Michel Daw on Indifference

Michel Daw, stoic teacher, wrote a great piece on indifference titled, The Truth about Stoic Indifference. Linking to it is my Stoic Saturday action.

The thing is, I was actually writing my own post on indifference when Mr. Daw posted his thoughts in our G+ Community. He said much of what I wanted to say, and better, so I'm sitting this weekend out in deference.

Stoics use the term indifference differently than most. In Stoicism, there is the moral sphere of virtue and vice and then there are indifferents. These indifferents, in themselves, have no moral value. So indifference is not a posture that we hold towards the world, it's a category that we use to evaluate our environment. Some things are indifferent, some aren't. Anyway, check out Michel Daw's post, he knows what he's talking about.

Stoic Emotions...All Three of Them


You must consider the activity which is possible for you to carry out in conformity with your own nature as a delight - and that is always possible for you.

-Marcus Aurelius

Stoics feel. The stoic path is not one of emotional repression. On the contrary, Stoics expect that a well lived life will result in tranquility and joy. Still, people seem to equate Stoics, if they think of us at all, with Vulcan wannabes. I have nothing against Vulcans (other than their paternalistic approach towards humanity in the pre-Federation years) but extra-terrestrials are not good stoic role-models. Stoics are students of what it means to be human. The stoic motto, live according to nature,  challenges us to learn how we fit into this ever expanding universe. This includes all the strange and messy interactions of life. It is true that we focus most of our attention on the amazing tool that is the human mind, but we understand that emotions are part of that mental landscape. Stoics give emotions their due. We just don't believe we owe them a lot.

Stoics do have a distinct approach to the emotional life. For instance, we don't expect emotions to be good guides for behavior. They're better treated like the weather. During a hard rain you may need to grab an umbrella and drive slower, but you still need to get to work. The same goes for emotional storms. Stoics believe we can still act well despite feeling a "bad emotion." If you're extremely rude to your co-workers and, when asked why, you answered, "it's humid," people would look at you funny. Stoics would say that being a jerk to people because you're angry is equally nonsensical. First, your anger itself is probably due to adopting an unhelpful perspective. Second, in any case, a person has the option to act with virtue in all circumstances.

Stoicism recognizes three "good feelings," called hai eupatheiai in the Greek.  The three good emotions are Joy, Wish, and Caution. The list was developed to contrast with three Passions, the "bad feelings" of Stoic philosophy.  In the battle of the mind, the Stoic lineup is...

  • Joy v. Pleasure

  • Wish v. Appetite (also translated Lust)

  • Caution v. Fear

I wouldn't argue if you said this list looks odd. It takes a lot of background info to understand how the ancients came to these conclusions, and even then you might decide they're nuts. Check out this article on Stoic ethics if you want a taste. For my part, I want to point out that Joy, Pleasure, and the like are overarching categories. All the nuances of human emotion fit under one of those words, so don't worry about envy, greed, rage, malice, etc...,they're all accounted for. Oh and there is a fourth passion, Distress. Distress doesn't have an opposite. Distress is simply distressing.

Let's look at Wish, because that's a weird name for an emotional concept. Why would the Stoics consider Wish good and Appetite bad? I think part of the answer is wrapped up in the Marcus Aurelius quote I opened with, specifically the phrase consider the activity it is possible for you to carry out. Stoics consider pining for things you don't have to be a huge waste of energy. Our definition of the passion Appetite is, "the irrational desire or pursuit of an expected good." Greed is an appetite for material things. Enmity is an appetite for revenge. These things take our energy and burn it on fantasy, or drive us towards unproductive actions. Stoics don't bet their happiness on things they can't control. Instead of Appetite, they Wish. 

Aurelius says, you must consider the activity...as a delight. When Stoics talk about emotion, they are addressing affect; the conscious, subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes. Appetite isn't the brief bodily reaction to seeing a person who is so very much your type. It's that feeling plus the thought that runs with it, says "dammmnnnnn," and then follows everything up with mental imagery. Stoicism councils that that mental component was a choice, an unhealthy one. We also claim that there is a better affect, Wish, that is more lasting and more satisfying.

 Consider the activity...as a delight, and that is always possible for you.

So what is Wish? It's an affect that says, "it would be great if I had x, but my contentment is not based in x." It's a shift in perspective. Appetite claims that the things that surround me will make me happy. Wish says, there are a lot of awesome things out there, but that's not where I find contentment. Wish is a state of mind that rests in Stoic first principles like the only good is virtue and the only things under our control are our own actions. Stoics claim that, with the proper perspective, it is always possible to be content (we don't, however, claim that being a person who sticks to that perspective is easy). Wish, as opposed to Appetite, is an affect that provides fertile ground for wise actions. 

Caution v. Fear and Joy v. Pleasure follow a similar logic. Fear is an irrational aversion or avoidance of an expected danger. Fear tosses away our present contentment simply because something might take it away later! Caution understands that life throws curve balls and that it's our duty to be prepared but, once again, true peace isn't found in external things. If we are going to flourish we must approach the world with awareness, not wariness. The Stoic negative view of Pleasure is also due to pleasure's external focus. Stoic's seek to develop an abiding Joy, in place of fleeting moments of delight. Personally, I do not try to discourage myself from feeling pleasure. I am a fan of pleasure! I do try to remember that whatever pleasures I experience or seek will, by necessity, be transient and that it is completely possible to enjoy my life without such things.



Stoics feel. Our philosophy does not boil down to, "walk it off." Our odd relationship to the standard ups and downs of life exists only because we want the best for people. We recognize that a lot of our pain is self-inflicted, caused by a viewpoint that demands the world be different than it is. The passions focus on breakable, mortal things and hope beyond hope that they last forever. Joy, Wish, and Caution are different. They arise from a mind that knows that circumstances can change and will, but our center can still hold and even flourish. Aurelius said,

To do what is just with all one's soul, and to tell the truth. What remains for you to do but enjoy life, linking each good thing to the next, without leaving the slightest interval between them?

That's where Stoicism leads, from one good thing to the next. How could we not be joyful?

This article is a favorite of many visitors and remains a primary driver of search traffic on this site. Since writing it, I’ve put out more concerning Stoicism and emotion. In particular, a natural follow-up to this article would be episode eleven of my podcast, Good Fortune, for an explanation of the differences between Stoic “passions” and the way many people speak of “emotions.”

-Transcript of Good Fortune, Episode 11: Uprooting Fear

Also, available now, my new book…

The Invincible Stoic

First Published in 2011 on Trustocracy.com.

But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you will not be harmed. 

-Epictetus

Epictetus claims I can become invincible. It's an appealing notion. I can't claim to be a fan of pain. Few people are. The thought of leaving stress, anxiety, and hurt behind me resonates with a comfort seeking self. There's a reason I don't go to the gym enough, and it isn't a love of body fat. I've been told I live in a culture of comfort. Perhaps, but it seems more reasonable to admit that I come from a species of comfort-seekers. Which is also to say, I am simply a living being.

As I said, I'm not a fan of pain. However, I am a student of pain. Pain is the reason I never became a Buddhist. I respect much about that philosophy, but unlike Siddhartha I believe that pain is a feature, not a bug, in this universe. It is pain and struggle that shaped the world. Speciation exists because a billion habitats were not comfortable enough for a million billion stressed out ancestors of everything on this earth. So when Epictetus tells me to become impervious to my environment, I wonder if he's also asking me to cease developing. That's not my style. I remember the former me, a lot of them, and I always enjoy present me more. I figure by the time I'm 120 I'll be pretty damn fantastic. The thought of freezing into a mid-30s mindset is not very appealing.

So when I approach Epictetus, I need him to convince me that his Stoicism engages the world. I have no time for viewpoints that flee from it. Which brings me to his most famous line. Some things are in our control and others not. There, in a nutshell, Epictetus lays out the foundation that he built his stoic practice on. The more complete opening goes like this,

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

If I understand Epictetus, he equates control over things with ownership of those things. I find this reasonable. Possession is nine tenths of the law, and the other tenth involves me begging a more powerful force to get my bauble back. From that premise, Epictetus goes on to claim that I only own myself. Particularly, I only own my mental self. Notice that even my body isn't included in the ownership list. I accept this point as well. At present, my body is pretty much in sync with my mind. It does what I want it to do. If I were to talk to Michael J. Fox, however, we might have quite a conversation about the trustworthiness of the body. So here I am, saying that the only things I can effect with certainty are my own opinions of the world, my desires in the world (and the other side of the coin, my aversions) and my choice whether of not to pursue those desires.

A final Epictetus quote, this one from the Discourses. I will show the nerves of a philosopher. "What nerves are these?" A desire never disappointed, an aversion which never falls on that which it would avoid, a proper pursuit, a diligent purpose, an assent which is not rash. These you shall see. The nerves of a philosopher. To show nerve, you need something to steel them against. So there is a struggle here. It's the struggle to be invincible. Epictetus is wrestling with himself. He grapples with his intellect, trying to force it to pay attention to the right things and dismiss the rest. The struggle is internal but it is about his approach to the external world. His imperviousness, after all, ends with an assent which is not rash.

Stoicism engages with the world, but it refuses to struggle with it. Epictetus asks me to accept that I can't control my environment, but that I can control my reaction to it. Ideally, I will apply 100% effort towards only those things which I can control and in so doing I will act powerfully; free from fear, anger, and other burdens. Instead of struggling, I'm striving. The world can't wrestle me to the ground because I'm untouchable. Yet I'm still challenged to put one foot in front of the other to reach my goals. I will continue to develop under these terms. I can even thrive. I might not ever become invincible. I'm not sure Epictetus ever felt he got there either. Still, we can both agree that it's worth the effort.