A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism

Copyright © Donald Robertson, 2013.  All rights reserved.

Please post your comments and questions below or reblog this article on WordPress…

NEW: If you’re looking for more guidance on daily practices, download my Stoic Therapy Toolkit (PDF).

Marcus GraffitiThis article is designed to provide a very concise introduction to Stoicism as a way of life, through a simplified set of Stoic psychological practices.  The first few passages of Epictetus’ Handbook (Enchiridion) actually provide an account of some fundamental practices that can form the basis of a simplified approach to Stoicism and this account is closely based on those.  We’d recommend you treat it as an introduction to the wider Stoic literature.  However, starting with a set of basic practices can help people studying Stoic philosophy to get to grips with things before proceeding to assimilate some of the more diverse or complex aspects found in the ancient texts.  Both Seneca and Epictetus refer to the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, which happens to provide a good framework for developing a daily routine, bookended by morning and evening contemplative practices.

Zeno of Citium, who founded Stoicism in 301 BC, expressed his doctrines in notoriously terse arguments and concise maxims.  However, Chrysippus, the third head of the Stoic school, wrote over 700 books fleshing these ideas out and adding complex arguments to support them.  Let’s focus here on the concise version but bearing in mind there’s a more complex philosophy lurking in the background.  For example, Epictetus, the only Stoic teacher whose works survive in any significant quantity, described the central precept of Stoicism to his students as follows:

And to become educated [in Stoic philosophy] means just this, to learn what things are our own, and what are not. (Discourses, 4.5.7)

The practical consequence of this distinction is essentially quite simple:

What, then, is to be done?  To make the best of what is in our power, and take the rest as it naturally happens. (Discourses, 1.1.17)

The routine below is designed to provide an introduction to Stoic practice for the 21st Century, which can lead naturally into a wider appreciation of Stoic philosophy as a way of life.  The instructions are designed to be as straightforward and concise as possible, while still remaining reasonably faithful to classical Stoicism.  The most popular book for people to read who are new to Stoicism is The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, so we recommend that you also consider reading a modern translation of that text during the first few weeks of your Stoic practice.

The Basic Philosophical Regime

Stage 1: Morning Preparation

Plan your day ahead with the Stoic “reserve clause” in mind.  Decide what goals you want to achieve in advance and make a decision to try to achieve them but with the caveat: “Fate permitting.”  In other words, aim for success and pursue it wholeheartedly while also being prepared to accept setbacks or failure with equanimity, insofar as they lie outside of your direct control.  Try to choose your goals wisely, picking things that are rational and healthy for you to pursue.  Your primary goal throughout these three stages should be to protect and improve your fundamental wellbeing, particularly in terms of your character and ability to think clearly about your life.   You’re going to try to do this by cultivating greater self-awareness and practical wisdom, which requires setting goals for yourself that are healthy, while pursuing them in a sort of “detached” way, without being particularly attached to the outcome.

Stage 2: Stoic Mindfulness (Prosochê) Throughout the Day

Throughout the day, continually pay attention to the way you make value-judgements and respond to your thoughts.  Be mindful, in particular of the way you respond to strong emotions or desires.  When you experience a distressing or problematic thought, pause, and tell yourself: “This is just a thought and not at all the thing it claims to represent.”  Remind yourself that it is not things that upset you but your judgements about things.  Where appropriate, rather than being carried away by your initial impressions, try to postpone responding to them for at least an hour, waiting until your feelings have settled down and you are able to view things more calmly and objectively before deciding what action to take.

Once you have achieved greater self-awareness of your stream of consciousness and the ability to take a step back from your thoughts in this way, begin to also apply a simple standard of evaluation to your thoughts and impressions as follows.  Having paused to view your thoughts from a distance, ask yourself whether they are about things that are directly under your control or things that are not.  This has been called the general precept or strategy of ancient Stoic practice.  If you notice that your feelings are about something that’s outside of your direct control then respond by trying to accept the fact that it’s out of your hands, saying to yourself: “This is nothing to me.”  Focus your attention instead on doing what is within your sphere of control with wisdom and to the best of your ability, regardless of the actual outcome.  In other words, remind yourself to apply the reserve clause described above to each situation.  Look for ways to remind yourself of this.  For example, the Serenity Prayer is a well-known version of this idea, which you might want to memorise or write down somewhere and contemplate each day.

Give me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The Courage to change the things I can,

And the Wisdom to know the difference.

You may find that knowing you are going to review these events and evaluate them in more detail before you sleep (see below) actually helps you to become more mindful of how you respond to your thoughts and feelings throughout the day.

Stage 3: Night-time Review

Review your whole day, three times, if possible, before going to sleep.  Focus on the key events and the order in which they happened, e.g., the order in which you undertook different tasks or interacted with different people during the day.

  1. What did you do that was good for your fundamental wellbeing?  (What went well?)
  2. What did you do that harmed your fundamental wellbeing?  (What went badly?)
  3. What opportunities did you miss to do something good for your fundamental wellbeing?  (What was omitted?)

Counsel yourself as if you were advising a close friend or loved one.  What can you learn from the day and, where appropriate, how can you do better in the future?  Praise yourself for what went well and allow yourself to reflect on it with satisfaction.  You may also find it helps to give yourself a simple subjective rating (from 0-10) to measure how consistently you followed the instructions here or how good you were at pursuing rational and healthy goals while remaining detached from things outside of your direct control.  However, also try to be concise in your evaluation of things and to arrive at conclusions without ruminating over things for too long.

If you’re interested, you can complete The Stoic Attitudes Scale and rate how strong your belief is in different aspects of Stoic theory.

Appendix: Some Additional Stoic Practices

There’s a lot more to Stoicism, in terms of both the theory and practice.  You might want to begin with a simple approach but you should probably broaden your perspective eventually to include the other parts of Stoicism.  Reading The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and other books can provide you with a better idea of the theoretical breadth of Stoic philosophy.  Here are three examples of other Stoic practices, followed by a link to a longer and more detailed article on this site…

  1. Contemplation of the Sage: Imagine the ideal Sage or exemplary historical figures (Socrates, Diogenes, Cato) and ask yourself: “What would he do?”, or imagine being observed by them and how they would comment on your actions.
  2. Contemplating the Whole Cosmos: Imagine the whole universe as if it were one thing and yourself as part of the whole, or the View from Above: Picture events unfolding below as if observed from Mount Olympus or a high  watchtower.
  3. Premeditation of Adversity: Mentally rehearse potential losses or misfortunes and view them as “indifferent” (decatastrophising), also view them as natural and inevitable to remove any sense of shock or surprise.

Follow this link for a much more detailed account of Stoic practices with a wider range of techniques…

Please post your comments and questions below or reblog this article on WordPress…

Free Email Course

Meditations email modal

Sign up today for our free email course on The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. You'll receive weekly emails with my commentary on this classic Stoic text.

We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time. Powered by ConvertKit
london, uk

Join the conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Well, I think it’s fair to say that it’s not self-evident that belief in determinism is directly relevant to the initial point you raised. You’d need to fill in the gaps, in other words, as other people might not see them as necessarily connected points. I appreciate those are your views but you don’t really explain your reasoning so it’s hard to comment much except perhaps to mention that most people tend to put things the opposite way round. It’s the concept of metaphysical freewill, rather than that of determinism, that tends to be criticised by philosophers for being incoherent and rooted in outdated theological notions, etc. The Stoics clearly do believe that how I die is my choice but also that my choices are determined by antecedent physical causes, which I think is pretty close to the position of most modern psychologists and something many people see as part of the scientific worldview.

  2. Okay, that’s moving on to a bit of a different issue now… I can only give a very cursory answer here as the philosophy of freewill and determinism is obviously a very complex topic. The Stoics were compatibilists who argued that freedom and determinism are not mutually exclusive concepts. Many modern philosophers would agree (as would I). Chrysippus explicitly responded to this sort of criticism – that belief in determinism commits us to become passive in terms of our behaviour – by arguing that it involved an alleged fallacy called the “Lazy Argument”. There’s some more discussion of it in this article below:


    1. Off topic? Moving on? Hardly. It’s a fundamental fatal flaw of stoicism as presented. It’s basic. Not off target at all. I don’t think compatibilism works at all. It’s just a mealy-mouth way to get around an issue forged in ignorant times… like the Bible trying to explain how a bat is a fowl. I think it is more workable to say some things certainly fit the definition of predetermed (whether they are or not) and some things do not fit the definition of predetermined. And just as the Stoic wants to know what he has control over and what he does not I think the Stoic has to decided what can be predeterminate and what might not be (and avoid being ivory tower silly in the process.) For example. I am alive. I will die. I can reasonably argue that my death is certain (some folks could easily arugue it is predetermined.) I cannot not die so that’s strongly set. If that is predetermined then it is so perhaps in the gross sense. How I die might be my choice. And if I have choice then I can effect change. I think by removing “predetermination” as an absolute monolith in toto one can create wiggle room for things one cannot avoid –death– but finds reason to have and make choices. It might be in macroscopic terms that I am predestined to be in this universe and to someday die what I do here seems reasonably my choice in a microscopic way. Temper Stoicism with that and a fatal flaw is eased.

  3. Well… what about something like… my friend was raped by a repeat offender and I’m angry about that. How does stoicism handle that?

    1. Well, for the ancient Stoics, it doesn’t really matter what the nature of the offence is. The most important question is whether the event is under your control or not. If not then the desire to change things is futile, by definition, and they see that as the basis of most emotional distress. A Stoic might try to comfort a friend in a similar situation or to somehow prevent similar things happening in the future. But they’d say there’s no point ruminating angrily about events once they’ve happened and can’t be undone and that this might actually get in the way of doing something constructive about the future. It’s obviously difficult for a complete stranger to comment on such a personal issue, though. So I hope you don’t mind me being so brief but that, in a nutshell, would be the ancient Stoic perspective.

      1. Thanks for writing. It wasn’t a personal example but rather representative. While Stoicim has some interesting individual benefits its weakness seems to be in the realm of righting social wrongs. There’s a saying that goes something like “women didn’t get anything changed by acting like ladies.” Anger, resentment, indignation et ali are powerful motivations particularly to redress wrongs or bring about social change. Would the world be a different place if Czarist’s agents hadn’t murdered Lenin’s older brother? Would we still have segregation if Blacks did not get angry about their discrimination? If Nelson Mandela was a stoic South Africa might still have apartheid. An individual — usually an angry one — can make a difference. I can see individual benefits to Stoicism but the motivation to help humanity is rather sotto voce.

        1. I probably see it quite differently. I think historically, the record shows that Stoics were sometimes very actively involved in “righting social wrongs”, unlike other philosophical schools such as Skeptics or Epicureans, who took more of a back seat in society. I don’t think you need to be motivated primarily by anger in order to change things in the world. The Stoics would simply say that it’s better to be motivated primarily by your rational sense of justice rather than your feelings of anger, as these often mislead us and cause other problems such as over-reacting or ill-considered actions. Nelson Mandela is actually often held up as an example of the sort of person Stoics might admire in the modern world, to some extent. He doesn’t seem to express violent anger but, as I understand it, said that liberation comes, in part, from understanding the oppressors and taking a nonviolent stand against them. Perhaps he’s written somewhere of being motivated primarily by anger, though, so I’d need to read his biography in more detail to comment properly. In the ancient world, the opposite of your criticism was levelled at the Stoics: that they were too engaged with the world and social justice, compared to other philosophers. So I think, on the face of it, there’s plenty of room for debate about your interpretation and I can imagine modern readers being divided about whether Stoicism leads to what you describe or not. Look at the life of Cato of Utica, for example, or the account of Seneca’s death and his defiance of Nero, etc.

          1. Therein lies the rub: A basic tenet of Stoicism is predestination. Everything is set. We are but automatons in some cosmic play. If the Stoics worked for social justice then they were not committed to predestination. Whereupon they could have said “well… wanting social justice is predestined, too” but at that point Stoicism would have become silly. Indifference might be a personal boon but a social liability.

  4. Pingback: STOIC Platform
%d bloggers like this: