Stoicism in Three Steps: Physics, Ethics, Logic
Constantly, and, if it is possible, on the occasion of every impression on the soul, apply to it the principles of Physics, Ethics, and Dialectic. — Marcus Aurelius
This is George Long’s classic translation of Meditations 8.13. This passage, like many others in the Meditations, is difficult to translate because it’s so concise, and yet tries to pack in a lot of meaning, through Marcus’ exceptionally careful choice of words. I think it may refer to three-steps in a therapeutic procedure.
Robin Waterfield, who is responsible for the most recent translation currently available of the Meditations, renders the same passage as follows:
Every moment and whenever an impression arises, do your best to be a scientist, a psychologist, and a logician.
He explains in a footnote: “The Stoics divided philosophy into physics (studied by natural scientists), ethics (here psychology, my translation of ‘expertise in the passions’), and logic.” The original Greek looks like this:
Διηνεκῶς καὶ ἐπὶ πάσης, εἰ οἶόν τε, φαντασίας φυσιολογεῖν, παθολογεῖν, διαλεκτικεύεσθαι.
Put more literally, Marcus actually says:
To talk about what is physical, i.e., to do “natural philosophy”
To talk about the passions, i.e., to do “(psycho-)pathology”
To use “dialectic”, i.e., logical analysis applied to our own moral judgment
Marcus is describing something relatively common sense here, which risks getting lost in translation
In my opinion, Marcus is describing something relatively common sense here, which risks getting lost in translation. Or rather, I think he has a simple process in mind, which nevertheless takes place within the context of a sophisticated philosophical system. Rather than beat about the bush, I’ll explain it in plain English, before proceeding to analyse it and comment.
Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
What Marcus Really Means?First of all, he clearly means that we should practice a form of mindfulness, as continually as possible throughout the day. This consists in carefully observing our intrusive thoughts and perceptions of events (impressions), particularly when we notice strong desires or emotions. For example, let’s suppose you’re giving an important presentation at work, someone says something critical, you feel like an idiot, and become highly anxious as a result — a fairly common concern these days.
Say nothing more to yourself than what the first appearances report. Suppose that it has been reported to you that a certain person speaks ill of you. This has been reported but that you have been injured, that has not been reported. […] Always abide then by the first appearances, and add nothing yourself from within, and then nothing happens to you. — Meditations, 8.49
We should then respond promptly with the following three steps:
Stick to the facts. Describe the external event to yourself as objectively as possible, suspending value judgments, rhetoric, and assumptions. Example: “I was talking to a group of people and someone said they disagreed with me.”
Analyze your emotions. Identify the beliefs that are causing your emotional reaction, especially underlying value judgments and your beliefs about what you should do. Example: “I thought to myself ‘This is awful; I look like an idiot’ and ‘I must not let them see that I’m upset!’, and that made me feel more anxious.” (Step 1, objective description, has made this easier by suspending or separating our emotional response from the external event to which it refers.)
Challenge your beliefs. Using dialectic, or the Socratic Method of questioning, you should respond by listing pieces of counter-evidence that refute the assumptions causing your emotions. Example: “Yes but it’s not as awful as it seemed because they’re more interested in the rest of what I’m saying than one small criticism, and they already know I’m good at my job, and I doubt they place as much importance on it as I did anyway.” (Step 2 , diagnosing the cognitive basis of our emotion, has made this possible by isolating the value judgment causing our emotion, which can now be examined logically.)
It’s a perfectly sensible approach. First get clear about the facts of the situation, then identify how your thoughts were making you upset, then challenge those thoughts using philosophical reasoning. Steps 1 and 2 combined resemble what we call “cognitive distancing” in modern psychotherapy, often understood as a necessary precursor to disputation (step 3). We have to distinguish between our feelings and reality, then identify the specific beliefs causing our feelings, in order to dispute and change them, and thereby remedy them.
I don’t think we can be absolutely certain that Marcus intended to describe three steps in a sequence in this passage. However, it makes perfect sense both in terms of Stoic philosophy and also by comparison with what we would actually do in modern cognitive therapy. Reading the passage this way also makes it appear much more intelligible and useful — otherwise it seems rather more vague and abstract.
This is how I’d describe what’s happening in each step:
Natural philosophy. Describe the external event to yourself in terms of its physical properties, without values — as if you were what the Greeks called a “natural philosopher”, such as Anaxagoras. The natural philosophers were renowned for dispelling superstitious fears by explaining natural phenomena in terms of their physical causes.
Psychopathology. Identify the beliefs causing the emotion, like an ancient pathologist of the mind, or a modern-day psychologist or psychotherapist. This emotional response is precisely what has been removed or suspended in relation to the naturalistic explanation above — we can now study it separately. This resembles “conceptualization” (a type of assessment or diagnosis of the problem) in modern cognitive therapy.
Dialectic. Using the Socratic Method of questioning, as if you’re cross-examining a witness in court. This is cognitive therapy proper, where we begin changing the beliefs that are causing our emotional problems.
The Stoics also refer to the first step as the use of a phantasia kataleptike, meaning an impression that retains its grip on reality, sometimes translated “objective representation”.
This method is quintessentially Stoic: it consists in refusing to add subjective value-judgements – such as “this object is unpleasant,” “that one is good,” “this one is bad,” “that one is beautiful,” “this is ugly” – to the “objective” representation of things which do not depend on us, and therefore have no moral value. The Stoics notorious phantasia kataleptike – which we have translated as “objective representation” – takes place precisely when we refrain from adding any judgement value to naked reality. In the words of Epictetus: “we shall never give our assent to anything but that of which we have an objective representation.” — Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life, 1995
I think that by remembering these three steps, individuals using Stoicism today as a form of self-help may find it easier to put the philosophy into practice. It gives us a very helpful three-step structure. It may be that a similar three-step model can be found in other ancient Stoic passages. If you spot any examples, please let me know in the comments.
Thank you for reading Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life. This post is public so feel free to share it.
