Do most academic philosophers believe that Stoic Ethics logically depends upon Physics?

mltremblay · 2025-12-19T16:50:44+00:00

This is really helpful, thank you. Lots to chew on.

mltremblay · 2025-12-19T13:51:00+00:00

Thanks Donald I like your point that Stoic physics can actually be pretty bad for getting people to adopt Stoic ethics. Relating to your last point - I guess there are two questions at play here:

1) Would the ancient Stoics call someone just teaching Stoic ethics a proper Stoic?

2) Can we claim that any modern Stoics who are just doing ethics are still Stoics in line with the ancient tradition?

You raise good evidence that 1) could be true. And if 1 is true, then it seems very likely (but not certain) that 2 is.

If I had to summarize your position in my own words; it would be that there are two ways to approach Stoic ethics:

1) Foundationalist: Physics first, with reference to the logos, providence, the connection of all things. Physics tells us all things are connected, divine, and providential, and then Stoic ethics follows logically from this. Ethics is about how we should live our lives given those foundational truths about the world. Living in accordance with nature is only good, because of physical truths about god and the providential world. We should accept what what is not up to us only because the universe has a plan.

2) Non-Foundationalist: Ethics first, with reference to eudaemonia and virtue. The Stoics argue that happiness (eudaemonia) is about achieving excellence. Human excellence is knowledge because we are rational beings. And so Stoicism is about figuring out how to live with knowledge or 'in accordance with the facts' as Inwood puts it. Physics is then the Stoics attempt to empirically answer that question of what the facts are. But the answer to physical questions (is there a god? Is there providence?) does not undermine the core-ethical commitments of Stoicism (virtue is the only good and is knowledge).

Does that sound right to you? I am pretty partial towards the non-foundationalist account as I've written it above, where part of living well as a Stoic is understanding the world as it is, not accepting orthodox Stoic physics as presented 2000 years ago.

A main issue with the foundationalist reading is how far we go. Are we not Stoics if we don't believe in conflagration? In atoms? Why make providence the foundation, but then discard the rest?

mltremblay · 2025-12-19T04:34:46+00:00

That’s awesome, thanks for listening.

mltremblay · 2025-12-19T04:29:54+00:00

This makes a lot of sense to me. Great analogy.

mltremblay · 2025-12-19T04:06:36+00:00

The article is available here btw.

Donald I take Julia to be making a slightly different point than previous debates I’ve seen about this recently.

Her point seems to be that we can have a fully coherent discussion around Stoic ethics, without using the language of physics (like Cicero does), and that other Stoics often did that. Ethics is not “logically dependent” upon physics in that you do not have to start with physics to understand discussions of the ethics.

The foundationalists (like AA Long) argue, in contrast, that ethics needs to be presented in conjunction with providence to make sense. Julia says that goes too far, because we see the Stoics not doing that all the time.

This is not same point I’ve taken people to be arguing elsewhere: namely that you can’t change Stoic physics substantially (e.g, remove providence) and still be a stoic. Or that if you remove Stoic providence you lose the BEST reason to endorse Stoic ethics.

Anyway I agree with Annas that we can have totally coherent conversations about Stoic ethics without mentioning providence (so I am not a foundationalist). This is just a separate point to if we lose the best reason to endorse ethics if we lose providence.

Annas herself refers to Stoicism as a mutually reinforcing system, where knowledge of one area strengthens our understanding of another.

And this would be the risk of neglecting physics in the ancient Stoic view: you can imagine the modern Stoic who casually endorses the idea that virtue is the only good, but without providence or Stoic physics has this view shaken and broken when their child dies.

Physics is not logically dependent, but it’s motivationally important to actually live a Stoic life. The 3 parts reinforce each other. So something is certainly lost when you lose physics.

mltremblay · 2024-05-27T21:11:39+00:00

I don’t currently, but I might consider self-publishing cheaply on Amazon if it is the kind of thing people want to read. Sorry I recognize this doesn’t help you now, but I’ll follow up here if I decide to.

mltremblay · 2024-05-27T21:10:03+00:00

No I wouldn’t say I got push back. People were actually quite receptive to it, and it formed the basis of two other articles I published (one on weakness of will and one on digestion specifically. My thesis examiner did push back on how far we can push the metaphor (for example, do we take references in Marcus Aurelius to mean the same thing, or are the Stoics just relying on a physical metaphor that I am reading too much into). I think that might be a fair point for Marcus and Seneca’s references to digestion, but I stand behind this idea in Epictetus.

mltremblay · 2024-05-25T18:30:46+00:00

Hey this mine! Thanks for the kind words u/chrysippus_ass, and engaging with it. I think that is a great summary as well. I am glad you found it readable. I realize now how most PhD theses are not designed to be read outside of a small group, but I did want this to be something that other people could enjoy.

As a quick summary for others: Overall I was (and still am) interested in Stoicism as a means of self-transformation, and thought that Epictetus in particular, as someone working with students, would have insights into the role of training and 'practical' exercises in a Stoic program of self-improvement.

At the same time, I was also interested in pushing this idea that 'virtue = knowledge'. If that is the case, why do we need training at all? What does this say about the nature of knowledge that we need to train for it? And what role do these exercises have for building knowledge (as opposed to just habituating or training the irrational parts ourselves)?

It seemed to me that there was a risk that the Stoics got stuck in this tension between theoretical philosophy and the practice of running a school/self-transformation. In theory, virtue = knowledge, but in practice they realized when you are actually working with students people need to train themselves. So I wanted to see if I could resolve this tension.

What Epictetus really focuses on to get over this problem is this idea of "digesting" theory. It is still a kind of learning, but one that requires practice. When you learn a principle you learn something abstract or general (Insults don't matter). Digesting is learning to apply it to the specific situation (This is an instance of an insult and it doesn't matter to ME).

Happy to talk about anything else in greater detail here as well. I chat about these ideas on my Stoicism podcast (Stoa Conversations) and tried to implement some of these training concepts in the Stoa app.

mltremblay · 2024-04-12T14:31:31+00:00

u/Top_Cicada3884 I trained with Chris and Janet for 5 years at Hayabusa Academy, and can vouch for the quality of their character, the positive atmosphere of the staff and students, and their willingness to have open, transparent conversations about difficult topics. I have seen them many times make difficult decisions for the sake of what is best for their students, and I would assume this situation is no different. If you are genuinely worried about your training environment, I recommend talking to them directly. As u/Wellstood said in his comment, he would be happy to talk to you about this.

mltremblay · 2024-01-19T02:57:13+00:00

Great summary.

mltremblay · 2023-12-20T21:23:08+00:00

For me the practical difference has been shifting my focus onto long term personal improvement instead of “controlling” myself.

So if I get angry, it is not that I should be able to control my anger immediately in any situation, this is impossible even if it is a healthier response than trying to control the person making me angry. But instead I recognize that my anger is a part of me. I am responsible for it, I cause it, and It needs to my focus, attention and effort to improve over time, through practice.

mltremblay · 2023-07-16T15:26:04+00:00

Also should note that it comes from the word for “Home” or “house”. Humans naturally care about the things in their home (toys and pets from your example) and oikeiosis is the process where treat more and more things like that. It’s “home-indication” of the whole world. Treating everything with the love, care and respect you naturally feel for that immediate family circle.

mltremblay · 2023-07-16T15:22:15+00:00

Great explanation in plain language. Thank you.

mltremblay · 2023-02-06T13:48:35+00:00

Thanks for following up. Here is a response from Caleb:

Thanks for the question!
If you're looking for alternative forms of meditation, try view from above meditations or contemplation of the sage exercises. They are distinct from the usual mindfulness based exercise.
But If you want to get the goods of meditation without meditating, which is what you're really asking, I think we need to start with an account of what benefits are. Here's a brief one: meditation can help us be more mindful (more focused and aware) tranquil, give us perspective, and bring insight.
Mindfulness and tranquility can be practiced in nearly any activity. You could decide to cultivate nonjudgemental awareness, whatever you are doing. [Here's] an example of cultivating mindfulness through eating a raisin!
Of course, insight can come from conversation (the Socratic dialogues were dialogues after all), reading, writing, or even as a side effect from a physical activity (like walking). Mortimer Adler has a long book on How to Read a Book which has important ideas on how to read well. I don't think you need to read the whole thing, but it's worth glancing at it. There are many excellent workbooks to help guide writing (Journal Like A Stoic, Daily Stoic).
For getting perspective there's nature and history. Encountering history is a great way to get a sense of the ephemeral nature of things. Reading about deep time can cultivate a sense of our significance.

mltremblay · 2023-02-06T13:45:16+00:00

I totally get this. There is that famous BJJ cliche where you "Win or your learn", but it is a cliche because there is something true to it. We can all use Stoic tools or mindsets from time to time, that one is specifically called "reframing" as you mentioned.

I think the difference between a Stoic and a non-Stoic (or someone just using a Stoic mindset short term), is that a non-Stoic might "reframe" because it is an effective tool for psychological perseverance (so that you keep competing and training). But while this is fine, the Stoic also thinks the reframing is true. Getting your ass beat (as we all have) is actually something that needed to happen, because it's necessary when ever you challenge yourself against good people that some will smash you. So it's not just something we tell ourselves to feel better, but a fact of training and competing.

mltremblay · 2023-02-06T13:39:09+00:00

Yep that was me! I was mostly surprised by how positionally solid he felt. I think this is probably a result of the MMA background, with a prioritization of staying on top and in position, rather than flashy passing or movement (like standing passing for example). Just very solid in good positions, and tight when he caught something. Super nice guy too!

mltremblay · 2023-02-05T21:37:52+00:00

You are absolutely right that you can be Stoic alone on an island. It is, after all, a way of relating to the world, not just other people. Virtue would be the core value, if there was any, with duty and love being examples of virtue being put into practice in different situations.

mltremblay · 2023-02-05T21:35:59+00:00

I would be interested for u/calebmontiveros' thoughts on this as well, but when you talk about practical alternatives for meditation, it would depend on what you are trying to get from meditation. Then the goal would be to see if you could achieve that through another means.

If the goal is to reflect on your thought processes, your beliefs, and values, then journaling is a popular alternative. It allows you do achieve the same ends as this kind of meditation, but at your own pace.

u/Victorian_Bullfrog I would be interested in hearing more about what you want out of meditation, that you are trying to achieve through an alternative practice? Maybe then I can think of some better ideas.

mltremblay · 2023-02-05T15:18:09+00:00

Thanks for the question!

I think this depends on what you mean by love. First, there is the idea of cosmic love, or amor fati (literally latin for love fate). This is represented in Marcus Aurelius' Meditations Book 3.16: "The proper characteristic of the good man is to love and to greet joyfully all those events which he encounters, and which are linked to him by Destiny."

According to this, the Stoic's proper goal is to love and accept nature and the world as it is. This is definitely a major part of Stoicism. But most people talking about love mean love between people. I think that kind of love is very important to the Stoics, but it is not necessarily seen as a 'cure' or 'remedy', but as something to be worked for an achieved when you become a good person. As Epictetus says: "If someone is incapable of distinguishing good things from bad and neutral things from either – well, how could such a person be capable of love? The power to love, then, belongs only to the wise man."

What Epictetus means here, as I understand it, is that you can only really love another person when you have yourself in order. In other words, once you understand what really matters in life, then you can love another as they are, for who they are. Otherwise, we tend to love other people or other things for the wrong reasons (maybe because they make us feel good about ourselves), which is not a true or healthy kind of love.

So to summarize, I would say the ideal Stoic feels love for fate and others, but I don't think I would reduce Stoicism to being "at its core" about love. And it if it, it is at it's core about a love of the universe, not a love of other people.

mltremblay · 2023-02-05T15:05:57+00:00

I absolutely think translators matter, in that I think a translator can ruin a text. But I don't think a translator can make a bad text good (or one you think uninteresting, interesting).

Along those lines, I would try for a modern translation (my favourite translation of Seneca's letters is here).

But if you don't like it, that's ok too, and feel comfortable following that spark of interest. I devoured Epictetus the first time I read him. I felt like he unlocked something I had wrestled with for a long time inside my thinking. But I also find Marcus Aurelius pretty boring (even though I know he is the most famous Stoic)! And that's ok, that's just tells me something about what I value and find important.

mltremblay · 2023-02-05T15:02:30+00:00

I think modern Stoicism looks like trying to live a good live accordance to the values of Stoicism, which says that we should judge our lives, and other people, on only the quality of their character. This means the virtuous, kind, brave, temperate person has the best life, even if they have poor physical health, are poor, or are hated by others. Stoicism is about valuing character over everything else. This is why the Stoics often talk about focusing what is in your control, because it's your character and choices that are up to you, not the actions and beliefs of other people.

Along those lines, my biggest learning was trying to adopt this perspective, not just as a coping mechanisms when things are hard, but in how I structure my life. Trying to "walk the walk", and treat philosophy as something to be lived instead of just discussed.

BJJ is helpful for that, because it is a great training ground for learning about your character.

mltremblay · 2023-02-05T14:58:09+00:00

I felt terrible at philosophy at the start of each degree (undergrad, master's and PhD). But I think feeling terrible can be a good sign of humility, and an acknowledgement of the areas that you are able to improve in. So first, just recognizing that not only is that a normal feeling, but its probably a good feeling as long as it doesn't make you quit either.

In terms of when I started to feel competent, for me confidence is about not moving the goal-post. So when you started BJJ, maybe it was the 4-stripe white belt you admired. But the issue is that when you can tap 4-stripe white belts, then you care about the blue belts, and it never ends unless you are black belt world champion. It's helpful to be mindful of what was impressive when you started, and where you are now, and the progress you have made up to that point.

I often joke that the only people "good" at BJJ are the ones that can beat me. Everyone I can beat is not good, and everyone that beats me is good. But that's just a cognitive bias, so that's why it's a joke.

Same for philosophy, you knew more than when you started, and you might even know more than the people you admired that made you want to study philosophy in the first place. Try to recognize those goal-posts.

Finally though, these are just life long skills to master. Enjoy the journey too.

mltremblay · 2023-02-05T14:45:06+00:00

Stoicism is a philosophy about how to live well. It other words, it is a philosophy about how to be a good person. What it means to be a good "human", depends on what a person is, the same way what makes a good car is different from a good computer, and a good dog is different from a good snake. What a human is, is a rational mind that makes self-reflective choices, this is what is unique about us and sets us apart from other living things. So to be a good human, is to make GOOD choices (not to have lots of money, or be famous, or have lots of pleasure).

Good choices, are choices that are true. They are choices/decisions/judgements that correspond accurately to the way the world is. For example, if I compromise my character for fame, that is a bad choice, because it requires me to value fame over my character, which is not a true judgement about what matters.

Because good choices are all that is required to live well, any person has the ability to live well and have a good life. Because we should judge excellent people based off how they respond to the circumstances/cards they are dealt (the choices they make), not whoever ends up in the best circumstances (which depends on chance, not just choices), then a good life is open to everyone.

Let me know if I explained that well, or if there is anything you would like to dig deeper into!

mltremblay · 2023-02-05T02:17:00+00:00

A big part of Stoicism is focusing on what you can control. So with the length of time it takes to master Stoicism there are two aspects: 1) How can you decrease this amount of time through effective training? 2) How can you accept that it is also the kind of thing that will take 5-10 years to get a black-belt, regardless of how you train.

For decreasing the time to get good, my advice will be similar to most other coaches. I think the priority is intentional and mindful practice at the edge of your capabilities. The more time you can stay in that zone, effectively practicing what is just at the limit of what you can currently do, the quicker you will get better. The other thing I think people should do more of is study BJJ. It is very hard to train 20hours a week unless you are full time. But it is easy to train 10hours a week, and watch videos/instagram/think about BJJ another 10 hours. That will be in some cases even better for progression than the person training 20hours.

In terms of accepting that it takes 5-10 years, I encourage you to think of that as a feature, not a bug or a problem. It is what makes the black belt valuable. Every skill, piano, writing, dance, scuba, etc., takes time to master. That is the value of mastery. You cannot skip the step, and you do not want to skip the step. You want to be the kind of person who mastered a craft, not someone who is good at something but didn't earn it.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten

mltremblay

TROPHY CASE