In September, a writer for HBO’s Watchmen series, Cord Jefferson, was awarded an Emmy. I enjoyed the show’s first season, a sequel to arguably the best movie (and graphic novel) about superhero vigilantism. The plot involves the protagonists combatting racist violence in present-day Tulsa, Oklahoma. As Jefferson, who is Black, was accepting the Emmy, he gave thanks to friends and family and, to the surprise of many, his therapist. “Therapy should be free in this country,” he said. Not long after, in an interview with The New York Times, Jefferson expanded on his views about the importance of emotional health.1

“I think Black men are taught that stoicism is important and that in order to get along in America,” Jefferson said, “it’s important to be stoic and keep a stiff upper lip.” He noted how significant it’s been for him to discard that understanding, and to see “that stoicism isn’t a virtue,” because it’s a good thing to be sensitive to your own emotions. “That it resonated with so many people,” he said, “I think speaks to the stigma people have about therapy and mental health care and admitting you are imperfect in those ways.”

This statement is unfortunate. Jefferson is unwittingly perpetuating an inaccurate stereotype about Stoicism that prevents people from understanding a philosophy of life that has great potential to benefit them personally—and humanity more broadly. As you might guess, it comes from the same place as most stereotypes: a grain of truth that people misinterpret and play out of proportion. All the major Hellenistic philosophies have this problem. The word “skeptic” today often means someone who doesn’t believe anything. But (most of) the Skeptics in ancient Greece said to hold your opinions lightly, because human knowledge is a tricky thing. The modern English term “cynic” means someone who has an overly negative view of life and people. But the ancient Cynics were jolly fellows who decided to live simple lives, own no property, and not marry or have children. “Cynic,” in Greek, means dog-like, because the Cynics lived in the streets. In current usage, “epicurean” refers to someone who is into highly sophisticated pleasures, but the ancient Epicureans thought that the highest pleasure is the absence of mental and emotional pain.

If there is nothing you can do about a particular situation, why beat yourself up about it?

So it goes for Stoicism: The stiff-upper-lip stereotype finds its root in the fact that Stoics practice endurance. It arose in ancient Greece and Rome, established around 300 B.C. by Zeno of Citium in Athens. People spanning the social gamut practiced it, from slaves such as the early second-century Epictetus to emperors like Marcus Aurelius. They took to heart the idea that if there is nothing you can do about a particular situation, why beat yourself up about it? Work toward as serene a degree of acceptance as you can muster instead. This doesn’t mean suppressing emotions. Rather, it means shifting your emotional spectrum—away from unhealthy emotions like anger and toward the mindful embracing of healthy ones like joy—by working on consciously altering the way you think about yourself and the world.

I don’t blame Jefferson. The widespread misapprehension about Stoicism is even endorsed by a number of scholars who should know better. For instance, Edith Hall, a King’s College, London, classics scholar, wrote: “Authentic ancient Stoicism was pessimistic and grim. It denounced pleasure. It required the suppression of emotions and physical appetites.”2 And she is not alone. There is a cottage industry of papers on stoicism in psychology, built on the same stereotype.

According to a paper on pain management in cancer patients, for example, “Not acknowledging pain [like stoics do] in non-self-limiting conditions, such as cancer, can lead to negative outcomes and poor pain management and treatment.”3 Another paper on pain management, but in the context of home-care nurse-patient interactions, concurs: “Contemporary stoicism is often therefore seen to be ‘maladaptive’ in this context.”4 Other researchers are worried about “troubling stoicism,” an approach that is “characterized by silent endurance and lack of emotion—often described as a ‘stiff upper lip.’”5 More recently, in a preprint titled “Stoicism and Wellbeing,” Ronald Fischer, a behavioral scientist at Victoria University of Wellington, and his doctoral student Johannes Karl, describe the results of a study of 636 participants aimed at exploring the effects of stoicism on eudaimonic and hedonic well-being.6 Hedonic well-being refers to the experience of pleasure, while eudaimonic well-being is more concerned with meaning in one’s life.

THE STOIC STATE OF MIND: “Survey the circling stars, as though yourself were in midcourse with them,” Marcus Aurelius writes in his Meditations. “Visions of this kind purge away the dross of our earth-bound life.”iku4 / Shutterstock

The news ain’t good for stoicism, it seems: “We confirmed the negative effects of stoic beliefs on hedonic wellbeing observed in previous studies,” Fischer and Karl wrote. “Additionally, we found that … stoic ideology significantly negatively predicted eudaimonic wellbeing and eudaimonic wellbeing orientation, as well as engagement in life. This indicates that a naive endorsement of stoic ideology might be detrimental to individuals’ wellbeing independent of the specific aspect.”

Well, thank Zeus I’ve never been attracted by a “naive endorsement of stoic ideology.” That’s because I practice upper-case Stoicism, not lower-case stoicism. I’m into the philosophy, in other words, not the macho attitude. Not only are the two unrelated, but in fact research from practitioners of cognitive behavioral therapy shows that the philosophy promotes eudaimonic well-being as well as engagement in life. The goal of Stoicism, after all, is to make us into the best human beings we can be, and it does so through the constant applications of two cardinal principles: the dichotomy of control and the four virtues.

Epictetus in the Enchiridion (or Manual for a good life) articulates the dichotomy of control:

Some things are within our power, while others are not. Within our power are opinion, motivation, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever is of our own doing; not within our power are our body, our property, reputation, office, and, in a word, whatever is not of our own doing. (Enchiridion 1.1)

The concept may be familiar because it pops up in a variety of other cultural traditions, from eighth-century Buddhism to 11th-century Judaism. The Serenity Prayer that begins many meetings at 12-step organizations captures the notion in modern terms:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

courage to change the things I can,

and wisdom to know the difference.

In essence, the idea is to internalize our goals: Instead of focusing, as it comes natural, on outcomes, let’s pay attention to our intentions and efforts. The Stoics think that the only truly good thing for us is our own character, and that therefore the only truly bad things are whatever may undermine our character. Everything else (including health, wealth, reputation, etc.) has value, but does not define who we are.

Both empathy and zest for life are positively connected with Stoicism.

Suppose I have a job interview coming up. I want the job, of course. But that’s not up to me. It depends on the interviewer, their priorities and mood, as well as on my competition. What I can devote my attention to, however, is putting forth an appealing resume, preparing an argument for why I am a good candidate, dressing appropriately, and skipping any late-night drinking with friends the night before.

Of course, efforts and outcomes are correlated, but a Stoic’s self-esteem lies entirely with her efforts. We ready ourselves mentally to accept whatever outcome with equanimity. The four virtues—practical wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance—help us in this aim. They form a sort of moral compass, ethically navigating us through whatever the world throws at us. Let’s say I witness my boss harassing a coworker. Should I intervene? Practical wisdom, the knowledge of what is truly good or bad for me, tells me that I should intervene, because not doing so would undermine my character (it would be cowardly). This requires courage, because my boss might retaliate. It is also the just thing to do, if justice is understood—as it is in Stoicism—as treating other people, like my coworker, fairly and with respect. Temperance, the notion that we should do things in the right measure, neither too much nor too little, means that I can’t just mumble something inaudible under my breadth (too little), but also that I shouldn’t punch my boss on the nose (too much).

Apply the dichotomy of control and the four virtues to everything you do and, as Epictetus promises, you will never be unhappy. You will be free, and you will live a life truly worth living. We all fall short of this ideal, of course. Yet trying to live up to it really works. My friend Tim LeBon, a London-based cognitive behavioral therapist and author, has done research on this to fight back against the “stiff upper lip” understanding of Stoicism. He’s also a member of the Modern Stoicism group (to which I belong as well). These are the people who for several years have organized the annual Stoicon conference, the opportunity to live like a Stoic for a week, and a more in-depth engagement called Stoic Mindfulness and Resilience Training. Thousands of people participate every year in these activities, and Tim and his collaborators collect data on the effect of Stoicism (the philosophy) on various aspects of wellbeing.


Sapolsky_TH-F1


Also in Philosophy  

The Reality of Color Is Perception

By Mazviita Chirimuuta

Philosophers have a bad reputation for casting unwarranted doubt on established facts. Little could be more certain than your belief that the cloudless sky, on a summer afternoon, is blue. Yet we may wonder in earnest, is it also blue…READ MORE

It turns out that practicing Stoics experience a statistically significant increase in measures of their well-being, with fewer episodes of negative emotions (like anger) and more episodes of positive emotions (like joy). Moreover, such reduction of anger does not take place by way of suppression (which is impossible), but because Stoic practitioners reframe what happens to them in terms that simply do not trigger angry reactions in them. “We stop having ethically misguided and intense or conflicted emotions (sometimes called ‘passions’) and we move toward having ‘good emotions,’” as the handbook for the 2020 edition of Stoic Week states. “The passions are misguided because the passionate person supposes that happiness depends on acquiring or retaining ‘preferred indifferents,’ such as wealth or fame (rather than on exercising the virtues).” This folly leads to anger, fear, or overwhelming lust, emotions often marked “by intensity of feeling, instability and inner conflict.”

In other words, everyday sorts of anger, fear, and the like affect Stoics less because we have realigned our priorities in life toward what we think really matters: being a good person and relating positively to other human beings. Wealth, reputation, and even health we take if they come, but we can do without if they go. Of course, no matter your philosophy, no one is emotionally immune to truly life-altering events. Even so, Stoicism can help us manage something that is terrifying, tumultuous, or deeply sad.

I’m into Stoicism the philosophy, not the macho attitude.

For instance, when my mother died, a few years ago, I was mentally and emotionally ready because of my ongoing Stoic practice. This didn’t mean that I wasn’t upset when I found out her terminal diagnosis, or that I didn’t grieve for her afterward. But it did mean that I was present, completely alert to what was going on, focused on spending as much time as possible with her before she went. I was also able to handle my grief and be helpful to my family during the painful but necessary arrangements that had to be made before and after her departure.

Predictably, Stoicism is linked to the four cardinal virtues, but the data also shows that other measures of character strength—including gratitude, kindness, hope, and love—are all positively associated with Stoic practice. Finally, both empathy and zest for life are positively connected with Stoicism, with zest actually increasing after just one week of practice.7

This all amounts to a circumstantial case that Stoicism is very different from stoicism. Do we have any direct empirical evidence? Yes, we do, again thanks to Tim’s systematic efforts.8

This year’s Stoic Mindfulness and Resilience Training saw about 5,000 people enrolled. They were given two questionnaires to measure their Stoicism (the Stoic Attitudes and Behaviors Scale) as well as their stoicism (the Liverpool stoicism scale, the one used in most psychological research). The results showed a slightly negative, but in fact statistically null, correlation between Stoicism and stoicism, contrary to what the psychologists and classics scholars I mentioned above state or imply. If you practice Stoicism, you are just not inclined toward sporting a stiff upper lip.

Moreover, after a month of training as a Stoic, one’s degree of philosophical Stoicism predictably increased, while the same people’s degree of “stoicism” decreased. Practicing the philosophy actually makes it less likely that people adopt the stiff-upper-lip attitude.

You might ask why anyone should embrace a philosophy of life that is more than two millennia old. Hasn’t human understanding advanced since? I could point out that other traditions—Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity—are also thousands of years old, and yet plenty of people find them invaluable.

But more importantly, all philosophies of life (including religions) inevitably and sometimes consciously change over time, and adapt to new socio-cultural environments. The ancient Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote:

Will I not walk in the footsteps of my predecessors? I will indeed use the ancient road—but if I find another route that is more direct and has fewer ups and downs, I will stake out that one. Those who advanced these doctrines before us are not our masters but our guides. The truth lies open to all; it has not yet been taken over. Much is left also for those yet to come. (Letters to Lucilius, 33.11)

Accordingly, modern Stoics are updating both their exercises9 and their general philosophy on the basis of the best that modern science and philosophical discourse have to offer. Stoicism’s answer to the question of how to live a good life began 24 centuries ago, but it is still very much evolving today. You may want to give it a try. No stiff upper lip required.

Massimo Pigliucci is the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York. His academic work is in evolutionary biology, philosophy of science, the nature of pseudoscience, and the practical philosophy of Stoicism. His books include How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life and Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. His most recent book is A Field Guide to a Happy Life: 53 Brief Lessons for Living.

References

1. Parker-Pope, T. And the Emmy goes to … my therapist. The New York Times (2020).

2. Hall, E. Why read Aristotle today? Aeon (2018).

3. Hillier, R. Control of pain in terminal cancer. British Medical Bulletin 46, 279-291 (1990).

4. Spiers, J. Expressing and responding to pain and stoicism in home-care nurse-patient interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 20, 293-301 (2006).

5. Moore, A., Grime, J., Campbell, P., & Richardson, J. Troubling stoicism: Sociocultural influences and applications to health and illness behavior. Health 17, 159-173 (2012).

6. Karl, J. & Fischer, R. Stoicism and wellbeing. PsyArXiv Preprints (2020). Retrieved from DOI:10.31234/osf.io/6rtny

7. LeBon, T. Stoic Week 2017 Report (part 2). Modernstoicism.com (2018).

8. LeBon, T. Report on SMRT 2020. Modernstoicism.com (2020).

9. Pigliucci, M. & Lopez, G. A Handbook for New Stoics Experiment Publishing, New York, NY (2019).

Lead image: Austin Mabe / Unsplash

Read More

10 تعليقات

  1. Stoicism seems to get a lot of positive attention on Hacker News. While I support more philosophical content on HN, there usually isn't as much criticism of stoicism as any other topic. In the spirit of delegating to others who know more than me, here is an excerpt about stoicism from Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil:

    > You desire to LIVE ‘according to Nature’? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, ‘living according to Nature,’ means actually the same as ‘living according to life’—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be?

    > In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature ‘according to the Stoa,’ and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise— and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is selftyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? …

    > But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to ‘creation of the world,’ the will to the causa prima.

  2. >Apply the dichotomy of control and the four virtues to everything you do and, as Epictetus promises, you will never be unhappy. You will be free, and you will live a life truly worth living. We all fall short of this ideal, of course. Yet trying to live up to it really works.

    That "really works" part is why approximately 80% of western therapists practice CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) which was pioneered by Albert Ellis and his team after inspiration from capital S Stoicism. Not psychoanalysis or any of the other popular 20th century approaches to the mental health of modern man, but a derivative of Stoicism that has proved very powerful.

    As someone who has been reading Stoic works for 5+ years and for the last two years practicing my own derivation on a daily basis, a part of me agrees that the conflating of the modern adjective stoic and the philosophy and approach of Stoicism is indeed unfortunate. However, I do not believe that this is the primary barrier to entry, but rather the fact that practicing the philosophy is hard, slow work. Just as effective CBT asks a lot of the patient, Stoicism is not a quick fix. In some ways I see the misnomer as a tiny hurdle to entry that weeds out those only interested in dialectic rather than the hard work of changing and crafting one's character.

    I would be dishonest if I didn't also point out that Ancient Stoicism has some fundamental problems that are also likely a barrier to the thoughtful. One of its founding pillars is a teleological universe which, thanks to advances in science, we now know to be false. Further, Stoicism glosses over aspects of human behavior (such as addiction and trauma) and is outdated in its approach to inter-community relations, approaching social contracts in the context of small, warlike city states (and later in the context of an authoritarian, imperialistic empire).

    A modern, widely adoptable descendant of Ancient Stoicism would be quite different and most certainly wouldn't be called Stoicism. In the end, I don't believe the layperson's misunderstanding of Stoicism needs to be fixed. Truth needs no defense – the predictive and eudaimonic power of Stoicism is there for anyone to pluck if they have the impulse to reach for it and the courage to do the hard work of applying and reforming the self, along with the philosophy.

    That said, it's awesome, you all should check it out.

  3. Nancy Sherman has written about how to balance Stoicism with modern life. In particular, with the idea of a stoic lack of emotion:

    "But the very numbness that can be so adaptive to survival, can also erect walls that stand in the way of human attachment and trust. I am all for Stoic teachings of empowerment of agency. But we are, as Marcus Aurelius knew well, citizens of the universe, attached to each other, and deeply affected by the social worlds and practices and institutions of which we are a part. To forget our membership and responsibilities in the social world and how that affects our life chances is to forget who we are."[1]

    I am by no means well-versed in Stoicism, just have found much of it useful personally. Sherman has done the best job I can find of speaking to striking a balance between stoic detachment but still maintaining the emotional connections that bond us as humans.

    [1]https://dailystoic.com/nancy-sherman/

  4. I have found that adopting stoic principles actually reduces my motivation to do anything. I think stoicism lacks the emotional content and passion that causes us to attempt great things. Of course, there may be grief and disappointment, but being detached at the outset seems to rob me of some of the impetus and grit required.

  5. A little ironic that the author, who is a person who has done a lot to popularize Stoicism (at least his take on it) is a man whose public behavior I would never associate with that term.This also applies to other stoicism popular writers like Tucker Max, Ryan Holiday and Tim Ferris. It reminds me of a research I read some years ago about how ethics professors were in average not more ethical than the average person.

  6. >Apply the dichotomy of control and the four virtues to everything you do and, as Epictetus promises, you will never be unhappy. You will be free, and you will live a life truly worth living. We all fall short of this ideal, of course. Yet trying to live up to it really works.

    Naturally, the obvious criticism is that while you may not be unhappy, it may an indication that you are not actually living. At best, you exist without allowing yourself to 'feel'. To live is to feel pain.

  7. I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. That is such a damaging idea. Anger can be unhealthy, but so can many other emotions including shame (which is often the alternative to anger). Anger can also be healthy – it is a signal from deep within that something in our environment must change. Anger is often the catalyst for making necessary change. Now of course too much anger is damaging, no question. But the dose makes the poison. A little anger at the right time can be transformative and it can be super healthy.

  8. My impressions from reading about stoicism have been

    – all of this is pretty obvious stuff, why all the books and discussions

    – it's weird to identify yourself with in ideology and call yourself "a stoic"

    I really don't get the hype about it.

  9. >If there is nothing you can do about a particular situation, why beat yourself up about it?

    because people who have a stake in things going a certain way, would prefer it to go that way. Otherwise why bother trying if you have no control over the outcome. If we're all going to die, which is h ultimate and final fate of everyone, why do anything? The problem with stoicism is it is kinda a dead end and it creates unrealistic expectations. Ideally, people would not worry so much about things outside of their control, but that is not how people work. Much of modern scientific progress hinges on people trying to control their environment, such as treating disease. Should we just give up on that.

ترك الرد

من فضلك ادخل تعليقك
من فضلك ادخل اسمك هنا