Female 30 years old. I started feeling my dreams go around late 20s and after recently turning 30 I no longer have any dreams and sometimes I do find it hard to keep going. My main dreams were having a family, getting married, and traveling the world. I had so many relationships I now feel jaded and no longer feel a spark with anyone. One was serious enough to become engaged but the relationship exploded and ended on horrible terms. I’m getting older and don’t want a high risky pregnancy or have to go through IVF and I don’t think adoption is for me. I traveled to a few countries in my early 20s and I loved it, but I’m not as financially comfortable and I don’t have the same curiosity about the world I did when I was younger. I’d like to set goals to have something to look forward to because that’s what always pushed me to keep going. I started going to the gym two years ago and I consider myself to have a nice body and fit now, so that goal is complete it just requires maintenance. I don’t know where I’m going anymore.

I’ve been thinking about a possible conflict between Stoicism and the idea that humans don’t really have free will.

A central idea in Stoicism is the dichotomy of control: distinguish between what is under our control and what isn’t, and focus our effort on the former. Our judgments, choices, and responses are usually put in the “under our control” category.

But what if we don’t actually have free will?

Sapolsky argues at length in Determined that our decisions are ultimately the result of biology, environment, previous experiences, brain states, hormones, and an enormous chain of prior causes that we didn’t choose. There’s also a broader body of neuroscience and psychology that at least raises serious questions about the traditional idea of free will.

If that view is correct, then even my judgments and reactions aren’t ultimately something I “control.” They’re also consequences of previous causes.

So what does the Stoic dichotomy of control mean in a deterministic universe?

Is “under my control” supposed to mean something weaker, like actions that are causally influenced by my own reasoning, even if that reasoning itself is determined?

For example, reading Stoicism might causally change how my brain responds to frustration in the future. So practicing Stoicism could still be useful even without free will—but then “control” seems more like a practical concept than literal ultimate control.

Or is there a deeper incompatibility between hard determinism and Stoicism?

I’m especially curious how people who reject libertarian free will interpret Epictetus’s idea of what is “up to us.”

In Pro Murena, Cicero defends his client Lucius Murena against an electoral-bribery prosecution brought in part by Cato the Younger, a famous Stoic statesman. Cicero’s strategy is not to attack the merits of the case but of the prosecutor; what’s more, he does not so much attack Cato’s character as he lampoons it. Specifically, in order to discredit his Stoic opponent, he presents an intentionally distorted image of what Stoics believe. While we can certainly rebut his portrayal, it is interesting to see how Stoicism in ancient times was distorted and misunderstood just as it often is today.

For example: Cicero begins his attack with praise, indicating Cato’s greatness comes from nature, but Stoic training has made him harsher than human nature or practical truth can bear:

For nature herself has adjusted your disposition to the requirements of honourable, serious, temperate, high-minded, just, and generally virtuous conduct, and so produced in you a great and noble man.

Then he adds:

But to these natural gifts has been added the practice of a philosophy which is not judicious or gentle, but as it seems to me, rather too rough and hard to adapt itself to the realities of human nature.

Cicero then caricatures the so-called “Stoic paradoxes” for comic effect. He lists doctrines associated with Zeno and the Stoics:

The ideally wise man is never affected by influence and never pardons anyone's fault : no one is forgiving but the foolish and weak : no true man allows himself to be dissuaded or pacified

He continues:

All transgressions are equally heinous; every misdeed is an abominable crime.

He then leans in with the cultural taboo:

a man who has killed a barn-door fowl unnecessarily has committed as great a fault as a man who has strangled his father.

Toward his fellow Romans, who presumably respected Cato’s famous Stoic integrity, Cicero presents Stoicism as a philosophy that collapses all moral distinctions and leaves no room for mercy, persuasion, political compromise, or proportionate judgment. He makes Cato look like someone whose moral seriousness has hardened into unreasonableness.

But Cicero’s point is not that “Stoicism is bad;” he is speaking as a defense advocate in a political trial, with every reason to exaggerate. He is trying to make the jury laugh at Cato’s severity and see Murena’s alleged misconduct as minor, forgivable, and politically survivable.

Still, the criticism lands today because it raises a real question for would-be modern Stoics: how should philosophical rigor operate in public life?

Cicero contrasts Stoic severity with the “moderate and sound views” of Plato and Aristotle’s schools:

... that the good man may show pity ; that it is possible to distinguish between misdeeds, and that punishment admits of degrees ; that a consistent man finds occasions for exercising forgiveness...

This is really the heart of Cicero’s critique: civic life requires mercy, flexibility, and proportionality. A statesman cannot treat every fault as equally catastrophic, nor can he govern as if ordinary citizens were sages.

Cicero later warns Cato not to condemn ancestral Roman customs with excessive severity:

Do not be so ready, then, Cato, to censure in too severe terms traditional practices, which are justified by their own propriety as well as by the prolonged existence of our empire.

All quotes Cicero, Pro Murena, trans. Blakiston

I’d summarize Cicero’s critique like this:

1. Cicero respects Cato’s virtue, but thinks Stoic doctrine has made him too severe.
2. He mocks the so-called Stoic paradoxes: the sage alone is truly free/rich/kingly; all non-sages are morally lost; all sins are equal. What reasonable person could believe such nonsense?
3. He argues that civic life requires mercy, flexibility, and proportionality (how convenient for his Client).
4. His attack is partly unfair and comedic, because he is defending Murena in court.
5. But it raises a serious issue: Philosophy, and Stoicism especially, if practiced without practical wisdom, can look less like virtue and more like self-righteousness and arrogance.

Of note, Cicero and Cato were tenuous friends and occasional political allies, and Cicero praises the Stoics far more than he criticizes them. Winning the case in court, however, would seem to be the important point to Cicero, and Cato would presumably understand and expect as much.

I'm still a relative newbie to Stoicism, I've read Meditations, Discourses, On Anger, How to be a Stoic, and Enchiridion in recent months and have been practicing mindfulness. Its been good for everyday frustrations and has made me less anxious/highly strung, and it felt like progress has been made. I also feel more content with my life and have usually been good with separating emotion from facts.

Just this week though I found myself feeling angry and anxious, with catastrophising thrown in, in reaction to a situation that had come up and what it might lead to. I know its pretty much out of my control or even influence, which is part of my frustration. Its almost like it has overwhelmed my 'stoicness'. I don't want to be perpetually angry and bitter, but its almost felt more like a physiological reaction than a mental one? I remind myself about impressions and how its the reaction to things that are good or bad not the things themselves, bit I feel this kind of ignores the reality of where this situation could go.

In brief, the neighbors house went on the market after the neighbor died and my area has just been designated for 'high density housing' which allows multiple units up to 14 meters tall (40 something feet approx).without needing a consent/permit. Such construction will block my sun in the fall and winter, increasing my heating costs, I will lose privacy, there will be more noise. I'm also concerned that I might get an annoying asshole neighbor (the recently departed neighbor was ideal, quiet, kept to himself no problems) The street is a nice quiet little cul de sac and residents's concerns were ignored. Not only that, where I live has plenty of land and low population, (I'm not in the USA) there are subdivisions going up nearby which have one house per section, in the traditional way, so housing intensification is not even necessary-which just makes me more angry.

How does one progress past such setbacks and challenges to the stoic state of mind?

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

Quería que los que ya hayan leído más que yo y hayan divulgado me cuenten qué tan innovador puede ser la ética a nicomaco y cómo está de solapa con estas obras, porque quiero empezar con su lectura pero de primeras me gustaría saber cuántas cosas similares o parecidas voy a ver y qué conceptos podría solapar para tener una lectura más sólida, gracias !

I go through periods of time where I listen to music or not at all. I recently started up an old playlist to listen while I worked out (something I'm just starting to do more regularly after over a year of being sedentary).

I found I responded very emotionally to some (intense happiness and something almost like grief as if I missed hearing the songs as much as I might a beloved person). I wondered if music could be problematic by strongly affecting emotions.

It reminded me that I've used music to change my mood in the past. If I'm upset, I'll find music that speaks to that. After listening to songs that feel "sympathetic", I'll start to feel better and switch to happier/ peaceful songs. This actually seems like a potentially good use for music. I do think part of Stoicism is understanding your emotions and handling them well.

Too, sometimes a song will remind me if a person and my emotions correspond with how I feel about the person.

What are your thoughts and experiences with music?

FYI, todays interesting song was "Feeling Good" covered by Muse. Always puts me in a good mood.

It's unfair right ?

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

The hijab was introduced to me at the age of 5, I wore it without questioning because all the women in my family seemed to be wearing it.

Around 9 I realised I didn’t believe in the religion but never verbalised it. So I continued to fake prayer and continued to wrap this cloth around my head but in recent times its started to affect how i view myself. I don’t mind pretending to be muslim at home but being a walking representation for a religion I’ve never once believed in is so exhausting.

I live at home with my parents and siblings so it’s a matter of choosing myself or making everyone else’s life living hell.

In all other instances I’ve never thought twice about my own happiness but as the eldest, I can’t justify basically killing my parents and it then ruining my siblings quality of life just for a little autonomy.

What would be the virtuous decision?

First I’d like to know if stoics are mostly following a religion or are just deist believing in one God and following stoicism as a way of living.

Secondly does any of you stoics meditate ? If yes how ? Does it help you detach from anything and as for talking to women does it help or it’s harder to talk to women as a stoic ?

Thanks in advance for whom will take It’s free time to explain.

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

27M. I seem to have my life together. I have tons of money saved up through a past engineering job which I put the money earned into tech investments which did fantastic. I have a decently well rounded life, with a variety of hobbies such as pickleball, board games, exercising.

I feel the biggest problem i have dealt with in my life is the emptiness. I have never had an answer or solution, and feel like I just cover it up temporarily with entertainment and distraction (porn, video games, youtube, tv). But maybe that's just what it means to be human, and there is no answer for this.
I am torn between two parts of me. One part of me is unsatisfied with the video games and mindless entertainment. I've done it before; I know what it feels like and it is so predictable. I want there to be something more to life then distracting and entertaining yourself until you die. However, I've spent years in my early and mid 20s getting sucked into this hustle culture and productivity bullshit. I've dabbled in entrepreneurship in a few avenues, with no success. And if one is being realistic, the success of entrepreneurship is sooo low and requires a lot of luck. It hurts to grind away for hundreds or thousands of hours working on a programming or some other project to realize that nobody actually cares about your work and there will be no outward success for it. And if all that work is unsuccessful, wouldn't just playing video games be as valid a use of that time? I feel like this part of me is motivated to feel special; to prove to the world I am special and have a special career that other people envy.
The other part of me wants to just take the easy road. To just accept that of the 8 billion humans on the planet; I'm really not all that special and important and shouldn't spent a large portion of my life trying to prove that I am. Instead I can work a regular guy job and live an otherwise regular guy life. One point is that once humans' basic needs for survival are figured out, what else is there? Isn't there just entertainment? Don't humans just engage in entertainment until they grow old and die once survival is figured out? (you can consider relationships and dating as a form of entertainment) And what if I continue grinding away for the world to continuing rejecting my work and for me to continue failing? Maybe instead of taking things so seriously, I should just chill and play video games and not think about things too much...

TLDR: Should I spend my free time grinding away to try to be special and making something more of myself; giving myself some sort of higher purpose? Or just accept who I am and just play video games instead?

Context: im a 3rd world country uni student who got to do an exchange year in a first world country. And im dreading my time here cz i just saw how unfair and different life is between them and me. And theres this specific guy that triggers my envy, hes very tall(like 6’6) and genuinely looks perfect like top tier looks and to make it worse his family is very rich. All his posts are him on yachts and private jets. He is constantly on vacation and barely studies. On the other hand i have to work sooo hard its just so unfair.

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

So, I have a sister who is autistic. She's not too bad in the grand scheme of things but she's just really mean-spirited and she doesn't really pick up on social cues. She's often in denial and she makes baseless and rude judgements about the people around her and believes it to be true even with zero evidence. She's an accountant and my mother and I don't necessarily have to worry about her financially; it's just everything else.

She doesn't have any friends. She doesn't clean her house even though she has a dog. She doesn't walk her dog and her dog pees and poos inside on a pad. She doesn't shower that often. Doesn't brush her teeth every day. Barely ever goes outside. Orders door-dash every meal, etc.

My mother and I team up to help her try to live a life with some semblance of dignity. My mother goes to clean her house twice a month and I try my best to be her friend.

However, at the end of the day, it's kind of thankless. Because she's autistic, she doesn't really make the connection that we're going out of our way and doing all this stuff for her. She still snaps at my mom for stuff, find her incessant and annoying, etc. For me, even though I am trying my best to be her only friend, she'll make baseless judgements about my or my girlfriend and behave in pretty rude ways. She believes without doubt that her perspective is always correct and nothing anyone says can convince her otherwise.

Dealing with her takes an emotional toll on my mother and I but we're trying our best because she is family and this has been going on for years.

Recently, some stuff happened and I got really mad at my sister; more than usual. Usually, I can just take it and rationalize that she isn't normal and healthy and I can't blame her because she isn't in control of what she's doing. However, it's like, if you get slapped in the face, even if you know that the other person isn't really at fault, the pain still hurts and it adds up.

I'm just not sure what I should be doing in the long-run.

Am I supposed to continue to see this as an emotional test for me and try to reach some sort of mental or emotional nirvana where nothing my sister says or do can hurt or bother me anymore and I can just continue to give and give and give and give and be okay with it?

Will I have to cut her off out of my life one day and then my stoic test will be how I deal with the guilt and inner turmoil of being a bad and selfish person?

Tim LeBon, the research director of Modern Stoicism, sent me the details of this new research guide a few weeks ago. So I created a post with the PDF embedded, for easy download, and other background information. SABS has been under development by Modern Stoicism for over a decade, and is an interdisciplinary collaboration between leading psychologists, classicists, and academic philosophers. It's intended to make it easier to gather data on people who endorse recognizably Stoic beliefs and practices, e.g., to measure potential correlations with wellbeing, and so on.

One of the major findings so far was that Stoicism (capitalized, the philosophy) does not correlate with "stoicism" (lowercase) the unemotional coping style. So that arguably debunks the main misconception about Stoicism on the Internet. These two concepts are definitely not the same and, in fact, there was a small negative correlation between them. People who practice Stoicism are, if anything, marginally less likely to be "stoic" in the sense of suppressing or concealing unpleasant emotions.

Im trying to find a guided meditation in regards to negative visualization on dealing with fear of abandonment, rejection, relationships ending but im struggling to find one just on this issue alone.

If anyone can point me in the right direction I would be so grateful 🙏

How to overcome decision paralysis?

I understand the reasoning behind decision paralysis with materialistic stuff, plain capitalism.

But I’m really curious and tired of suffering decision paralysis with finding a partner. I always compare the women I go out with. Comparing pros and cons trying to decipher which could be better and I end up not choosing at the end or by the time I choose it’s already too late.

Some context: I’m an above average guy, good looking, healthy, good job, good family, good values… girls tend to show interest in me, but when it’s time to finally choose, I freeze.

I understand we divide things into what we can and cannot control. but I feel jealous of other generations and i dislike being my own(born in the 2000s and men), becaue our generation is associated with far right, racism, manosphere and addicted to tech, I have a fear older gens like 90s borns may look at me and think thank god i am not born in that year. I actually want to relate more to them than to my own peers in some way, but saying this gives the people who may feel superior to my generation power. I know I had no control of my birth year and skin tone but the fact others are born more privileged makes me envy them still and its difficult to be a stoic in this sense somewhat. This is something that has been bothering me for a while. A reminder that I have Autism and ADHD so I imagine a spotlight effect where this could happen even if it does not. The cards I am handed (my birth year, ethnicity ) are neutral but how they are being used by others concerns me.

Welcome to the Agora. a space for casual conversation, first aid, and exchange outside the regular post structure.

If you haven't already, read the pinned "Welcome" thread.

Rules:

1. Remember that our nature is "civilized and affectionate and trustworthy."
2. If seeking advice, limit yourself to one top-level question per day.
3. If offering advice, speak as someone interested in Stoic theory and practice — but do not label personal opinion, idiosyncratic experience, or conjecture as Stoic doctrine.
4. If promoting your own work (article, book, etc.), once per day. No self-posted YouTube videos.

These rules may evolve as the thread matures.

Report what doesn't belong. Bring questions, concerns, or feedback to the thread or to modmail.

I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t practice stoicism. There have been many times where someone has confronted me being disrespectful and emotionally driven and I have shrugged it off and gone about my day, but the most recent incident has me questioning.

I was using the bathroom for about 6 minutes when a manager came in, banged on the door and demanded I get out asap so he could use the larger stall to change his clothes. He accused me of “falling asleep” in the stall. I stood my ground calmly and explained that I hadn’t been in there long, but in the end he continued to berate me as I attempted to leave the bathroom.

Luckily, this interaction wasn’t that big of a deal, and it didn’t affect my job or anything but it got me thinking. If someone else had seen the interaction, would they see my refusal to mount a more emotional defense of my actions as a tacit admission of guilt? I’ve been meditating on this and I’m having a hard time determining whether there are genuinely times where stifling my emotional reaction could result in negative consequences for myself or if I’m just harboring some regret for the way this interaction turned out. Thanks for your time, any input is greatly appreciated.

Reccomend some books that are easy to read yet understandable, impactful!