134 Labs

•

Kanal • 3 Sendungen

Selbstverwirklichung

Selbstverwirklichung

Wöchentlich
Selbstverwirklichung

Selbstverwirklichung

Zweiwöchentlich
Philosophie

Philosophie

27.12.2025

VOR 4 TAGEN

Zeno vs. Aristo on Indifferent Things

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 In this episode, I take up a question that seems settled, orthodox, and uncontroversial: can indifferents be preferred or dispreferred? Most Stoics would say yes and move on. But there is a serious ancient challenge to that position, and understanding it matters more than most people realize. I begin with the standard Stoic account, drawing on Zeno as recorded by Stobaeus and Cicero. Virtue alone is good, vice alone is bad, and everything else is indifferent. Still, some indifferents are naturally preferred or rejected because they align with our rational nature. Health, social cooperation, and material sufficiency are not goods, but they are “according to nature.” I then introduce the provocateur: Ariston of Chios. Ariston rejects the very idea of preferred and dispreferred indifferents. In his view, calling something a preferred indifferent is just calling it a good under another name. For Ariston, everything between virtue and vice is radically neutral, and any preference only arises situationally, never because the thing itself has standing within nature. I explain why this disagreement is not merely semantic. Ariston’s position is inseparable from his rejection of Stoic physics and logic. Once those are removed, there is no rational structure of nature to ground stable preferences. Ethics collapses into a stark minimalism where virtue alone matters and everything else is interchangeable depending on circumstance. This is why later Stoics saw Ariston as a dead end rather than a reformer. Without physics and logic, Stoic ethics loses its ability to guide action across time, roles, and recurring human situations. The philosophy becomes thinner, not sharper. Finally, I connect this ancient dispute to a modern problem. Contemporary Stoicism often tries to keep the ethics while quietly discarding the physics and logic as unnecessary or outdated. That move repeats Ariston’s mistake. Stoicism can evolve, but it cannot survive if its foundations are simply removed without replacement. You cannot pull the columns out from under the Stoa and expect the roof to hold. If we want Stoicism to remain coherent, actionable, and philosophically serious, we need to understand why preferred indifferents exist and what architectural commitments make them possible in the first place. 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

vor 4 Tagen

•

13 Min.
VOR 4 TAGEN

Grief: Death of Animal Companions

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://practicingstoicism.com/pledge. In this episode, I address a subject many people struggle with deeply: the death of animal companions. I explain why I prefer that term over “pets,” and why I felt compelled to speak about this topic at all, despite rarely discussing my own past relationships or personal losses. I share the context of leaving a long-term relationship and the difficult Stoic choices that followed, including continuing to help care for my dog, Jupiter, after I left. I do this to make one thing clear from the outset: this episode is not an exercise in emotional detachment. I care deeply about animal companions, and I understand the strength of the bonds we form with them. From there, I describe what makes their loss so painful. Animal companions are a constant presence in our daily lives. When they are gone, future moments feel diminished in a way that is both sudden and enduring. I argue that to deny this sadness, or to suggest that grief itself is inappropriate, would be unjust. Stoic sages may not grieve, but there are no sages. We are imperfect human beings, and grief is a natural response to loss. I then outline how Stoicism helps us deal with grief without letting it ruin our character. First, we must understand what death truly is: a natural return of energy to the Cosmos. Death itself is never unjust, even though injustice can sometimes lead to it. Accepting this reality is difficult, especially in the midst of mourning, but it is necessary. Next, I explain why grief is dangerous if left unchecked. Grief can turn into anger or despair, both of which place us at risk of unjust choices—toward others or toward ourselves. Stoic practice demands that we remain vigilant over our rational faculty, especially when we are emotionally vulnerable. Finally, I argue that moving on is not a betrayal of love. After an appropriate period of mourning, continuing to live well, happily, and attentively is not unjust. Our animal companions are gone, and there is no further care we can provide them. To remain trapped in grief is to elevate mourning above the pursuit of moral excellence, which is the only true good. To grieve, to remember fondly, and then to return our attention to the duties of the present is the Stoic path. Love your companion, mourn their absence, guard your character, and when the time comes, move forward with gratitude for what was and responsibility for what remains. Looking for a Stoic habit tracker? I've created a free one. You can find it at https://stoictracker.com. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

vor 4 Tagen

•

12 Min.
2. FEB.

Ethics: Co-Existing With The Unjust

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://practicingstoicism.com/pledge. This episode is prompted by a thoughtful listener question: if we judge a political leader to be unjust, would it be unjust to distance ourselves from that leader’s supporters—especially when those supporters are family? For example, would it be just to skip a wedding because a family member supports a political figure we find morally repugnant? I use my own relationship with my father to explore this question through the Stoic framework of role ethics. As Stoics, we occupy many roles—son or daughter, parent, citizen—and each role carries duties that must be reasoned through rather than emotionally rejected. Disagreeing with a parent’s political views does not erase the duties that come with being their child. I explain why Stoicism does not judge people by outcomes or affiliations, but by the reasoning behind their choices. From a Stoic perspective, all unjust actions stem from the same root cause: moral ignorance. There are no degrees of vice at the level of judgment—only differences in consequences. This means that condemning others as uniquely evil while excusing our own lapses misunderstands how Stoic ethics works. Applying this to family relationships, I argue that it is unjust to hold loved ones morally responsible for the actions of political leaders they support, since they do not control those actions. Boycotting a family event as an expression of anger or protest is not a Stoic act unless it can be justified as genuinely just, rather than emotionally satisfying. I also clarify that this does not mean we must tolerate abuse or injustice directed at us personally. Distance can be justified when it prevents harm. But distancing ourselves simply to punish, signal virtue, or indulge resentment is a failure of our rational faculty, not an exercise of it. The Stoic task, difficult as it is, is to argue, to remain engaged, and to resist the temptation to reduce others to their worst judgments. Writing people off may feel righteous, but it fractures our shared world and leads to further injustice. Justice, for the Stoic, requires patience, restraint, and a continued commitment to trying. Looking for a Stoic habit tracker? I've created a free one. You can find it at https://stoictracker.com. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

2. Feb.

•

13 Min.
25. JAN.

Stoicism Is Not Compliance Nor Blind Obedience

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 The Iris Council: https://iriscouncil.com In this episode, I focus on the Stoic virtue of Justice and why it matters so urgently right now. Justice, in Stoicism, is not about legality or compliance with the law. It is about fairness. When we confuse what is legal with what is just, we risk excusing serious wrongdoing simply because it has been ratified by those in power. I explain why laws themselves can be unjust, especially when they are created or enforced by leaders who are not acting as protectors and benefactors of their people. If a law is out of alignment with what is fair, then the injustice lies with the law, not with those who recognize its unfairness. This is where Stoicism demands courage rather than passive acceptance. To ground this discussion, I turn to Musonius Rufus and his lecture On That Kings Too Should Practice Philosophy. Musonius argues that rulers must study philosophy because only philosophy teaches justice, self-control, courage, and rational judgment. A good king must be a good person, and a good person, by necessity, is a philosopher. Leadership without moral wisdom is not merely flawed; it is dangerous. I then broaden the lens to our responsibility as Stoics. Stoicism is not withdrawal or indifference. It is rational engagement with the world. The Cardinal Virtues work together: courage enables just action, temperance guides when to act, justice clarifies what is fair, and wisdom grounds us in our role as social beings. Leaders who divide humanity into “our kind” and “not our kind” fail this test of justice, regardless of what the law permits. Finally, I argue that our response to unjust leadership must itself be just. That requires self-examination. Before judging leaders, we must be capable of judging ourselves. A society that does not understand goodness cannot expect just leaders, and leaders drawn from such a society will reflect that confusion. What we need is not blind obedience or reckless outrage, but a serious moral recalibration rooted in Stoic philosophy. 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

25. Jan.

•

23 Min.
11. JAN.

Seneca: Avoiding Crowds and Group Think

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 In this episode, I revisit Seneca, a Stoic who often gets dismissed because of his wealth and his close relationship with Nero. I argue that these compromises do not disqualify him as a Stoic, and that he may, in fact, have been one of the most Stoic Roman thinkers precisely because he was aware of his flaws and struggled against them. I introduce and reflect on Seneca’s letter On Crowds, focusing on his warning that being around the wrong people can quietly undo our moral progress. Seneca admits that he often returns home worse than when he left, more indulgent, more ambitious, and more cruel, simply because he has been among others. I connect this to modern experiences of habit, addiction, and relapse, especially how difficult it is to maintain self-control when surrounded by people who excuse or celebrate the very behaviors we are trying to leave behind. I discuss how habits are formed through repetition, how crowds can weaken our resolve by offering permission and comfort, and why leaving unhealthy environments often comes at the cost of strained relationships. I also emphasize that anyone who has successfully changed a destructive habit deserves real admiration, because reversing habituated behavior requires extraordinary effort. Finally, I qualify Seneca’s position. While crowds driven by vice and groupthink are dangerous, not all crowds are. What we should avoid are antisocial and unjust groups, not communities of people sincerely trying to improve. The goal is to surround ourselves with those who want our moral progress and to be that person for others who are earlier on the path. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts. Voice actor used was Sarah Kempton, her portfolio can be found here: https://www.sarahkempton.com Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

11. Jan.

•

22 Min.
30. JAN.

Ethics: Abortion

Stick around after the closing music for some extra thoughts on this topic. -- 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://practicingstoicism.com/pledge. In this episode, I explain why Stoicism does not judge people as just or unjust based on whether they hold a pro-life or pro-choice position. What matters, from a Stoic perspective, is not the conclusion someone reaches, but the quality of the reasoning that leads them there, and whether that reasoning accords with Stoic ethical theory. I use abortion specifically because it is a subject most of us struggle to hold open space around. It is emotionally charged, morally serious, and deeply tied to how we think about Nature, life, and human responsibility. For Stoics, this makes it a fitting case study for understanding how justice, reason, and virtue actually function in practice. I lay out the core Stoic framework first: reason is what carries moral weight. The pregnant person possesses reason; the fetus does not yet. Because of this, Stoicism does not frame abortion in terms of rights or politics, but as a question of how a rational agent uses reason to act in accordance with virtue. From there, I present two internally coherent Stoic arguments. The Stoic pro-life argument emphasizes following Nature, duties toward future rational beings, and justice as fidelity to natural purpose. The Stoic pro-choice argument emphasizes present rational agency, virtue as the only true good, and the idea that living in accordance with Nature means using reason, not blindly following biological processes. I then argue that politicising abortion is itself unjust from a Stoic point of view. Turning a deeply personal moral deliberation into a struggle for power strips the rational agent of their proper role and violates the Stoic demand to respect what lies within another person’s control. Finally, I draw practical conclusions for practicing Stoics. If faced with this decision yourself, you are responsible for reasoning carefully and virtuously. If others face it, justice requires humility, restraint, and respect for their rational faculty, even when you disagree. Stoicism asks us to focus on our own judgments, not to govern the moral agency of others. Looking for a Stoic habit tracker? I've created a free one. You can find it at https://stoictracker.com. Listening on Spotify? Leave a comment! Share your thoughts.

30. Jan.

•

31 Min.
1. FEB.

Is Sex Work Un-Stoic?

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 Musonius Rufus Discourse 12: https://archive.org/details/MUSONIUSRUFUSSTOICFRAGMENTS In this episode, I respond to a candid listener email asking about the Stoic position on sex work. The question is not framed with hostility or judgment, and for that reason I take it seriously. This is not an episode condemning women, sex workers, or anyone’s personal choices. It is an attempt to think clearly and Stoically about consent, justice, harm, and choice. I begin by clarifying what the listener is actually asking. He is not asking whether men are wrong to engage sex workers, but whether women selling sex is unjust from a Stoic perspective. That distinction matters. Stoicism is not interested in purity rules or guilt. It is interested in whether actions are chosen rationally, freely, and without injustice. I then address my own bias. I do not like sex work as a practice, largely because I am skeptical that it is ever entirely free from coercion, manipulation, or long-term harm. I make that bias explicit so it can be accounted for rather than hidden. A Stoic answer requires setting personal discomfort aside and asking whether something is unjust, not whether it feels distasteful. To explore the classical position, I turn to Musonius Rufus and his extremely restrictive views on sex. Musonius argues that sex is only justified within marriage and only for procreation. I explain why I find this position impractical, overly rigid, and inconsistent with the rest of Stoic ethics. Stoicism is about rational choice, not outcome fixation, and reducing sex to reproduction ignores human health, intimacy, and context. From there, I outline what Stoicism actually cares about. Sex is unjust only when it involves harm, coercion, deception, addiction, or unfair leverage. If a sex worker is freely choosing her work, has the power to refuse clients, is not being forced by circumstance or threat, and if the client is acting honestly and without deception, then no injustice is clearly present. In that case, there is no Stoic violation simply because money is exchanged. I also stress that moral clarity does not end with permissibility. Just because something is not unjust does not mean it is automatically wise, healthy, or worth repeating. Stoicism asks us to remain attentive to who we are becoming through our choices. Avoiding injustice does not excuse us from remaining pro-social, reflective, and responsible for our future character. I conclude by emphasizing that Stoicism offers very little in the way of sexual rules, but a great deal in the way of ethical reasoning. The question is not whether sex work is “unstoic” in the abstract. The question is always whether a choice is rational, just, non-harmful, and aligned with the kind of person we are trying to become. 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

1. Feb.

•

19 Min.
19. JAN.

Toxic Soil

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 In this episode, I respond to a listener question prompted by the loss of a long-lived orchid. The plant did not die from neglect, but from care that was given in ignorance. What was meant to nurture it slowly caused harm. From that story comes a serious Stoic question: when does patience become self-abandonment? When does non-reactivity turn into tolerating conditions that prevent growth? I address a common misunderstanding of Stoicism that treats emotional detachment as a virtue in itself. Stoicism does not teach that we should endure all conditions indefinitely, nor that thriving means being comfortable, happy, or externally successful. To thrive, in the Stoic sense, is to pursue moral excellence. Health, wealth, and calm are not the measure. Character is. I make a distinction between the Stoic sage and the rest of us. A sage could flourish in any environment, but most of us are not sages. Environments shape the range of choices available to us. While our surroundings cannot force us to act viciously, they can limit what just and reasonable options are open to us. Poor environments narrow choice. Better environments expand it. From that, I argue that changing your environment can be a Stoic obligation, not a failure of resilience. If a situation consistently restricts your ability to live out your roles well, whether as a parent, partner, or moral agent, then leaving or changing that environment may be the just choice, provided it is done without abandoning responsibilities or harming others. Stoic endurance is not passive tolerance of harm. It is rational engagement with reality, including the reality that sometimes the right move is to change the soil, not blame the plant. 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

19. Jan.

•

11 Min.
5. JAN.

Difficult People and Moral Progress

This podcast is supported entirely by you, the listener. Without your patronage, none of this is possible. Become a patron of my work for as little as $0.50/week here: https://stoicismpod.com/members -- In this episode I reset Practical Stoicism back to its foundations and begin a new chapter for the show by returning to the classical texts themselves. I explain why this version of the podcast will move deliberately across the Stoic corpus rather than reading a single work straight through, drawing from Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, Musonius Rufus, and, where possible, the early Greek Stoics like Zeno of Citium, Chrysippus, and Cleanthes. From there, I focus on Meditations 2.1, one of the most concise and powerful passages in Meditations, using George Long’s translation. I explain why Marcus is so often misunderstood, why he should be read as a deeply committed practitioner rather than a philosophical instructor, and why Meditations was never meant to teach Stoicism to anyone but Marcus himself. We then unpack what Marcus is really doing in this meditation: preparing himself to meet difficult people, refusing to moralize or dehumanize them, and grounding his response in the Stoic claim that ignorance of good and evil (virtue and vice) is the root of wrongdoing. I explain why, in Stoicism, there is only one good and one evil, how this reframes resentment and anger, and why Marcus sees hostility toward others as fundamentally anti-social and contrary to Nature. The episode closes by showing how Stoicism combines sympathy, personal responsibility, and moral resolve, and why caring for others is not optional if one is genuinely pursuing virtue. This is not a philosophy of withdrawal or toughness for its own sake, but a demanding ethical system aimed at producing better human beings. Key takeaways from this episode include: Why Meditations is a private practice document, not a Stoic instruction manual, and how misunderstanding this leads to shallow readings How Meditations 2.1 reveals the Stoic view that vice is ignorance, not malice, and why this matters for how we treat others Why Stoicism is fundamentally pro-social, and why turning away from others undermines the pursuit of virtue itself If you'd like to provide feedback on this episode, or have question, you may do so as a member. Email sent by non-members will not be answered (though they may be read). This isn't punitive, I just cannot keep up. Limiting access to members reduces my workload. You're always invited to leave a comment on Spotify, member or not. Thanks for listening and have a great day! Podcast artwork by Original Randy: https://www.originalrandy.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

5. Jan.

•

21 Min.
3. JAN. · BONUS

Where have all the episodes gone? [Welcome to Practical Stoicism 2026]

Pledge your support to my continued work: https://liberapay.com/tannerocampbell New episodes of Practical Stoicism being January 6th, 2026. Practicing Stoicism is available on Spotify and Apple Podcasts as of January 6th, 2026 and can be found simply by searching for the name. The Practical Stoicism Archives are available for free on Spotify [https://open.spotify.com/show/0eDPIzBgCvMb1AptEbqtpb?si=b1648b3cd2c54dab] and Apple Podcasts [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/practical-stoicism-archives/id1866198483]. The Archives feed submitted to Spotify and Apple just today (January 3rd, 2026). If you cannot yet see them, please wait a day for them to appear in search results. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

3. Jan. · Bonus

•

11 Min.

Creating worthwhile philosophy content.

Channel Website