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

I’ve recently started reading and applying Stoicism in my life thanks to Donald Robertsons book How to Think Like a Roman Emperor. I really like how he gives practical tools to address all the different ideas discussed. I was wondering if there was anything similar for Seneca out there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules:

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

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently starting to read meditations by Aurelius

I’ve been thinking about a small example that seems to raise a bigger Stoic question.

Say I need a new bottle cage for my bicycle. I could buy a basic one from a local discount store that works fine, or I could order a higher-quality, better-looking one online.

Stoically speaking, is there anything wrong with preferring the nicer option?

I know externals are “preferred indifferents” and that virtue is what matters most. But does choosing nicer preferred indifferents conflict with Stoic practice, or is it perfectly fine as long as I’m not attached to them?

More generally, how do you make these kinds of decisions from a Stoic perspective? What criteria do you use when deciding whether something is worth buying? Do you prioritize practicality, quality, durability, price, aesthetics, or something else?

I never learnt how to self-regulate in a breakup. All I ever did was chase, chase, chase, and chase some more. I used to panic, and feel like the world is ending and I couldn't handle being blocked. When I panic, my exes telling me to stop contacting them fell on deaf ears, I was the "crazy ex". It got so bad that my ex threatened me with a restraining order 2 years ago, and that was a wake up call to stop and self-reflect.

What helped me finally to break free from these tendencies, was to FIRST forgive myself, I did what I did and I learnt from my mistakes. Destiny put me through this path, and exposed what are the things I need to work on.

SECOND was stoicism. I don't know if I am a stoic, but stoicism helped me so much to self-regulate.

Whenever I panicked about losing them forever, or being alone forever, I went back to the dichotomy of control.

All I can control is how I feel about them, and if I want to either be happy, or if I want to keep missing them. If I want to learn how to respect other's boundaries, or if I want to keep breaking them in panic and fear of being alone.

That is all I can control, my thoughts and motivations. The rest is up to fate and destiny. I cannot control what they think, they feel, or what they do.

All I can do is choose my response; either cry and rage against fate, or simply accept and love fate for what it decides for me; love and accept fate for what is.

They unblocked me yesterday, or made a new account and did not block me. I do not know why, but I am proud of myself that all I thought was, "I leave it up to fate for what they will do and decide. I choose now to stop overthinking and giving my time and effort to this person, who I already returned back to fate. If fate wants me to talk to them, fate will send their way to me and they will initiate."

Amor Fati, Ita est.

So I started reading epictetus discourses and i was reading discourses 1.1. It reminded me of the usual explanation of the prohairesis. But one thing im confused about is the explanations of virtue. One of the most common explanations for virtue being the only good is that it is the only thing that is able to judge thr value of other things. So externals may be good or bad such as money, for example, you can see this in unhappy lottery winners after winning a large sum of money. But reason? That is good in every case. That is the use of our brains logical faculty to judge the value of things or how to act in a certain situation. But doesnt this ressoning imply reason as a more of a tool to gain externals? Or is the argument here trying to emphasize the greatness of virtue's capabilities and thus should be pursued for its own sake? Or is this argument merely an explanation for why externals are indifferents(can be good or bad) and reason is the highest good?

Im just confusrd because this argument seems kind of incomplete to what i know of virtue. From my understanding virtue is or at least the core: the understanding that a good character/choices are the only reliable source of happiness, understanding of the prohairesis and that its the only thing in our power, the correct use of the prohairesis(discipline of assent),

For the past three years I have created this, like alter ego of myself that has been constantly evolving and getting new forms. (The lore is almost too detailed.)

And to make things as short as possible, I live as this ‘thing’ everyday. I imagine myself as a celebrity. Like I’m someone always in the spotlight. An example: When I’m cooking I look to an invisible camera as if I’m making a cooking tutorial for YouTube. Or I’ll hear a song I like and imagine that *I* wrote that song in another universe, so therefore it’s mine.

I narrate all my actions like I’m famous, even though I don’t think I’m better than anyone else.

My jaw has also really started to hurt from all the talking I do under my breath when I do this. I just want to be *me* again, and not some character I made up. What should I do?

(Sorry if this is long and an odd question. Any help is appreciate)

Do all stoics kind of believe in the same thing and follow the same rules? Like how Christians follow the bible, what would a stoic follow?

"Reason" yeah but, how could my reasoning be the same as yours?

Can you be a monotheistic stoic? I know stoicism doesn't say much about religion but a lot of the ancient greeks did believe in some polytheistic religion

So far I like the little I know about stoicism, but I feel as if it's too open for interpretation and I as if its all about being very monotone and aloof on the outside. Am I getting the wrong impression?

I've been thinking a lot about Odysseus' description of the siren song.

“It told you that what you most want is what you can’t have.
And what you most can’t have is what you already had, and lost”

It evoked a lot of emotion in me that I'm still trying to place. It feels so true to the plight of man. Not necessarily that the statement itself is true, but it's that itching feeling deep inside all of us that what we want most in the world we can never have.

And beyond that, there's so much existential dread in the idea that what we want most we once had, but lost. That part feels so incredibly honest and melancholic. We will never be children again, we will never experience first love again, it will never be as easy as it once was. I'm reminded of films like Citizen Kane and The Great Beauty.

How does one cope with these ideas? Do we fight the feeling that what we want most we can never have? Or do we accept it?

While I am still new to stoicism, it has helped me in the past to be my better self, so I am hoping that maybe there is some advice or consolation here.

Four days ago, I found myself at a crossroads where the one path to go down was to commit suicide, and the other one was to keep working hard. The thing that I am working on, a college degree, however is now something that I do not necessarily see a future with. I am realizing after almost three years that it may have been the wrong choice to pursue this degree and I may not be able to find work if I graduate, due to bad decisions that felt like the right thing at the time.

To graduate, after spending so much time and still not definitely knowing that it is the wrong degree for me, necessitates that I study very hard and I am finding this extremely difficult in my current state. On three of these past days since I made the choice to not go down the path of suicide, I have managed to study for about 8 hours every day, which has cost everything. I am also already getting professional help for my mental health, and I will be talking to a professional again soon, and that is one anchor point for hope now.

I have feelings that I have already ruined the future with my bad decisions. Do you have some advice to keep moving, and keep my emotions in check as well as I can for now?

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

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

Rules:

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

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

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

What are some simple principles you follow/aspire towards at work?

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

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

Rules:

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

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

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

1) You can treat the universe like it's a chaotic stew of atoms. Or ordered by divine Providence. As it's potentially a mixture of both. In the sense that you choose whether you make it the one or the other -- by how you attend to the world, others, yourself, and the great flow of time. Your deepest intention and how you choose to act makes a difference. Like a friend told me: it's not that fate flows past you, no, fate is flowing with you and through you, and for you. Fate is like the sea, and you are the shipmaster, with your hand on the rudder. You go where you want to: though it's determined by fate. You can choose to calmly embrace the path of virtue and grace. Or, believe in chance and chase base pleasures and choose a life with a lack of meaning. The world is yours. The choice is yours. The universe is a blank canvas you choose the colours you paint and in what style and with what effort. You can make throwaway art. Or aim at a masterpiece. And I believe the universe does have a preference. That you would choose to master the brush and paint a beautiful painting of life. But in aiming up, there comes resistance, as if the whole universe is weighted against you, but something even greater will strengthen your steps. Your intention. It's like gold, it's divine. It is the vine and you are the branch and you are bearing good or rotten fruit. Through the chaotic stew you will bring order. And not for you, but so all may be blessed. For chaos brings meaning through order. And if you choose the right path you might find you've been cursed and thrown into hell, and yet, despite that, you will rise up in glory and they will say you've been blessed.

2) Don't be dyed purple. Go amongst the people in the commonest cloth. While they build their grand temples, be satisfied with the tent that I gave you. For the purple you recieved it was gift, and a test, and a curse from the gods. Now, never let riches on earth, turn you away from my love. My love alone it comes down from above. You are my Son, so I command that you love. And if they hate you, they hate the One that I love. For blessed are those who have remained in my love. The world sees your purple, but it does not see love. Like a Father to a Son, but even deeper, deeper than mortals do love, you alone, know the depths of my love. So throw off your purple, and wear something haggard and rough.

3) Don't build swimming pools in your backyard fit for Cesar. Unless, you plan to let your neighbours swim in them, too. For no good can come from greatly favoring oneself over the good of one's neighbours. A private treasure gained and shared with many is a reflection of true wealth. While, on the contrary there’s the reek of poverty in squirrelling things away for oneself and not sharing them with others. But, I guess there are those who receive from themselves, and those who give away freely to others. Now, let us be careful on which side of the divide we fall. For everything it is claimed is weighed against us in a divine and accurate judgement of our worldly deeds. And the poverty of one’s soul, may be the root of unimaginable and excruciating loss. For an internal loss might bring highly prized external gains, and external coveted gain might bring internal and devastating inner poverty. So is it better to chalk up a gain or a loss?

Hello,

I need to seek some advice from fellow stoics. In December just a few days before Christmas, my friend of over 10 years was found dead in his apartment. I found out after I asked his family why he didn't respond on Discord. We have never met IRL, but knew each other very well.

I miss him very much, I also feel guilty, because our last message was:

Me: "Hello why aren't you responding? Something happened?"

Him: "I'm sorry dude I thought I did, I've been feeling sick."

Me: "I hope you get better soon bro"

The reason I'm feeling guilty is because I didn't inquire more than that, or like tell him to go to the hospital. It's an immense amount of guilt that it's bothering me almost on a daily basis. I feel like I could've saved him. Our conversations was oftentimes this short and sometimes it was longer than that.

Anyways, I wanted to vent.

I think it's my worst quality. I'd say I'm pretty capable with the things I put my mind into, but the hardest part has always been getting started. When I was in school, I used to procrastinate on schoolwork while at the same time feeling anxiety that I'm going to fail. It's contradictory and I'm aware of it, but it still happens.

I am fortunate that my current job is mostly just doing immediate tasks instead of working with deadlines, but procrastination still impacts other aspects of my life.

Lately-- seeing Odysseus everywhere due to the movie-- I find myself coming back to Odysseus’s handling of a humiliating situation, as told by Epictetus:

And again, when Odysseus was shipwrecked and cast ashore; did he lose heart? No, for how was it that he approached the young girls, to ask them for the necessities of life, something that is thought to be most shameful for one person to ask from another? (quoting Homer) ‘Like a mountain-bred lion.’

What did he place his trust in, not reputation, or riches, or office, but in his own strength, that is to say, in his judgements about what is in our power and what isn’t. For it is those judgments alone that make us free, that render us immune to hindrance, that raise up the head of those who have been subjected to ignominy, and allow us to look into the faces of the rich with unaverted gaze, and likewise into the faces of despots.

Discourses 3.26.33-35 Trans. Hard

Lesser men would be too good to ask for help-- too proud. Which is to say they would be crushed by the circumstances. But here is this heroic figure-- devoted father, loyal husband, noble king, victorious warrior, the ideal man of the ancient mind-- this is someone who's got nothing to prove to anybody. And so he begs to little girls for help to survive-- because that is what is appropriate to his circumstances.

Of course Epictetus understood Odysseus to be a work of fiction (e.g. 3.24.18), but that he chose to bring up his example is exceedingly relevant. Stoics are often caricatured as stubborn, prideful, denying of their basic human limitations-- but here we see that an ideal human has no use for pride, nor cause for shame, when their impressions are properly understood.

I wanted a short phrase to anchor my worldview without religious language — something with the weight of an oath, but grounded in what actually exists rather than revealed doctrine. Here's what I came up with:

"In the name of the Universe, Nature, and That-which-inhabits-it, I Learn."

The Stoic connection, as I see it: "in the name of Nature" echoes the Stoic idea of living in accordance with physis — the rational order of the cosmos (not far from the Logos). "I Learn," capitalized, is meant as a stance rather than a claim to knowledge: closer to Stoic epistemic humility and the ongoing discipline of assent — you don't arrive at wisdom, you practice toward it.

What I like about phrasing it this way is that it replaces "I believe" with "I learn" — no fixed dogma, just a continuing practice of examining what's true and adjusting. Feels compatible with the Stoic emphasis on progress (prokopē) over arrival.

Curious whether this resonates with people here, or whether you'd push back on how I'm reading Stoic natural philosophy into it.