Blog

For the past few years i have been thinking about how ancient philsophical wisdom might be employed to shed light on modern psychotherapeutic theory and practice. In this presentation you can hear some of my ideas on this subject- drawing on an argument from Plato’s ‘Euthydemus’ and Epictetus’s ‘Discourses’ to build my case for an improved approach for the use of CBT.

Courtney Shipley.

I view with pleasure and approval the way you keep on at your studies and sacrifice everything to your single-minded efforts to make yourself every day a better man

Seneca, Letter V

This was the habit of Sextius, so that at day’s end, when he had retired to his nightly rest, he questioned his mind:

What bad habit have you put right today? Which fault did you take a stand against? In what respect are you better?

This is a privilege I take advantage of, and everyday I plead my case before myself as judge. When the lamp has been removed from my sight, and my house has fallen silent, I examine the whole of my day and retrace my actions and words; I hide nothing from myself, pass over nothing. For why should I be afraid of any of my mistakes, when I can say: ‘Beware of doing that again, and this time I pardon you. In that discussion you spoke too aggressively: do not, after this, clash with people of no experience; those who have never learned make unwilling pupils. You were more outspoken in criticizing that man then you should have been, and so you offended, rather than improved him: in the future have regard not only for the truth of what you say but for the question of whether the man you are addressing can accept the truth: a good man welcomes criticism, but the worse a man is, the fiercer his resentment of the person correcting him’?

Seneca, On Anger, Book 3, Section 36

Undertaking a nightly reflection is one strategy that the Stoics present to us to examine our impressions, actions, words and behaviours. A chance for us to set aside some focused time to examine if we are conducting ourselves in accordance with Nature. I decided to give the nightly reflection a go and make this a part of my night routine. It took about six months of nightly reflections to fill my journal.  

For me, the structure I decided to use was to dot point out my day, and then move into a reflections piece at the end, where I recorded where I wanted to improve, what my learnings and reflections were. When I went back to do a review, I was able to see just how much I had accomplished, the things I had done, events attended, and so forth, that I had forgotten all about!  

If you’re considering incorporating a nightly reflection into your daily routine, here’s some of my own takeaways and learnings: 

1. Use a template or design that works for you. A common template is to answer three questions – what did I do well today? What did I do not so well today? What could be improved? 
2. Write when it works best for you. It does not need to be done ‘once the lamp has been removed from sight and the house has fallen silent.’ I tried. I was too tired. I didn’t want to do it. It won’t work if you have had days where you haven’t acted accordingly. For me, doing this either right before or after dinner worked best. I had ample time, and energy, to properly reflect. As a result, it was something I wanted to do rather than being something I had to do 
3. If you are in the mood to write, then write. You don’t have to wait until night time, or when it’s next ‘scheduled.’ If you have comments to make to yourself, then write away 
4. Physical journalling worked for me. I enjoyed the slower process of putting pen to paper. We are also luckily to have new technologies, so if you prefer, use Notes, or Word, or DayOne, etc. It’s your practice, so use what you feel comfortable using 
5. It’s okay to write when you feel the need to, rather than each day. Again, it’s your personal practice. What works for you works. 
6. It doesn’t just have to be about you and your review. It a quote comes to mind, write it down. If a friend said something insightful during a catchup, record it along with your reflections 
7. Don’t forget to review and revisit your prior reflections. Are there any recurrent themes? Are you making progress? What do you need to focus on next? 
8. Be kind. Remember that we are all on our own paths towards the Sage. We will make mistakes, say the wrong thing, form incorrect impressions. Don’t be too hard on yourself. 

As an exercise, the nightly reflection is something that I recommend that you try out and give it a go. If you have any other recommendations, tips or thoughts, let us know.

Courtney Shipley

The cosmos is a living being: The cosmos is a whole being- The appearance of parts is a way of viewing things and not at all a reflection of things as they are. When we look at a river, we may see different parts; turbulence here, stillness there, ripples, reflections- we may say that that part of the river is saltier or siltier. We have the view that the river is a divided being but in fact its ‘parts’ bleed into each other- the river is a flowing, continuous whole whose parts blend into one another and yet stand out as definable and identifiable features. Nonetheless, we could not pluck one eddy from the river, for the eddy is just a movement within the body of the river.

But as a heuristic, we can say that the cosmos has the appearance of discrete parts, and we can work with this appearance yet remain aware of its heuristic status.

In this article I want to make a few observations about the use of metaphor as a way of looking. I am suggesting that our metaphors are methods by which we might begin our philosophical enquiries. These ways of starting out take us on to new discoveries about the world and to conclusions that we might draw about our own place in it. As such, the metaphors that we take seriously, play an important role in informing the methods we develop that go on to shape our ‘selves’ and our interactions with other. Once our metaphors are well drawn, we might be in the position to cross reference our worldview with others and find helpful synergies. With this idea in the background, I’d like to consider the overarching metaphors used by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, and those that resonate with or appear in Stoicism.

Carl Rogers was an American psychologist who was influential in the development of Humanistic psychology and was the founder of the ‘Person-Centred Approach’. His influence has had a profound effect on the development of modern psychotherapies. It was Carl Rogers who emphasised the importance of creating an empathetic and supportive therapeutic relationship with the client. He spoke about the importance of the therapist being as fully themselves as possible. This idea of genuineness and authenticity is a corner stone of psychotherapeutic practice today and is a basis for establishing a healthy client-patient relationship. It is also Rogers indelible mark on psychotherapy, when we hear of the necessity to treat clients with empathy and unconditional positive regard. Even in the fact that we speak of ‘clients’ rather than ‘patients’, we see evidence of Rogers influence, given his emphasis on positive, affirming and client empowering language.

Rogers’ influence is apparent in many forms of talk therapies, including Schema therapy, Gestalt, Humanistic-Existential therapies, Motivational Interviewing and has elements in Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy. We also can see his legacy in Positive Psychology, which develops the Rogerian view that client autonomy and empowerment is central to the pursuit of a happy and fulfilling life.

Rogers’ theory is more a way of seeing the world- of which metaphor and experience play a central role in this formation. Of his theory, Rogers says, “the facts are friendly” (1953/67, p. 25) and theory is attempt “to contain and explain the observed facts” (1951, p. 481). Theory “must follow experience, not precede it” (1951, p. 440). Rogers’ ideas were established in his experiences growing up on a farm, giving him a love of nature, an appreciation for the objective methods of science and an awareness of the importance of practical results. Despite his interest in an objective science however, Rogers appears to critique the methods of the experimental psychologists of his time. His foundational view that human life is not so different from all other organic life and is directed towards constructive ends by actualising and formative tendencies opens the way for a new (yet old) perspective. The metaphor underpinning the theory is descriptively organismic; that the human being is an organism that is directed by forces within its own nature toward its self-fulfilment. Such a fulfillment is not viewed in terms of pleasure but in the wholistic actualisation of the self- that the innate striving in us is towards our best potential selves. This teleological view is based on metaphors provided by nature, starting from the view that just like a plant we grow up towards the light, and that a healthy environment is analogous to appropriate nutriment in the soil and water surrounding the striving little plant. Importantly, nature is benevolent in Rogers’ view and there seems to be no hint of an original defect in the organism. The impetus for its development is ‘good’ and appropriate for the organism. The result of Rogers metaphor is a view that treats human beings as growing towards their appropriate ends. Their striving is seen as natural and good and the therapist’s role is to be as genuine and caring as possible, to completely support the persons impetus by providing a normatively healthy and positive environment that allows the person to shed restrictions and to grow towards their potential.

Part of the reason I would like to present Rogers views alongside Stoic ones, is that there has been a long-standing emphasis on the similarities between Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (and REBT) and Stoicism. In the background here I want my reader to be aware of the different metaphors at play and to consider the role they play in making a theory therapeutic in delivery. At the heart of CBT is arguably a mechanistic metaphor that might account for Stoicism as a set of techniques that can be used to deconstruct our inner mental life, whilst making little reference to the ways in which human life is intimately embedded in social structures. The result of such metaphors (if that’s what they are) might be, as we see in the Cartesian critique (e.g., Foucault, 1988; Husserl, 1960), a human being abstracted from its lived context. One that is temporarily effective at reducing distress by actively disputing and creating alternative cognitions. And as Descartes’ cogito, we find a being who with the death of God has been decoupled from reality and still waits to be replanted in new and fertile soil. Our modern and mechanistic human being might be deprived from a deeper awareness and commitment to the lifeworld it inhabits. We see both in Rogers own views and that of traditional Stoicism a stark contrast to this view and it seems wise to me (as a biased lover of Stoicism), to make sure our metaphors are ones of life, and necessarily vibrant and vital. That they commit us to engage in a living world that supports us and is benevolent and giving of our every need. After all, it takes only a little bit of awareness of our condition as rational beings to deeply appreciate what we have been give by nature. As Epictetus says in his ‘Discourses’-

“This body does not belong to you, it is only cunningly constructed clay. And since I could not make the body yours, I have given you a portion of myself instead, the power of positive and negative impulse, of desire and aversion – the power, in other words, of making good use of impressions. If you take care of it and identify with it, you will never be blocked or frustrated; you won’t have to complain, and never will need to blame or flatter anyone” (1.1.11-12.).

What we do with such an awareness is ‘up to us’ and we can go in either direction depending on what the world means for us. Whether we are aloof and just shoring up our own resources so we can maximise our own individual benefit- or whether we see ourselves as a part of a whole, deeply embedded and with complex commitments to those around us. In this last view we are not ever separate from our world, the impressions we have of things are not irrelevant but rather, the views we take of things form the diagnosis for the state of our soul as a being-in-the-world. This latter view I take to be the authentic one and a normatively healthy perspective.

I agree with the position put forward by Carl Rogers in his 1979 paper ‘The Foundations of the Person-Centred Approach’, which seems to me to resemble in some useful ways Stoic physics. His view, which he considers derived from real world investigation (observations of his clients in psychotherapy), is that there are two related tendencies which act on organic life and loom so large in his estimation of their importance that he considered them to be the “foundation blocks of the person-centred approach” p. 98.

Briefly, the first of these, the ‘actualising tendency’ is characteristic of all organic life. Of this tendency Rogers says, “there is in every organism, at whatever level, an underlying flow of movement toward constructive fulfilment of its inherent possibilities. In man, too, there is a natural tendency toward a more complex and complete development” p. 99.

Regardless of the type of living creature, oak tree, earthworm, or man- this tendency is characteristic of all organic life. Life is an active process, never passive: its behaviour “can be counted on to be in the direction of maintaining, enhancing, and reproducing itself” p.99.

Furthermore, even under the most unfavourable conditions, behaviour can be understood as a movement towards the objectives of life. Speaking of some of his most unfortunate patients Rogers noted that, “So unfavourable have been the conditions in which these people have developed that their lives often seem abnormal, twisted, scarcely human. Yet the directional tendency in them is to be trusted. The clue to understanding their behaviour is that they are striving; in the only ways they perceive as available to them, to move toward growth, toward becoming” p. 99.

And it is not merely that the living being’s growth tendency is toward all of the potentialities of the organism. The being is selective about what potentialities are constructive, for example it does not “tend toward developing its capacity for nausea, nor does it actualise its potentiality for self-destruction, nor its ability to bear pain… It is clear that the actualising tendency is selective and directional, a constructive tendency if you will” p. 100.

There appears to be in all organic life a movement towards its appropriate ends, in other words the living being is governed by ‘selective and directional’ processes; directed towards its telos. The Stoics had a similar understanding of basic drives regarding the constructive directionality of organic life and like Rogers- the Stoics were able to take these observations and apply them in practice. In De Finibus III, Cicero reports the view held by the Stoics describing it as-

“… the first appropriate action (for that is what I call kathekon) is that it [i.e. the agent] should preserve itself in its natural constitution; and then that it should retain what is according to nature and reject what is contrary to nature”.

Also, in Diogenes Laertius VII we see the same idea expanded to include a more definite description of activity toward the being’s appropriate ends-

“They say that an animal’s first [or primary] impulse is to preserve itself, because nature made it congenial [oikeios] to itself from the beginning… for in this way it repels injurious influences and pursues that which is congenial to it” (Inwood & Gerson, 1997, p. 191).

Such an organismic perspective helps to understand human behaviour (no matter how strange) as a striving towards becoming and identifies a very real ethical ground for coming to the aid of others, clearing away obstacles to their striving. However, as Stoic philosophers, we hold the view that the human being, has moved beyond the demands of merely biological ends, and as a rational creature is now governed by rational ends.

Therefore, our ethical commitments to others would likely involve removing obstacles to their own understanding of the use of reason. Given that reason cannot be restricted by external things, the kind of obstacles we are talking about must be self-imposed. As part of the whole, we act relationally upon one another- the Stoic philosopher, then, acts within their community as a being who supports the right use of reason- and they do this in a manner that respects the rational integrity and autonomy of others. The Stoic fortified by his care of others, sees clearly enough the cause of failings and refrains from condemnation as cure. As Epictetus points out in the ‘Discourses’-

“What grounds do we have for being angry at anyone. We use labels like ‘thief’ and ‘robber’ in connection with them, but what do these words mean? They merely signify that people are confused about what is good and what is bad… ‘Well, shouldn’t we do away with thieves and degenerates? Try putting the question this way: ‘Shouldn’t we rid ourselves of people deceived about what’s most important, people who are blind- not in their faculty of vision, their ability to distinguish black from white- but in the moral capacity to distinguish good and bad. It is as if you were to say, ‘shouldn’t this blind man, and this deaf man, be executed?’” (1.18.3-6.)

Epictetus points the finger back at the one who blames and suggests that it is their own evaluations that compromise their own rational integrity, that if we could safe guard the use of reason then we would be content in all things and more effective in our capacity to care. In so doing he makes clear that our care for self, the importance we place on our own wellbeing, is the same kind of care we should have for others.

One short coming of Rogers’ conception of the ‘actualising tendency’ is that it does not go far enough in the direction of appreciating the importance of the rational life to the human being. Such a being indeed strives- but we should recognise that the motivation for this directionality is found in an innate awareness of the good. The being qua rational, has developed an awareness of itself and the part of itself most obviously like universal Reason is individual reason. This ‘part’ gives us the capacity to use reason to conduct our affairs in the world according to Nature. The source of the good is not merely within us, and it is neither solely in the world, but rather the good lies in the correct use of reason in response to the world. This view gives us insight again into the proper conduct of the Stoic philosopher; seeking not avoidance or denial of the world, nor unwise commitments to external things but rather knowing that there is a unity made between their own use of reason and worldly objects- and that this unity is good.

The second tendency observed by Rogers, he calls the ‘formative tendency’. This is a principle in the universe that operates counter to entropy and is seen as “the ever-operating trend toward increased order and interrelated complexity evident at both the inorganic and the organic level. The universe is always building and creating as well as deteriorating. This process is evident in the human being too” p. 102.

Here, Rogers appreciates the appearance of our human consciousness and rational capacity as an example of this development towards complexity. His evaluation of human consciousness as an extraordinary peak of development in nature is an observation he shares with the Stoics. Further, he draws particular attention to the role of our ability to focus conscious attention-

“The ability to focus conscious attention seems to be one of the latest evolutionary developments in our species. It is a tiny peak of awareness, of symbolising capacity, topping a vast pyramid of nonconscious organismic functioning. Perhaps a better analogy, more indicative of the continual change going on, is to think of the individual’s functioning as a large pyramidal fountain. The very tip of the fountain is intermittently illuminated with the flickering light of consciousness, but the constant flow of life goes on in the darkness as well, in nonconscious as well as conscious ways. It seems that the human organism has been moving toward the more complete development of awareness. It is at this level that new forms are invented, perhaps even new directions for the human species. It is here that the reciprocal relationship between cause and effect is most demonstrably evident. It is here that choices are made, spontaneous forms created. We see here perhaps the highest of the human functions” p. 102.

This observation regarding the importance of conscious attention and the role it plays in rational activity is deeply shared by the Stoics. As part of their particular tool kit, the Stoic philosopher takes ordinary conscious awareness and turns it into a spiritual discipline. Epictetus tells us to

“Direct aversion only towards things that are up to you and alien to your nature, and you will not fall victim to any of the things that you dislike… Restrict yourself to choice and refusal; and exercise them carefully, with discipline and detachment” (Ench. 2).

The Stoic philosopher strives to remain aware and vigilant of their use of reason; they watch as impressions arise and screen out any evaluative beliefs (especially of the type that make external things appear to have inherent moral value). Constant vigilance is required in the case of the Stoic, who recognises the difficulty faced by the rational being who is unable to effectively direct attention.

Rogers alludes to the importance of the rational capacity yet in the end, unfortunately underplays the role of conscious attention, or perhaps he is unaware of any such intervention to strengthen it (or make its use a central activity in itself). He makes the point that-

“With greater self-awareness a more informed choice is possible, a choice more free from introjects, a conscious choice which is even more in tune with the evolutionary flow. Such a person is more potentially aware, not only of the stimuli from outside, but of ideas and dreams, and of the ongoing flow of feelings and emotions and physiological reactions which he senses in himself. The greater this awareness, the more surely he/she will float in a direction consonant with the directional evolutionary flow” p. 105.

Rogers is in clear agreement with the Stoics, that conscious attention, attention to self-awareness is required for the human being to be able to formulate choice. Being free from introjects means that the person knows what is ‘their own’ relative to ideas and stimuli taken in from the environment and operates from a sense of rational integrity. Having conscious attention differentiates the being from the ‘outside’ world; it knows itself as a cause of its own activity and is able to therefore act autonomously.

Rogers seems happy enough with this kind of choice without saying more about any other requirements. We are told that the human needs only a minimally supportive environment because the actualisation tendency will lead them in the positive direction toward their organismic goals.

The Stoic philosopher on the other hand, is not yet so optimistic. As previously discussed, the philosopher must manage ongoing attention- in fact, to make it a habit of life- constantly mindful that a tendency exists to confuse apparently good choices with good rational activity. Epictetus, after giving counsel on the use of continual practice and the formation of good habit, advises, “Don’t let the force of the impression when first it hits you knock you off your feet; just say to it, ‘Hold on a moment; let me see who you are and what you represent. Let me put you to the test’” (Diss. 2.18.24)

So far, I have attempted to outline some of the similarities shared by Carl Rogers and the Stoics. Rogers found great success as the founder of the ‘person-centred’ theory, and we can learn much from a study of his method. However, I argue that Rogers’ view underestimates the ultimate role of human reason. His excessive faith in the actualising tendency to inevitably produce good results, fails to take into account the observations that the Stoics make, that good activity (and associated wellbeing) is dependent on beliefs and that disciplined vigilance is probably required given the ubiquity of impressions. Rogers gets us part the way there by suggesting that there are internal drives towards ends, but he ignores the cognitive dimensions of rational nature, and fails to notice that beliefs can be mistaken. As a result, Rogers seems unaware that beliefs are routinely misused- for not only do we misuse reason ourselves (the ultimate cause of our troubles) but that also, systems and institutions that wish to govern their people can just as easily shape belief and influence common opinion. Belief unregulated by a normative reason, will result in the acceptance of a world that is not in accord with Nature.

Rogers’ approach to therapy, being significantly influenced by a cosmic view similar to that held by the Stoics may however be a rich vein to mine. His theory brings with it the necessary use of the highest human relational attitudes- unconditional positive regard and a deep respect for all rational beings. His method provides insightful clues for understanding the worldview of those we live with and teaches us to listen more effectively and in so doing being more able to respond to the fears and concerns of others. We can do all this with Rogers’ method and used alongside the Stoic insight regarding the central role of reason in discerning the good, we can ensure that we make the best use of reason in our interactions with others. In short, we will “never be blocked or frustrated; never need to complain, and never will need to blame or flatter anyone”. Stoicism has much to offer as a philosophy of love and care, but Rogers makes that explicit and shows us exactly how to do just that.

Finally, just as heuristics allow us to present appearances in a new light and offer new inroads for exploring ideas, so do metaphors. Rogers favours organismic metaphors, speaking in terms of growth and striving- suggesting that therapeutic encounters are curative given the fertile soil of the therapeutic environment (including the genuineness and positive regard of the therapist themself). But such metaphors may fall short when the focus on organic growth is at the apex of the developmental spectrum. Plants and non-rational animals differ from us precisely because of our capacity to reason. The great leap forward is to realise that unlike much of organic life, we are required to reflect on the use of reason and to critically examine our beliefs about ourselves and the world we inhabit.

I have used the metaphor of a river as it encourages me to conceive of human life, like Rogers, from a cosmic and natural perspective, but unlike Rogers and more aligned with Stoic physics, the world as ‘river’ is seen as a flowing unity of which its parts are inseparable from the whole. If I am but a ripple of self-awareness moving in the current, then I will flow wherever the river takes me. Perhaps I will make it around the next bend… we will see, but either way I hope to be happy with whatever comes my way.

Such a conclusion echoes the view put forward by Epictetus, who using the vibrant, lively metaphor of communal life, speaks of the festival goer, “a few people in the crowd are capable of reflection; what is this world, they want to know, and who runs it?… That’s what occupies a few, who spend all their spare time seeing and learning as much as they can about the festival before the time comes to get up and leave” (Diss. 2.14.28).

In all cases our metaphors are part of the substrate of our souls and their products take real form in the world in the ways in which we care for ourselves and others.

References

Cicero, M. T., & Rackham, H. (2018). De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA02821500

Epictetus, & Dobbin, R. F. (2008). Discourses and selected writings. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA87185317

Foucault, M., Martin, L. H., Gutman, H., & Hutton, P. H. (1989). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Contemporary Sociology, 18(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.2307/2072021

Husserl, E. (1960). Cartesian meditations. In Springer eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4952-7

Inwood, B., & Gerson, L. (eds) (1997) Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company

Rogers, C. R. (1951) Client-Centred Therapy. London: Constable.

Rogers, C. R. (1967) ‘This is me’ In On Becoming a Person (pp. 3-27). London: Constable. (Original work published 1953)

Rogers, C. R. (1979) ‘The Foundations of the Person-Centred Approach’ Education, 100,2, p.98-107

Tudor, K., & Worrall, M. (2006). Person-Centred therapy. In Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965252

Nature bestows reliable happiness

Her gifts made self-evident.

O Benevolence O Providence

Her mark appears on all things

As perceived by that ruling principle

She has disclosed to my heart.

Such gifts that are given,

This life, the most bespoke of treasures

Unfolding order, never unrequited, Amor Fati

She who has fitted this to that

And given me my beloved role to play.

O Benevolence O Providence

She who has perfected this world

And invited me to participate

In this festive season amongst great works,

O how I long to remain pious and gently touch

The marble of Her creation.

O Benevolence O Providence

And when by her esteem my own marble might chip

The pain of each stroke the sculptress’ blessing

For she reveals in me the character of my soul

And let it make her weep with delight.

In such trial her devotion is made clear

For, Nature has given me all that is required

And every talent and virtue to call on.

O Benevolence O Providence

You have made me many limbed

So that I may care for myself a thousand-fold,

In this clearing you reveal me to myself

And all torment is made tranquil.

O Benevolence O Providence

My cup runneth over,

Every good has found its way into my heart.

—Courtney Shipley.

“Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whichever way they happen: this is the path to peace”

Epictetus, Enchiridion, Chapter 8

In our world today, I have a sense that there is a belief that we have an expectation to get what we want. For things to turn out the way we want them to. If we put our thoughts out into the universe, we will be rewarded. If we do the right then, then a fantastic outcome will be granted upon us. That we will receive a divine benevolence. 

If the take the traditional Stoic worldview, that is not how the world works. The world, and our cosmos, operates according to Nature. It is a living being. God, who pervades the entire cosmos, forms the cosmos into a harmonious whole and orders events in a providential manner. In fact, these external events are morally indifferent. No event can possible be inherently bad. Instead, these adverse situations (well, how we may see them anyway) can offer one an opportunity to train, practice and develop one’s virtue.

I see this as the world will act out its own agenda, and this may mean that things that we would prefer not to happen to us will. In fact, what happens is fated and will happen regardless of what we want, but that doesn’t mean we are powerless. Within our power is to control what we want. To know what is up to us and to use what is up to us correctly, making sure this capacity is treated with due respect and even reverence.

A focus then is on our care for the self. In our modern world, what could this look like? Examples may include:

• Irrespective of what happens, we can feel grateful that we can hold the view that whatever happens to us is “good enough for me,” and we can attend to the situation at hand
• Being comfortable with being with our self. This means avoiding distraction or looking for things to occupy our time. To be with our self rather than impulsively going to our emails, or apps, or vices rather than than face ourselves or silence. To not be frustrated by having to turn inward or by having ‘nothing’ to do
• Taking a moment to reflect that under any condition that we are in, we have access to our ruling faculty and autonomy
• Examining our first impressions, taking a pause, and examining if we are forming the correct opinion of what is happening, questioning if harm is actually being done to us

We can wish for life to turn out exactly how we want it to, with no inconvenience, stress, grief, or hardship. That’s not how it’s going to be. Instead, we need to welcome events as they happen, to go with the flow of the river, to build our own character and respond to these situations in a way we ought to. Virtuously. 

Easier written than down. I fall short all the time. I am getting better. I see the Sage, and am trying to become more like him. 

EUDAIMONIA – TO SEE WITH THE DIVINE EYE (Part One)

I

A title with a strikethrough! A strikethrough that represents a prevailing attitude
in modern thought. The catechism of what is true and not. All true things must be
objects experiencible by some degree of measure. An object of influence cannot
influence in an unknown way, though we would have to ignore an “incredible”
amount of what we don’t know for this to be true.
What is rejected is often minutely defined within whatever constitutes the bulk of
one’s historical heritage, and that particular heritage may be one of polemic
polarities, in which there are assumed to be no new ideas.
Stoicism talks to us, in ways that have been presented admirably by modern
authors. It is an ancient heritage that has survived perhaps because of its
usefulness, its ability to inspire new generations. But is has always been wider in
its scope than many enthusiasts have been willing to accept.
Some of its ideas were all but lost, surviving in the fragments of friends and critics
with more lasting clout. Other ideas hide in plain sight, avoided by nervous
Christians in the renaissance and the early modern era. Still others have spurred
revolution, albeit through new schools of thought. But, it seems for each
generation only the most acceptable parts have been chosen. We seem to have a
different sort of eclecticism going on in our times, where certain basic Stoic ideas
have gained in popularity. But once again they’ve been cherry-picked to accord
with broader cultural tolerances.
To “see with the eye” is simply the physical eye’s function stated redundantly. But
more often we use ‘sight’ or ‘view’ as a metaphor for thought, the field of “vision”
being constructed in the mind. A “divine eye” is something different by its
addition, but a god is either not defined or it is defined, sometimes narrowly,
sometimes widely. But what is it to have a god of sorts? I would say its to see
existence as a kindred experience, but its clear that such a creating creature must

think differently, and for us to think of it, we must view it inside. It seems I’ve
struck through the wrong word! I took the liberty of striking the divine through
for your sake, when I should have struck through the eye. It is only the uneyed
view that can be “divine”, through the unsensual perceiver.

II

I’ve often heard it inferred that eudaimonia is the height of our existence, and in a
very shallow way that can mean “happiness”, but not in its typical modern range
of meanings: satisfaction, elation, or the absence of bad feelings.
Happiness as elation is a fleeting ‘up’ with its own relative ‘down’ in the lack of
elation, and being lead in a constant chase for it isn’t really conducive to real
happiness. Opinion and what we call “feeling” being the same thing, we can have
the opinion/feeling that we are satisfied with our circumstance, and the absence
of bad feelings/opinions may be a side-effect of this.
Eudaimonia is often reduced to more sustainable kind of tranquility, and an even
keel is preferable of course – whether in the midst of the crowd or in tranquil
platitude. But this is ataraxia, the preferred state of being across ancient
philosophies, Stoic, Epicurean, Pyrrhonist, whether Socratic, pre- or post-Socratic,
imperturbence both had and holds value today.
Another common interpretation of the term eudaimonia is “flourishing” (or
“human flourishing”), which has the sense of an opening flower, and I admit that
I’m critical of that particular inference of eudaimonia being something that
develops from one state to another. Although I can see that it’s a useful idea, I
don’t believe it’s an accurate representation of its meaning – particularly its Stoic
meaning.
I would say that, taking from ancient virtue ethics, there is a kind of happiness
‘ecosystem’, an optimal way to co-exist. A virtue of co-existence covered by two
different happenstances of the same thing: Like “duty” and “kindness”. These are

both expressions of providence, or virtuous forethought (phronesis). Duty as
represented by the Latin word officium is best understood in connection with the
rendering of a ‘necessary service’ whether the onus is upon you or it is done as a
kindness for someone else. That informs the sense of “duty”. An impromtu
kindness is a beneficium. If you ask me, I would say that “officia” and “beneficia”
are equal kindnesses, though I might suspect a modern preference for elevating
“beneficia” above “officia”. I suppose the idea is to give happiness in the form of
what might mirror one’s own expectation, and this giver can also be made happy
by the giving as well. This kind of happiness is known as “personal fulfillment”.
The longer history of the word “fulfillment” though biases more towards duty.
I’m using this as just one example of “virtue”, because virtue needs examples. It is
not simply an abstract state, a fixed halo. It is the lifeblood of human interaction.
There are a lot of terms that interchange awkwardly when attempting to describe
what the ideal state consists of. Each term representing a shifting context. Logos
is perhaps the most vague of all, but it has a high profile due to its use in the
Gospel of John “…and the Logos was God”, an almost co-incidentally Stoic
statement, logos representing the reason inherent in the universe.
If I were to break it down and describe the ancient Greek meaning of the term
eudaimonia though, it might also seem otherworldly to modern people, but it’s
something worth doing, because this is the same problem that other ancient Stoic
terms suffer from in the modern world.
“God” is perhaps the paramount example of a term that is widely misunderstood,
and you may reject it if you like, but I feel that it and its context should be
properly understood first, as it is related to the idea of eudaimonia.
“God” is a word which suffers from its almost unavoidable association with the
religions that came after Stoicism. But in Stoicism it is an hermeneutical term – it
has interpretive cachet, and deep psychological significance. It has been a
constant in the human mind in many ways, from the earliest recorded history

down to the present, and its many representations are a part of us in more ways
than one.
In modern secular understanding, ‘God’ is the supreme being that at one point in
the past mysteriously brought everything we know into being, but that we can
communicate with in our own mind. The various religious points-of-view may
bring many other ideas to this understanding that qualify it in a more particular
way, but that basic definition suits most religions of this day, especially those of
the monotheistic-exclusivist family most active vaguely west of India. Even the
polytheistic religions have creator Gods, they just might not be the same God you
communicate with (which is where Christianity dissembles into a vaguery in the
role of Jesus, a vaguery kept at arm’s length by dogma). In fact creation is more of
a function of myths in which a variety of scenarios can play creation out
haphazardly as a plot element. But when your God becomes the exclusive power
in heaven, that God creates alone and when invisible the God creates unknown.

III

Now in the modern world we are conscious of a greater knowledge of ‘the
universe’, of just how immense its expanse is, of how small and uncentral we are.
This creates a certain cognitive dissonance with the idea of an ostensibly human-
like God doing human-like things.
In the ancient world, religion revolved around the sacrificial cult, where the God
was not felt to be so distant at all. Gods and Goddesses were given gifts to seek
favour from them. This was the means of communication accompanied by formal
expressions of respect thought most likely to be acceptable. Gods being seen as in
a contractual relationship that was continuous and required a kind of regularity
that placed it within the regularities of nature that both Gods and people were
seen to be a part of. Gods resided over oaths, they were the third party there to
witness deals struck between human powers, being physically transported in the
form of statues that both parties would pay respect to. They were tied to cities,
one or many.

The divine also presided over the larger implicit contract of the people of the
cities themselves by being the givers of the gift of law, by which the
responsibilities were ordered which ensured the most co-benefit, and sought to
define what was ill-sought by proscription.
Plato often alludes directly to the governance of a city, most notably in the
Republic, but also throughout the dialogues (which are set in the city of Athena):
they are true laws inasmuch as they effect the well-being (eudaimonas) of those
who use them by supplying all that are good. Now goods are of two kinds,
human and divine; and the human goods are dependent on the divine, and he
who receives the greater acquires also the less, or else he is bereft of both.
Plato’s Laws 631b
The nomoi (laws) are seen as orthos, correct or reliable, thus agathos (good) is
what is truly reliable, and its reliability is seen as evidence of divinity. The benefit
being derived by all is eudaimonia, and it is supposed that a general eudaimonia is
possible so long as “true laws” prevail. so long as reliability isn’t being written into
circumstances by various motives. In Greek, idios is a private interest, those
persons attached to oneself, or an opinion – a private interest of the mind. An
idiotes is contrasted with a philosopher in possession of logic, or a professional in
possession of real knowledge. But idios can often prevail where least noticed. It is
part of the human. An in-group is capable of insinuating a different circumstance
to that which is real. In such cases, fate (tuche) as necessity can reassert itself, and
the real circumstance becomes knowable.
Jéferson Assumção in discussing the philosophy of José Ortega y Gasset, writes
“The communion of those who look at reality is able to show more”. Ortega in his
book The Rebellion of the Masses states that “man made up of mere idola fori
(‘idols of the forum’)..lacks…a self that cannot be revoked”. They are positing this
same distinction in my opinion, but there is always a mixture with some degree of
idios. Ortega’s most famous phrase is: “I am me and my circumstance. And if I
don’t save it, I don’t save myself” and circumstance at a greater elevation is
always shared, this is Ortega’s take on oikeiosis. Assumção writes that this
manifests “as an individual I-circumstance, an I-with-others that is also

immediately connected to the whole of society, the planet and what we don’t
know”, the last indicating that we are inevitably connected to things we know
nothing, or next-to-nothing about, but connected nonetheless.
I can see the relation between fate and circumstance. Circumstance is “fate” from
whichever view or timeframe we put on it. In Marcus Aurelius’ point of view, he
writes in Meditations (12.14) “either there is (before you) an alloted necessity and
unalterable order, or kind providence, or an aimless and unarraigned confusion.”
That’s my translation because I want to make clear that he’s putting experiences
into categories, not speculating on ultimate truth. All of these are true, and “fate”
is an experience, but behind it is an ephemeral and thus unknowable chain of
effects at the edge of knowledge.
There is another daimon-related word we come across in’ Meditations (1.16.3) in
a passage where he considers what he had learned from the previous emperor,
his adoptive “father” Antoninus Pius, who was said to have “No superstitious fear
of divine powers”. That superstitious fear is deisidaimonia, and it means ‘dread of
the divine.’ Plutarch echoes this assessment of its defect in De Superstitione (Ch2):
“superstition, as the very name (‘deisidaimonia’ -dread of deities) indicates, is an
emotional expectation (‘doxan empathe’) and an assumption productive
(‘poietiken hypolipsin’) of a fear (‘deous’) which utterly humbles and crushes a
man, for he thinks that there are gods, but that they are the cause of pain and
injury…the superstitious man is moved as he ought not to be, and his mind is thus
perverted…it bestows the added idea that He (or, the divine) causes injury…
superstition is an emotion (‘pathos’) engendered from false reason.”
The root of the deisi- element is deido – to ‘fear’ in the sense of becoming anxious
or alarmed, as opposed to the other sense of fear being reverence or respect.
They are insinuating the life of those who pay too much heed to omens, the ritual
involvements they require, and the supernatural dangers they imagine, and the
thousand ways they imagine to fail in appeasement.
The shadow of this assessment of divine injury, the vengeful God, can even drive
those who otherwise disavow religion to act as if they are in a struggle against

that power, but the struggle is as illusory as the mythological figure they seem still
to fear.
There is a problem of the over-dogmatic interpretation of oracles and events, and
the dissonance of feedback being the apparent ineffectiveness of remedies, an
anxiety that either drives them – or they are driven – to ever more ensuring
actions. There is the negative predictive horizon intimately related to the positive
predictive horizon, and both involve extrapolation from expectation (doxa).
A constant is the ineffectiveness of over-dogmatic interpretation. This is because
of the nature of fluidity, or we could say the fluidity of Nature.
Behind most fears hides the unknown, and this usually drives the search for
surety, which is both asked for and given in various ways.
If eudaimonia isn’t simply individual happiness then, it exists in a web of
interaction that includes the divine and is divine itself, at least as far as ancient
psychology is concerned. But is it simply something that happens to us and is
beyond our ability to affect? There have been many approaches to the divine that
strain to affect its presence. Philosophy generally critiques these hopes for
agency, and I believe that Stoicism critiques them by the standard of their use,
much like Psychology has at its most adventurous and perspicacious.
Interesting is Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben’s observation: “God speaks in
the imperative mode, but the strange neglected fact is that when men address
God…they speak in the imperative mood”, as a part of his assertion that “religion
is simply a huge attempt to build a world on the ground of an imperative of a
commandment.” God commands us, we command God.
My response to Agamben about the imperative mode is that it is an expression of
urgency that has probably from early times been used for pleading. The
conceptual power arrangement is something that may have come later, the
certain aloofness that we perceive today is the conceptual aloofness of God
himself, and this is tied to the aloofness of the sacred space and its class of
“employees”, as much as to the silence of God in the human realm. But the
formality of pleading has its reflective response in the formality of command. The

aloofness of the temple may have to do with the guarding of its secrets – physical
treasures stored there as a guarantor of contracts, of official records, of law and
the interests of the temple as an elite class.
I see a lot of the tension between the political assertions of “science” and
“religion” of the past two centuries that have influenced us to this day, as being
prompted by this somewhat continuing role of the “temple” in the early to mid
modern world, during which science emerged as the output of a new class that
did not want to be restrained.
But this tension was also present in the ancient world. The tension between
philosophy and the political regimes of which “religion” was a part.
In bringing in the political however, we come to a dead end. Because we have
been primed to think in terms of class tensions (tensions between political
actors), we can drift into dualism and be blind to the huge swathe of our output
that is not expressly political. Things of beauty and inspiration also found their
home in the “temple”, which also produced and preserved literature, poetry,
music, art, and wisdom.
I’ll backtrack to where I was explaining the hermeneutical focus. “God” as a
touchstone of deep psychological significance throughout human existence.

IV

A variety of scenarios have played creation out as a plot element in which one
God or another are involved often haphazardly in creation of the world around us,
but when your God becomes the exclusive power in heaven, that God creates
alone and invisibly. This we can see in the literary account of Genesis.
But the Stoic God is a philosophical development already present in the Socratic
heritage, which was being further developed in Stoicism. It represents that
creation, but the creation is from within. It is the power that manifests within
everything that changes, because it is that change and that constancy. It exists
both within us and within the things we depend upon for our existence, because

it has grown within this existence in the most appropriate way. This is both
providence and oikeiosis inherently (inherent ‘affinity’). The ‘nature’ (physis)
within us appropriates us to itself. It is no different to ‘nature’ outside of us.
Physis (“Nature”), being growth within us and amongst us, will strike its healthiest
path if we know what is “best”, what is arête or ‘excellence’ meaning virtue.
The divine is a way of explaining what is perfect around us, a hermeneutic.
‘Science’ and ‘psychology’ are great hermeneutics of our time, ‘science’ is a
hermeneutic of the perfect in objective truth by falsification, and ‘psychology’ is a
hermeneutic of the imperfect mind in search of better state, perhaps even the
perfect way; what is being interacted with is the object and subject of the human
mind, the uncovering of error (vice) and the discovery of virtue (or, what is best).
For Stoicism there is no distinction here between object and subject: It respects
proof, proposition, and true aporia, and directs all that is imperfect and subjective
in the human mind towards its underlying perfect state.
The reason there is philosophy at all is that people have cognitive dissonance.
They experience pleasures and prefer them to pains. They dislike the pains and
seek to avoid them, but if they cannot, they experience a further pain at the state
they are in. They are imperfect. Pleasures seem fleeting and they long for their re-
occurrence.
For Stoicism, there are two different categories, the human and the divine, and
the divine is part of what it is to be human. The human without the divine is little
more than another animal. In fact, the human can quite often be worse than the
animal, because humans can use some shade of reason to make themselves
worse. Humans have proven to be great organizers of death, for example, but also
act very effectively in support of life.
We have emerged with the necessary impulses that preserve us in our world, and
though these impulses can become abstracted from their best purpose, we know
that we have also emerged with an eye to what is better through a certain kind of
knowledge.

Some simulacrum of reason is the constant habit of the human mind, being really
just the way in which an individual finds and sustains themself in the society of
language, communication, and emotions. But pure reason is most fruitful of all,
and requires training (techne), and this the purpose that Stoicism attends to.
Our guiding soul (the one that uses pure reason) is akin to God as the pyr
technikon, the active principle seen to work in the manner of a fire, the trained
and training fire, an intelligence (noeron) built of process which is like a mind
(noos) at work in everything, whether manifest in a simple or a complex process,
the cause of motion held in check, it proceeds (badizon) step after step
compounding and reaching out, ‘orderly’ from a detached view. It generates what
can be considered as ordered (epi genesin kosmou) from a larger view. “epi/eph”
is the reaching manner, ‘towards’ generation. “eph’ hemin” (Epictetus’ Discourses
1.1) or “what is within our reach” being the ethos of growth or ‘nature’ (physis).
Faulty reasoning (or ‘vice’) is simply human, but good reasoning (or ‘virtue’) is
divine, and the divine, whether seen as ‘God’ or as some other ultimate, is the
category above what is simply human. It contains an idea of perfection that is
innate to us, but easily clouded over unless we are wise to what we should and
shouldn’t concern ourselves with. In many ways this idea of perfection informs
civilization as well.
The word “divine” in its Latin origin relates back to the word for “god” (deus), that
has branched out to many other languages from a very early common origin (The
Indo-European reconstruction is *deywos, which became Sanskrit deva as well as
Greek dia and zeus.) It is a group of words associated with the sky and its obvious
importance. The sky gives us sunshine and rain (English day and Latin dies are also
related to *deywos through the root *dyew – to shine). The power of life is
correctly seen to emanate from the power of the sky, but interestingly another
related word dives is used of land that is “fertile”, of people who are “talented”,
figuratively of “wealth”, of anything overflowing with life. The divine from above
is mirrored in the divine springing up from below. This is the psychological
significance at play, but there is a perceptible balance at play as well that we are
able to benefit from: a golden mean.

Within us there is assumed to be our daimon. A personal guiding spirit (our genius
in Latin). It is a kind of deity in itself, which should enlighten us as to what deity is.
It is the god within, being also what people are talking to when engaged in prayer
and other similar activities where this ‘presence’ is either felt or played with, but
one need not see it as separate at all, instead one may embody it. So it is
important that this presence is the right one.
A ‘good’ daimon is one that guides well or ably (eu-), and we could say conversely
that an able daimon (eu-daimon) is one that has been treated with reverence. It is
our own guidance as an harmonious part of the whole. Our affinity (oikeiosis).
Seneca shows that the very presence of the eternal is there within us if we only
realise. In Letters 41.1 he writes:

‘Prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est’
“God is near to you, is with you, is within.”

which I’ve translated to be as close to the Latin as possible. That’s “God is near to
you, God is with you, God is within” to be explicit.
In the next verse: “a sacred spirit (sacer spiritus) abides inside of us, a guardian
(custos) and an observer of our bad and our honourable deeds.”
Guardian, which is custos may also have the double-entendre of tutor. spiritus
could likely be interchangeable with anima (soul) in this period, as a word for the
life within us (literally: breath), but is here denoting the daimon, the sacer spiritus
being eudaimon, to use the adjectival form.
An interesting quote is then supplied by Seneca from Vergil’s Aeneid: “Who is the
god, it is undecided, but a god lives here.” It suggests that the identity of gods or
God is an afterthought, and may hint at the Stoic view of religion, when you
consider the start of 41.1: “We do not need…to beg the keeper of a temple to let
us approach his idol’s ear (aurem simulacri)”. As with names, so with images
(simulacra).
The external God acting in the universe but not of the universe* is a form of
simulacrum in itself, an idol. Plato’s distorted, as opposed to ‘faithful’

representation maybe. (* the Christians’ imperative for the individual to be “in
the world but not of the world” refers instead to the typical consensus of society,
and is worthy of Stoicism)
But the spiritus appears to be referring to something different to God (if indeed
anything is different to God). It is the indwelling spirit that is sacer, dedicated to
God, sharing in what is divine itself. So for Seneca there is this matter of
distinction, the same Stoic distinction understood by Epictetus in Discourses
(1.14.13-14):
“To what other guardian could he have entrusted us that would have been better
and more vigilant than this? And so, when you close your doors and create
darkness within, remember never to say that you’re on your own, for in fact, you’re
not alone, because God is within you, and your guardian spirit too. And what need
do they have of light to see what you’re doing? “
But God and the sacer spiritus are not necessarily two different things, just two
different contexts of the divine. The spiritus being particularised within the
person. I suppose that’s where the word “difference” is imperfect, because the
difference in this case, is the universal to the particular, and my opinion is that we
can’t make objects out of either of these, and I think that’s ultimately the
implication of the quote from Seneca, that “God is near to you, is with you, is
within.”
To illustrate (imperfectly of course), the energy in lightning is the same as the
electricity in a circuit board – that would not be unreasonable to say – but there is
a difference. But it really relates to the point of Letter 41, that when we act with
virtue we come closer to the knowledge of the divine within us. The sacer spiritus
in our life.
To quote a fragment of Chrysippus: “This is the very thing which makes up the
virtue of the happy person and the well-flowing life – when the affairs of life are in
every way tuned to the harmony between the individual divine spirit and the will

of the director of the universe.” or we could simply say the will of the universe
being the same as what directs it, from the largest to the smallest force. We are
now in the possession of minute relevance, and this specialisation objectifies
many things. In Stoicism there is a greater relevance presumed.

V

Once again: Is eudaimonia simply something that happens to us and is beyond our
ability to affect?
I’ll answer that in a round about way by saying that the bottom up distinction is to
do with our education in virtue. It’s up to us to keep that spiritus divine.
Within the earlier religious/literary ideas of the ancient world the greater
daimones are described as demigods, mortals created by the gods to live a godlike
life
without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief: miserable age rested
not on them; but with legs and arms never failing they made merry with feasting
beyond the reach of all evils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome
with sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them
fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their lands
with many good things, rich in flocks and loved by the blessed gods. But after the
earth had covered this generation—they are called pure spirits dwelling on the
earth, and are kindly, delivering from harm, and guardians of mortal men.

Hesiod, Works and Days 115-122
(Hugh G. Evelyn-White translation – 1914)
after dying they were still seen to be dwelling on the earth for our benefit. As
tutelary deities they were honoured with rites but quite faceless compared with
the greater, immortal gods, who created them in this state.

Myths as part of the literary and dramatic output of the ancients were as relevant
or inspiring of philosophical reflection as that same output is relevant to
philosophy today, where we have the added dimension of film. But, there was
also a greater interaction with the forces perceived in “myth”, that of the ritual
life.
The gods represent collective psychological interactions with types defined by
that interaction itself. They are images arrayed with significant attributes and
their interplay contribute to an image of the world played out in myth, but it is
the very same in film and literature to this day. In the same way stories have
become attached to them as a form of entertainment that varies in its salience
according to the author. They may only be gratuities to the emotions that drive
the interest that they hold or they may have wider and more virtuous
significance. But regardless, they are ways of seeing ourselves. The significance of
motifs within entertainment are the food of philosophical involvement. What is
presented, both in stories and in the real that they interpret, can be shown by
another related word: daimonios – the ‘extraordinary’ and thus the ‘inscrutable’.
But for eudaimonia, which can be read as “blessedness”, to alight from the divine
in the form of the true good, there must be eu-daimonios, where the inscrutable,
the inscrutable path, the divine, or whatever is analogous to that state, is
‘revealed’. A state of guidance rather than becoming, because we already exist.
Daio, as the root of daimon shows that ‘what is daimon’ is ‘what is apportioned’.
Eudaimon is a state that is risen to, wherein the eu-daimon is the host, like at a
banquet, and what we “partake of” (dainumi in the middle/passive voice) is
knowledge as state of being, and thus in that state of being we are “host”
(dainumi in the active voice) to eudaimon reflexively.
This theme of the banquet presents a simile of the ethos of the times when
animal sacrifices to gods were an institution. One regular type of sacrifice was
when animals, dedicated to a god, were slaughtered and cooked in the temple.
The people present, being worshippers of the god, were served this meat as food.
The animals sacrificed in these cultures and in modern cultures where some
modicum of animal sacrifice persists, are those animals favoured as meat. (For

example, sheep and birds in Ancient Israel; and pigs, chickens, and ducks in China
to this day.)
There is a sense in which the bringing of an offering is assistance in the service of
the divine and what it represents. This is one way of seeing the “temple”: As,
instead of one’s own ‘body’ (as is canonically supposed), it can rather be other
people. We can bring assistance to others in their service of virtue. When one
brings assistance to another, both are brought closer to the divine. The example
of a “temple” being the oikeiosis (affinity) in its ‘ecosystem’ and economy.
I wonder about the relation between virtue and healing. People also go to
temples to seek healing, to be brought back to a state of health. This is a kind of
inversion, where something is sought of the divine. Of course though, healing is
within.

Just as this spirit is treated by us, in such a way it also treats us
Hic prout a nobis tractatus est, ita nos ipse tractat.

— Seneca, Letter 41.2b
What we describe as religion was a very laissez faire affair in the pre-Christian
world, which we can see outlined in Philostratus’ Apollonius of Tyana. But this
even pertains within Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the cults of Saints,
Sheikhs, and Ravs. It also reminds me of Hinduism to this day, and the various
Buddhist syncretisms of East Asia. There is a universality to these forms of
significance. But often they carry built-in critiques of temple fiefdoms and their
routine animal sacrifices. Critiques that you find not only amongst the
Pythagoreans, but in the Hebrew prophets of the Bible as well. That the divine is
of a common substance to our intellect and that virtue is its modus operandi, is
very much echoed in Stoicism, while in the Bible it is that God can be better
served or reached with virtue, and that virtue is God’s main desire.
We might say that the biblical or classically theistic God apportions rewards, and
the Stoic God shares in a substance with us that is its own reward. It is eudaimon,
being an apportioning of the divine, that nourishes the soul that holds it in
reverence.

VI

I’m displaying here an hermeneutical method for dealing with all that is involved
in the idea of the Stoic god, in as far as it relates to eudaimonia. But you may not
need this at all.
In as much as the revelation of ‘knowledge as eudaimonia’ works psychologically
to connect us to our more natural state of oikeiosis, that is: affinity with nature
and with fate in the form of circumstance, eudaimonia is also connecting us with
a truth that is like Kant’s noumena, which I’ll typify very basically as those things
that are real but remain hidden until known.
Truth is the goal of the journey from daimonios (what is obscure and unknown) to
that which becomes known through eudaimonia (that which guides well) by the
means of Stoic logic.
This is the path of science towards revelation of knowledge, by that which guides
us well enough to discover noumena previously hidden, and this too can be
eudaimonia – being (or Being) rightly guided by the faculties within ourselves
shown enough respect to be trained in the virtues that lead to truth.
There is another issue here though: That all of the virtues must be used, which is
to say that none must be neglected.
That will bring me to the next stage of this exposition, Part 2: where I’ll delve into
the significance of the story of Prometheus…

 —-Khyel Walker, June 2023

Memento Mori | Adversity

There are several key themes that pervade the works of the ancient Stoics and arise from the fundamental doctrinal ground of Stoic philosophy. One cannot underestimate the value of these core structural (doctrinal) principles in Stoicism and at times we will be required to root out and reject our ‘commonly shared’ opinions about the world; some of the distorted teachings we might identify in a modern worldview.

This theme is developed in Seneca’s ‘Moral Letter to Lucilius- Letter 95’, where he writes-

“Men seek pleasure from every source. No vice remains within its limits; luxury is precipitated into greed. We are overwhelmed with forgetfulness of that which is honourable…

Amid this upset condition of morals, something stronger than usual is needed, – something which will shake off these chronic ills; in order to root out a deep-seated belief in wrong ideas, conduct must be regulated by doctrines. It is only when we add precepts, consolation, and encouragement to these, that they can prevail; by themselves they are ineffective.” (33-34 Letter 95).

Already we see the prescription of a therapeutic for the soul and it involves a knowledge of Stoic doctrine.

Seeking to drive the message home, Seneca exhorts us to critique our wayward and ambivalent opinions and to replace them with the constancy and coherence of the Stoic worldview-

” Conduct will not be right unless the will to act is right; for this is the source of conduct. Nor, again, can the will be right without a right attitude of mind; for this is the source of the will. Furthermore, such an attitude of mind will not be found even in the best of men unless he has learned the laws of life as a whole and has worked out a proper judgment about everything, and unless he has reduced facts to a standard of truth. Peace of mind is enjoyed only by those who have attained a fixed and unchanging standard of judgment; the rest of mankind continually ebb and flow in their decisions, floating in a condition where they alternately reject things and seek them. And what is the reason for this tossing to and fro? It is because nothing is clear to them, because they make use of a most unsure criterion – rumour. If you would always desire the same things, you must desire the truth. But one cannot attain the truth without doctrines; for doctrines embrace the whole of life.” (57-58 Letter 95).

With this in mind I will offer up some of the themes that appear in the structural makeup of the Stoic philosophical worldview. This will be a work in progress and I will add to it as themes occur to me. But first I want to reflect on the shortness of life and its appearance in Stoic doctrine.

Memento Mori

Put simply ‘Memento Mori’ means remember that you have to die. This realisation does not have to be a grim or depressing acknowledgement, rather acceptance of mortality can allow us to put our affairs into perspective. We might ask ourselves- If we can’t take external stuff with us and if every comfort or discomfort is transitory then what is worth striving for? The Stoics require us to confront reality and to embrace it. Such a commitment to reality involves being consciously aware of our mortality and governing our affairs accordingly with an appropriate concern for what actually matters- namely ‘that which is up to us’ (see Epictetus, Enchiridion 1 for detail on ‘what is up to us’). This concern for ‘what is up to us’ involves an understanding that part of the deal for us, is that everything is on loan and has to be returned at some point in the not so distant future. It would be wise for us not to hang on too tightly to what will be returned but to be gentle in our grasping and to enjoy tenderly the things gifted to us.

The Stoics recognised the value of keeping one’s impermanence and relative insignificance before their eyes, as they understood that an objective view of reality is required to make appropriate judgements. In short, where impressions are recieved by us we should inquire into whether we have added anything to them. We may find that we are projecting onto impressions additional cognitive material that often fails to recognise the impermanence and therefore the wise treatment of the object in question. Recourse to the objective view which includes an awareness of our finitude will go some way to protecting us from the viccissitudes of life and retraining us to place our attention where it is most needed- in cultivating our character towards virtue!

Next when you are confronted with a difficult (or even pleasurable) impression ask yourself “how would a Stoic behave”? Lets turn to them and seek their counsel-

Marcus Aurelius

“Of human life the time is a point, and the substance is in a flux, and the perception dull, and the composition of the whole body subject to putrefaction, and the soul a whirl, and fortune hard to divine, and fame a thing devoid of judgment. And, to say all in a word, everything which belongs to the body is a stream, and what belongs to the soul is a dream and vapour, and life is a warfare and a stranger’s sojourn, and after-fame is oblivion.

What then is that which is able to conduct a man? One thing and only one, philosophy. But this consists in keeping the daemon within a man free from violence and unharmed, superior to pains and pleasures, doing nothing without a purpose, nor yet falsely and with hypocrisy, not feeling the need of another man’s doing or not doing anything; and besides, accepting all that happens, and all that is allotted, as coming from thence, wherever it is, from whence he himself came; and, finally, waiting for death with a cheerful mind, as being nothing else than a dissolution of the elements of which every living being is compounded. But if there is no harm to the elements themselves in each continually changing into another, why should a man have any apprehension about the change and dissolution of all the elements? For it is according to nature, and nothing is evil which is according to nature” (Meditations, 2.17).

“Think continually how many physicians are dead after often contracting their eyebrows over the sick; and how many astrologers after predicting with great pretensions the deaths of others; and how many philosophers after endless discourses on death or immortality; how many heroes after killing thousands; and how many tyrants who have used their power over men’s lives with terrible insolence as if they were immortal; and how many cities are entirely dead, so to speak, Helice and Pompeii and Herclanum, and others innumerable. Add to the reckoning all whom thou hast known, one after another. One man after burying another has been laid out dead, and another buries him; and all this in a short time. To conclude, always observe how ephemeral and worthless human things are, and what was yesterday a little mucus, to-morrow will be a mummy or ashes. Pass then through this little space of time conformably to nature, and end thy journey in content, just as an olive falls off when it is ripe, blessing nature who produced it, and thanking the tree on which it grew” (Meditations, 4.48).

Epictetus

“If you are a sailor on board a ship that makes port, you may decide to go ashore to bring back water. Along the way you may stop to collect shellfish, or pick greens. But you always have to remember the ship and listen for the captain’s signal to return. When he calls, you have to drop everything, otherwise you could be bound and thrown on board like the livestock. So it is in life. If, instead of greens and shellfish, you have taken on a wife and child, so much the better. But when the captain calls, you must be prepared to leave them behind, and not give them another thought. If you are advanced in years, don’t wander too far, or you won’t make it back in time when the summons reaches you” (Enchiridion, 7).

“Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If it is his pleasure you should act a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your business, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is another’s” (Enchiridion, 17).

“Do not seek for things to happen the way you want, welcome events in whichever way they happen: this is the path to peace” (Enchiridion, 8).

“Keep the prospect of death, exile and all such apparent tragedies before you every day – especially death – and you will never have an abject thought, or desire anything to excess” (Enchiridion, 21).

Seneca

“Life is long enough if it is well-spent” (Letters from a Stoic, Letter LXXVIII).

“It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it” (On the Shortness of Life).

Adversity

-Peter Paul Rubens ‘The Death of Seneca’.

As we have already heard from Seneca, many of our current opinions regarding what is true or false, good or bad and therefore worth pursuing may be false. These opinions may be based on the ‘common opinion’- the opinion of the many, but majority agreement is not necessarily correct opinion.

It is uncontroversial to say, following the example set by Socrates, that the Stoics were critiquing the ‘common opinion’ held by the many, that sense data (prior to rational reflection) was a reliable criterion for knowledge. They also held as equally suspect the social transmission of knowledge.

Stoic philosophy is ultimately eudaimonic, meaning that it is directed towards a certain kind of happiness. It is likely a different kind of happiness to what the continental psychoanalysts insist has been ‘invented by the Americans’ (See the Lacanian reading of psychoanalysis) but instead bespeaks a good and healthy inner spirit- which is made so given its alignment with Nature. Eudaimonia, appears as a consequence of the human being’s aptitude for applying reason to specific instances; knowing what these instances (or impressions) entail, the value of their items, and how to act in accordance with such knowledge.

This kind of knowledge is called Virtue and is the only good from the Stoic perspective. The pursuit of this knowledge and its application is called the ‘right use of reason’, is always up to us (within our power) but the problem is that we hold false beliefs that often prevent us from having Virtue. The entire goal of Stoic philosophy is to remove these false beliefs and to consistently assent to the truth of impressions. Sounds simple, but the Stoics recognised that there exists an almost overwhelming tendency to view external things as if they really have the kind of value that our senses (e.g., sensual responses) suggest they have. Holding beliefs that external things have any real value prevents us from fulfilling our rational ends, which is to maintain our rational integrity- to have Virtue. Such beliefs also expose us to a life of harmful passions (corrosive to our rational ends and moral character). Once we believe that external things have actual or inherent value, we begin to imagine a life which is defined by dependency to things and situations outside of our power. We become potential (or perhaps inevitable) victims of the vicissitudes of life. Our otherwise guaranteed contentment and tranquillity is traded for intermittent pleasure at the cost of anxiety and ultimately unhappiness.

Recalling the beginning of this article, Seneca has already expressed concern about the power of false impressions and tells us that precepts, consolations, and encouragements alone will fail if conduct is not regulated by doctrine.

In ‘On Providence’ Seneca provides an impressive demonstration of how Stoic doctrine is to be employed in the stamping out of false belief-

“I am constrained to nothing, I suffer nothing against my will, nor am I God’s slave, but his willing follower, and so much the more because I know that everything is ordained and proceeds according to a law that endures forever. The fates guide us, and the length of every man’s days is decided at the first hour of his birth: every cause depends upon some earlier cause: one long chain of destiny decides all things, public or private.

Wherefore, everything must be patiently endured, because events do not fall in our way, as we imagine, but come by a regular law. It has long ago been settled at what you should rejoice and at what you should weep, and although the lives of individual men appear to differ from one another in a great variety of particulars, yet the sum total comes to one and the same thing: we soon perish, and the gifts which we receive soon perish.

Why, then, should we be angry? why should we lament? we are prepared for our fate: let nature deal as she will with her own bodies; let us be cheerful whatever befalls, and stoutly reflect that it is not anything of our own that perishes. What is the duty of a good man? To submit himself to fate: it is a great consolation to be swept away together with the entire universe: whatever law is laid upon us that thus we must live and thus we must die, is laid upon the gods also: one unchangeable stream bears along men and gods alike: the creator and ruler of the universe himself, though he has given laws to the fates, yet is guided by them: he always obeys, he only once commanded.

“But why was God so unjust in His distribution of fate, as to assign poverty, wounds, and untimely deaths to good men?” The workman cannot alter his materials: this is their nature. Some qualities cannot be separated from some others: they cling together; are indivisible. Dull minds, tending to sleep or to a waking state exactly like sleep, are composed of sluggish elements: it requires stronger stuff to form a man meriting careful description. His course will not be straightforward; he must go upwards and downwards, be tossed about, and guide his vessel through troubled waters: he must make his way in spite of fortune: he will meet with much that is hard which he must soften, much that is rough that he must make smooth. Fire tries gold, misfortune tries brave men. See how high virtue has to climb: you may be sure that it has no safe path to tread.”

Seneca’s use of doctrine to combat false belief calls on Stoic Physics- from the outset of his reasoning, he recognises that the Cosmos is a benevolent living God. He affirms that if he employs what is in his power; his rational capacity, then he will never be a slave of the law by which Being unfolds in its particularity. Rather, he will be a follower understanding and assenting to the principle that our lives are embedded in a causal chain of events. His attitude will be one of relative acceptance (but this does not require passivity) in which everything that is given will be an opportunity for him to exercise the right use of reason- which involves the correct understanding of the value of external things.

The Stoic may then be able to welcome adversity as an opportunity to practice their understanding of Stoic doctrine and to overcome the false beliefs that adversity is a bad thing for one to experience. Seneca even suggests that with the right eyes one may even (to some rational degree) look forward to these opportunities. He writes of a certain Demetrius-

“No one”, said he, “seems to me more unhappy than the man whom no fortune has ever befallen. He never has had an opportunity of testing himself” (On Providence).

In similar fashion we are met with Epictetus’ observation-

“What would have become of Hercules, do you think, if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar- and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges? Obviously, he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So, by snoring his life away in luxury in comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules. And even if he had, what good would it have done him? What would have been the use of those arms, that physique, and that noble soul, without crises or conditions to stir him into action?” (Discourses, 1.6.32-34).

Rather than go out into the world and look for difficulties we can console ourselves with the realisation that adversity will sooner or later find us out. Don’t be anxious, you will soon have you chance to flex your muscles against fortune. But according to Seneca, the greatest adversities are reserved for the greatest of competitors-

 “Fortune… seeks out the bravest to match herself with, passes over some with disdain, and makes for the most unyielding and upright of men, to exert her strength against them” (On Providence).

Seneca goes so far as to say that those rare individuals who exercise Virtue in the face of great adversity and graciously contest her, go even beyond Gods power. For God is untroubled by misfortune but the human being that transcends misfortune has gone beyond the reach of evil. Perhaps from an existentialist perspective he has overcome him/herself, in such a manner that few ever do, by casting out the false belief that any harm can come in the form of an external thing. The true Stoic will be able to submit themselves to adversity and understand that they have, as a consequence of their use of reason, the power to disarm misfortune.

Of course, Seneca cautions us to remain on guard and to keep ourselves in shape, to have the attitude of a gladiator or competitor who is in training for the fight of our lives. He warns us not to become softened by luxury-

“Avoid luxury, avoid effeminate enjoyment, by which men’s minds are softened, and in which, unless something occurs to remind them of the common lot of humanity, they lie unconscious, as though plunged in continual drunkenness. He whom glazed windows have always guarded from the wind, whose feet are warmed by constantly renewed fomentations, whose dining-room is heated by hot air beneath the floor and spread through the walls, cannot meet the gentlest breeze without danger. While all excesses are hurtful, excess of comfort is the most hurtful of all; it affects the brain; it leads men’s minds into vain imaginings; it spreads a thick cloud over the boundaries of truth and falsehood. Is it not better, with virtue by one’s side, to endure continual misfortune, than to burst with an endless surfeit of good things?” (On Providence).

–Coëtivy Master (Henri de Vulcop?) ‘Philosophy Consoling Boethius and Fortune Turning the Wheel’.

Recall that Stoicism is a critique of certain taken for granted ideas- what I have been calling ‘common opinion’. We would like to think that we can inoculate ourselves from the distress of misfortune by accruing as many resources as possible- but as the Stoics warn (and history amply demonstrates) external things will only every be unreliable and uncertain guarantees for happiness. They can be taken from us at any time, we can become dependent on their availability with a corresponding loss of freedom and beliefs in their value open us up to disturbing and distressing emotions.

Boethius from his jail cell also reflects on this theme as he faced great adversity- calling on philosophy, she spoke to him sweetly, consoling thus-

“Let the rich man increase his hoard- it is never enough.

All that gold, and all those Red Sea pearls

That hang from his pudgy neck, they only weigh him down.

Out in his fields, hundreds of oxen plow,

But still the furrows of care are deep in his creased brow,

and he worries about those riches he can’t take with him”.

(Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy)

Perhaps it is fair to say that one of the ideas we take for granted is that ‘it is unjust for us to suffer’ but according to the Stoics, Courage is the knowledge of what is appropriately endured (e.g., Arius Didymus). We may prefer not to suffer misfortune but to a great extent it is not what happens to us that matters but rather the views we have that matter. According to Epictetus-

“It is not events that disturb people, it is their judgements concerning them. Death, for example, is nothing frightening, otherwise it would have frightened Socrates. But the judgement that death is frightening- now, that is something to be afraid of. So, when we are frustrated, angry or unhappy, never hold anyone except ourselves- that is, our judgements- accountable. An ignorant person is inclined to blame others for his own misfortune. To blame oneself is proof of progress. But the wise man never has to blame another or himself” (Enchiridion, 5).

The Stoics are throughout consistent; the wise man blames neither himself or others because he uses reason correctly. He has taken to heart the Stoic doctrine to its fullest extent. He understands that the Cosmos is a benevolent living God, that externals have no power over him, that he exists to fulfill his purpose- to complete his end as a process in the becoming of the whole. He applies this belief (and much more) to the phenomenon of impressions and he is able then to accurately articulate the good and carry it through as appropriate action.

If our contemporary worldview has pathologized misfortune then it is up to us to recognize that its not what happens to us that matters but rather to offer a rational critique of our beliefs. Suffering is a highly subjective experience, and in a way it is a choice. In so much as it is dependent on our assent to the belief that a thing or situation has particular value to us, then the loss of it produces suffering: the experience of an evil thing. However, the only factually evil things derive from the misuse of reason. When we do so, we suffer – therefore we are the cause of our own suffering. Of course, there is much we can do to right wrongs (that is a different issue) but to call misfortune a disease, one that requires eradication, (supposing that is what ‘common opinion’ does) then we are fooling ourselves and seriously abusing reality. To live in a false reality is to become an abomination; as Marcus Aurelius himself writes-

“The soul of man does violence to itself, first of all, when it becomes an abscess and, as it were, a tumour on the universe, so far as it can. For to be vexed at anything which happens is a separation of ourselves from nature, in some part of which the natures of all other things are contained” Meditations, Book 3.16.

The Stoic requirement to live according to Nature, is another way of saying we must understand and live according to reality. To live with beliefs that are incompatible with what reality requires from us is to live a delusion. It is no wonder that social alienation, existential distress, addiction and all manner of psychological turmoil are prevalent, arising from a social and personal perspective that emphasizes the struggle of the individual’s needs over their fellows, the breakdown of effective and supportive communties, and rampant consumerism with its identification of externals as worthy and meaningful targets of acquisition.

Let us now look to what else the Stoics have to say about the appropriate perspective one should have towards misfortune or adversity-

Seneca

“No tree which the wind does not often blow against is firm and strong; for it is stiffened by the very act of being shaken, and plants its roots more securely: those which grow in a sheltered valley are brittle: and so it is to the advantage of good men, and causes them to be undismayed, that they should live much amidst alarms, and learn to bear with patience what is not evil save to him who endures it ill” (On Providence).

“I am encouraged by these things with which you think to scare me: I long to stand where the Sun himself trembles to stand.” It is the part of grovellers and cowards to follow the safe track; courage loves a lofty path” (On Providence).

Epictetus

“Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whichever way they happen: this is the path to peace” (Enchiridion, 8).

“Welcome present circumstances and accept the things whose time has arrived. Be happy when you find that doctrines you have learned and analysed are being tested by real events” (Discourses, 4.4.45).

“You should thank the gods for making you strong enough to survive what you cannot control, and only responsible for what you can” (Discourses, 1.12.32).

“Every day you should put the ideas in action that protect against attachment to externals such as individual people, places or institutions – even your own body. Remember the law of God and keep it constantly in view: look to your own means, leave everything that isn’t yours alone. Make use of what material advantages you have, don’t regret the ones you were not allowed. If any of them are recalled, let go of them willingly, grateful for the time you had to enjoy them – unless you want to be like a child crying for her nurse or mother” (Discourses, 2.16.28).

“Bring on whatever difficulties you like Zeus; I have the resources and a constitution that you gave me by means of which I can do myself credit whatever happens”… “God has not merely given us strength to tolerate troubles without being humiliated or undone, but as befitting a king and true father, he has given them to us free from constraint, compulsion and impediment. He has put the whole matter in our control, not even reserving to himself any power to hinder us or stand in our way. And even though you have these powers free and entirely your own, you don’t use them, because you still don’t realise what you have or where it came from” (Discourse 1.6).

Marcus Aurelius

“Remove the judgement, and you have removed the thought ‘I am hurt’: remove the thought ‘I am hurt’, and the hurt itself is removed” (Meditations, 4.17).

To be Continued…