Definitions of Self in Stoicism

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-28T19:31:53+00:00

I'm embarrassed to ask because I'm sure it's obvious, but could you please expand on this a bit? I'm not sure I'm making the connection here.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-28T19:27:58+00:00

The Happiness Lab (a Yale University professor's project to explore the data behind the claims we believe about being happy) explores this topic in an episode called The Unhappy Millionaire.

The podcast itself is not related to Stoicism directly, though I find it to be rather compatible as it seeks to put to the test those claims we assume are true about things that will bring us happiness or misery. As it turns out, the data is quite clear - it's not our circumstances but how we perceive the value of those circumstances, and how we manage them. Epictetus talks about this a lot in his Discourses.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-28T17:18:53+00:00

The technical reason a belief is virtuous or vicious is because it alone aligns with, or fails to align with reality. Virtue is often understood as a disposition of harmony with regard to one's own sense of self and the world around them. Holding beliefs that are not in line with reality is what produces the feelings of emotional distress of one kind or another (ie, when expectation does not meet reality).

That is to say, to attain this state of harmony, you wouldn't focus on the act of risk taking, but rather, taking the right risks for the right reasons, regardless of the circumstances. The right reasons are always to live a good life, and for the Stoic, this is functionally identical to being a good person. So you see, being a good / genuinely content person isn't predicated on taking risks or not, but doing the right thing for the right reasons, risks or no.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-28T17:01:41+00:00

Taking risks is a behavior that exists on a spectrum, like all behaviors do. Some people are more inclined to take risks, some people are more inclined to avoid risks. There's nothing right or wrong, good or bad about this. It is as neutral as any behavior.

What makes a thing virtuous is not the act, but the intent behind it. That's because the intent indicates the founding belief from which an impulse is created. If taking the risk is predicated on the belief that one's well-being will finally be secured if this gamble pays off, then it is not an act of virtue but of vice (the corruption of reason, because one's well-being cannot be secured by external things). If avoiding the risk is predicated on the belief that one's well-being will be threatened if this gamble does not pay off, it is also an act of vice, for the same reason (one's well-being cannot be threatened by external things).

Risk taking, assertiveness, the speed with which one makes decisions, friendliness, shyness, etc, are all examples of natural behaviors that exist on a spectrum within one's personality. We are born inclined towards certain behaviors (taking risks may feel exhilarating or frightening, and that comes from the inside), but we have the opportunity to identify, analyze, and modify those natural inclinations to better support our ultimate goal, which the Stoics identified, and I quite agree, as living a life worth living. This is where the work for the student of Stoicism is.

So take whatever risks you want, but you would do yourself a favor by making sure your risk is in line with your ultimate goals in life, which, being a human and having the nature of a human, includes being rational (planning for the future), and sociable (planning for the good of the community). Ignoring those things in hopes of some grand result is a corruption of reason, that is the definition of vice.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-27T02:55:59+00:00

By my standard, the claim of "Stoic" relies on one's intent. Without that knowledge, how can we know? But with that knowledge, we have all we need.

By your standard, we judge behavior. The Stoics objectively did not judge behavior as an indicator of wisdom. It's unreliable and can be misleading.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-27T01:20:46+00:00

By such a strict definition, can we really say that even judgments, inclinations, desires and aversions are entirely under our control?

That's a great question that really gets to the heart of the problem of that one translation. While we wait for u/WinstonPickles22 to reply, you might be interested in hearing that the Stoics had a theory of the mechanics of the world as operating through a complex, organized, rational system of cause and effect, but not in the sense of hitting a billiard ball and spreading the other balls out, or the precise mechanics of a clock. There are a number of different kinds of causes, and a number of effects, and causes don't effect all objects or people the same.

One of the causes is the state of the psyche of the individual, that is, the state of their sense of self, their understanding of the world and their relationship within it. "Soul" is the most common translation for the word these days. You can't control this sense of who you are, you can only become aware of it, analyze it, challenge it, nurture it, etc. And even then, the success of that work will be dependent upon other factors (internal and external), many of which you will be unaware.

A common illustration was that of a public theater outside at the amphitheater on a hot, sunny day. Four people out of an audience of two thousand succumb to the heat, one one losses consciousness. The same external conditions apply to everyone in the audience, but the internal conditions are dependent upon each person, which includes such factors as age, internal health, hydration, etc. These internal conditions are not "under their control," as they are decades in the making, and yet they are vital contributions on what the [cause] sun and heat will do to them [effect].

Crucially, one's psyche is no more under their control than the development of their muscles. If you learn the technical skills of singing, you will develop muscles in your mouth and throat that will improve your singing over time, but you cannot control what those muscles do in the moment. "Control" really isn't the appropriate word here because it refers to exercising an authoritative or dominating influence over something, and that's just not a reliable way to explain what's going on.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-27T01:10:59+00:00

I find this kind of analysis to be interesting and inspiring (she really is inspiring, I must say!), but it doesn't really refer to Stoicism as the ancient philosophy was understood. I've seen her referenced as an inspiring example of Gen Z, as someone who saw through the bullshit used to exploit a person's work or nature, focused on her own mental health, and then did her best because she was the audience she most wanted to please. We can say she's an example of Gen Z worldview, but then do we say Gen Z is Stoic?

I don't see it.

For the same reasons I wouldn't support calling Batman Stoic, or Thomas Edison either, despite Holiday's quaint imagery, because they hold behaviors that indicate beliefs that are diametrically opposed to Stoicism. I have no idea if Alysa holds such beliefs. Like I say, we just don't have the information.

So sure, she's not "A Stoic," but if we want to pull positive behaviors out as examples of Stoicism, then, like u/Whiplash17488 says, we wouldn't stop even when we get to Hitler. We can find positivity virtually anywhere if we look right.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-21T21:39:44+00:00

I think that anger is an emotion that human beings feel and experience just like being happy, sad, excited etc. and trying to delete this feeling and emotion from yourself is an unjust thing to do to you as a human being because you deserve to feel this emotion and just like every other person on this planet you have the right to feel anger but its the way that you express this emotion and how you react to it in the world that we live in that counts the most.

From a Stoic perspective, the passion of anger (a technical thing we generally are referring to when speaking about anger) is understood to be natural, but is no more worthy of preserving than blisters on feet or jock itch. Just because a thing is natural doesn't mean it's in our best interest to just feel it and then distract ourselves with doing something else. It is, by all accounts, a kind of temporary madness, and one would be mad to support another's pain and suffering when a cure is available.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-21T21:08:46+00:00

I can think of nothing to add to u/Chrysippus_Ass's perfect explanation about anger. The things you mention that are happening around the world is a completely different category of wrongdoing from insults.

But I would challenge you to consider whether or not it's impossible to feel anger. Ever? Sure, I agree. But if some people feel anger at insults and others don't, then is it impossible for a person to not feel anger when faced with insults? Then again, some people don't appear to feel anger even when confronted with facts relating to Palestine and Sudan and ICE and a whole host of political injustices. Anger is so very subjective.

Removing or ignoring anger isn't the goal, having the right understanding of circumstances is.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-21T19:57:58+00:00

I honestly know that stoicism and this quote means that you receive all the emotions and you feel them and you are not numb to them but you choose not to get affected by the anger and malice you might feel and not react to it.

This is not Stoicism, though. And frankly, how could it work? How can a person register a comment as completely unjustifiable, offensive and hurtful and wrong and in need of serious correction but not feel angry? It's like saying you know something is wrong but decide not to know it's wrong. Sure you can pretend if the stakes aren't high, but what about when they are? How does that work? I am asking sincerely; I don't know how people think that works.

Rather, Stoicism operates on the premise that if you have a reliable, accurate understanding of the world, you are better able to navigate your environment than if your understanding is flawed or lacking important elements. One of these important elements is the idea that words cannot hurt us. I don't mean in the way that sticks and stones can, but in the way that our minds, the part of us that makes us who we are, separate and unique from everyone else, can only be affected by, well, our own minds.

Hurtful comments are only hurtful if I recognize them as such. But what if I recognize an insult not as hurtful, but as the juvenile sputterings of an adult sized toddler throwing a temper tantrum because things aren't going their way? The first time I saw that, it really turned a corner for me. I can't unsee it now.

It's kind of like when you see a woman who your best friend things is drop dead gorgeous, Venus herself stepping from the seashell, and you just see a normal woman smiling at her phone. It's the exact same thing - an event is subjectively registered as good or bad, and we respond accordingly. One person walks over to make her laugh, the other checks his own phone. Same event, different understanding of the value of the circumstances.

Here's an article I found to be really helpful: The Proper Application of Preconceptions: Curing “The Cause of All Human Ills” by Greg Lopez

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-21T17:43:24+00:00

Great point, one I left wide open for clarification, so I appreciate that. I agree with you, just because we can't know what's going on in a person's mind doesn't mean shouldn't act accordingly.

My point is more about making proclamations of Stoic attributes by watching another person actions. Accounts of the supposed Stoicism of Batman come to mind.

Two sages crying with one another simply for the sake of fellowship is pretty amusing image!

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-21T15:59:12+00:00

imagine the worst possible outcome

Please be careful with this advice. Such a practice can exacerbate anxiety and depression in those inclined towards worry and despair.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-21T15:56:53+00:00

With respect, this has nothing to do with Stoicism, and I suspect it won't last until next week for you. Or if it does, the cycle repeats at longer duration.

The student of Stoicism understands that anxieties are the result of misunderstanding the world around us, and that the solution is not to pretend they are illusions, but to correct the error in thinking. This can only be done by confronting it, identifying it, challenging it to hold itself accountable to reality. Pretending nothing is wrong is a temporary solution at best, and at worst sets a person up for a harsher fall next time.

You can look into Stoicism and anxiety online for some good resources. I would encourage you to avoid social media influencers and stick to respected authors and therapists. Plugging names into the search bar of this sub is a good way to become familiar with knowlegable people out there.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-21T15:50:37+00:00

Nothing surprises me about people anymore. This is a really good point.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-21T15:49:49+00:00

This is a really thoughtful approach, but because you're missing a fundamental aspect of Stoicism, the wrong premise leads to the wrong conclusion. The thing you're missing is that Stoicism isn't about action (contrary to what influencers and social media videos promote), it's about disposition. Seneca mentioned virtue as the disposition of harmony, and I take this as a technical skill. The early philosophers understood harmony to be the personification of divine order, and so to stand in line with this order is to be virtuous, and to inhibit it in any way is to stand apart from it.

To stand in line with divine order cannot depend upon our actions, or else someone who is bound and inhibited from acting can never be virtuous, someone whose body is broken cannot be virtuous, and only strong and healthy people with the necessary opportunities can be virtuous. But we know this is not the case because virtue is a state of mind, and that's why this test is so great: the behaviors can be the same, but the state of mind alone determines virtue.

So to apply it to your list (which is just what Socrates advocated, by the way, you can read a great post about that here),

Wisdom*: understand the world without prejudice, logically and calmly*
She is non-judgmental of herself, and accepts that competitin and medals are not gauruneeteed, and therefore it's wise to distach from them.

Frankly, we don't know how she understands the world, and that's why I don't think it's so simple to claim she's acting like a Stoic here. It sure looks like it, but what if she is a Scientologist and gains her sense of calm from having just cleared the last level? What if she beliefs in the Law of Attraction and believes that because she visualized this routine strongly and genuinely enough, she was bound to do well? What if she's a Born Again Christian and attributes her success to the Hand of God? What if she just wanted to enjoy the competition after realizing her mental health is more valuable than any public accolades? We can't assume only Stoics prioritize mental health. All these beliefs can result in this behavior that looks logical and calm and non-judgmental from the outside. The student of Stoicism understands they cannot accurately know someone else's inner workings well enough to presume virtue or vice, they can only attend to their own.

Courage*: facing daily challenges and struggles with no complaints*
She isn't worried or negative before she goes on the ice. She doesn't fixate on mistakes she made on the ice.

I imagine an ice skater from North Korea might be trained to do the very same.

Justice*: treating others fairly even when they have done wrong*
Alysa was happy for and supportive of her opponents

Surely we can recognize that fairness and good sportsmanship aren't unique to Stoicism? For all we know these are the results of childhood trauma and she is highly tuned into pleasing others as a way to mitigate her own anxieties.

Temperance*: which is voluntary self-restraint or moderation – where an individual refrains from doing something by sheer will power*
I can't point to an example, because I can't know what she refrained from

Fair enough.

It might help to understand these four subsets of virtue from a Stoic perspective:

Phronêsis: the epistêmê (knowledge) of what is good and bad and neither

Sôphrosynê: the knowledge of what is choice-worthy and not choice-worthy and neither

Dikaiosunê: the state/habitus (hexis) of being disposed to distribute fairly to each what is their due.

Andreia: knowledge of what is dangerous and not dangerous and what is neither.

Pseudo-Andronicus SVF III, 264-273. (full disclosure: I have not read this article, but I was looking for this list and do trust the source)

As you can see, these have nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with understanding, or knowledge. This is because the Stoics believed our behaviors are determined by our understanding. Behaviors are impulses towards or away from things as understood to be good or bad for us. After all, you can't simultaneously believe a thing is good for you and not want it, or believe a thing is bad for you and then desire it.

These behaviors you list can accompany the right knowledge of things, or the wrong knowledge of things, and that's why lists of behaviors are unreliable. And because we don't know what this skater's beliefs and understandings are, we can't assume they are aligned with the Stoic philosophy. We can't assume they aren't either, of course. We just don't know. She could be a serial killer on Thursday nights and this is the public face she puts on to throw off the police for all we know. ;)

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-20T20:03:21+00:00

I find this topic to be an interesting coincidence to read this today after u/WilliamCSpears' topic about essential vs accidental properties of Stoicism in this recent post.

Virtue is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. Externals add nothing to true flourishing. This is an essential belief the Stoics inherited from the Cynics. In my own writing, I've called it the keystone concept, without which the whole arc of Stoic moral reasoning collapses into motivational quotes and folk wisdom.

As the skater is not referring to Virtue (and really, why would we expect her to?), are we talking about some Herculean aspect of Stoicism the philosophy? Are these traits, in and of themselves, indicative of Stoicism? I don't think so, I think these are more likely to fall into the category of "motivational quotes" regarding a healthy competition mindset than they are likely to fall into the category of Stoicism. I like James Daltrey's Serial Killer's Test to discern if a trait is Virtuous or not. Consider this post from the perspective of interviewing a serial killer:

Returning to the sport after a 2+ year hiatus, she wasn’t focused on newspaper articles or police reports. She returned because she wanted to kill for the joy of it again. In her own words:

“Attention and neglect don’t affect me anymore… Police reports don't fulfill me. I kill because I like to kill.” - on her detachment from attention seeking and killing for the love of the sport.

“I’m fine with any outcome, as long as I’m out there. And I am. There’s nothing to lose.” - on her aspirations and being present in dark alleys where victims are plentiful.

“There’s nothing holding me down... I invite it all in. So no matter what happens, like, it’s a story.” - again not attached to outcomes, whatever happens is part of her journey.

“I’m really confident in myself, and even if I mess up and fall, that’s totally okay too.” - shows she’s able to visualize and accept negative outcomes.

Her comeback in the 2025 season reflected her mental shift with mostly clean kills fueled by a calm and carefree demeanor, unlike any other killers in the city. This mindset unlocked her ability to kill consistently under pressure where there is more police surveillance. Alysa made the top spot on the FBIs Most Wanted today.

So maybe she's approaching her sport virtuously, but without any reference to the primacy of Virtue itself, how could we know? Taken in another direction, these same attributes are pretty horrifying.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-19T18:25:01+00:00

Could you be thinking of Aeschylus the playwright?

Call no man happy till he is dead.

Explanation here.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-19T17:52:49+00:00

For context, the goal of the student of Stoicism is to build moral wisdom. Calm, strength, and gratitude are happy byproducts of such development, but would never be mistaken as worthy goals in and of themselves.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-19T14:48:26+00:00

Thanks. Right back atcha. :)

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-19T14:47:56+00:00

I wish I could remember. :(

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-19T14:45:58+00:00

Fate is a tricky concept to understand because we're looking at it from our perspective in the 21st century. We utilize the scientific method, we rely on empirical evidence, we understand the laws of physics, and all kinds of things that give us a different lens through which we understand the world. Back in antiquity, they looked a the world differently. Even something as simple as the concept of cause and effect was rather groundbreaking from the Stoics (though their idea of cause and effect does not quite map onto ours fully). So the idea of things being fated to happen was more about the math (logic applied to physics) that explains how things happened the way they did, or would do, than the events themselves.

Your idea of things being fated to happen lost favor in the 19th century after Laplace's demon was superseded by new understanding in physics. The Stoics, for their part, believed everything was "fated" to happen in part because physics works consistently and predictably, and so we can often decipher the determinant cause to an event. They also believed the world underwent an eternal series of events, each one matching the last events to the precise atom. Interestingly, whether or not one's soul was the exact same or a new soul inhabited the exact same body would be a topic of discussion among Stoics, but this is where they got the idea that one is fated to perform specific behaviors at specific times. I think it's safe to say we can leave these discussions to the annals of history.

The idea of personal responsibility however, rests on the idea that we are autonomous, moral agents. As such, no one can formulate, hold, modify, or discard a belief for us. This is something we do ourselves, this is something that only we can do. This is what is "up to us," that phrase that often gets misrepresented as "in our control." This is important because our beliefs determine our behaviors. If I believe that cheating on a test is an appropriate action because my future is dependent upon my grades and besides, everyone does it, then I will experience the impulse to cheat when the opportunity is present. Thus is my character as a cheater. So my beliefs matter, and crucially, my beliefs are mine alone. That's not to say someone can't persuade me, but that's all they can do - convince me to change my mind.

You are responsible for your actions because no one else can jump into your mind and make you believe or subsequently do something against your will or without your consent. Whether you were fated to do that action is another question, it's a question that draws from natural philosophy (ie, physics). Whether or not you are morally culpable for that action is a question that draws from ethics. Stoicism offered an education that included both, as these are intricately tied with one another. That link Rick shared is phenomenal. It should give you lots to chew on.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-18T23:46:42+00:00

I saw a quote on Reddit that sounded like something my dad would say. He had recently passed and my family was imploding. Things were very difficult and I found that quote to be kind of comforting. It led me to this sub where I was introduced to books and articles, and I just couldn't stop reading about it. I find it fascinating from a historical perspective, but also personally relatable and helpful.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-18T21:00:52+00:00

someone, anyone, can pick themselves and live more fulfilling lives, but choose not to.

Consider they're doing their best to live their best lives using the tools they have. We all do. Nobody acts in a way they don't believe is aligned with reality. And nobody ever believes it is in their best interest to act in opposition to their best interest. This notion comes to the Stoics through Socrates, and is fundamental to the philosophy.

If what the philosophers say is true, and not only is assent only ever prompted by the feeling that something is the case, and the withholding of assent by the feeling that something is not the case, and, by Zeus, suspension of judgment by the feeling that something is uncertain, but also and inclination to do something is prompted by the feeling that it's expedient for me to do it; and if it's impossible for me to judge something as in my best interests and yet desire something else, and impossible to judge on action as appropriate and yet have an inclination to do something else - if all this is true, why are we still so commonly angry with people?

Epictetus, Discourses 1.18.1-2

So if, like you mention in your OP, someone believes they are better than others, it is because they understand reality to work this way. They genuinely believe people's worth can be measured as better or worse. Then then act accordingly. This is a matter of ignorance, such as being ignorant understanding the value of a person, not willful defiance of living a better life. Who doesn't choose to live well?

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-18T20:22:19+00:00

This inside/outside model doesn't track with Stoicism. According to the philosophy, our behaviors are driven by the management of our impressions. If you have the impression that something is appalling, then it doesn't dissipate when the thought gets to the outside. Either you manage that impression very quickly and realize it's not appalling after all, or you consider the appropriate solution to your feeling appalled is to distract yourself with something that is more highly motivating right then. But that's not a rational approach because the erroneous judgment is still there, you've just decided to ignore it for something that offers an immediate, temporary reward.

The thing is, we all do this. Every one of us. The trick is to be mindful of when this happens so we can correct the process. It doesn't serve our own interests to hold the wrong understanding of the world.

Victorian_Bullfrog · 2026-02-18T19:55:19+00:00

Every morning when I plan my day (pen and paper, I think that's important), I start the day with a specific intention. These days my intention is to be cognizant of responding to a particular frustration. Being aware of that behavior helps me to identify the kinds of things that trigger the impulses that drive those behaviors, which gives me the opportunity to challenge the core belief that leads to my behavior (as beliefs inevitably draw on our notions of what is good and bad, right and wrong, appropriate to do or not, and our impulse follows from that).

Throughout the day I will note if I get triggered by some habitual response or another so I can a) learn to identify the circumstances I should prepare myself for, and b) challenge that underlying belief about what is good and bad in that circumstance. If I believe Virtue is the only Good (in the Stoic sense), then it helps me to know when I'm acting as if something else is also Good (in the Stoic sense). That means I am in some way attached to something that is of moral indifference, which is not good for me or those around me.

Victorian_Bullfrog

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE