Stoicism
Hormetism is a practical set of tools that can help you lose weight, get fit, or even improve your eyesight. But thinking of it as just “as set of tools” actually undervalues the benefits of Hormetism, because it leaves out the greatest benefit: a path to freedom from stress and a means of increasing your physical, mental and spiritual strength. Hormetism is at once a broad perspective on living and a specific set of techniques that can free you from distractions and foster your ability to focus on the important things in life–even the most challenging ones–with greater engagement and joy, and with less distraction from negative emotions such as anger, fear, worry, and the other negative manifestations of stress. Hormetism is not just a set of tools, it is an overarching philosophy of life.
But did Hormetism come out of nowhere, or are there historical precedents? Within the history of both Western and Eastern philosophies, there is one that comes closest: Stoicism, one of the earliest and noblest of the philosophies to arise from the legacy of Socrates, over two millenia ago.
Epictetus was a prominent Stoic philosopher who lived from 55-135 AD in Greece, and later in Rome. He was born a slave, but he professed a philosophy that was later adopted by the Roman statesmen Seneca and Cicero, and was embraced by Marcus Aurelius, perhaps the greatest of all Roman emperors. If the philosophy of Stoicism could work equally for a slave and an emperor, helping both of them overcome very different sets of challenges, perhaps it bears further investigation! It is also not often recognized how strong an influence Stoicism had on the development of Christianity as an ethical system, and upon many individual statesmen and military leaders, including Thomas Jefferson and other founders of the American republic. James Stockdale credits having read Epictetus’ Enchiridion, in a philosophy course at Stanford, for his ability to endure and prevail during years of torture as a prisoner-of-war in North Vietnam. And yet Stoicism today is little known, and frequently mischaracterized as an attitude of steely resignation to a cold fate. The truth is quite otherwise.
Philosophy is often thought of as a type of speculative thought or dry academic analysis that has little to do with the challenges of real life. But this was not the case in ancient Greece and Rome; nor, for that matter the Far East. Stoicism in the West, like Buddhism in the East, was a philosophy that sought not only to explain the nature of the physical world and our knowledge of it; but also to provide guidance on how to live the best life, and how to confront the challenges we all face in living. Much of the role that philosophy used to play in helping guide our actions was increasingly ceded to religion, and more recently to secular substitutes for religion. Stoicism was one of several “schools” of philosophy that played a guiding role in the lives of Greeks and Romans, from the illustrious to the ordinary. The question is: is this ancient philosophy of Stoicism of any use to us today?
Irvine’s account of Stoicism. One excellent recent “re-animation” of Stoicism for the modern world is presented in “A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy“, by the contemporary philosopher William Irvine. (For those interested but short on time, start with Irvine’s recent three-part article in Boing Boing: Twenty-First Century Stoic). His book is not a mere history of Stoicism. Irvine does a good job of explaining the major ideas of the leading Stoics in their historical context, but he goes beyond that, to provide persuasive arguments in favor of Stoicism as a most practical of philosophies for contemporary readers. In Stoicism, Irvine has found the West’s answer to Buddhism, a philosophy of enlightened happiness through a studied detachment. But this is an analytical sort of detachment, not a non-cognitive or mystical pose, and for this reason Stoicism is more compatible with rational philosophical inquiry than is Buddhism. At the same time, Irvine positions Stoicism as a set of practical therapeutic tools which in some ways anticipate contemporary cognitive behavioral therapy. But Stoicism is not just a set of tools, it goes beyond methodology in providing a coherent worldview and philosophy of living.
Irvine is quick to point out that Stoicism is often misunderstood as a philosophy of emotional coldness, restraint and asceticism, based on the connotation associated with the contemporary meaning of “small-s” stoicism. He positions the Stoics as midway between the ascetic Cynics of old, and the hedonistic Cyrenaics. In short, the Stoics embraced life’s pleasures but counseled its adherents on how to avoid craving or clinging to pleasures, how to lessen the fear of adversity or loss, and how to overcome anger and the sting of insults through a series of practical techniques. This ability to master the “passions” was what the Stoics called “tranquility”.
Tranquility. The Greek Stoics emphasized virtue, the pursuit of excellence. Irvine does not disparage this focus on virtue, but he favors the Roman Stoics, who emphasized tranquility (freedom from distracting emotions) both as an end and also as a means that would make it easier to pursue virtue. “Tranquility” is another word, which like “stoic” has in modern times taken on a different meaning, and sometimes connotes a state of total quietude or emotionless inertia. However, as Irvine notes, “Stoic tranquility was a psychological state marked by the absence of negative emotions, such as grief, anger, and anxiety, and the presence of positive emotions, such as joy.” (AGTTGL, p. 39). By adding the pursuit of tranquility to Greek Stoicism, the later Stoics. such as Musonius Rufus and Epictetus, made Stoicism more attractive to the Romans, who were less motivated than were the Greeks by the ideal of pure reason. Irvine notes that Stoicism was one of many schools that had to “compete” for students, and the doctrine of tranquility gave it a distinction over rival schools like the Epicureans or the Cynics. By both allowing themselves the pleasures of the good life, but at the same time being prepared to give up these pleasures, the Stoics established independence from their cravings. The ascetic Cynics were vulnerable to craving good things if they did not avoid them, while the Epicureans and Cyrenaics, who elevated pleasure as the highest good, risked becoming too attached to good things. Only the Stoics demonstrated the ability to “take or leave” good things. And whereas the Epicureans advised their followers to withdraw from the world, Stoics, like Musonius Rufus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, advocated meeting head on the challenges of life, and urged followers to become engaged in public life. As a result, many Stoics became prominent as statesmen or important advisors to statesmen.
Meditation. What were the techniques of the Stoics? Irvine believes that the most effective of these techniques to master the emotions and achieve tranquility were their meditative techniques. One such technique is characterized by Irvine as “negative visualization”: imaging the worst–for example, contemplating the loss of one’s friends, loved ones, and dearest possessions–in order to foster a greater appreciation for what one already has. Irvine notes that the Stoics observed how people naturally tend to take for granted what they already have, and have a strong tendency to continually seek new possessions or other sources of happiness. He calls this “hedonic adapation” and discusses the value of negative visualization as an antidote to it. If you are skeptical about the power of negative visualization to instantly generate gratitude and happiness click on this hyperlink to watch a short video.
Negative visualization is useful not just for resisting hedonic adaptation; it is also a useful way to clarify your goals and priorities, as Tim Ferriss has so nicely described in this short video clip:
Training through voluntary discomfort. These “thinking” techniques can certainly be useful. However, I find the best ideas of the Stoics to be those which urge changes in how one actually lives, not just in how one thinks. Irvine deals with one of the more powerful of these ideas in Chapter 7, on “Self-Denial: On Dealing with the Dark Side of Pleasure”. The Stoics did not shun worldly goods and pleasures or embrace discomfort out of masochism or to pursue spiritual atonement or purification, as was the case with the Greek Cynics or, in more modern times, by various religious ascetics and sects. Rather, the Stoics advocated occasional, deliberate use of temporary poverty, voluntary discomfort, and refraining from pleasures in order to quiet their appetites for material goods and sensual pleasures, increase the sense of appreciation for what they already had, and — most importantly — to “immunize” themselves against future misfortune and develop the courage to take on difficult challenges. In The Discourses, a set of lectures transcribed by his student Arrian, Epictetus advocates the intentional use of hardship as a form of active training to build up one’s strength, and he acknowledges that this is a gradual process:
But neither a bull nor a noble-spirited man comes to be what he is all at once; he must undertake hard winter training, and prepare himself, and not propel himself rashly into what is not appropriate to him. (TD, Book One, Ch. 2, p. 10)
One criticism that has been lodged against the use of voluntary discomfort or hardship is that it is just too hard and too unpleasant for the average person. Some people may be born with a higher threshold for pain, but for most of us this type of self-inflicted discomfort does not look very appealing or fruitful. To this, Irvine has a good answer:
What the Stoics discover, though, is that willpower is like muscle power: The more they exercise their muscles, the stronger they get, and the more they exercise their will, the stronger it gets. Indeed, by practicing Stoic self-denial techniques over a long period, Stoics can transform themselves into individuals remarkable for their courage and self-control. They will be able to do things that others dread doing, and they will be able to refrain from doing things that others cannot resist doing. They will, as a result, be thoroughly in control of themselves. This self-control makes it far more likely that they will attain the goals of their philosophy of life, and this in turn dramatically increases their chances of living a good life. (AGTTGL, p. 116-7)
In just this way, these methods of voluntary discomfort, developed by the Stoics to achieve tranquility, resemble the methods of deconditioning and strengthening advocated by Hormetism. Both involve a willingness to tolerate short term stress and discomfort, and a recognition that this process will be rewarded by longer term transformative adaptations that will result in increased self-control and success in life. Going beyond mere meditation or “cognitive” techniques, both Stoicism and Hormetism advocate real behavioral measures, such as controlled exposure to physical stresses or psychological cues which trigger stress responses, in order to become stronger and better tolerate those stresses. Many of the other posts on this blog deal with specific examples of such “voluntary discomfort” or “self denial” techniques, including:
I believe that the benefits of the Stoic techniques of negative visualization and voluntary discomfort can probably be explained in terms of contemporary psychology and physiology — sciences of which the ancients had little inkling. The evidence and arguments for these explanations are laid out in my posts on:
- Psychology: The opponent-process theory of emotion
- Physiology: The receptor control theory of pleasure regulation
In the final chapter of his book, Irvine notes that the strength and tranquility gained by practicing Stoicism creates a natural desire to “be tested” — to rise to the occasion in overcoming hardships and challenges. Again, in The Discourses, Epictetus said:
You should look to the faculties that you have, and say as you behold them, ‘Bring on me now, O Zeus, whatever difficulties you will, for I have the means and the resources granted to me by yourself to bring honour to myself through whatever may come to pass.’ (TD, Book One, Ch. 6, p. 18).
Furthermore, it is by how we handle the challenges in life that our character is revealed and built:
Difficulties are the things that show what men are. Henceforth, when some difficulty befalls you, remember that god, like a wrestling-master, has matched you with a rough young man. (TD, Book One, Ch. 24, p. 53).
The result of this strengthening of character through exposure to adversity is a true freedom that comes in being slave to no person or desire:
Who after this has any power over me? Philip or Alexander, or Perdiccas, or the persian king? How should they have it? For he that can be subjected by man must, long before, let himself be subjected by things. He, therefore, whom neither pleasure nor pain, nor fame nor riches, can get the better of, and who is able, whenever he thinks fit, to spit his whole body into his tormentor’s face and depart from life, whose slave can he ever be? To whom is he subject? (TD, III, Ch. 24, 212)
A lot of the influence of Stoicism has been in helping humans overcome extreme adversity, such as war, imprisonment and the prospect of impending death. In many ways, this aspect of Stoicism builds upon the example of Socrates, who calmly faced his death sentence rather than run away from his firmly held principles, and that example and philosophy has echoes through history in great examples of defiance and heroism in overcoming great difficulties and resisting evil.
The Sphere of Choice. One of the central ideas of the Stoics was the distinction, best propounded by Epictetus, between what we can control (what he called “the sphere of choice” or “internals”) and what we cannot (“externals”). Epictetus believed we should focus solely on the former, and that tranquility comes foremost from realizing that we cannot control or change certain things — particularly the past, much of the natural world, the actions and thoughts of other people, and even many things about ourselves. Other Stoics, principally Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, also urged developing a sense of humor and lightness when events turn against us or people behave badly towards us; allowing these externals to bother us is simply irrational and a waste of our time and concern. Epictetus went further: Above all else, he stressed that our character, our values, and our opinions lie within the realm of “internals” or the changeable, and should be the primary focus of our endeavors. To Epictetus, externals should not be our concern. At best, externals provide the “materials” for developing our character and becoming a better person. This view is clearly set forth in The Discourses, in Chapter 29, “On Steadfastness”:
The essence of the good is a certain disposition of our choice, and essence of evil likewise. What are externals, then? Materials for the faculty of choice, in the management of which it will attain its own good or evil…So, when a tyrant threatens and sends for me, I say, What does he threaten? If he says, ‘I will chain you’, I say, ‘He is threatening my hands and my feet’…Who is there left for me to fear? Of things in my own power? Of these no one is the master. (TD, Book I, Ch. 29, pp. 65-66)
It is understandable that Epictetus, as a slave, was in a unique position to make the case that even a slave, with little control over externals, could still preserve his internal freedom and moral integrity. And the material of externals did not have to necessarily involve circumstances as dire as confinement by tyrants. For one thing, the Stoics felt that we have obligations towards others and civic duties which are frequently inconvenient or contrary to self-interest, but fulfilling these commitments gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our character, regardless of the “external” benefits or burdens to ourselves. Again, the focus is on choice over what we can control within ourselves, not on the outcome. In this sense, the Stoic philosophy is almost the polar opposite of modern day Utilitarianism, the ethical viewpoint of Bentham and Mill, which measures the goodness of an action by its consequences to the happiness (read “pleasure”) of others. The Stoics, by contrast, ignore or almost oppose themselves to consideration of consequences, valuing the worth of an action by what it says about the character or moral worthiness of the actor.
A compelling personification of the Stoic ideal is portrayed in Tom Wolfe’s novel, “A Man in Full”. One of the main characters, Conrad Hensley, is a uneducated warehouse worker of little accomplishment. He happens upon a string of bad luck which lands him in prison after he stealthily tries to retrieve his impounded car after it is unfairly towed. While in prison, and once he thinks things can get no worse, Conrad chances upon the writings of Epictetus, and discovers within himself a power he never realized. He uses his new-found confidence to overcome confrontations with intimidating characters in prison. Later, when working as a caretaker for an elderly couple, he learns of their financial extortion by a predatory thug when he overhears the thug confronting them and demanding payment from their meager savings. Summoning the power of Zeus to test him, Conrad draws upon the intimating tactics he learned from prison toughs to scare off the intruding thug, earning the gratitude of the exploited elderly couple. Conrad’s story is just one of several in “A Man in Full”, in which characters who are failing by the measure of “externals” learn through being tested to turn their “sphere of choice” to the good to prove their moral worth.
Hormetism vs. Stoicism. Hormetism and Stoicism both share an appreciation of the value of adversity in building character and in immunizing oneself against the distracting pull of appetites and emotions, leading to an increase in self-control and the freedom to pursue the good.
Where Hormetism and Stocism part ways, I think, is in their view of externals. The Stoic focus on “internals” and a circumscribed “sphere of choice” looks to me like an abdication of responsibility and commitment to making positive changes in the world — including the changes to society and to oneself. While, on the face of it, Stoics seems to embrace social and personal responsibility, on looking closer, they see engagement with externals only as a way to test oneself or prove ones character. The actual outcome seems not to matter very much.
This comes through even in Irvine’s contemporary reworking of Stoicism. Irvine points out that in most of our efforts, we at best have partial control over the outcome:
When a Stoic concerns himself with things over which he has some but not complete control, such as winning a tennis match, he will be very careful about the goals he sets for himself. In particular, he will be careful to set internal rather than external goals. Thus, his goal in playing tennis will not be to win a match (something external, over which he has only partial control) but to play to the best of his ability in the match (something internal, over which he has complete control). By choosing this goal, he will spare himself frustration or disappointment should he lose the match: Since it was not his goal to win the match, he will not have failed to attain his goal, as long as he played his best. His tranquility will not be disrupted. (AGTTGL, p. 95)
Irvine argues that a focus on internal, rather than external goals, is particularly beneficial in difficult careers such as becoming a novelist, where one faces rejection more often than success:
How can the aspiring novelist reduce the psychological cost of rejection and thereby increase her chance of success? By internalizing her goals with respect to novel writing. She should have as her goal not something external over which she has little control, such as getting her novel published, but something internal over which she has considerable control, such as how hard she works on the manuscript or how many times she submits it in a given period of time. (AGTTGL, p. 98)
Irvine summarizes his viewpoint on the Stoics outlook on the world around them with these words:
…Cato and the other Stoics found a way to retain their tranquility despite their involvement with the world around them: They internalized their goals. Their goal was not to change the world, but to do their best to bring about certain changes. Even if their efforts proved to be ineffectual, they could nevertheless rest easy knowing that they had accomplished their goal. They had done what they could do. (ATTGL, p. 100)
This is perhaps the least convincing point in all of Irvine’s book. I just cannot imagine that an emperor like Marcus Aurelius or a statesman like Seneca — much less the coach of a major league football team — would be satisfied and “rest easy” knowing that he had “done what he could do”. The view that a sincere effort is good enough, and that the actual outcome does not matter, is not a recipe for success. Some external goals are worth going all out to achieve, and some are so important that the fate of a life, an organization, or a country, depend upon them. George Washington was influenced by the Stoics. But he was above all else committed to the success of his newly formed country. In the harsh winter of 1776, Washington had been forced out of Manhattan by Cornwallis, and was camped outside Trenton with a shrinking group of hungry and demoralized troops. When he encamped beside the Delaware River, contemplating his next move, and facing imminent defeat, I doubt he contented himself by thinking that all was well because he had been trying really hard. On the contrary, his desparate circumstances conjured up within him the bold maneuver and carefully rehearsed plan of crossing the Delaware and launching a surprise Christmas Day attack on the Hessians, who were resting outside of Trenton. The forcefulness of this attack, and the Hessians defeat, completely reversed the momentum of the Revolutionary War.
Hormetism takes seriously the value of real success, not just moral success, in confronting and overcoming external obstacles. These obstacles can be physical, social or psychological. While many of these obstacles are not within our control, at least initially, we can gain leverage by systematically building strength, and by repeated efforts at overcoming. What Irvine and the earlier Stoics seem to overlook is the possibility of increasing the sphere of choice and control over the world of others and the self. We can change the world, others and ourselves, although it sometimes takes a while and requires patience. But it is frequently worth it. We don’t have to accept things the way they are. Particularly if we understand our own capability to gradually and systematically improve our odds of eventually overcome barriers to change. By contrast, the Stoicism of Irvine begins to shade into the resignation of Buddhism, to the extent that it avoids making a commitment and taking responsibility for the outcome, and not just making a good faith effort, to improve ourselves and the lives of others.
What we can take from Stoics is the lesson that we should not become frustrated with ourselves if we don’t at first succeed in these efforts, and in fact that we can learn from the early failures to improve our chances of success on the next try. Hormetism recognizes that we adapt and improve as a result of repeated efforts to overcome adversity. Maybe this is because modern man, unlike the Greeks, tends to regard character, human capacity, and fate not as something fixed, but as something that can be changed. This is based in part on what we have learned from the sciences of physiology and psychology regarding the capacity for human change, findings that were not available to the Stoics.
To summarize: A better motto than “Do what you can do, and be happy with your personal effort” (my paraphrase of Irvine’s neo-Stoicism) is “If at first you don’t succeed, then try, try again” (from Thomas H. Palmer’s Teacher’s Manual, 1840). What we have learned from our study of diet, fitness, rehabilitation, and psychology is that our capacity for self improvement and overcoming adversity is not fixed, but can be increased through training and selective, progressive exposure to stress. In Hormetism, we can generalize this to include improvements to our character and perseverance. Adversity strengthens not just our particular abilities, but our very soul.
If this topic interests you, please comment below, or check out the Philosophy Forum.
Stoicism and Hormetism both seem to be based on a realistic attitude towards life, acknowledging that there are going to be tough times. I think that Hormetism is possibly more hopeful than Stoicism, because it doesn’t just accept the negative as fate, but actively works to make one stronger to be able to better handle the challenges that life throws your way.
As a Stoic and someone who appreciates very much the writings of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, I think the comments in this post are quite astute. What I take from Stoicism is a perspective that allows me to weather the ups and downs of life with equanimity. It keeps me from getting thrown off course by every little bother, and I’m able to better appreciate everything in life as a gift. But I do see that the Stoic focus on “internal” goals, as Irvine proposes, can easily lead to “wimping out” and placing insufficient emphasis on getting things done in the real world. Good intentions alone are not good enough. In addition, I think health and fitness are important — I’m an ultramarathoner. I don’t see in the classic Stoics an appreciation of the importance of taking responsibility for one’s health. Of course, health is not totally within the “sphere of choice”, but to a large degree it is, and being in good health definitely helps in dealing with life’s ups and downs.
Great quote that one: “If at first you don’t succeed, then try, try again” (from Thomas H. Palmer’s Teacher’s Manual, 1840)
I also like “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it.” by humorist W.C. Fields
I have just discovered your website whilst searching for information on Stoicism. Very interesting. I will read your texts closely. May I point out my own website (http://www.ibiblio.org/stoicism/) – which is a collection of Stoic links.
Steven, thanks for the link. Your site has a lot of good links to articles, essays and other resources. I definitely recommend it to readers of this site. –Todd
Hmmm..
In general I liked this post. I found your website only recently. I am somewhat disappointed in your views of both Buddhism and Stoicism though. Despite the pop-culture image of Buddhists as being resigned to their fate I see it more as a question of scope. Yes, as Bertrand Russell said “An open mind is an empty mind”, it is possible to take such a wide and all-inclusive view of things that they all become meaningless and indistinct, but it is up to each Buddhist to find the point of balance in their life..just as each Stoic defines their own sphere of choice.
I do agree with you though that, as in hormeticism, you can change the degree to which you can possibly affect the world. But, If a Stoic were to truly devote themselves to an intrinsic goal, part of accomplishing that goal would be to do those things needed to accomplish it (including expanding their sphere of choice). So, with Washington crossing the Delaware, it could be as you said (which is a very American interpretation of things), or it could be that a George Washington truly devoted to giving his best for a cause of his choosing would not have been giving his best Stoic effort if he did not behave exactly as he did.
Just because your motivation is intrinsic vs extrinsic you are not suddenly less capable or less committed to your cause. We are used to external motivators in our society now, but the difference is largely in how it affects the subjective experience of what happens. In history, Washington had no real control over whether the things he did won or lost the war (having gave the same effort either way), but he was able to choose how he judged his own actions.
In most cases our “extrinsic motivators” are just misunderstood and non-evaluated intrinsic motivators. I buy a thing, or do a thing, or feel attachment to somebody because of how I want to express my character to myself, not to others, even if my self narrative says otherwise. The way we usually phrase it to ourselves is just needlessly psychologically damaging.
Sorry for the long post. I did like the article, and I thank you for your work on this blog….I have never heard of hormetism before now.
Hi th,
I like your comments, especially your point that the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators may not be so clear:
What I was objecting to in Irvine’s account came from his account of how a Stoic would approach playing tennis: the focus shifts from winning to making one’s best effort. My first reaction was that this provides too easy an excuse for losing: “Oh well, I tried my best”. But reading Irvine more closely, his idea of trying one’s best also includes rigorously training for the upcoming tennis match, and focusing on doing all that is “within one’s power” to succeed. And perhaps by becoming more internally focused on making the best effort — which includes training, a focus on good form, proper rest and nutrition, etc. — rather than on winning, one ends up better prepared and less psychologically distracted by too much of a goal focus.
I’ve actually found this to be true, for example, in my work projects, where I now focus much more on good preparation and am less stressed about the actual outcome. And your point about the extrinsic/instrinsic distinction perhaps being a false dichotomy is making me rethink my initial objection to Irvine…and maybe even to Buddhist “detachment”. But I suppose I would want to see some examples of real flesh-and-blood Buddhists “heros” who prevailed to accomplish difficult goals in the face of adversity. Perhaps you could suggest some role models here?
Thanks again for the good discussion.
Aung San Suu Kyi is a modern example of a devout Buddhist who has accomplished a great deal in the face of adversity. Thanks for a great blog btw!
I am not a Buddhist so of no Buddhist models. In the sports world, probably the most successful coach at any level was John Wooden, the B Ball coach at UCLA. He never talked about winning but focused on doing one’s best. He also had rigorous preparation for games.
As a Kundalini Yogi, I think that mindset is also true of doing one’s best. My teacher, Yogi Bhajan used to say that “Keep Up” is the mantra for the Aquarian Age. The postures and meditations are often rigorous and one should do their best to get best results even if there is some discomfort (but you must be conscious enough not to overstretch or overdo something).
I do have to add that a yogic mindset is to have a neutral mind. You look at the positives and look at the negatives and make an unemotional decision unattached to the outcome.
I have been involved in martial arts competitions both as a participant and as an official. To me the ‘winning is everything’ mindset is unhealthy in several ways. It encourages people to cheat – you do whatever it takes to win, right ? It leads to fierce disputes with referees and other officials – refereeing is neither exact nor error-free. It also denies any reward for the majority of competitors who turn up, get beaten, and go home. If instead the mindset is ‘performance is the purpose’, you won’t cheat, there is really no point. You can shrug off any refereeing mistakes, the score is the shadow rather than the substance. When you are beaten by a superior fighter you can learn from them and be better next time.
PS super site, such a lot of powerful insights
As far as the idea that “just doing your best” is OK. I take from the research on goals that “do your best” type of goals are less effective than specific goals such as winning a match or making a specific number of serves. It’s past 2am for me or else I’d look up a specific study to link to here. However, here’s a site that summarizes some of the research on goals:
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_87.htm
And below I’ve pasted the relevant excerpt from that page:
Goal Setting Theory
Locke’s research showed that there was a relationship between how difficult and specific a goal was and people’s performance of a task. He found that specific and difficult goals led to better task performance than vague or easy goals.
Telling someone to “Try hard” or “Do your best” is less effective than “Try to get more than 80% correct” or “Concentrate on beating your best time.” Likewise, having a goal that’s too easy is not a motivating force. Hard goals are more motivating than easy goals, because it’s much more of an accomplishment to achieve something that you have to work for.
A few years after Locke published his article, another researcher, Dr Gary Latham, studied the effect of goal setting in the workplace. His results supported exactly what Locke had found, and the inseparable link between goal setting and workplace performance was formed.
In 1990, Locke and Latham published their seminal work, “A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.” In this book, they reinforced the need to set specific and difficult goals, and they outlined three other characteristics of successful goal setting.
Robb and Rodney,
You both make excellent points about trying too hard and going all out to win at all costs. Certainly, arguing with referees and cheating are very un-Stoic. Epictetus, Seneca, Aurelius made it clear that doing the right thing is central, and the outcome is secondary. And I would agree that paradoxically, focusing less on winning and more on specific performance goals generally leads to a better result.
Still, I have some discomfort with the advice to focus only on what you can “control”. This begs the factual question of what it is that you can control. Sure, you cannot absolutely control outcomes such as winning a tennis match. But how far do you compromise in your effort to win? Are you in control of just making good groundstrokes? Can’t you train to get to the net faster? If you care more and sharpen your attention, can you accomplish more than you thought?
I don’t play a lot of tennis, but I have been learning to rockclimb lately. I notice that it is always a choice as to whether I can make a harder effort to make a difficult move, or give up and say I did my best and can’t go farther. It’s not a black and white situation of what is in my control or not, because there is choice and volition involved. Personal attitude could play a role some day if I’m on a dangerous climb….or in some life and death situation.
In practicing or training for martial arts or other “games”, I fully agree that a desire to win can become a counterproductive. However, in real life tests of survival, business success, or war — a desire to win may be crucial. And implemented correctly, a desire to win does not mean having to compromise one’s integrity and cheating or violating moral standards.
Todd,
I agree with you that to focus on only what you can control may be too narrow a focus. We all have the power to influence things we can’t control, and we should be comfortable using our influence. However, you don’t have much influence when you aren’t making good decisions in the things you do control, so they should come first in priority.
To clarify my view, desire to win is not in itself harmful, it’s pretty much a prerequisite for participation. It is when this is elevated over other values that it causes problems for yourself or for others.
Robbo, we agree on this. I think you stated it very nicely. — Todd
Love the article, I disagree with this however: – “I just cannot imagine that an emperor like Marcus Aurelius or a statesman like Seneca — much less the coach of a major league football team — would be satisfied and “rest easy” knowing that he had “done what he could do”. The view that a sincere effort is good enough, and that the actual outcome does not matter, is not a recipe for success.”
John Wooden built the greatest college basketball teams of all time based on this principle. You only lose when you don’t provide your best effort.
Craig,
You do have a good point. A focus on effort is usually more productive than a win-at-all costs attitude. But I think that is true primarily because effort is something you can usefully focus on “in the moment”, whereas thinking about the possibility of losing can be psychologically distracting and make you freeze up. Nevertheless, when it comes to what one should value, I think that divorcing effort from the objective outcome is untenable. That is especially true when we move from the domain of sports and games to the real world — where lives, companies and communities are at stake. If we don’t value objective outcomes as being important, then I’m not sure why we care so much about effort. What’s the effort for? Is effort merely an aesthetic or moral quest in and of itself?
So I agree with you that the focus on “best effort” — in the moment of play — was important to John Wooden’s approach to coaching. But he fine-tuned his coaching strategy and training techniques based on his astute observations about what worked to deliver real results. If a training program wasn’t working, no doubt he modified it to improve the outcome. He led UCLA to 10 NCAA championships in a twelve year period, including winning a record 88 consecutive games. So we can’t concluding that results — winning — didn’t matter to him.
Todd
Great article, I think people really don’t get what stoicism means. Anyone who uses the word stoic just uses the word to describe someone as boring or serious. Its nothing like that at all.
I am a modern stoic too. Whats the point of worrying or being sad about something? Does it help? No, it just wastes time and aggravates you. The stoics have it down perfect: the only things you can control are your opinions and your emotions. Everything else is external and you just cant control at all. Why try to?
By the way, I started a site about modern stoicism. I couldn’t find any modern stoic sites, so I just made one. Anyone which is interested should definitely check it our, Im trying to make a community for us.
Hi Mike,
Nice to meet another modern Stoic. There is actually a site for modern stoics called New Stoa, as well as a Facebook page.
Please send a link to your site…I’m interested!
Todd
Todd,
“I find the best ideas of the Stoics to be those which urge changes in how one actually lives, not just in how one thinks.”
“a true freedom that comes in being slave to no person [manifest or introjected] or desire:”
GREAT! I think you’ll enjoy Stephan Molyneux’s take on Socrates’ “vengeance”… A five-part series. Here are the conclusions from youtube/stefbot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thPWZOWFND0
Your post here really got me thinking. I enjoy your concept of hormetism, and will read more on this blog. I do view stoicism a little differently than you, however. It doesn’t appear that the Stoics just threw their hands up and said “oh well” when things were not right. In fact, the stoics were quite active in trying to positively change their world. However, what stoic philosophy does is cause us to “reflect” before and after we undertake and action. In the big picture, we must contend with what we can CONTROL, the FATE has a role, and everything is IMPERMANENT in the end. Stoicism is the throttle for our human tendency for “do-goodism,” to put our business where it should not be. It makes us pause before we “help,” which is good because so much harm has been done when people decide it is their duty to “help.” All of your examples of war seem to indicate this…and that includes Marcus Aurelius (stoic blasphemy?)
HeroicStoic,
My critique was mostly directed at Irivine’s “modern” interpretation of Stoicism, but I do think you raise some good points – particularly that several prominent Stoics were highly engaged in public affairs — including Aurelius, Seneca and others.
Todd
The bust in the first picture is of Epicurus, not Epictetus.
Thanks for pointing that out, Faldros. I’ve replaced it with a veridical representation — at least from what I was able to determine.
Dear Todd,
If you mean the very first picture in the text, then it’s Marcus Aurelius now instead of Epictetus. Of course, he fits there were well, especially given that there are no accurate drawings or statues of Epictetus, as far as I know.
You are quite right, Andrius. Thanks for catching the error. I’ve switched to a the image of a statue that some claim to be a likeness of Epictetus, although who knows for sure.
I’m sorry to disappoint you again, but that’s Epicurus now. I’ve just made a google image search on Epictetus and there are lot’s of other famous Greek philosophers on the first page. Even Cicero comes up!
You could use one of the images on the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus
These are quite often used in publications on Epictetus – that is when they are not using someone else’s image 🙂
Hello.
How does the stoic’s concept of balanced life differ from the concept showed in the movie “Equilibrium”? I’m confused since there is also an absence of emotions in the movie.
NJ,
I haven’t seen the movie, but reviews indicate that Equilibrium is about a future society where emotions are outlawed and people are forced to take drugs that suppress emotions.
One of the most common misconceptions about Stoicism is that it advocates the suppression of feelings and emotion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Stoics experienced both happiness and sadness and truly owned their own emotions. I think it would be fair to say they were more in touch with their emotions than most people, rather than being controlled by emotions.
One of the key concepts of the Stoics was that of tranquility, which means being in possession of your emotions, but not being a slave to them. You experience emotions as any normal person, but they don’t drive your values or choices. By periodically giving up pleasures and contemplating loss of loved ones or loved things, you gain emotional independence, but also an appreciation for what you have. If anything, you savor and appreciate to a greater extent whatever life gives you — even if it is little.
If this seems paradoxical, pick up a copy of Seneca’s “Letters from a Stoic”, or Epictetus’ “Enchiridon” and you’ll see what I mean. The book by Irvine is also a very approachable place to start.
Tlodd
I see. Thanks for that Todd. We just had a reaction paper regarding the movie and upon reading your reply, I’m glad that some parts of my answers is somewhat similar with what you shared . Thanks for recommending those stuffs, I’ll try to have them soon.
NJ
Just finishes Irvines book on Stoicism. Could you recommend and further reading on the subject?
Glad you liked “A Guide to the Good Life”. I think that Irvine does a masterful job of clearly explaining the benefits of Stoicism, and dealing with common objections and misconceptions.
For historical writings, I’d recommend Letters from a Stoic (authored by Seneca, the famous Roman statesman) and The Discourses (by Epictetus) as two very personal accounts showing how a real Stoics approached life. Both books are somewhat rambling and not crisply organized, so you need to be patient to find the nuggets.
If you enjoy fiction, one of the best illustrations of Stoicisms is Tom Wolf’s novel, “A Man in Full”. It is so well written, full of humor and satire, and hard to put down. The characters are very compelling.
Todd
Dear Todd,
I’ve just discovered your website and I’m enjoying it a lot. I think you give a fair description of Stoicism on this page. But I would like to ask you about another ancient philosophy – Epicureanism. You do mention it, but have you had the chance to study it as deeply as Stoicism? I suspect that upon a closer look it would turn out to be another valuable source of inspiration for your Hormetism. Even if you know all that I’m about to write, I’d still like to offer a short sketch of Epicureanism for the benefit of your readers.
The problem with Epicureanism is similar to to that of Stoicism – it is half-forgotten and half-misunderstood. What Epicurus advised is quite far removed from what people think when they hear the word “epicurean” nowadays.
Now, the basic fact is true, the Epicureans did consider pleasurable life to be the best life, but their understanding of what constitutes a pleasurable life is different from the Cyreneacs’. Not all pleasures should be followed because that would quickly lead to hedonic adaptation and some pleasurable things have horrible consequences. One has to be very careful and lever with decisions on what pleasures to follow.
To live a good life one has to reach ataraxia, the state of tranquil mind (just like Roman Stoics advocated) and aponia, the state of pain free body. And one does that by constantly combating his fears and anxieties, and by observing one’s desires and pruning those that seem to lead to more trouble than they are worth. When one’s mind and body is free of trouble, one can really enjoy more even the very simple, basic everyday pleasures – that’s the goal for the Epicureans.
So ancient Epicureans would really welcome the idea of getting stronger physically and mentally by careful practice – but would do that in order to live more pleasurably, instead of becoming more “virtuous”, like the Stoics wanted.
They are really worth a look!
Best wishes,
Andrius
I think you should read something other than Irvine regarding Stoicism given that his brand – weirdly – slips close to the rival school of the Stoics, Epicureanism (and Buddhism). In some ways a direct response is Robertson’s EXCELLENT book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stoicism-Art-Happiness-Yourself-Philosophy/dp/1444187104).
I think this treatment would pretty well address most of your critiques and is far closer to Stoicism proper.
Also, Stoicism did not anticipate CBT. It was the direct and admitted origin of it by the inventor of this family of therapies, Albert Ellis.
As to the issue of control, I think that the notion of expanding the individuals sphere of control in an absolute sense is deluded – and I say this as a Professor of public policy and political economy who specializes in processes of decision and control. All anyone can do is increase the probability of success, and reduce the error around the outcome they are likely to acheive but there is no absolute sphere of control to expand. Perfectly hormetist supermen will be killed or immiserated by a meteor, systemic economic collapse, crazed person bend in their destruction, or a war. Washingtin’s crossing (like that if the Spanish Armada invading England) might has plausibly been thwarted by inclement weather or a chance encounter with an advanced hessian scout. Then his crossing would have been merely ‘doing his best’. It was a gamble, not an expanded sphere of control that was exercised.
To rest one’s sense of success on gambles is irrational says the stoics, and so do I.
However, you are right that there is NO VIRTUE, in failing to adapt and maximize your skill at accomplishing the goals that constitute your purpose. This Stoics like Marcus Aurelius constantly attempt to do just that. They just do it while always remembering that fate is its own master and even the best archer’s arrow can be thrown off course by a stray breeze.
Thanks for this post, and thanks for posting Tim’s video, I first heard of Stoicism by listening to his podcast when he mentioned Ryan Holiday’s wonderful book, The Obstacle is The Way. If you haven’t read it yet, I recommend it.
Funny you should mention willpower as muscle power, I brought up the same idea in my own book. You can hear a short interview with me about my book’s Stoic roots at: http://stoicallyspeaking.org/2015/08/07/stoically-speaking-episode-11-interview-with-marcos-carvalho/
We know that Plato’s gymnasium was both a place to strengthen the body as well as sharpening the mind. It always surprises me that so many miss the connection between the two! Discipline in one can lead to discipline in the other.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Marcos
Good points, Marcos. I have indeed read The Obstacle is the Way, and enjoyed it. Thanks also for the link to your interview with Marcos Carvalho about your book and Stoicism. Finally, your comment expresses a key point that so many people miss — that “strengthening” applies equally to body and mind, and reveal time and again that body and mind are just two aspects of one whole entity. This becomes clear when we see that anti-depressive practices like cold showers or fasting improve both mood and physiology in a manner that makes this unity undeniable.
I am sick and tired of hearing about losing weight and getting fit and dealing with your boss. Not everyone has these problems, I am already fit and am self-employed. How about using philosophy do deal with chronic bad health, grief, intense loneliness, etc etc?
Hey Observer, sorry to hear about your chronic issues. I’m also dealing with chronic illness and otherwise have good health, finances, relationships etc. I’ve found stoicism to be very helpful with the mental challenges that come with the physical condition and which often overshadow it.
Seneca believed that advantages can be drawn even from illness and that learning to live with gratitude is the part of art of living life.
I wrote an article you might be interested in called, “In Praise of Chronic Pain: A Stoic Meditation”
http://marcobronx.com/2016/04/praise-chronic-pain-stoic-meditation
Also, there’s a “Stoicism Group” on Facebook with other 12k members, with authors that also write about stoicism as it relates to physical challenges.
Hope to see you there!
I feel like you may have missed Irvine’s point on success. You said, “The view that a sincere effort is good enough, and that the actual outcome does not matter, is not a recipe for success. Some external goals are worth going all out to achieve…” and I’d argue you are saying the same thing. Is doing your best not “going all out”? If you did your best, what more could you do to ” go all out”? If you didn’t go all out, you didn’t do your best because there was more you could have done.
Irvine’s point, as I read it, was that you do go all out, you just don’t get upset if your efforts prove fruitless. Would you not argue the same? I did enjoy the writing. Thanks
Josh,
Perhaps you are right that there is not as much difference between Irvine’s position and mine as meets the eye. Where I do agree with Irvine and all Stoics is that there is no point in getting upset or beating yourself up if your efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome. That’s Stoicism 101. However, I think there may be a significant difference in the attitude and preparation going into an ominous challenge. It may come down to the difference between a “sincere effort” and “going all out”. I will always make a “sincere effort” in doing anything worth doing; being sloppy or half-hearted makes no sense. But the level of effort should be commensurate with the stakes involved. In some cases, the stakes are very high, or extremely high. Life and death of yourself or others. The survival of important institutions. In those cases, it makes sense to increase the level of preparation and intensity of focus beyond a “sincere effort”. For very important public presentations, or actions that affect my family, friends, or workplace, I’ll go the extra mile, or even the extra 100 miles. If I do come up short after the effort, I won’t beat myself up. But the important point is that I won’t cut short my preparation.
Now this reflects an attitude on my part that the outcomes of certain events do matter, at least in important cases. Stoics too easily consider external events as “externals”, and hold themselves responsible for their “internal” choices and values. But the distinction between internals and externals is not always so clear cut. Our choices and preparation can significantly influence and event determine the outcome of events, and those events can be significant.
But maybe in the end this comes down to the meaning of “sincere effort”. If sincere effort can encompass the kind of intense preparation that can make a big difference in outcomes, then perhaps I can embrace it.
Todd