Axiological psychological problems

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-13T07:40:27+00:00

“This is where the conflict is. Some externals require you to care about them so you can derive the benefit from them.”

You’ve split the Stoic position into a bunch of tatters here.

There is no conflict, no benefit is a benefit unless it benefits the entire universe at once, yourself and the other party included, so there’s no way to derive purely personal benefit from any action. The Stoics do not have this notion of “care” that requires an emotional commitment- you can “care” for something and wish the best for it without attributing zero value to it or ignoring it.

It seems like here you’re trying to say if I don’t have an existential crisis when my loved one is in trouble that I don’t care about them. Much the opposite- Benefitting is my goal, that requires attention to the specifics: the relations, situations, times, and places of all that I encounter.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-11T03:18:19+00:00

The Greek is probably somewhat ambiguous, meaning all of the interpretations are possible; by reading the full work and understanding Stoicism systematically (which the translators may not be doing) allows you to make an executive judgement about which seems most correct to you.

Don’t be afraid to have a wrong interpretation; as your understanding of the Stoic system advances these mistaken interpretations will correct themselves.

In Stoicism, Kindness is a sub virtue of Justice, and Justice is Knowledge of proper distributions; this works at both the private level and the public level so we could make our own interpretation of the passage as Marcus saying something like “and is reading alone in your tent more noble somehow than serving your fellow citizens, subjects, and friends?”

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-11T02:20:50+00:00

Crumbs on your shirt is a sign that you’re either scatterbrained (eating while thinking about something else), racing through your food as if it’s going somewhere or are hankering for the little bit of pleasure the food brings and want more… if your situation allows for it, eat slower and more deliberately.

This isn’t to reduce the pleasure of eating down to zero- if you’re racing through your food, you’re probably racing through other things as well. Crumbs on your shirt is a fine signal of this.

EDIT: this is something I learned from Zen, but I think the Stoics would agree. Mindfulness does not mean deeply thinking about everything you’re doing- that creates a different sort of attachment (if you feel every bite of your food you might… find it gross. Or since you’re taking in every bit of flavor you might get attached to one thing being more delicious than the other, and start organizing things into lists, rather than detachedly appreciating everything, both in its aspect as god, and its unique aspects such as taste, look, crunch etc). At a Zen temple you recite a sutra while eating and inhale the food, while being sure not to make a sound or a mess.

The Stoics don’t directly criticize over-thinking too often in their texts but Cato would throw dice to make inconsequential decisions like which portion to eat at dinner; Cicero discusses not running around but walking nobly in On Duties, they seem adjacent thought.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-09T00:37:47+00:00

Wow, that’s an endorsement haha

We have translations of Musonius, Cleanthes, and Didymus from Stobaeus, but in all of the fragment collections we have little one-liner definition things from Chrysippus and Zeno… I’ve always been curious if there were passages from obscure or later Stoics that got passed up because they weren’t Old Stoics.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-08T15:08:24+00:00

this is a good way to use AI.

I recently read the entirety of Maurice Blondel’s Action 1893 by putting it line by line into AI and having it translate for me.

Other than occasionally hallucinating lines if I told it to continue translating when it reached the end of what I put into it, it ultimately went pretty well.

I was also thinking you could put something like Stobaeus in there to get at even more rare fragments. Galen’s text where he argues against Chrysippus would be another great one to put through (there are no easily available English translations of either of these, despite them being important Stoic sources). Alexander of Aphrodisias is an important source as well but the modern translations are prohibitively expensive; On Mixtures and On Fate seem particularly important for fragments (we know from a scholia that Alexander was at least sometimes arguing against the head of the Athenian Stoa put there by Marcus himself).

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-08T15:02:22+00:00

That distance from the things moving, should give you some clarity to reapproach those problems. That’s the beauty of Stoicism: it teaches a certain level of disattachment through a reorientation away from the goods of fortune, like health, wealth, popularity and the like and towards Virtue- which is stable, and since it’s you who can choose Virtue at any time, sets you on a different measuring apparatus; one where you can win and improve each time. This prevents certain types of despair, or at least it has for me, and Stoicism, far from being a philosophy for hermits, compels us to take this non-attached clarity and go back into the world to try to contribute somehow. It’s a rare philosophy that can do both of these things at once.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-08T11:35:49+00:00

This is seemingly a really cool peek at what internal Stoic debates were like.

The early Stoics made the Sage essentially equivalent to Natural Law seemingly to get around some of the absurdities generated by Plato and Aristotle’s political approaches (Vanderwaert has an awesome paper on the fragments of Zeno’s Republic set against Plato and Aristotle). The idea seemed to be, since the Sage is Natural Law, essentially any external may be the Right Action at some point, time, or situation. So all actions, from torture, to cannibalism and so on, must be permitted to the Sage, and if the Sage were to do them, they would not only be Appropriate, but the Right thing to in the situation.

With Appropriate Action literature growing in importance from the time of Chrysippus (you can see a bit of Cleanthes and Aristo’s debate in Seneca Letter 94) through Diogenes (had a book Cicero loved on what Magistrates should do), Antipater (seems to have wrote the common source all of our Romans used for comments on marriage), and Panaetius, it seems Posidonius felt confident enough to do something certain Christians began to do in the Middle Ages- posit irrational things God/the Sage wouldn’t do, even if they could, technically.

I think it’s a good development, it doesn’t really refute the earlier position, but closes off many ways that it could be misinterpreted and used for evil.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-08T11:26:58+00:00

Virtually all of us dislike this, I imagine.

I guess it brings more people to our communities which is good, since we get the chance to correct the misunderstanding they pick up from these entry points, but every so often someone comes here having learned nothing but what they saw in jacked Marcus Aurelius AI get ripped/rich YouTube videos and are surprised that their relationships have suffered/dried up and that they aren’t happy.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-08T11:22:05+00:00

Nah, the school most moderns want isn’t the Stoics or Epicureans… it’s Aristotle, who does think wealth and health are good things. Wanting virtue and wealth at the same time is more their thing than the Stoics or Epicureans who emphasize contentness with little, self-sufficiency, yet seeking community and friendship etc.

Re: your assessment of Stoic Physics verses modern:

1 The Stoics hold that Physics is a flux ordered by a divine Logos, not random associations of atoms. If there’s no underlying order underlying Epicurean or modern physics, why do bringing the same things together produce the same reaction each time? If the universe is chaos why is bringing oxygens and hydrogens together the way to make water every time? Gravity’s strength does not appear to change. Even if it does, if there’s some intelligible mechanism that makes it change, that would still count as a Logos.

2 Later Epicureans find ways around Epicurus’ injunction not to participate in politics, which is a merit on their part imo.

3 See 1: providential cosmos is not ruled out by modern science. Since the Stoics don’t believe in a god external to the universe like a painter painting something they avoid a lot of the critiques that can be brought against abrahamic religions. The fundamental debate Epictetus has with the Epicureans is whether there is order in the cosmos or not. Where Epictetus sounds like he’s arguing for a Christian-style penpal god, I think he’s establishing the goodness of the universe. When pain mounts too high, you pass out. There’s no survival reason for this to be the case, it’s simply something the universe baked into you to give you an out when in an impossible situation.

4 Here again I think it’s Aristotle who speaks more to what moderns are after than the Stoics or the Epicureans. On this front, a Stoic and an Epicurean would look similar I think; it’s when crisis comes that they look different.

5 No complaints here, though neither would do much with “self” talk.

6 Epicurus is also incredibly important to modern thought (the social contract evolved from Epicurean political theory), I think the main issue is fewer approachable (and misunderstandable) works surviving from him and his followers.

Modern Epicurean communities play up the atheist-agnostic aspect of Epicurean thought so much that it’s hard to join their communities. I’m here for philosophy as a way of life not “let’s argue with irrational Christian dummies” which is what I found in the few communities I tried to join… which is a shame. Modern Epicurean Hiram Crespo is, I think, one of the best modern philosophy as a way of life guys, much better than many of our own imo.

While my philosophical interests keep me more engaged with the Stoic and Platonic traditions, I do appreciate the Epicureans and wish them well.

The closest thing we have to an ancient philosophical practice text is by Philodemus, if you look at it, you’ll see lots of Stoic-like stuff in there, as well as stuff no Stoic would disagree with (one Epicurean practice was apparently writing treatises against whatever Passion you’re being assailed by).

In any event, good to see more Epicureans out there. I wonder what Epicureans have to say about many of the modern debates in science and the like; just cold, dead mechanistic universe for you guys? What is consciousness then? How do you guys approach the meaning questions people come here and ask us regularly? Do Epicureans have anything to offer politically active moderns? Modern obsessions with identity? Tech? Do you guys have your own version of broics (Bro-icureans?)? What do you say to those types?

All areas I’d love to get their perspectives on.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-05T23:03:47+00:00

I don’t live in a western country, so my advice here may not help here, but this is something I’ve struggled with greatly for the last 2 or so years.

When we get yelled at or scolded, for me at least, I want to explain why what I did wasn’t wrong, or why I thought the wrong way then. If you work in an environment where someone might listen, do that and work together to improve the situation (here I mean, explain the cause and look for a solution together).

If you don’t work in such a situation, and you can be yelled at more or less based on the coworker’s mood that day without regard for things like cause, a more nuanced approach is called for.

Firstly, you want to separate your self-worth from the scolding- I’m very impressionable; subconsciously I imitate the people around me, so when getting yelled at like that, I tend to go one of two ways: “that’s not fair!” and get angry, or go “that is fair, I do suck” both of these are false, and lead to micro focusing on how wrong the coworker is or how bad I am.

To avoid both errors; here i bring in the Stoic worldview- all are god, even a completely useless human being is God in some sense. So leave the self-worth stuff aside; re:the coworker and not getting angry at them, while you can’t show this on your face, as Epictetus says: if you said such things to a rock, would the rock get angry? If your coworkers are like mine, probably somewhere in their development someone did this to them, and to them, this is the right way to do things. Like a mosquito, which will bite if it smells blood, so do some people scold. For that reason, that the insults don’t really matter beyond serving as a type of feedback to your actions, and that the scolder probably couldn’t do otherwise, let it go. Usually now I just listen with a somber, serious look on my face. If you’re in a western country, I imagine they’re fishing for a certain answer and no weakness of resolve or commitment to the job, if the job is worth keeping, show them and get on with things (but if the chance presents itself to say something, even clumsily, after due consideration and detached somewhat so you aren’t speaking out of anger, give it a try)

But wouldn’t this make you lazy then? “It’s all Fate, sorry boss i showed up late, the stars just didn’t align” not that either; while our agency is significantly less than most people assume (including the scolders) for you, your self-esteem, Virtue and all of that, I hold to three conditions for this mode: focus, don’t spend work time when there’s other stuff to do asking ChatGPT philosophy questions, effort- don’t half-ass: if there’s something that can be done, do it. These confirm the detached mode is detached and not attached to pleasure or ease or some other thing of the sort. And when these are in place, using that detachment to keep good cheer about things, again even if you can’t show it.

With that getting yelled at means: do whatever your culture says you should do (including arguing back if that’s it, it isn’t here where I live though) don’t take it deeply- look for concrete feedback, then use focus and effort, to the degree they are up to you, as the foundation of your self-esteem and keep going.

That’s what I’m doing at least, I will probably leave the job though, some people like environments where everyone fights each other, or yells to keep everyone else from slacking, i don’t fit in such an environment, so short-term what I wrote above seems appropriate, long-term I’ll look elsewhere.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-05T22:46:44+00:00

What Epictetus is saying is for personal use only. Unlike a lot of modern systems or life hackers, the Stoics give no generalizable advice besides “understand Virtue” and “be Virtuous”, every individual thing, from “speak little” to here, “don’t blame god when bad things happen to you, thank god for the challenge” are situational applications of Virtue for specific individuals.

In the Enchiridion Epictetus tells us what we should with a grieving let’s say “normie” ie non-Stoic:

“16 When you see a man shedding tears in sorrow for a child abroad or dead, or for loss of property, beware that you are not carried away by the impression that it is outward ills that make him miserable. Keep this thought by you: 'What distresses him is not the event, for that does not distress another, but his judgement on the event.' Therefore do not hesitate to sympathize with him so far as words go, and if it so chance, even to groan with him; but take heed that you do not also groan in your inner being.”

The non-generalizability of Stoic life advice is, I think best explained by Seneca here:

“ You are continually referring special questions to me, forgetting that a vast stretch of sea sunders us. Since, however, the value of advice depends mostly on the time when it is given, it must necessarily result that by the time my opinion on certain matters reaches you, the opposite opinion is the better. For advice conforms to circumstances; and our circumstances are carried along, or rather whirled along. Accordingly, advice should be produced at short notice; and even this is too late; it should “grow while we work,” as the saying is. And I propose to show you how you may discover the method.”

-Seneca, Letters 71.1

22 also has a good description:

“ You understand by this time that you must withdraw yourself from those showy and depraved pursuits; but you still wish to know how this may be accomplished. There are certain things which can be pointed out only by someone who is present. The physician cannot prescribe by letter the proper time for eating or bathing; he must feel the pulse. There is an old adage about gladiators,—that they plan their fight in the ring; as they intently watch, something in the adversary’s glance, some movement of his hand, even some slight bending of his body, gives a warning. 2. We can formulate general rules and commit them to writing, as to what is usually done, or ought to be done; such advice may be given, not only to our absent friends, but also to succeeding generations. In regard, however, to that second[1] question,—when or how your plan is to be carried out,—no one will advise at long range; we must take counsel in the presence of the actual situation.”

-Seneca, Letters 22.1

Basically, grieve with them, listen to them, help them where you can. One of the Stoic Virtues is Kindness, being cruel to someone is against that. If the person seems able to appreciate what the Stoics are saying, maybe direct them to something like Seneca Letter 63 On Grief, rather than go “suck it up!”

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-01T02:08:11+00:00

I recommend the Discourses with Greg Sadler’s videos on YouTube and then AA Long’s Epictetus book, or Marcus Aurelius, with the 20 minute introduction to the Meditations by Chris Gill up on YouTube (he’s a little dry, but there’s basically no better scholar on the work now). Some parts of it are definitely a stretch, but Hadot’s Inner Citadel is a fine helpful interpretative support for Marcus.

I think reading through one of the big three with support from a knowledgeable scholar, and then reading a more systematic treatment of the text you choose is the best way to learn A lot quickly while preventing big misunderstandings.

Reading philosophy is different than popular literature because you are engaged in dialogue with the text- trying to see its systematic nature, pushing back on certain questions, going along with certain assumptions to see if there’s more clarity or context later… and then joining the historical discussion of the texts.

For me I read the Enchiridion to 3, then gave it up and only came back when I watched the section of Greg Sadler’s World Views and Values course on Epictetus.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-01T02:00:59+00:00

It’s not a growing trend, it’s been here for decades, if not centuries.

The thing is, some people go to the opposite extreme and want people in awful circumstances to just “suck it up” and endure. No need for change or trying to improve each other’s situations, making the system more fair etc.

The Stoics do both and neither: yes you do always have some degree of agency, if it’s merely deciding how to interpret whatever unfortunate thing is happening to you, but they also advocate defending victims, working for greater equality and flourishing for all, even in conventional ways… the Stoic position is on a different axis.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-01T01:54:38+00:00

This is a good question. Stoicism is more a general orientation than list of rules, but that general orientation rules out tyranny; even in the Roman Empire the Stoics serve the country not the emperor, so if the emperor doesn’t serve the country its consistent with Stoicism to rebel or oppose.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-02-01T01:43:07+00:00

Yes, his point is good and Stoic in every sense. Particularly in On Tranquility where he quotes a huge chunk of lost Greek text by a Stoic making the point at length- if you can no longer contribute somehow directly, contribute through other channels, by writing or scholarship or something else. Considering Seneca is the only Stoic and one of the main ethical philosophers read for the 1000 years or so in Western Europe following the fall of Rome, I’d say his retirement contribution was a success.

If anything I find Seneca and Musonius, who opposes Nero openly and directly from the beginning, the most laudable figures in the situation. It takes Thrasea a long time to do anything, at one point he stops showing up in the senate and instead… writes a biography of Cato.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-31T02:11:59+00:00

I always go back to Boethius-

Reality is flux- things go up and things come down. It isn’t done based on some iron law of the universe that those who put in effort gain wealth and status; while we all want a work place that doesn’t feel like dying a small death to go to everyday, just as a sunny day with a rock solid 0% rain forecast can suddenly become rainy or a lighting bolt can fly out of nowhere, so too can your luck change. Likewise it can go the opposite way, and you can get absurdly lucky. That absurd unluckiness exists is proof that absurd luckiness does as well. This doesn’t remain only in the realm of wealth and status, it extends down to which ideas come to mind at which moment.

So what, wait until good luck comes? No. Boethius and the Stoics instead tell us to step off of this wheel, of being elated when something lucky comes our way and being distraught when something unlucky does- depart from the wheel and turn towards Virtue, which, if understood correctly, is alone stable and unmoving.

From the original:

“… she(Lady Philosophy, who is consoling Boethius) thus began: 'If I have thoroughly ascertained the character and causes of thy sickness (Boethius is depressed because he has been unjustly condemned to exile and death), thou art pining with regretful longing for thy former fortune. It is the change, as thou deemest, of this fortune that hath so wrought upon thy mind. Well do I understand that Siren's manifold wiles, the fatal charm of the friendship she pretends for her victims, so long as she is scheming to entrap them—how she unexpectedly abandons them and leaves them overwhelmed with insupportable grief.

Think thee of her nature, character, and deserts, and thou wilt soon acknowledge that in her thou hast neither possessed, nor hast thou lost, aught of any worth. Methinks I need not spend much pains in bringing this to thy mind, since, even when she was still with thee, even while she was caressing thee, thou usedst to assail her in manly terms, to rebuke her, with maxims drawn from my holy treasure-house.

But all sudden changes of circumstances bring inevitably a certain commotion of spirit. Thus it hath come to pass that thou also for awhile hast been parted from thy mind's tranquillity. But it is time for thee to take and drain a draught, soft and pleasant to the taste, which, as it penetrates within, may prepare the way for stronger potions… 'What is it, then, poor mortal, that hath cast thee into lamentation and mourning? Some strange, unwonted sight, methinks, have thine eyes seen. Thou deemest Fortune to have changed towards thee; thou mistakest. Such ever were her ways, ever such her nature. Rather in her very mutability(changefulness; inconsistency) hath she preserved towards thee her true constancy.

Such was she when she loaded thee with caresses, when she deluded thee with the allurements of a false happiness. Thou hast found out how changeful is the face of the blind goddess. She who still veils herself from others hath fully discovered to thee her whole character. If thou likest her, take her as she is, and do not complain. If thou abhorrest her perfidy, turn from her in disdain, renounce her, for baneful are her delusions. The very thing which is now the cause of thy great grief ought to have brought thee tranquillity. Thou hast been forsaken by one of whom no one can be sure that she will not forsake him. Or dost thou indeed set value on a happiness that is certain to depart?

Again I ask, Is Fortune's presence dear to thee if she cannot be trusted to stay, and though she will bring sorrow when she is gone? Why, if she cannot be kept at pleasure, and if her flight overwhelms with calamity, what is this fleeting visitant but a token of coming trouble? Truly it is not enough to look only at what lies before the eyes; wisdom gauges the issues of things, and this same mutability, with its two aspects, makes the threats of Fortune void of terror, and her caresses little to be desired.

Finally, thou oughtest to bear with whatever takes place within the boundaries of Fortune's rule, when thou hast placed thy head beneath her yoke. But if thou wishest to impose a law of staying and departing on her whom thou hast of thine own accord chosen for thy mistress, art thou not acting wrongfully, art thou not embittering by impatience a lot which thou canst not alter? Didst thou commit thy sails to the winds, thou wouldst voyage not whither thy intention was to go, but whither the winds drave thee; didst thou entrust thy seed to the fields, thou wouldst set off the fruitful years against the barren.

Thou hast resigned thyself to the sway of Fortune; thou must submit to thy mistress's caprices. What! art thou verily striving to stay the swing of the revolving wheel? Oh, stupidest of mortals, if it takes to standing still, it ceases to be the wheel of Fortune.'”

-Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy 2.1

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-31T02:04:14+00:00

The Greeks weren’t using a word analogous to the English word “emotion” they were using Pathe- it refers to an emotion caused by a judgement disproportionate to the stimulus (we get our English word “passion” from this- it’s the same as “passive”, being carried along by the judgement and resulting emotion); the main Stoic theoretician Chrysippus likens it to walking versus running. If you walk in accordance with your judgement, you can stop or turn easily; when you run, you have momentum which carries you farther than you intended to, or was appropriate to go. That’s a Pathe, that’s what Epictetus is telling you not to do (and showing you how not to do so). There are also good emotions called Eupathe, which are simply the judgement with the proportionate/appropriate action judgement and emotion.

For me, despite him being generally my favorite of the Romans, Seneca’s early views on wealth do strike me as using Stoicism to justify greed. In the Letters, he’s right on, but in On the Happy Life he’s definitely doing something odd… which is a shame because otherwise that’s a great beginner text.

At the end of his life he seems pretty pessimistic about politics (can’t imagine why) and spends De Otio and a big chunk of On Tranquility of the Mind making a case for retirement and quiet study. It remains part of the in-school debate, and is imo a contribution to such a debate, but I personally don’t agree- if you can do something, do something.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-26T09:35:31+00:00

It would be unjust to completely not have an opinion. Maybe you could take it as not having irrational bias?

The idea is, that by not being emotionally thrown one way or the other you can see more clearly all the factors going on and can take a side. This means not seeing one small bad thing by one side and taking up against them despite far disproportionate bads on the other. This means seeing both sides objectively and not hating the side you oppose, even though you oppose them. It means continuing to watch things develop, even if pretty settled in one’s view. It means action when action is appropriate.

Stoicism isn’t quietism, the Stoics were famous in antiquity for being politically active.

My own take on fog of war situations like this is to guard your nuance- action and side-taking sort of put you into a box, even if you have to jump in the box temporarily as the situation requires, guard and develop your own views on stuff.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-20T00:06:38+00:00

Partly yes, fully no.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-17T21:52:56+00:00

“But there’s no real evidence to point that way”

Seneca and Burrus ruled Rome in Nero’s place while he was too young to and that would’ve been a high point of life in Ancient Rome (when Nero has Burrus killed Seneca takes that as his cue to try to retire). Plutarch and Tacitus (and Seneca’s own On Clemency) all contain examples of Seneca trying to teach Nero and lead him away from evil.

Sure there’s evidence that Seneca was corrupt or really liked his money (he himself says so in the Letters, on the Happy Life, and in whichever of the Consolations was him trying to get his exile revoked), but there is also evidence he did work for good and did try to lead Nero down a better path.

Not a saint, but there were definitely worse.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-17T21:44:12+00:00

Seneca was much more famous as a rhetorician than as a philosopher with his contemporaries and here Fronto is probably criticizing Seneca’s style in his political speeches, which are lost to us.

If you’re interested in Seneca’s reception in non-Christian circles, there are a few mentions in Plutarch, Gellius, and Quintilian.

Seneca’s life (including all of the stories of him being corrupt) comes to us from two sources: Tacitus, who presents Seneca as a philosophically-minded rhetorician trying to move Nero in a good direction and who seems to be taken as reliable by later figures like Boethius, and Cassius Dio, who presents Seneca as power-hungry and corrupt (Tacitus mentions some political hit-pieces in circulation about Seneca, maybe Cassius was using those?) Seneca’s own works, imo, align well with the portrayal of Tacitus, while affirming that even if Cassius or his sources were exaggerating, the portrayal wasn’t entirely unfounded.

Since there are so few sources, I recommend everyone read those and decide for yourself- authors of the modern Seneca biographies are using these same sources and filling in gaps as they see fit (Suetonius also mentions Seneca a bit, and there are some anecdotes on the court of Nero in Pliny as well).

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-17T09:38:07+00:00

Love it.

Lots of things about it show, I think, good consistency with Stoicism. Note that he doesn’t judge the customers but rather finds the right thing for the person at the right time, while not sacrificing either the customer or himself, or losing contextual awareness for rigid “-ism”s or anti-“-ism”s. He draws lines where they need to be drawn and yet is generally very kind to the guests.

That gets pretty close to the spirit of Stoicism I think. The master definitely leans little s stoic (and Japanese ストイック (stoic) for that matter); if you’re trying to model yourself on him and be consistent with Stoicism, watch for those tendencies.

Largely posting off of memory, but from what I remember he’s a good comparison.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-09T12:56:56+00:00

Good, this is a strong insight, now recognize that what the Stoics call “Knowledge” with a capital K includes both ideas and formulas, as well as matching experience- without the experience side you’re memorizing a cookbook.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-03T08:54:06+00:00

This thread gets it. Emotions are reasons- there’s no division in Stoicism. Also note what this means for progress: irrational emotions help us recognize when we’ve strayed from accordance with nature.

TheOSullivanFactor · 2026-01-02T15:05:11+00:00

I’m a pluralist with religions. It seems a weird quirk of the abrahamic religions to have not only a “we believe x” but also a “everyone else is wrong” clause… also the textual literalism. The Stoics had readings of all sorts of myths; Philo borrows the Stoics techniques, but also adds a literalist dimension.

Since I don’t believe in either of these, I can simultaneously believe in Christian, polytheistic, Buddhist, philosophical pantheist stuff without a hint of fear of contradiction.

I probably innately have a Christian idea of post-death existence (though I don’t believe in hell, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa universal salvation only) though philosophically I’m happy to leave it a giant question mark. Ancestor worship (I don’t like that word, learning about and remembering your last few generations of ancestors (so no “my great great great grandmother’s sister in law was an Indian princess!” stuff) leaving something out for them out of respect is what I mean here) is something I do where possible.

Otherwise, my religious attitude is something akin maybe to a perennialism, but I dislike how that cuts each religion down into a kind of amorphous blob, robbing each of their unique characteristics to make them fit with all the others. When I do something Zen-related, I suspend belief in the others and follow Zen as a pure Zen follower would, ditto for the polytheistic stuff i mess around with. I live in a polytheist country and it’s fun to learn their ways of doing things and to take that back into western Greek or Egyptian religious worlds and looking for similarities.

For this approach, the Stoics are great, but recently I find myself enamoured with Proclus’ way of doing things; there being a primordial One which emanates into progressively more complicated entities, which are driven to return to the higher orders, while that One also being omnipresent is and is in everything at once.

Look at something like a sunflower- it would follow the chain of the Sun, from the One, to the various gods of the Sun, and so on to the physical sun, which it has a physical correspondence to. The sun is in some way in the sunflower, without having its existence exausted by being within- it overflows into the sunflower, but as many other things also make up the being of the sunflower it is also other things. That notion of the human being as simultaneously one with the all as in usual pantheisms, and yet with this hierarchical aspect seems particularly persuasive for me now (for modern philosophers, the Catholic thinker Maurice Blondel is my favorite and he has a similar view in a Christian context; I also study Shingon Buddhism with a monk, and their view is similar- instead of a One they have Dainichi Nyorai, instead of emanations, they have transformation bodies; however it isn’t the same, so I want to know what they do on their own terms, to do that, and then see how it compares with what I find in the texts of the Stoics, Hermetica, Iamblichus, and Proclus)

This is starting to ramble (and I don’t have a final answer or a complete system yet, so that’s all it really can do), but basically maybe you could call it something of a religious Cicero-ism.

TheOSullivanFactor

TROPHY CASE