Five Common Misconceptions About Stoicism and What the Stoics Actually Taught
- 1 day ago
- 8 min read
Updated: 12 hours ago
Written by Tanner O. Campbell, Philosopher of Stoicism
Tanner Campbell is a public philosopher specialising in orthodox Stoicism. He hosts the Practical Stoicism podcast, co-authored "What Is Stoicism? A Brief and Accessible Overview", and runs a private Stoic coaching practice in Dundee, Scotland.
Most people who tell you they’re into Stoicism have never studied Stoicism. Instead, they’ve consumed a lot of so-called Stoic content on social media and mistaken that content for an education in the philosophy. The result is that a version of the philosophy which would have baffled Epictetus and bored Seneca has become the mascot of Stoicism–to the detriment of all. Here are the five ideas about Stoicism that do the most damage, and what the actual Stoics said instead.
First, what is Stoicism?
Stoicism is a ~2,300-year-old philosophy and virtue ethics framework founded by a Phoenician merchant-turned-shipwrecked-homeless-immigrant named Zeno (of Citium). It teaches that the proper use of a human life is to perfect one’s rational faculty so that one may “live according to Nature.” To live according to Nature means to perfect one’s natural purpose. As a parallel, consider the honeybee. The nature of a honeybee is to pollinate and serve the hive, and the better it does this, the better a honeybee it is. The nature of a human being, so say the Stoics, is to reason. It is a thing we cannot help but do. You’re doing it right now as you read these words, and you’ll continue to do it every moment of the rest of your life, well or poorly. To reason well, one needs to interpret reality as honestly as possible so they can first understand their roles and duties to others and themselves. Once they’ve done this, they can begin the lifelong process of training their mind and character toward fulfilling these roles and duties. Or, in the shortest of short form, Stoicism is a naturalistic theory for living a good life, where “good” means virtuous. If you’d like a more robust explanation, you might consider my book.
Why is Stoicism so often misunderstood?
Like any theory meant to give you a complete picture of human purpose, morality, ethics, and the natural laws which govern the cosmos, and, indeed, how the cosmos itself came to be in the first place, Stoicism is deeply nuanced and requires years of study to understand properly. It’s also the case that the Stoics were more specific in their use and definition of words than we are accustomed to being today. For example, when the Stoics use the word “Good,” they don’t mean it in the way we mean it today, as in, for example, “I’m having a good day,” or “he’s a good guy,” or “that was such a good book.” Combine these reasons with an internet culture of click-baiting and view-chasing for profit, and what you have is a nuanced philosophy being cherry-picked for marketable content, misinterpreted by the uninformed, and popularised through shallow but catchy maxims that look nice on coffee mugs but do very little to teach anything truly useful to anyone.
Five common misconceptions about Stoicism
1. Stoicism is a philosophy for men only: Since Stoicism is the pursuit of a virtuous character, and the Latin root vir- denotes “of men,” some people say that only men can pursue virtue. Thus, Stoicism is a philosophy and practice reserved for men alone. This is, frankly, stupid. For a couple of reasons. First, Stoicism is an Ancient Greek philosophy and, I probably don’t need to tell you, the Ancient Greeks didn’t write their philosophies (or anything else) in Latin. “Virtue” is the Latin best equivalent for the original Greek “Aretḗ,” which meant “excellence.” In particular, it meant excellence of character. Certainly women have characters the same as men, and certainly the perfection of character cannot be valuable to one gender without being likewise valuable to the other. But in addition to this, Aretḗ is the name of a Greek Goddess (see, woman) who was the Goddess of excellence! If all that isn’t enough, consider the words of Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, who said:
"Women as well as men have received from the gods the gift of reason, which we use in our dealings with one another and by which we judge whether a thing is good or bad, right or wrong. Likewise, the female has the same senses as the male, namely sight, hearing, smell, and the others. Also, both have the same parts of the body, and one has nothing more than the other. Moreover, not men alone, but women too, have a natural inclination toward virtue and the capacity for acquiring it, and it is the nature of women no less than men to be pleased by good and just acts and to reject the opposite of these. If this is true, by what reasoning would it ever be appropriate for men to search out and consider how they may lead good lives, which is exactly the study of philosophy, but inappropriate for women?"
Stoicism is a philosophy for human beings, and one’s gender has nothing at all to do with it.
2. Stoicism teaches you to stop caring: When translating from Greek to Latin to English, a lot of unfortunate artifacts arise. One such artifact is that when you say the words indifference and indifferents out loud, it sounds as though you’ve said the exact same word twice. Since most people aren't familiar with the plural form of indifferent, they think they are hearing the word “indifference.” This has led to the (incorrect) belief that Stoics are meant to practice indifference. That is to say, they are meant to be indifferent toward things. What things? “Anything they cannot control.” But none of that is correct.
In Stoicism, an “indifferent thing” is a thing which neither reflects our character nor impacts our character’s development. For example, being poor does not reflect whether I am a good person or a bad person. Nor does being poor prevent me from developing my character toward excellence, toward virtue. So money is an indifferent thing, not in the sense that it doesn’t matter, but in the sense that it doesn’t say anything about our character or prevent us from improving ourselves morally. From the Stoic perspective, almost all things are “indifferents.” Freedom, slavery, peace, war, wealth, poverty, etc. The Stoic never held that these things don’t matter. Of course, they can matter a great deal! They held only that the presence of these things is not a sign of our individual character. We can become better and act well, or worse and act poorly, whether we are free or enslaved, whether the world is at war or peace, and whether we are rich or poor.
Stoics, in fact, have to care about a great many things. Stoics have to care about things like freedom, slavery, poverty, wealth, war, and peace to execute their roles and duties appropriately (and thus pursue Virtue). After all, what would it say about a person’s character if they said, “Oh, slavery doesn’t affect me, and so I don’t care about it!” Would that suggest a virtuous and excellent character to you? Of course it wouldn’t.
3. Stoicism is for lone wolves: Stoics were notoriously problematic for corrupt leadership and, as a result, they were exiled a number of times throughout history. Musonius Rufus, quoted earlier, was one such exiled Stoic, banished to the island of Gyaros by the tyrant Nero. It is perhaps for this reason that there has been credence lent to the idea that Stoics are meant to live lives of solitude, in need of nothing and no one, to subsist on their own mental musings and intellectual pursuits alone. But this is wrong.
One of the things that distinguishes Stoics from Cynics is that Stoics believe the pursuit of virtue, of an excellent moral character, is best pursued through the appropriate fulfillment of duties and roles within the Cosmopolis. The Stoics were prosocial and believed that participation in society was key to attaining virtue.
Stoics are meant to be able to endure exile, solitude, and loneliness, to be sure, but they are not meant to seek it out as if it were the point.
4. Stoicism is a resilience programme: Google “Stoic resilience routines,” and you’ll discover a theme. Stoics seem to like to punish themselves to prepare for the worst. There is some truth to this, but only a small amount. There is a (Latin) phrase, “Premeditatio Malorum,” or “the premeditation of evils,” which suggests Stoics spend some amount of time, on a regular basis, thinking about all the things that might go wrong in the world so that they might be less caught off guard when those things wind up actually happening.
As I said, there is some truth to this, and it predates Stoicism by a century. Aristippus of Cyrene, a sensual hedonist, seems to be the one responsible for the idea. It was not until the 21st century, however, inspired by English translations of Seneca, that several Anglophone Stoics coined the expression “negative visualization” and gave it the dog-Latin, that’s made-up Latin, expression “premeditatio malorum.” So the term is more marketing than it is anything else, but the idea is somewhat Stoic.
We should prepare ourselves for what may come, in whatever ways we’re reasonably able to do so. But not for the purpose of being strong and resilient when and if those terrible things we’ve prepared for finally arrive. Rather, so that those terrible things, which are also indifferent things, which you now understand, do not overpower our rational faculty and cause us to act unjustly, immorally, or with evil intent. Stoics prepare appropriately for the worst so they can keep improving their moral character in its wake.
5. Stoicism means suppressing your emotions: It seems that when the word “stoic” is used to describe someone, it’s frequently meant as a pejorative or as shorthand for a lack of appropriate emotion. This use of the word isn’t without its truth. Whether we Stoics, with a capital “S,” like it or not, the compartmentilisation of duty from emotion is associated with “being stoic,” note the lowercase “s.” This sort of stoicism, again, lowercase “s,” does have some utility in the world. Certainly a combat medic cannot go to pieces when attending to the needs of wounded soldiers, no matter the horrors he or she may be witnessing while doing so. But Stoicism, I’ll point out the capital “S” this final time, doesn’t encourage this sort of emotional compartmentalisation.
Instead, Stoics must be highly in tune with their emotions, because being unaware of them risks being overpowered by them. A Stoic must notice when they are angry, for example, so that they can hold that emotion in their mind, examine it, and determine whether it’s a safe and appropriate emotion to have. There are two categories of emotion in Stoicism, unhealthy passions (pathē) and healthy feelings (eupatheiai). It is rarely, if ever, appropriate to validate indulgence in pathē, and it is encouraged to express eupatheiai appropriately.
Pathē include hate, anger, jealousy, and lust, to name a few. Eupatheiai include love, joy, contentment, and so forth.
Pathē always encumber just and appropriate action. Eupatheiai are the opposite. If you feel rage about injustice, for example, and you use that rage to motivate your response, it will ensure your actions are both inappropriate and unjust. Whereas, if you use the emotion of love to motivate your response to injustice, your actions can be both appropriate and just.
This doesn’t mean that a response to injustice cannot be violent, or cannot involve force, consider the Stoic Opposition. It only means that our deployment of reason in planning our response is not fueled by negative emotions that cloud both right reason and a proper understanding of our duties and result in a less thoughtful and less ethical response to injustice, which frequently only makes things worse.
Where to start with real Stoicism
If you’re interested in learning more about actual Stoicism, you can listen to my free podcast or buy my book. Or, if you’re a successful professional who, despite their success, is feeling a bit lost and uncertain about what comes next in life, you might consider engaging my private Stoic coaching practice.
Read more from Tanner O. Campbell
Tanner O. Campbell, Philosopher of Stoicism
Tanner Campbell is a public philosopher who teaches Stoicism as the ancient Stoics actually practised it, not in the way that pop culture has bastardised it. He hosts the award-winning Practical Stoicism podcast (over 10M downloads), and co-authored "What Is Stoicism? A Brief and Accessible Overview." Through his company, 134 Labs, he delivers decision-making and team workshops to businesses, mentors private clients one-on-one, and writes the Stoic Brekkie newsletter weekly. He writes the journaling curriculum at StoicJournaling.com, a year-long daily journaling programme. Tanner lives in Scotland with his wife and their son.
