Past and Present Fears

I have a longstanding mistrust of ledges. I can't point to any event that kicked off this minor phobia. I never had a cliff face give out underneath me. In fact, this fear rarely even applies directly to myself. It kicks in when other people are near ledges. I remember standing on a wooden bridge in Massachusetts as a young child. My even younger brother was looking through the railing at the bay waters below. It chilled me. He wasn't in any real danger, but I was convinced he would fall. This pattern has continued through life. When people I care about are near ledges, I abandon all faith in physics. I hadn't had these sort of thoughts for quite a while, so I was under the impression that I had overcome this irrational belief. However, this week I've been spending time on a ninth story balcony with my one year old daughter and, guess what, I am not over this phobia!

From Flickr user: simpleInsomnia

Let me give a shout out to my girl, Freyja, for helping daddy practice his Stoicism on a daily basis.

When a person falls and hits their head on a hard floor I usually take the Stoic approach.

"What just happened?"

"Someone hit their head." 

"Nothing more?"

"Nothing more."

Then I help the person up and go grab some ice; I'm helpful, I'm calm. I thought this meant I was a decent Stoic, but maybe it just means I'm a bit calloused when it comes to adult human beings? Because when Freyja smacks her head on the hard floor I am not instantly calm and collected. I have to work at it. I have to actively invoke a Stoic perspective. My daughter provides a constant reminder that unconscious 'stoicism' isn't necessarily Stoicism. So thanks, Freyja! You're the best.

My little girl is also good at reminding me of old, and now resurfaced, fears. Is that my baby pressed up against a glass railing with a nine story drop beneath her? Why yes it is! Do I feel nauseated by this fact? Yes. Yes I do!

Stoics often practice Premeditatio Malorum, where potential misfortunes are rehearsed in advance. When people first hear about this, they often assume we're attempting to deaden ourselves to future emotions. That isn't what we're doing. Frankly, if picturing the worse case scenario over and over was in itself psychologically useful, then I'd be long past fretting over my daughter's view of the local skyline. Premeditatio is not about callouses, it's about practicing a useful view of events.

One of my favorite summaries of Stoic thought is by Keith Seddon who wrote, "We must invest our hopes not in the things that happen, but in our capacities to face them as human beings." It's this practice, finding what we can do in light of what is actually happening, that is worthy of rehearsal. I am not, yet, capable of fully reigning in the panic that comes with my ledge phobia, but I have taken the opportunity to practice a Stoic point of view.

I am not, by the way, rehearsing dire thoughts of a baby falling through the sky. I've checked the railing. It suddenly breaking away is about as likely as our balcony getting struck by a meteor. I am, instead, asking myself what is the worst reaction possible concerning my actual feelings of fear. For instance, I could yell at my child whenever she nears the ledge and perhaps pass on my irrational fear to the next generation. Alternatively, I could sit quietly and stew in my emotions as my family hangs out on the balcony ensuring that we all have less fun on vacation than we could have had. It's these thoughts that return me to my senses. Right now, the primal feelings that freak me out are beyond my grasp, but I am able to build up a comfortable buffer of reasonable thoughts and rescue my time with my loved ones. I acknowledge the skipped heart beats that I have from time to time, then I take a breath and continue enjoying everyone's company.

I've been reminded that vacations do not allow a vacation from right thinking and that new experiences can dredge up old habits of thought. I feel fortunate to get to wrestle with these thoughts in a controlled atmosphere! I'm off to play with my daughter on a balcony. Probably a few feet back from the edge, but hey, we'll be enjoying ourselves.

A Strong Example for Stoics: My Son Wears a Dress

Seth Menachem wrote a wonderful parenting article called, "So my son wears a dress; What's it to you?" He isn't a stoic, to my knowledge, but he certainly presents a strong example for anyone attempting to stand up for rationality in the face of irrational social norms.

Away with the world's opinion of you—it's always unsettled and divided.

Seneca

Seth's two year old son happens to prefer dresses at the moment. Like so many two year olds, the child can express that preference in a way that wears on his parents nerves. During one episode, set off by Seth's attempt to steer his son towards "boy clothes" he had a wise realization.

"[Asher] had a huge tantrum as I tried to force his legs into a pair of shorts. His nose was running into his mouth as he cried and protested and I suddenly realized I was fighting for something I didn't even believe in. I was making my kid feel badly for something he shouldn't be ashamed of. And I stopped."

Dad had been worried about what other people would think. Suddenly, he realized that what those people think is their problem. Dad's problem, his duty, was to be a father to his son, raise him well, and enjoy life in the process. So Seth did the rational thing, he let his son wear the dress. Little Asher continues to wear dresses in public, and continues to raise eyebrows. Seth doesn't shoulder the burden of those judgments. He runs into obstacles, but he faces them all very well, one might say he faces them stoically.

I have a daughter, so it's unlikely that I'll face the same sort of social friction. Freyja could wear jeans and a t-shirt every day of the week and no one would bat an eye. Not that I don't run into my community's gendering issues all the time. Take any ten month old with short hair out into the world in any color other than pink or purple and you won't have to wait long for the masculine pronouns to roll in. But that's just knee-jerk reactions, no one continues on to question my parenting simply because my daughter is wearing forest green.

Read the article. You'll find great examples of stoic judgments and actions in a modern context. Seth's older daughter even acts like a philosopher of old and gets her dad to face some real potential embarrassment! Good stuff.

You Shouldn't Eat That: On Stoic Authority

I've recently found more than a few Stoics arguing against new ideas by saying, "that's not what Epictetus/Aurelius/Seneca said...so there." I assume these Stoics are all vegetarians.

[Musonius Rufus] often talked in a very forceful manner about food, on the grounds that food was not an insignificant topic and that what one eats has significant consequences. In particular, he thought that mastering one’s appetites for food and drink was the beginning of and basis for self-control.

Musinous Rufus: Lectures and Sayings

The great Stoic teacher Musonius Rufus, claims that we should be lacto-vegetarians. In fact, he wants us all to be raw food vegetarians! Musonius had a variety of reasons to back up his claims. Our food choices are directly relate to our self-control. Our nature demands nutrition, but does not require pleasure. Also, meat makes people dim-witted. So, since Musonius was not only a headmaster of the ancient Stoic school but none other than the teacher of Epictetus, obviously all modern Stoics must become raw food lacto-vegetarians.

Nope. We don't have to adopt that practice. Modern Stoics can, and should, look into the reasoning Musonius Rufus lays out concerning food choices, but we can come to our own conclusions concerning what is appropriate to eat. And why can we do this? Is it because the subject of food is outside the scope of meaningful Stoic practice? No. Not in the least. Musonius is not just laying out ancient Roman nutritional advice. He is adamant that how we eat is a matter of virtue. It is not incidental. How we eat is just as important to wrestle with as whether or not we accept the Stoic concept of divinity, or the Stoic conception of the mind. The reason modern Stoics can disregard Musonius' point of view (or accept it) is because we are equal in authority to him, if we are equal to the task of thinking as a Stoic.

I do not bind myself to some particular one of the Stoic masters. I too have a right to form an opinion.

Seneca

Stoicism has not come to us from anything greater than the human mind. The ancient writings we have available consist of some class notes, letters to friends, a journal, and explanations that were written down by rival schools in order to refute them. None of our fore-thinkers were holy men and what they wrote wasn't gospel. Some had original minds and others were simply repeating what they were taught, but all of them were regular people who happened to subscribe to a similar point of view. At times, "similar" might be considered a stretch.

Epictetus does not seem to be as adamant as his teacher was, concerning the subject of food. There's no record of him denying people the enjoyment of a perfectly cooked steak. Not to say he didn't believe in a proper diet. Chapter 46 of the Enchiridion mentions that we should not, "...talk about how persons ought to eat, but eat as you ought." So there is a right way to eat. For Epictetus, the Stoic diet was one of self-control and social grace.

...at a feast, to choose the largest share is very suitable to the bodily appetite, but utterly inconsistent with the social spirit of an entertainment.

Enchiridion Ch 36

Epictetus taught his students to be disciplined concerning food. The scene he usually set was a banquet where all the delicacies of Roman society would be available to choose from. Epictetus didn't ask that we avoid meat, he wanted us to avoid gluttony. He wanted us to take into account the social nature of a party, and understand that the food is there to share, not to gorge upon. This approach to food was similar to the approach to life that Epictetus advocated; act with discipline and take the good of others into account. Once you look past the specifics of Musonius's dietary advice, you find a similar message at the core of his teachings, "...since these and other mistakes are connected with food, the person who wishes to be self-controlled must free himself of all of them and be subject to none. One way to become accustomed to this is to practice choosing food not for pleasure but for nourishment, not to please his palate but to strengthen his body." He saw food as a daily means of testing our willpower. Will we eat wisely, or will we eat Twinkies?

My point is not to dwell on food, though I find the subject interesting. My point is that Stoics can, and do, hold different opinions. Even two Stoics as well respected as Musonius Rufus and Epictetus held divergent opinions and emphasized different aspects of the philosophy. These men were contemporaries and the entire philosophical school was handed from one to the other, yet their teachings still varied. We should expect that modern Stoics will approach the philosophy in a way that the ancients did not anticipate. In fact, with the quantity and quality of information we moderns have, we should be improving Stoicism instead of resting on the snippets of past thoughts that happened to make it to the present day. Of course, Stoicism can't incorporate just any belief whatsoever. If someone claimed that emotions are the best and sole guide to good living they couldn't claim that Stoicism backs them up. There are core ideas in our philosophy that truly matter. You can see that as Musonius and Epictetus approach food. One man is really specific about the Stoic diet, the other seems to have a wider view, but both are concerned with moral virtue and mental and physical well-being. 

Quoting ancient philosophers is a great way to point out a long-standing argument, or emphasis a Stoic point of view, but the words of these men don't end our discussions. It frankly isn't Stoic to appeal to authority. The ancients are dead. We are here and alive. Stoicism, if it has any value, is a living philosophy. We are its philosophers. We have the right to an opinion. Stoicism has held up pretty well since 300 B.C.E. and we aren't going to break it with our poking and prodding. But we do know more about humanity and the universe than the ancient Greeks and Romans. We have the responsibility to incorporate that knowledge into the philosophy. For those of us who take up Stoicism as our way of life, the canon isn't closed. Do not accept what the ancients said without argument. Instead, improve their arguments. Build a more effective Stoicism. We're proof that Stoicism isn't done yet, so don't let others act like its last useful thought was written down in a scroll.