The Stoic Guide To A Happy Life | Massimo Pigliucci | Modern Wisdom Podcast 239

1. 0:00 – 0:39

   Intro

   1. MPMassimo Pigliucci0:00

      ... the people that came before us are not our masters, they're our teachers, they're our guides. But if I find a new way to proceed that is better, I'll do it, because, you know, the truth, it- it says it's open to all and, and it will be uncovered by future generations. (wind blowing)

   2. CWChris Williamson0:17

      Twice in a year, what a treat.

   3. MPMassimo Pigliucci0:19

      I know. (laughs) Well, you know, it's the pandemic, it's easier to get people stuck at home. (laughs)

   4. CWChris Williamson0:26

      That's true. Well, we've got nothing else to do, we might as well just keep on talking about Stoicism. The Stoic-

   5. MPMassimo Pigliucci0:31

      That's right.

   6. CWChris Williamson0:31

      ... The Stoic Guide to a Happy Life: 53 Brief, Brief Lessons for Living. Why'd you write this?

2. 0:39 – 8:11

   Why write this book

   1. CWChris Williamson0:39

   2. MPMassimo Pigliucci0:39

      For two reasons. Uh, on the one hand, there's kind of a personal reason. Uh, the, the book is really an ambitious, uh, to some extent, rewriting of the Encheiridion, which is one of the classic texts in Stoicism, in ancient Stoicism, and, and, and it's, um ... it wasn't written by Epictetus, uh, but it, uh, uh, it is about Epictetus' teaching. Epictetus didn't write anything, um, and, uh, one of his best students, or most famous students, Arrian of Nicomedia, uh, write- wrote down both of his courses and the Encheiridion. To some extent, this is my person homage to Epictetus because he has been my steady guide throughout my Stoic path. Um, you know, I love all of the Stoics. I read Marcus Aurelius, I lea- I read Seneca, I read some of the so-called minor Stoics that are not really minor, they're just minor because we don't have a hell of a lot, uh, that survived of his- of, of their writings. But Epictetus has been the one that really got me into it and it has been sort of a constant companion. So to one ex- to ... in some- in one sense, it is just a- my personal homage to Epictetus. But more importantly, it is an attempt to update Stoicism, and in particular Epictetus' version of Stoicism, to the 21st century. And the reason for that is that Stoicism, in a sense, got interrupted. Uh, you know, it, it started out in, um, uh, the late 4th century BCE. It flourished for five or six centuries, until the early 3rd century of the modern era, and then it kind of got interrupted by Christianity, just like every other, uh, you know, Hellenistic philosophy. It just like, it, it disappeared from, from view. And in that sense, the Greek, Greek-Roman philosophies are very different from, let's say, a number of Eastern traditions, such as Buddhism or Confucianism or Taoism, which evolved and developed gradually over time in essentially uninterrupted fashion. So for instance, if you compare Stoicism with Buddhism, today it's not even correct, really, to talk about Buddhism in the singular. There i- there are many Buddhisms, right? Because there's a number of traditions that evolved over, continuously over two and a half millennia, and clearly nobody today is a Buddhist in the same sense in which somebody was a Buddhist 2000 and, you know, and a half, uh, you know, years ago. But that's not true for Stoicism, because it's like after the third ... the, the, the 2nd or 3rd centuries, like, we, we have a lot of influence of Stoicism on other thinkers, like, uh, Christian writers throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and, you know, early modern philosophers. But then we kind of have a jump (laughs) to the 20th century, essentially. And so, um, uh, I'm not the first one to do this kind of thing. Thing ... My friend and, um, colleague, uh, Larry Baker, who wrote A New Stoicism, uh, did a similar thing, uh, with the entire Stoic system. Uh, however, Larry, Larry's attempt is, on the one hand, more comprehensive than mine, because he didn't focus just on Epictetus, he focused, like, the whole thing. Ɣρεμάι. But it's also much more difficult, uh, in terms of, you know, it's not ac- as accessible to the general public, because he wrote for philosophers for, for, you know, in a technical fashion. If you don't have at least a couple of courses on- of logic under your belly, you're not gonna get much out of that book. (laughs) Um, so, so my attempt has been to update Stoicism to the 21st century, but also to make Epictetus accessible again, uh, to a wider public. 'Cause, you know, most people, I bet, today, don't ... haven't heard the term ... the, the word Epi- ... you know, the name of Epictetus. It's like, "Uh, who the hell was this guy?" People have heard Plato, people have heard Socrates, they've heard Marcus Aurelius. They might not have read them, but they've heard of them. Epictetus, like, "Epi- epi- who?" Uh, and, uh, this is unfortunate, and it's also rather anomalous. It is a, like a 20th century, early 21st century feature, because before that, Epictetus was actually a household name. His school in Nicopolis in Northwestern Greece was very famous through- throughout antiquity. You know, the Emperor Adrian, uh, went to visit. You know, a lot of, uh, of, um, sort of high-level Roman aristocrats sent their kids to, uh, study with him, that sort of stuff. Then, throughou- throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the Encheiridion was actually rewritten and updated several times, because it was used as a trainual ... (laughs) as a, a training manual for ... Trainual is a new word that I just invented.

   3. CWChris Williamson4:53

      Nice.

   4. MPMassimo Pigliucci4:53

      A training manual (laughs) for, uh, Christian monks. Right? So it w- so it was actually adopted by Christianity. And then all the way turn- into sort of very recent, relatively recent times, like, many of the, uh, American Founding Fathers; Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, uh, as well as several major British figures, early modern British figures such as David Hume and, and Adam Smith, they all had copies of the Encheiridion. They know- they all knew about Epictetus. Whether they considered themselves Stoics or not, uh, they certainly had read him, so ... And so I think it is unfortunate that a lot of people today don't even know who Epictetus was. I think his, his philosophy, with or without my update, is, is incredible and it needs to be m- you know, uh, understood and, and appreciated, because it changes lives, like it changed mine.

   5. CWChris Williamson5:43

      What's so special about him?

   6. MPMassimo Pigliucci5:46

      Well, he's a no-nonsense kind of philosopher. He talks very in a very plain, plain language. He talks about important topics, uh, anything from, from wealth to friendship to death to, you know, what are the important things in life. In fact, he even actually gives you advice on, uh, what kind of conversation to engage in and whether to watch chariot, uh, races or not. (laughs)

   7. CWChris Williamson6:06

      Should we? Should we watch chariot races?

   8. MPMassimo Pigliucci6:08

      No. We shouldn't watch chariot races, really.

   9. CWChris Williamson6:09

      Okay.

   10. MPMassimo Pigliucci6:09

       It's like ... it's a, it's a waste of time.

   11. CWChris Williamson6:11

       That's a shame.

   12. MPMassimo Pigliucci6:11

       Unfortunately, there are not many of those. (laughs)

   13. CWChris Williamson6:13

       Yeah, no.

   14. MPMassimo Pigliucci6:14

       (laughs)

   15. CWChris Williamson6:15

       I'd love ... I just wanna see a, a Boudicca-... you know, I wanna s-, I wanna see some, some horses and some lions and tigers getting at it.

   16. MPMassimo Pigliucci6:22

       (laughs) Yeah, that would be kind of interesting, wouldn't it? (laughs) . So, so he's both straightforward and a- approaches a number of topics that are really about con- uh, concerns for, for everyday life. He also has a wicked sense of humor, uh, bordering on sarcasm. Uh, you know, he's, he's ... By modern standards, he's a lit- little bit abusive of some of his students, right?

   17. CWChris Williamson6:42

       (laughs)

   18. MPMassimo Pigliucci6:42

       He, he calls them slaves (laughs) , which he would know because he actually was a slave. You know, he started out his life in Hierapolis in western Turkey, modern western Turkey, as a slave. In fact, he's, we don't even know his real name. Epicti- Epi- Epictetus just means acquired in Greek.

   19. CWChris Williamson6:59

       Wow.

   20. MPMassimo Pigliucci6:59

       So, it literally means that he was a slave, right?

   21. CWChris Williamson7:01

       So, I only, um, I only learned recently that Plato wasn't Plato's real name, that it was-

   22. MPMassimo Pigliucci7:08

       That's right.

   23. CWChris Williamson7:08

       ... Er- Aristocles?

   24. MPMassimo Pigliucci7:10

       That's right.

   25. CWChris Williamson7:10

       Um-

   26. MPMassimo Pigliucci7:10

       Apparen- apparently. We don't know for sure, but yes.

   27. CWChris Williamson7:12

       Yeah, and Plato-

   28. MPMassimo Pigliucci7:13

       Yeah, Plato just means broad-shouldered-

   29. CWChris Williamson7:15

       Yeah.

   30. MPMassimo Pigliucci7:15

       ... because he was wrestler.
3. 8:11 – 13:14

   The economy of control

   1. CWChris Williamson8:11

   2. MPMassimo Pigliucci8:11

      Well, he's cool because he gives you very practical advice on life. Um, for instance, if you, if you pick up the first, the very opening of The Enchiridion, uh, it says, "Some things are up to us, other things are not up to us," and then he gives, uh, two lists of things that are and are not under our power. And if you actually, if, if you get anything out of The Enchiridion or of, of the field guide, uh, the new, the new version, that would be it. If you just get that one and incorporate it into your daily life, that's ... Just, just that one is gonna change things for you because, uh, it turns out that what it does, if you really understand the, the so-called dichotomy, this is, uh, referred to as the dichotomy of control. If you understand the dichotomy of control and incorporate it in your life and you internalize it, because understanding it's easy. Sure, some things are up to me, other things are not up to me. Right. Okay. Then we can have, we have, we can have a discussion about what falls into each category, and actually we should have that discussion (laughs) because it-

   3. CWChris Williamson9:09

      Mm-hmm.

   4. MPMassimo Pigliucci9:09

      ... it is important. But understanding it is not, is not enough. You have to internalize it. You have to actually live it. And if you do, what that does is it results into a major reorientation of the way you conduct your life. Because it turns out that Epictetus says that the only things ... The things that are up to us are actually very limited. There's actually three categories of things that are up to us. Our considered judgments, our, uh, endorsed values, and our decisions to act or not to act. That's it. Nothing else, right? So, not even most of your mental life is under your control, as we know. You know, there's, there's all sorts of thoughts that pop up to, in our mind, and we can't control them. We don't even want to control them necessarily, right? But those three things are the ones you control. The rest, you don't. You can influence it, of course, in some cases, but you don't control it, and you don't control the out- the, the, the outcome. For instance, we're talking, we're having this conversation in the middle of a pandemic, right? So, let's talk about health. Health is one of the things that Epictetus says is not under your control. And a lot of people find that rather counterintuitive. It's like, "Well, what do you mean? I, I can go to the gym. I can, uh, you know, exercise. I can have a healthy diet. Now that I'm in the COVID, I can, uh, you know, wear a mask when I go out, uh, social distance, avoid crowds, um, uh, wipe down my groceries and, you know, sanitize my hands," all that sort of stuff, right? And you should do that. In fact, all those things are under your control because those are your decisions to act and not to act based on your judgments, right? However, I'm a biologist. I can tell you, viruses are sons of bitches. They, they will get you, they might get you even if you do everything right. Right? It's, it's down to luck. Yes, you can influence that outcome, meaning that if you do everything right, you're less likely, probably far less likely, to contract the virus, but you may, right? All it takes is, I go to a grocery ... I have to go grocery shopping because I have to eat, and all it takes is somebody n- not wearing their mask sneezing, uh, you know, a, a foot away from me, and that's it (laughs) .

   5. CWChris Williamson11:11

      Mm-hmm.

   6. MPMassimo Pigliucci11:11

      Then, then, then, um, I, I got it, right? So, if we understand this, then what happens is that you start worrying much less about outcomes because they're not under your control. Not because they're not important. It is important whether I get sick or not from, from COVID, right? Um, but it's not under my control, so why the hell am I worried about it? There, there's no ... It's a waste of energy. It's a waste of, of mental energy and emotional energy. I should focus, on the other hand, where my agency is maximized, where I can actually make a difference, right? In the, the kinds of judgments and decisions that I was talking about. If you do that for everything in your life, because Epictetus says you should do that on anything, no matter, it doesn't matter what it is, n- whether it's important or not, uh, large or small, et cetera, et cetera, he says your life will change dramatically, and you will be happy. You would not complain. You would not be angry with people, and you would not, uh, be angry at, at, uh, circumstances. Like, "Okay. I sign up (laughs) ." Uh, I like that sort of stuff. And it works. It does take practice, obviously. Uh, e- as I said, one thing is to understand the n- the, the, the idea. Another thing is to actually internalize it. It takes a little bit of practice. But I can, I could tell you, it started making a difference in my life within weeks after I started practicing Stoicism, and now it's kind of second nature.

   7. CWChris Williamson12:33

      That was something that I really enjoyed during our first conversation, which everyone can go back and listen to from earlier this year if you enjoyed this conversation, um, was talking about the automation of it, um, in the same way-

   8. MPMassimo Pigliucci12:45

      Yeah.

   9. CWChris Williamson12:46

      ... as people automate the, uh, o- other things in their life, a little trigger that reminds them to go outside, the trigger for the dichotomy of control. It's one thing to know it, it's another thing to internalize it, and then it's a third thing to automate it. And that gap between understanding how to do it and what it is, and then the, um, removal of it being so arduous that it takes tons and tons of effort, uh, is another step, right? And that's just-

   10. MPMassimo Pigliucci13:11

       Right.

   11. CWChris Williamson13:12

       ... repetition over time.

   12. MPMassimo Pigliucci13:13

       It is

4. 13:14 – 14:29

   Repetition is the key

   1. MPMassimo Pigliucci13:14

      just repetition, just like a lot of other things. You know, if you, if you wanna learn how to drive a car or play an instrument or, you know, anything, uh, repetition is the key. You have to understand what you're doing. I mean, you have to un- to have a sort of a cognitive understanding of, you know, why is it that you wanna hit the brake, uh, let's say, if a pedestrian walks in front of you all of a sudden. Uh, but understanding by itself doesn't bring your ability to actually drive the car well-

   2. CWChris Williamson13:37

      Yeah.

   3. MPMassimo Pigliucci13:37

      ... or play the instrument well, or do whatever.

   4. CWChris Williamson13:39

      (laughs) Precisely. What is a vade mecum? A v-

   5. MPMassimo Pigliucci13:45

      A vade mecum is a Latin phrase for "Did I pronounce it correctly?" ... literally... Yes, yes, you did.

   6. CWChris Williamson13:48

      Yes.

   7. MPMassimo Pigliucci13:48

      Uh, vade mecum just means, um, bring it with you or carry it with you. Or it comes with you.

   8. CWChris Williamson13:54

      And that is the, the reason that you make a, a book into something that's small and that is-

   9. MPMassimo Pigliucci13:59

      Exactly.

   10. CWChris Williamson13:59

       ... with you at all times and... Yeah.

   11. MPMassimo Pigliucci14:01

       Correct.

   12. CWChris Williamson14:01

       That's cool. I really like that. Vade mecum, I'm gonna... And it's, uh, go with you, did you say?

   13. MPMassimo Pigliucci14:06

       Yeah, it's co- comes with me, li- literally.

   14. CWChris Williamson14:09

       Cool. So, what are your favorite lessons? Uh, you've, you, like you say, not a small, um, undertaking to try and do Stoicism 2.0.

   15. MPMassimo Pigliucci14:17

       (laughs)

   16. CWChris Williamson14:19

       Before we get onto where you diverged and where you amended work, what were some of the lessons, your favorite lessons, that didn't require any modification from the original

5. 14:29 – 17:44

   We dont own anything

   1. CWChris Williamson14:29

      texts?

   2. MPMassimo Pigliucci14:29

      Well, let's see, we can open some kind of a random... Uh, like the first one I just told you, the number, number one, right? Um, number 11 I think is particularly, uh, interesting. It says, it starts out, my version starts out, "You should go through life as a traveler who stops at an inn, never regarding anything as truly yours, but as on loan from the universe." And then it continues for a couple of other paragraphs. And that's a notion that you find in Epictetus, and in fact you actually find in earlier Stoics like Seneca, this idea that we don't actually own anything. We, we use a language of ownership for a lot of things, my house, my wife, my friend, my this and that or the other, right? But in fact you don't own anything. Even if you legally own your house, it's not really yours, meaning that somebody probably lived in it before you did and somebody's gonna live in it after (laughs) y- y- you, you're go, you're done with it. Even if it's a new house, at some point somebody else will inherit it or somebody else will, will, will buy it. It's not something you can carry with you into the, into, under the grave, right? And of course even so, more so for, uh, things like relationships, right? I mean, nobody is actually your- no human being is yours. You have a relationship with them and the relationship, relationships change, uh, over time. Uh, sometimes they end, um, and they are however an important part of life. So, uh, what Epictetus is saying there is like, hold on to everything as if you were a traveler in a hotel, right? When you check in in your hotel, uh, the room that you're given is "your" room, quote unquote, right? Not as in, "I own it (laughs) and that's it, I can do whatever I wa- I want with it. I can trash it, I can, you know, do, do, do whatever I li-" No, I don't. I can't. But it is my room. Nobody else is gonna get into it, uh, you know, unless I give permission for the duration of my stay. Now, what is the proper way to stay at a hotel? You use everything you have available, but you don't trash the place, you leave it as, you know, clean and orderly as you found it, even better actually ideally, and so on and so forth, right? And so because-

   3. CWChris Williamson16:32

      I've never left a hotel room better than I found it, Massimo.

   4. MPMassimo Pigliucci16:35

      (laughs)

   5. CWChris Williamson16:36

      That, if that's the way that you... That might be your cultural heritage speaking for you there, but us Brits are nowhere near as polite and tidy as that.

   6. MPMassimo Pigliucci16:44

      Granted that that's not a nor- a normal thing, but you, uh, you see what I mean. You certainly wouldn't trash it, right? That's the, that, the, the notion is. So the idea is that that's the attitude that you should a- p- that you should have for pretty much everything in life. Just hold it lightly, remember that it's not yours, it's on loan from the universe and the universe can take that loan back at any time.

   7. CWChris Williamson17:06

      Wasn't there a, um, a little further down the line of that particular thinking, wasn't there a place that you diverge from the work, the original text, whereby, um, you had a, a problem with the way they're describing dealing with the death of a family member, uh, was basically-

   8. MPMassimo Pigliucci17:26

      Yes.

   9. CWChris Williamson17:26

      ... to be treated with e- equanimity. It was like it doesn't matter, like you shouldn't cry if your wife or your son or your daughter dies, you shouldn't cry if this happens. And I think that you said that kind of f- we forget, or that is ignorant of the way that interpersonal relationships work. Is that right?

6. 17:44 – 22:34

   What Epictetus said

   1. CWChris Williamson17:45

   2. MPMassimo Pigliucci17:45

      Yeah. So, so what Epictetus said, this, that's actually one of the major places where I diverged from Epictetus, and I diverge with respect and understanding. Uh, not because I thought he was an i- I think he was an, he was an idiot and it's like, "Oh, look at the kind of stuff that he was believing." So let me set the stage first. The Stoics, uh, believed in, uh, a type of providence which is not like the Christian providence. You know, Christian providence is based on the notion that there is a creator God that loves us and cares about us and has a plan for the universe. That's not what we're talking about. However, the Stoics believed that the universe itself, which they called God, or nature, interchangeably, uh, is a living organism endowed with logos. Logos is the ability to reason, okay? So it's, it's its own organ- it's, it's a thing. It's this gigantic organism that does its own thing. We don't know what, what exactly it does, but it does its own thing. We are literally bits and pieces of that organism.... right? Uh, like, like cells in the organism or, or organs in the organism. In fact, Epictetus uses a metaphor that I find beautiful. He says, um, y- you know, "Imagine you're the f- a foot that has to step into the mud." If you think of it from the point of view of just the foot without realizing you're connected to a whole organism, you'd say, "Well, this is disgusting. I don't want to s- step into the mud. What the hell? You know, I'd rather take a shower or take... I'd rather have a bath or anything like that. I don't, I don't want the ma- the mud." But if you understand that you are in fact connected to a body, the body has to get home, and the only way to get home is to cross a muddy path, then not only you're gonna do it because it's your duty, but you're gonna be happy to do it, because you're fulfilling... you're literally fulfilling your... the reas- your... the reason for your existence. You're allowing the body to get home, right? If you believe in that kind of conception of the universe, then it follows, as Epictetus says, that, um, when something tragic happens to us or something that other people think tragic, not only we should endure it and accept it, we should actually be happy about it, right? It's, well, it's the concept of amor fati, love your fate, although the phrase comes from Nietzsche much later on, and he was not a Stoic. Um, but that's essentially the idea, right? So, when he says, in the original Enchiridion, "Look, uh, remember when you kiss your child or, or your wife, remember that they're mortal. Thereb- therefore, if they die, you will not be disturbed," people read this passage out of context like, "What kind of a monster is this guy?" (laughs) Like, "What do you mean I'm not going to be-"

   3. CWChris Williamson20:17

      Some psychopathic-

   4. MPMassimo Pigliucci20:18

      Yeah, he's a psychopath, right?

   5. CWChris Williamson20:19

      ... sage from, from back in the, in the, the ancient times, yeah.

   6. MPMassimo Pigliucci20:23

      Right. But they don't understand that if in, if in context, that Epictetus is absolutely right. This is no different, in fact, from a Christian who really believes that his now deceased, uh, you know, father or mother or loved one is in heaven. He should be happy. I never understood. You know, I grew up Catholic, and I never understood, even when I was a Catholic, why is it that so many people who profess... who profess to be Christian go to funerals of their own loved ones and cry in despe- in, in desperation. It's like, so you think the guy is in hell, 'cause that could be the only, the only reason why you would be in desperation. But if you actually think that he is in a better place, that he's with God, in the presence of God and all that's... you shouldn't... not only you shouldn't be upset, you should actually celebrate it. You know, funerals should be parties. It's like, "All right, and I'm coming, and you know, I'm, I'll join you in a few... in a little bit of time." And like, compared to eternity, even if you live a long time, uh, as a human being, it's nothing. So, it's like, "Okay, great, let's celebrate." But they don't, and I suspect that they don't because a lot of people don't actually believe deep down what they... (laughs) what they're saying. But that's the difference.

   7. CWChris Williamson21:28

      Yeah. No, no, no. To, to, to interject there, obviously your background, which a lot of the listeners might not know, is actually evolutionary biology, right? That's what you s-

   8. MPMassimo Pigliucci21:35

      That's right, yes. Yeah.

   9. CWChris Williamson21:36

      ... you spent a lot of time doing. Um, there is... our genetics are one hell of a drug, and our genetic predispositions are capable of overpowering pretty much anything, I think, and that includes faith.

   10. MPMassimo Pigliucci21:51

       Yes. I, I agree.

   11. CWChris Williamson21:51

       Like, the, the, the inherent, um, horror that we feel when a loved one passes away is like gravity, it's that strong.

   12. MPMassimo Pigliucci22:02

       Yeah.

   13. CWChris Williamson22:02

       You know?

   14. MPMassimo Pigliucci22:02

       Yeah.

   15. CWChris Williamson22:02

       And to believe... obviously, the Stoics weren't privy to the work of the evolutionary theory, um, but I think you are right to highlight the fact that it's just... it's inherently unrealistic to expect humans to be able to transcend their own nature because of some clever cerebral trick that we've taught ourselves. "Oh, well, don't forget about the dichotomy of control. Like, my daughter was 11 years old and the light of my life. Like, what do you expect this person to do?"

7. 22:34 – 26:21

   Its not tenable anymore

   1. CWChris Williamson22:34

   2. MPMassimo Pigliucci22:34

      Yeah, exactly. So, it is not only impossible in practice, it's also not tenable in theory anymore, because today, you know, move 18 centuries forward from Epictetus, uh, look at modern biology and modern physics, and there is no reason to think that the universe is anything like what the Stoics thought it was. It's not a living organism in doubt with reason. It is a set of dynamic processes regulated by what we call the laws of nature. And yes, we are bits and pieces of the universe, but not in any sense that we are functional bits and pieces. We're not like the foot in the... in the... in the organism. We're just there (laughs) , and the universe doesn't care one way or the other. What happens to us is irrelevant to the rest of the universe. It's not like it's... we're causally connected in a very loose way, but it's not... that... nothing like that could provide you something like Stoic providence, which means, I argue in The Field Guide, uh, to a Happy Life, that we should do away with amor fati. What, this notion, uh, that I should love my fate no matter what it is, it's nontenable anymore. I understand and I respect why it was tenable in Epictetus' time. Uh, that was a beautiful notion of providence that they have, but I can't buy into that notion of providence, so it's gotta go. Now, if you suggest that, then immediately somebody says, "Oh, but then you give up Stoicism." It's like, well, no, hold on. Uh, first of all, uh, in the introduction of the book, I explain that, uh, change within the Stoic system is nothing new. Even the ancient Stoics themselves constantly debated about what stays and what goes, right? Um, Cleanthes, the second head of the Stoa, disagreed with Zeno, the first head of the Stoa. Chrysippus, the third head of the Stoa, disagreed with both Zeno and Cleanthes. Seneca, uh, actually writes explicitly, it's like, "Look..." He, he writes a, a beautiful letter to his friend Lucilius, and he says, uh, "Look, my friend, the people that came before us are not our masters. They're our teachers. They're our guides. But if I find a new way to proceed that is better, I'll do it, because, you know, the truth," he, he says, "is open to all and, and will be uncovered by future generations." So, so this notion that Stoicism is like... it's this thing that was stable over time for five centuries and then all of a sudden, you know, who the hell are you to change it? Like, no, that's, that's...... fantasy. Uh, it has never been stable. That said, of course there is only a certain amount of change you do, you can do and then still call it Stoicism. I mean, to some extent, it doesn't matter what we call it, right? Because names are names, labels are labels. Um, but I am sensitive to this notion that, you know, if you change too much, and especially if you change too much without readjusting the bits and pieces of the system, without seeking coherence within the system, then, then you're open to the, uh, to the accusation, I suppose, that it's not Stoicism anymore. That's why I do it very carefully. You, you notice that at the end of the, of the book, there is an actual, an actual detailed table, and there is a, um, um, section which I describe, bit by bit, all the changes that, that I made and why they were made and how they fit into the general system. So one of the reasons this is still Stoicism is, in my mind, uh, well, there's two reasons. First of all, because the Stoics insisted that the three parts of philosophy, ethics, which is about how to live your life, metaphysics, they called it physics, but metaphysics, the under- your understanding of how the universe works, and logic, meaning your, your ability to reason, they have to go together. Because if you are, if you don't reason correctly about things, you're likely to mislead your life, your ethics isn't gonna work very well. And if you are under deep misunderstandings about how the u- universe work, works, that also implies that you're gonna likely mislead your life,

8. 26:21 – 28:13

   Stoic metaphysics

   1. MPMassimo Pigliucci26:21

      right? So the three things are connected. If I change the metaphysics, in this case, I'm, I'm suggesting a change in the metaphysics, right, do away with the notion that the universe is a living organism and doubt good reason, then you have to change the ethics, which is what I do. You, you throw o- throw out the amor fati, and you retain what? Well, you still retain, uh, notions that come out of the dichotomy of control. You still retain this idea that, "Okay, maybe I'm not gonna love my fate, but I can pr- I can prepare myself mentally to deal with things that are inevitable, and accept them as for what, for what they are and still try to get the best out of life as it actually happens t- to me, and not as I would like it to, to be, right?" So not engaging in wishful thinking. So you're still using, uh, you're adopting a Stoic attitude. You're still adopting a lot of Stoic metaphysics because Stoic metaphysics includes determinism. That these were, these people were compatibilist, as they, we, we would say today about free will. Uh, these people were determine, uh, were, uh, believed in universal cause and effect. We still do. That's m- modern science essentially is based on the notion that, uh, there's universal cause and effect, and they were materialists, meaning that they believed that the only things that exist are, are physical stuff. It's, it's not w- today, we'd say matter and energy, of course, but stuff. Not, you know, there's no transcendental thing, there is no im- im- im- im- immaterial thing, there is nothing out there, um, that along those lines. Those are still true, as far as I can tell. And, and so that's why y- you're s- we're still retaining much of the Stoic system, but we're making some changes.

   2. CWChris Williamson28:00

      I like it. How do you think the Stoics would define a happy life? Obviously this is The Stoic Guide to a Happy Life. We need to define our terms. What is a happy life?

9. 28:13 – 29:16

   The word happiness

   1. MPMassimo Pigliucci28:13

      Yes. Yeah. The, the word happiness, of course, is fraught with problems because p- people have different i- very, very different ideas about what counts as a happy life, right? In fact, the word happiness itself, uh, can take a number of, of, uh, of meanings. On one hand, for instance, I can say, "Oh, I'm happy that tonight I get to, uh, relax with my wife and watch a movie." Sure, but that's not the happiness that we're talking about here. It's, it, the p- the word applies, but not in the broader sense. In a broader sense, happiness could be a life of flourishing, a life where you get to enjoy the good things about it, your, your amount of pain and suffering is reduced to a minimum, you pursue your projects, et cetera, et cetera, right? That would be the Aristotelian version of the happy life. What this, the, the, the word we should use, uh, we should be using actually is the one that the ancient Greeks used, regardless of which school they belonged to, and that was eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the life worth living. Okay. Um-

   2. CWChris Williamson29:09

      That seems very circular. What's a happy life? A life worth living. Okay, what's a life worth living?

10. 29:16 – 30:20

    Aristotle

    1. CWChris Williamson29:16

    2. MPMassimo Pigliucci29:16

       Right, except that what breaks the circularity is that each one of those different schools had an actual conception of what counts as eudaimonic life and why.

    3. CWChris Williamson29:25

       Lay it on us. Lay it on us, Massimo. We're here to listen.

    4. MPMassimo Pigliucci29:27

       Yeah. So, so let me give you three. Let me give you, actually, let me give you four, um, including the Stoic one, because that actually kind of gives, gives you, um, a very, I think, I, I hope, a very clear, uh, understanding of not only what the ancient Greeks and Romans thought, but actually how to think about, uh, the happy life. So Aristotle thought that a happy life was a life of virtuous flourishing. Virtuous flourishing means, uh, you wanna act virtuously, meaning you wanna be a ethical human being, and however, you also do need, need, not just p- prefer, but need certain external things such as health, wea- a little bit of wealth, a little bit of, uh, education, a little bit of good looks, and, like, uh, things like that. Otherwise, your life sucks. Even if you're virtuous, your life sucks. That's Aristotle.

11. 30:20 – 31:14

    Epicureans

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci30:20

       Uh, the Epicureans thought that the good life is actually defined by one thing and one thing only, and that is absence of pain. Okay. A good human life, no matter ... You can, you can live your life in a number of different ways so long as it's painless, particularly in terms of emotional pain. Okay. So that's true. The Cynics, the Cynics were the in-your-face philosophers of antiquity, the, the people that, you know, went into the streets and, and, and reminded people constantly how bad that they, they were. And the Cynics thought that the only thing that matters is virtue.... what the, uh, w- health doesn't matter, wealth doesn't matter, possessions don't matter, that nothing else mattered. The only thing about log- eh, what, what makes a u- good human life is acting virtuously. Acting, why, eh, eh, we would say today, pro-socially, so engage with other people in a, in a pro-social fashion. And then there is the Stoics.

12. 31:14 – 33:20

    Stoics

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci31:14

       The Stoics kind of fall in between the Aristotelians and the Cynics. So the Stoics said, yes, the m- the overarching thing that is important, you know, the, the, the, the top thing that is important in life is to act ethically toward other people. Why? Because that's human nature. Human nature is the nature of a cooperative social being. Yes, we do nasty things to each other on occasion. Yes, we use violence. Yes, we cheat. Yes, we do all that. But those are actually, eh, negative aspects of human nature that get in the way of social, a social life. Fundamentally for the Stoics, we're essentially social beings and we depend on each other in a very interconnected fashion, um, in order to have a good life. So the most important thing is, in fact, to act ethically toward other people, but it's okay to also pursue on the side, so to speak, uh, the kinds of things that Aristotle thought were absolutely necessary for life, such as wealth, health, health education, uh, et cetera, et cetera. Because other things being equal, it's better to be healthy than sick, better to be wealthy than poor, better to be educated than ignorant, and that sort of stuff. But the crucial difference with Aristotle is that the Stoics thought that even if you don't have any of those things, your life is still worth living. And the reason for that is because it is still in your power to do good in, in, in, in, in life, to do good to other people, even if you are sick, even if you're poor, even if you are, you know, if your means are very limited. So let me give you an example of a good Stoic life, even though the person that I'm about to mention was not actually a Stoic. Um, Nelson Mandela. So we all know that Mandela spent, m- m- I forgot what it was, 18 years, I think, in prison during the apartheid regime. That's not flourishing. Aristotle would've said, "Sorry, dude, your life sucks," right? It's like, that is definitely not flourishing. If you-

    2. CWChris Williamson33:09

       So would the Epicureans, yep. They would've said-

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci33:12

       Exactly. The Epicureans would've said, "Yeah, that's a lot of pain, my friend. The both physical and mental pain, so know your life sucks as an Epicurean as well."

13. 33:20 – 35:05

    Your life is worth living

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci33:20

       But the Stoics would say, "Uh, hold on. Yes, of course, you're, you're not flourishing. Of course, you're not, you know, you're not enjoying the, the, the, the kinds of material life that other people might been enjoying, but you're doing something that is very worthwhile. You're fighting for a good cause, you're fighting for the i- improving the human condition. Uh, therefore, your life is worth living even if you don't succeed." 'Cause in the end, y- uh, as we know, he actually succeeded in the end. But even if you don't succeed, Epictetus actually mentions, uh, some people who lost their lives, uh, in opposition to the emperors, uh, Vespasian and Domitian, who the Stoics considered, uh, you know, tyrants. And Epictetus and one of his students at one point says, uh, "Well, that was a wasted life, right? W- what, what, what was the point of that?" And Epictetus says, he gave the example, it was like the purple on the toga. The purple on the toga is the, is the, the, the, the thing that actually makes you look at, at the, the whole garment and say, "Okay, that's interesting. That's, uh, that's, uh, that's well done," right? So a life like Nelson Mandela's, even if had h- he had failed, it would've stillien- still been worthwhile because he would've set the example for others on, on, on what to do and h- and how to live your life. So all of these different conceptions are the result of different understandings of what's important about human nature.

    2. CWChris Williamson34:44

       Right.

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci34:45

       So what breaks the circle that you brought up is that, um, the, the, the claim is not just that the happy life is the life worth living. That would definitely be circular. That would definitely not, you know... Um, the, the co- the, the, the idea is the happy life is the life worth living, and here it is, and here's how I cash it out and why, right?

14. 35:05 – 36:21

    The 21st century

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci35:05

    2. CWChris Williamson35:05

       I like it. I, I, I'm worried and, um, thankful that we are revisiting ancient wisdom on Modern Wisdom, uh, and generally kind of in the 21st century, because it seems like so many of the things that people presume are going to make them happy have become hijacked, you know, like the Instagram, TikTok, 21st century transactional sex PornHub world of-

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci35:30

       Yup.

    4. CWChris Williamson35:30

       ... uh, uh, of, um, the race to the bottom of the brainstem, which you'll be familiar with from evolutionary psychology, which is how a lot of the apps that people spend a lot of time on are getting them hooked. Uh, you know, it, it really does feel like this is a little bit of an antidote to that. So hopefully that's opened some people's eyes to it. In terms of some strategies or your, uh, favorite strategies on route to the happy life, we've got the dichotomy of control, which is, um, I would say perhaps more useful at avoiding suffering and pain than perhaps it is at pursuing happiness. I might have got that a little bit wrong, but that's at least how it seems to me. Um, if, if you see pain as being in the way of happiness as opposed to... It, it removes the s- the negatives rather than adds the positives to me as far as that

15. 36:21 – 38:09

    Economic control

    1. CWChris Williamson36:21

       seems.

    2. MPMassimo Pigliucci36:22

       I'm gonna disagree with that on, uh, uh, with you on that one a little bit. I mean, I can see why you say that, uh, because yes, one of, one of the major outcomes, one of the major goals of the dichotomy of control is in fact to, as Epictetus puts it, do not get disturbed when events don't go your way, right?

    3. CWChris Williamson36:38

       Yep.

    4. MPMassimo Pigliucci36:39

       Uh, so that's... I can see where that comes from. But at the same time, there is also the positive, you know, the, the flip side of the coin is that, um, you don't get disturbed... The notion of not getting disturbed by, by the fact that events don't always go your way, that's because that's one side of the one half of the dichotomy of control. It's because you're focusing on the things that you don't control, right? You say, "Okay, I don't control this, so I shouldn't be worried about it. I should activate, uh, I should actively cultivate a, um, attitude of equanimity toward outcomes because I don't control the outcomes." But that's only half of the dichotomy. The other half is...... and I should be focusing my en- energy and efforts on the stuff that I actually control. Now, it turns out, as we all realize, there's a pretty damn cor- good correlation between your efforts and your outcomes, right? So, let me go back to the initial example of the COVID infection, right? Um, while it is true that I don't control the outcome, that I could still get COVID no matter what I do and no matter how careful I am, it is also equally true that my chances of getting COVID go dramatically down because I'm doing all those kind of things that, that, um, that I'm doing. Vice versa, in terms of, um, of positive outcomes, 'cause that would be a negative outcome, obviously, but in terms of positive outcomes, I don't know, if I'm applying for a job, for instance, right? Uh, yeah, if I focus on the outcome, which is actually getting the job, I'm focusing on the wrong thing, according to Epictetus, because that's not up to me. That's up to whoever is interviewing me, right?

16. 38:09 – 39:43

    Focus on the outcome

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci38:09

       However, focusing on the effort, putting together a resume, co- focusing during the interview, dressing well, not going out drinking bef- the night before the interview, you know, that, all of that sort of stuff, those are up to me, and those obviously raise, significantly, the chances that I will, in fact, get the job, right? So, so there is actually a positive aspect to it. Um, and it's essentially, uh, you know, we also mentioned this, this, uh, bit on, on, uh, 11, on section 11 of the book about going through life as, uh, as if you were in a, in a, in a inn, you know, checking in a, in a, in a hotel. Um, there too, another analogy that the, the Stoics use is the seasonal, um, uh, un- uh, the seasonal, uh, way of thinking. Uh, so Epictetus says, for instance, "Don't, don't wish for figs in winter." Wishing for figs in winter is hopeless because figs are not winter, you know, they, they don't bloom in winter. They don't, they're not winter fruits. I can tell you. I'm a botanist. And, um, on the other hand, don't wi- not wishing in, for figs in winter, anyone I- would... He applies this to, you know, missing your loved ones. If s- if your parents died, for instance, as in my case a few years ago, wish them, to wish that they were here now is wishing for figs in winter. It's like, okay, I'm just making myself feeling bad because now I'm, now I'm, my mind is on purpose going on, in a direction where, which was not, not, uh, is not a productive

17. 39:43 – 40:57

    Focus on the now

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci39:43

       one. However, they, there was a season during which they were alive and well, right? There was a summer there, and so the notion is that the con- th- th- so the other side of the, of the coin, the flip side of the coin, is, and when it's summer, you really should enjoy the figs because they are in season, right? So, the up, the, the, the upshot of this is that Stoics tend to concentrate on the focus on the here and now, of what they have now. We try not to regret things that w- we no longer have because they're gone. We try not to hope too much for things to come because they're also not under my, my control. I mean, who knows what the hell is gonna happen? But in the meantime, I can focus on what I have right here, right now. I have a good life, I'm healthy, I have a, uh, a wife that loves me, I have a daughter that is, uh, starting her life as an independent br- all of th- I have friends. Uh, you know, there, there are all these things that eventually will be gone, right? At some point or another. But why the hell should I worry about the fact that they're gonna be gone? When they're gonna gone, they're gone. That's it. Okay. Fine. End of story. That's how life works. But right now they're here, and so I need to pay attention to here and now because too often we actually take people and things for granted.

18. 40:57 – 41:36

    Worrying

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci40:57

       Um-

    2. CWChris Williamson40:57

       And we can also take ourselves out of the moment of enjoying the sh- the brief time that we do have with those people and things worrying about the time when they're not going to be here, and that's a surefire route to misery.

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci41:08

       Yeah. Yeah.

    4. CWChris Williamson41:08

       That's like, uh, the Mark Twain quote, which is, "Worrying is like paying a debt that you don't owe."

    5. MPMassimo Pigliucci41:15

       Yes, exactly. That's exactly right. M- Mark Twain had a little bit of a Stoic. (laughs)

    6. CWChris Williamson41:19

       G- well

    7. NANarrator41:20

       (laughs)

    8. CWChris Williamson41:20

       ... good, I, uh, obviously I've done my research on Mark, so I, I know that precisely.

    9. MPMassimo Pigliucci41:24

       Yup.

    10. CWChris Williamson41:24

        Um, in terms of one more lesson that you think you didn't need to change but would help people to lead a happy life, what would it be?

19. 41:36 – 42:41

    Role Ethics

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci41:37

       Number 30, uh, "You are a social animal, and whether you like it or not, living in a society comes with certain duties. How do you figure out what these duties are? Just look at the various roles you play." So, this is, this comes out of what is, uh, sometimes referred to as Epi- Epictetus' role ethics. Uh, there's a wonderful book about, just about that, uh, aspect of Stoicism or Epictetus philosophy by Brian Johnson, who is a colleague of mine at, uh, Fordham University, and he wrote a m- a book on the role ethics of Epictetus. The notion that Epictetus put forth is that, like, look, what's your best guidance in life on how to actually live your life? Well, just ask yourself what kind of roles you normally play, and he dis- he distinguished three types of roles that we all have in life. The first and most fundamental one is, of course, a member of the human cosmopolis. We are human beings, all of us, right? And since the Stoics were cosmopolitan, uh, the implication of that is that we should never do anything that undermines the, the human cosmopolis, right?

    2. CWChris Williamson42:37

       What do, what do you mean by cosmopolitan in, in this definition?

20. 42:41 – 46:35

    Cosmopolitan

    1. CWChris Williamson42:41

    2. MPMassimo Pigliucci42:41

       Uh, considering every human being on Earth as brothers and sisters, all right? So, which means you should never do anything that undermines the human cosmopolis. Now, whenever I say that, often people say, "I can't. Even if I wanted to, I can't undermine human cosmopolis. I don't have that kind of power," right? It's like, "I'm not an emperor. I'm not a president of the United States." But that's not true. Uh, for instance, if, um, i- if you live a, a, the kind of life that contributes to global warming, you are undermining the hu- the, the, the, the human cosmopolis. If you live... if you shop...... uh, let's say for your daily life into places that are known to exploit other people, you are undermining the human cosmopolis. If you are eating, uh, uh, animals that have suffered unnecessarily in order to be, uh, served on your dinner plate, you are undermining the human cosmopolis. So, you know, there is all sorts of ways (laughs) where you can actually undermine the human cosmopolis. So that's number one, the first, first role. The other two classes of roles are the c- the types of roles that circumstances give you. You don't choose them. For instance, you know, you're somebody's son, right? You didn't choose that. That was now your choice. You... That's, that's what it is. But now that you're there, you have some duties, you know. Uh, children have certain duties toward their parents. Uh, even if, Epictetus says, even if their parents are no good, they're, they're, you know, they're not the best parents you can... Because the deal that the universe gave you wasn't, "I'm gonna give you the best parents." The universe just said, "I'm gonna give you parents." (laughs) And, you know, sometimes you... it works out well, sometimes it doesn't. But the point is, your parents' behavior is not under your control. Your behavior is under your control, so you still have certain duties. Now, those duties don't expand to, you know, being abused physically or mentally by your parents. That's not, that's not a duty that you have. But you do have a duty to be forgiving, a duty to be helpful, et cetera, et cetera. And then the third class of duties... uh, roles, sorry, sorry, are the, the ones that we ch- choose given our circumstances. For instance, I'm a father. That was a choice. Uh, I am a friend to some people and, and, and that's another choice. Uh, my career was a choice to, to some extent, and so on and so forth, right? My... Obviously, my relationship with my wife was a choice. All of those carry their own duties, right? So if I put somebody in, into the, into the world, then I have certain duties toward that person. I have to take care of that person. I have to, you know, make sure that she has as many instruments as possible to actually live a fulfilling life. If I am in a relationship with my partner, that carries certain other duties. And again, those duties don't imply necessarily that the other person reciprocates, or reciprocates on the same level. I mean, I'm lucky enough actually that, you know, my friends and relatives and, and, and, and, uh, uh, uh, you know, loved ones actually do, do, do reciprocate. But sometimes they, they won't. Sometimes they... that's not the case. And Epictetus says it doesn't matter because other people's behaviors is not under your control. And, uh, Seneca says that when it comes to what the, the ancients called benefits, so being generous, giving, giving to other people, he says the, the, the thing to do is always to have your ledger such that you owe, you give more than the r- you receive, right? So don't look at what you're getting. Look at what you're doing, what you're giving. And of course, once again, this... the, the, the two are often connected, right? Without being pollyannaish about this kinda stuff. But look, if you're a generous person who actually genuinely loves other people and wants to be... typically the people realize that, and typically the people will give back, precisely because as the stoics say, human beings tend to be social and highly pro, pro, you know, interactive and interdependent of each other.

21. 46:35 – 47:31

    Bollocks

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci46:35

    2. CWChris Williamson46:35

       I think that we agree on something that other people got angry at me for talking about on a podcast a little while ago, and-

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci46:43

       Okay. Timing. (laughs)

    4. CWChris Williamson46:46

       ... can, can we just take a second to talk about how much bollocks is in The Secret?

    5. MPMassimo Pigliucci46:50

       Oh, yes. A lot.

    6. CWChris Williamson46:53

       So, the, the, ker- the best lies have a kernel of truth in them, right?

    7. MPMassimo Pigliucci46:58

       Yeah.

    8. CWChris Williamson46:58

       And what you've just brought up there with the... what you could quite easily call karma, like, things come back around.

    9. MPMassimo Pigliucci47:06

       Right.

    10. CWChris Williamson47:07

        But there isn't some metaphysical magnetized aura of nebulous, ephemeral-

    11. MPMassimo Pigliucci47:16

        No.

    12. CWChris Williamson47:16

        ... supercharged good teons, or whatever they were called in The Bo- in The Secret. I was about to call it the bollocks there, but, um-

    13. MPMassimo Pigliucci47:23

        (laughs)

    14. CWChris Williamson47:23

        ... in The Sp- (laughs) in The Secret. Uh, and yet, because of that kernel of truth, it seduces people into believing it.

22. 47:31 – 49:41

    The Secret

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci47:31

       Right. That's, that's exactly... I mean, that's how a lot of pseudoscience works, that there is a kernel of truth, there is a kernel of plausibility, right? And people don't think too carefully about it. They also engage in a lot of wishful thinking. It's like, "Oh, that sounds good, so I wanna believe it." I mean, you know, that, uh, that, that, uh, that's how the psychology of pseudoscience, science actually works. But yeah, actually, I've used The Secret as an example of a type of metaphysics that is entirely incompatible with Stoicism, because it violates the dichotomy of control. Essentially, it says that you do control the universe. That, that if you really want it, if you really make the effort, if you really are into certain things, the universe somehow will rearrange itself, um, so to, you know, favor, uh, your, your goals. Epictetus explai- without... who had not read, ov- obviously, The, The Secret (laughs) -

    2. CWChris Williamson48:16

       (laughs) Thank God for that.

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci48:18

       Right.

    4. CWChris Williamson48:18

       Good guy.

    5. MPMassimo Pigliucci48:19

       He explicitly says, so to one of his students, um, he says, um... One of the students apparently came in complaining about the fact that his nose was ru- was running all the time, right? So he, he had a cold or something like that. And Epictetus says, "Okay, wipe your damn nose, but stop complaining about the fact that there are such things as running noses in the universe." What do you wanna do? That the un- he literally says, "Would... Would you want the universe to rearrange itself for the sake of your running nose?" It's like, when I read that, I said, "Wait a minute, this guy must have read The Secret." (laughs)

    6. CWChris Williamson48:48

       The Secret, yeah. Him and Rhonda Byrne would've fallen out. I remember, man, the, um... there was this story. Do you remember... It was about 2003, the big Christmas Day tsu- or Boxing Day tsunami in Thailand, was it?

    7. MPMassimo Pigliucci49:01

       Yeah. Right, right.

    8. CWChris Williamson49:01

       Uh, in East Asia. And Rhonda Byrne, author of The Secret, said the reason that the tsunami happened was because the people of East Asia were giving out bad energy that attracted the tsunami. Ah.

    9. MPMassimo Pigliucci49:15

       Right.... right. That's awful. That is absolutely awful.

    10. CWChris Williamson49:17

        In what, in what world is that acceptable to say? It, uh, uh, hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes, and then some bourgeois writer sitting at the back of a couple of million sold copies of a book that is based on bullshit is able to say, "Ah, well, if only you'd been giving off some more positive vibes, then this tsunami wouldn't have come and annihilated the next generation."

23. 49:41 – 51:54

    Metaphysic

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci49:41

       Yeah. No, I'm, I'm completely on board with, uh, uh, with that. In fact, not only I think that metaphysics... Remember we, we were discussing earlier that according to the Stoics, logic, metaphysics, and ethics are connected.

    2. CWChris Williamson49:54

       Yeah. I love the, um, I love the field.

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci49:55

       Now, in Stoicism-

    4. CWChris Williamson49:55

       I love the, the ring, the fence around the field analogy that you gave. I think it's-

    5. MPMassimo Pigliucci49:59

       Right, exactly.

    6. CWChris Williamson50:00

       ... very nice. Yeah.

    7. MPMassimo Pigliucci50:01

       Well, think about it in terms of The Secret. They're connected in exactly the wrong way, right? Um, because the metaphysics is bullshit. I mean, the, the universe simply doesn't work that way. The logic is flawed because clearly you should be able to realize that the universe doesn't work that way and draw the right conclusions. And the ethics is horrible because it ends up blaming the victims, as in the case of the tsu- tsunami that you just brought up, right? It's like, "Oh, it's their fault." What do you mean it's their fault? Those people are... There is a... They're suffering. Some of them, uh, died as a result of a random natural event, and you're saying that it's their fault, essentially. What kind of monstrous ethics is that? So-

    8. CWChris Williamson50:39

       It really is. And do, do you know what it is? Identifying the fact that it is the flipped reverse of the dichotomy of control. Uh.

    9. MPMassimo Pigliucci50:48

       Yeah.

    10. CWChris Williamson50:48

        I mean, if ever there needed to be a nail in the coffin of The Secret-

    11. MPMassimo Pigliucci50:53

        (laughs)

    12. CWChris Williamson50:53

        ... it could be right there. Do you know what it is as well? I had one of the guys on. Oh, I'm gonna forget his name. (sharp inhale) I had one of the guys that featured in the film The Secret.

    13. MPMassimo Pigliucci51:02

        Mm-hmm.

    14. CWChris Williamson51:03

        Um, really smart, cognitive psychologist, understood what he was talking about, and he, it, it felt like was in it begrudgingly, or perhaps for clout. And even him, this is a person who featured in the film very prominently, and even he had highlighted his own issues. Look, we, we can continue bad-mouthing The Secret for the remainder of the episode, but I feel like we've-

    15. MPMassimo Pigliucci51:25

        Uh, we can, we can just summarize it this way. The metaphysics is bullshit, the reasoning is bad, and the ethics is horrible.

    16. CWChris Williamson51:32

        There we go. That's it. Job done.

    17. MPMassimo Pigliucci51:33

        (laughs)

    18. CWChris Williamson51:35

        Um, last lesson. Another one where you diverge from Stoicism. Something else that you think would help people, uh, lead a happy life.

    19. MPMassimo Pigliucci51:44

        You're talking about 50, you're talking about 52?

    20. CWChris Williamson51:46

        Whichever you think.

    21. MPMassimo Pigliucci51:47

        Oh. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. I thought you literally thought the last lesson.

    22. CWChris Williamson51:50

        No, no.

    23. MPMassimo Pigliucci51:51

        'Cause it's true.

    24. CWChris Williamson51:51

        The, uh, a final lesson from you, Massimo.

24. 51:54 – 55:04

    Social Justice

    1. CWChris Williamson51:54

    2. MPMassimo Pigliucci51:54

       Um, I think, uh, let's see. There are, there are several, of course, that are, um, that are interesting to me in that sense. But for instance, um, I tend to go back over and over on this notion of, um, one thing that the, that is missing from the original Stoicism is an appreciation of what we would today call social justice. Right? And I don't mean as in social justice warriors or anything like that. I just mean the basic concept in philosophy of social justice, meaning that we should try to come up with a society that is as just, as e- equanimous as possible, right? Stoicism doesn't have that, and it's not a fault necessarily because Stoicism is a personal philosophy. It's not meant to be a, you know, broad, societal-level, kind of umbrella type of philosophy. For instance, when people accuse the Stoics, "Oh, but you don't have a theory of social justice or anything like that." Well, would you ever accuse Christians or Buddhists of the same? Buddhism doesn't have a theory of social justice, neither does Christianity, because those are personal philosophies. Th- they tell you how you should behave, not how other people should behave. However, it is still the case that, uh, the ancient Stoics started moving in that direction, and I think that it behooves us to keep moving along the same trajectory. Let me give you two examples. The Stoics were, uh, the ancient Stoics, I'm talking, uh, were fairly unusual in the ancient world because they thought that women are, have the same mental abilities as men, and therefore they actually ought to study philosophy and practice a virtuous life. Right? Seneca says that explicitly. Uh, Epictetus said that explicitly. They're, they're, they're, it's there, okay? But, of course they were not what we would call feminists, uh, you know, in modern terms. I mean, they were, you know, Seneca, in fact, on the one hand says this kind of stuff very explicitly, and there's no, there's no, this is not even implied. This is, he actually says so explicitly in, um, a letter of consolation that he writes to his, uh, friend, Marsha, who had lost an adult son. Uh, at some point, he, he says, you know, "You, you think that I'm talking out of, of, uh, steps here because you're a woman, but in fact, women have the same ability as men. They should be..." et cetera, et cetera. So he actually says that. But then, you know, like a few paragraphs later, it's like, you know, "Don't be womanish. Don't be..." (laughs) You know, it's like... So it was, uh, not to her, actually, in a different letter. It's, you know, "Don't be womanish." Like, w- what do you mean? Hey, what, hold on a second here. So Seneca and the Stoics moved in, started moving in that direction, but of course they were naturally a product of their own culture and time. These, these were people that lived 2,000 years ago in an incredibly misogynist society by, by modern standards, right? So, modern Stoics can pick up on that, and there are actually a couple of scholars who have written technical papers about the relationship between Stoicism and feminism, for instance. Feminism here understood very simply and very broadly. I'm not talking about specific waves or specific, you know, uh, current ongoing controversies. I'm simply talking about the basic notion that women are human beings just as men, and therefore they ought to have the same rights and, and et cetera. That's it. That's, that's what I'm

25. 55:04 – 56:35

    The Environment

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci55:04

       talking about. (sharp inhale) Uh, so there is more modern scholarship that moves us in that direction.

    2. CWChris Williamson55:09

       Okay.

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci55:09

       It's, and argues, and I agree, that feminism in that bare bone sense that I just mentioned is actually logically entailed by Stoic philosophy, and so therefore a Stoic should be feminist.... it's inconsistent to, for somebody to be a Stoic and not, not being a feminist. The second example ha- has to do with the environment. So, the ancient Stoics were not, of course, conscious of the value of the environment in which, in the way in which we are, right?

    4. CWChris Williamson55:33

       Mm-hmm.

    5. MPMassimo Pigliucci55:33

       In fact, e- explicitly they thought that what we call the environment, particularly other animals and plants, are there for our consumption. They're, they're there because, you know, the logos of the universe is set up in a way that that's what we're gonna do with it. However, they did have this notion of the expanding circles of concern. One of the, uh, second century Stoics, his name was Hiero- Hierocles, said that we should try to practice this, this notion of, of expanding our concern. We're naturally concerned about ourselves. That comes natural to human being, right? It's the self. But then it also comes pretty natural immediately early on in our lives to be concerned with our caretakers, you know, typically our parents, and then we expand that kind of concern to other family members and friends. And then he said, "We should make an effort to expand that kind of concern to further and further circles out there, citizens of the same city, citizens of the same country, and eventually humanity at large," right?

26. 56:35 – 58:25

    Modern Scholars

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci56:35

       Well, today, some scholars, modern scholars in Stoicism, like Chris Gill, for instance, uh, say, yeah, and there is one more step (laughs) -

    2. CWChris Williamson56:42

       (laughs)

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci56:42

       ... and then one more, in fact, couple more steps. The, the immediate ob- obvious step after that is other sentient animals, becau- why? Because they suffer, because they're capable of suffering, and then after that, sort of the environment as a whole, but not in any kind of, again, Pollyanna-ish or sort of Gaia kind of sense in which-

    4. CWChris Williamson57:01

       Spooky, wishy-washy energy stuff, yeah.

    5. MPMassimo Pigliucci57:04

       ... oh, well ... yes. Spooky, wishy- ... no, just because we d- we depend on a healthy environment (laughs) , uh, to, as human beings to live. So, it's, it's up to us. It's the same version, it's an expanded version of the same concept that the Stoics have, uh, but which is one of the things that I, uh, one of the reasons why I really like Stoicism. We tend today to make a sharp distinction between self and, and, uh, self-regard, you know, and, uh, and other-regard, right? So, if- if you're an altruist, you're doing something that sacrifices yourself to, for, for the sake of another. The Stoics didn't see it that way. The Stoics thought that whenever you help other people, you're actually helping yourself because you're making yourself a better person, and whenever you're working on becoming a better person, you're automatically helping other people because that's, you know, that's, that's the way your interactions are gonna go. And so similarly, they wouldn't see, I think, a sharp distinction today with modern scientific knowledge between ourselves and the environment. Of course you want to safeguard the environment because our own damn survival depends on it. Our ability to flourish depends on it. The reason you want good air and good wa- quality water for everybody is because that's how you, you live a good life. Otherwise, you're gonna literally poison yourself (laughs) , so you should, you should be concerned with it. So, those are some of the things that also that I, uh, exp- ... I- it's not n- not as much a disagreement with Epictetus as much as an expansion of Epictetus' concerns.

27. 58:25 – 1:01:51

    Stoicism

    1. MPMassimo Pigliucci58:25

    2. CWChris Williamson58:25

       I think that it's really interesting to hear the way that you can synthesize new world information, you know, and, and, and adapt it to ancient wisdom. I really, uh, am intrigued by what you said at the very beginning that I ... it hadn't come to me, that Stoicism had this, you know, half-millennia or so to develop and then very quickly got neutered by the new kid on the block, which was Christianity-

    3. MPMassimo Pigliucci58:51

       Right.

    4. CWChris Williamson58:52

       ... uh, about 1,000 years-

    5. MPMassimo Pigliucci58:53

       Yeah.

    6. CWChris Williamson58:53

       ... and then came back Renaissance, then really sort of kicked on Enlightenment, then stopped again, and now y- people like yourself and Ryan Holiday, so on and so forth, are re-popularizing it. Um, but I wonder, I wonder what we would have if Stoicism had been allowed to continue unfettered, or even a couple of schools of it, you know, had been able to keep going for 1,500 years. It would have been very interesting.

    7. MPMassimo Pigliucci59:20

       Yeah. Uh, we would have something similar to modern Buddhism. Uh, we would have a number of schools of thought. Some of them would put, would probably have developed certain strands of ancient thought into new directions, and others would have picked up on oth- other strand- strands. And some of them are even becoming incompatible. I mean, there are some versions of modern Buddhism that you could argue are actually incompatible with each other. Uh, even though they all come from the same root, their emphasis, their development has been such that they are actually not compatible. And that's great because that means that there is more variation, you know, there is more to pick from in terms of when you're thinking about your philosophy of life. You say, "Okay, well, there, there is different ways of thinking about this stuff, and, you know, let me see which one, uh, actually resonates with me and which one is actually useful to me."

    8. CWChris Williamson1:00:04

       Yeah. The, I really love that quote, and I'd written it down, and then you said it, so I c- I couldn't say it, uh, "Those who have advanced these doctrines (laughs) before us are not our masters, but our guides," from Seneca. And with that as well is a lovely way to kind of remind us all that the vast majority of what I spend my time thinking about and talking about on this show, which is how to lead a good life and how to be virtuous and be happy and be, feel fulfilled, is an ongoing process. There is wisdom of the past that we can take in and think, "Oh my God, this is, there's so much of the work has been done already," but there's a massive amount of imposter syndrome, uh, or over, uh, over-respect, I guess, for the sages of the past-

    9. MPMassimo Pigliucci1:00:47

       Right.

    10. CWChris Williamson1:00:47

        ... to presume that there's no more work to be done on top of that. So, The Stoic Guide to a Happy Life will be linked in the show notes below. If you've enjoyed today, I highly, highly recommend that you go and check it out. Very easy book to read. What we are ... 150 pages, pocket-sized, your vade mecum to take with you. Uh, anywhere else that people should go and check out, Massimo?

    11. MPMassimo Pigliucci1:01:08

        Well, if anybody's interested in pretty much everything I do from podcasting to writing essays and books, uh, they can go to massimopigliucci.com.

    12. CWChris Williamson1:01:16

        I imagine that was a very easy URL to get.

    13. MPMassimo Pigliucci1:01:20

        (laughs)

    14. CWChris Williamson1:01:20

        (laughs)

    15. MPMassimo Pigliucci1:01:20

        Yes. (laughs)

    16. CWChris Williamson1:01:21

        No one else competing for that. Massimo-

    17. MPMassimo Pigliucci1:01:22

        It's a little bit more difficult to spell, but it's, it's-

    18. CWChris Williamson1:01:25

        It'll be linked. There's a link in the show notes below.

    19. MPMassimo Pigliucci1:01:27

        (laughs)

    20. CWChris Williamson1:01:27

        Do not, I implore you, you will l- lose brain cells trying to write it yourself. Just click the link below. It's been a pleasure to have you on twice in 2020, mate. I'm looking forward to the next time. (instrumental music)

    21. MPMassimo Pigliucci1:01:36

        So do I. Thank you.

    22. CWChris Williamson1:01:38

        All things. Yeah. Oh, yeah. All things.

Episode duration: 1:01:51