From the time I was a child my late mother and I shared one critical thing. We were both fully committed stoics. It didn't take me long to realize that I could only control what I could think about rationally. I was bound to have less of anything I could imagine than at least one group of people so it was best to use what I had to control what I could. That approach worked very well. My philosophy supported a long and pleasant life and career helping others, including my wife of 54 years, whose last 18 years were spent in my care the care of professionals while she was a victim of early-onset Alzheimer's. I am now 81, still a stoic helping whomever I can. In my life I I have been retrieved from death three times by excellent doctors. I am afraid of nothing, especially that which I cannot control, my end being the primary thing out of my hands.
We spend decades trying to master outcomes, often confusing statistical influence with actual sovereignty. This piece is a vital reminder that our only true jurisdiction is the fidelity of our own judgment. Master the input, and the result ceases to own you.
solving the difficulty of life by shrinking the definition of Life.. until it fits in a shoebox.
Epictetus argues we should only master what is 'up to us' (judgment), because the rest (body, reputation, world) is fragile.
But this dualism is false. We are not pilots inside a meat-mech:: we are the mechanism itself. My judgments are as conditioned by the world as my body is.
(I hesitate to engage, since the other day, Massimo, you appealed to the authority of Dawkins... who is a reflective authority: yours, not mine.)
True mastery isn't retreating to the “Inner Citadel” of safe choices. It is inhabiting the Eruption of existence:: risk, lack of control, and all.
You don't master the explosion. You ride the shockwave.
And no, I will master more than one thing, I already have four odes to different forms and subjects of mastery | with the national titles to prove it | and retired at 35 to dismantle silly ideas like this.
Barnes, I'm sorry you think these ideas are "silly." The fact that someone wins medals has absolutely nothing to do with Epictetus's point, so I suggest you are simply misreading the Stoics. They were not into retreat or quietism. At all. They simply recognized and accepted the limits of human agency. It is foolish to do otherwise.
I did not misread the text, Massimo. I rejected your premise.
Epictetus explicitly categorizes the body as “not up to us” (Enchiridion 1) :: lumping it in with property and reputation.
My “medals” are not jewelry; they are empirical data that refute that specific claim (yours). When you spend decades breaking the “limits of human agency” regarding the body, you realize that Epictetus’s distinction was a psychological survival mechanism for a slave in chains :: not a universal law for a free man.
(A piano key?!.. really…)
Truly a fig in winter
Adopting a slave’s coping strategy when you have the freedom to act is not wisdom. It is atrophy.
Barnes, the more you comment the more I am convinced you are profoundly misreading Epictetus and the meaning of "up to us." And do you really think Seneca or Marcus Aurelius adopted a "slave mentality"? But I doubt this conversation will bear additional fruits, so I'm going to leave it at that.
The last paragraph makes me think, specially: "we shape our intentions, our values, and, ultimately, our character". What about our personality? Can we really change it based on a rational decision? "This shy personality doesn’t suit me, I’m going to become outgoing and the most popular kid in the neighborhood." Do you really think it’s just a matter of willpower?
And what about inclination? “Music has flowed through my veins since I was a child” is often the mantra of manny musicians. You're born with it. No one knows how or why. Thanks to a rational judgment, they would realize that they’ll most likely face financial hardship (if not starve to death), and so reason pushes them to pursue a more profitable trade. It’s every artist’s dilemma: do I obey my destiny or do I conform to society? A true artist would respond with another mantra, one born more from the heart or the gut than from reason: this way or no way!
Nelson, good points. Epictetus actually addresses them in part when he articulates his version of role ethics. He does say, for instance, that we come with personal inclinations and talents, and that the rational thing is to follow them. Modern research shows that personality is partly "heritable" (a complex and controversial concept, but let's set that aside for now); but "partial" means that it is also partially malleable, so yes we can work on our attitudes and intentions, but we work with the material we have, not with a tabula rasa.
Hi, Massimo. Thank you very much for your response. "The rational thing is to follow them"—I really love that line. I think your comment helps me round out this article much better. And the concept of "partial" that you mention later opens the door to a better understanding, since no one starts from scratch. We don't come into this world empty; we arrive contingent, and with a few other things as well. I see the point more clearly now.
True mastery is an act of subtraction, not addition. In a world that constantly pushes us to be everything at once, choosing to master one single path is the most revolutionary thing we can do. This is the core of the MyDigitalStripes philosophy: helping people strip away the digital noise to find that one authentic line where talent meets focus. We don't need more tools; we need more space to become exceptional at what we love.
The ideas of 'judgment' and 'mastery' discussed in this story are worthy ideas to reflect on, as our Elders encouraged us to do. Individual choice and agency are important pillars of well-being. Even so, they need to be held lightly. Build the muscle so we are ready to change your mind. Building this muscle looks different for each individual human. This is why all humans are beautiful in their own unique way. The other muscle we need to build is resistance. Resistance and willingness to change are muscles that need strengthening. There is always work to be done to build our resistance and willingness strengths. This is where growth occurs. Back to how this looks in humans. Growth happens at very different rates over a lifetime. Age is not a predictor of when growth occurs, although there is lots of research including that of Erik H Erikson on Childhood and Society which explores how this growth might look. As a parent of now teen kids, i've learnt that the stages of development look very different for each kid, and I think these stages of development look more different than they ever did. This is my perspective. Others will have a different perspective. This is why research and data are important, whilst they don't tell us everything. Even so. Erikson's work which I would regard as genius is worthy to reflect on frameworks and context as an Elder observed things in 1963. The epigraph of this book is my life's purpose. My vital force. My intent. It is addressed: 'TO OUR children's children'.
Before Public Health e.g sanitation, antibiotics and vaccination health was much more precarious. So comparing Stoicism then and now in a health context doesn't seem entirely appropriate without many caveats that would probably dilute the overall argument or at least the communication of it. Executive Function is more of a capitalist, class peculiar, business oriented term and not appropriate in this context. How about presenting the gist of the information with mythology, e.g. Icarus and Daedalus and modern day equivalent bad decision making born of hubris and other human frailty. After all, isn't the point of the post the idea that personal agency has consequences. It might also be more honest and empathetic to point out that not everyone has personal agency due to severe illness or other factors.
Matthew, sorry to have given you the impression that I was dishonest, it certainly wasn't my intention. The Stoics were aware of the fact that mental illness can get in the way of one's prohairesis, and there is modern Stoic literature about it as well. But at the end of the day that simply moves the range of what is or is not up to us, the framework remains the same.
The comparison between ethics and medicine still stands, regardless of modern advances. Indeed, it's even better, because ethics has advanced as well (e.g., most people these days would agree that slavery is not acceptable; not so in the time of Epictetus).
The term "executive function" has nothing to do with capitalism, it is standard technical language in neuroscience, and therefore exactly appropriate for this context.
The concept of mastery is a delusion and therefore self-defeating. It implies you have reached some sort of conclusion. Better to be the frame oneself as the perpetual beginner.
From the time I was a child my late mother and I shared one critical thing. We were both fully committed stoics. It didn't take me long to realize that I could only control what I could think about rationally. I was bound to have less of anything I could imagine than at least one group of people so it was best to use what I had to control what I could. That approach worked very well. My philosophy supported a long and pleasant life and career helping others, including my wife of 54 years, whose last 18 years were spent in my care the care of professionals while she was a victim of early-onset Alzheimer's. I am now 81, still a stoic helping whomever I can. In my life I I have been retrieved from death three times by excellent doctors. I am afraid of nothing, especially that which I cannot control, my end being the primary thing out of my hands.
Peter, thanks for sharing, an excellent example for us all!
We spend decades trying to master outcomes, often confusing statistical influence with actual sovereignty. This piece is a vital reminder that our only true jurisdiction is the fidelity of our own judgment. Master the input, and the result ceases to own you.
“We control far less than we think, but we control the one thing that matters the most.”
The epitome of quality over quantity.
This is the classic Stoic retreat.
solving the difficulty of life by shrinking the definition of Life.. until it fits in a shoebox.
Epictetus argues we should only master what is 'up to us' (judgment), because the rest (body, reputation, world) is fragile.
But this dualism is false. We are not pilots inside a meat-mech:: we are the mechanism itself. My judgments are as conditioned by the world as my body is.
(I hesitate to engage, since the other day, Massimo, you appealed to the authority of Dawkins... who is a reflective authority: yours, not mine.)
True mastery isn't retreating to the “Inner Citadel” of safe choices. It is inhabiting the Eruption of existence:: risk, lack of control, and all.
You don't master the explosion. You ride the shockwave.
And no, I will master more than one thing, I already have four odes to different forms and subjects of mastery | with the national titles to prove it | and retired at 35 to dismantle silly ideas like this.
Barnes, I'm sorry you think these ideas are "silly." The fact that someone wins medals has absolutely nothing to do with Epictetus's point, so I suggest you are simply misreading the Stoics. They were not into retreat or quietism. At all. They simply recognized and accepted the limits of human agency. It is foolish to do otherwise.
I did not misread the text, Massimo. I rejected your premise.
Epictetus explicitly categorizes the body as “not up to us” (Enchiridion 1) :: lumping it in with property and reputation.
My “medals” are not jewelry; they are empirical data that refute that specific claim (yours). When you spend decades breaking the “limits of human agency” regarding the body, you realize that Epictetus’s distinction was a psychological survival mechanism for a slave in chains :: not a universal law for a free man.
(A piano key?!.. really…)
Truly a fig in winter
Adopting a slave’s coping strategy when you have the freedom to act is not wisdom. It is atrophy.
You call it “foolish” to challenge those limits.
I call it testing the walls.
And necessary.
This is a bloodbath.
Barnes, stop hiding your credentials.
Barnes, the more you comment the more I am convinced you are profoundly misreading Epictetus and the meaning of "up to us." And do you really think Seneca or Marcus Aurelius adopted a "slave mentality"? But I doubt this conversation will bear additional fruits, so I'm going to leave it at that.
We NEED to be careful here FOLKS: To say you know everything there is to know about ANYTHING is a misnomer.
You might be damn good at something, but IF YOU SAY YOU HAVE MASTERED....anything....
you have blocked( if actually believe) ANYTHING ELSE you might learn . Im an ARTIST 🎨, MY company is OLD HIPPY ART
out of Tooele Utah. My art everyday teaches me: HOW MUCH I don't know!
Unless you are GOD, YOU'VE shot yourself in the foot( so to speak) And others REALIZE, you're a fool!
The last paragraph makes me think, specially: "we shape our intentions, our values, and, ultimately, our character". What about our personality? Can we really change it based on a rational decision? "This shy personality doesn’t suit me, I’m going to become outgoing and the most popular kid in the neighborhood." Do you really think it’s just a matter of willpower?
And what about inclination? “Music has flowed through my veins since I was a child” is often the mantra of manny musicians. You're born with it. No one knows how or why. Thanks to a rational judgment, they would realize that they’ll most likely face financial hardship (if not starve to death), and so reason pushes them to pursue a more profitable trade. It’s every artist’s dilemma: do I obey my destiny or do I conform to society? A true artist would respond with another mantra, one born more from the heart or the gut than from reason: this way or no way!
Nelson, good points. Epictetus actually addresses them in part when he articulates his version of role ethics. He does say, for instance, that we come with personal inclinations and talents, and that the rational thing is to follow them. Modern research shows that personality is partly "heritable" (a complex and controversial concept, but let's set that aside for now); but "partial" means that it is also partially malleable, so yes we can work on our attitudes and intentions, but we work with the material we have, not with a tabula rasa.
Hi, Massimo. Thank you very much for your response. "The rational thing is to follow them"—I really love that line. I think your comment helps me round out this article much better. And the concept of "partial" that you mention later opens the door to a better understanding, since no one starts from scratch. We don't come into this world empty; we arrive contingent, and with a few other things as well. I see the point more clearly now.
Happy to help, and thanks for engaging!
True mastery is an act of subtraction, not addition. In a world that constantly pushes us to be everything at once, choosing to master one single path is the most revolutionary thing we can do. This is the core of the MyDigitalStripes philosophy: helping people strip away the digital noise to find that one authentic line where talent meets focus. We don't need more tools; we need more space to become exceptional at what we love.
The ideas of 'judgment' and 'mastery' discussed in this story are worthy ideas to reflect on, as our Elders encouraged us to do. Individual choice and agency are important pillars of well-being. Even so, they need to be held lightly. Build the muscle so we are ready to change your mind. Building this muscle looks different for each individual human. This is why all humans are beautiful in their own unique way. The other muscle we need to build is resistance. Resistance and willingness to change are muscles that need strengthening. There is always work to be done to build our resistance and willingness strengths. This is where growth occurs. Back to how this looks in humans. Growth happens at very different rates over a lifetime. Age is not a predictor of when growth occurs, although there is lots of research including that of Erik H Erikson on Childhood and Society which explores how this growth might look. As a parent of now teen kids, i've learnt that the stages of development look very different for each kid, and I think these stages of development look more different than they ever did. This is my perspective. Others will have a different perspective. This is why research and data are important, whilst they don't tell us everything. Even so. Erikson's work which I would regard as genius is worthy to reflect on frameworks and context as an Elder observed things in 1963. The epigraph of this book is my life's purpose. My vital force. My intent. It is addressed: 'TO OUR children's children'.
Before Public Health e.g sanitation, antibiotics and vaccination health was much more precarious. So comparing Stoicism then and now in a health context doesn't seem entirely appropriate without many caveats that would probably dilute the overall argument or at least the communication of it. Executive Function is more of a capitalist, class peculiar, business oriented term and not appropriate in this context. How about presenting the gist of the information with mythology, e.g. Icarus and Daedalus and modern day equivalent bad decision making born of hubris and other human frailty. After all, isn't the point of the post the idea that personal agency has consequences. It might also be more honest and empathetic to point out that not everyone has personal agency due to severe illness or other factors.
Matthew, sorry to have given you the impression that I was dishonest, it certainly wasn't my intention. The Stoics were aware of the fact that mental illness can get in the way of one's prohairesis, and there is modern Stoic literature about it as well. But at the end of the day that simply moves the range of what is or is not up to us, the framework remains the same.
The comparison between ethics and medicine still stands, regardless of modern advances. Indeed, it's even better, because ethics has advanced as well (e.g., most people these days would agree that slavery is not acceptable; not so in the time of Epictetus).
The term "executive function" has nothing to do with capitalism, it is standard technical language in neuroscience, and therefore exactly appropriate for this context.
The concept of mastery is a delusion and therefore self-defeating. It implies you have reached some sort of conclusion. Better to be the frame oneself as the perpetual beginner.
Just given this piece of advice by a dental specialist, that he remembered from training: Don't dabble.
But when confronted with injustice and presumed a citizen or slave, then he would have considered bend a knee.