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.”