Stoic Progress: The Blame Game

"It is not circumstances themselves that trouble people, but their judgments about those circumstances. For example, death is nothing terrible, for if it were, it would have appeared so to Socrates; but having the opinion that death is terrible, this is what is terrible. Therefore, whenever we are hindered or troubled or distressed, let us not blame others, but ourselves, that is, our own judgments. The uneducated person blames others for their failures; those who have just begun to be instructed blame themselves; those whose learning is complete blame neither others nor themselves."

-Ch. 5 of Epictetus' Handbook

Measuring progress in a lived philosophy isn't necessarily simple. Stoicism is meant to establish a "good flow of life" in its adherents. For instance, a person who is living well will be calm in the face of adversity, if not joyful. They will also use their skills to benefit their community, and seek to expand the very idea of community as wide as possible. The impact of lived Stoicism should be apparent to all but, because of its holistic nature, can sometimes be difficult to point out, even to ourselves. We are often more comfortable with a simple checklist.

Unfortunately, when something can be itemized, it's often not very useful as a measure of progress. It is far too easy to turn to false indicators (number of books read, quotes memorized, or arguments won) as a gauge of success. Even a positive indicator can be misleading. I may maintain a calm demeanor all day, not because I stoically accept the world warts and all, but because I wasn't faced with any potential obstacles to my tranquility. Thankfully, every once in a while an ancient Stoic points to an indicator that is hard to fake.

The uneducated person blames others for their failures; those who have just begun to be instructed blame themselves; those whose learning is complete blame neither others nor themselves. 
Epictetus says that Stoics blame themselves for moral failures. That's pretty cut and dried. As long as I am honest with myself, I can review my weak moments and see who or what I blamed. Did I claim that, "the traffic made me angry"? Was my co-worker, "so frustrating"? If so, I wasn't approaching those events as a Stoic. If I instead told myself, "I shouldn't have become angry today in traffic," or,"why did I decide to frustrate myself just because Jake can't do his job," then I messed up in the moment, but I recovered. Taking the blame is, in itself, a sign of progress. If I go a step further and avoid any anger and frustration in the first place, all the better! By the way, Stoics don't blame themselves for the events that are happening to them. Traffic isn't my fault. We do, however, accept control over our reaction to life. Our reactions, based in our judgement of the situation, are firmly in the moral sphere.

So if you're trying to live the Stoic life, where are you placing blame? Epictetus says it's all on you. If you're like me, you might prefer to skip the blame game and move on to living blamelessly, but let's face it, that's not going to happen. It is not circumstances themselves that trouble people, but their judgments about those circumstances.  That is a fundamental truth of our philosophy. It takes daily work to internalize it. If we don't, we won't have a good flow of life, and there will be no one to blame but ourselves. 

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.

Loss Aversion: Stoics Don't Lose

Loss aversion affects us all. Humans are wired to feel pain when we lose and that pain is sharper than an equivalent win. A hundred dollar payment to the IRS hurts more than a hundred dollar tax return feels good. Studies show this fact with such consistency that we can even say how much more loss hurts; about 2.5 times greater than a gain. This may be irrational, but the brain didn't evolve by solving logic puzzles, it evolved through survival.

The wise will start each day with the thought...Fortune gives us nothing that we can really own.
- Seneca

Stoics avoid the pain of loss by not gaining anything that can be taken away. I'm not referring to a vow of poverty. The Roman Senator Seneca was not hurting for possessions. No, if we take any vow of poverty, it's a poverty of control. Stoics understand that the only thing we truly control is our own mind, and a small sliver of it at that. Everything else that comes our way is ours for stewardship, not ownership.

Zeus giveth, Zeus taketh away.
- The Immoderate Stoic (being ridiculous)

Obviously, it takes some work to adopt a non-ownership view of the universe. That's why Seneca advised daily practice. Fortune gives us nothing that we can really own is a powerful thought to dwell on in the morning. His meditation continues with, "Nothing, whether public or private, is stable; the destinies of men, no less than those of cities, are in a whirl." Stoics are big on the mutability of the universe. Change is to be expected.

How ridiculous, how strange, to be surprised at anything that happens in life!
-Marcus Aurelius (being serious)

Seneca goes on to talk about how a city can be devastated by an earthquake in moments. He reminds his readers that even empires can fall apart and then he closes with three thoughts. We live in the midst of things that are destined to die. Mortal you have been born, to mortals have you given birth. Reckon on everything, expect everything.  For the Stoic, a consistent acceptance of universal change frees us to concentrate on what is in our control, which is our response to the world that is. 

So what's the benefit of adopting a Stoic view of ownership and change? In my opinion, both peace and courage. If you demand that the things you have this moment remain with you forever, you will live defensively, seeking to hold everything you value much too tight. I've yet to watch an episode of Hoarders and think, "that person knows what he wants and is living the life!" I believe that all of us learn to act like the unfortunate souls in that show, we just tend to manage it better. However, if we internalize the fact that fortune gives us nothing that is truly ours, we can learn to cherish relationships, objects, and events, during the moments we have them. As G.K. Chesterton said, the way to love anything is to realize that it may be lost. Beyond this, when we give up attachment to impermanent things, we free ourselves to act with courage according to our beliefs. We can make bold bets on the way things should be because we're willing to lose how they have been.

I know internalizing this viewpoint isn't simple. At least, I don't find it to be. It's too easy to claim an acceptance of impermanence when what I'm really doing is holding the world at arm's length. I work to be Stoic, not stoic. When I persevere, I find contentment and, often, a bit of a runner's high for life. I hope to press on, because there are things I need to do. Fortune may be fickle, but I'm told it favors the bold.