Tanner Campbell's Blog

The “Stoic” Body

Stoicism is a philosophy that requires of its practitioners a disposition for patience and careful thinking — and, not dissimilar from the dog and the cart, if we come to Stoicism an impatient and thoughtless man or woman, we will be dragged along by the philosophy and made patient and thoughtful in the end.

There are, despite this truth, a lot of aspects to Stoicism that attract impatient people to it — one does not need to desire to become truly Stoic in order to desire to attain some of the byproducts of Stoic philosophy.

Strength, for example, is something most people desire — whether they interpret strength to mean emotional resilience, physical power, or social influence and standing. In this article I want to focus in on physical strength because it is clear, as you can see from the image below, that many people believe a true Stoic is, necessarily, a physically imposing and powerful being — with physiques to rival Zeus.

In this article, then, I’m going to talk about what is the “perfect Stoic body,” and how you may well already possess it (even though you may also look nothing like a CrossFit Games Champion).

Can physically disabled individuals still be Stoics?

This question should cause anyone who reads it to cringe immediately — it is a heinously stupid question, the answer to which is a very obvious yes. Yet, despite the cringe and the obviousness of the answer, when individuals claiming to be Stoic have “dad bods” or are “fat” or “too skinny and weak,” a not-insignificant number of so-called “Stoics” insist that if such individuals were “real” Stoics, they’d take on much stronger physical appearances.

“That’s different! A a physically disabled person cannot go to the gym, and a fat person is just being lazy!”

First, a physically disabled person absolutely can go to the gym; but their workout routines will (likely) take on a modified form that accommodates their physical disability.

Second, we’d be right, at least in theory, to give some sort of leeway to the physically disabled person because physical disablement manifests in real world limitations and it is both kind and responsible to recognise that when forming expectations of, not just disabled individuals but, anyone.

Lastly, a “fat” person is not necessarily a lazy person. They may well be an individual who doesn’t prioritise their health (which doesn’t make them lazy), but they might instead have a host of medical and circumstantial variables present in their lives that make certain degrees of “fitness” or “health” practically unachievable.

What a person looks like, tells us nothing of their “Stoic-ness.”

A Stoic is not a Stoic because of their body

The measure of a Stoic hasn’t ever extended beyond their rational faculty. All the things that make Stoics Stoics live in their minds. The aim of Stoicism is the acquisition of perfect moral knowledge — of “Areté;” or “Virtue” if you prefer. The sage has perfect moral knowledge, that’s what makes the sage a sage.

Indeed, the possession of perfect moral knowledge will have an effect on the physical body because the sage will make only moral choices concerning their health. However, what makes a choice moral is the context surrounding it and context is never the same for any two people, let alone all people, and this is even true for the sage (and every sage).

Role Ethics come into heavy play here

Rule number one of Stoic Role Ethics: no role can contradict another role.

Rule number two: there are some roles we can elect to take on, and some which are assigned to us. Roles assigned to us (either by society or Nature, for example) can include parent, employee, tax-payer, human being, son, daughter, et cetera. Some roles that are assigned to us are able to be unassigned by us, such as employee or resident of Canada (because we can change jobs and move countries), while others cannot (we cannot un-assign ourselves from being a father, mother, daughter, son, or human being, for example).

Rule number three: If any role is contradicting or conflicting with any other role, we are either not fulfilling it justly/appropriately, or we’ve take on a role that we never should have.

Rule number four: there are only so many roles we can take on as individuals, and thus we must learn to limit the number of roles we seek to assume lest we over-extend ourselves and wind up fulfilling all of our roles poorly and unjustly.

What does all this mean for the “Stoic” body?

The Stoic body is any body resulting from the Just and appropriate balance of roles

Caring for our bodies is a Stoic choice, there is no arguing with that — it is a role (caregiver to our husks) that is assigned to us by Nature, and one we cannot walk away from without compromising our pursuit of moral excellence (for what does it say of a person’s character who ignores their health?).

However, caring exists on a fairly broad spectrum and we need not be on the most extreme end of it to be caring “appropriately” for our body. Instead, we need to be at the place on the spectrum that enables balance with our other roles.

To be clear: “appropriate” isn’t some dogmatic standard. Instead, it is a reasoned-to-be-so variable-in-flux which has a complex network of relationships (both inverse and not) with all our other roles.

This means the body which results from 7 days of relentless CrossFit training every week is only a “Stoic body” if the owner of that body is not allowing their commitment to fitness to cause imbalance elsewhere in their array of roles. If we’re prioritising leg day over attending our kid’s school play, do we have a Stoic body or a vicious one?

What this also means is that the body which results from 2 days a week of moderate jogging on a treadmill at the local gym is also a “Stoic body” if that level commitment to physical fitness and health is the one that maintains “role balance.”

The perfect Stoic body is necessarily dynamic in form

If “Stoic body” were a phrase in the dictionary, there would be no picture next to it. My body is a Stoic body, and so is yours, and her’s, and his… but only if we’ve given the contextually appropriate level of attention and care to it in balance with all the other things we must give contextually appropriate attention and care to.

It’s that simple.

Sex in Stoicism: Must We Be Either Prudes or Celibates?

One thing that always sells, or so they tell me, is sex. So, in an attempt to sell you this free publication, I’m writing about sex this week. Not the mechanics of it, thank goodness, but whether or not sex is mostly taboo in Stoicism.

Are Stoic’s meant to abstain from sex?

Let’s start with a few quotes from a Roman Stoic called Musonius Rufus.

I warn you, before you read them, you might find them off-putting. If you do, I insist you read them anyway — and thoroughly. Don’t merely skim.

“Not the least significant part of the life of luxury and self-indulgence lies also in sexual excess; for example those who lead such a life crave a variety of loves not only lawful but unlawful ones as well, not women alone but also men; sometimes they pursue one love and sometimes another, and not being satisfied with those which are available, pursue those which are rare and inaccessible, and invent shameful intimacies, all of which constitute a grave indictment of manhood.”

Musonius Rufus, Discourse 12.1

“Men who are not wantons or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage.”

Musonius Rufus, Discourse 12.2

“But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those of men with men, because it is a monstrous thing and contrary to nature. But, furthermore, leaving out of consideration adultery, all intercourse with women that is without lawful character is shameful and is practiced from lack of self-restraint. So no one with any self-control would think of having relations with a courtesan or a free woman apart from marriage, no, nor even with his own maidservant.”

Musonius Rufus, Discourse 12.3-5

Musonius says a lot of things here that most contemporary readers would find problematic — let’s call them out quickly:

There seems to be a somewhat arbitrary focus on the amount of sex one is having, and another, separate, focus on the enjoyment of sex for sex’s own sake.That sex outside of marriage is wrong and, separately, that any sex (whether within marriage or not) is only lawful (by which Musonius means naturally lawful; as in “in alignment with nature”) when it is done with the specific intention of having children.That homosexuality is “monstrous” and against nature.That sex with, for lack of a friendlier word, prostitutes is a moral wrong.That no one with self-restraint (temperance) would even think of having sex with a “free woman” who was “apart from marriage” (this means freed female slaves).

Let’s also identify the things which most contemporary readers would agree with:

We shouldn’t be secretly juggling multiple lovers and/or having affairs.We shouldn’t endeavour to turn people from their spouses in order to bed them.We shouldn’t be sexually subjugating our staff (“maidservants”) or co-workers.

Musonius is a cultural Roman, while the philosophy he professes to be teaching is not. Stoicism is a Greek philosophy, not a Roman one. In the discourses of Musonius, we can make out an attitude toward (and concerning) sex that we would be unable to make out in the texts of Stoicism’s Greek founder and various Scholarchs.

Consider this from Zeno of Citium:

“[Wisemen] should have carnal knowledge no less and no more of a favorite than of a non-favorite, nor of a female than of a male.”

Zeno of Citium, as quoted by Louis Crompton in Homosexuality and Civilization. Harvard University Press. pp. 66–67

Zeno and Musonius couldn’t have had more different views on the purpose, role, or execution of sex. Musonius had a very “sex is sacred” outlook that required sex to happen only within the confines of marriage, and only with very specific ends in mind. The enjoyability of sex, for Musonius, seems to have been little more than a pleasant byproduct and certainly not, in any way, important or the reason people should have sex.

Zeno, on the other hand, viewed sex as an expression of friendship & love, and, as a result, of a virtuous character.

Zeno also supported the idea of free love, and positively regarded sexual preferences which were non-hetero or non-normative (homosexuality, of course, but also love of prostitutes). It is also well-recorded that Zeno rarely kept the company of women (wink wink, nudge nudge) and that his favourite student was also his closest lover (Persaeus of Citium, a man).

Musonius, a Roman Stoic living more than 300 years after Stoicism’s founding, would have us believe that Stoics see sex, strictly, as a marital duty between men and women — a duty that should only be carried out with the intention of propagating the human species.

Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, would have us believe that Stoics see sex as an expression of natural love and friendship — not a duty, but as an indifferent pursuit that, when carried out for reasons of love and friendship, could be a virtuous act regardless of who it was with.

What’s the right way to parse these contradicting views from Greek and Roman Stoics? And how should contemporary Stoics view sex?

Before answering these questions, we must all be clear on one thing (at least): the differences between Rome and Greece (as countries) do not matter much here.

Undoubtedly, cultural and societal norms play a part in shaping the personalities and outlooks of the individuals subjected to them. To say that Roman-ness had no impact on Musonius’s thinking (or that of any other Roman Stoic), would be dishonest. Equally dishonest would be to say that Greek-ness had no impact on Zeno’s thinking. However, Stoics worked hard to ensure their thinking wasn’t dimmed by their social and geographic influences.

The root of these contradictions, then, cannot be, merely, that Rome is Rome and Greece is Greece (as has been said by many people, before, about, specifically, the differences in each country’s views on sex and intimacy).

Instead, they must come down to a fundamental difference in just one thing…

Greek Stoics understood nature (and “natural law”) differently than their Roman counterparts.

I don’t feel the Ancient Roman Stoics (and I’m talking about the proper Roman philosophers and teachers of Stoicism) were particularly “good” teachers (or students) of Stoicism if the Stoicism they believed themselves to be adhering to (and propagating through their teaching) was Zeno’s Stoicism.

I think Roman Stoicism was a malformed, and thus different version of the philosophical tradition it believed it was perpetuating.

Zeno’s “Republic”, his formal challenge to Plato’s identically titled work, put forward his own idea of “the perfect republic” — and that republic was lawless. Lawless, as all citizens and leaders would be sages in this perfect republic, because there’d be no reason for laws or institutions of moral enforcement.

Zeno’s Stoicism, then, mirrored Zeno’s view of the natural world.

In the natural world, every creature abides by the Logos of the Cosmos — by Nature (capital “N”) — and by its own nature (lowercase “n”). The non-human, animal citizens of a forest do not require something like a Supreme Court Justice, nor do they need the institution of marriage or some moral code that tells them when sex is appropriate. Animals (non-human ones) simply live in accordance.

Stoics aim to do this — to live in accordance with Nature.

A Stoic’s choices are made with the intention that those choices be in alignment with Nature, nature, human nature, and their individual nature.

That’s four different “natures” a Stoic is trying to live in accordance with!

What’s the answer, then? How are Stoics meant to think about sex and engage in sexual activity?

We’ve got to work from the bottom up (no puns intended).

Individual nature > human nature > nature > Nature.

We cannot, as Stoics, deny either our individual or human natures. Our individual nature is comprised of where we live, what we gravitate toward, things we enjoy, natural skills we are born with, our inclinations, and things like this. In regards to sex, then, we are allowed a preference in who we pursue, when we’d like to have sex with those people (assuming mutual consent, of course), and the manner in which that sex is had (again, assuming mutual consent).

We should then consider “human nature.”

Human nature, according to the Greek Stoics, requires not that our sexual activities be “for specific ends” (like bringing about children) or “within only certain context” (like marriage), but that it be an action undertaken with love, friendship, and service to the Cosmopolis in mind. Of course, every individual Stoic is free to reason through the “how” of these requirements on their own and no other Stoic can judge the “Stoicness” of their reasoning as no Stoic can know the hegemonikon of any other Stoic.

Next we consider “nature.”

What is natural for human sex? If we look to nature we can find sex for pleasure (such as among dolphins and chimpanzees), and we can find non-hetero sex for pleasure and/or love (such as among penguins, elephants, and giraffes). Certainly we cannot find many examples I could come up with, but, the only restrictions I could see Zeno applying would be those that restricted sexual activities which actively and directly hurt others, were undertaken out of hate, or which somehow brought ruin to the Cosmopolis — and I think your sexual proclivities would have to be pretty wild in order to “bring ruin.”

Lastly, we must consider Nature (the Cosmos, God).

If we think it’d be a real challenge to bring ruin to the Cosmopolis with the goings on of our naughty bits, imagine the challenge in dreaming up the sort of sex required to work against reality at the cosmic level — it would have to actively work against the causal chain.

And that, I’m sorry to say, as much as saying so might be dashing to bits the hopes of those among us dreaming of a sexual prowess capable of producing a, to quote Marven the Martian, “Earth-shattering kaboom”, is impossible.

So, the final word is…[image error]

No matter the who, what, where, why, and/or how of your sexual activities, so long as they align with what you reason to be human nature, your own nature, and nature — and so long as it’s not hurting the Cosmopolis or ripping the Cosmos apart at the seams — it’s a-okay as far as Greek Stoicism is concerned.

As for Roman Stoicism? Well, Roman Stoicism seems to want us to understand “moral” sex as being, strictly, heterosexual sex occurring within the institution of marriage and which is only undertaken for the sake of reproduction.

Your choice is up to you, but one thing is not up to you: how others choose to regard and frame their idea of morally acceptable sex.

Regardless of your flavour of Stoicism (Roman or Greek), at least one thing remains the same: getting upset about (or morally indignant about) that which we cannot choose is vicious and, therefore, un-Stoic. If your reasoning is just — which only you can determine, ultimately — then you’re good. 

What Is Stoicism, Really?

According to, what seems like, 99% of the social internet, Stoicism is either a psychological magic trick for making oneself not worry or care about all manner of negative goings on in the world, a toolbox of hustle culture productivity hacks for Silicon-Valley-esque entrepreneurs, or a fundamentally flawed ancient philosophy that provides the fuel of justification for the fire of the so-called “red pill masculinity movement.”

Do any of those interpretations or understandings of Stoicism stand up to even minor scrutiny though? Let us turn to the voices of a few ancients to find out…

Musonius Rufus, an ancient Stoic whose Fragments make up a not-insignificant portion of all the primary sources we have on Stoic philosophy, didn’t just believe women should participate in philosophy (and Stoicism in particular) but that it ought to be as primary a focus of their existence as it ought to be for men.

“…women too, have a natural inclination toward Virtue and the capacity for acquiring it, and it is the nature of women no less than men to be pleased by good and just acts and to reject the opposite of these. If this is true, by what reasoning would it ever be appropriate for men to search out and consider how they may lead good lives, which is exactly the study of philosophy, but inappropriate for women?“

There’s also Athenaeus of Naucratis, a rhetorician and grammarian, who tells us,

“Pontianus said that Zeno of Citium regarded Eros (Love) as a god of friendship and freedom, and also as the promoter of concord (ὁμόνοια), but of nothing else. Therefore, in the ideal state, he said, ‘Eros is a god, serving as a helper for the salvation of the city.”

Finally there’s Zeno, the founder of Stoicism (these are combined from two separate statements),

The goal (of Stoicism) is to live in agreement with nature. For our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe.

These three ancient Stoic philosophers contradict all three of pop culture’s misconceptions about Stoicism. Instead, the suggest that both women and men are meant to pursue Virtue, that love—revered as the ruling deity of the Stoic’s ideal Republic—and active concern for others are central to Stoic practice, and that a major part of Stoicism is aligning oneself with the nature of the Universe.

For those who believe they understand Stoicism, but found themselves raising an eyebrow at any point during the last few paragraphs, their reaction to this strong contradiction should be motivating. If you caught yourself thinking, Wait—this isn’t Stoicism, I have news for you: it absolutely is Stoicism, and I wrote this article, specifically, with you in mind.

What is Stoicism?

Stoicism is an ancient Greek philosophy (and Virtue Ethics framework) that says the entire point of a human being’s life is to acquire a specific kind of knowledge: Virtue. Virtue, defined by the Stoics as perfect moral knowledge or moral excellence, is the key to aligning oneself with nature and the Cosmos.

For the ancient Stoics, the Cosmos was a providential living entity (of which were/are a part), but I will talk about it, instead, as nothing more than a self-sustaining system – a self-sustaining system so stable and reliable that there’s an appearance of logical design to it.

All living things, as far as we know, act in accordance with this so-called “logic” of the Cosmos (the Logos) without actively choosing to do so. Grass grows, planets orbit, cows moo, stars are born and die, dung beetles roll dung, and trees do what trees do. The balance of energy in the Cosmos remains ever the same and the system, reliably, keeps on keeping on.

Then there are human beings…

The Ancient Stoics reasoned that a human being couldn’t be in alignment with Nature without possessing Virtue because, as “the rational animal”, human beings have a unique kind of control over themselves. Human beings can freely choose and, if human beings can freely choose, that means they are able to choose to act out of alignment with Nature.

Since, according to Aristotle (and the Stoics), one only does what one believes to be the right thing to do, one acting out of accordance with Nature isn’t the result of some amorphous notion of one’s base moral quality – it’s not that some people are good while other are bad and that’s their unchangeable nature – it is, instead, a problem of ignorance.

Perfect moral knowledge – Virtue – is required for one to come into sync with the “divine” or “providential” logic of the Cosmos. Thus Stoicism is a philosophy that guides human beings along their path to moral excellence through the incremental improvement of both their character and their comprehension of Virtue.

Yet, even with this being the case, here we are, in the 21st Century, with a widespread and persistent misunderstanding of “Stoicism” that doesn’t just get it wrong, but that cheapens it, disgraces it, and warps it into something of a mind virus that is having an especially negative impact on young men by encouraging them to turn away from a truly Stoic lifestyle and toward one of malaise and nihilistic hedonism or isolationism.

Some of pop culture’s most common misunderstandings about StoicismIndifference

Stoics don’t practice indifference. Instead, we view things which are incapable of forcing us to make immoral (vicious) choices as indifferent things.

Poverty doesn’t force us to make immoral or unjust choices.

We also view things which are incapable of ensuring we make moral (virtuous) choices as indifferent things.

Wealth doesn’t ensure we’ll make moral or just choices.

The only thing capable of making our choices for us is us, therefore the only non-indifferent things that exist are our choices since our choices are what habituate and mould our character.

The source of this misunderstanding, in contemporary society anyway, is the pluralisation of the word indifferent (indifferents), which sounds exactly like the word “indifference.”

Stoicism is for men only

This is incorrect. Stoicism is the pursuit of perfect moral knowledge, thus it cannot be a gender-exclusive philosophy. It is manly to be virtuous, to possess perfect moral knowledge and a just character, but it is also womanly (the manliest man is a virtuous man; and the womanliest woman a virtuous woman).

The source of this misunderstanding is the word Virtue, which contains the Latin root vir- meaning “man” and denoting things related to masculinity and manliness.

However, Stoicism is a Greek philosophy and the Greeks certainly didn’t write their philosophies in Latin. Virtue is simply the closest Latin equivalent to the Greek word “Areté” – which means “excellence.” It (Areté) was also, to put an ironic nail in the coffin of this “men only” nonsense, a concept represented by a major Greek goddess by the same name (Areté).

The idea that a woman would be unable to pursue a thing represented by a woman is, flatly, untenable.

Stoics don’t care about things they cannot control

Stoics must care deeply about things they cannot control.

A Stoic can’t control whether their mother or father survives a battle with cancer, but it wouldn’t speak well of that Stoic’s understanding of moral excellence (and thus their moral character as a whole) if they didn’t care at all about their mother or father surviving a battle with cancer.

The truth is that a morally just individual must care about everything they become aware of in order to give it the appropriate amount of attention necessary to reason out an appropriate moral response to it.

A genocide in a far-off country that is not our own? It might not be every Stoic’s moral responsibility to bring an end to it, but it would absolutely be every Stoic’s moral responsibility to ask what their moral responsibility (to it) was and to then reason to a morally appropriate answer.

Stoic Ethics decry, in no uncertain terms, “not my people, not my problem” as an appropriate justification for inaction. In fact, in most cases, Stoic Ethics would decry inaction entirely.

Stoics prioritise themselves before and above others

Stoics do not prioritise care in a unidirectional manner. Stoic Oikeiôsis (which refers to the process of appropriating as one’s own what is appropriate for one to care about) is a theory of moral development, not prioritisation of care.

As children, we are immediately aware that it is appropriate to care about our well-being and survival. As we grow, this awareness expands to include our family. Then it expands to our neighbourhood, our city, our state, country, and, eventually, the whole world.

The fully care-actualised – or wholly “Oikeiôtic” – individual, understands that it is morally appropriate to care for the well-being of everything (albeit in an appropriate manner, which is up to our rational faculty – we must reason to what is “appropriate”).

Stoics repress their emotions

Stoics don’t repress their emotions, they endeavour to prevent their emotions from justifying vicious choosing (which is emotional management, not repression).

In Stoicism, the word “justice” doesn’t refer to legal justice, it refers to the “just treatment of others” where “just” means “fair.” The fair thing to do is, by Stoic definition, the just thing to do – and that means what is just is not necessarily what is legal or what has legal precedence.

If we, as Stoics, are not careful when assenting to our initial impressions and unproven understandings about reality, we risk justifying unjust/vicious choices and actions.

If, for example, we catch someone stealing bread and immediately assent to the impression that this is both something worthy of being angry about and that the action of stealing bread is unjust no matter the context, we risk locking someone in prison for what might well be an unjust (because it is contextually unfair) reason. Is it just to punish a homeless person for needing to eat?

I’m not saying it is or isn’t, I’m saying the reason we Stoics attempt to keep a lid on our knee-jerk emotions is so we have the time and presence of mind required to responsibly reason these sorts of things out.

Why does any of this matter?

I don’t care if academics get Stoicism wrong. Stoic academics have pedantic arguments about highly specific and nuanced details and then write competing hundred-page papers that call into question the legitimacy of a four-decade-old translation of some obscure Ancient Greek word and, in the end, both abstracts are close enough to the right answer that it doesn’t practically matter much (to “Main Street” people, I mean).

What I do care about is when the Stoicism communicators get it wrong.

÷jl Communicators are who people listen to – very few people outside of other academics listen to academics (just ask them, they’ll tell you the same).

Take Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson for instance.

No one knew who Neil DeGrasse Tyson was until he stepped (functionally) into the role of Science Communicator, but Bill Nye has been a household name for near 40-years. And while Tyson has no doubt done more to advance the scientific frontier, Nye has done far more to develop young minds toward an interest in Science.

Similarly, Ryan Holiday and Donald Robertson have done more to make people aware of Stoicism than John Sellars or A. A. Long (most people have no idea who John Sellars or A. A. Long are, whereas Ryan and Donald are widely known New York Times and Amazon Best Sellers).

In the age of viral social media influencers (whose primary aims are, most usually, monetisation), the number of unvetted, unidentified, unqualified, and uninformed communicators of Stoicism (and countless other specialised matters of interest) has increased by orders of magnitude. Most concerning? The better one is at marketing the more effective a communicator one is (be they right or wrong, informed or ignorant), and marketing is a far easier field to become proficient in than, say, Ancient Greek Philosophy, Economics, or Psychology. Which means it’s easier to become a terribly uninformed influential communicator than to become a great one – which means most influential communicators are terribly uninformed.

Getting Stoicism right matters because the right version of it is immensely helpful and highly capable of turning lives around for the better – while getting it wrong strengthens the influence, and emboldens the efforts, of characters like Andrew Tate (someone who, sickeningly, claims to be Stoic).

Why would someone adopt Stoicism as a life philosophy?

In the most dramatic terms: to become a perfect moral being who is nothing but a boon to the wellbeing of their family, society, the planet, and the Cosmos.

In the more practical terms: to spend a life committed to becoming an evermore caring, helpful, and beneficial part of the world for the brief time they are alive and able to do and be so.

If that’s not what one wants to do, then one isn’t interested in Stoicism… and one needs to stop pretending otherwise.

If you’d like to learn more about Stoicism, consider tuning into the Practical Stoicism podcast, or purchasing Tanner Campbell and Kai Whiting’s book, “What is Stoicism? A Brief and Accessible Overview” available in digital and print formats everywhere books are sold.

Test post non-audio

Test post

with an image!

Understanding Impressions in Stoicism (Meditations 3.11)

In this episode, we explore Meditations 3.11 and its profound insights into how we process and assent to impressions. The Stoics believed that our initial reactions to external events—our impressions—are often flawed, and it’s our responsibility to critically examine them before accepting them as truth. This practice is essential for making rational, virtuous decisions instead of reacting emotionally or impulsively.

Marcus Aurelius reminds us that true greatness comes from methodically and truthfully testing everything we encounter. This means breaking things down into their essential components, considering their role in the larger universe, and determining what virtue is best suited to respond to them. In a world that often prioritizes personal feelings over objective reality, Stoicism challenges us to cultivate reason and clarity.

MEDITATIONS 3.11

“For nothing is so able to create greatness of mind as the power methodically and truthfully to test each thing that meets one in life, and always to look upon it so as to attend at the same time to the use which this particular thing contributes to a Universe of a certain definite kind, what value it has in reference to the Whole, and what to man, who is a citizen of the highest City, whereof all other cities are like households.”

THREE TAKEAWAYS

— Assenting to impressions requires caution: We should resist the urge to immediately accept our first reactions as truth. Instead, we must analyze the data, break it down, and ensure our conclusions align with reality.

— Reason must lead our decisions: Emotions are valuable, but they should be informed by rational understanding. A truly great person is one who sees things as they are and allows reason to guide their responses.

— Withholding assent is not neutrality: Refusing to form an opinion does not mean avoiding bias; it is itself an assent to inaction. Stoicism calls us to engage with reality and make rational, virtuous choices based on the best information available.

Join The Society of Stoics at https://community.stoicismpod.com. Members enjoy ad-free episodes, weekly journaling prompts, a membership medallion, and access to regular live calls and discussions.

Get on the list: https://stoicismpod.com/list

Go ad-free: https://stoicismpod.com/members

Order my book: https://stoicismpod.com/book

Read Meditations source text: https://stoicismpod.com/far

Follow me on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/tannerocampb...

Follow me on YouTube: https://stoicismpod.com/youtube

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Feed Drop: We spend 98% of what we make—Where is it all going

Hey everyone, Tanner here. Today I'm going to share something with you that's a little bit different. This is not an episode. This is what's called a feed drop.

A feed drop is when I feature a podcast I think you might like and then you listen to a little bit of it and if you like it you go find out more about it on your own. And this podcast is called Money for Couples.

If you have ever found yourself wondering as a couple, where is all our money going? You're definitely not alone. That is exactly what episode 192 of Money for Couples titled "We Spend 98% of What We Make, Where Is It All Going?" is all about. This episode dives into real stories and practical strategies that help couples stop money fights.

If you like it, you find it helpful and you want to hear the full conversation, just search for Money for Couples wherever you're already listening to this podcast right now.

Episode Description:

Justin (40) and Deepika (32) are stuck in a frustrating financial loop: despite their high income, they feel like they’re living paycheck to paycheck. Deepika dreams of buying a house someday, but the couple can’t seem to identify where their money is going—or how to escape the cycle of credit card debt. Justin has a side hustle that he’s eager to grow, but he’s struggling to get the same level of commitment from his business partners. For years, they’ve been focused on survival, not dreaming about the future. Now, they’re realizing that their lack of a shared vision for their finances is keeping them from the life they want. Can Justin and Deepika kick their old habits, create a better strategy for managing their money, and finally start living their Rich Life?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Illusion of Free Will? (Meditations 3.10)

In this episode, I explore Meditations 3.10, where Marcus Aurelius reminds himself—and us—that we only ever live in the present moment. He urges us to remember three things: life is short, the space we occupy is small, and fame is fleeting. But why does he emphasize this? Because knowing who we are and becoming the best version of ourselves is what truly matters.

This discussion dives into the Stoic understanding of determinism and free will. I explore how our choices shape our character over time, using Chrysippus’ analogy of cones and cylinders to explain how habitual actions determine our future choices. Along the way, I challenge common misunderstandings about fate, examine neuroscientific insights on decision-making, and explain why our focus should be on habituating ourselves toward virtue rather than trying to control the uncontrollable.

Meditations 3.10:

“Therefore throw all else aside, and hold fast only these few things; further calling to mind at the same time that each of us lives only in the present, this brief moment; the rest is either a life that is past, or is in an uncertain future. Little the life each lives, little the corner of the earth he lives in, little even the longest fame hereafter, and even that dependent on a succession of poor mortals, who will very soon be dead, and have not learnt to know themselves, much less the man who was dead long years ago.”

Three key takeaways from this episode:

— The present moment is the only place where we have power. We cannot change the past, and the future is beyond our control.

— Habitual choices shape our character. Stoicism teaches us to be intentional about the habits we form because they dictate how we act when we’re not thinking.

— We cannot control everything, but we can control how we respond. Our role is not to change the world but to become virtuous people who act justly within the world we inhabit.

Join The Society of Stoics to engage in deeper discussions and support the show: https://community.stoicismpod.com

Purchase a copy of my book: https://stoicismpod.com/book

Read the source text used: https://stoicismpod.com/far

Follow me on Bluesky: https://stoicismpod.com/bluesky

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How Environment Shapes Moral Progress (Meditation 3.9)

This episode explores Meditations 3.9, where Marcus Aurelius urges us to revere our rational faculty. In Stoicism, rationality is our greatest gift—it’s the tool that allows us to pursue Virtue, shape our moral character, and ultimately live in accordance with Nature. But how do we cultivate this faculty, especially when our environment doesn’t support moral growth?

I discuss how we are shaped by our surroundings, often without realizing it. If we’re immersed in Stoic teachings, the path to moral improvement becomes clearer. If we’re surrounded by different influences—religious, ideological, or otherwise—we internalize those instead. This is why the Stoics believed that introducing philosophy too early could be a form of indoctrination rather than genuine moral development.

As a new father, I reflect on the challenge of raising a child without forcing beliefs upon them. The goal isn’t to dictate what’s right but to create an environment where they can discover Virtue for themselves. The same applies to guiding friends and family—lead by example rather than preaching. For those struggling to commit to moral improvement in a non-Stoic environment, I offer three actionable steps: recognize the need for guidance, seek a mentor, and eventually mentor others when ready.

Marcus Aurelius reminds us that our rational judgment must align with Nature. By shaping our habits and seeking wisdom, we give ourselves the best chance at living a life of Virtue.

“Reverence your faculty of judgement. On this it entirely rests that your governing self no longer has a judgement disobedient to Nature and to the estate of a reasonable being. This judgement promises deliberateness, familiar friendship with our fellow human beings, and to follow in the train of the gods.” — Meditations 3.9

Join The Society of Stoics, my private community for those committed to Stoic practice. For $10/month, you’ll get ad-free episodes, live discussions, weekly journaling prompts, and more. Sign up at https://community.stoicismpod.com.

Purchase a copy of my book: https://stoicismpod.com/book

Read the source text used: https://stoicismpod.com/far

Follow me on Bluesky: https://stoicismpod.com/bluesky

Stoic Fellowship: https://stoicfellowship.com

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is Stoicism, really?

Modern interpretations of Stoicism are often wildly inaccurate, reducing the philosophy to a life hack for suppressing emotions, a tool for productivity-obsessed entrepreneurs, or a justification for toxic masculinity. But do any of these portrayals hold up under scrutiny? In this episode, I break down these misconceptions by turning to the words of ancient Stoic thinkers—Musonius Rufus, Zeno of Citium, and others—who show us that Stoicism is far more profound and ethical than pop culture suggests.

We’ll explore:

— Why Stoicism is not about indifference but about focusing on what truly shapes our character.

— How both men and women are equally called to pursue Virtue.

— Why Stoics deeply care about things outside their control, despite the common misunderstanding.

— The true meaning of Stoic emotional management, which is about reasoning through emotions rather than repressing them.

At its core, Stoicism is a philosophy of moral excellence, a commitment to aligning ourselves with Nature, and a guide to becoming a force for good in the world. Getting Stoicism right matters—not just for personal development, but for the influence it has on society as a whole.

“The goal (of Stoicism) is to live in agreement with nature. For our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe.” — Zeno of Citium

Join the Practical Stoicism community, the Society of Stoics, at https://community.stoicismpod.com. Members enjoy ad-free episodes, weekly journaling prompts, a membership medallion, and access to regular live calls and discussions. Join today at https://community.stoicismpod.com.

Buy my book: https://stoicismpod.com/book

Read source material: https://stoicismpod.com/far

Subscribe on YouTube: https://stoicismpod.com/youtube

Follow me on Bluesky: https://stoicismpod.com/bluesky

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why Stoicism Teaches Us to Be Prepared for Death (Meditations 3.8)

In this episode, I explore Meditations 3.8 and the idea of preparing for death—not as a morbid fascination, but as a necessary step toward living justly and without fear. Marcus Aurelius describes the Stoic sage as someone unshaken by fate, someone who meets the end of life without hesitation or regret. But how does this apply to the rest of us, who are still progressing in our practice?

“In the understanding of a man of chastened and purified spirit you will find, no trace of festering wound, no ulceration, no abscess beneath the skin. The hour of fate does not surprise his life before its fulfilment, so that one would say that the actor is leaving the stage before he has fulfilled his role, before the play is over. You will find nothing servile or artificial, no dependence on others nor severance from them; nothing to account for, nothing that needs a hole to hide in.” -- Meditations 3.8

A core theme in this meditation is the relationship between fear and duty. If we allow fear—whether of death, judgment, or hardship—to dictate our choices, we risk abandoning our roles and responsibilities. Through a firefighter analogy, I break down how Stoicism teaches us to act justly by focusing on our roles rather than potential consequences. The takeaway? True Stoic practice isn’t about becoming fearless but about ensuring that fear never prevents us from acting in alignment with Virtue.

Key Takeaways:

• Marcus Aurelius is speaking about the Stoic sage, not the Prokoptôn.

• Fear of death impairs our ability to act justly and fulfill our roles.

• Stoicism does not glorify suffering—it values resilience and moral clarity.

• Stoics are not indifferent to life, but they recognize it as an indifferent in the pursuit of Virtue.

• The ancient Stoics believed sagehood was theoretically possible, but practically, it remains an unreachable ideal.

Ultimately, this meditation reminds us that shedding fear—especially fear of death—frees us to serve others and pursue Virtue without hesitation.

Join The Society of Stoics

Want to deepen your understanding of Stoicism in a private community? Join The Society of Stoics for $10/month: https://community.stoicismpod.com

Resources & Links

• Purchase a copy of my book: https://stoicismpod.com/book

• Read the source text used: https://stoicismpod.com/far

• Follow me on Bluesky: https://stoicismpod.com/bluesky

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices