Episodes
-
Fill out the survey, get free stuff: https://stoicismpod.com/survey
Apply for private coaching: https://stoicismpod.com/apply
Support this podcast financially: https://stoicismpod.com/members
In this episode, I explore what it actually means to relax from a Stoic perspective, and why so much of the advice we're given about relaxation misses the mark.
I begin by questioning the common idea that relaxation is something we can simply decide to do. We often tell ourselves to "just relax," but anyone who has ever sat on a beach while worrying about work, money, or family knows it doesn't work that way. I also push back on the Stoic idea—at least as it is often presented—that we should be able to relax anywhere, regardless of our surroundings. While that's true in theory, none of us are Stoic Sages, and our environment does influence how easily we settle our minds.
From there, I argue that the real obstacle to relaxation isn't tension in the body but rumination in the mind. We don't fail to relax because we're busy. We fail to relax because we carry unresolved judgments with us wherever we go. The constant internal dialogue about uncertain futures, unfinished work, and imagined disasters prevents us from ever being fully present.
I explain that the Stoic solution isn't to eliminate the things worth worrying about. Rather, it's to distinguish between the appropriate actions we should take and the outcomes we cannot control. Once we've reasoned through a problem and made the best choices available to us, continuing to rehearse those same worries serves no purpose. At that point, rumination becomes a choice rather than preparation.
Using the example of potential job loss, I show how Stoicism encourages us to prepare well, fulfill our roles responsibly, and then allow ourselves to return our attention to the present moment. Relaxation isn't pretending problems don't exist. It's knowing you've responded to them appropriately and refusing to let imagined futures rob you of the life that's unfolding right now.
Ultimately, I argue that relaxation is another expression of Stoic practice. It isn't found by escaping life's difficulties, but by learning to trust your own reasoning, accept what lies beyond your control, and remain fully present with the roles that require your attention today.
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Apply for private coaching: https://stoicismpod.com/apply
Support this podcast financially: https://stoicismpod.com/members
Episode Summary:
In this episode, I explore why so many of us stay stuck for years—even when we genuinely want to change—and why Stoicism, while powerful, is often only one part of the solution.
I begin by sharing an update on my coaching practice and explain why one-on-one philosophical coaching has become the most rewarding work I've ever done. Working directly with people has reinforced something I've long believed: lasting change rarely comes from information alone. It comes from changing the way we habitually choose.
From there, I examine how our early experiences shape our patterns of judgment and behavior. Children learn quickly, but they also absorb unhealthy habits before their rational faculties are mature enough to question them. Those habits can become deeply ingrained ways of navigating the world, remaining with us well into adulthood.
I argue that overcoming these patterns usually requires more than willpower. Therapy can help us understand where our habits came from. Stoicism provides a framework for deciding what to do with that understanding. In some cases, appropriate medical treatment may also be an important part of recovery. Rather than competing with one another, these approaches can work together.
The central message is simple: if you've been struggling with the same problem for years without making meaningful progress, it may not be because you're incapable of change. It may simply be that your current strategy is incomplete.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! I'd love to hear which ideas resonated with you most.
-
Missing episodes?
-
In this episode, I explore procrastination from a Stoic perspective and argue that it isn't a problem of laziness—it's a problem of judgment.
Drawing on Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and my own experience with ADHD, I explain why we often mistake temporary discomfort for a good reason to delay action. We tell ourselves we'll start when we feel ready, but readiness is rarely something we possess before beginning. More often, it's something we discover after we've already started.
I discuss Seneca's reminder that time is the only thing we truly possess, and Marcus Aurelius' advice to stop waiting for motivation and instead remember what we are made to do as human beings. The Stoics didn't believe motivation came first. They believed right judgment came first.
I also talk about procrastination and ADHD. While ADHD can make starting tasks significantly more difficult, it doesn't remove our capacity to choose well. It simply means some of us have a denser forest to cut through before we can begin moving. That reality calls for better strategies, not despair.
Finally, I share the surprisingly simple tool that has helped me overcome procrastination in my own life: externalising the consequences of inaction. By making the impact of procrastination visible, I stop seeing the task as something that's merely uncomfortable for me and start seeing how my delay affects the people I'm trying to serve.
To make that process easier, I've built a free interactive procrastination tool that walks you through the same decision-making process I use myself. You can find it at https://procrastination.tannerocampbell.com
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! I'd love to know what causes you to procrastinate and what strategies have helped you overcome it.
I am a public philosopher; it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my weekly newsletter Stoic Brekkie: https://stoicbrekkie.com
Overcome decision-making anxiety in 14-days: https://anxiety.tannerocampbell.com
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
In this episode, I explore why criticism from other people affects us so deeply—and why, from a Stoic perspective, it often shouldn't.
The episode begins with a chance encounter in a Starbucks that led me to reflect on something many of us experience: the discomfort of feeling judged. Whether it's criticism from a stranger, a colleague, or someone we care about, our first reaction is usually emotional. The Stoics understood this well. They knew that our initial emotional response isn't something we choose—but what we do next absolutely is.
Drawing on Epictetus, I explain the difference between our immediate, instinctive reaction and the rational faculty that follows it. The goal isn't to become emotionally numb. It's to become better at examining criticism before accepting it.
I offer a simple question that has helped me navigate criticism more effectively:
Is this pointing to something I genuinely did badly, or is it simply someone else's verdict on something I believe I handled well?
If the criticism is true, it becomes an opportunity for improvement. If it isn't, then there's no reason to surrender your peace of mind to another person's opinion.
The Stoic isn't indifferent to what others think. Rather, the Stoic refuses to allow unexamined opinions to outweigh honest self-knowledge.
The challenge isn't to stop caring about people. It's to stop auditioning for them.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! I'd love to hear how you handle criticism and whether you've found it difficult to separate useful feedback from mere opinion.
I am a public philosopher; it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter Stoic Brekkie: https://stoicbrekkie.com
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Get the archives: https://www.stoicismpod.com/the-archive/
In this episode, I explore what overthinking actually is from a Stoic perspective—and why most advice about it misses the point.
We often think we're "thinking things through" when we're lying awake replaying conversations, imagining worst-case scenarios, or rehearsing events that haven't happened. But I argue that this isn't really thinking at all. It's rumination: a failure of assent disguised as diligence.
Drawing on Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca, I explain how the Stoics distinguished between a bare impression (phantasia) and the stories we immediately build on top of it. The problem isn't the initial impression. The problem is our habit of treating our imagined conclusions as though they were facts.
I also distinguish careful Stoic deliberation from rumination. Deliberation moves toward a reasoned decision and an available action. Rumination simply replays the same impression, generating anxiety without producing clarity.
To make this practical, I introduce a simple two-question framework you can use whenever you catch yourself overthinking:
What does the bare impression actually say?Is there an action available to me right now?If there is, take it. If there isn't, you're probably rehearsing rather than reasoning.
The goal isn't to stop your mind from producing impressions. It's to become better at recognising when your imagination has taken over and returning your attention to reality.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
I am a public philosopher; it is my only job. I am enabled to do this work, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent, and help keep it online at https://stoicismpod.com/members.
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider subscribing to my 3x/week newsletter, Stoic Brekkie: https://stoicbrekkie.com.
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Apply for private mentoring: https://tannerocampbell.com/apply
Support my work: https://stoicismpod.com/members
Subscribe to my newsletter: https://stoicbrekkie.com
In this episode I'm tackling the thing nobody wants me to tackle: politics. Before you run away, I promise I'm not endorsing anyone or anything. What I'm interested in is how a Stoic engages politically, not who a Stoic votes for. I get into whether Stoics should vote at all (in most cases, yes, because Stoics are pro-social and voting is one way we attempt to benefit the human community), and I share why I've abstained from local US elections since leaving the country in 2023, and why I won't be voting in Scotland right away once we move there.
I also spend a good chunk of this episode on how we talk about our neighbours who vote differently than we do. People assent to the choices they believe are appropriate for them, and flattening someone's reasons into "they must be stupid or evil" is both practically counterproductive and, drawing on Epictetus, deeply un-Stoic, because we cannot truly know the judgements and contexts of minds that aren't our own. From there I look at protest. The Stoic Opposition proved Stoics can stand against tyranny with real force, so protest isn't off the table, but the why matters more than the what. And finally I ask whether we've let politics become a pathos rather than a civic duty, an identity that crowds out our actual identity as Prokoptôn.
Also in this episode: an update on Stoic Brekkie by Post (the 50-person beta filled up fast, thank you), and news that I'm building a little Stoicism educational video game, because apparently your Stoicism guy needed another creative outlet.
Engage. It's your duty. But engage well.
Thanks for listening.
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Learn more about Stoic Brekkie by post here: https://stoicbrekkie.com/p/stoic-brekkie-is-returning-with-an-analogue-twist
Register your interest in Stoic Brekkie by post here: https://bypost.stoicbrekkie.com
------
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
In this episode, I talk about parenting, exhaustion, frustration, and the very real challenge of remaining Stoic when your emotional battery is running on empty.
Stoic Mentoring: https://tannerocampbell.com/mentoring
Sunday 7th Webinar: https://stoictalks.uk/june-cosmology
Using a story from my own 43rd birthday, I walk through a morning that did not go according to plan. What I wanted was a peaceful day. What I got was a very normal morning with a two-year-old child who wanted things his way, struggled to communicate those wants clearly, and repeatedly tested my patience.
The story revolves around a simple trip to a café that gradually became a lesson in expectations, frustration, entitlement, and emotional regulation.
The deeper lesson is not really about toddlers. It's about the stories we tell ourselves.
I had convinced myself that my birthday entitled me to a peaceful day. Rationally, I knew that wasn't true. But emotionally, I had quietly bought into the idea anyway. That expectation became the source of much of my frustration.
From there, I explore several Stoic lessons:
Managing expectations before frustration takes hold.Recognizing when we're running our emotional batteries too low.Understanding that self-care is not selfishness.Appreciating how much children learn from our behavior, especially when we're angry.Recognizing the difference between discipline and rage.I spend particular time discussing the impression we leave on our children. Children are constantly watching us. Every outburst, every moment of patience, every act of self-control becomes part of the example we set for them.
A parent losing their temper doesn't just solve a problem poorly in the moment—it can shape how a child understands relationships, authority, safety, and emotional expression for years to come.
I also argue that many parents wait far too long to recharge. We run ourselves into the ground, then expect one special day, one holiday, or one break to somehow restore everything. That's not sustainable.
The Stoic approach is much simpler: maintain the battery before it reaches zero.
Even a single hour each week dedicated to rest, reflection, reading, walking, or simply being alone can dramatically improve our ability to show up well for the people who depend on us.
The central message of the episode is this: parenting is hard, and perfection is impossible. But we can dramatically reduce the likelihood of losing our tempers by managing our expectations, protecting our own wellbeing, and remembering that our children are always learning from how we choose to respond.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
In this episode, I talk about heat, irritability, anger, and why being physically uncomfortable can quietly erode our Stoic practice if we’re not paying attention.
First, an announcement: after years of being asked, I’m officially opening applications for 1:1 Stoic mentoring and life coaching. This is a six-month mentorship for people who are serious about applying Stoicism deeply and consistently in their lives. It includes weekly calls, structured curriculum, support between sessions, and a small accountability group. I explain who it’s for, what’s included, and how to apply.
Apply for 1:1 mentoring here: https://tannerocampbell.com/apply
The core topic of the episode, though, is anger — specifically how heat and physical discomfort make anger far more likely.
I draw heavily from Seneca’s On Anger, where he describes anger as a kind of temporary madness: a passion that overrides reason, destroys judgment, and pushes people toward destructive choices they later regret. I connect this to modern psychological research showing that heat increases irritability, hostility, and aggression.
The basic point is straightforward: when we’re physically uncomfortable, our threshold for frustration lowers dramatically. Small provocations escalate faster. We become less patient, less reflective, and more likely to lash out.
But rather than treating this as an excuse, I frame it as a call for preparation.
A Stoic does not pretend the body doesn’t matter. The Stoic prepares rationally for predictable challenges. If you know extreme heat affects your mood and judgment, then planning ahead becomes part of your moral responsibility.
I walk through some practical examples from my own life living in the UK during a heatwave:
Buying bags of ice in advance.Staying hydrated constantly.Having contingency plans for cooler environments.Saving for a long-term cooling solution.Refusing to indulge self-pity or dramatics about discomfort.The point is not “be tough.” The point is “be prepared.”
I argue that failing to prepare for predictable discomfort is itself a failure of Stoic practice because it unnecessarily increases the risk that we’ll act irrationally toward ourselves or others.
The Sage would not ignore heat to prove toughness. The Sage would plan, prepare, adapt, and endure intelligently.
That’s the real lesson of the episode: Stoicism isn’t about pretending external conditions don’t affect us. It’s about anticipating their effects and choosing wisely despite them.
---
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
---
I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
---
Subscribe to A Little Wiser, a newsletter which explores philosophy more broadly than Stoicism and publishes multiple times a week.
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Support my work for as little as £0.87/wk: https://stoicismpod.com/members
--
In this episode, I lay out a practical, step-by-step Stoic framework for making decisions well.
A lot of people interested in Stoicism know the quotes, know the terminology, and understand the broad concepts — but when an actual difficult choice appears in front of them, they still don’t know what to do. This episode is about solving that problem.
I begin by making a distinction the Stoics took very seriously: the difference between wanting something and determining whether something is right. Most difficult decisions are not difficult because we don’t know what we desire, but because we’re uncertain what action accords with virtue and reason.
From there, I walk through an orthodox Stoic decision-making method rooted in Panaetius and preserved through Cicero’s De Officiis.
The process begins with examining what the Stoics understood to be the four roles every human being occupies simultaneously:
Our universal human nature as rational beings bound by the virtues.Our individual nature — our temperament, strengths, and weaknesses.Our circumstantial roles — parent, child, citizen, employee, neighbour.Our chosen roles — career, projects, commitments, ambitions.I use a detailed example throughout the episode: a person deciding whether to take a major overseas promotion while also caring for an aging mother whose health is declining.
The key Stoic insight is this: the right action is usually found at the intersection of all four roles. Most modern ethical thinking frames difficult choices as trade-offs, but Stoicism instead asks us to search for the action that satisfies all our legitimate roles without violating virtue.
I then explain the “tragic conflict clause” — what to do when no intersection seems possible. In those cases, the Stoics held that lower-order roles must be abandoned before virtue itself is compromised.
After identifying a candidate action, I introduce three tests the Stoics would apply:
The rational defence test: can you clearly explain why the action is right?The sage test: would a genuinely wise person choose this?The role-fidelity test: does the action honour your responsibilities regardless of what others do?Finally, I discuss the importance of post-action review — what the Stoics called prokopē, or progress. Stoic character is built not through perfect choices, but through repeated examination, correction, and refinement over time.
The core point of the episode is simple: Stoicism is not passive inspiration or emotional comfort. It is a disciplined framework for reasoning through life well and choosing in alignment with nature, virtue, and our roles.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
In this episode, I take aim at what I call “stoa shaming”—the habit of pointing out someone’s failure to be perfectly Stoic as a way of dismissing both them and the philosophy.
You’ve seen it. Someone loses their temper, struggles with their weight, or makes a mistake, and the response is: “That’s not very Stoic of you.” On the surface, it sounds like a call to higher standards. In reality, it reveals a misunderstanding of Stoicism itself.
Stoicism does not expect perfection from its practitioners. It defines perfection—sagehood—as something effectively unattainable. The Sage is a theoretical ideal: someone who never errs in judgment, never assents incorrectly, and never acts viciously. That’s not us. That’s not anyone.
What we are, instead, are prokoptôns—progressors. People in motion. People practicing.
This matters because if you misunderstand Stoicism as requiring perfection, then every mistake becomes evidence of failure, and every practitioner becomes a hypocrite. That’s the logic behind stoa shaming. It reduces a philosophy of progress into a brittle standard no one can meet.
But Stoicism isn’t a label you “achieve.” It’s a framework you use. Saying “I’m a Stoic” doesn’t mean you embody perfect virtue. It means you’re attempting to move toward it using Stoic principles.
That means mistakes aren’t contradictions of the philosophy—they are the condition under which the philosophy is practiced.
When someone says, “That’s not very Stoic of you,” what they’re often doing is collapsing the distinction between Sage and student. They’re holding a progressor to the standard of perfection and then using the inevitable gap to dismiss both the person and the system.
It’s also, in many cases, a defensive move. If they can frame you as inconsistent, they can ignore what you’re saying. If you’re not perfect, then your arguments don’t count. It’s an easy way to avoid engaging with the substance.
The Stoic response is simple: reject the premise. You are not trying to be flawless. You are trying to improve. And improvement requires error, correction, and continued effort over time.
So when you fall short—and you will—you haven’t failed at Stoicism. You’ve participated in it.
And when someone tries to use your imperfection against you, consider what they’re actually asking for: not progress, but perfection. Not practice, but performance.
That’s not Stoicism.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Register for the May 9th workshop today: https://tannerocampbell.com/may
--
In this episode I work through how Stoic Justice differs from what we moderns typically mean by the word — because when we say "justice" today, we almost always mean retribution: rewards for the deserving, punishments for the rest. Stoic Justice isn't concerned with desert in that sense at all. It's concerned with giving each person what is owed to them as a fellow member of the Cosmopolis, and failing to do that is, on Stoic terms, about as serious a moral error as you can commit.
Along the way I push back on the fairly common claim that Justice is the "highest" of the cardinal virtues — the one that orients all the others and without which courage collapses into bravado, temperance into private self-management, and wisdom into mere cleverness. I grant the intuition has some force, but antakolouthia — the mutual entailment of the virtues — rules out any hierarchy, and I note that Marcus, contrary to what some popular communicators like to imply, isn't in the camp that elevates Justice above the rest.
From there I trace how our thirst for a culprit is eating away at social cohesion in the West. The older western instinct — that it is worse to wrongly convict the innocent than to let the guilty slip through — is being quietly replaced by something uglier: not "did this person do the thing?" but "is this person close enough to the thing that punishing them will feel like justice?" We're no longer just eager to punish the accused; we're hungry to produce more accused, and the bar for what counts as worthy of condemnation keeps dropping. Evidence stops being something to weigh and becomes something to enlist.
I argue this is injustice in the precise Stoic sense — not the cartoon sense of wanting to hurt someone, but a failure of attention. You cannot give each person their due if you will not first do the patient work of finding out what is due. And I close with what I want listeners to actually do: the next time they feel themselves reaching for a verdict, pause long enough to ask honestly whether they're trying to find out what's owed, or whether they're just trying to locate a target for something they were already feeling before this particular person walked into view. Getting the right outcome by accident isn't justice — justice is the discipline itself, and what's true of the individual eventually becomes true of the society they're part of.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Stoic Journaling 50% OFF - Use code EASTER50 - https://stoicjournaling.com
--
Live in Leicester? Join me live on May the 23rd: https://tannerocampbell.com/events/stoicism-a-complete-framework-for-living-a-good-life
--
In this episode, I explore the idea that “silence is complicity” and whether that claim holds up under Stoic scrutiny.
This phrase gets used as a kind of moral pressure—an attempt to force speech or action by implying that not speaking is equivalent to endorsing wrongdoing. But Stoicism doesn’t deal in slogans like this. It deals in judgment. It asks: what is appropriate for me, given my role, my knowledge, and the situation in front of me?
Sometimes speaking is the right thing to do. Sometimes it is not. The Stoic position is not that silence is always justified, nor that speech is always required, but that both must be evaluated through reason.
One of the problems with slogans like “silence is complicity” is that they bypass this process entirely. They encourage immediate assent to an impression—“something is wrong, therefore I must speak”—without first testing whether that impression is accurate, whether one understands the situation, or whether speaking will actually improve anything.
From a Stoic perspective, speaking without understanding can be just as irresponsible as remaining silent when action is required. Both are failures of judgment.
So the real question isn’t whether silence is complicity. The real question is: what is the just and appropriate response here? That requires slowing down, examining the impression, and being honest about what you do and do not know.
It also requires considering your role. Not every situation calls for your voice. Not every issue falls within your responsibility. And not every demand for speech is made in good faith.
That doesn’t mean you default to silence. It means you earn your speech. You speak when you have reasoned your way to the conclusion that speaking is the appropriate action—and you remain silent when that same process leads you elsewhere.
The takeaway is straightforward. Don’t outsource your moral judgment to slogans. Whether you speak or remain silent, make sure it is the result of clear reasoning, not social pressure.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Join the Prokoptôn Journaling program: https://stoicjournaling.com use the code "BREKKIE" at checkout to save 25%
--
In this episode, recorded from the Isle of Raasay in the Scottish Inner Hebrides, I reflect on endurance and resilience—what they are, how they differ, and why both matter.
The setting matters. The Highlands and islands confront you with something modern life often hides: limits. Weather changes quickly. Conditions are often harsh. Nature does not adjust to you. You adjust to it. This creates a constant reminder of mortality—not just in the literal sense, but in the sense that good conditions don’t last, and neither do bad ones.
From there, I turn to endurance. We often think of endurance as physical strength, but from a Stoic perspective, it is not physical at all. Endurance is the ability to continue through difficulty because you choose to. It is grounded in rational judgment and strength of will, not muscle. Anyone can endure if they have trained their capacity to choose well under pressure.
Resilience is different. Where endurance is about carrying the load, resilience is about recovering after carrying it. It is the ability to return to stability, to maintain hope, and to continue living well after hardship. This is much harder to cultivate.
I push back on the modern idea that resilience is built through constant stress exposure. That approach often misses the essential component: rest. Without deliberate recovery, systems break down. True resilience requires cycles—effort followed by rest, strain followed by recovery.
I use the analogy of steam-bending wood. You cannot force wood into shape all at once. You apply pressure gradually, allow it to rest, and repeat the process. Over time, the structure changes. The same is true for human resilience.
The takeaway is simple. Endurance is about choosing to carry difficulty. Resilience is about knowing how to recover from it. Both are necessary. Neither is built through brute force alone.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
My Stoic Journaling Program is now 25% OFF with code "BREKKIE". Sign up at https://stoicjournaling.com.
--
In this episode, I explore a growing concern: will AI eliminate human work, and if it does, what happens to our sense of purpose?
I start by acknowledging the reality in front of us. AI is rapidly improving across creative and technical domains. Tasks that once required human skill are now being automated or reduced to minimal input. This is not speculation. It is already happening. Many forms of labour and many learnable skills are being replaced or compressed by technology.
From there, I push the question further. If this trend continues, we may face a future where traditional employment becomes rare or unnecessary. That raises a deeper issue. If our culture has been built around work as the primary source of meaning, what happens when that work disappears?
To answer this, I turn to Seneca and his writing on leisure. For the Stoics, leisure is not idleness. It is not the absence of work. It is the presence of directed attention toward what matters: self-examination, philosophical development, and contributing to others through wisdom and character. The problem is not that we may lose jobs. The problem is that we are not prepared to live well without them.
I argue that we have confused employment with purpose. Stoicism makes a clear distinction. A person can lose their job and still live a purposeful life. What matters is whether they are being useful to others, improving themselves, and acting in accordance with reason. That work does not require a paycheck.
I also acknowledge the uncertainty ahead. Economic systems may change. New structures like universal basic income may emerge. Or something else entirely. But rather than speculate too far into the future, the Stoic focus remains on preparation. We can begin now by asking what our purpose would be without our current job, and whether we can start moving toward that purpose today.
The core idea is simple. Job work may disappear, but meaningful effort will not. Stoicism gives us a framework for living well regardless of economic conditions. The question is whether we are ready to use it.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Take advantage here: https://stoicjournaling.com
Use the code "BREKKIE" at checkout for 25% off.
That's it. Have a great rest of your week.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Join Prokoptôn, a private community of dedicated practicing Stoics working together to improve. Learn more at https://skool.com/prokopton
In this episode, I respond to a surge of listener questions about masculinity following a recent documentary on the so-called “manosphere.” The central question is simple: what does Stoicism actually say about what it means to be a man?
I begin by clarifying a core Stoic idea. Just as the Stoic aims toward the ideal of the Sage, a man should aim toward becoming a good man. These are not fixed endpoints but guiding horizons. The goal is not perfection, but progress toward moral excellence over the course of a lifetime.
From there, I address the common claims made by masculinity influencers. Wealth, physical strength, refusal to be censored, and dominance over women are often presented as defining traits of a “good man.” From a Stoic perspective, all of these fail. Wealth and strength are external. They do not determine character. Unfiltered speech is not virtue, but often a failure of judgment. And dominance over others is fundamentally unjust, especially when it involves suppressing another person’s rational agency.
So what, then, defines a good man?
The Stoic answer is straightforward: a good man fulfills his roles well. He takes seriously what is appropriate of him as a human being, as a member of a family, a community, and the broader world. He reasons through his responsibilities and works consistently to meet them. He is patient, just, self-controlled, and committed to improving both himself and the lives of those around him.
This leads to an important conclusion. The qualities that make a good man are the same qualities that make a good woman. Reason, virtue, and the capacity for moral development are not gendered traits. As Musonius Rufus argued, both men and women share the same capacity for virtue and should be trained accordingly.
I close by emphasizing that masculinity, properly understood, is not about status, power, or control. It is about living in accordance with reason and fulfilling one’s roles well. That is what it means to be a good man. And ultimately, that is what it means to be a good human being.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Join Prokoptôn, a private community of dedicated practicing Stoics working together to improve. Learn more at https://skool.com/prokopton
--
In this episode, I explore Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations 6.27 and what it teaches us about anger. Marcus reminds us that when people do wrong, they do so because they believe their actions are beneficial or appropriate. Our task, therefore, is not to react with anger but to teach, explain, and correct with patience.
That idea opens the door to a deeper question: what is anger actually for? Some modern thinkers claim anger is necessary for progress, even suggesting that it fuels social change. I disagree. Anger is not a driver of wise action. It is a signal.
Anger alerts us that something has happened which does not accord with our expectations, values, or understanding. That is its only real utility. Once the signal appears, the work begins. We must translate that signal into usable information by asking questions: What happened? Why did it happen? What assumptions am I making? Could I be mistaken?
This process turns anger into data. The signal draws our attention to an impression. Rational questioning extracts information from it. And our willingness to revise our own assumptions ensures that we do not simply act on emotional certainty.
Seneca makes the Stoic position clear in On Anger: anger itself contributes nothing useful to action. Virtue never requires the assistance of vice. Anger is not a helpful fuel for moral progress. It is a destabilizing force that clouds judgment and pushes us toward impulsive decisions.
The goal, then, is not to eliminate anger entirely, since it is part of our human psychology. The goal is to refuse to act while under its influence. Socrates captures this beautifully when he tells a servant, “I would strike you, were I not angry.” His point is simple. If the desire to punish someone appears at the same moment as anger, we cannot trust that the desire is rational. The wise response is to pause until calm judgment returns.
This is the Stoic discipline in practice. Anger may signal that something is wrong. But only reason can determine what should be done about it.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
--
I am a public philosopher, it is my only job. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
Looking for more Stoic content? Consider my 3x/week newsletter "Stoic Brekkie": https://stoicbrekkie.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Join Prokoptôn, a private community of dedicated practicing Stoics working together to improve. Learn more at https://skool.com/prokopton
--
Support my work for as little as $1 a month: https://stoicismpod.com/members
--
Subscribe to my Stoic Brekkie newsletter: https://stoicbrekkie.com
--
I pull heavily from Leonidas Konstantakos' "Stoicism and Just War Theory" doctoral dissertation in this episode. I encourage you to download it and read it yourself: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/record/13724
--
In this episode, I take up a difficult question: can war ever be just in Stoicism? Not justified. Not strategically useful. Not legal. But truly just — meaning virtuous and right.
I begin by setting aside the two dominant modern frameworks for thinking about war: utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism evaluates war based on consequences. If enough good results from it, the war can be defended. Deontology evaluates war based on rules. Some actions are always wrong, regardless of outcomes. Stoicism does neither.
Using the firebombing of Dresden and the ticking time bomb scenario, I explain how the Stoic approach shifts the focus away from body counts and legal rules and onto character. For the Stoic, external outcomes — even death and destruction — are morally indifferent. What matters is the internal condition of the agents making decisions. Are they acting from justice, courage, and wisdom? Or from fear, ambition, pride, or the desire to dominate?
Drawing on Cicero’s On Duties and later Stoic interpretation, I outline the core criteria: right intention, proper authority, discrimination, and war as a last resort aimed at peace. A war undertaken from a corrupted value structure — where victory is treated as a good in itself — reflects vice. A war undertaken from rational concern for preserving the cosmopolis, after all other paths have been exhausted, may be just.
I also address torture and why the Stoic rejects it, not because of rule-following or cost-benefit calculations, but because it corrupts the agent. It reflects disordered judgment and a failure of oikeiôsis — a failure to recognize another rational being as part of the same moral community. Stoicism is not rule-based. It is character-based.
I then turn to the present. We cannot fully know the internal motives of national leaders. We can only infer. War may be just or unjust depending on the reasoning behind it. That reasoning is ultimately visible only to the agent and their daimon — their inner rational faculty.
Finally, I bring the question home. Most of us are not heads of state. But the Stoic framework for just war is simply Stoic ethics scaled up. The same question applies in everyday conflict: am I acting from virtue, or from ego and fear? The work of the prokoptôn is constant self-examination, especially when stakes are high.
War can be just in Stoicism. But only if it is conducted by people whose souls are ordered toward peace, whose intentions are clean, and whose reason has honestly left them no alternative.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
-
Subscribe to the FREE Stoic Brekkie newsletter: https://stoicbrekkie.com
I am a public philosopher. I am enabled to do this job, in large part, thanks to support from my listeners and readers. You can support my work, and keep it independent and online, at https://stoicismpod.com/members
In this episode, I respond to a short clip discussing incest as an example of emotivism in meta-ethics. Emotivism claims that when we say something is wrong, we are not stating a fact but expressing disapproval. The suggestion in the clip is that incest may ultimately be “wrong” only because we feel that it is wrong.
I take that seriously. It is true that many people struggle to articulate why incest is objectively wrong beyond saying it feels disgusting. And philosophers should care about that. If something is wrong, we should be able to explain why in rational terms.
Using Stoic role ethics, I outline a clear argument. In Stoicism, some roles are grounded in nature. These roles are not arbitrary. They come with built-in functions and ends. The sibling role is ordered toward familial care, trust, and cooperative development within the household. It is explicitly non-erotic because its function is to stabilize kinship bonds. The lover role, by contrast, is ordered toward erotic partnership and exclusivity.
When a person attempts to merge these roles, they introduce incompatible aims into a single relationship. Stoic role ethics holds that voluntarily chosen roles must not contradict natural ones. If they do, one role must be abandoned. Because the sibling role is grounded in nature, it cannot be abandoned without corrupting its function. Adopting the lover role toward a sibling therefore represents a rational error. It makes both roles impossible to fulfil properly.
This means the wrongness is not based on disgust. It is based on contradiction within the structure of human roles and the failure to live coherently within them. Stoicism does not reduce morality to feeling. It grounds moral judgment in reason, nature, and the proper fulfilment of roles within the human community.
I also explain why this matters more broadly. If moral claims are reduced to preference or emotion, then they shift with culture, fashion, or mood. Stoicism resists that instability by anchoring ethics in a rational framework. That framework may be debated, refined, or defended, but it is not merely expressive.
The point is simple: saying something “feels wrong” is not the same as explaining why it must be wrong. Philosophy should move us from reaction to reason.
Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.
Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Mentioned in this episode:
Fill out the survey
https://stoicismpod.com/survey
- Show more
