Practical Stoicism

134 Labs
  • 5.0（1）
  • 哲学
  • アップデート：毎週

Stoicism is the pursuit of Virtue (Aretê), which was defined by the Ancient Greeks as "the knowledge of how to live excellently," Stoicism is a holistic life philosophy meant to guide us towards the attainment of this knowledge through the development of our character. While many other Stoicism podcasts focus on explaining Ancient Stoicism in an academic or historical context, Practical Stoicism strives to port the ancient wisdom of this 2300-plus-year-old Greek Philosophy into contemporary times to provide practical advice for living today, not two millennia ago. Join American philosopher of Stoicism Tanner Campbell, every Monday and Friday, for new episodes.

  1. 6日前

    Will AI Destroy Our Purpose?

    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

    13分

  2. 3月19日

    Why should Stoics journal?

    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

    8分

  3. 3月17日

    Stoicism vs. The Manosphere

    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

    18分

  4. 3月9日

    Can We Make Anger Useful?

    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

    12分

  5. 3月3日

    Can Wars Be Just?

    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

    14分

  6. 2月19日

    Curse Moral Relativism!

    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

    19分

  7. 2月13日

    🏛️ The Marcus Aurelius Fan Club [Special Edition]

    I answer questions from a classroom of children about Stoicism and "the old times, when I was a kid." Please enjoy this special edition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    1時間29分

  8. 2月8日

    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

    13分
すべて見る（16）

予告編

番組について

Stoicism is the pursuit of Virtue (Aretê), which was defined by the Ancient Greeks as "the knowledge of how to live excellently," Stoicism is a holistic life philosophy meant to guide us towards the attainment of this knowledge through the development of our character. While many other Stoicism podcasts focus on explaining Ancient Stoicism in an academic or historical context, Practical Stoicism strives to port the ancient wisdom of this 2300-plus-year-old Greek Philosophy into contemporary times to provide practical advice for living today, not two millennia ago. Join American philosopher of Stoicism Tanner Campbell, every Monday and Friday, for new episodes.

情報

  • チャンネル
    134 Labs
  • クリエイター
    Tanner Campbell
  • 配信期間
    22年 - 26年
  • エピソード
    16
  • 制限指定
    不適切な内容を含む
  • Copyright
    © Tanner Campbell and 134 Labs Limited 2026
  • 番組のWebサイト
    Practical Stoicism

134 Labsの他の作品

その他のおすすめ