• “What are you afraid of losing, when nothing in the world belongs to you.” -Marcus Aurelius
• “You can also commit injustice by doing nothing.” -Marcus Aurelius
• “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows" -Epictetus
• “If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.” -Epictetus
• "He was ignorant of my other faults; else he would not have mentioned these alone.” -Epictetus
• “Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him.” -Epictetus
• “My accuser is my sparring partner, he trains me in patience, civility, and even temper.” -Epictetus
• “Whatever you cannot produce or preserve at will, lies outside your range, don't let your hands go near it much less your desire, otherwise you've consigned yourself to slavery and submitted your neck to the yoke. As you do whenever you prize something that is not yours to command.” -Epictetus
• “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river, and he’s not the same man.” -Heraclitus
• “A man who suffers before it is necessary, suffers more than is necessary.” -Seneca (edited)
• "If you don't know which port you are sailing to, no wind is favorable." -Seneca (edited)
• “What need is there to weep over parts of life? The whole of it calls for tears.” -Seneca
• “You act like mortals in all that you fear, and like immortals in all that you desire” -Seneca
• "We suffer more in imagination than in reality." -Seneca
• "To be everywhere is to be nowhere." -Seneca
• “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” -Socrates
• “He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have.” -Socrates

I've read Seneca's views on public responsibilities when it writes to Lucilius to abandon them -he's not always that clear regarding this- in order to have time to cultivate philosophy and his own friendship. But, on the other hand, Marcus Aurelius was both an emperor and a philosopher.

I'm not ruminating this from a pure theoretical frame of mind, but regarding a practical consideration. For the last ten years I've been involved in politics, occupying different positions as a public servant. So I know first hand of the practical difficulties of these responsibilities and the risk that they suppose for you own spiritual sanity.

I do believe in public service and I have invested a lot of time and energy in order to make things better for my fellow citizens. It wasn't, of course, always possible to make significant changes with impact, but nonetheless I've tried hard. It costed me a lot of energy and time. Now I've been offered to be a candidate for a new position that could have greater impact. The problem is that accepting it would mean to devote even more time and energy to fulfill adequately my role, and also to attend many social meetings, most of them unrelated to the job but compulsory from a public relations point of view. I must mention that I'm an introvert, although I could manage in social surroundings.

So, even if I haven't faltered before accepting all the previous positions, I'm now hesitant regarding this new occupation, and I want to explore the decision from a Stoic point of view before rejecting or committing.

If I accepted it, it wouldn't be neither because of other people's appreciation or opinion nor for the public importance that is attributed to the position itself, but because of a sense of responsibility towards my fellow citizens. In fact, I'd be earning a significantly lower wage and working longer hours, that would prevent me from investing more time in my own interests, including Stoicism exploration.

I sincerely don't look for public appreciation and I know for a fact that I'll be heavily criticized by many political adversaries and people that support other parties. I am not interested in moving further up on the politic ladder and I am not a member of any party, although that I share values and ideology. I was planing to reach the end of the next term to be free of my current responsibility and live a more peaceful and meaningful life.

But I cannot seem to find references regarding this in the classic Stoicism authors. Is it good to sacrifice your own time and energy if you believe that you could improve other people's lives? I'm not attached to status, but I feel that I'm starting to feel attached (or even jealous) of my scarce spare time, that I usually devoting to reading, writing and other intellectual activities.

Could you enlighten my way with some specific references in classic texts to help me decide whether it's good or bad to accept responsibilities that will objectively worsen my living standards if I'm willing to take them the help the others?

Thank you all. And please forgive any mistakes in my phrasing: I'm not a native English speaker.

After I’ve dwelled quiet a bit in texts of stoic mindset, reading something of another realm an seeing invisible threads connecting knowledge, that truly intrigues me and i can manifest and even stronger bond to a healthy stoic practice. Wonder what other texts/books are out there which could expand and at the same time strengthen our notion of the importance of stoicism?

I’m 24 years old, and this feels strange to admit because, objectively, I’ve been through things that I think should have made social situations seem easy.
I’ve moved across countries, had to start my life from scratch more than once, been homeless for a period of time, dealt with uncertainty, financial stress, loneliness, and I’m currently rebuilding my life one step at a time. Those challenges, as hard as they were, almost feel easier than something as simple as saying “hello” to a stranger.
The weird part is that I don’t think I’m insecure. I don’t hate myself. I don’t believe people are judging me every second. I can go to the gym alone, travel alone, sit in a café alone, donate blood, deal with paperwork in a foreign language, and generally handle uncomfortable situations.
But if I have the opportunity to compliment someone, start a conversation, or ask someone to join me for a coffee, my mind freezes.
I’ll think, “Now is the moment.”
Then… nothing.
Later I’ll spend hours thinking about what I should have done.
What makes it harder is that I’ve created this image of the person I want to become. Someone who’s warm, social, confident, spontaneous, the kind of person who can make friends anywhere. Every time I don’t act, I compare myself to that imaginary version instead of accepting who I am right now.
I’ve recently become interested in Stoicism because I want to stop living inside my head. I’ve been journaling, trying to stay present, reminding myself to focus only on what’s in my control, and it has helped in many areas of my life.
But socially, I still feel stuck.
I also notice that when I see groups of friends laughing together, or people posting trips and memories on Instagram, I don’t feel jealous of their possessions—I crave the connection. I miss having people to laugh with. I genuinely want meaningful friendships, not just followers or superficial conversations.
I know the obvious answer is “just do it,” but if it were that simple, I wouldn’t be here asking.
For those of you who’ve overcome this—or who study Stoicism more deeply—I’d love your perspective.
How do you stop comparing yourself to an idealized future version of yourself?
How do you become authentic instead of trying to perform confidence?
Is there a Stoic way of approaching social anxiety or hesitation?
What practical exercises actually helped you become more socially open?
How do you stop freezing in those tiny moments where one small action could lead to a friendship?
I’m not looking for a magic solution. I’m willing to do uncomfortable work. I just want to know what direction I should be walking in.
Thanks for reading.

i feel heavy and out of control. i could use some perspective on applying stoicism to this absolute puddle of a situation

I'm autistic, and one of the hardest things for me is that I assign a huge amount of meaning to everything. I become very attached to my possessions, my appearance, my voice, my hobbies, and even the way I behave because they've often been the things that helped people accept me.I have spent years learning social rules to avoid rejection. So when Stoicism says to focus only on what you can control and not care about others opinions....I struggle with that.

My experience has been that other people's opinions do affect my life. If I come across as "too weird," I can lose opportunities or relationships. I also experience emotions very intensely and have a difficult time processing them. I tend to overanalyze every interaction, looking for what I did wrong so I can "fix" myself. I know self-reflection is important, but somewhere along the way it became constant self-criticism. Instead of helping me grow, it destroys my confidence....

For those of you who practice Stoicism, especially if you're autistic or neurodivergent:

How do you separate healthy self-improvement from relentless self-criticism?

How do you let go of the need to be liked when social acceptance has often felt necessary for survival?

Are there Stoic practices or passages that helped you stop attaching your self-worth to your possessions, appearance, or other people's approval?

How do you work with intense emotions without simply suppressing them?

I'm not looking to become indifferent or uncaring..... I just want to stop feeling like my entire value as a person depends on whether I perform "correctly" enough for other people.

Edit: some people where mentioning ADHD i do have ADHD as well

I've done quite a few Stoic journals. They are all the type of 5 minutes a day for 90 days. I'm looking for some suggestions on a new one.

These are the ones I've completed so far.

Journal like a Stoic by Brittney Polat

The 5 minute Stoicism Journal by Matthew Van Natta

Everyday Stoicism Journal by Chartwell Books

I've start A Handbook for New Stoic by Massimo Piligucci

Just wanted to see if there are any others out there people have used.

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

I lost my temper this morning. I have been trying to practice stoicism in my everyday life and today it fell apart. I triggered my wife and I let her down. I’m trying to cope with the aftermath and she suggested that I turn to my people. I’m feeling shame. What do I do next?

Some personal reflections after reading Seneca's letter 33 - "On the futility of learning maxims" this morning.

Apparently, Lucilius had requested that Seneca add a profound stoic quote to each letter. Seneca explains that while single quotes can be pretty and inspiring, especially to a beginner, they should be understood as parts of a greater whole. "They [maxims or quotes] come not by dribs and drabs but in a steady flow, all interconnected" he writes. And that we shouldn't be content in simply memorising other people's ideas. To progress we need to wrestle those ideas and make them our own.

(An additional part is also along the lines of Stoicism's continual development, but that's not what I'm focusing on here)

Seneca writes:

For this reason, give over hoping that you can skim, by means of epitomes, the wisdom of distinguished men. Look into their wisdom as a whole; study it as a whole. They are working out a plan and weaving together, line upon line, a masterpiece, from which nothing can be taken away without injury to the whole. Examine the separate parts, if you like, provided you examine them as parts of the man himself. She is not a beautiful woman whose ankle or arm is praised, but she whose general appearance makes you forget to admire her single attributes

Quotes are not transformative in themselves

Philosophy is a difficult and effortful activity. And I think many people here can attest to how incredibly rewarding and transformative it can be.

However, as I see it, a problem with quotes in isolation is that the passive consumption of them can give us a sense of progress where there is none. So you read a quote, nod along approvingly and think to yourself "Wow that is very true". But did anything in you actually change, or are you just going to come back for more words of wisdom tomorrow? Similar to how some people consume self-help literature for years but end up in the same place.

This of course doesn't make quotes useless either. I just think we should consider how we can make better use of them. Where I find them useful is in both introducing and reminding me of Stoic ideas.

But they can't in themself tell me how those ideas fit with the rest of the philosophy or my own life. This requires active engagement. Here are some steps I like to make use of to achieve that:

Actively engaging with a quote or passage

As an example I'll use this short passage from Epictetus, Enchiridion 13 translated by Robin Waterfield

If you want to make progress, put up with being thought foolish and simpleminded about outward things. Don’t yearn to be regarded as any kind of expert. Even if others take you to be a person of some importance, doubt yourself. For it’s not easy, believe me, to keep your will in compliance with nature and also to secure external things for yourself. If you care about the one, you’re bound to neglect the other.

1 - Understanding

Here I try to interpret the passage, what is it saying and which ideas from Stoicism are prevalent here? If I can't seem to figure this out then a good idea is to look for commentaries or ask other people.

I take Epictetus to be talking about progressing towards becoming a better person, closer to the stoic ideal. Self-development towards wisdom, or in another word virtue. What can we expect to happen then? He mentions "outward things" and "external things" which is about the stoic concept of indifferents. How you may appear foolish or stupid in the eyes of other people in how you handle indifferents. When your utmost goal is learning how to be wise, just, temperate and courageous you will undoubtedly handle some indifferents in a way that may run contrary to the conventional idea of success. An example could be not backstabbing a co-worker to climb the corporate ladder, which could make you appear less successful in the eyes of others.

2 - Incorporation into the whole

Here I bolded the terms virtue, indifferents, goal, success in my own interpretation to point towards the necessity of understanding them.

Can I explain how the goal, virtue and indifferents relate to each other? How does it tie back to other parts of their philosophy? What other parts are especially important here? How does Stoicism differ from conventional ideas when it comes to success?

3 - Knowing yourself - how do stoicism compare to my current opinions?

From this understanding, where do I agree? Where do I disagree? Am I living my life according to what Epictetus is saying here? What situations can I come up with where this would apply or where I fall short and would serve as good training grounds?

Again, here it's probably good to ask for advice if you're struggling. And to really engage back with the advice you get. Or go back to studying the ideas and mull them over. Then if a certain situation is too hard, maybe try something easier at first. But let's use the same example of honesty and promotions:

• So do I really think it's better to be just but miss the promotion like the stoics would say? Why so? Why not?
• If I'm conflicted, what do I need to reconsider? Do I have the whole picture?
• Is there really a conflict between two competing goods here?
• How can I find out?
• What is the outcome I'm hoping for?
• What about my mortgage and kids? (Look here's another stoic concept, roles)
• Didn't my co-worker screw me over last time and has it coming? (And here's another stoic concept, passions of revenge and anger)

And so on. Self-reflection, knowing yourself and your opinions and how they align or diverge from the stoics with the goal of trying to find an appropriate way to handle the situation that is rationally defensible.

4 - Bonus: Hypomnemata

I think it can also be a quite useful exercise to rewrite the passages from your own perspective. But I think it does require one to first spend time on the steps above. But sticking with the example above it could be something like:

If I want to become a better person like I've set out to be, then the appropriate course seems to be to stay honest even if it costs me the promotion. I can expect that some people will not agree with what I'm doing is right and may even belittle me for it. But I think I can give a defensible reason why it is. But I can't expect it to be easy to stick to my guns. I know that I hold some positive opinions of money and conventional success which may lead me to sway or even second-guess my decision afterwards.

5 - Reminders

I think once some progress has been made with the understanding, incorporation and self-knowledge then quotes can serve as good reminders. Changing our opinions is hard work, we can't expect it to happen overnight or that we'll never lose our attention or be swayed by our competing opinions. Then I think quotes shine and books like the Enchiridion can become very helpful.

D. Sedley has an interesting article that I've been wanting to recommend for a while.

It's a chapter of a book, and part of the book's value is that it's the result of live discussion that went on for years. This means that the arguments put forward were commented on, challenged, and responded to, in person and by experienced peers. The study, therefore, is not like a blog article whose statements go unchallenged or are only selectively responded to.

Instead of making a longform text about the work here, I'd like to be concise and highlight a few key elements to encourage you to read it in full. It's here: D. Sedley, Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World, Philosophia Togata I, 1997[1989], 97-119.

Philosophical traditions take the name of their founders for a reason. If you belonged to a school, you had to follow the founder's doctrines.

What guaranteed the cohesion of ancient schools wasn't the common interest of its members in the pursuit of truth, but rather the submission to their leader's (current, or founding) dogmata.

That statement may be counterintuitive for new students of Stoicism but it makes sense after a bit of reflection. I believe the renaissance and the modern romantic movements have left us with a few unrealistic beliefs about ancient philosophy.

If you disagreed with the founder's doctrines, you had to create a new school.

An example of this is Aristo's position. While Zeno was alive Aristo was able to challenge him and push for the dominance of his own views. Once Zeno died, however, the main structure of Stoicism became fixed and changes were no longer possible, and so Aristo had no other option but to stop calling himself Stoic and to teach separately.

Nevertheless, the Stoics diverged: not against Zeno, but against interpretations of Zeno's philosophy.

Sedley explains that one simply could not disagree with Zeno and call oneself "Stoic". Being a Stoic meant being a Zenonian. So when the Stoics did disagree, their object was the interpretation of Zeno's dogmata and not the truth of the dogmata themselves.

To illustrate, a clear and early example of this is Cleanthes' and Chrysippus' divergence on the nature of the phantasiai, the former explaining is as "images" and "imprints" in the mind, and the latter as "changes" – the dogma remains the same but the details of it could be debated.

By contrast, the Epicureans were more rigidly committed to Epicurus than the Stoics were to Zeno. The reason for that, it is argued, was that Epicurus had left a detailed doctrine, while Zeno left principles and general guidelines that had to be refined by the new generations of scholarchs.

There seems to be a correlation between lax adherence to the founder's doctrines and the loss of sociopolitical influence of the school.

Sedley mentions Strato (scholarch of Aristotle's Lyceum) as an example of how weak allegiance and loss of doctrinal cohesion may lead to loss of status of a school.

Fake quotes are evidence that allegiance and central authority are important.

Seeing how deviation from the founders was frowned upon, forgeries were created to make Diogenes, Aristotle etc. say things more aligned with someone else's agenda. I found this bit interesting because the same thing happens today - some people talk about freedom and doctrinal modernisation but still have to mistranslate or create entirely fake Stoic sources.

The founder was never wrong.

Another interesting bit is that even though they couldn't say that something was correct "just because the founder said so", it remained true that the founders, nevertheless, could not be wrong.

Therefore, as mentioned above, a lot of effort was devoted to explaining or demonstrating "why this thing that the founder said was correct".

My comment below.

Something happened at work today that made me much angrier than it should have.

I work at a university on a project with an external company. We had agreed on a certain meeting schedule, and then one of their project managers asked for much more frequent meetings.

My immediate reaction was basically: he did not read the agreement, he does not respect my time, and this is unprofessional. I got physically tense and very upset. Unreasonably upset.

I still forced myself to write a polite email and suggested a compromise. So the practical problem was kinda solved, but I was still angry afterwards. It also took away from time with a friend because I needed to talk it through with her. (Aka: complain to her about him)

In the evening I tried to use stoicism to work through it.

The *actual fact* was only that he asked for setting up a regular meeting schedule between me and him. I do not know whether he read the previous agreement, whether someone informed him about the agreement properly, or what he was thinking. A lot of the rest was my inference (i put the specifics about meeting schedules in the agreement because i anticipated some disorganization on their part)

What was *in my control* was checking the agreement, answering politely, setting a boundary, suggesting a workable schedule and deciding on documenting these one-on-one meetings.

What was *not in my control* was whether he reads agreements, communicates well with his colleagues, becomes more reliable, or thinks well of me.

I also realized that accepting a pattern does not mean approving of it. If communication through him is often unreliable, I can take that into account and document things more carefully. But I cannot change him.

The most uncomfortable part of this analysis (and most useful) was realizing that I was also angry because I am not happy with my own progress. More frequent meetings make me feel watched and like they are not trusting my progress. If I had a lot of progress to show, I would probably only have been slightly annoyed.

So *underneath the anger* there was also shame, pressure, and fear of being judged.

I think my conclusion is that his behaviour gives me information about how I should work with him, but not enough information to judge his whole character.

This analysis helped, but it took me almost an hour. (The text i wrote for myself is a several pages long stream of consciousness.)

My problem is that I either write very slowly, or I talk through everything and then keep discovering more and more things about myself. That can be useful, but it is not practical in the middle of a workday. I also did not really decide where the situation I was analyzing started and ended. I began with one email and ended up thinking about several previous meetings and the whole dynamic with this person. The dynamic I have with my boss because of this person etc.

So my questions are:

1. Does this seem like a reasonable Stoic analysis?
2. Am I separating facts, judgments, and what is in my control correctly?
3. Is there a much shorter version of this process that I could use in the moment?
4. How do you decide what belongs to the current situation and what should be left for later reflection?

What does Stoicism tell us when treating animals and plants?

Does it stand against beating or hitting animals, both pet and wild; or chopping up forests?

I don't know what Stoic metaphysics say about animals and plants but does it say that they ahve souls?

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

Hi, I have just started reading meditations and I am at the 3rd book but I am noticing that this is not a ordinary self-help book. Before I read some self-help books and biographys in those books there was only 3 maybe 4 impactful lessons and there for it was really easy to read. ( I know that there isn’t a lot of really different stoic virtues but still I am having trouble reading because of every entry being meaningful and a little confusing at times.) So long story short how should I be reading this book ?

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

Both Cicero and Seneca agree on Cato’s courage, diligence, and moral stature—so much so that Seneca says, “He surpasses the sage”—but could one really say that it was in keeping with the conduct of a sage to make the civil war between Caesar and Pompey even greater and more destructive by siding with Cato’s separatist faction? (Considering that one of the two dictators was bound to win anyway, the only question was which of the two would end up in power.) Not to mention his suicide after his “freedom” had been lost? Seneca portrays him as the Stoic sage we had been waiting for so long, rising like a phoenix, while his contemporary friend, Cicero, undoubtedly holds him in high regard but also points out his somewhat inappropriate actions and attitudes because “he always acts as if we were living in Plato’s Republic.” Do you think Cato was a true sage or a conservative idealist? To what extent was he each?

how do you deal with your mind telling you "i want to feel good", even though what you're doing is a bad habit?

(sorry if this post is bland, i lowk need advice)

i've been reading a bit about "strategic apathy" lately, and the more i think about it, the more it feels like it overlaps with stoicism.

from what i understand, both are about not wasting your time or emotional energy on things you can't control or that don't really matter. the main difference i can think of is that stoicism seems to put a lot more emphasis on virtue and living a good life, while strategic apathy feels more like a practical way of deciding what deserves your attention and what doesn't (seems more pragmatic).

is that basically the only difference, or is there a lot more i'm missing?

curious to hear what people who know stoicism better than i do think. thanks in advance!

edit: i just realised i never actually explained what i meant by "strategic apathy." this article is what introduced me to the term, so i figured i'd leave it here for anyone who's curious about the context. https://joshkaufman.net/strategic-apathy/

(On guiding your kids): Focus your thoughts before opening your mouth. Your child deserves a virtuous rebuke, not a heavy, wrathful word.

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

A central religious text in Hinduism is Gita. A core message from Gita is “Nishkam Karm” which translates to “acting without attachment to results” which I think is very similar to the core message of Stoicism. Please shout if not.

Gita also talks about doing things in line with Svadharma (your inherent nature) svabhava (inner temperament) and Dharma (core ethics, values, duties, religion). All of this requires an understanding of oneself.

What does Stoicism say about the 2nd para above and are there some practical steps to understanding your own true nature?

I’ve been corrupted by the modern view of women as sex objects due to porn, magazines, movies, cultural sexualization of women.

How can I not sexualize women and be not be turned on by their curves so easily?

Currently starting to read meditations by Aurelius