If you want to support my work, please consider a paid subscription on my substack: johnathanbi.com Some links to further guide your study: * Join my email list to be notified of future episodes: greatbooks.io * Full transcript: open.substack.com/pub/johnathanbi/p/transcript-for-interview-with-katharina Professor Volk's Book (affiliate): * The Roman Republic of Letters: amzn.to/4fsFD9K * My book notes: open.substack.com/pub/johnathanbi/p/roman-republic-of-letters-by-katharina Companion lectures and interviews: * Lecture on Shakespeare's Caesar: Coming soon. * Katharina Volk on politically-engaged Epicureans: Coming soon. * Katharina Volk on the intellectual life of Caesar & Cicero: Coming soon. TIMESTAMPS 00:00 0. Introduction 02:35 1. What is Stoicism 09:10 2. Cato's Stoicism 33:41 3. Stoicism and Defeat 39:01 4. Stoicism and Slave Morality
stoicism demands more than the intellectual effort. it demands guts, confronting you shadow aspect, and engage in the physicality of life. its not for the fainted hearts.
I went through a Stoic phase a few years ago after a major failure and career shift. There are different ways of engaging with stoicism. It can be used to overcome situations through indifference toward fear and other things which only serve to hold you back, or it can be used to convince yourself you are content with where you are. It really depends on your own psychology more so than the concepts of stoicism itself. I found that stoicism helped me pursue a new career and accept that my old one had fallen apart, and it helped me ignore the fears that I had and pursue my highest ambitions. I also found though after a few years that sometimes I would just use it to rationalize my lack of achievement to become happy with where I was, which lead me into a perpetual cycle of being content with stagnation. At this point I had started reading Nietzsche and it really changed my view of stoicism. What you have to be wary of with stoicism is that it has the seeds of both ambition and stagnation in it and whatever direction your unconscious is heading, that's what you'll use to rationalize passive acceptance vs active overcoming. Nietzsche's philosophy is more helpful for me now because it doesn't have the apathetic cop out mechanism that stoicism does. He doesn't treat negative emotions as something to be avoided, therefore less gets repressed. You can say that "true stoicism" isn't about avoiding negative emotions, but the end goal of stoicism being tranquility of mind tells you all you need to know about the psychological complexes you can hold onto by following it. There's a huge conflict of incentives when you choose a hedonistic state of peace as your ultimate value. Your ego will avoid a reality that is not tranquil, suppressing those feelings, just to hold on to that feeling of control and being "indifferent." In my experience it really suppresses the emotional richness of life. It's a type of medicine that numbs your emotional response to things in order to maintain calm waters.
Quick question: What does stoicism say is out of your control exactly? Externally, you can't control the weather, but you can control how you treat others, and that (to a degree) changes how others treat you.
@@D.KRyley-mq1do Everything but your opinions, thoughts, beliefs and actions. These aren’t even true given modern understandings of genetics and the unconscious. I care more about the experience of living by a philosophy rather than its concepts. Living as a stoic I was quite happy but too happy if that makes sense. Being content and calm in any situation was not a virtue but a vice for me.
Is it just me or stoicism makes doing effort very boring, and this idea of having no enemies just make it worse. I mean I appreciate the tranquilly that it has brought to my life but going about my academic life without wanting to compete and "crush the others" just make me interested about it
@@jamm_affinity I agree that being calm in any situayion is definetely not a virtue. Because there is a place and time for being calm. Developing the ability to maintain or quickly recover calmness in a stressful situation is what everybody should aim for. I think that besides the danger of complacency that comes with Stoicism it is also important to look out for the "demonisation "of emotions that seems so popular among those who follow Stoicism
Just because it is a coping mechanism, does not mean it is without value. Look at the alternative, anger, emotiveness despair. These are not qualities that will pull you out of your mess!
Stoicism is a Philosophy which encourages us to ground our perception in reality by focusing on what we can truly control and not being perturbed by that which we can’t. It teaches us to consciously respond, instead of impulsively reacting to, the externalities of the world. It paves way for greater harmony with oneself and the world outside. It is founded on the virtues of Temperance, Courage and Justice, and moulds us into a more disciplined, responsible and wiser being. It guides us to overcome adversity with courage, fortitude and acceptance of the truth. Only those wise enough to see its virtues and strong enough to practice its precepts truly understand its power. Whereas those who lack the necessary fortitude and a nuanced philosophical insight dismiss it as a “coping mechanism”.
A coping mechanism isn't necessarily a dismissal. It's one of many ways of approach that doesn't encapsulate the entirety of the human condition. For example, when creating music or having a Mauy Thai fight, morality is not the main focus. To take a only stoic approach to certain things just doesn't make sense. I think it becomes coping when no other systems are at play. I once had a PTSD episode after years of only functioning as a stoic. In those years, I was very successful, but I had a growth of repression that stoicism alone could not handle. I'm not entirely sure what the answers are, but I can see there's something valuable in what they're attempting to say here.
The entire philosophy is built around the idea that you can only truly control yourself and not the external world, therefore, you should be partially indifferent to parts of the external world since they are not in your full control. Right from the start, it poses a loaded assertion that exposes the psychological biases of stoics which then get branded as "rationality." There is a major gray area as to what is actually in your control or not. Stoics often forfeit trying to control the state of the world because it is an "external." This is the blind spot of stoicism. Imagine if any of the most influential figures you know of took this stance, and instead of trying to influence society, they tried to just control themselves instead of other people's opinions. There would be no great figures that changed the world. They would have been too busy adjusting themselves to live "in harmony" with their time. It may be irrational to try to control the weather, but we can have an enormous impact on other people and the world. Denying that is simply denying ambition, and replacing it with some mechanistic, systemitized vision of the world that can stunt true flourishing. This is not to say that stoicism is universally bad. It is not, but it has major flaws and different perspectives people should be aware of. It's worth being skeptical of a philosophy created by slaves.
@@dallascarlos6531 Very true. Stoicism can produce complexes and blind spots just like any other ideology can. Clinging too hard to it can in the end hinder your growth by making you content with mediocrity. If you become a good stoic, it's very easy to be happy. If you can be happy in any environment, that is not really a virtue if you ask me.
@@dallascarlos6531 I would argue that calling it “a coping mechanism”, which has somewhat negative connotations, is a narrowly reductive dismissal by someone whom I believe has unfortunately missed the essence of this timeless and powerful school of philosophy. To the examples you mentioned, of Muai Thai and Music, I would say, “Let’s assume that somebody playing Piano in a Music Concert is deeply worried by the stellar performances of his competitors preceding his own and that worry is further compounded by glimpsing at the enormous crowd waiting to judge the performance of the pianist. Before stepping out he remembers what his mentor had said the other day, that this piano and your mindset is the only thing you can truly control when on stage, so don’t worry too much about how well others are performing or how the audience will perceive you. As his anxieties eased upon remembering this, he walked on to the stage, took his position and when he started playing, it was him and his piano and everything else seemed to have disappeared in that moment which enabled him to bring out the best of himself”. How Stoicism holds relevance for Sports, including Muay Thai fights, is more obvious so I gave an example only for Music. In concluding, I would emphasise that no philosophical framework need be embraced in entirety without scrutiny and question. It’s not wise to have an all or nothing approach when it comes to practicing the precepts of that school of thought which resonates with us. I empathise with your experience of PTSD and I don’t intend to downplay it or retort against that. My response is simply aimed towards the philosophical points you raised and I tried to briefly explain my stance on this topic.
David and Johnathan both believe that the ideas of stoicism quell their will to power - dull their drive. I've heard this argument many times in regards to mindfulness as well - "I don't meditate because i'm afraid that it'll dull my drive". I do believe that this may be the case for some folks (particularly those with strong will to power)... My experience is the exact opposite - knowing that I have to tools necessary to "cope" with any difficulty life throws at me makes me more willing to jump into fires without hesitation. I do think we should be careful not to let Stoicism (or any idea for that matter) pacific us - but as she mentioned that's true of any tool that's useful in difficult times. Just as it's no surprise that your journal is empty when times are good, it's also unsurprising that more of us reach for stoicism when times are difficult. Truly enjoyed this video.
Yes! Thank you for pointing this out. This was my exact experience of the philosophy and why I felt like I had to shed its ideological constraints and go into the volcano of my ambition that was in perpetual conflict with my sense of stoic tranquility. I think that it is possible to reframe the reasons something is being done in order to see it as cultivating drive rather than simply quelling emotional vibrance, but only if you can observe that it has that impact with your own data points. It really does point to the idea that we can become enthralled with concepts, becoming slaves to them, when they aren't necessarily cultivating our vitality. Sometimes sickness and health are indistinguishable and I think it depends highly on the individual more so than ideologies and concepts. Each man should use a strategy that aligns with his own flourishing, whatever constitutes that. There is no objectively correct strategy. In arguing over which truth is better than the other, people get lost in the weeds and forget to follow what is true in their own experience, rather than someone else's! One man's coping mechanism is another man's superpower.
One common misconception on stoicism is that the stoic must be indifferent to all events. Indifferent and numb are two different things. Indifference is a strive for the stoic due to being able to respond correctly to what Marcus Aurelius would refer to as the “stimulus”, but it was understood that looking towards indifference guided “the arrow” towards moving forward and not being stuck or looming over an event. This being said, it’s understood paradoxically that the stoic cannot always be entirely indifferent as we are beings of emotions. It’s part of our nature. Seneca, when referring to death and mourning of a child, does not literally expect the person to be indifferent to the death of a loved one, but to remember the stoic principle on living in accordance to nature. Which refers to understanding that everything goes through its cycles. Understanding this is meant to guide yourself through the mourning process and not over identify with the death itself, therefore only tormenting your self and displacing you from living virtuous.
Another misconception is that the stoic does not chase wealth or material goods. These things could be pursued and was acknowledged that they could enhance our experience, but not our life. If the stoic did pursue goods and wealth it was to look at these things as “attachments”. Meaning, they could be taken at any minute so do not become a slave to the idea that your happiness is attached to that attachment.
Grateful for this Jonathan. I facilitate a weekly ‘stoa’ reading and discussion group. I initially used Pigliucci’s “Handbook for New Stoics” as our lesson plan, taking a year to familiarize ourselves with “New Stoicism” craze. I wanted to avoid the “life hack” aspect of this model, and found “Traditional Stoicism” to be more spiritually helpful for those of us burned by religious upbringing, or just getting through life. (See Chris Fisher and the College of Traditional Stoicism.) Yes, I absolutely see stoicism as a coping strategy on one level, but in light of Traditional Stoicism beyond ethics, there are the other two “legs of the stool”: physics and logic, which add depth and breadth to this philosophy beyond tattooing “memento mori” on your arm. Life is more than just bearing and coping. We can find meaning in our purposes in our roles, our work, our obligations - all within the framework of our partnership within Nature. Traditional Stoicism helped me understand this, but I admit it’s sometimes more fun to invite an Epicurean to the party :)
But most importantly, the content of this discussion was enjoyable! I especially appreciated how stoic philosophy manifested in different ways depending on the temperament of the adherents. Marcus was more introspective and balanced to assist in ruling the republic vs Cato’s cantankerous stubbornness. Everything Jonathan does is top notch in my opinion.
The argument is that we never truly have control over external factors. When you examine life, you'll find too many variables influencing the outcome, making it impossible to achieve perfection. This isn't about adopting a Nietzschean slave morality, where you simply cope with an inability to create results. Instead, it's about recognizing the inherent limits of our input regarding our desired outcomes. We are responsible for making the best possible moves, but we don't control the cards we're dealt. Stoicism teaches us that we must play the hand we're given. That's all.
A useful coping mechanism, i use it as a "environmental adjustment mechanism " remember folks anxiety is only our sudden memory of entropic arrow of time
Hey man, I just wanted to say I found your channel just 2 days ago and I am so glad I did. RU-vid has become so riddles with regurgitated content that really doesn't do anything for you, and your videos are a breathe of fresh air. I am planning to watch all your videos as well as the books you talk about because its so interesting! Keep doing what you're doing man!
I fell into the stoicism propaganda for 2 years, I also started my philosophy journey through stoicism, which is why I am so obssesed with Nietzche and Plato who tried to reform the moral perspective in their respective ages. The contradiction between stoicism and human nature is that we cant act as stoics in every situation, it can actually be damaging to some relationships in life, not everybody understands this way of life which is very extreme, almost ascetic like, my favorite way of living would be a mixture of Schopenhauer and Nietzches, manifesting that passion in your life and your projects afirmation and amor fati, and also Schopenhauers contemplation of art and compassion, but not christian compassion, rational compassion.
Yes. I think the same way about stoicism. Its a big coping mechanism. It came from people in Power. Seneca, Marcus Aurelius... the slave, epicteto could only teach the philosophy in power. Christianity is based on stoicism. An empire religion. Suffer in silence. Hang on... and keep working. Never look beyond, dont bother about it... its not for you to know. Great mindset for the slaves. They did a nice job. Dont They? This way the empires have been evolving. Im very found of taoism. Things are the way they are. Power always adapts but never end to exercise its characteristics. Would you be able to talk about taoism? Thank you!
Let see it in a different perspective, life is not entirely suffering but one must be stoic in nature so when they are in battle or war, they must push through it but in a virtuous way. In another case, we can say everything is a coping mechanism, but stoicism is the most effective philosophy.
There’s tons of valid arguments against stoicism that’s rational. But saying it’s cope or impractical because YOU can’t bear the death of a child is not an argument. It’s a show of child like cowardice which has no merit against the stoics and only proves their point that your a slave to your external impressions without mental fortitude(apathy)
The best use case for Stoicism is for the slaves, a good slave accepts his condition, and does his best endure against the external harships and injustices of slavery. The modern day equivalent is to be a stoic employee, a beast of burden, a man who provides without complaint, everyone loves a company man.
Even powerful men (think Alexander the Great) have to be stoic in the face of nature (think death). Nature, circumstances, and fate are eventually too brutal for us mere mortals.
Stoicism isn't good or bad, it is only a quality, and it has little to do with acceptance of one's own condition. It primarily means being indifferent or unemotional on said any condition, either good or bad so that you are able to more clearly realize what is in your control & not emotionally be effected by what is outside of your control. Being enslaved to anything is ultimately always a choice. "Many men are slaves because one is an oppressor; let us hate the oppressor." or/also "One man is an oppressor because many are slaves; let us despise the slaves." The truth is that oppressor and slave are cooperators in ignorance and while seeming to afflict each other, are in reality afflicting themselves. - As A Man Thinketh
Stoicism doesn't support the idea of the slave; it embraces the idea of contribution, much like bees in a hive. Are bees slaves? No, they are productive members of their society, and we benefit from their sacrifice and hard work. Stoicism teaches us to honor each other's sacrifices. Take, for example, the garbage collector. Is he a slave who needs to cope? No, we benefit from his sacrifice because he handles labor we don't have to, allowing us to focus on what we do best to serve others.
So, if it is practical and works, does not means it is always philosophically wrong. It might be confirming what is philosophically sound. Thanks for the discussion.
Dumb argument. All of philosophy is a “coping mechanism.” Camus’s writings was a means to cope with the seeming pointlessness of life. Nietzsche writings which viciously and solipsistically attacked the “herd” was his sad way with coping with his inability to fulfill his role as a social actor and potential leader, despite, ironically, narcissistically dedicating his life to becoming a man above men (men who would never see much less revere him as such). Any good philosophy will have an element of “coping”. A practical philosophy should support one’s journey both in prosperity and adversity. This is what stoicism does incredibly well. In adversity, we learn that we can leverage the challenges we face in the vicissitudes of life to catalyze our growth and development (“the impediment to action advances action” in the words of MA). In terms of success in the traditional sense, material wealth and positions are preferred indifferents that we can happily receive if it suits our nature and standard for dignity as Epictetus comments and is the result of a virtuous life (in essence, wealth is nice but far from necessary). However, true success as rightly defined by the stoics, is achieved by living a life of virtue facilitated by becoming master of the only thing we truly control - ourselves. Furthermore, as it relates to traditional definitions of success, Stoicism also ensures that we can enjoy our earned successes with grace, ensuring that we are able to “receive [the good things that life has to offer] without pride and let go without attachment.” This is a skill that is necessary to learn if you hope to “climb the ladder” and remain successful for extended periods of time without losing your head like the Stoics we read about and unlike a certain megalomaniac whose name escapes me... Ultimately, Stoicism in my view is the perfect philosophy - versatile, moral, and actionable. I do not like this video because it provides such a myopic view of stoicism that is clearly resultant of a lack of true understanding. A tell tale sign of someone who doesn’t understand stoicism is when they label it a passive philosophy. It is far from it. It’s the philosophy of emperors for a reason. It empowers. The philosophy is multifaceted, dynamic, and is conducive to both one’s growth and their repair in the midst of life’s challenges (which is essential if you want to grow in the first place, as any successful endeavour consists of a valley of despair, which you must navigate with sterling resilience (“cope”)). Why people are often turned off by stoicism is because it serves as an affront to the traditional way we view success - a relative, oft self-important endeavour focused on becoming“better” than others rather than our past selves. Stocism refutes this premise wholeheartedly as it is a fool’s errand. Final thought: I also find the initial soundbite absolutely hilarious: “stoicism is for people who cannot control the external world” - you mean every single human being? Lmaoo. We can only control ourselves. That’s it. We can do our best to INFLUENCE external outcomes - a practice in which we can reliably succeed by virtue of earnestness and planning as you two touch upon in the example of the archer (a concept regarding success which all stoics espouse in their texts) - but still, we can never truly control them. Fate gets in the way. Therefore, the stoics rightly assert, if we are interested in achieving complete governance, we are better off focusing on perfecting what we do truly control: our thoughts, perceptions, and actions. (A practice that reliably engenders success anyway - as exemplified by the successful lives the stoics led). That's stoicism in a nutshell and is why it is -in my view - the best philosophy I have come across.
Absolutely well said, stoicism seeks not to escape or Eliminate reality, but accept and navigate it instead. If thats what coping is, then im coping with reality. Not trying to escape it like religion with authoritarian fears, or ignore reality like some philisosphy that teach suppression
It's sad that when you are in misery and going through a rough patch in life you will embrace stoicism to sort out yourself but when your situation gets better you will start calling it coping mechanism.
Would be nice ( and professional) to r e a d who Katharina Volk actually is and why she is regarded as competent in this field. I mean, next time we will see an interview with John Johnson on the history of the Ming dynasty, Johnson being the owner of hundreds of flower vases from Walmart.
I dont know why people talk about philosophical schools like monoliths. You could easily take what's useful and discard what isn't. Most people aren't strictly applying only ideas from one school to their lives. Put your spin on things and adapt it to your own life. Who actually just thinks for themselves and tries to develop their own philosophy rather than just carbon copying what others have done?
the premise to start about the definition isn't about achieving happiness or coping. sham. its about the incredible tough lives of great leaders and how they dealt with massive tragedy, death, pain, suffering. there is no coping, it's accepting fate and going all out.
Stoicism cannot be the ideology of the slave since Marucs Aurelius himself lived it. If it is only the philosophy embodied by the "loser" as you said, then we would have to classify Marcus Aurelius as a loser. Loser being defined as "someone who cannot control his outside reality" - which is every man who ever existed to some extent.
“When I was a freshman at Columbia” - what an ass, why name drop the school you went to in this context? This video series should be called “tech bro without self awareness argues why he is awesome”
Well I don’t think this video really helps me to improve my English. However, this man showed up on my screen again and again then I decided to watch it once and I ended up getting attracted to this man🍀😅
Cope to endure and prolong the duration of servitude to our absurd and decaying crony capitalist world. A pragmatic response that pacifies. The shit sandwich. Be happy with what you have. Consolation in an age without agency.
@@benbusinovski2937 Once you see it you can’t be unseen. These mfs would be the ones eating bugs in a future dystopia because they have protein. It’s “rational!”
I am confused with which kind of effective communicators have an impact and grow faster in career is it people who are very polite or aggressive style or charismatic speakers ? How does that work at workplace for engineers in construction industry where it's a norm to speak with clients, boss..
"Polite" is sometimes often a veneer for being a push-over and timid, not wishing to disturb a social order or advocate for yourself. And "aggressive" is sometimes masking an entitled arrogance that is almost without fail unjustified in being absent with distinguishing ability among peers. There is a fine line where the divides between the two contrasting sides of these paired attributes lie. One can however be politely aggressive in advocating for your interests while maintaining a broader perspective of social harmony and coming with a win-win mindset. Sometime the work ethos and your environment are too narrowed in allowing this, and if that is the case, it might be time to think about journeying elsewhere. But having self-awareness of what you bring with your talents and abilities is key. At the end of the day, no one wants to be around an arrogant, selfish person who breeds mistrust instead of cooperatively, fear instead of confidence, and displeasure instead of joy-any of which singularly let alone together would negatively outweigh whatever abilities he or she supposedly has. And this applies not only to a fellow colleague or employee but also with a boss. Not all bosses sadly are leaders. Some bosses ascended to a higher position, which reveals them limited to the abilities that ironically helped them first secure the position. Often a fellow colleague proves more of genuine leader, operating from a down-up position. In essence, the traits that distinguish a leader who is readily recognized, regardless of the formality as such, is emotional intelligence-an ability not readily measurable or predictable and which has no correlation with technical abilities. A leader doesn't bark orders, but inspires and gives structured order with enough license for independence and with an ethos of accountability that also makes allowances for mistakes or "failures" that often prove learning opportunities. That said, there is a huge difference with mere mistakes or miscalculation and catastrophes. And sometimes there are those whose personalities need a more direct and less nuanced style of communication that conveys clearly where not only boundaries of tolerable behavior lie-but the consequences for ignoring them. In my experience, often the greatest positive contributions to a work environment is not additive or even substitutive elements-but eliminative decisions. And this applies to personnel as well, whether at the top or bottom.
I think there are different types of leaders. The more successful may be open to feedback and criticism by those close to them. This may also lead you to more sustainable leadership. Those who lead with aggression likely live in an echo chamber because those who criticize them will be canned. They may rule with “success” (evidenced by certain projects getting completed), but they may have troubles in other areas, or are undermined, or burn bridges with relationships. My 2 cents.
Women cannot understand stoicism very well. Their lenses are clouded by an insurmountable amount of emotion with the added inclination to express it outwardly.
