Category: Philosophy

How to do psychotherapy with a Roman Emperor

How to do psychotherapy with a Roman Emperor

The idea of a Roman emperor undergoing a course of psychotherapy probably sounds like historical fiction, right? Well, it’s not. The Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, was famously a lifelong follower of the ancient Greek philosophy of Stoicism. Stoic philosophers employed an early form of cognitive psychotherapy, and Marcus had a therapist.

Indeed, the word Marcus uses here in Greek is therapeia — there’s no question that it means therapy.

How do we know this? Because he tells us so, right at the beginning of his personal notebook, known to us today as The Meditations. Marcus is looking back on the things he learned from his family and teachers. We know from the Roman histories that the Stoic philosopher and Roman statesman, Junius Rusticus, was his favourite tutor. Speaking of him, Marcus says:

From Rusticus I received the impression that my character required improvement and therapy… — Meditations, 1.7

The word Marcus uses here in Greek is therapeia — there’s no question that it means therapy. Indeed, we know that the ancient Stoics, and other philosophers, wrote entire books on the subject of psychopathology and psychotherapy, the cause and cure of emotional problems. One of the most influential was the Therapeutics of Chrysippus, the third head of the Stoic school. Although it’s sadly lost, it’s one of the key influences on a surviving text called On the Diagnosis and Cure of the Soul’s Passions by Galen, the court physician of Marcus Aurelius.

As it happens, Stoicism was the philosophical inspiration for cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT).

I’m a psychotherapist by profession, and write books about Stoic philosophy. As it happens, Stoicism was the philosophical inspiration for cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), the leading evidence-based form of modern psychotherapy. I’ve written about the relationship between them at length elsewhere. (See my recent book How to Think Like a Roman Emperor for a detailed discussion of how Marcus put Stoicism into practice in daily life, and its links with modern psychotherapy.)

Some of you are probably thinking that psychotherapy is a modern concept, right? Many people believe that it first started with Sigmund Freud. Well, even that part’s not true. Freud himself actually trained in psychotherapy, in France, under both Charcot and Bernheim. Modern psychotherapy had been up and running for at least half a century before Freud got onboard.

More importantly for us, though, the concept of psychotherapy was actually very familiar to ancient Greeks and Romans. Although they don’t use this word, as far as I know, they do come extremely close to doing so. It was common to refer to philosophy itself as a medicine or therapy (therapeia) for the psyche, the soul or mind.

Pythagorean & Socratic Therapy

We don’t know exactly how this began but, for instance, the pre Socratic philosopher, Pythagoras of Samos, combined the teaching of moral wisdom with music therapy and contemplative practices as far back as the 6th century BC. The Pythagoreans definitely believed that such practices could heal the soul of unhealthy desires and emotions, particularly anger.

We know that, centuries later, the Stoics were particularly influenced by Pythagoreanism. Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism wrote a (lost) book titled Pythagorean Questions. Marcus himself mentions how the Pythagoreans would contemplate the heavens and sunrise in order to remind themselves of the idea of purity (Meditations, 11.27).

It’s designed, Socrates said, as a cure for a special kind of arrogance or conceit.

However, Socrates was the main influence on the Stoics. One ancient author described the Stoics as a “Socratic sect” and we can see Epictetus, the most famous Stoic teacher of ancient Rome, repeatedly telling his students to take Socrates as their supreme role model in life.

Socrates introduced a trademark style of questioning to philosophy, known today as the Socratic Method or Socratic Questioning. It was also called the elenchus or method of “refutation”, the name given to the cross-examination of witnesses in an Athenian law court. That’s because the method consists primarily in exposing contradictions in the statements of the individual being questioned. It’s designed, Socrates said, as a cure for a special kind of arrogance or conceit. This consists in believing that we know something, which in fact we do not know, about the most important things in life. By that he means exposing contradictions in our moral values, such as our definition of virtues like “justice”, “courage”, “piety”, “wisdom”, and so on.

This isn’t an “academic” exercise, though. Socrates makes it crystal clear that he thinks of it as a cure for illness in the soul, which works by talking rather than taking medicinal drugs. It’s what we call a “psychotherapy” and indeed that’s how later authors would describe it.

Stoic Therapy

The Stoics employed the Socratic Method of questioning. That’s the main reason that we think of Stoicism as a philosophy rather than a religion. In particular, we can see Epictetus employing the Socratic Method with his students. In one striking instance, Epictetus questions a magistrate about the beliefs that cause him to anxiously flee his sick daughter’s bedside. This man says, paradoxically, that he loved his little girl so much that he simply couldn’t bear to watch over her, while she was extremely ill and perhaps dying.

Epictetus examines whether this father’s views about what it’s natural and appropriate to do in such a situation are contradictory. Among other things, he asks the man whether he was acting toward his own daughter in the same way that he’d wish others to act toward him if he became sick.

Come then, if you were sick, would you wish your relations to be so affectionate, and all the rest, children and wife, as to leave you alone and deserted? By no means. — Discourses, 1.11

In modern cognitive therapy, we often do the same thing. It’s called the “Double Standards” strategy. Often, if not always, people begin to change their beliefs when they are forced to realize that they’re incompatible with one another, and that they’re contradicting themselves. Of course, consistency is a necessary but not sufficient condition of the truth. We can be free from contradictions and yet still wrong. However, one thing is for sure, we cannot be completely in the right while holding contradictory beliefs. So it’s a good enough starting point for moral self-examination and psychotherapy.

Marcus in Therapy

Socrates, and the Stoics, believed that the wise man was free of such contradictions. His mind had been purified by questioning, or self-examination, so that his values and judgments are totally consistent with one another. He doesn’t say one thing and do another, like a hypocrite. He doesn’t say one thing one day, and another thing the next. The Stoic Sage is pretty clear about what’s right and wrong. He’s not “all over the place” with his morals.

At one point, Marcus appears to describe the goal of Stoic therapy (Meditations, 3.8). He says that in the mind of one who has been critiqued (“chastened”, the word also means “pruned”) and purified (the word katharsis, cleansed) there is nothing corrupt or impure, or even any wound remaining beneath the surface. This is the radical ideal, toward which Stoic therapy works. Having attained wisdom, his life seems complete, and fulfilled. There is no longer anything servile about such a man, he says, nothing phoney. He’s neither overly-attached to anything in life, nor completely detached from things. There’s nothing blameworthy, or shameful within him, and therefore no more does he feel compelled to hide anything about himself.

The word therapeia also referred to the care exhibited to temples and gods by the pious. For Stoics, though, all men have a divine spark or spirit within them, called the daemon. So the religious and psychological uses of the word therapeia become fused into one. We can see this clearly in The Meditations, where Marcus says that men fall into a wretched state when they busy themselves about everything under the sun without grasping that what we should really be doing is paying attention to the daemon within ourselves.

And reverence [therapeia] of the daemon consists in keeping it pure from passion and thoughtlessness, and dissatisfaction with what comes from gods and men. For the things from the gods merit veneration for their excellence, and the things from men should be dear to us by reason of kinship. — Meditations, 2.13

In practice, the methods of Stoic therapy required giving another person, the therapist, permission to speak very frankly (parrhesia). Socrates’ companions found that his questions often left them feeling a sort of confusion (aporia). Some enjoyed the experience and found it liberating; others became angry and defensive.

Epictetus describes what it felt like to be morally cross-examined by his own teacher, the famous Stoic knight Musonius Rufus:

Rufus used to say: “If you have leisure to praise me, I am speaking to no purpose.” Accordingly he used to speak in such a way that every one of us who were sitting there supposed that someone had accused him before Rufus: he so touched on what was doing, he so placed before the eyes every man’s faults. The philosopher’s school, ye men, is a surgery: you ought not to go out of it with pleasure, but with pain. — Discourses, 3.29

This might explain why Marcus says that, although he loved him dearly, he sometimes also found Rusticus, his Stoic mentor, provoked his anger. He gives thanks that:

Though I was often irritated with Rusticus, I never did anything of which I needed to repent. — Meditations, 1.17

We can perhaps infer some of the things Rusticus questioned Marcus about from the remarks he makes about him. The first thing Marcus says, though, is that having convinced him that he needed Stoic therapy, Rusticus persuaded him not to be led astray by the Sophists, or by his love of writing theoretical works. Rusticus also told Marcus to abandon writing moralizing speeches, like the Sophists, in which he poses as man of virtue. He was to stop pretending to be someone self-disciplined or making a big display of acts of benevolence, where this was being done to impress others. He was to focus on actually becoming a good man rather than just appearing to be one.

Rusticus also taught Marcus to communicate simply and honestly, without embellishing his words using rhetoric like, once again, a Sophist. Indeed, he largely quit writing fancy speeches and poetry. Marcus also stopped walking around the palace in his ceremonial robes, the purple of imperial office (toga picta), and began to dress more plainly, like an ordinary Roman citizen. These were all challenges to the young Caesar’s natural vanity.

Marcus was also prone, he says, to read books superficially, and too hastily to give his assent to people who had a way with words, perhaps the Sophists yet again. Rusticus was the one who got him out of these habits, teaching him to read patiently and carefully, and to think more deeply about the things he heard others say.

Intriguingly, Marcus adds that Rusticus got him reading certain notes instead about the lectures of Epictetus, “from his own personal collection.” I won’t review the evidence here, but it’s generally agreed this was probably a copy of The Discourses of Epictetus we know today. Of the original eight volumes, though, only four survive — Marcus appears to have also read the missing volumes.

As an aside, Arrian, who transcribed these discourses, wrote that he had originally intended them only for private circulation among friends. Arrian was appointed military governor of the Roman province of Cappadocia. A later author states that Junius Rusticus had served under Arrian in the Roman army, probably around 135 CE in the war against the Alani. So it’s possible that Marcus, as a young man, received a copy of The Discourses previously owned by Arrian, before these writings were widely-known or circulated in public. He got a sneak preview of what’s arguably the most important text ever written on Stoicism.

However, perhaps even more intriguingly, having told us that Rusticus sometimes provoked his anger, Marcus also says that it was this teacher who showed him how to conquer anger.

[From Rusticus, I learned] with respect to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a readiness to be reconciled. — Meditations, 1.7

Rusticus perhaps had to provoke Marcus sometimes in order to really show him how to manage his temper. Indeed, The Meditations contains many references to Stoic techniques for overcoming anger. One passage even provides a master-list, which Marcus calls “Ten Gifts from Apollo and his Muses” (Meditations, 11.18). They draw upon the writings of Epictetus. It’s tempting to imagine that Marcus may have been taught them by Rusticus, his Stoic therapist.

Conclusion

We know that Rusticus died around 170 CE, at Rome, not long after Marcus had left to fight the First Marcomannic War, while he was probably stationed at Carnuntum, in modern-day Austria. As it happens, that’s around the time scholars believe Marcus began writing The Meditations.

We can safely assume that Marcus wrote many letters to his Stoic mentor and therapist, while he was away from Rome. We know that the death of Rusticus was experienced by him as a great loss. Perhaps at that point, he was forced to take over the role of becoming his own Stoic therapist. Instead of writing to Rusticus, he now wrote to himself. Indeed, The Meditations is a title chosen by modern editors. The earliest Greek manuscript of the text was titled simply To Himself.

Perhaps, the whole of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations can, therefore, be viewed as a continuation of the lifelong process of self-improvement and self-therapy that he began under the Stoic Junius Rusticus.

Thanks! I’ll add that quote to the article!

Socratic Questioning, Stoicism and a Return to Virtue Ethics

Socratic Questioning, Stoicism and a Return to Virtue Ethics

Why did an angry mob storm the U.S. Capitol Building on 6th January? Perhaps simply because it seemed to them like the right thing to do. In their own imagination, they were acting quite righteously, and felt completely justified in doing things that looked to the rest of the world like madness, and a form of insurrection.

One woman turned to a reporter and said excitedly: “We should all go in, get them, and teach them a lesson.”

On hearing the initial news that the building had been breached, the crowd protesting outside cheered loudly. One woman turned to a reporter and said excitedly: “We should all go in, get them, and teach them a lesson.” Indeed, hot tempers can turn many people into budding educationalists. Take moral confusion, stir in self-righteous anger, and what you end up with, though, is a recipe for all sorts of violence. (Check out the Instagram video of this article if you want to listen to me read it as well.)

A few hours earlier, the crowd had been marching along Pennsylvania Avenue, past the statue of Benjamin Franklin that stands outside what’s currently the Trump International Hotel. Ben Franklin’s reflective, philosophical attitude toward his own values stands in contrast to the brash confidence of the angry mob. They believed an outburst of violence would teach their political enemies a lesson. He believed the republic would flourish only if the freedoms secured by The Constitution could be lived with wisdom and virtue. In a letter dated 17th April 1787, he wrote:

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Franklin therefore took the matter of improving his own character extremely seriously.

After reading the dialogues of Xenophon early in his twenties, Franklin fell in love with the Socratic method of questioning. At first he grilled other people, which they found quite irritating. Eventually, though, he realized that it was better to focus on questioning himself. He set about doing this systematically, for the rest of his life, as described in the part of his Autobiography titled Plan for Attaining Moral Perfection. Some of these values would be especially worth reviving in the Age of the Internet:

• Silence. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation

• Sincerity. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly.

• Tranquillity. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

Despite the proliferation of self-help books and articles, in print and online, this type of rigorous moral self-examination is actually very rare in modern society. Many people have barely examined their own values and as a result their ethical compass is, arguably, quite broken. For Franklin, though, and the Greek philosophers who inspired him, the quest to develop a rational and coherent set of virtues was worthwhile in itself, and should perhaps even be our supreme goal. Indeed, Socrates famously went so far as to say that, in this regard, the unexamined life was not worth living.

The Socratic Method

Socrates named his method after the technique of cross-examination (elenchus) used in Athenian law courts, where, then as now, witnesses were questioned to expose problems with their testimony. We should rigorously interrogate ourselves, he thought, so that we may expose contradictions in our own morality. He also described this method as a therapy for the mind, using words rather than drugs — a “talking cure”, as we say today. It was designed to overcome a special type of arrogance: the belief that we know things we do not actually know about the most important aspects of life.

The method involves concisely explaining our view of justice, or some other virtue, and then carefully considering exceptions to that definition. Socrates asks an Athenian general how he defines courage, for instance, and he says that it means standing your ground in battle and not running. Socrates points out that, among other things, that wouldn’t apply to cavalry units, who charge at the enemy. So they begin to revise the definition. If we’re willing to question all of our values in this way, he said, we become more open minded. The Socratic method, in other words, was introduced as a remedy for moral conceit and self-righteousness.

This kind of self-examination has profound psychological implications. Socrates, and the Stoic philosophers who followed in his footsteps, realized that our feelings of anger are often rooted in our conception of justice. When we feel strongly that someone’s actions are unjust, it’s difficult not to become angry — they did something they shouldn’t have done. When we respond with anger, though, we tend to feel our own actions are morally just — we’re giving them what we think they deserve in return.

At the beginning of Plato’s Republic, Socrates tackles head-on the popular saying, in ancient Greece, that justice consists in “helping our friends and harming our enemies.” He applies his trademark method to this way of thinking in order to expose in it what he considers to be a fatal contradiction. The Greek philosophers say that anger is typically associated with the desire for revenge, harming our enemies. The protestor at Capitol Hill who said “We should all go in, get them, and teach them a lesson”, was putting her revenge fantasy into words. However, the cliche she adopted hints at what Socrates saw as the central paradox of anger — is it a desire to improve things or make them worse?

Any outside observer to an argument will tell you that anger has a tendency to bring about the complete opposite of what it desires — like the mom yelling “Stop crying now!” at her toddler in the supermarket. For the most part, anger is counter-productive, especially when it comes to solving complex interpersonal or social problems. Likewise, paradoxically, armed militia groups in the US who claim to be defending constitution are the ones currently placing freedom and democracy most at risk.

It appears that these groups want to generate the very crisis they claim to be concerned about: a confrontation with the government. — Mick Mulroy, ‘Will there be an American insurgency’, ABC News

Time will tell but it’s likely that storming the Capitol Building also achieved the opposite of what those protestors wanted.

“Do good to our friends and make friends of our enemies” was universally conceded to be one of Socrates’ maxims.

So do we want to harm our enemies or educate them? “Which is better,” asks Socrates, “to live among bad citizens, or among good ones?” Nobody wants evil neighbours. No rational person would, therefore, intentionally corrupt and worsen the characters of their own fellow-citizens. They would merely harm themselves in doing so. Anger, though, is the desire to cause harm, or at least it’s typically at odds with the desire to do good. That’s why it usually leads to escalation. Angry people often behave irrationally, as if they want to make their enemies worse and create more of them — and they easily succeed in doing so.

We see it every day on the Internet. Peter says something that hurts Paul’s feelings. Paul gets angry and says something nasty back, because he wants to hurt Peter’s feelings. Peter, now more hurt and enraged, does the same back. And so it goes on, with the level of hostility often rapidly spiralling out of control. In recent years, hatred being fomented online has started to colour political discourse in general. It’s now given birth to a level of mutual contempt between factions that’s bordering, at times, on mass hysteria, as the incident at Capitol Hill shows.

If you really believe that something is bad for society then, logically, you should be strongly motivated to make things better, not worse. Socrates hints at but holds back from stating the conclusion of his argument in the Republic. However, Plutarch, a later philosopher wrote that “Do good to our friends and make friends of our enemies” was universally conceded to be one of Socrates’ maxims.

Ending Quarrels

If only the female protestor who wanted to “teach them a lesson” had meant that literally. She would have been fulfilling her duty as a citizen, for instance, if she believed an injustice had been done and tried her best to provide evidence. Instead, her anger and intolerance led her to join a mob who were doing the opposite, seeking to cause harm rather than to actually “teach” anyone anything. At the end of the day, their acts of violence are likely to make those who disagree with them more hostile, to create more enemies, and more potential for conflict.

In a sense, she didn’t know whether she wanted to help her perceived enemies or harm them, make them better or make them worse. If she’d followed the Socratic method, like Franklin whose statue she probably walked past that day, it would have led her to question the contradictions in her own moral reasoning. It could also have helped her to focus more on her own character, and making best use of the lawful and rational means within her own control.

Five centuries after Socrates’ death, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus told his students that they should dedicate their lives to emulating him. The main lesson he thought they could learn from Socrates might surprise you. “The wise and good man neither himself fights with any person,” Epictetus says, “nor does he allow another, so far as he can prevent it.” Socrates, he says, provides the best example of this. He exhibited extraordinary tolerance and self-control, never becoming angry with others even when they were insulting him. He was able to have penetrating conversations with others about their deepest values, questioning even their conception of what is just, while still remaining civilized and friendly.

What was his secret? Epictetus says that Socrates always remembered that other people’s opinions were up to them, and not directly under his control. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. He therefore placed more importance on improving himself than upon trying to influence others. Not even a political tyrant, says Epictetus, can stop me from taking responsibility for my own character and actions. If we really loved wisdom and could stand to talk about it rationally with others, while tolerating their freedom to disagree, we wouldn’t be in this mess. The Socratic belief that virtue is the main thing in life, says Epictetus, brings about “love in a family, concord in a state, peace among nations, and gratitude to God.”

Socratic Questioning, Stoicism and a Return to Virtue Ethics

Why did an angry mob storm the U.S. Capitol Building on 6th January? Perhaps simply because it seemed to them like the right thing to do. In their own imagination, they were acting quite righteously, and felt completely justified in doing things that looked to the rest of the world like madness, and a form of insurrection.

On hearing the initial news that the building had been breached, the crowd protesting outside cheered loudly. One woman turned to a reporter and said excitedly: “We should all go in, get them, and teach them a lesson.” Indeed, hot tempers can turn many people into budding educationalists. Take moral confusion, stir in self-righteous anger, and what you end up with, though, is a recipe for all sorts of violence.

A few hours earlier, the crowd had been marching along Pennsylvania Avenue, past the statue of Benjamin Franklin that stands outside what’s currently the Trump International Hotel. Ben Franklin’s reflective, philosophical attitude toward his own values stands in contrast to the brash confidence of the angry mob. They believed an outburst of violence would teach their political enemies a lesson. He believed the republic would flourish only if the freedoms secured by The Constitution could be lived with wisdom and virtue. Franklin therefore took the matter of improving his own character extremely seriously.

Read the rest of this article on Medium.

https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/about

Sure, I’ve added you. Read the about page below for guidance before submitting your draft. Thanks.

https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/about

The ancient Stoic philosophy of death

The ancient Stoic philosophy of death

Forget all else, Lucilius, and concentrate your thoughts on this one thing: not to fear the name of death. Through long reflection make death one of your close acquaintances, so that, if the situation arises, you are able even to go out and meet it. — Seneca, On Earthquakes

One day you will die. In many ways, though, death is already present with us throughout life. First, and most obviously, there is the fact that we are, most of us, bereaved several times. We also witness the bereavements suffered by others, and hear about deaths happening all over the world. As children, we learned that animals and plants die — as adults we have already come to know that everything born must die.

Then there is death in another sense: we are, in fact, dying every day. This is not the body to which your mother gave birth, as the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius put it. The child dies to become the adolescent. The adolescent dies to become the man. The boy is father to the man but also predeceases him. We die every night when we go to sleep and awaken a different person, although we often barely notice what has been lost in the process.

Third, death is present in our awareness that every thought and act could, for all we know, be cut short. Whatever we begin may, by its nature, insofar as it takes time to complete, be interrupted. We’re always, inescapably, conscious at some level of the utter fragility of our existence. No matter how much we try to ignore it, we know, each moment of our lives, that our life could suddenly stop.

I think for many people, as I write this, the threat of death is on their minds more than usual.

The Stoic teacher Epictetus told his students to learn from the slaves whispering memento mori, and words to that effect, in the ears of generals and emperors as they rode in triumph through the streets of Rome. I think for many people, as I write this, the threat of death is on their minds more than usual. A few months ago I found myself lying in a hospital bed staring at the ceiling, hoping my heart would continue beating. I didn’t close my eyes and go to sleep that night just in case I didn’t wake up. A few weeks later, first thing in the morning, my phone rang and the stranger’s voice on the other end told me that one of my parents had died suddenly, in another country. We’re surrounded by death. We can try to close our eyes and shut it out but it won’t go away. It’s already there inside us, waiting. Et in arcadia ego — even in paradise, death is waiting.

The Ancient Philosophy of Death

Accepting our death can become a philosophy of life. One of the first men to speak openly about the philosophy of life and death in this way was the ancient Greek Sophist known as Prodicus of Ceos. I think it’s imperative today that we rediscover the ancient Greek wisdom concerning death that used to be part of our heritage.

The state of nonexistence to which we permanently return after our death is no different than the one we were in, for countless aeons, before we were born

Contrary to what I’ve said above, Prodicus taught that death does not exist, either for the living or for the dead. He meant that the living cannot know what death is like until they experience it — it’s just a word or something we perceive happening to other people. Death does not exist yet for the living; yet those who are dead no longer exist themselves. In the eponymous dialogue, Socrates explains this argument to his friend Axiochus, who is dying, and adds “Vain then is the sorrow in Axiochus grieving for Axiochus!”

Socrates describes the argument, perhaps also from Prodicus’ speech on death, that the state of nonexistence to which we permanently return after our demise is no different than the one we inhabited, for countless aeons, before we were born. (This “Argument from Symmetry” is usually attributed to the Epicureans, I know, but here we’re told it predates their school by well over a century.)

When he was dying, Diogenes reputedly asked his followers to simply dump his body outside the city walls.

There’s a wonderful illustration, by the way, of the same idea in an anecdote about Diogenes the Cynic. When he was dying, Diogenes reputedly asked his followers to simply dump his body outside the city walls. They were horrified and said that wild beasts would eat his corpse if it wasn’t disposed of properly. Diogenes calmly said that in that case he’d like them to leave his staff beside his body so that he could use it to beat off the animals. His friends were confused and said that if he was dead he surely wouldn’t know to lift his staff and defend himself — he’d be unconscious. Exactly, said Diogenes, so why on earth would I care, you fools, whether or not my corpse is being eaten? Death, as Seneca put it, is a release from all suffering, and a boundary beyond which our ills cannot pass.

However, to return to our friend, Axiochus objects that supposing death is a state of nonexistence free from pain, nevertheless he is right to fear losing his life, because death is also devoid of pleasures. Life contains many opportunities for enjoyment, he contends, of which he is about to be robbed. Socrates nods and replies that his friend will not, however, be at all conscious of that deprivation. It seems Axiochus can’t escape that easily from the steamroller logic of Socrates’ argument.

This line of reasoning is, of course, not meant to justify taking one’s own life. Socrates is consoling Axiochus about the inevitability of his own impending death from illness. However, Socrates seems also to agree with most of these arguments, and he goes on living. The Stoic ideal holds that the Sage, the man we should seek to emulate, “finds it a joy to live and in spite of that is not reluctant to die”, accepting his mortality and facing death with dignity when the time comes. Life gains value, paradoxically, from our acceptance of death.

The Value of Living

Everyone knows that a brush with death can make you reappraise your priorities in life. What does that really mean, though? It’s not the same for everyone, of course. For most people, nevertheless, it’s pretty similar. We realize that a lot of the things we previously thought were really important, and invested a lot of time and energy in, aren’t actually important at all. That’s powerful medicine. It shatters the illusions that we inherit from the society around us: all the consumerism, celebrity culture, narcissism, egotism, hedonism — all that kind of stuff. To learn how to die, is to unlearn how to be a slave, as Seneca puts it.

Wealth and reputation… You can’t take any of it with you — even if you were going anywhere. Alexander the Great knew that. He reputedly asked for his body to be carried through the towns with his hands dangling out either side of the casket so that everyone could see that he left the world empty-handed. It’s the revelation that most of the things people make out to be so very important in life are not — that it’s all a big con, basically. The Stoics and Cynics called this the τύφος (smoke) that surrounds us in life — smoke and mirrors.

Accepting the certainty of our own death is the royal road to Stoic magnanimity, the ability to become bigger than our troubles…

The Stoics called this ability to rise above our fears “magnanimity” (μεγαλοψυχία), which literally means having a big soul or vast mind in Greek (and Latin). All other virtues, they said, depend upon this quality.

For if magnanimity by itself alone can raise us far above everything, and if magnanimity is but a part of virtue, then too virtue as a whole will be sufficient in itself for well-being — looking down upon all things that seem troublesome. — Diogenes Laertius

Accepting the certainty of our own death is the royal road to Stoic magnanimity, the ability to become bigger than our troubles, and look down upon both pain and pleasure with equanimity. It’s the source of our moral and psychological freedom.

The Love of Wisdom

The Stoics believed that grasping this realization and holding on to it is, in a sense, the goal of life. It’s the beginning of wisdom — the epiphany that reveals all “external goods” such as wealth and reputation are necessarily ephemeral and ultimately vacuous. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living, and by that he meant first and foremost examining our knowledge of virtue, our highest good. The meaning of philosophy as a way of life, for Socrates and the Stoics, is right there in its name, which literally means the love of wisdom. The way of the philosopher consists in cherishing insights such as these and viewing them as worth fighting to maintain.

Seneca thought that, ironically, an excessive fear of dying often leads to an early grave — nobody, I think, would dispute that. He goes much further, though, and says that the man who fears his own death will never do anything worthy of life. When we face death, if we can bear to look him in the face we have the opportunity to learn something that liberates us forever. If we dare to lift the bogeyman’s scary mask, as Socrates put it, each one of us may make the discovery that not wealth or reputation but wisdom is the goal of life.

Conquering Death-Anxiety

Marcus therefore advises contemplating death in each action, to focus our attention on its true worth:

During every one of your actions pause at each step and ask yourself: “Is death deemed catastrophic because of the loss of this?” — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Seneca likewise imagines that we should respond to those afraid to die by saying “So are you living now?” We cannot be truly alive so long as we are enslaved by fears, and dread of death itself is the mother of all fears. The philosophy that makes us fearless in the face of death, says Seneca, is a battle plan “effective against all weapons and every kind of enemy”.

In his essay On Earthquakes, Seneca likewise emphasises the folly of fearing death by earthquakes or any other specific thing, when death surrounds us and can strike us down in an infinite number of ways. We can as easily be killed by a single stone as an entire city collapsing on our heads. He writes: “If you wish to fear nothing, consider that all things are to be feared.” Elsewhere he says in his letters: “It is not clear where death is waiting for you, so you should wait for it everywhere.” Epictetus makes the same point: “Do you want me, then, to respect and do obeisance to all these things, and to go about as the slave of them all?” To be everywhere is to be nowhere — and to fear everything is to fear nothing.

Know Thyself and be Mortal

The Delphic Temple of Apollo had several maxims engraved on a pillar at its entrance. According to legend, these went back to the Seven Sages of Greece, in the 6th century BC. Their influence permeated Western philosophy, in other words, from its very beginning. The most famous of these Delphic maxims was undoubtedly “Know thyself.” Seneca claimed that it was to be interpreted as a reference to human mortality:

Those whom you love and those whom you despise will both be made equal in the same ashes. This is the meaning of that command, “Know thyself”, which is written on the shrine of the Pythian oracle. — Seneca, Moral Letters

“What is man?”, asks Seneca. Nothing more than a potter’s vase, which can be shattered into pieces by the slightest knock.

You were born a mortal, and you have given birth to mortals: yourself a weak and fragile body, liable to all diseases, can you have hoped to produce anything strong and lasting from such unstable material? — Seneca, Moral Letters

The oracle also said “Think things befitting a mortal” (Φρόνει θνητά). To know ourselves is to remember that we are mortal, reason accordingly, and live accordingly.

Seneca told himself each night as he closed his eyes to sleep that he might not awaken to see the morning. Marcus Aurelius told himself repeatedly to contemplate his own death. In fact, he told himself to imagine he was already dead, and living on borrowed time.

In a world torn by hope and worry, dread and anger, imagine every day that dawns is the last you’ll see; the hour you never hoped for will prove a happy surprise. — Horace, Letters

This notion of contemplative meditation on the inevitability of death, and the transience of life, was common in philosophy until recent centuries. The iconic image of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, a young philosophy student, holding aloft the skull of his childhood friend Yorick would have been recognisable to Elizabethan audiences as an allusion to common philosophical practices that involved contemplating images of death. It should make you realize, if nothing else, that anyone who resents or complains about absolutely anything in life is a rank hypocrite — because we’re ultimately all here by our own choosing.

The Contemplation of Death

Plato wasn’t there to witness Socrates’ execution. He portrays Phaedo, a beautiful and talented young man whom Socrates had rescued from life as a slave in an Athenian brothel, recounting the event, with awe, in the dialogue that bears his name:

Although I was witnessing the death of one who was my friend, I had no feeling of pity, for the man appeared happy both in manner and words as he died nobly and without fear. — Plato, Phaedo

In prison, awaiting execution, Socrates spent his final hours debating amiably with his friends about philosophy. Given the nearness of his own end, he chose to explore the question of what happens to the soul after death. He coolly examines several possibilities while keeping an open mind, tolerant of uncertainty.

He explains his view that philosophy is essentially a lifelong “practice of death” (melete thanatou), as the reason for his surprising indifference. He says that those who practice philosophy in the right way are constantly in training for death. His friends ask him to speak to them as though a little child remains deep within them who still fears death, and to reassure them there is nothing scary behind the mask of this bogeyman. He replies that they should “sing a charm” over their inner child every day until they have charmed away his fears. True philosophers, he says, fear dying least of all men.

The “contemplation of death” therefore emerged right at the most dramatic moment in the birth of Western philosophy, spoken at the heart of what Socrates called his philosophical swansong. When the time came, he calmly drank the poison and waited to die, something he’d clearly reconciled himself to, and faced with supreme equanimity and an attitude of philosophical curiosity.

It is not the things themselves that disturb men, but their judgements about these things. For example, death is nothing catastrophic, or else Socrates too would have thought so, but the judgement that death is catastrophic, this is the catastrophic thing. — Epictetus, Enchiridion

Forget all else, Lucilius, and concentrate your thoughts on this one thing: not to fear the name of death. Through long reflection make death one of your close acquaintances, so that, if the situation arises, you are able even to go out and meet it. — Seneca, On Earthquakes

One day you will die. In many ways, though, death is already present with us throughout life. First, and most obviously, there is the fact that we are, most of us, bereaved several times. We also witness the bereavements suffered by others, and hear about deaths happening all over the world. As children, we learned that animals and plants die — as adults we have already come to know that everything born must die.

Then there is death in another sense: we are, in fact, dying every day. This is not the body to which your mother gave birth, as the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius put it. The child dies to become the adolescent. The adolescent dies to become the man. The boy is father to the man but also predeceases him. We die every night when we go to sleep and awaken a different person, although we often barely notice what has been lost in the process.

Third, death is present in our awareness that every thought and act could, for all we know, be cut short. Whatever we begin may, by its nature, insofar as it takes time to complete, be interrupted. We’re always, inescapably, conscious at some level of the utter fragility of our existence. No matter how much we try to ignore it, we know, each moment of our lives, that our life could suddenly stop.

Read the rest of this article on Medium.

Some questions I ask myself to get stuff written

Some questions I ask myself to get stuff written

I’m a writer. I was known for enjoying writing in my youth, as a schoolboy, but it was never my intention to do it for a living. Still, here we are… I’m the author of about six books and counting. I’m just finishing a graphic novel for one major publishing house, and about to start a biography for another. It seems like all I do these days is, well, write.

I find that sometimes writing comes easily. Usually that’s at about 3am in the morning, unfortunately, when normal people are asleep. Years and years ago, when I was stuck working on an essay, I decided to write down some questions and make myself answer them in order to get unstuck. I found it helped.

I still use the same questions when I’m writing nonfiction books and articles. Sometimes when my friends have told me that they’re stuck trying to write an essay or book chapter, I’ve shared my questions with them. They’re tough questions so it can be a bit annoying. If you’ve got the patience for it, though, they often seem to help. So here they are…

Essay-Writing Machine

1. What’s the main point you’re trying to arrive at in your conclusion?

2. What conclusion do you think your audience will expect you to arrive at?

3. What are the three main supporting points you must include?

4. “In other words…” — Say the same thing again but use completely different words to prove comprehension of your key points.

5. “So what?” — What’s the fundamental importance of each of your key points?

6. “What does it all mean?” — Explain how your key points link together or support your main conclusion as briefly as you can.

7. “Rubbish!” — What are the most powerful criticisms that could be made against your position? How can you best answer each one in turn?

8. What essential words, phrases, or quotations, should you include?

9. Paraphrase or explain each one to prove your comprehension of the terminology.

10. What unanswered questions do you still have about the subject?

11. Do some quick research — try to answer each of them as best you can.

12. What’s the most powerful statement of your position that you could include in your conclusion?

I’ve found it helpful to play other tricks on myself to get creative. Strangely, I often find that if I change the font and the background colour and layout of pages, then re-read my drafts, it helps me see things differently. I often print out drafts and read them aloud, or get other people to read them to me.

I’d love to know what strategies you use to

We didn’t say that that both influences shouldn’t or “can’t co-exist” as you put it, and that isn’t what we meant, nor was it intended to…

You’re referring to the sentence: “It’s unfortunate that third-wave therapists turned predominantly to Buddhism as an inspiration for introducing mindfulness to CBT when similar ideas were already there in Stoicism.” I think you’ve misread that, with respect.

We didn’t say that that both influences shouldn’t or “can’t co-exist” as you put it, and that isn’t what we meant, nor was it intended to be pejorative regarding Buddhism. All we said was that it was unfortunate that researchers turned *predominantly* to Buddhism, when they should also have looked at Stoicism insofar as it was already an existing influence. What we meant was that both influences could and should co-exist within CBT.