Category: Stoicism

The Mandalorian “Canons of Honor” from Star Wars

The Mandalorian “Canons of Honor” from Star Wars

I’ve enjoyed watching The Mandalorian and recently stumbled across discussion of the Mandalorian code of honor. It reminded me in some ways of Stoic philosophy, about which I’ve written several books — most recently How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius. (The poster for The Mandalorian, coincidentally, happens to resemble the poster for my forthcoming graphic novel on Marcus Aurelius.) I previously wrote an article about Stoicism as a Code of Honor so I decided it might be interesting also to look at the similarities and differences between Stoicism and the Mandalorian “Canons of Honor”.

I’m no expert on Star Wars lore so I’ll be keeping this comparison fairly simple. Stoicism is an ancient Greek school of philosophy, inspired by the earlier teachings of Socrates, which became popular in the Roman Republic and later in the Empire. Its central doctrine is that virtue or excellence of character (arete, in Greek) is the only true good in life.

The main corollary of this is the view that everything “external” to our own character is ultimately “indifferent” with regard to the supreme goal of life. In other words, things valued by the majority of people such as health, wealth, and reputation — even life itself — are less important than the use we make of them. That means that Stoics are expected to engage in a sort of lifelong training, or discipline, in order to maintain emotional resilience in the face of adversity.

Stoicism is what’s known today as a “virtue ethic”. We’re told, for instance, by the doxographer Diogenes Laertius, that the Stoics described their supreme goal as living “honorably” because the perfection of our character requires wisdom, justice, courage, and self-discipline. These four cardinal virtues provide a template for what we might reasonably call the Stoic “code of honor” or rule of life. We can also substitute the word “virtue” for “canon” and read the Mandalorian code, in a similar way, as teaching the virtues of strength, honor, loyalty, and of facing one’s death with integrity.

The fictional culture of the Mandalorians has several elements but for our purposes the most interesting comparison is probably between the Stoic rule of life and the so-called Mandalorian “Canons of Honor” — from the Greek kanon, incidentally, meaning a rule or philosophical principle.

The Canons of Honor consist of four basic slogans, each of which is accompanied by a short explanation.

• Strength is life, for the strong have the right to rule

• Honor is life, for with no honor, one may as well be dead

• Loyalty is life, for without one’s clan one has no purpose

• Death is life, one should die as they have lived

So let’s look at each of these in turn and make some comparisons with Stoicism as a code of honor.

1. Strength is Life

For the strong have the right to rule

The Stoic cardinal virtue of self-discipline, or temperance (sophrosune) might be worth comparing to the Mandalorian canon of strength — for Stoics it’s essentially about self-mastery rather than conquering others. On the face of it, though, the Mandalorian canon looks like an example of the sort of primitive morality found in ancient Greek and Roman society before the time of Socrates. It can be summed up in the familiar slogan: “Might is right”. Socrates disputes this concept in book one of Plato’s Republic, where he basically argues instead that a true king, or ruler, is someone who cares for the welfare of his subjects first and foremost. It would not be mere physical or military strength but “strength” in terms of the art of government that would qualify someone to rule, which we should judge in terms of a ruler’s ability to benefit his subjects — much as a good shepherd is one who cares for his flock.

According to one source (Stobaeus) the founders of Stoicism therefore taught that “only the wise man is a king and regal, but none of the base is” and that “only the virtuous man rules, and even if he does not in all circumstances do so in actuality, still in all circumstances he does so by disposition.” Strength of character, not strength of arms, makes one truly kingly. Moreover, kindness requires more strength than aggression.

And when you do become angry, be ready to apply this thought, that to fly into a passion is not a sign of manliness, but rather, to be kind and gentle, for in so far as these qualities are more human, they are also more manly; and it is the man who possesses such virtues who has strength, nerve, and fortitude, and not one who is ill-humoured and discontented. — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 8.11

Put very simply, Socrates, and the Stoics, would potentially agree that true kingship consists in “strength” as long as this is interpreted not as physical strength but rather as strength of character, self-discipline, moral wisdom, and even kindness. Indeed, for the Stoics, being a true king or ruler is ultimately a state of mind. For instance, Alexander the Great, although outwardly the most powerful man in the known world, was miserable and a slave to his own passions, whereas Diogenes the Cynic, was genuinely free and kingly, though he lived like a penniless beggar. The Stoics believed, paradoxically, that the (inner) “strength” of character reputedly possessed by Diogenes made him a true ruler, whereas the (external) military strength of Alexander ultimately meant nothing in that regard.

2. Honor is Life

For with no honor, one may as well be dead

“Honor” (kalos) is traditionally another name for “virtue” (arete) in Stoic ethics, which variously defines the supreme goal of life as “living wisely”, “living virtuously” or “living honorably”. However, we could also interpret the canon of honor in relation to the Stoic cardinal virtue of practical or moral wisdom (phronesis). Virtue, honor, and strength of character are all synonymous, in Stoicism, with this sort of wisdom.

The way this canon is phrased reminds me of the Socratic teaching that “the really important thing is not to live but to live well”, i.e., to live virtuously and wisely (Plato’s Crito). Socrates and the Stoics believed that life itself is neither good nor bad, but ultimately indifferent. Life is merely an opportunity, which you can use either well or badly, wisely or foolishly, for good or for evil.

Hearten yourself with simplicity and self-respect, and indifference towards all that lies between virtue and vice. Love the human race. — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 7.31

Indeed, virtue or honor, according to the Stoics, is what makes life worth living, and like Socrates they believe that virtue consists ultimately in a sort of moral wisdom.

This part of the Mandalorian code brings it very close to the fundamental spirit of Stoicism. As long as we bear this Mandalorian principle in mind, therefore, and remember to interpret the rest of the code in that context, the whole thing becomes more consistent with Stoicism. For instance, take the principle we’ve already discussed: strength is life. If honor is life that implies that, for Mandalorians, “strength” must always be exercised with honor. Serving the brute military strength of a powerful but dishonorable political tyrant, for example, would not be consistent with the Mandalorian Canons of Honor. For the Stoics, indeed, strength (of character) and honor are ultimately just two different aspects of the same thing.

3. Loyalty is Life

For without one’s clan one has no purpose

The canon of loyalty is probably closest in scope to the Stoic cardinal virtue of “justice” (dikaiosune), which really encompasses all social virtues. This is the part of the Mandalorian code, though, that seems to be most at odds with Stoicism, which follows the Socratic tradition in embracing ethical cosmopolitanism. Stoics view themselves, first and foremost, as “citizens of the universe”, literally cosmopolitans — and their supreme “clan” would therefore be humanity viewed as a whole. Stoic ethics is based on “familial affection” (philostorgia) and we are to view others, even our enemies, as our “kin”, i.e., our brothers and sisters. It’s often been observed, therefore, that Stoicism appears to have been a forerunner of early Christian ethics, and the Christian concept of the “brotherhood of man”.

As [the emperor] Antoninus, my city and fatherland is Rome; as a human being, it is the universe; so what brings benefits to these is the sole good for me. — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 6.44

For Stoics, the cardinal virtue of justice consists in the qualities of “impartiality” and “benevolence”, or treating others fairly and with kindness. Our supreme loyalty would be to humanity, although loyalty to one’s nation and family might be understood as subordinate to that. Stoics would for instance, consider sacrificing the interests of humanity in general merely for the benefit of your own family to be vicious, unjust and unethical. You can’t just screw over everyone else out of “loyalty” to your own clan, or nation, in other words, and pass that off as a code of honor. Perhaps, though, the Mandalorian canon that “honor is life” implies that some higher ethical duty supervenes upon primitive clan loyalty.

4. Death is Life

One should die as they have lived

The Greek cardinal virtue most relevant to this canon is presumably courage or fortitude (andreia). This part of the Mandalorian code also has echoes of Stoicism and the important Socratic tradition of melete thanatou, or philosophy as a preparation for dying. The Stoics placed considerable emphasis on overcoming our fear of death, being ready to meet death calmly and rationally. The philosopher Seneca goes as far, indeed, as to say that to learn how to die is to unlearn how to be a slave. Daily meditation on one’s own mortality was therefore a common Stoic practice.

[Remember that] if one considers death in isolation, stripping away by rational analysis all the false impressions that cluster around it, one will no longer consider it to be anything other than a process of nature, and if somebody is frightened of a process of nature, he is no more than a child. — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 2.12

Taken together, the Canons of Honor imply that Mandalorians should live and die with honor, strength, and in the service of loyalty to their clan. As we’ve seen, there may perhaps be scope to interpret that duty as being subordinate to a higher sense of honor, serving the interests of humanity (or rational beings) in general.

How Stoic Philosophy Teaches us to Treat Others

How Stoic Philosophy Teaches us to Treat Others

All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them. — Matthew, 7.12

Treat others as you would like to be treated by them. The “Golden Rule”, as it’s known, is one of the simplest and most influential of all ethical principles. In this article, we’ll begin by looking at what it is before exploring some examples found in the writings of Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and other Stoic philosophers.

The Golden Rule is a remarkably simple guide to ethical behaviour, which anyone can understand and try to follow. It’s found in both positive and negative forms:

• Do what you would praise others for doing

• Avoid doing what you would criticize others for doing

Indeed many people today take it for granted that applying a different standard to other’s actions than we do to our own would be a form of moral hypocrisy.

I explored the ways Stoicism can be used as a guide to modern life in my recent book, How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius, but this article will focus on a very simple principle that Stoics used as a guide to ethical action. People often say they find Stoic ethics confusing and want a very clear and simple example of practical advice, well here it is…

Judaism and Christianity

Versions of the Golden Rule have been identified in many different philosophical and religious traditions, throughout history and across different cultures. For instance the Talmud quotes the Hebrew sage Hillel the Elder as teaching:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.

This is one of the the Golden Rule’s most famous expressions, alongside several instances found in the New Testament. For example, in addition to the quote from the Gospel of Matthew at the start of this article, there’s also:

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. — Luke, 6.31

However, the Golden Rule is also clearly a theme in Greek and Roman philosophy, especially for the followers of Socrates and later the Stoics. The New Testament actually claims that St. Paul addressed a group of Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on the Areopagus, at foot of the Athenian Acropolis, quoting a couple of lines to them from the Stoic philosopher-poet Aratus (Acts, 17.16).

Paul and other early Christians are therefore known to have been familiar with Stoic philosophy. Indeed, Stoicism is believed by many modern scholars to have been one of the key philosophical influences upon early Christian ethics. Whether or not early Christians actually derived the Golden Rule from Stoic philosophy, they must have realized that the Stoics had already been teaching very similar ideas. It’s the ethics of the Socratic and Stoic tradition that we’re going to focus on therefore in the rest of this article.

Socrates and the Golden Rule

Although, the Golden Rule is most commonly associated with Christianity, it was arguably also implicit, centuries earlier, in the Socratic Method or elenchus. Socrates taught that we should cross-examine ourselves regarding our moral convictions. The word he uses for his method, elenchus, refers to questioning a witness in court in order to expose contradictions in their testimony. In the Socratic dialogues written by both Plato and Xenophon that sometimes takes the form of Socrates drawing attention to someone applying a double standard morally by praising or criticizing qualities in others but not in themselves. Socrates described his use of “Socratic Questioning” as a sort of therapy that aims to cure people of their conceit regarding the most important things in life, especially contradictory assumptions about the nature of good and evil, virtue and vice. It’s a cure, in other words, for moral hypocrisy and inconsistency.

For instance, in one of Xenophon’s dialogues, Socrates asks a young man called Critobulus to describe the qualities he’s seeking in a friend (Memorabilia, 2.6). They agree that the ideal friend would have positive qualities such as moral virtue, self-discipline, and kindness. However, Socrates suddenly turns the question around by asking Critobulus how many of these qualities he embodies himself. He’s ashamed to admit that he possesses very few of them. He was judging others by a standard, for being a good friend, that he neglected to apply to himself. Socrates makes him realize that because he finds it fairly easy to describe what behaviour he would praise in others that can potentially serve as a reliable guide when it comes to judging his own character and actions.

In another dialogue, Socrates’ friend Chaerecrates is complaining about his older brother’s behaviour. He wants his brother to treat him with more respect but claims he doesn’t know how to achieve this.

‘I assure you,’ said Socrates, ‘so far as I can see, you needn’t employ any subtle or novel method on him: I think you could prevail on him to have a high regard for you by using means which you understand yourself.’ — Xenophon, Memorabilia, 2.3

It’s not rocket science, in other words. Chaerecrates, though, insists he’s not aware of any magic formula for winning other people’s respect.

‘Tell me, then,’ said Socrates, ‘if you wanted to prevail upon one of your acquaintances to invite you to dinner whenever he was holding a celebration, what would you do?’

Chaerecrates admits that, of course, he’d begin by taking the initiative and inviting the other person to dinner first. Socrates therefore asks what he’d do if he wanted someone to take care of his property while he’s travelling. Charecrates says he’d offer to do the same for them first. What, asks Socrates, if you wanted a foreigner to invite you to their home as a guest when visiting their country? Once again, Charecrates admits that “obviously I should first have to do the same for him.” Socrates, with typical irony, concludes:

‘So you know all the magic spells that influence human conduct, and have kept your knowledge dark all this time! Why do you hesitate to begin? Are you afraid that you will look bad if you treat your brother well before he treats you well?

Of course, our moral values need to be sound in the first place but Socrates quite rightly pointed out that much progress can be achieved toward rationality simply by resolving inconsistencies in our ethical thinking.

The only difference here is that Socrates limits this advice to treating our friends as we wish to be treated by them in return. However, in other dialogues he appears to argue that the wise man seeks to help both friends and enemies. Nevertheless, these examples and others clearly show there’s plenty of “Golden Rule” type thinking to be found in the Socratic dialogues. Indeed, in Plato’s Laws, although it’s not attributed to Socrates, the Golden Rule is stated quite explicitly in relation to property rights:

The principle of them is very simple: Thou shalt not, if thou canst help, touch that which is mine, or remove the least thing which belongs to me without my consent; and may I be of a sound mind, and do to others as I would that they should do to me. — Plato, Laws, 11.913

The Golden Rule in Stoicism

The Stoics reputedly considered themselves to be a Socratic school of philosophy and they drew a great deal of inspiration from Socrates. In their writings, we therefore find the Golden Rule developed into something much closer to its more familiar form, as found in the Christian tradition.

In the fragments from the Stoic Hierocles preserved by Stobaeus, for instance, we find a very clear expression of the Golden Rule:

The first admonition, therefore, is very clear, easily obtained, and is common to all men. For it is a sane assertion, which every man will consider as evident. And it is this: Act by everyone, in the same manner as if you supposed yourself to be him, and him to be you. — Hierocles, Fragments

Hierocles goes on to illustrate this point by reference to the master-slave relationship:

For he will use a servant well who considers with himself, how he would think it proper to be used by him, if he indeed was the master, and himself the servant. The same thing also must be said of parents with respect to children, and of children with respect to parents; and, in short, of all men with respect to all. — Hierocles, Fragments

In discussing the master-slave relationship, the Stoic philosopher Seneca likewise wrote:

But this is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters. — Seneca, Letters, 47

The same sentiment is expressed elsewhere in more general terms, in a passage where Seneca, without giving the source, presents it as a familiar maxim he’s quoting:

“You must expect to be treated by others as you yourself have treated them.” We receive a sort of shock when we hear such sayings; no one ever thinks of doubting them or of asking “Why?”— Letters, 94

In On Anger, Seneca explains that when growing angry with another person over some perceived transgression, Stoics should remind themselves that they are capable of doing the same or similar things.

No one says to himself, “I myself have done or might have done this very thing which I am angry with another for doing.” — Seneca, On Anger, 3.12

A few sentences later, he expands upon this by also applying a version of the Golden Rule to the problem of anger:

Let us put ourselves in the place of him with whom we are angry: at present an overweening conceit of our own importance makes us prone to anger, and we are quite willing to do to others what we cannot endure should be done to ourselves.— Seneca, On Anger, 3.12

Elsewhere, Seneca applies this wisdom to the question of how best to bestow gifts or favours on others:

Let us consider… in what way a benefit should be bestowed. I think that I can point out the shortest way to this; let us give in the way in which we ourselves should like to receive. — Seneca, On Benefits, 2.1

In one of the fragments sometimes attributed to Epictetus, he writes:

What you avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others. — Epictetus, Fragments

Epictetus, himself a freed slave, continues as follows:

You avoid slavery, for instance; take care not to enslave. For if you can bear to
exact slavery from others, you appear to have been yourself a slave. For vice has nothing in common with virtue, nor freedom with slavery. As a person in health would not wish to be attended by the sick nor to have those who live with him in a state of sickness ; so neither would a person who is free bear to be served by slaves, nor to have those who live with him in a state of slavery. — Epictetus, Fragments

Marcus Aurelius nowhere states the Golden Rule as explicitly as either Hierocles or Seneca. The closest he comes is in the following passage:

See that you never feel towards misanthropes as such people feel towards the human race. — Meditations, 7.65

However, throughout The Meditations he does adopt the related assumption that we should treat all others as our “kinsmen” and fellow citizens. For instance, in perhaps one of the book’s most famous passages he writes:

Nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him, for we are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away. — Meditations, 2.1

Marcus elsewhere says that someone who is wise remembers “that every rational being is his kinsman, and that to care for all men is according to man’s nature” (Meditations, 3.4).

Regarding the actions of others he writes:

This is from one of the same stock, and a kinsman and partner, one who knows not however what is according to his nature. But I know; for this reason I behave towards him according to the natural law of fellowship with benevolence and justice. — Meditations, 3.11

In one of the most striking passages in The Meditations, he appears to echo the Christian notion of loving even one’s enemies:

It is peculiar to man to love even those who do wrong. And this happens, if when they do wrong it occurs to thee that they are kinsmen, and that they do wrong through ignorance and unintentionally… — Meditations, 7.22

Finally:

A branch cut off from the adjacent branch must of necessity be cut off from the whole tree also. So too a man when he is separated from another man has fallen off from the whole social community. Now as to a branch, another cuts it off; but a man by his own act separates himself from his neighbor when he hates him and turns away from him, and he does not know that he has at the same time cut himself off from the whole social system. Yet he has this privilege certainly from Zeus, who framed society, for it is in our power to grow again to that which is near to us, and again to become a part which helps to make up the whole. — Meditations, 11.8

Conclusion

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. For Socrates treating friends otherwise was a moral contradiction, a double standard, and therefore irrational. He even implies that we should show our enemies with the same regard. A few generations later, the Stoics took his ethical philosophy and developed it into more of a system. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, had said, like Aristotle before him, that a friend is “another me” (alter ego est amicus). However, we are to strive to make all men (and women) our friends. The Golden Rule gradually become more explicit and took on its familiar form in authors such as Seneca when he admonishes us for being “quite willing to do to others what we cannot endure should be done to ourselves”.

Finally, in Marcus Aurelius, the last famous Stoic of antiquity, we find a systematic emphasis on the ethics of brotherly love, which the Stoics called philostorgia or “natural affection”. We’re to regard ourselves and others as brothers and sisters, even as limbs of the same organism. From this vision of the unity of humankind, it follows naturally that we should apply the same moral standard to others that we apply to ourselves. This is probably one aspect of what the Stoics meant when they described the supreme goal of life according to their philosophy as living consistently.

Sure. I’ve added you. Just submit a draft when you’re ready.

The Philosophy Hidden in Garbage Placeholder Text

The Philosophy Hidden in Garbage Placeholder Text

What if you discovered that the meaning of life was somehow hidden right under your nose?

Suppose the most important idea in the entire universe was written down in plain sight, but overlooked by everyone. That the words, assumed to be nothing but incomprehensible garbage, were being used as a filler — placeholder text for graphic design? That would be pretty ironic, wouldn’t it?

Lorem ipsum is the name given to the (mangled) Latin text commonly used in publishing as a generic placeholder, since around the 1960s. It allows designers to arrange the visual elements of a page of text, such as font and layout, without being distracted by the content. Other Latinate words are occasionally used because it’s assumed just to be garbage. Here is a typical example, though, of some lorem ipsum placeholder text.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Here’s the thing: the Lorem ipsum text isn’t actually meaningless. The Latin was so corrupt that the original source was almost unrecognisable. Nevertheless, in the early 1980s, a Latin scholar called Richard McClintock, based in Virginia, accidentally discovered the source of the passage in a well-known philosophical text. It’s derived from a book called De Finibus, which was written in the first century BC, by the famous Roman statesman and philosopher, Cicero. He was a follower of the philosophy taught by Plato’s successors in what’s known as the “Academic” school.

The Meaning of Life

Although it’s usually just referred to as De Finibus, the full Latin title is De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, which is notoriously tricky to translate into English. Literally, it means “On the ends of good and evil”, but really it concerns different philosophical views about the best way of life, which comes fairly close to what we would refer to today as the “meaning of life”.

De Finibus is a series of five dialogues in which Cicero portrays himself and his friends discussing the major schools of Roman philosophy. After weighing the pros and cons of Epicureanism and Stoicism, Cicero concludes with an account of the “Middle Platonism” introduced to the Academy by his own teacher, Antiochus of Ascalon. Overall, Cicero found himself more in agreement with Stoicism than Epicureanism. His personal brand of Platonism, like that of his teacher, probably assimilated many aspects of Stoicism, as well as Aristotelianism. However, although broadly sympathetic to this eclectic philosophy Cicero also notes its flaws. His conclusion is unclear and may be in favour of a more skeptical form of Platonism. Overall, what Cicero therefore gives us in De Finibus is a fascinating overview of several competing philosophical perspectives.

Cicero’s friend and political rival, the great Roman republican hero, Cato of Utica, is portrayed as speaking in defence of Stoicism. The series of dialogues as a whole is framed in terms of a discussion between Cicero and Cato’s nephew, Brutus, the lead assassin of the dictator Julius Caesar. However, the lorem ipsum text comes from the first book of De Finibus, in which a Roman statesman and philosopher, renowned for his Greek scholarship, Lucius Torquatus is portrayed offering a summary and defence of Epicurean philosophy as a way of life.

The Original Text

So what does the passage from which lorem ipsum comes actually say? Well the placeholder text itself is pretty garbled but the passages it occurs in (De Finibus, 1.10.32–33) basically shows Torquatus defending Epicurus’ philosophical doctrine that the most important thing in life is the experience of pleasure. This idea was widely rebuked in the ancient world, not least by Stoic and Academic philosophers such as Cato and Cicero. However, Torquatus argues that those who criticise the pursuit of pleasure do so not because they think pleasure itself is bad but because harmful consequences often follow from irrational over-indulgence. The Epicurean philosophy was more sophisticated than this, though. Epicurus proposed that wisdom consists in the rational long-term pursuit of pleasures that are natural and lasting, which he associated with practical wisdom and the attainment of supreme emotional tranquillity (ataraxia).

The central paradox of Epicureanism is that achieving lasting pleasure and freedom from pain often requires us to endure short-term pain or discomfort. We may also have to renounce certain transient pleasures for the sake of our own long-term happiness. Epicurus therefore recommended living a very simple life. For example, someone who is serious about maximising their own pleasure and who pursues it philosophically might judge it prudent to undertake vigorous physical exercise and follow a healthy diet, enduring “short-term pain for long-term gain,” as we say today. Torquatus says that the pursuit of pleasure has undeservedly acquired a bad name because people confuse the foolish and reckless pursuit of short-term pleasures with the prudent long-term pursuit of pleasure taught by Epicurus and his followers.

The whole of the relevant section from De Finibus reads as follows in H. Rackham’s 1914 Loeb Classical Library translation, with the fragments included in the lorem ipsum placeholder text in bold:

But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing of a pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of [Epicurus,] the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?

On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammeled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.

Although Torquatus is portrayed as defending this philosophy of life, it seems clear that Cicero was unconvinced. In the following chapters, Cato is depicted arguing in favour of the opposing Stoic position. The Stoics believed that the meaning or purpose of life is the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, first and foremost, rather than seeking pleasure or tranquillity. Then again, the Academic philosopher Antiochus’ view is presented as being that the best life consists in a combination of virtue and sufficient “external goods”, such as health, property, and friends, etc. Nevertheless, many people today continue to be drawn to Epicureanism. Maybe this is because it provides a fairly sophisticated account of one of a handful of perennial philosophies of life that recur in different forms throughout the ages.

Cicero took these conflicting philosophical views about the most important thing in life very seriously indeed and tried to carefully evaluate their pros and cons. What do you think? Was this a bad philosophy that deserved to be consigned to the dustbin of history or is the meaning of life hidden in the garbage of the lorem ipsum placeholder text?

I would view them as quite different techniques, to be honest. I actually think it’s quite important to be clear what the underlying mechanism is in different psychological practices. In CBT we tend to place a lot of emphasis on that because clients usually gain more benefit from an exercise when they’re clear about the purpose and how it works — that often requires carefully distinguishing techniques that might appear superficially similar. Of course, sometimes a technique may be effective for several different reasons. Nevertheless, I believe it’s in our interests to try to clarify what the mechanism is that we’re aiming to employ.

As far as I’m aware the Stoics don’t describe anything resembling Negative Practice.

In short, that’s why the article says “Of course, if you’re suffering from a severe problem you should seek assessment and treatment from a qualified professional.” If someone has an eating disorder, for instance, they should receive treatment from a qualified professional who specializes in that problem. This technique probably isn’t suited for them but it might be helpful in a handful of cases. It would have to be done at the discretion of a therapist who specializes in this area and under their supervision.

You mean OCD? I wouldn’t recommend this approach normally for OCD. It’s possible that it might be of value in some cases but that should be at the discretion of a therapist who specializes in treating that condition, and with their consent and supervision.

The Paradox of Negative Practice in Behaviour Change

The Paradox of Negative Practice in Behaviour Change

If the fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise. — William Blake, Proverbs of Hell

Most people who want to eliminate their bad habits try to do so by directly suppressing them — just forcing themselves to stop. Often they find that simply doesn’t work. In his novel Women in Love, D.H. Lawrence gives a truly remarkable description of the opposite technique:

“A very great doctor taught me”, [Hermione] said, addressing Ursula and Gerald vaguely. “He told me for instance, that to cure oneself of a bad habit, one should force oneself to do it, when one would not do it — make oneself do it — and then the habit would disappear.”

“How do you mean?” said Gerald.

“If you bite your nails, for example. Then, when you don’t want to bite your nails, bite them, make yourself bite them. And you would find the habit was broken.”

“Is that so?” said Gerald.

“Yes. And in so many things, I have made myself well. I was a very queer and nervous girl. And by learning to use my will, simply by using my will, I made myself right.” — Women in Love, 1920

A similar method for breaking bad habits was developed in the 1920s by Knight Dunlap, Professor of Experimental Psychology at Johns Hopkins University and president of the American Psychological Association (APA). Dunlap’s method, known as “negative practice”, was described in his all but forgotten Habits: Their Making and Unmaking (1932). Dunlap was, without question, a man far ahead of his time in the field of psychotherapy, whose ideas in some ways anticipated modern cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

The Beta Hypothesis: Intention Matters

We normally assume, of course, that “practice makes perfect” and that repeating a habit makes it stronger. We can call that the “alpha hypothesis” (hypothesis a) concerning habits. Dunlap contrasted that with his “beta hypothesis” (hypothesis b), which says that under certain conditions voluntarily engaging in your habit can have the paradoxical effect of making it weaker, perhaps even eliminating it completely.

Dunlap’s hypothesis was that your attitude is key. “In negative practice”, he wrote, “the determining factors are the thoughts and desires in the practice.” If you’re repeatedly performing some action with the intention of making it a habit then, with practice, you may well succeed. However, if your intention is to weaken an existing habit that’s what tends to happen.

Dunlap’s favorite example comes from a method he noticed being used to train typists:

The non-professional typist and the learner frequently make persistent errors, such as the transposition of the into hte, and these errors are ordinarily eliminated with difficulty. It has been found, however, that even a small amount of practice in writing the word in the wrong way will eliminate the error. –- Dunlap, 1932: 95–96

A small study by Holsopple and Vanouse (1929) tested the beta hypothesis with eleven shorthand students. They were asked to employ normal (“positive”) practice to counteract one set of errors, and negative practice to deal with another set. Negative practice was found considerably more effective with this group. In fact, all eleven students appeared to benefit, with errors for negatively practiced words being reduced to zero while mistakes were still being made with the positively practiced words about thirty percent of the time.

A few years later, two researchers published an article summarizing the findings of several additional experiments, from which they concluded:

These and other considerations arising from a more detailed analysis of the data tend strongly to support Dunlap’s beta hypothesis of negative practice. — Kellogg & White, 1935

The main recommendation emerging from early research reviews was that negative practice tends to work better when “massed” rather than “distributed”, i.e., when the behavior to be eliminated is practiced lots of times in rapid succession during each practice session.

How to do Negative Practice

In a nutshell, Dunlap’s method involved asking subjects with stutters, tics, and other unwanted habits to voluntarily engage in the behavior over and over again with little or no delay between repetitions. Most importantly, though, they were to bear in mind their goal of breaking the habit. For example, before each negative practice session, clients wishing to overcome a stammer would say to themselves:

“I am going to stammer; I am going to perfect my stammering (i.e., make it as near as possible like my usual stammering). I am to do this now, when I want to, because so doing will make it possible later for me not to stammer when I don’t want to. The better I stammer now, the sooner I will break the habit of stammering.” — Dunlap, 1932: 205

Dunlap found that behavior could be changed in this way, though it sometimes required as much as two fifteen-minute sessions of daily practice for 3–4 weeks.

Negative practice is so-called because it involves practicing a habit you want to unlearn or negate. Later authors refer to a variety of similar techniques as “paradoxical” therapy — the paradox being that you’re instructed to do more of something you want to stop doing. It’s also sometimes referred to as “symptom prescription”.

The behavioral psychologist Clark Hull argued that negative practice might work through a neurological process he called “reactive inhibition”. According to this theory when some piece of behavior is repeated many times in rapid succession your nervous system automatically begins to react by weakening and inhibiting the habit regardless of your intentions.

Other behaviorists observed that intensive sessions of negative practice can also lead to feelings of fatigue, self-consciousness, awkwardness or aversion, which might actually be helpful if they inhibit the unwanted habit. Although there are differing opinions about exactly how the technique works they’re not mutually exclusive — several of these things might be happening at once.

More Examples of Negative Practice

The pioneering behavior therapist Andrew Salter adopted Dunlap’s negative practice technique in the 1940s, and gave this brief case-study of blushing as an example:

I explained to Mr. T. that the human nervous system had, as it were, a logical battery and an emotional battery. Both were connected by wires to different parts of the body. “Your emotional battery, through what is called the autonomic nervous system, sends messages unconsciously to the blood vessels in your face, making you blush. Now, if we can use some power from the logic department instead, you will develop a deliberate hold on the blood vessels, and overcome the unconscious blush signals. The logical department of the brain will tell your face, “You won’t have to blush.” So I want you to deliberately practice blushing. Tell yourself to blush at all times: when you’re alone, and when you’re with people. Get practice in sending logical electricity to your face instead of emotional electricity, and that will put logic in charge of blushing. When you control it, that will be the end of it.” I emphasized that he must practice this vigorously, and it was my impression that he would. When I saw him a week later, he was a bit perplexed. “You know,” he said, “I find that I can’t blush whether I want to or not. It’s the darndest thing.” — Salter, 1949: 64–65

Salter also provides a further example of the technique in which he prescribed that a pretty young lady who had a flatulence problem should, “practice the deliberate breaking of wind at all times.”

The existential psychotherapist Victor Frankl, author of the bestselling Man’s Search for Meaning (1946), likewise developed a technique he called “paradoxical intention”, which appears very similar to Dunlap’s negative practice.

It consists not only of a reversal of the patient’s attitude toward his phobia inasmuch as the usual avoidance response is replaced by an intentional effort — but also that it is carried out in as humorous a setting as possible. — Psychotherapy & Existentialism, 1967

Elsewhere Frankl provides a brief case study concerning a young doctor who had developed a phobia about sweating. One day, meeting his boss on the street, as he extended his hand in greeting, he noticed that he was sweating more than usual. Each time he then found himself in a similar situation he grew nervous, expecting that he would sweat profusely.

It was a vicious circle… We advised our patient, in the event that his anticipatory anxiety should recur, to resolve deliberately to show the people whom he confronted at the time just how much he could really sweat. A week later he returned to report that whenever he met anyone who triggered his anxiety, he said to himself, “I only sweated out a litre before, but now I’m going to pour out at least ten litres!” What was the result of this paradoxical resolution? After suffering from his phobia for four years, he was quickly able, after only one session, to free himself of it for good. — Psychotherapy & Existentialism, 1967, p 139

Although Frankl emphasized that humor was an important part of symptom prescription, researchers employing similar techniques haven’t always found this necessary.

Dunlap used negative practice as his main approach for a wide variety of problems, including behavioral habits like nail-biting, mental habits like worrying, and emotional habits like becoming angry with people. Over the years similar paradoxical techniques have been used to address an even wider range of problems. The treatment of insomnia is perhaps one of the most common uses of symptom prescription in behavior therapy. Paradoxically, clients often find that being told to “try to stay awake as long as possible” tends to make them fall asleep sooner.

Another technique that’s become increasingly common in modern cognitive-behavioral therapy involves the prescription of deliberate “worry time”. A client who feels immersed in their worries is advised to set aside, e.g., half an hour each day to sit in a specific chair and worry voluntarily. Worrying is postponed until then when they can focus more attention on the process. Of course, nobody “worries” deliberately, worries creep into our mind when not wanted. When we set about thinking our worries through deliberately they often seem ridiculous or trivial and the effort can become tedious after a while. This feeling of fatigue or boredom while engaged in the negative practice is perhaps useful, as mentioned earlier. It may actually contribute to the inhibition of the habit.

The English psychologist Edward B. Titchener was reputedly the first to observe, at the start of the 20th century, that when a word or short phrase is repeated aloud very rapidly for a period of time the speaker typically begins to experience it as meaningless gibberish. Recently this has become a common technique in a state-of-the-art form of cognitive-behavioral therapy known as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). For instance, suppose that you’re troubled by a distressing thought such “Everyone hates me!” Repeating that sentence aloud, as fast as you can, for at least a minute, will feel surprisingly difficult. Research shows that in about 90% of cases people who do this report that the phrase feels more empty or meaningless as a result, which can greatly diminish the thought’s ability to cause distress.

Conclusion: Some Practical Tips

Here are some more practical tips derived from the clinical and research literature on negative practice:

1. You should have a moderate desire to eliminate the behavior you’re practicing and focus throughout the practice on the idea that you’re repeating the habit in order to rid yourself of it.

2. It often helps to bear in mind examples of how negative practice has been found effective in removing undesired habits such as in the training of typists.

3. You’ll need to address any underlying motives for clinging on to the habit, e.g., biting your fingernails as a way of distracting yourself from social anxiety.

4. You may need to have a new way of responding once the habit is gone, e.g., if you eliminate the habit of mispronouncing a word you’ll need to know the correct pronunciation to replace it.

5. It’s important to reproduce the habit that you’re trying to eliminate as accurately as possible and to repeat it for long enough that it starts to feel quite awkward or tedious.

It can also be useful to spot the bad habit whenever it happens spontaneously and straight away repeat it over and over again, voluntarily, as a form of negative practice. Of course, if you’re suffering from a severe problem you should seek assessment and treatment from a qualified professional. However, many everyday bad habits can be broken by using a variation of this simple technique. People often find it tremendously liberating to discover, after years of trying to force themselves to stop a bad habit, that an easier and more effective solution may be to actually do the very thing they’ve been trying so hard to avoid. As Blake also said, “The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.”

I don’t think we can assume Marcus was “puny”. As a young man, he boxed and wrestled, hunted wild boar, and was trained to fight in heavy…

I didn’t choose the title, it was picked by the editors.

I don’t think we can assume Marcus was “puny”. As a young man, he boxed and wrestled, hunted wild boar, and was trained to fight in heavy armour, possibly by gladiators at Rome. He loved horse riding and was the leader of a troupe of dancers called the Salii or leaping priests who performed elaborate chants and dances, dressed in archaic armour, to celebrate Mars, the god of war. He was particularly skilled at playing an ancient ball game, probably vaguely resembling modern rugby. We’re told he became less active as he grew older, and his health suffered, but I wouldn’t assume he was of puny stature — we’re not told that anywhere in the histories. Cassius Dio says that although he could no longer achieve feats of physical prowess, in old age, despite chronic illness, he still showed great physical and mental endurance.