Are we in control of our emotions or are they in control of us? Short answer: you can lessen their control over you.

We’re always told to be mindful of the people around us.  Don’t hurt other’s feelings, or offend, we’re told.  Well, there’s truth to this.  As members of society, we’ve been taught that people are responsible for how they act based on their feelings or how they manage those feelings.  But we’re also taught to not stir up people’s feelings.  We kind of have it both ways.  People can choose to act or not act based on their feelings but at the same time, we shouldn’t push people’s buttons because people are only human.

That’s really not too far away from Stoicism.  Stoics were radical in the belief that we could individually learn to manage our emotions far better but they were also mindful of the fact that we’re only human.  It’s just not nice to try to injure someone even if they’re the best Stoic you ever crossed paths with.

So are we, for better or worse, at the mercy of our emotions?  We are somewhat at their mercy but, with practice, we can lessen their hold on us and their efficacy.  The Stoics realized long ago that by judging externals to be morally neutral, we can deescalate our passions such as hate, jealousy, and lust.  By deliberately and mindfully discarding the moral importance of all things external, we can free up a lot of our mind from emotions reacting to external events.  Also, we can refocus our mind by turning it inward, toward our virtuous character.  By working on our character and perfecting it, we can be more relaxed, chill, and logical.

Society almost has it right in the way we should hold ourselves accountable for our own behavior despite having strong passions.  And society definitely has it right that we really shouldn’t try to push people’s buttons, at least, if it’s not for the betterment or for some more important effort than mere pushing people’s buttons for buttons’ sake.  One thing that all societies throughout time have gotten wrong though is the obsession over externals.  Externals are valuable but they’re not the most important thing ever.  Also, society is right to say that we should take responsibility for our emotions and not act out on them every time we become angry.  But the Stoics offered a better solution to this problem, and that was to pretty much kill off any kind of negative passion.  That way you’d be insured to not easily cave to whatever passion you might have.  Neutering a passion really goes a long way, it gives someone a freedom they didn’t once have.  They don’t have to feel like the dam holding back all that water.  The Stoics said to just reduce the level of the water in the first place so that no possible instances of leaking or rupture is even possible.

Gray Dam Under Blue Sky


Stoicism and the Free Will Problem

Most people if you ask them if they believe that everything has a cause, they’ll likely say yes.  Most people you ask them if they believe that everyone is basically morally responsible, they’ll likely say yes.

The ancient Stoics believed everyone was morally responsible more or less and that everything including our own behaviors were causally determined.  The question of course is how can you be morally responsible and determined to do what you do?

Well, one clever Stoic by the name of Chrysippus believed he possessed the answer.  Chrysippus believed human action could be modeled by a cylinder rolling down an incline.  Basically, the cylinder’s shape represents your character and the incline’s angle represents fate (gravity being a given).  Your character, represented by the shape of the cylinder, had an effect on how the cylinder would roll down the incline.  Chryippus thought that your character is where you possessed some control over how your fate was determined.  Essentially, the idea was that everything was fated but we did co-fate our future to a limited extent.  The shape of our characters is where we possess some control and that’s where we find moral responsibility.

Something counter-intuitive that the Stoics would say though is, yes, we had limited freedom to coordinate our future given whether fate allowed for it or not.  But ultimately none of us were truly free except for the Sage.  It was believed that if you couldn’t truly be a master of all of your passions and desires, you were a slave to your passions/desires and ultimately not truly free.  So even though Stoicism does make room for soft determinism (the position that free will and determinism are compatible), it also seems to paradoxically hold a hard determinist position (that there is only determinism but not really any freedom) about everyone except for the Sage.

So we end with that paradox.  We all possess limited amount of freedoms that are compatible with a determinist universe.  But ultimately we’re not truly free like the Sage.  We’re only capable of being free but not truly so.  So we still have to live with the idea that each of us each bear responsibility even if truly the Sage only truly bears responsibility.  It’s almost like we’ve been backed into a position that none of like by the Stoics.  We’re living an illusion of freedom because we’re all still slaves to our desires/passions unless we become truly free from our desires/passions and become Sages.

What do you all think?  Are we free or not?

Image result for ball going down incline

Stoicism and Evil as a Function of Ignorance

One of the hardest parts of Stoicism for people to wrap their heads around is that evil people are vicious exactly because they’re ignorant.  This doesn’t mean they’re ignorant of society’s expectations, the law, or even a definition of what good behavior is.  They’re ignorant in the sense that they lack the wisdom necessary to understand that virtue leads truly to the good life (eudaimonia).

So when I hear people say, “well, murderers know exactly what they did was wrong but they did it anyway.”  But if they really understood the good life, virtue, and excellence, surely they wouldn’t have committed their crime because they’d be cheating themselves of something much greater.  Instead, murderers mistakenly believe they’re getting something good by murdering someone (perhaps a temporary satisfaction to their jealousy) but they’re absolutely mistaken.  Their need for their negative passion to be exemplified in action is transient and soon will be replaced with a new need to maybe seek vengeance on someone else or do harm in another way.

If you could take a criminal mind and show them truly what wisdom and knowledge of the good entails, they wouldn’t trade that knowledge of the good for their previous petty notions of “goods” for a second.  They would understand what the good life entailed and would act to be as virtuous as possible.  Socrates knew this, Plato knew this, and so did Zeno of Citium.

Am I mistaken that bad people do bad things out of ignorance?  Maybe so.  I’m always keeping and open mind about this position.  But let’s just entertain that people do bad things not because of lack of wisdom but because of lack of willpower.  I’m open to such a possibility but oddly enough it seems pretty compatible with Stoicism to hold this view as well.  People who lack willpower are just as hard to be angry at as people who lack knowledge of good and evil.  After all, if they lack willpower, they can’t help themselves.  But what about the third possibility that people completely 100% voluntarily do bad because they know it’s wrong but do it anyway?

Well, let’s just go down that road.  For these people who supposedly do bad voluntarily, it’s still difficult to be righteously indignant at those sorts of people because by not following virtue, they’re hurting themselves by feeding their negative passions.  They give into anger and hate and have an ill soul.  So even with that position, the Stoic will have difficulty being righteously mad at such a person because these bad people have irrationally chosen to go against the good even though they knew better (supposedly).

I still think that bad people do bad things out of ignorance/amathia.  But even with the slim possibility of incontinence/akrasia/weakness of will, people still seem to harm themselves and their actions seem almost beyond their control at times.


5 Reasons Why Stoicism Is Better Than Sam Harris

  1. Sam Harris spends most of his time attacking Islam.  He seems to hate the religion more than any other religion.  He spends an unnecessary amount of time trying to prove that Islam is not the religion of peace and tries to make it out to be the religion of strife.  Stoicism doesn’t really attack anything or hate anything.  It just wants to focus on virtue which is the only good.  Stoicism is compatible with Islam and its followers and hopes that everyone can work together to become more virtuous human beings.
  2. Sam Harris admits that he’s bored by philosophy and basically ignores it.  Stoicism spends considerable time thinking about other philosophies and learning from other philosophies and adapting.  The Stoic philosopher Seneca frequently quoted Epicureans and tried to learn from their philosophy as well as he understood their philosophy.
  3. Sam Harris stole his ethics from utilitarianism and doesn’t credit any of the utilitarian thinkers for his ethics.  Stoicism always credits other thinkers and doesn’t steal their ideas and make them worse.
  4. Sam Harris, because he doesn’t care about philosophy, wrongly asserts that free will isn’t compatible with determinism and so he rejects free will.  Stoics on the other hand agree with a significant number of philosophers who have convincingly argued well for the compatibility of free will and determinism.  Stoicism has always believed that free will is compatible with determinism.
  5. Sam Harris is a cult of personality who has fervent followers who defend him no matter what he does wrong or thinks wrong.  Stoicism is an open philosophy with many of its own followers critiquing it and its thinkers.  Seneca, for example, is critiqued a lot as being a Stoic hypocrite and out of touch.

    Sam Harris 2016 (cropped).jpg

Ayn Rand, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Richard Dawkins crossed with Stoicism

What do you get if you combine Stoicism and Ayn Rand?

You get 💲toicism but with none of that evil collectivism. And lots of 💲💲💲

What do you get if you combine Stoicism with Sam Harris?

You get Stoicism but with none of that free will nonsense. You get the monochotomy of “no control.”

What do you get if you combine Stoicism with Jordan Peterson?

You get Stoicism but with no social virtue and no egalitarianism. Also lots of lobster Sages high on serotonin.

What do you get if you combine Stoicism with Richard Dawkins?

You get a pantheistic God who is indifferent, blind, and pitiless. Also the Logos is a selfish gene in all of us.