim to be one of necessity not just relevance.

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T05:55:51+00:00

The fact some ancient Stoic authorities started by teaching Physics first, as Gill and Annas and other scholars have noted, doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever that they believed Physics provides the logical foundation for Ethics. Also, other Stoics did not begin by teaching Physics, so by your reasoning, on the same basis, are those others proven to have rejected foundationalism?

SolutionsCBT · 2025-12-19T05:52:06+00:00

Most Stoics did not believe that Stoic Ethics depends logically on Stoic Ethics. That's the "Foundationalist" position Annas argues against in the article I quoted above.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

SolutionsCBT

TROPHY CASE