On Personal Thoughts About Personal Epistemology

There are, to my mind, only two ways of understanding the world: the senses and our reasoning.

About our senses, we know of our basic ones: touch, smell, hearing, ect. The foundations of understanding the world with our body. To this list, I also include our emotions. We feel them, sometimes rather deeply.

Our reasoning is how we understand the world with our mind. With this, we can build the foundation of our personal philosophies. It’s also elusive. We can’t sense our reasoning. Sometimes, our reasoning can invoke emotions, but that doesn’t mean we are sensing our reason.

Part of the debate, from what I can understand, is which of these ways of understanding best help us navigate the world. We have the rationalists, who chose reason, and the empiricist who chose our senses. Both make good points in their positions I’ll not write here, as they are many and sometimes beyond my grasp.

Yet, if I may, I’d like to propose a stance that not only combines the two, but shows that each need the other. I am not the first to come up with this idea. But, as far as I can near tell, there is no name for this stance.

In Christian theology, there is a term known as synergism. There is a debate in Christian theology about if people are saved by divine grace or by human effort. Synergism says, why not both? Rather than saying one must be right and the other wrong, the synergists say that it's some combination of the two. There may be debate about how much it involves one or the other, but it still comes down to the idea that both work together.

Given that it’s a religious form of what I’m proposing, let’s call this position of both empiricism and rationalism philosophical synergism.

Both our senses and our reasoning work together to form our understanding of the world. Our senses are our input. Without these, our reasoning minds wouldn’t have anything to work off of. Yet without our reasoning minds, we would have no way of filtering information.

Neither of these systems are perfect, even when working together. Reason can take us to the stars, our senses to the heights of ecstasy. But reason can also make crackpot sensible, our senses tricked by simple sleights of hand. Yet, on the whole, we can trust both when they work together. Think fallibilism: we can’t guarantee that we’re right, but that doesn’t mean we’re wrong, either. Our positions can always change given new information. That new information may come from our senses or from our reasoning mind.

(Side note: I just learned about fallibilism, so my broad understanding of it is that we can’t be sure about anything but knowledge doesn’t need absolute certainty. Board understanding is not, typically, great understanding, but as far as I can tell, it seems to be the case.)

Now, some may wonder if either reasoning or our senses pull more of the weight. It’s a fair question: is it more work to interpret our emotions, or do our senses work harder because we’d have no way to navigate the world? If I had to take a side, I’d side with our senses. Every animal survives by their senses. Very few use reason to navigate their lives. But then again, we might not be human at that point: most animals evolved to their environment. Humans had to adapt by using what was available, and that requires reason. So perhaps it isn’t as clear as one would hope.

I realize that this isn’t a formal philosophic argument. I am not a professional philosopher. I only play one on the internet. But I needed this more than you did: I needed to clarify my thoughts about how I knew what I knew. If we don’t know how we know, we fall prey to traps of both the mind and the body. Only by understanding ourselves can we spot the traps before they ensnare us.

On Pandemics and Reacting to Them

The Mad Stoic has been sleeping for a while. Let me check the news here…

Oh. Pandemic. Huh. Perfect.

OK, so the world is in a handbasket going to hell at the moment, so now seems a good time to come back to the blog. It’s only been…well, some time. I’ll not figure it out. And what a hell of a journey I’ve been on myself. But more on that some other time. Why don’t we look at how the world is and what we can do about it.

Current State of the World

It seems like half the world is panicking and the other half is acting like this is a hoax or overblown. This puts a Stoic in an interesting position. Obviously, the half that’s panicking is, to the Stoic, not the road to go down. While Stoicism is mainstream enough for us to not need an explanation why, I will do it anyway.

Stoicism teaches that emotions should be governed by reason and that negative emotions—such as panic—should be banished or at the very least corralled. Another way of putting is to say negative emotions such as panic are fine so long as you a) don’t act on it and, b) you remind yourself panic won’t help.

But does that mean Stoic sides with those who say all of this is overblown? The lack of toilet paper and other various sundries in the world show people are a little too invested in this. Why don’t they all calm down and let this blow over? Besides, the flu has killed more people! And this an election year, and something always happens! And…

The Stoic, as near as I can tell, isn't one of these people either. Many of the ancient Stoics lived through some horrible times, Marcus Aurelius having dealt with a plague himself. None of them denied anything happening or claimed proper measures were overblown. Sadly, Stoic epistemology isn’t my wheelhouse. I’ll leave it at they could probably see the horrible events happening around them and make a good guess it wasn’t fake. We of the modern world will have to take the word of various governments and institutions, weigh what we both know and believe about them, and go from there. At any rate, the Stoic would ask the important question: which is more likely, there’s a conspiracy going on or these people are paranoid?

So, while a Stoic wouldn’t panic, they wouldn’t go down the road of acting like this is all horse hockey. They’d be—shocker—level-headed about it. They wouldn’t buy toilet paper like it was some all-in-one survival tool, but they’d also wash their hands and not host giant parties.

Pandemics and Stoics

As usual, for pretty much anything, the Stoic would have you ask: is this in your control?

This is important, because it guides how you act through anything, not just pandemics. Now, unless you’re a god, you have no real power over the fact this is happening. You can’t wave a wand and make this go away. The Stoics would remind you this doesn’t make you powerless. To start, you can focus on you. How can you keep healthy? Not only in keeping the current virus at bay, but any illness. By keeping healthy, you free the time of the medical professionals who are, last I checked, damned overwhelmed right now.

Stoics also acted towards the public good, and perhaps this is the first time in history that public good was done by not being in public.

I Got Sick, Now What?

So you got the coronavirus. It happens even to the best of us. And with a mortality rate of a little over 4% worldwide, you stand a somewhat good chance of living, though maybe not unharmed.

But now is a good time to contemplate death.

See, the Stoics were a little obsessive about death. This is for good reason: conquer your fear of death, and what the hell else will scare you? Keep in mind, this doesn’t make things less unpleasant. Not fearing death doesn’t mean you enjoy being stuck by needles. Or perhaps you do, because the feel of the needle assures you you’re alive, like some strange little emo.

Perhaps you might think now is a good time to not ponder about death. Kind of have a lot on your plate, you know? And I understand. Shortness of breath and fever aren’t conducive to heavy thinking. Let’s be real: if you’re sick, unless the threat of dying in that moment is very real, just focus on getting better. Which, may I remind you, isn’t up to you. This is good. Means you can relax.

On (Short and Most Likely Wrong) Thoughts About the Modern Stoic Schools

Recently, I’ve been working on not only gaining a deeper understanding of Stoicism, but also how to use in modern life, as well as attempting to figure out if there is anything of the modern world that could be of some use to Stoicism. This attempt, of course, has me seeing Stoicism of today as two different schools: New Stoicism and Traditional Stoicism. The following, of course, may be a gross generalization that could be dispelled with a little work, but I find that the best way to find answers is to sometimes be wrong on the internet.

Traditional Stoicism

I also call this “religious” Stoicism, not because Stoics from this camp follow one faith or another, but rather they’re attempting to keep the physics side of Stoicism alive. This means keeping the idea of Providence going.

To the Traditional Stoic, dropping this aspect of Stoicism effectively changes it from a philosophy to a form of CBT psychology. You won’t find anyone (that I can tell) arguing that this isn’t useful, but rather that it just isn’t Stoicism.

This school, as far as I can tell, is attempting to fit new ideas into the framework of an old philosophy. They don’t ignore science or anything like that, but they also don’t ignore the physics of Stoicism. Providence is real and, through the use of both science and philosophy, attempt to prove this.

This school’s biggest challenge is overcoming the skepticism of most modern people. Providence, seemingly, plays no part in today’s world. Atheists find no need to for it and it seems a lot of theists see divinity more as a form of prosperity (“Pray to God for x, and pray like you mean it, and you’ll get x in some form or another!”).

New Stoicism

If Traditional Stoicism is about fitting new ideas into an old philosophy, New Stoicism is about fitting an old philosophy into new ideas. The Roman Stoics all but abandoned the logic side of Hellenistic Stoicism, and New Stoics abandoned the physics side.

A majority of New Stoics are atheist or agnostic (and before that debate starts, yes, I’m aware you can be both). For them, divinity just simply isn’t needed for Stoicism to exist. If, after all, an atheist derives the same benefits from Stoicism as one that believes in Providence, at what point did it stop being a valid philosophy?

This school’s biggest challenge is accounting for individual suffering. It can be hard to take Stoicism’s “medicine” about evil and overcoming it when the big Doctor in the sky isn’t around to dispense the treatment. When you try to take the cosmos as a whole, the atheist perspective can leave it a little cold whereas with the Providential view, the universe “provides” for you.

Final Thoughts

This is, as stated, my starting thoughts in this new understanding of Stoicism. I want to explore the way of the old schools and see if they can withstand the test of time. Personally, I think both schools have valid points about the other: I’m leery about outright ignoring one aspect of Stoicism, but it’s also hard to accept that the universe is looking out for us.

On the Dichotomy of Control vs. Trichotomy of Control

Side Note: I wrote this sometime last year and never posted it. So here goes.

I.

This essay, as the title points out, is a look at the Epictetus’s dichotomy of control and Irvine’s trichotomy of control. More to the point, just who the hell is right, anyway?

II.

Let’s look at Epictetus first.

Epictetus is straightforward about things. He says some things are in our control and some things aren’t in our control. And that’s it. Okay, it’s more than that, though not much more.

There’s only two things in our control: our opinions and our will. So whatever isn’t our opinion isn’t in our control. Will is our ability to influence over the world, including our own actions.

III.

Irvine is more nuanced in his idea. To him, there’s three things: things in our control, things not in our control, and things we have limited control over.

The example he gives is someone practicing for a tennis match. By practicing, our tennis player is exerting some control over the outcome because the player is improving their game. Ultimately, however, winning the match comes down to a lot of uncontrollable factors, such as if the weather plays in anyone’s favor, if the opponent is better or cheats, whatever.

IV.

The problem with Irvine’s trichotomy is that the third category is actually a part of things we control. We control if we practice or not, because it’s of our opinion that we can improve our game and we have the will to make ourselves do it. But as Irvine himself points out, the outcome isn’t up to the tennis player. So did the tennis player really exert control over fate? No. All they did was improved themselves, not their outcome.

Personally, it feels like Irvine is attempting to lessen the feelings of fate in Stoicism. If we have limited control over the world, it isn’t as big or strong as it seems.

V.

What it comes down to is Irvine’s trichotomy tries to make more categories of control than needed. For clarity, let’s go back to an old Stoic staple, the Stoic archer.

The old Stoics said that the archer didn’t control if their arrow hit the target or not. All the archer had control over was how much effort they put into doing their best. Practicing archery is one such way the archer could put effort into hitting the target. Yet there isn’t any amount of practice that will make that arrow hit.

This doesn’t make the archer’s practice worthless. For what it’s worth, the archer improves by practicing. And while the archer that practices has a better chance of hitting their target, once that arrow leaves, it isn’t up to the archer anymore.

VI.

For all the blustering I just did, there’s one caveat that turns all this around and makes Irvine right.

See, for Epictetus to be right, you must accept the traditional Stoic position on fate: that everything is up to the gods. No amount of practice would matter. If the gods wanted you to hit your target or win your tennis game, so be it. You could practice, but for your own sake.

However, a lot of atheist Stoics don’t buy this concept of fate. For them, fate is more like probability. There are certain odds of doing something and a certain odds of doing said thing successfully. So, going back to the archer, you have certain odds of hitting the target. You can’t know the exact number as it involves a lot of unseen factors. However, you can improve your odds in different ways, such as practicing, buying a better bow, better arrows, and so on. Here, Irvine is right. We can change the odds—perhaps even in our favor—and so we have some control over the world.

VII.

How you see fate determines who is right, and who is wrong. Believe fate is divinely determined, and Epictetus is right. Believe fate is numbers, and Irvine is right.

I’ll be frank. When I started out on this, I was attempting to prove Irvine wrong. In fact, over at the Mountain Stoic (who has a wonderful post on this very subject), I commented that I disagreed with Irvine. However, having taken the time to think over how things played out, I had no choice but to agree with Irvine. I’m an atheist Stoic, you see. I’m one of those that see fate as probability. Given that you can change probability into your favor (such as by practicing), I had to concede. For me, Irvine is right: I have some control over external events.

However, this doesn’t mean I have to get wrapped up in the outcome of said external events. I still do not make something happen. I can only improve the odds of making something happen.

VIII.

And I’ve yet another thought on the subject! Whilst working, I got to thinking about the fact that we can’t know the odds to any event. Sure, there are some smart people out there that can make a good guess at it. But as anyone who’s lost a sure bet knows, there isn’t anything concrete about odds.

Now, seeing as the numbers are a total mystery to us and even something that is “sure” to happen can be screwed up, it’s fair to say that we don’t really know the numbers. And what is the difference between not knowing the numbers and having no control over the outcome? Nothing.

In this sense, Epictetus is right. No amount of planning can give you a sureness to the world around you. You can, however, have a sureness about the fact you practiced. In fact, you can say that at the very least, you tried to improve your odds and still accept that it’s not up to you to succeed in what you do.

IX.

Okay, that’s it. I’m done. Here’s what I got.

The Dichotomy is right if: you think something like God or Fate controls everything or you think the uncertainty of odds makes it impossible to put the odds in your favor due to too many other unforeseeable events.

The Trichotomy is right if: despite not being able to know the odds, you think you can influence them through your actions.

For me, the dichotomy proves true.

On "Real" Stoicism

I.

I was listening to the Painted Porch podcast, specifically episode 8. In this episode, they tackle the question of just how needed a god is to Stoicism. I remember the Facebook kerfuffle that happened, too. If I remember correctly, I saw a lot of the phrase “real Stoic” being thrown around.

While the main focus of the episode is an interesting topic, it's the idea of “real” Stoicism that got me thinking more. Just what is this “real” Stoicism that we sometimes hear about?

To be clear, since the fighting died down, I don't think I've seen this talked about since. But it could also rear its head again at any time, because any big enough disagreement seems to bring out the true Scotsmen. So, just what is “real” Stoicism?

II.

See, this all depends on who we ask. Today, you might get a lot of answers. “Those who follow Stoics ethics are real Stoics.” “Those who follow Stoic physics are real Stoics.” Oh, poor Stoic logic. Nobody seems to give two damns about you anymore.

Ask a Roman Stoic and they might be a little confused. “How could you guys be real Stoics if you ignore this part or that? Atheists, you ignore the physics. What good does that do you? And religious folk, you impose your religion's ethics on top of Stoic ethics. What's that all about?”

Then's there Zeno. “Hey, where's all the orgies I wrote about?”

III.

It's hard to find out what “real” Stoicism is these days. We've lost much of the history. That's what it got for being a “pagan” philosophy, after all. But from what we know, Stoicism changed much since it's time of the hippy Zeno, the boxer Cleanthes, to the slave Epictetus and emperor Marcus. In fact, we can say “real” Stoicism changed with each new head. Refined, if you will.

It's hard to say what Stoicism looked like when Zeno started it. In fact, it's hard to point out a consistent philosophy besides the basics. And without a head for the school, we'll never get back the unified philosophy of old. And we'll never agree on everything, not any more.

IV.

This isn't a bad thing. Not at all. In fact, it could help out school. By disagreeing with each other, we must refine our own positions or concede loss. If we aren’t will to do either, we’re missing the point of philosophy.

V.

In short, there’s no real Stoicism anymore than there is a “real” Scotsmen. In fact, the only real Scotsmen are, well, actual Scotsmen. And the only “real” Stoics died a long time ago. We modern folk are just picking up pieces they left behind.

Thoughts on Book 1

Today, I want to talk about the first book of Meditations.

When's the last time we thought about why we are thankful for people in our lives? Sure, we may be thankful for our parents and loved ones, but how many of us can sit down and say why, exactly, we are? I sure as hell couldn't.

That's why, even though it's a little boring, the first book is, when considered all at once, one of the more interesting books. He was able to sit and list various people in his life and consider what it was that made them so important.

It isn't just that his mother was his mother that he was thankful. He accredits her for teaching him reverence, generosity, and living simply. He thanks his great-grandfather for teaching him the importance of good private tutors. He even thanks a man named Rusticus for showing him he needed to learn discipline, a man he later states he was often upset with.

Isn't that interesting? He thanks people that, with good odds, butted heads with him often. When's the last time we felt thankful for people in life that upset us that much? Never, I'm willing to say.

And get a load of some of the things he thanks the gods for:

• that he had a good family
• that he didn't lose his virginity too early (and as he puts it, delayed losing it)
• that he wasn't more talented in rhetoric or poetry, because if he had improved, he wouldn't have given them up
• that his body held out
• that he never did anything to Rusticus (you know, the one that pissed him off) that he would have regretted
• that his mother spent her last few years with him, despite dying young
• that he could always lend money without worrying about being told no
• that he had dreams that helped him cure illnesses he had
• and, lastly, “All things for which 'we need the help of fortune and the gods.'”

This is why I have a hard time thinking that Marcus was as depressed as some made him sound. Someone that takes the time to be thankful for so much had to realize a reason for thankfulness. This was a man that was thankful for putting off the loss of his virginity, something I think would surprise most young men these days.

I think, even if we read no other part of this book, we can learn more than enough from this.

It got me to wondering, though. Did he write this part all at once? The rest of the books was sort of like an undated journal, him just writing when the fancy hit him. I wonder if he does the same for this book. Was it written over time? One week? One year? An hour? Who knows.

I think we can all learn something here about being thankful. Here was the most powerful man in Rome thanking others for teaching him a sense of humor or showing strength in illness. And yet we of lesser status get mad that the fast food clerk forgot a packet of ketchup.

So, who can we be thankful for in life?

On East and West

I was listening to the radio, which in of itself is nothing special. I heard a song about some guy who had found new life in Christ, but was afraid of his old self coming back and ruining all that. He asks, “How far is east from west?”

The man was singing and said that the difference was from one hand to the other. But I don't quite think that hits the mark. Why? Because vice and virtue (as well as sin and righteousness) is a journey, not one side or the other. How far is east from west?

One single step.

One step is all that's needed to go from one direction to another. You don't even have to turn around: even walking backwards counts.

I feel that this is the way the path of virtue is. It's long and narrow. It only goes one way. And, as it turns out, a lot of things like to block that path.

Little wonder, then, it's so tiring and hard to become a Sage, to be like Christ, this, that, and the other thing. It's far easier to turn around, find another way, go around, whatever, than it is to keep on the path. And I think Stoics have it harder than the Christians. At least Christians believe there's a reward at the end. A Stoic without religion, atheist or theist, doesn't have that same promise.

Thankfully, the path of virtue will always be there, waiting for us to get back on it. It doesn't blame us for taking an easier path from time to time. It knows that if we are truly good people, we'll admonish ourselves for taking the paths of vice. And if we aren't that good, well, that by itself is its own punishment.

How far is virtue from vice? The same distance between east and west.

Week 7: Marcus Aurelius's Deconstruction

Besides being one of the most accessible Stoic writings, Meditations also has some of the best examples of how to practice Stoicism. This week, we're going to focus on one such tactic: deconstruction.

Break It Down

The idea behind deconstruction is simple: break down an object to simple terms. Marcus did this well, to the point that the stuff he deconstructed looked disgustingly absurd. For example, he took his royal robes, dyed purple, and explained to himself that it was nothing more than sheep's hair and urchin blood.

Oh, that's not that bad. I hear you. But what about what he said about the fancy foods he ate at dinner? He thought of them as bits and pieces of rotting flesh and plant matter, warmed up. Wine is nothing more than smashed and rotten grapes. Sex is nothing more than two people rubbing genitalia together and making odd noises in the hopes of inducing muscle contractions and the secretion of certain bodily fluids.

All I'm saying is, Marcus Aurelius ruined my sex life.

Buddhist Overlap

Some readers might recognize this exercise in Buddhism. In order to help break our attachment, Buddhists say we should imagine things in a decaying state, much in the same way Marcus did. See the food as moldering. When having sex, see your partner turn old and decay into nothingness.

Enlightenment, it seems, is learning how to hate sex.

You know, this doesn't seem all that fun.

Yeah, no, it isn't. But it is valuable.

Like Buddhists, Stoics cation against placing too much value into anything. For Buddhists, it's about avoiding attachment. For Stoics, it's for making sure we don't believe something other than virtue to be a good.

But this can also go the other way, too. Breaking things down can prove to you something isn't bad, either. What is pain but your brain letting you know something is wrong with your body? Fever is just the warming of the body.

Jealous of someone? Is it because of their money? Nothing more than little bits of paper. No, not even that, not anymore. Just little bits of data on some bank's computer. Their job? I'm sure you can find a way.

Like a lot of Stoic practices, the more you do something, the easier it becomes. Forcing yourself to see food as rotting might turn your stomach. That is, until it doesn't anymore and it's just one of those things you do.

Do this long enough and it'll become second nature. At least, it did for me. You won't even have to try.

The Challenge

In your journal, I want you to do your best to deconstruct something. Start small: try a food you've been wanting to avoid or a gadget you want to distance yourself from. It doesn't have to be intentionally disgusting, though when it comes to organic objects, odds are it'll end up that way. There's just no way to see meat as something other than a dead animal.

Next Thursday, I want us all to share one entry.

On Musonius and Food, Part 1

This essay is more of a breakdown of the lecture Musonius gave about food. As a fat Stoic, food is of keen interest to me, more than any other subject. This essay focuses on part A. In it, I try to just both sum up and expand on what Musonius is talking about. 

I.

The first thing that strikes me about Musonius and food is his seeming anger about it. I mean, here's just a few quick quotes:

“He often talked in a very forceful manner about food...”

“We thought that this lecture about food was rather unlike the lectures Musonius customarily gave.”

Now, I can't say for certain, but something tells me Musonius wasn't one to just go off on a tangent. Yet shortly after the first quote, it's suggested that he didn't bother with his normal topics and instead spoke about food.

But it's the second quote that hits me most. Why was this lecture so unlike the others? This is a man who felt the need to tell men that they shouldn't shave their beards or cut their hair. Him telling people what to do doesn't seem to be the problem. No, I'm willing to bet what make it so unlike his other lectures is that he was actually angry about it.

So, my question is, why?

II.

Of course, there's no way of knowing why. Maybe he was a porker before becoming a Stoic and carried a hatred for food when he did because it controlled his life. Maybe he was sickened by the way the Romans ate. Or maybe I'm over-thinking this part. All I know is that this lecture stiffened my spine. And provides one of the few “practical” applications of Stoicism.

III.

He starts his lecture in a logical way. Choose cheaper foods over more expensive ones (I kid you not, there is a $5k hamburger out there). Choose foods that are easy to get over hard to get. And, lastly, choose foods that are good for humans over foods that aren't.

Simple, isn't it?

IV.

Well, not quite. See, Musonius felt there were only so many foods that were suitable for human consumption. Foods that didn't need to be cooked were the best. Fruits, cheese, honeycombs, things like that. Some cooked foods were a-okay, too. Bread, certain veggies, things of that nature.

V.

Perhaps you noticed that there wasn't any meat listed up there. That's because Musonius didn't think meat was human food. Sure, you can use animal byproducts like milk and eggs. But don't you dare eat that animal.

However, the argument Musonius puts out is, well, weak in today's world. He argues that meat makes people stupid and that the smoke from cooking it darkens one's soul. He also goes on to say that, because humans are closely related to the gods, we should eat like they do. The gods eat vapors from the earth and water, because yeah, sure. Whatever. But we should eat foods that are “light and pure” and meat just isn't that.

As you can see, talk of soul and gods falls flat in a secular age. As for if meat makes you stupid, there's been suggestions that the eating of meat does the brain a whole host of good.

It does get me wondering, though, how Musonius would argue this in a more modern age. Odds are, he would choose the religious route, which may convince some. I couldn't think of any good secular reasons, at least none that would make me give up meat all the way.

VI.

Now, when it comes to the pull food has in our lives, Musonius says we're worse than “brute animals.” This, perhaps, is both the most convincing and funniest. Convincing, because he says that while animals may wildly go after food, they aren't too picky about it. Humans, on the other hand, can be just as wild, yet act very fussy about it. The need to pretty up our food and come up with “tricks to...better amuse our palate” points to our absurd behavior towards food.

I can give you an example of this. Ever hear of the orange roughy? It's it type of fish that many people seem to like and can get a little pricey. Yet for the longest time, you couldn't find it anywhere as food, nor would anyone want to eat it. Why? Because before its name change, it was known as the slimehead. It was a marketing trick to make our brains think we're eating something tasty.

The reason I find this section so funny as well is because he talks about the dangers of – get ready for it – cookbooks. But it makes sense when you think about. This is a man who's idea about cooking is little more than boiling some veggies and baking some bread. Recipes, and the cookbooks they come in, are unnecessary.

VII.

Actually, wait, maybe this section is funnier. Picky eaters who eat rich foods are, he says, like pregnant women. Why? Because they eat weird combinations of food. According to him, both pregnant women and picky eaters can't tolerate regular food. Of course, I think Musonius is being a little harsh on pregnant women.

Now, this part is a little confusing for me. He speaks of people's appetites needing to be sharpen by unmixed wines, vinegar, and tart sauces. Appetite, in this case, isn't just being hungry. It's one's willingness to eat even if hungry. And I'm also assuming he's saying people need various sauces and shit to make the food more appealing and, thus, increase their willingness to eat.

So, in short, he's saying picky eaters that need to spice up their food in order to eat it, even if they are hungry, are strange for just not eating the food for the way it is. At least, that's what I'm getting out of it.

In any case, he tells of a story of a Spartan and a picky eater. Mr. Picky refuses to eat a expensive, fat, and tender bird because he didn't have an appetite. Now, it's obvious this guy was there to eat, so he was hungry. But it wasn't good enough for him. The Spartan, though, sneered at the man and said, “I could eat both a vulture and a buzzard.” To Mr. Picky, food needed to be just right. To the Spartan, food was just right.

VIII.

To finish off Part A, Musonius talks about Stoicism's founder, Zeno. In another story, he tells us that when Zeno fell ill, his doctor ordered him to eat young doves. Zeno refused, noting how slaves weren't treated in such a manner, yet somehow managed to get better. To quote, “A good man won't expect to be coddled, any more than a slave does.”

He also says that Zeno avoided gourmet foods because, like a drug, all you need is a taste to get hooked. (I can almost see a Stoic anti-drug message, but for food. “This is your brain. This is your brain on gourmet food.”)

That's it for Part A. Part B will either be sometime later this week or next week. There will be a part 3, in which I talk about some things I infer from all this, as well as a more modern Stoic approach towards food.

Week 6: Stoic Art

Create some Stoic art.

It isn't often we think about Stoicism and art. Try as I might, I can't think of too many lines of text where any of the major Stoics even spoke of it.

Yet when I was watching a video of Erik Wiegardt and saw in the background a man with a triangle body painted and hung on the wall, it seemed to me art had philosophical value. I later listen to an interview in which he explained it, though for the life of me, I can't remember the reason why he painted it. But it did get me thinking that art would be a good way to express Stoic ideas.

A few years ago, I drew a picture I called the Stoic Sage. It's a simple painting, but it has meaning to me:

The Sage is a circle because it represent completeness. The V is for virtue. The halo means the sage is a good person. To you, it might look like the paintbrush kind of just fell wherever. Ah, but that's art, isn't it?

The thing about this challenge is that you don't have to be good at art at all to do this. This is just some simple shapes, yet I'm happy with the result because it reminds me every time I look at it what it means.

The Challenge

This week I want you to draw some Stoic concepts. One a day, if possible.

Maybe a line from Meditations caught your eye. I remember reading a line about how one should be a like a cliff-side taking the ocean on, never moving. So I drew a little cliff-side with little waves hitting it.

Here's some ideas for you, to kick you off:

• The Stoic Sage
• In Harmony with Nature
• Memento Mori
• The View from Above

Now, once you've done a few, choose one to frame and put on the wall. Maybe even share it here or anywhere else.

How's the Journals?

Alright, I'm going to admit it; I haven't been keeping up with mine. I was doing it once a week as a reflection, but it wasn't working too well as the habit never stuck. But thanks to this post on r/Stoicism, I've renewed by effort in making it an everyday thing.

Week 5: Renounce

Renouncement. It sounds like such an archaic concept, doesn't it? Sure, these days we may “give up” things these days, but it doesn't quite have the same impact as renouncing something.

Renouncement is somewhat different than giving something up, though, yes, it does mean letting things go. It also means to reject something, to disown something. Disown. That's a harsh term, isn't it? Parents disown their kids and that's pretty much the only time we use that word.

I touched a bit on this in the last post about endurance. I talked about how I gave up my gaming system and had to deal with the subsequent feelings. I wouldn't call this renouncement, though, because I didn't give it up for my own good, but rather because we, uh, we bought a cavy. We needed the money.

However, if I disowned the system, I would have gotten rid of it because it was eating up my life. Even though I enjoy playing games and still do, I would have gotten rid of it for myself personally.

Of course, there's bigger things we can renounce in our lives, too. Perhaps we stop a certain way of living because, even though it may feel good, it ends up destroying your world and maybe even others. Maybe you renounce a job because of stress, even if it pays very well.

Okay, but how is this really all that different from giving something up?

To answer that, let me tell you a few things.

I just finished reading Level Up Your Life by Steve Kamb, of Nerd Fitness fame. He speaks of calling his goals in life “quests” because there's a more heroic quality to them by saying that. It motivated him to live his life out like a video game.

Gretchen Ruben, author of The Happiness Project, calls some of her activities meditations. She isn't just standing in life, it's her “line standing meditation.” She isn't just writing, but her “writing meditation.” It helps her focus more and gives her an almost Buddhist-like patience, even if for only a little while.

The same could be said of renouncement. There's an almost mystical quality, something a monk does. There's something to be said about adding more profundity to life, even if you're the only person that knows you're doing it.

The Challenge

Like last week, this one's hard to make people do. Some people don't have much to renounce to begin with. Others don't even know where to begin. So this is going to be part challenge, part journal.

If you can think of something to renounce, try it. If you have given something up, write about it.

Yeah, that's all I got for this week. These past two weeks haven't been so much of a challenge as it was a spiritual exercise.

#stoicliving2016

So I have to thank Aubrey Portwood for this idea because I never would have thought of it.

For everyone who feels like sharing their progress during the Year of Stoic Living, use #stoicliving2016 to let everyone know in the community.

Mr. Portwood posted his Week 2 and Week 3 experience over at his blog, https://medium.com/@aubreypwd. And if anyone else is publicly writing a journal or feels like talking about how they doing so far, let me know!

Week 4: Endure

For the next two weeks, we're going to focus on a paraphrased saying of Epictetus: Endure and renounce.

For the fourth week, we're going to focus on “Endure.” In order to do that, we have to know what that means in a Stoic sense.

Stoics were known for enduring a lot in life. Epictetus endured pain. Cato endured moral corruption. Marcus endured wars and traitors. And this isn't even to count all the nameless Stoics whose lives were filled with their own personal woes that had to be confronted and survived.

It might sound like the Stoics were sort of pushovers that let life do pretty much whatever it want to do. The thing is, endurance of problems doesn't mean you don't try to change anything. Cato fought the corruption he saw. Marcus forgave the traitors and did his best to end the wars. And Epictetus, unable to do much for the pain, focused instead on changing his thoughts about his pain.

Enduring is a concept seemly missing in today's world, at least as far as I can see. People openly complain about coworkers they don't like, making themselves and others around them miserable. If they don't like their job, they'll let everyone short of the people that can fire them know. Don't like your elected officials? TO THE INTERNET! Surly airing one's political views on Facebook will calm your ire.

Except, none of it does. Oliver Burkeman, author of the book The Antidote, cites a study suggesting that airing your dirty laundry to everyone – also know as letting off steam – can keep the feelings fresh. Plus, when other people can give you input, they also might give you even more reasons to be upset.

But endurance, as I said, isn't just rolling over. Is your coworker impacting how you work, or how well your job goes? If not, well, maybe you just let it go or muster the courage to talk directly to them. If they truly are a problem, talk – not whine – to management. Don't like your job? Quit, or work on finding a new one. Mayor Jim Bob McCoy passes a law you don't like? Write to Jim Bob. Protest Jim Bob. Let Jim Bob know.

Endurance helps us in other ways, too. For one thing, it helps build up our willpower. If we start a new diet or try to quit smoking or drinking, we're going to have to endure cravings, people possibly teasing us, and having to learn new ways to cope with the problems these things might have help us solve once. If we seek a new path in life – liking trying to write a novel or going back to college later in life – you might have to deal with mocking, uncertainty, and pushing past failures.

Endurance is a skill we all can learn. It's also something that, if weak, can be made stronger. It will also help you with next week's task: renounce.

There aren't too many ways we can build this skill up in life voluntarily, but here are a couple of suggestions:

• Try to keep complaining down to a minimum. I've tried this one and, let me tell you, it's not as easy as it seems.
• Quit doing something you find rewarding, but it impacts your life negatively. Video games were this for me for awhile. I'd play for hours, ignoring work I wanted to do as well as my wife and son. I sold the system I had (which plays into renouncing) and was able to quit for awhile. Now that I can play games again, though, I feel it creeping back up on me.

That's it for now. Next week, we're going to tackle renouncing. I'm also looking for ideas for week 6, so keep those suggestions coming.

Year of Stoic Living, Week 3: Create a Motto

I'd like to apologize for this getting posted late. My son has been sick lately and the doctor we've been seeing has been prompt, yet a little inattentive. So we took him to the hospital. Needless to say, he missed the strep throat my son has. Because of this, I'm not going to make this one too long.

Anyway, here's this week's post.

Stoic Memories

Part of the Stoic training of old included coming up with way to remembering the teachings in times of need. It's was hard to remember the entirety of The Discourses while in the middle of a war, in times of extreme distress, or any time that makes thinking too philosophical too hard.

The best way to remember something is to make it simple.

The Challenge

Okay, this one is simple, more for preparing for future troubles.

Choose some texts to read for this week. It could be from one philosopher, one text, whatever. It doesn't even have to be a Stoic text. Anything that inspires mental calm or moral fortitude in you will work.

Read however much you'd like or until you get inspired.

For example, having read Letter 1 of Seneca's, I came up with “I am dying everyday.” It reminds me that my life is short.

Like I said, I'm going to have to cut this short this week. I just wanted to have this posted for you guys.

Year of Stoic Living, Week 2: Negative Visualization

A lot of people like beginning the New Year contemplating all the good that might come into their lives. Everyone thinks about the weight they'll lose, the many book they'll read, and in general about the better people they'll become. But how many of us keep in mind that a New Year could mean things becoming worse, too?

We could lose loved one. We may lose our jobs. Our homes. There's as much hope in the New Year as there is dread. But most don't take this fact to heart. And I think this is what causes most people to stop improving themselves. Because they forget the other half of hope, dread overcomes them the second something bad happens.

Let's try to change that up by taking the time to think of what may go wrong with our resolutions.

How to Negatively Visualize Our Resolutions (or Personal Goals)

This isn't about being Sadness from Inside Out. We're not just thinking about the worst that could happen. We're also thinking of ways to deal with the worst.

Let's take the common resolution of weight loss. We already know the best outcome: we lose weight. But what's the worst outcome? We gain weight. And can we deal with that? By being careful observers of what gave us more weight. Maybe you binged. Maybe you have a food addiction problem. Whatever the case is, doing our best to detail what could go wrong and plan accordingly will help ease the emotions we may feel in our darkest times.

One way to make this process is to make a flow chart, like this:

Yes, I know. It's amazing.

Maybe a flow chart isn't your thing. You could make a bad things outline:

• Resolution 1
  • Bad Outcome 1
    • Fix 1
    • Fix 2
  • Bad Outcome 2
    • Fix 1
    • Fix 2
    • Fix 3

As a general point, you might not want to tackle too many resolutions at once. And you should also keep in mind there isn't always a fix. Sometimes we fail and there's just nothing we can do but start over. Or perhaps our goal just isn't realistic.

But maybe you aren't a resolution kind of person. Maybe the resolution you have is to pick up the habit of negative visualization.

How to Do Negative Visualization

I've already written a post on this subject if you want to go more in-depth on the subject of why we should and how to do it. However, I'll do a quick and dirty version here for you.

This one is a little harder if you ask me, because it's not failure of minor goals we're focusing on. We're focusing on the things in life we could lose.

People could die. We could die. Bad things happen.

Much like with our resolutions, sometimes by thinking of the worst that can happen, we can think of ways to fix it ahead of time so that, when it happens, so can quickly try to take control. But more often than not, these bigger loses aren't about us being able to fix it. It's about being able to cope with the bad happening.

What if you were dying? Odds are, there's no fix for this. But there are ways to cope. There are ways to make it easier on you and others. The first step is to acknowledge that this may happen this year.

This doesn't have to be one of those things you do every year or even that long. Sometimes, the simple acknowledgment of something going wrong is enough to give us the ability to cope. A sticky note with the words I'm dying everyday placed somewhere you can see it might be enough to change how you live your life. Perhaps you want to take a half-hour once a week and pick something to think about. All you have to do is find what works for you.

The Challenge

• Choose a resolution you made and make a flow chart or outline (or whatever) of things that could wrong. Make sure you include ways to cope and/or fix failures. Have this flow chart somewhere you can find it when you fail so you can remind yourself of your fixes and coping tacit. Aren't the type to make resolutions? Choose a personal goal of yours.
• Pick up the habit of negative visualization. Figure out how often you want to do it and a way you want to do.

Your Journal

Just so we're clear, your journal doesn't have to be everyday. You could write once a week, once a day, once every five minutes, whatever. And it doesn't always have to be about the challenge, either. It could be how you used Stoicism or want to start using Stoicism. I like to do mine once every other day or so, at least once a week.

A Facebook and Subreddit

Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/yearofstoicliving/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/YearofStoicLiving/

Next Week...

We'll see...

Short Post: Action and Inaction

I saw an interesting comic over on Reddit the other day that sums up something I never realized really until just today:

We make the lives we want not only by what actions we take, but also by what actions we don't take.

I guess that thought was always in the back of my mind, but it never really came out until now. While there is a lot to say about what actions we do take, I think we can sometimes found out more about ourselves by the actions we don't take. It also speaks a lot about what we say to ourselves.

For example, for the longest time, I've been determined to become a fiction writer. Or so I thought.

See, for all the complaining I do about having to deal with bosses, by not having enough time to do what I want with life, by everything I say really, I thought that somehow, one day, maybe something would click.

The only think that clicked was my mouse as I played video games.

See, my mouth might have been saying I wanted to be a writer, but my actions said I wanted to be a seafood clerk that pretends to really love his job but really just sort kind of like it. My actions tell me that I actually want to be an inattentive father who pretends he's just doing one more thing on the computer, trust me son, I'll be right with you, but oh look, I'm just checking this game out one last time.

My lack of actions as a writer, a father, and as a man who wants to be free of the 9-5 crap tell me that much as well.

“People pay for what they do, and still more, for what they have allowed themselves to become. And they pay for it very simply: by the lives they lead.” -James Baldwin

I would add one more line: People pay for what they don't do, too.

Year of Stoic Living, Week 1: Cold Showers

Wow. Just, wow. I didn't think you guys would go down this route for the first week. But cold showers won, so...

Really? I have to freeze my ass off? For what?

Yes, but it isn't as bad as you think it is.

First, let's start with some non-Stoic reasons to take a cold shower.

• It's good for the blood. Taking a cold shower makes your blood run towards your organs to warm them up. Heat it up and your blood goes to your skin to keep your innards cool.
• It can make you happier. A quick cold shower releases a chemical in your brain that helps battle depression.
• According to some, it'll help you lose weight. The cold increases metabolism, which works those calories right off. You know, if you're into that sort of thing.

There are other reasons, but what does this mean for the Stoic? Why should taking a cold shower be considered a philosophical practice?

For starters, cold showers aren't know for being fun. I've taken a few myself just for the experience of it and still find myself gasping like a ninny, thinking that maybe, somehow, I'll be better about it. But, no, just as bad as before.

Which makes it great for confronting discomfort in a safe way. After all, there are good odds that a cold shower isn't going to kill you. Sure, maybe if you have a heart problem, the jolt could be too much. But for most of us, all it's going to be is a jolt. It doesn't hurt. It just sucks.

For a Stoic, this is ideal. Few things in your life is going to suck as much as a cold shower. Your day to day is not likely to be so disastrous and terrible that the cold shower is actually the best part of your day. Boss is getting on your case? Traffic is terrible? Well, at least they're not ice cold water running down your back.

Learning to deal with discomfort in this controlled way trains you to do better when other discomforts come along without warning. And it doesn't take much to train this skill, either.

How to Take A Cold Shower

There are few ways you can take a cold shower.

• Just blast the ice and jump in. This is how I do it as taking a hot shower first lessens my chances of turning it to cold. It'll be the quickest shower you'll ever take, though. Get wet, get soapy, get rinsed. Out in a few minutes.
• Do what the Art of Manliness calls the “James Bond shower”: Start hot to get wet and soapy, then turn it ice cold to rinse off. Supposedly, this is better for getting cleaned, as the hot water opens the pores to clean out the dirt and the ice water closes them up tight to keep dirt out.
• Turn the cold water on to the point where it's annoying enough. This is good for your first time and how I used to do it. Start off like you'd take a shower normally, then get it so the cold is just a little colder than you'd like it.

How often should you do this? The Art of Manliness suggests taking a cold shower at least once a day. Personally, I think this is a bit much, but for this week, try to take one once a day if at all possible, barring anything that might prevent this (currently, our shower is being rebuilt, so to be honest, I'll have to start later this week). Afterwards, do it at least once a month.

Oh, One More Thing

You're starting a journal. No, you can't wiggle your way out of this.

I've avoided this one for a long time, too. But one of the best ways to keep habits we want is to monitor what we're doing and one of the best ways to do that is journal about what we're doing.

It doesn't have to be major. It could be at the end of the week, every other day, whatever. It's could be a paragraph or a full-fledged thesis. Whatever it takes for you monitor yourself and get your own feedback on how you're doing.

Anything Else?

Yeah, one more thing. I want to try to do a Google Hangout once a week, but I can't promise a certain date or anything like that. Retail makes that hard. But this is meant to be a group project, something we all have a say in, so I'd like it if we got together when we can and talk about how we're doing and where we want to go.

Next Week

Negative Visualization. It's good to practice the basics.

On Choosing Your Poison

So it's five days until the New Year and I realized something about myself.

I'm terrible at planning.

See, I've been working on the Mad Stoic's Stoic Year of Living for a few months now and I've come up with very little. Oh, I've got things we can do, but I couldn't figure out how to structure it. Was there a logical way to do things? And what gave me the right ideas about how to structure?

And what was the best way to get people involved with the project? I wanted people to give feedback so we could make sure the project helped out as many people as possible.

I racked my brain and I think I've come up with something.

You guys are going to choose the first challenge.

Here's how it's going to work: I'm going to present two tasks. One will be Mental tasks and one will be Physical tasks. Mental tasks will concern themselves with things that don't require much of your body, visualizations and journaling. Physical tasks will challenge your body, like cold showers.

The task you guys pick will be your first task that week. The other option will become next week's.

And while I have many ideas, I want you guys to give me input. I'd rather do what you guys would rather focus on than just my thoughts.

Enough yammering out of me, though. Here are your options:

Negative visualizations. Everyone starts the New Year thinking of all the good things that will come to them. Not us. We'll spend the first week tackling all the things all that could go wrong. (Mental)

Cold showers. It's been a warm winter this year. Let's cool things off. (Physical)

The poll is located on the side and closes 12/31/15 at noon.

Looking forward to spending the New Year will all of you.

On the Paris Attacks

A few nights ago, my sister-in-law mentioned in passing that Paris was under attack. To her, it was no big deal. However, the journalist in me couldn't let it pass. I logged onto Reddit and thought that it couldn't be any worse than the Charlie Hebdo attack.

Time proved me wrong.

At the time of this writing, 132 were dead and at least 89 were in critical condition, so it's quite possible this number can jump much higher. It's a great loss of life that shocked even my normally Stoic self.

Over on r/Stoicism, someone asked how a Stoic would cope with something like this. Stoicism, like Socrates, teaches that no one willingly does evil. Rather, they do things in a misguided attempt to do good. The terrorists in this case did not think they were doing evil, but justice for things happening in Syria. Even in cases where we can perceive that others may think we are doing wrong, we still justify that we are doing right in some way.

When these terrorists got ready for their attack, they must have known that the world wouldn't agree with their reasons. Yet they went on with their attack, because at the end of the day, they felt they were doing more good than wrong.

Yet that doesn't feel right, does it? When it comes to minor actions, it's very easy to say, “It seemed so to them.” Someone steals your lamp, well, it seemed like a good idea to them. A group massacres and hurts hundreds of people and saying “It seemed so to them” just doesn't seem to fit.

The problem is that this is exactly what Stoicism calls for. We as Stoics, as hard as it is, must accept that the terrorists meant to do good. Does that mean what they did was good? Of course not. By saying the terrorists wanted to do good, we're aren't saying that they did good. What they did was further create a chasm between non-Muslims and Muslims. In essence, they created more of the suspicion they accuse non-Muslims of by (most likely) hiding within the refugees' ranks.

There's another way of saying this: Everyone thinks themselves the hero of their own story. Of course, this mean that someone has to be a villain as well. People often talk of the whole world bearing down on them. Well, to these terrorists, the world really is and so they think they're doing an even greater good, because the whole world is an evil to fight. Perhaps that's why they don't see the damage they do -- or why anyone who does wrong doesn't see their wrongness. Even the most innocent babe is just a spawn of pure evil.

This doesn't mean that Stoics are just going to roll over. Marcus lead a Roman army for many years, wielding its power not in rage, but as it was needed. Of course, most Stoics these days can't rouse up an army. But we can still do good, like give money, donate blood, or fight for better foreign policies.

As for however we're feeling, well, none of us are sages. Even the staunchest Stoic flinches. The point isn't to be perfect and unfeeling. That's a part of being human. To paraphrase Seneca, our initial anger or sadness are a result of emotional scars. It's how fast we can get back on track that counts.

Calling All Stoics! Invitation to a Stoic Year!

So as we begin to near the final quarter of the year, I thought maybe an update on my Stoic living guide that I planned on making for next year should be in order.

Just it recap, the Stoic living guide is supposed to be a yearlong habit-building exercise for Stoicism like the Happiness Project was for happiness. The idea is simple enough. Figure out practical ways to reinforce the theoretical. It's all well and good to know what's not in our control, but if we don't take the time to remind ourselves of these things on a daily basis, it does us little good.

However, it's been a few months of since I've started this project and I found that I'm not that great at it. As it turns out, it's hard to find practical ways to apply theory to Stoicism. Outside of the things most Stoics know, such as the View from Above exercise, negative visualization, and Seneca's nightly review, there's also others that we know about, but don't apply to everyone or involve major life changes. Such as not shaving your beard. Or becoming a vegetarian.

It did get me thinking, however. Stoicism, back in it's heyday, really liked the community. It's like they were cosmopolitans or something. It made me realize that any Stoic project that I undertook by myself kind of missed a part of Stoicism. Stoicism was to be practiced alone and with others. Alone, because it's up to us to follow through with our practice. Together, because we become stronger with others.

So, I propose this: starting in January, I invite anyone who is willing to a yearlong Stoic practice. Instead of a lot of little things, we'll focus on one big thing a month. Think Stoic Week, just longer and slower paced. Once every two weeks, we'll catch up with each other and talk about how we're doing, both on the blog and Google Chat. Do videos, start your own blog, paint your porch and start inviting others to share in your wisdom. Whatever you want to track your progress and share it.

I started this blog because I wanted to be a part of the community. But I realized that if I wanted to be part of it, I have to be willing to take time to make contributions to it. I fail most of the time because I always viewed this blog as somehow apart from the Stoic community. This, the cosmopolitanism, was what I was missing from my Stoic practice. Even my able to control my emotions is way stronger than my ability to get involved.

What do you guys think? Would you be on board for a yearlong practice with others?