Crates of Thebes was Diogenes the Cynic’s most famous pupil and the main teacher of Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism.
Glorious children of Mnemosyne and Olympian Zeus,
Pierian Muses, hearken to my prayer!
Grant me food without fail for my belly,
Which has ever made my life simple and unenslaved…
Make me useful rather than sweet to my friends.
Glorious goods I do not wish to gather, as one
Who yearns for the wealth of a beetle or riches of an ant;
No, I wish to possess righteousness and collect riches
Which are easily borne, easily gained, and conducive to virtue.
If these I win, I will propitiate Hermes and the holy Muses
Not with costly offering but with pious virtues.
From the Emperor Julian, the Apostate’s Orations. This is a Cynic appropriation of a famous verse-prayer by Solon, the Athenian sage and statesman. Solon prayed for prosperity and reputation, and to be sweet (pleasing) to his friends. Crates, makes a pointed contrast by praying instead for just enough food as the body naturally requires, enough “riches” to survive and live simply, and he seeks to be useful rather than pleasant to his friends, by helping to make them better (more virtuous) people, even if that sometimes requires harsh words or actions. Virtue replaces wealth, throughout, as the chief good in human life, being likewise what the gods value.
Here are some lines of ancient Greek verse about Diogenes of Sinope, the founder of Cynic philosophy. I’ve also included some ancient verse about his student Monimos of Syracuse.
The staff and cloak are mentioned as typical accoutrements, along with the knapsack. What is the main thing Diogenes gets praised for here? Teaching the doctrine of self-sufficiency (autarkeia), or self-reliance, which is paradoxically described as the “easiest path through life”.
He is now no more, the Sinopean,
The staff-bearer with the doubled cloak who lived in the open air,
But has gone off because he pressed his lips and teeth together
And held his breath; for he was Diogenes in very truth,
A son of Zeus and hound of heaven
Cercidas of Megalopolis, in Diogenes Laertius. “Diogenes” means son of Zeus, and “Cynic” comes from the word for dog. These verses describe some of the stereotypical accoutrements and behaviours of the Cynics. Death by holding one’s breath was considered a form of suicide favoured by philosophers.
Even bronze yields to time, but your glory,
O Diogenes, will remain intact through all eternity,
Since you taught mortals the doctrine of self-sufficiency
And showed them the easiest path through life.
Engraved on bronze statues of Diogenes the Cynic erected in Corinth following his death, according to Diogenes Laertius. These lines might be taken to refer to what was considered the essence of the Cynic philosophy, the legacy of Diogenes being what the ancients describe as a “short-cut to virtue” consisting of a life of voluntary poverty and self-imposed hardship for the purposes of philosophical training.
The following relates to Monimos of Syracuse:
There was a man named Monimos, Philo, a wise one,
But none too famous – who carried a knapsack?-
Not one but three. Never did he use a saying
Like “Know thyself”, by heaven, or other of the quoted
Proverbs, no, he went much further, the dirty beggar,
And declared all human suppositions to be illusion.
From Menander’s comedy The Groom. Monimos, a student of Diogenes the Cynic, seems to be mocked here for being greedy compared to other Cynics, and carrying three knapsacks of food.
Menedemos was a pupil of Colotes of Lampsacos [a pupil of Epicurus who also studied Cynicism in 3-4th century BC].
According to Hippobotos, he advanced to such a degree of imposture that he went around in the guise of a Fury [an ancient chthonic goddess of vengeance], saying that he had come from Hades to take note of sins that were committed, so as to be able to report them, on his return, to the deities below.
This was the manner of his dress: he wore a dark [grey or black] tunic reaching down to his feet, with a red [lit. Phoenician, i.e., Tyrian purple] belt tied around it, and an Arcadian hat on his head with the twelve signs of the zodiac embroidered on it, and tragic buskins, and he had an enormously long beard, and carried an ash-wood staff in his hand.
According to Diogenes Laertius’The Lives of Eminent Philosophers, there were two major schools of ancient Greek philosophy, the Ionian and Italian (or Eleatic) schools, which divide into four distinct successions that survived down to the Hellenistic period. The Ionian School was founded by Thales and Anaximander, and their succession led down to Socrates, at which point his followers, “Socratics”, divided into two sub-divisions: The Cynic-Stoic tradition founded by Antisthenes and the Academic tradition founded by Plato. Plato’s student Aristotle then split off to form his own tradition, creating three subdivisions of the Ionian succession. The Italian school began with Pherecydes and Pythagoras and ended with Epicurus.
The Ionian School
Anaximander (“pupil of Thales”)
Anaximenes
Anaxagoras
Archelaus
Socrates (“who introduced ethics or moral philosophy”)
[Diogenes doesn’t include Heraclitus in the Ionian succession. Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes are usually described as part of the Milesian school.]
The Italian School
Pythagoras (“pupil of Pherecydes”)
Telauges (his son)
Xenophanes
Parmenides
Zeno of Elea
Leucippus
Democritus (“who had many pupils”)
Nausiphanes [and Naucydes] (“in particular”)
Epicurus (Succession ends)
The Socratics
The Academic Succession
Plato (Student of Socrates, “founder of the Old Academy”)
Speusippus
Xenocrates
Polemo
Crantor
Crates
Arcesilaus (“founder of the Middle Academy”, who introduced an emphasis on skepticism)
Lacydes (“founder of the New Academy”)
Carneades
Clitomachus (Succession ends)
The Cynic-Stoic Succession
Antisthenes (student of Socrates)
Diogenes the Cynic (founder of Cynicism)
Crates of Thebes
Zeno of Citium (founder of the Stoa)
Cleanthes
Chrysippus (Succession ends)
The Peripatetic Succession
Aristotle (student of Plato)
Theophrastus (Succession ends)
Excerpt from Diogenes Laertius
But philosophy, the pursuit of wisdom, has had a twofold origin; it started with Anaximander on the one hand, with Pythagoras on the other. The former was a pupil of Thales, Pythagoras was taught by Pherecydes. The one school was called Ionian, because Thales, a Milesian and therefore an Ionian, instructed Anaximander; the other school was called Italian from Pythagoras, who worked for the most part in Italy. And the one school, that of Ionia, terminates with Clitomachus and Chrysippus and Theophrastus, that of Italy with Epicurus. The succession passes from Thales through Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, to Socrates, who introduced ethics or moral philosophy; from Socrates to his pupils the Socratics, and especially to Plato, the founder of the Old Academy; from Plato, through Speusippus and Xenocrates, the succession passes to Polemo, Crantor, and Crates, Arcesilaus, founder of the Middle Academy, Lacydes, founder of the New Academy, Carneades, and Clitomachus. This line brings us to Clitomachus.
There is another which ends with Chrysippus, that is to say by passing from Socrates to Antisthenes, then to Diogenes the Cynic, Crates of Thebes, Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes, Chrysippus. And yet again another ends with Theophrastus; thus from Plato it passes to Aristotle, and from Aristotle to Theophrastus. In this manner the school of Ionia comes to an end.
In the Italian school the order of succession is as follows: first Pherecydes, next Pythagoras, next his son Telauges, then Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Leucippus, Democritus, who had many pupils, in particular Nausiphanes [and Naucydes], who were teachers of Epicurus. (Diogenes Laertius)
Diogenes Laertius says in the prologue of his Lives of Eminent Philosophers that there were two main philosophical lineages: the Ionian, starting with Anaximander, and the Italian, starting with Pythagoras. He then adds:
There is another which ends with Chrysippus, that is to say by passing from Socrates to Antisthenes, then to Diogenes the Cynic, Crates of Thebes, Zeno of Citium, Cleanthes, Chrysippus.
This seems to mean that he sees Stoicism as a development of Cynicism, and in some sense derived from Socrates himself; or he may mean that Stoicism can be traced back beyond Socrates to Anaximander and the Ionian tradition. He actually seems to describe the Ionian tradition as splitting into three roughly parallel lineages, founded by Plato, Antisthenes and Aristotle respectively. These correspond to the major Hellenistic schools of the Academy, the Cynic-Stoic tradition, and Aristotelianism, with the addition of the Epicurean school, which he claims follows the Italian succession.
However, preceding his comments about the Cynic-Stoic succession, he explains that although Socrates stood in the Ionian tradition, he “introduced ethics or moral philosophy” , which may suggest that the lineage Socrates-Cynicism-Stoicism originates in Socrates’ novel conception of moral philosophy. It may be worth noting that Diogenes says in his chapter on Socrates that “he discussed moral questions in the workshops and the market-place, being convinced that the study of nature is no concern of ours; and that he claimed that his inquiries embraced ‘Whatso’er is good or evil in an house'”, quoting Homer. This appears to mean that Socrates was particularly known for his concern with moral questions that, rather than being purely abstract, dealt with our daily problems of living. Moreover, Diogenes adds:
In my opinion Socrates discoursed on physics as well as on ethics, since he holds some conversations about providence, even according to Xenophon, who, however, declares that he only discussed ethics. But Plato, after mentioning Anaxagoras and certain other physicists in the Apology, treats for his own part themes which Socrates disowned, although he puts everything into the mouth of Socrates.
This ambivalence about questions of abstract physics can certainly be found in the Stoics as well, despite the fact that their philosophical curriculum was famously divided into: Physics, Ethics and Logic. Later, in his chapter on Antisthenes, Diogenes goes on to mention Zeno and the Stoics:
It would seem that the most manly section of the Stoic School owed its origin to him. Hence Athenaeus the epigrammatist writes thus of them:
“Ye experts in Stoic story, ye who commit to sacred pages most excellent doctrines–that virtue alone is the good of the soul: for virtue alone saves man’s life and cities. But that Muse that is one of the daughters of Memory approves the pampering of the flesh, which other men have chosen for their aim.”
Antisthenes gave the impulse to the indifference of Diogenes, the continence of Crates, and the patient endurance of Zeno, himself laying the foundations of their state.
He concludes this chapter by saying “we will now append an account of the Cynics and Stoics who derive from Antisthenes”. Subsequently, in the last of his chapters on Cynicism (Menedemus) he comments:
They hold further that “Life according to Virtue” is the End to be sought, as Antisthenes says in his Heracles: exactly like the Stoics. For indeed there is a certain close relationship between the two schools. Hence it has been said that Cynicism is a short cut to virtue; and after the same pattern did Zeno of Citium live his life.
However, in De Finibus, Cicero portrays the Stoic Cato as saying:
Some Stoics say that the Cynics’ philosophy and way of life is suitable for the wise person, should circumstances arise conducive to its practice. But others rule this out altogether.
With this in mind, it’s noticeable that whereas Epictetus very frequently refers to Diogenes the Cynic as an exemplar or role-model for his students, Seneca very seldom refers to Cynicism. Indeed, at one point Seneca lists the philosophers he most admired, all of whom were Stoics, apart from Socrates and Plato – but neither Diogenes nor any other Cynic was included by him.
Men have come into being for one another; so either educate them or put up with them. (Meditations, 8.59)
Here are my attempts to (partially) retranslate, from ancient Greek into more contemporary English, some key passages from The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius dealing with Stoic strategies for overcoming anger and cultivating empathy. Marcus wrote two elaborate lists of Stoic formulas intended as remedies for interpersonal conflict, the first is in a more polished style, the second presents a slightly more technical philosophical response to the same sort of problems.
The Meditations, Book 11 §18
[When offended by other people’s actions:]
Remember the close bond between yourself and the rest of mankind and that we came into the world for the sake of one another; and taking another point of view, that I have come into it [as Emperor] to be set over men, as a ram over a flock or a bull over a herd. Start at the beginning from this premise: If not atoms, then an all-controlling Nature. If the latter, then the lower [animals] are for the sake of the higher and the higher [i.e., human beings] for one another.
Think of the characters of those who offend you at the table, in their beds, and so on. In particular, remember the effect their negative way of thinking has on them, and the misplaced confidence it gives them in their actions.
If what they’re doing is right, you’ve no reason to complain; and if it’s not right, then it must have been involuntary and unintentional. Because just as “no-one ever deliberately denies the truth,” according to Socrates, so nobody ever intentionally treats another person badly. That’s why these negative people are themselves insulted if anyone accuses them of injustice, ingratitude, meanness, or any other sort of offence against their neighbours -they just don’t realise they’re doing wrong.
You yourself, are no different from them, and upset people in various ways. You might avoid making some mistakes, but the thought and inclination is still there, even if cowardice or egotism or some other negative motive has held you back you from copying their mistakes.
Remember, you’ve got no guarantee they’re doing the wrong thing anyway, people’s motives aren’t always what they seem. There’s usually a lot to learn before any sure-footed moral judgements can be made about other people’s actions.
Tell yourself, when you feel upset and fed up, that human life is transient and only lasts a moment; it won’t be long before we’ll all have been laid to rest.
Get rid of this, make a decision to quit thinking of things as insulting, and your anger immediately disappears. How do you get rid of these thoughts? By realising that you’ve not really been harmed by their actions. Moreover, unless genuine harm to your soul is all that worries you, you’ll wind up being guilty of all sorts of offences against other people yourself.
Anger and frustration hurt us more than the things we’re annoyed about hurt us.
Kindness is an irresistible force, so long as it’s genuine and without any fake smiles or two-facedness. Even the most stubborn bad attitude is nothing, if you just keep being nice to the person concerned. Politely comment on his behaviour when you get the chance and, just when he’s about to have another go at you, gently make him self-conscious by saying “No, my son; we’re not meant for this. I’ll not be hurt; you’re just hurting yourself.” Subtly draw his attention to this general fact; even bees and other animals that live in groups don’t act like he does. Do it without any hint of sarcasm or nit-picking, though; do it with real affection and with your heart free from resentment. Don’t talk to him harshly like a school teacher or try to impress bystanders but, even though other people may be around, talk as if you’re alone together in private.
Keep these nine pieces of advice in mind, like nine gifts from the Muses; and while there’s still life in you, begin at last to be a man. While guarding yourself against being angry with others, though, be just as careful to avoid the opposite extreme, of toadying. One’s just as bad as the other, and both cause problems. With bouts of rage, always remind yourself that losing your temper is no sign of manhood. On the contrary, there’s more strength, as well as more natural humanity, in someone capable of remaining calm and gentle. He proves he’s got strength and nerve and guts, unlike his angry, complaining friend. Anger’s just as much a sign of weakness as bubbling with tears; in both cases we’re giving in to suffering. Finally, a tenth idea, this time from the very leader of the Muses, Apollo himself. To expect bad men never to do bad things is just madness; it’s asking the impossible. And to let them abuse other people, and expect them to leave you alone, that is arrogance.
The Meditations, Book 9 § 42
When you are offended by anyone’s shameless lack of conscience, put this question at once to yourself: “Can it therefore be possible that men without conscience do not exist in the world?” No, it is not possible. Therefore do not ask for the impossible. For the individual in question is just one of the conscienceless people that necessarily exist in the world. Have the same reflection ready-to-hand for the rogue, the deceiver, or any other wrongdoer whatsoever. For the recollection that this sort of man cannot but exist will bring kindlier feelings towards individuals of this sort. It’s also very useful to immediately think this to yourself: “What virtue has Nature given humanity as a counter-measure to the wrong-doing in question?” For as an antidote against the unfeeling man she has given gentleness, and against another person some other resource.
In any case, it is in your power to teach the man that has gone astray the error of his ways. For everyone that errs misses his true mark and has gone astray. But what harm have you suffered? You will find that not one of the persons against whom you are exasperated has done anything capable of making your mind worse; but it is there in your mind that what is evil for you and harmful have their whole existence.
What is harmful or strange about the uneducated man acting like an uneducated man? Look and see whether you aren’t more to blame yourself for not expecting that he would act wrongly in this way. For your own faculty of reason too could have given you means for concluding that this would most likely be the case. Nevertheless all this is forgotten, and you are surprised at his wrongdoing.
But above all, when you find fault with a man for untrustworthiness and ingratitude, turn your thoughts to yourself. For the fault is evidently your own, whether you trusted that a man with such a character would be trustworthy, or if in granting a kindness you did not bestow it absolutely and so that from the very act of doing it you immediately had the reward in full.
For when you had performed a kindness, what more do you want? Is it not enough that you have done something in accord with your nature? Do you seek compensation for it? As though the eye should claim a payment for seeing, or the feet for walking! For just as these latter were made for their special work, and by carrying this out according to their individual constitution they come fully into their own, so also man, formed as he is by nature for benefiting others, when he has acted as benefactor or as collaborator in any other way for the common welfare, has done what he was constituted for, and has what is his.
From its origin Stoicism placed considerable emphasis on the division of philosophical discourse into three topics called “Ethics”, “Physics” and “Logic”. Philosophy itself was unified but theoretical discussions could be broadly distinguished in this way and the Stoics were particularly known for their threefold curriculum. Epictetus is the only Stoic teacher whose work survives in significant amounts, we have four volumes of his Discourses, recorded from his public lectures by his student Arrian, although another four volumes have apparently been lost. We also have a condensed version of his teachings compiled in the famous Stoic “Handbook” or Enchiridion. Although Epictetus lived about four centuries after Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, and by his time the formal institution of the Stoic school had apparently ceased to exist, he appears to have been particularly faithful to the early teachings of the school’s main founders: Zeno and Chrysippus.
However, Epictetus also describes a threefold division between aspects of lived philosophical practice, which scholars can find no trace of in previous Stoic literature. (Hence, another famous Roman Stoic, Seneca, won’t come into this discussion because he basically lived before Epictetus and never mentioned these three disciplines.)
“The Discipline of Desire”, which has to do with acceptance of our fate
“The Discipline of Action”, which has to do with philanthropy or love of mankind
“The Discipline of Assent”, which has to do with mindfulness of our judgements
The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic best-known to modern readers, was taught by philosophers who possibly studied with Epictetus, although he never met him himself. One of Marcus’ teachers gave him a copy of notes from Epictetus’ lectures, almost certainly the Discourses recorded by Arrian. Indeed, Marcus refers to the teachings of Epictetus repeatedly throughout The Meditations and it’s clear that he’s primarily influenced by this particular form of Stoicism. He also makes extensive use of the Three Disciplines described in the Discourses, which provide one of the main “keys” to interpreting his own writings.
So how are we to interpret these Stoic practical disciplines? The French scholar Pierre Hadot wrote a very thorough analysis of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations called The Inner Citadel(1998), in which he explores the Three Disciplines in detail, employing them as a framework for his exposition. If we follow Hadot’s interpretation, it actually provides a fairly clear and simple model for understanding the teachings of Stoicism. The way of Stoic philosophy was traditionally described as “living according to nature” or “living harmoniously” and Hadot suggests that all three disciplines are intended to help us live in harmony in different regards, and that they combine together to provide the secret to a serene and harmonious way of life, practical philosophy as the art of living wisely.
1. The Discipline of Desire (Stoic Acceptance)
According to Hadot, the discipline of “desire” (orexis) is the application to daily living of the Stoic theoretical topic of “physics”, which includes the Stoic study of natural philosophy, cosmology, and theology. The discipline of desire, according to this view, is the virtue of living in harmony with the Nature of the universe as a whole, or in the language of Stoic theology, with Zeus or God. This entails having a “philosophical attitude” toward a life and acceptance of our Fate as necessary and inevitable. It’s tempting to see this discipline as particularly entailing the cardinal virtues associated with self-control over the irrational passions, which are “courage”, or endurance in the face of fear and suffering, and “self-discipline” (temperance), or the ability to renounce desire and abstain from false or unhealthy pleasures. (Hence, Epictetus’ famous slogan: “endure and renounce”.) Hadot calls the goal of this discipline “amor fati” or the loving acceptance of one’s fate. This discipline is summed up in one of the most striking passages from the Enchiridion: “Seek not for events to happen as you wish but wish events to happen as they do and your life will go smoothly and serenely.” But Stoics are not “doormats”. The Stoic hero Cato of Utica famously marched the shattered remnants of the Republican army through the deserts of Africa to make a desperate last stand against the tyrant Julius Caesar, who sought to overthrow the Republic and declare himself dictator of Rome. Although he lost the civil war, he became a Roman legend and the Stoics dubbed him “the invincible Cato” because his will was completely unconquered – he tore his own guts out with his bare hands rather than submit to Caesar and be exploited by the dictator for his propaganda. Centuries later, the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius, despite a devastating plague and countless misfortunes beyond his control, led his weakened army repeatedly into battle to defend Rome against invading barbarian hordes. He prevailed despite the many obstacles to victory. If he’d failed, Rome would have been destroyed. As we’ll see, the discipline of action explains this strange paradox: how can the Stoics combine acceptance with such famous endurance and courageous action in the name of justice? I’ve described this discipline simply as “Stoic Acceptance”, meaning amor fati.
2. The Discipline of Action (Stoic Philanthropy)
According to Hadot, the discipline of “action” (hormê, which really means the inception or initial “impulse” to action) is the application to daily living of the Stoic theoretical topic of “ethics”. Stoic “ethics” which includes the definition of what is good, bad, and indifferent. It also deals with the goal of life as “happiness” or fulfilment (eudaimonia). It includes the definition of the cardinal Stoic virtues (wisdom, justice, courage, and self-discipline). According to the central doctrine of Stoicism, virtue is the only true good and sufficient by itself for the good life and fulfilment (eudaimonia). Likewise, Stoic ethics covers the vices, opposing virtue, and the irrational and unhealthy “passions”, classified as: fear, craving, emotional pain, and false or unhealthy pleasures. The discipline of action, according to Hadot’s view, is the essentially virtue of living in harmony with the community of all mankind, which means benevolently wishing all of mankind to flourish and achieve “happiness” (eudaimonia) the goal of life. However, as other people’s wellbeing is outside of our direct control, we must always wish them well in accord with the Stoic “reserve clause” (hupexairesis), which basically means adding the caveat: “Fate permitting” or “God willing.” (This is one way in which the philosophical attitude toward life reconciles vigorous action with emotional acceptance.) In other words, Stoics do their best to act with virtue while accepting the outcome of their actions in a somewhat detached manner, whether success or failure. Moreover, Stoics must act according to their rational appraisal of which external outcomes are naturally to be preferred. Hence, Marcus Aurelius appears to refer to three clauses that Stoics should be continually mindful to attach to all of their actions:
That they are undertaken “with a reserve clause” (hupexairesis)
That they are “for the common welfare” of mankind (koinônikai)
That they “accord with value” (kat’ axian)
It’s tempting to see this discipline as particularly associated with the cardinal virtue of “justice”, which the Stoics defined as including both fairness to others and benevolence. Hadot calls this discipline “action in the service of mankind”, because it involves extending the same natural affection or care that we are born feeling for our own body and physical wellbeing to include the physical and mental wellbeing of all mankind, through a process known as “appropriation” (oikeiosis) or widening the circle of our natural “self-love” to include all mankind. I’ve described this as “Stoic Philanthropy”, or love of mankind, a term they employed themselves.
3. The Discipline of Assent (Stoic Mindfulness)
According to Hadot, the discipline of “assent” (sunkatathesis) is the application to daily living of the Stoic theoretical topic of “logic”. Stoic “logic” actually includes elements of what we would now call “psychology” or “epistemology”. The discipline of assent, according to this view, is the virtue of living in harmony with our own essential nature as rational beings, which means living in accord with reason and truthfulness in both our thoughts and speech. It’s tempting to see this discipline as particularly associated with the cardinal Stoic virtue of “wisdom” or truthfulness. Hadot calls the goal of this discipline the “inner citadel” because it involves continual awareness of the true self, the faculty of the mind responsible for judgement and action, where our freedom and virtue reside, the chief good in life. According to Hadot’s analysis, although the Stoics refer to “judgement” in general (hypolêpsis), they’re primarily interested in monitoring and evaluating their own implicit value-judgements. These form the basis of our actions, desires, and emotions, especially the irrational passions and vices which the Stoics sought to overcome. By continually monitoring their judgements, Stoics are to notice the early-warning signs of upsetting or unhealthy impressions and take a step back from them, withholding their “assent” or agreement, rather than being “carried away” into irrational and unhealthy passions and the vices. The Stoics call this prosochê or “attention” to the ruling faculty of the mind, to our judgements and actions. I’ve described this as “Stoic Mindfulness”, a term that can be taken to translate prosochê.
The Goal of Life (Follow Nature)
As you can probably see, these three disciplines overlap considerably and are intertwined, just like the three traditional topics of Stoic philosophy, which Hadot claims they’re based upon: Logic, Ethics, and Physics. However, in unison, they allow the Stoic to work toward a harmonious and consistent way of life, in accord with nature. By this, the Stoics meant a life in the service of the natural goal of human nature, the attainment of fulfilment “eudaimonia”, the good life, achieved by perfecting moral reasoning and excelling in terms of the cardinal virtues: wisdom, justice, courage, and self-discipline.
Check out my graphic novel, Verissimus: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius
This 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.
What did you do that was good for your fundamental wellbeing? (What went well?)
What did you do that harmed your fundamental wellbeing? (What went badly?)
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
There are five explicit references to the concept of acting “with a reserve clause” in The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, which he obviously employs as a kind of technical term. This isn’t very clear in some of the English translations available. The concept of action “with a reserve clause” (hupexhairesis) is probably closely-related to the concept of “moral choice” (prohairesis) and the definition of the good as “worthy of being chosen” (haireton) in accord with reason and nature.
The concept of the “reserve clause” (exceptio in Latin) can also be found in Seneca and Epictetus, and to some extent in Cicero’s writings on Stoicism. For example, Epictetus tells his students:
For can you find me a single man who cares how he does what he does, and is interested, not in what he can get, but in the manner of his own actions? Who, when he is walking around, is interested in his own actions? Who, when he is deliberating, is interested in the deliberation itself, and not in getting what he is planning to get? (Discourses, 2.16.15)
The basic idea is that Stoics must act in the world, although the good of their own soul (wisdom and virtue) is the chief goal in life, external and bodily things, despite being classed as “indifferent” with regard to our ultimate wellbeing, are to be “selected” or “rejected” in a somewhat detached manner, insofar it is natural and rational to either get or avoid them. In other words, we should pursue external goals with the caveat: “Fate permitting.” There’s a good description of this in the New Testament:
Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” (James, 4:13-15)
Hence, Christians used to write “D.V.” or “Deo Volente” (God willing, in Latin) at the end of letters. However, Marcus makes it explicit that he’s deriving the concept, in part, from Epictetus, whom he quotes.
Hear Epictetus: No one can rob us of our free choice. We must, says he, hit upon the true science of assent and in the sphere of our impulses pay good heed that they are with a “reserve clause”; that they have in view our neighbour’s welfare; that they are proportionate to a thing’s value. And we must abstain wholly from inordinate desire and show avoidance in none of the things that are not in our control. (Meditations, 11.37-38)
The Stoics believed the mind was composed of a physical substance like a subtle form of fire, and Marcus describes its ability to adapt to external events, through the “reserve clause”, as resembling an all-consuming fire.
That which holds the mastery within us, when it is in accordance with Nature, is so disposed towards what befalls, that it can always adapt itself with ease to what is possible and granted us. For it is wedded to no definite material, but in the pursuit of its aims it works with a “reserve clause”; it converts into material for itself any obstacle that it meets with, just as fire when it gets the mastery of what is thrown upon it. (Meditations, 4.1)
What stands in the way becomes the way:
Though a man may in some sort hinder my activity, yet on my own voluntary impulses and mental attitude no fetters can be put because of the “reserve clause” and their ability to adapt to circumstances. For everything that stands in the way of its activity is adapted and transmuted by the mind into furtherance of it, and that which is a check on this action is converted into a help to it, and that which is a hindrance in our path goes but to make it easier. (Meditations, 5.20)
The “reserve clause” is a way of overcoming emotional pain and as the perfect Sage cannot, by definition, be happy (eudaimon) if he is distressed, then he must act at all times according to this rule.
Try persuasion first, but even though men would say to you not to, act when the principles of justice direct you to. If anyone one should obstruct you by force, take refuge in being contented and without emotional pain, and use the obstacle for the display of some other virtue. Remember that the impulse you had was with an “reserve clause”, and your aim was not to do the impossible. (Meditations, 6.50)
However, he also seems to refer this concept to the image of the “sphere” of the presocratic philosopher Empedocles, which he mentions three times in The Meditations.
If your impulse is without an “reserve clause”, failure at once becomes an evil to you as a rational creature. But once you accept that universal necessity, you cannot suffer harm nor even be thwarted. Indeed, nobody else can thwart the inner purposes of the mind. For it no fire can touch, nor steel, nor tyrant, nor public censure, nor anything whatsoever: a sphere once formed continues round and true. (Meditations, 8.41)
