Stoicism On Fire

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. ~ Robert Frost[1] I love those lines from Robert Frost’s timeless poem The Road Not Taken. As a practicing Stoic, they take on new meaning because of the importance of choice. Robert Frost’s traveler stands at a fork in the road, and he must choose—path A or path B. During his contemplation, he acknowledges that he cannot travel both paths. Then, in these closing lines, Frost highlights the obvious—the chosen path, whatever it may be, will make a profound difference in one’s life. So why choose the Stoic path? Why did you choose the Stoic, if you’ve already made that choice? Why not Epicureanism, Scepticism, Platonism, Cynicism? Why a philosophical path at all? In this podcast, I’m going to argue that if you did choose the Stoic path, you may not have made that choice for the reasons you think you did. If you haven’t chosen a path yet, I’m going to give you some things to consider before you choose a path. As much as I personally love Stoicism and believe everyone can benefit from familiarity with its ethical principles, I do not believe the Stoic path is for everyone. The Stoics teach three natures: Universal Nature Human nature And our individual nature—we might call that your psychological makeup of personality. There is a good reason why we have a variety of philosophical paths—its call human variety. The first choice is for a philosophical life; an examined life. Sometimes, that choice is made when external circumstances force a reevaluation of our life. Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, faced one of those unexpected life events and the subsequent fork in the road as a shipwrecked merchant in a foreign city—Athens. According to Diogenes Laertius, Zeno used his downtime wisely; he stopped in an Athenian bookstore and read about the life of Socrates. A new path opened in Zeno’s mind—a fork in the road—and he faced a choice. The choice he made not only changed his life, but it is also fair to say it profoundly changed Western thought and impacted history in ways he could not have conceived. Frost’s famous traveler only faced two choices. We face a multitude of paths and numerous forking roads as we travel through our lives. Today, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, there is renewed interest in ancient wisdom and the philosophical way of life many lived at the time Zeno made his life-changing choice. I am going to focus on those options available in Hellenistic times when philosophy was practiced as a way of life, and consider why a person who has committed themselves to philosophy as a way of life might choose any of the schools available to them. Then I will offer some reasons why they might choose Stoicism. As Frost’s imaginary traveler considered his options, he knew two things. First, his choice would make a “difference” in his life. Second, knowing how “way leads on to way,” he understood it was unlikely he would ever make it back to explore The Road Not Taken. In other words, the choice was profoundly important and deserving of careful consideration. Moderns who are intrigued by virtue ethics and interested in philosophy as a way of life will likely find themselves facing a similar choice. Faced with several viable philosophical ways of life—Stoicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism, and Cynicism—which to choose? Unlike modern academic philosophy, ancient philosophy practiced as a way of life was not primarily intellectual; it was transformative. Its goal was not mere knowledge; instead, it intended to cure the soul of the practitioner by unburdening their mind of mistaken notions about the nature of reality and human nature and developing within them a state of moral excellence. This endeavor required more than philosophical discourse. That is why, as French philosopher Pierre Hadot so eloquently points out, ancient philosophical discourse and practice were intertwined and considered inseparable aspects of a way of life.[2] During Hellenistic times, philosophical schools created holistic systems of thought and practice designed to transform the practitioner through the practice of a prescribed way of life. The ancient philosophers were physicians of the soul (psyche), and their prescriptions were intended to heal. Nevertheless, they were not painless and easy methods. As Epictetus pointed out, A philosopher’s school, man, is a doctor’s surgery. You shouldn’t leave after having had an enjoyable time, but after having been subjected to pain. For you weren’t in good health when you came in; no, one of you had a dislocated shoulder, another an abscess, another a headache. (Discourses3.23.30) While philosophical theory was an essential part of practice for all ancient philosophical schools, it was not the primary motive that drove people to philosophy in general nor to any particular school. Instead, students were attracted to the philosophical way of life as a quest for wisdom, then they made a “specific existential choice”[3] to follow the path prescribed by one of the schools. Zeno’s Path to Stoicism While shipwrecked in Athens, Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, went to a bookseller’s shop and began reading Xenophon’s Memorabilia.Zeno was so impressed by the life of Socrates he asked the bookseller where such men could be found. As Diogenes Laertius tells the story, Crates the Cynic happened to walk by at that time, so the bookseller pointed him out and said, “Follow that man.”[4] Zeno did follow Crates and that was the beginning of his philosophical quest. Ultimately, Zeno left Crates and studied under Polemo at Plato’s Academy, and then under Stilpo at the Megarian school. Zeno borrowed elements from each of these schools and ultimately blended them with the concept of a conscious and providential cosmos to create the holistic philosophy of Stoicism. A close look at this story of Zeno and the Athenian bookseller, reveals several interesting things. First, it is fair to ask why Zeno was so impressed by the life of Socrates he found in Memorabilia. As Scottish philosopher William Leslie Davidson points out while highlighting “The Socratic Impulse” in Stoicism, “we can hardly question that the historical Socrates reasoned on Theistic lines, basing his conception of God and God's providence on teleology or the marks of design manifest in the universe…”[5] Therefore, within Xenophon’s Memorabilia, we see “the Socrates” who “was characterized by religious reverence and personal piety” and inspired Zeno to follow the path of philosophy.[6] Interestingly, Diogenes Laertius makes a specific note of the fact that Zeno was reading Book II of Memorabilia at the time he asked where men like Socrates could be found. We do not know if Zeno already completed Book I, which highlights the piety of Socrates and defends him against the charge that he did not believe in the gods of the city. Throughout Book I, Socrates counsels his companions to discipline their desires for externals like food, drink, sex, and wealth. Likewise, the opening lines of Book II take up that same theme: He turned his companions toward training themselves to be continent in their desire for meat and drink, and in regard to lust, sleep, cold, heat, and labor. (Memorabilia II.1.1) According to Diogenes Laertius, Zeno must have read those lines and then continued through Book II to an unknown place where his admiration for the life of Socrates inspired him to ask where he could find such men. We do not need to read much farther to find a good cause for Zeno’s enthusiasm. In Book II, chapter 1, verse 21, Xenophon retells Prodicus’ story of Heracles (Hercules) and his fateful choice between two paths. When Heracles was starting to enter adolescence from childhood—when youths, since they are already becoming their own rulers, make clear whether in life they will take the road through virtue or that through vice—going out to a quiet spot, he sat down perplexed as to which of the roads he should take. This story of Heracles is worth reading. I provide more details in previous blog post titles, Choosing The Stoic Path. Or, you can read the entire story here: The Memorabilia: Recollections of Socrates, Xenophon French philosopher Pierre Hadot argues that ancient students of philosophy chose the school they would follow in ancient times because of a “way of life” it offered. I find this argument convincing, and this podcast is based on his idea. He writes: The philosophical school thus corresponds, above all, to the choice of a certain way of life and existential option which demands from the individual a total change of lifestyle, a conversion of one’s entire being, and ultimately a certain desire to be and to live in a certain way.[7] Therefore, when moderns are considering which philosophical path to follow, they should keep several things in mind. First, all the Hellenistic schools claimed to provide a path to eudaimonia (happiness), even though they offered profoundly different paths to achieve it. Second, to argue that one school is better than another is somewhat meaningless. It is reasonable to assume there are examples of people from each school who did achieve that goal. In the end, it may be a matter of individual personality that inspires a person to prefer one school’s path over another. It may be that Epicureanism, Scepticism, Cynicism, and Stoicism all provide viable paths to eudaimonia. This is not an argument for subjectivism; it is an argument for tolerance. Philosophical discourse between schools remains a healthy part of the philosophical way of life. Nevertheless, none of these philosophical paths can be “proven” effective for everyone. Each may work quite well for a subset of humanity, and a little bit of humility amidst the inter-school rivalries and debates will serve us all well. Third, none of these philosophical paths offers a quick fix for psychological angst.

It would be impossible to give a full account of the philosophy of the Stoics without, at the same time, treating of their theology; for no early system is so closely connected with religion as that of the Stoics. Founded, as the whole view of the world is, upon the theory of one Divine Being…There is hardly a single prominent feature in the Stoic system whichis not, more or less, connected with theology.[1] The Stoic God is an all-pervasive, immanent, active force in the cosmos, and is equivalent to and often called “Nature.” Zeus, pneuma, universal Reason, and logos are also used to refer to this active force. The Stoics used many names to refer to the divine principle in the cosmos. In fact, Cleanthes, the second head of the ancient Stoa addressed the Stoic God as follows in his Hymn to Zeus: Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names When describing the Stoic conception of God, it is actually easier to begin by listing the characteristic commonly attributed to deities that do not apply to the Stoic God. The Stoic God is NOT: Transcendent Supernatural Anthropomorphic Aristotle’s prime mover A metaphor An interventionist The Stoic God IS: Immanent Universal Reason Logos Providence Creative fire Active principle The generative principle (σπερματικός λογός) World-soul Breath (πνευμα) World mind Pantheism The Stoics are most frequently considered pantheists; however, deist, theist, and panentheistic qualities are found in the surviving writings. It is important to keep in mind that all of these labels are modern creations; therefore, none applies perfectly. The God of Stoicism does not fit neatly into any modern theological box.[2] More importantly, people use these terms with slightly different meanings, so we must be careful and accurate when we anachronistically refer to the Stoics using a modern term like pantheism. As an example, I have encountered several pantheists online who claim to be atheists. Simply put, at best this is an abuse of language. Our English word pantheism is derived from a combination of the Greek word pan, which means “all”; and theos, which means “god.” Therefore, pantheism means all is God. To declare oneself a pantheist and an atheist simultaneously may be a great conversation starter; however, if pressed, the individual making such a claim will necessarily have to redefine atheism to make that assertion sensible. Where does this come from? One contributor to this abuse of the word pantheism is Richard Dawkins, the fundamentalist advocate of New Atheism. He famously declared that pantheism is nothing more than “sexed-up atheism” in his book the God Delusion.[3] Interestingly, it appears the World Pantheist Movement agrees with Dawkins’ assessment: Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism – the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists – is the only one that passes the muster of the world’s most militant atheist.[4] Unfortunately, this appeal to the authority of Einstein is undercut by the fact that he vehemently denied being an atheist and was extremely critical of atheism on several occasions.[5] Abusing the definition of pantheism to include atheism adds confusion to discussions about an already difficult topic. I will leave this topic with a clear statement: If your definition of pantheism is open to atheism, then it does not apply to the ancient Stoics. There is no credible evidence the ancient Stoics entertained atheism. In fact, the overwhelming body of evidence points in the opposite direction; the ancient Stoics were deeply spiritual. Cleanthes, the second head of the Stoa, wrote the religious Hymn to Zeus; Posidonius, accused the Epicureans of atheism; a charge Philodemus, an Epicurean, felt compelled to deny in his work On Piety. Moreover, Marcus refers quite unflatteringly to "those who do not believe in the gods" (Meditations3.16). Finally, when Epictetus outlines five theological positions, he acknowledges, "there are some who say that the divine doesn’t even exist" (Discourses 1.12.1-3). The Stoics were quite aware of atheism and argued forcefully against it. Stoic Ontology (what exists) The Stoics considered theology the culmination or the crown jewel of Stoic physics. Therefore, to understand their conception of God, we need some grounding in their conception of being. This is called ontology in philosophy, and it is the study of what exists. Only Bodies exist That which acts That which is acted upon All bodies are comprised of two principles Passive principle – undifferentiated matter Active principle – pneuma, God Stoic Materialism Stoic ontology is frequently labeled “materialist” by scholars. However, they do not mean the reductive materialism of modern science when they use that label. In context, they label the Stoics as materialist to contrast them with the idealism of Plato. The Stoics did not agree with Plato’s conception of forms. Instead of external forms to which matter was conformed, the Stoics proposed an active principle (pneuma) that acted upon unsubstantiated matter from within. Therefore, the label “materialist” can lead to misunderstanding. As A.A. Long points argues, It is misleading to describe the Stoics as ‘materialists’. Bodies, in the Stoic system, are compounds of ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ (God or logos). Mind is not something other than body but a necessary constituent of it, the ‘reason’ in matter. The Stoics are better described as vitalists.[6] The Stoic God The Stoic conception of the divine and providential cosmos was there at the beginning of the Stoa, as highlighted by Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus. Here are the opening lines: Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names, ever all-powerful, Zeus,the First Cause of Nature, who rules all things with Law, Hail! It is right for mortals to call upon you, since from you we have our being, we whose lot it is to be God's image, wealone of all mortal creatures that live and move upon the earth. Accordingly, I will praise you with my hymn and ever sing of your might.  As Brad Inwood, professor of philosophy at Yale University points out, The themes of Cleanthes' hymns lie at the heart of Stoicism and help to flesh out the doctrine of Chrysippus that theology is the culmination of physics…Like every branch of philosophy, physics is intimately concerned with the place of human beings in the coordinated whole which is run by Zeus.[7] Johan Thom, distinguished professor at Stellenbosch University, highlights one of the difficulties of understanding Stoic prayer and religion in his analysis of Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, The cause of the difficulty regarding Stoic prayer, and indeed Stoic religion in general, may be ascribed to the fact that Stoicism was, from the very beginning, not purely pantheistic, but an amalgam of pantheism and theism.[8] These theistic leanings are quite prominent in the Hymn to Zeus by Cleanthes, who is considered the “most religious”[9] of the early Stoics. Thus, Thom argues According to Cleanthes’ Hymn, the philosophical life is a religious life, and vice versa.[10] Likewise, the Discourses of Epictetus are rich in theistic language. The logos of Stoicism is not a personal God; nevertheless, in the history of the Stoa, God will tend to assume more and more spiritual and personal traits, religiousness will tend to permeate more and more strongly the system, and prayer will begin to acquire a precise meaning... The Stoa will turn, especially in the last stage, towards theism, but without arriving at it fully.[11] Even though the religious nature of Stoicism evolved over the course of its five-hundred-year history, the“vivid religious sense” was there from the founding of the Stoa and already found “full expression in the well-known Hymn to Zeus.”[12] Nature may be the easiest way for many people to conceive of the Stoic God. However, in Stoicism, Nature is not limited to plants and trees, although they are certainly included. Nature, for the Stoics, means a divinely ordered cosmos, and it is equivalent to God because pneuma—the active principle—permeates the entire cosmos and everything in it, including us humans. This divine cosmos is providential to the extent that everything works out for the good of the whole rather than the good of any particular person. A Modern Stoic Perspective Gregory Sadler, a member of the Modern Stoicism team, recently produced a YouTube video titled “Does Stoicism Believe in God?” During the first six minutes of the video, Dr. Sadler does a great job accurately describing the Stoic conception of God and differentiating it from the commonly held beliefs of many forms of theism. This topic is frequently ignored by modern Stoics, so I applaud Dr. Sadler for addressing it accurately. He even gives a small shout-out to traditional Stoics at 8:00. However, toward the end of the video, his comments reveal an unspoken, and possibly unconscious, bias I believe is common in modern Stoicism. At the seven-minute mark, Dr. Sadler identifies the "wide range of religious perspectives" of people involved in modern Stoicism, including Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Daoist. He then argues these religious perspectives require some 'syncretism’ to make them work, because, there are some places where ancient Stoicism and say Judaism and Christianity were clearly at odds with each other and couldn't be in entire agreement. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Sadler on this point. Nevertheless, while his assessment is quite accurate, it overlooks the fact that agnosticism and atheism also require some 'syncretism' to make them work with Stoicism. In other words, Dr. Sadler's point is equally true when restated as follows:

A virtuous and good person, keeping in mind who he is, and where he has come from, and by whom he was created, concentrates on one thing alone: how he may fill his post in a disciplined manner, remaining obedient to God. (Discourses 3.24.95) I grew up watching The Wizard of Oz every year when it was broadcast on live TV. I always loved the famous scene where Dorothy, Tin Man, and Scarecrow enter the scary forest. As a young child, I was gripped by the almost palpable fear in Dorothy's voice as she asked the Tin Man, "Do you suppose we'll meet any wild animals?" This is the prelude to the familiar scene where the trio skips through the forest chanting: Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my! Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my! The tension of the scene mounts until the Lion bursts from the forest and confronts the trio with loud roars. Dorothy responded to the impression of the roaring Lion by running and hiding behind a tree; the Tin Man raised his ax in anticipation of an imminent attack, and the Scarecrow fell over backward, trembling with fear. Fortunately, it did not take long for the trio to discover this was a false impression and there was no reason to fear this Lion—he was all roar and no bite. In fact, after a brief, tense introduction the Lion became their friend and trusted traveling companion for the remainder of their journey to Oz. As strange as it admittedly sounds, this scene from The Wizard of Oz brings to mind my early experience with the Stoic texts in 2011. I had been a committed atheist for more than twenty years by that time. I was not a mere agnostic; I was an antitheist as a result of my personal experience with organized religion as a young man. Therefore, as I turned the pages of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, I found myself in the midst of a scary theological forest, filled with logos and providence and God. Oh My! I was not prepared to face my aversion to these religious bogeymen, and I nearly turned and ran from this Stoic text a second time. You see, I tried to read Marcus' Meditations more than a decade earlier, but my aversion to anything remotely religious made me incapable of dealing with the "God talk" I found within its pages, so I returned it on my bookshelf. Now, here I was, a decade later, in that same scary theological forest. This time, however, there was a sense of desperation. I was grasping for something to help me make sense of my life, and Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Happiness Hypothesis, pointed to the wisdom of Stoicism for guidance. Therefore, I purchased and read William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life, and Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism, where I discovered an affinity for Stoic psychological and ethical principles and practices. However, neither of those books included all of this God talk that confronted me within the pages Marcus’ Meditations. At first, I hoped Marcus get this God talk out of his system in the early pages of his Meditations; but alas, the God talk did not cease. It was there on nearly every page: Logos and Providence and God, Oh My! In my ignorance about the Stoics, I thought this might be limited to the writings of Marcus Aurelius; therefore, I turned to Epictetus’ Discourses hoping to find some reprieve from the God talk. Oh, my! Was I in for a big surprise. Marcus’ emphasis on a relationship with a divine and providential cosmos paled in comparison to Epictetus’ piety and expression of his relationship with the Stoic divinity in rather personal language. Logos and Providence and God, Oh My! As I read, I recoiled each time I encountered the word "God.” Worse, the concept of “providence” truly made my skin crawl. Nevertheless, Lawrence Becker and William Irvine had convinced me that Stoic theology was not essential to the practice of Stoicism, so I continued my effort to glean what I could from the Stoic texts while ignoring the God talk. In late 2011, I enrolled in the School of Essential Studies course (SES) offered by The College of Stoic Philosophers. I remained firm in my atheism throughout the course by naturalizing Stoic concepts like logos and pneuma as much as possible. I simply ignored the word providence because, like Becker, I considered it an untenable concept. Finally, each time I encountered the word “God” in the Stoic texts, I mentally replaced it with the word “nature” in my mind. God and Nature are synonymous in Stoicism; therefore, this seemed to be a reasonable substitution. Upon completion of the SES course, my atheism was intact, and I was still excited about what Stoicism had to offer. I wanted to learn more, so I enrolled in the one-year-long Marcus Aurelius Program at The College of Stoic Philosophers. Erik Wiegardt was my mentor during the SES course, and now he served as my tutor in the MA School. During the second term of MA School, I dove into the physics of Stoicism, and I soon discovered that Stoic physics includes theology. Oh My! It soon became clear that I was not going to find any reprieve from these theological concepts because they were an integral part of the Stoic philosophical system I was studying and the Stoic way of life I was attempting to live. Ultimately, I realized I was facing a choice. If I wanted to practice Stoicism the way the ancients did, I could not simply ignore or set aside the Stoic conception of the cosmos as Becker and Irvine suggested. The Stoic conception of the cosmos, including their theology, is an integral part of the holistic system known as Stoicism. The concepts cannot be redacted or ignored without affecting Stoic ethics and the Stoic way of life. Now that I was reading the Stoic texts and the scholarship on those texts, I could see that the departures from the traditional form of Stoicism by Becker and Irvine were significant. When they abandoned the Stoic worldview, they changed Stoic theory and practice at a fundamental level. I knew the ancient Stoics warned against deconstructing their system and offered similes of an egg, animal, and orchard to argue it could not be done without damage to the whole. However, until I read the Stoic texts for myself, I did not realize how different those texts were from the modern versions offered by people like Becker and Irvine. They were not simply updating Stoicism for moderns; they were redacting the Stoic worldview, along with its theology, to make Stoicism palatable for atheists like me. I appreciate their efforts. I likely would not have engaged Stoicism if I thought it required “belief” in God or a conscious and providential cosmos. Therefore, secularized versions of Stoicism serve a need, and many people find satisfaction in them and feel no need to venture into the scary theological forest of Stoicism. I was not one of them. As strong as my aversion to concepts like logos, providence, and God was, my intellectual curiosity inspired me to push forward. I soon realized that I was facing a choice I did not anticipate. I could remain committed to my atheism and move forward with a modern version of Stoicism like those I found in the writings of Irvine and Becker. Or, I could attempt what I previously considered unthinkable: I could give the ancient version of Stoicism, including its theology, some open-minded consideration. The latter option was a difficult task for a committed atheist. Fortunately, my mentor, Erik, did not push Stoic theology on me; he simply allowed the Stoic texts to speak for themselves. The MA School is not designed to convert anyone; it simply presents Stoic doctrines, unapologetically, and leaves the choice to the student. I faced this existential choice alone. This was a time of genuine intellectual and existential struggle for me. I learned how difficult it is to set the cognitive biases of a worldview aside long enough to even consider other possibilities. As uncomfortable as I was with Stoic theological concepts at that time, I chose the latter path. Nevertheless, I did not overcome my discomfort with the Stoic worldview quickly or easily. Trying on a New Worldview Over the course of more than eighteen months of dedicated study and contemplation, I came to two important realizations. First, the God of Stoicism is nothing like the deities of organized religion, with which I was familiar. Second, the Stoic doctrine of a conscious and providential cosmos is not as radical an idea as I first thought. In fact, I discovered that many modern scientists and philosophers were entertaining conceptions of reality that were similar, and in some cases compatible, with that of the ancient Stoics.[1] I began to realize there was a lot of science the infamous Four Horsemen of Atheism (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) avoided in their diatribes against religion. More importantly, most of their hyperbolic criticism of organized religion did not apply to the Stoic conception of God or a providential cosmos, or the practice of Stoicism as a way of life. Slowly, assumption by assumption, I set my atheistic cognitive bias aside and opened my mind to the possibility that the ancient Stoics may have grasped a profound truth: The order of the cosmos is not an accident, and human rationality must have a rational source. Of course, this wisdom was not discovered by the Stoics nor were they the only ones to assent to it. This truth is part of the perennial wisdom tradition that can be traced back to the beginning of human history in every culture. On the other hand, atheism, of the kind which permeates our modern secular age, is a recent intellectual invention. Nonetheless, atheism and its more militant New Atheist warriors influence our culture and our thought in profound ways we frequently overlook.[2] As moderns, living in a secular age, we are educated and socially conditioned to ignore and even recoil from religious concepts. The word "God" triggers a negative response in many people, and the idea of being "obedient to God" conjures a strong emotional reaction from most. For some,

Since this is the inaugural episode of Stoicism On Fire it would be natural for you the listener to wonder what this podcast is about. Obviously, it’s about Stoicism, but What is Stoicism on Fire? As the introduction states, this podcast is about Stoicism as a philosophical way of life, which includes a rational form of spirituality. That form of Stoicism has become known as traditional Stoicism in modern times. Ancient Stoicism: 300 BCE – 200 CE Many credible sources are available to explore the doctrines of Stoicism. Both of these trusted sources provide accurate explanations of Stoic doctrines and contrast that with modern or contemporary versions of Stoicism: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Stoicism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Stoicism Neo-Stoicism: 16th and 17th centuries Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Neo-Stoicism Modern Stoicism Has its roots in Lawrence Becker’s book A New Stoicism in 1998 – an attempt to revive Stoicism in a secular form. Modern Stoicism Blog Traditional Stoicism Grew out of Erik Wiegardt’s creation of the New Stoa in 1996. Traditional Stoicism is an attempt to make sense of the ancient Stoic way of life in light of what we have learned about human nature and the cosmos over the last two thousand years while remaining true to the deeply religious nature of Stoicism. Traditional Stoicism Blog The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps Peter Adamson, Professor of Philosophy at the LMU in Munich and at King's College London, takes listeners through the history of philosophy, "without any gaps." The series looks at the ideas, lives and historical context of the major philosophers as well as the lesser-known figures of the tradition. Lectures 60 through 68 address Stoicism; they can be found here: 60 – Walking on Eggshells: the Stoics on Logic 61 – Nobody’s Perfect: the Stoic on Knowledge 62 – We Didn’t Start the Fire: the Stoics on Nature 63 – Like a Rolling Stone: Stoic Ethics 64 – David Sedley on Stoicism 65 – Anger Management: Seneca 66 – You Can Chain My Leg: Epictetus 67 – The Philosopher King: Marcus Aurelius 68 – John Sellars on the Roman Stoics John Cooper John Cooper, of Princeton University, also provides a great one-hour long lecture on ‘The Stoic Way of Life’ as part of the 2011 John Locke lecture series produced by University of Oxford. Some key points of interest for traditional Stoics: @ 6:29 – The coherence of the Stoic philosophical system @ 6:48 – John Cooper argues: “In order to understand properly the Stoic way of life and its philosophical basis, we’re going to have to learn a great deal about their metaphysical and physical theory into which, as I have said, their ethical theory is set as the centerpiece of their whole philosophical system. @ 13:55 – The human relationship to the divine mind The full lecture can be found here: John Cooper Lecture A Box of my favorite things Kevin Patrick Jr wrote a blog post in November of 2015 that has remained quite relevant as the modern Stoic movement grows. He asks, How many of us have a box of our favorite things which we’ve haphazardly scrawled “STOICISM” across the side?  Inside this box of decades’, generations’ worth of baggage, is there much room leftover for the ideas of Epictetus? Kevin's post is worth reading; he blogs as Mountain Stoic and this post can be found here: A box of my favorite things, with “STOICISM” scrawled on the side Pierre Hadot Maybe more than any other modern philosopher, Pierre Hadot reintroduced moderns to the concept of philosophy as a way of life. His books emphasize the deeply spiritual nature of Stoicism. In his book on the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, he wrote in the conclusion: All the dogmas of Stoicism derive from this existential choice. It is impossible that the universe could produce human rationality, unless the latter were already in some way present within the former.[1] This existential choice differentiates traditional Stoicism from the modern Stoic varients that deny the existence of the cosmic intelligence the ancient Stoics referred to as universal Reason, logos, or God.   ENDNOTES: [1] Pierre Hadot, The Inner Citadel: the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998). pp. 308-9