Massimo, as usual, found this post very interesting. Leopardi was new to me and I found his challenge to Stoicism compelling, especially the observation that our minds, like our bodies, are vulnerable to forces beyond our control.
Also been thinking about how modern science reinforces and updates this view. For instance, Robert Sapolsky’s Behave offers an overview of how biological, psychological, environmental, and cultural factors can shape human behavior. Now his book has come in for some criticism as some of the studies he quotes have not held up, but think his general argument holds up. Also disagree with his conclusion of hard determinism as think we are at least some of the time reasons responsive. There may be better examples, this is just one overview I have read.
So, while Stoicism’s emphasis on cultivating judgment remains powerful, Leopardi’s reminder confirmed by modern science feels persuasive: our agency is real, but it’s susceptible to the factors above. Thinking a stance where one continually strives to work on our decision making while acknowledging how fragile that mastery can be for oneself and others makes sense.
Do you think this approach makes sense or any concerns with above argument?
Mark, I broadly agree with you. The mind is an activity of the body, and if Epictetus classes the body among the externals, then so is the mind. Which, as you say, doesn’t mean that his advice to constantly work on improving our judgments is not a good one.
The only disagreement I have with you is that I think determinism is true. Yes, we are responsive to reason (some of the times), but that’s within the bounds imposed by universal cause-effect.
Great essay, but right or wrong I am sticking with Epictetus because it’s a practical way to guide oneself. If you get too technical here (and it’s good to contemplate it, mind you), there can be dangerous cliffs or Rabbit Holes where you could get stuck.
The mind is the body and therefore external like the body—still subject to Fortune. This is why I remind my physician at my annual physical, “May I have a Stoic Exam, too?”👩🔬😊
Mike, I do think Epictetus is the way to go for practical reason. But criticisms like Leopardi’s ought to trigger a bit of humility in some self-professed Stoics who are so cocksure of their chosen philosophy that they admit no alternatives.
It was an eye opener for me since it made me realize why - however much I am drawn to stoic philosophy- I feel some unease with stoicism sometimes:
I am a nature scientist (think: no mind w/o a body, a brain) and
I am a pessimist (by heart - more the Charly Brown than Snoopy type, to mention another great philosopher of life: Charles M. Schulz…and by philosophy: Schopenhauer is one of my favorites)
However, cannot quote where I read it: pessimists are more realists than optimists - but they have a harder way until they find out the truth, that‘s why I envy them, like, say, my dog (another unnamed philosopher).
Frank, thanks for the kind words! I’m inclined toward your pessimism. Very soon you’ll see an essay on Schopenhauer and Stoicism here at Figs in Winter. And you know, the advantage of being a pessimist is that you are rarely disappointed, and occasionally even positively surprised…
Well, there’s a thought to challenge your equanimity!
I think the science is clear – we live in a universe where cause precedes effect. Our intentions are the product of biological processes performing a myriad of simple functions that in sum, account for everything we think and do. The uncomfortable truth is that we are unaware of most of these biological antecedents, their origins and their influence in any given decision we make. Resolving this discomfort by overlaying an untethered locus of freewill to instantiate a sense of control, is to sacrifice physics and introduce an inconsistency to Reason.
Even if we are able let our grandiose notions of agency go, we are still faced with squaring off the sense that our judgements are deeply personal and reflect a coherent expression of intention.
That is because they do. The capacity for Reason is in our Nature. That we are also self-aware and given to self-reflection is axiomatic. We are, to borrow a phrase, machines that are aware of our machine-ness. It doesn’t matter that our intentions are the product of neurobiology when that state is the outcome of interactions that are particular to an individual. It is the notion that Reason plays out through a self-reflecting individual that provides an inescapable sense of ownership.
While the language of the Dichotomy of Control ‘What is up to us’ and ‘Under our control’ is problematic, the intention, i.e. to focus on prohairesis remains valid. It is to behave according to our Nature and develop our capacity for Reason through self-reflection. The fact that this capacity is part of our machinery does not diminish the need to focus on the quality of our judgements rather than the supposed intrinsic value of the externals to which they are directed. Reason in this sense is the process of choosing between indifferents.
Rob, I agree. No need to let go of the insight that we are better off focusing on our intentions and judgments rather than on outcomes and other externals. But, as I just wrote in a comment to Vivian, Leopardi’s means that—contra Epictetus—what we do is *no different* from when we take care of our body, which he classes as an external.
Yes, I got that more subtle unpacking of the dichotomy of control. My understanding is that subtleties are necessary sequelae to core principles, but may be confusing if introduced too early. Is this correct?
Leopardi rejects the dichotomy of control the way Epictetus presents it, essentially putting prohairesis among the same “externals” to which the body belongs. The advice to take care of our faculty of judgment stands, just like we should take care of our bodies, but both are subject to the same limitations. Does this help?
Thanks, it does. It's an important philosophical point. I was seeing it more as a confounding issue when helping my own or others' psychological confusion. I know my brain is part of my body & the structure and function of both are not under my control. Yet the dichotomy of control is an underlying principle of CBT & common to other therapies such as Logotherapy, Existential Therapy & ACT. My point, perhaps not clearly made, was that qualifying the dichotomy of control with Leopoldi's argument is not practical in easing suffering.
Vivian, I think I understand your concern. But from a philosophical perspective Leopardi’s criticism doesn’t just qualify the dichotomy of control, it completely undermines it. Which is not to say that, for practical purposes, it isn’t still good advice to people. But it does mean that as Stoics we ought to reflect long and hard on the implications for our philosophy.
Oh! I didn't realise that his criticism completely undermines the dichotomy of control. That's a big deal. No doubt you'll keep us informed about how this impacts the development of Stoicism.
I’ll do my best! 😊 So far, as I said above, I think we can retain Epictetus’s practical advice on focusing on what is up to us, as well as that “up to us” translates, mostly, into our faculty of assent. The only proviso is that sometimes even that faculty can be taken away from us by external forces, in which case we may want to consider Seneca’s advice.
Great argument Massimo. I particularly liked the challenge Leopoldi made that "It is great folly to admit that our bodies are subject to things beyond our control, and nonetheless deny that the mind, which depends on the body in almost everything, is inevitably subject to anything whatever outside ourselves.” This underpins the Stoic view of leaving by the “open door” when our faculties start to crumble. This is honourable, as Seneca says, “because it will be a hindrance to me as regards all my reasons for living”, which include supporting a virtuous existence while being of service to others, instead of a burden.
Vivian, exactly. This, however, creates a significant problem for the famous dichotomy of control, since it shows that the distinction Epictetus makes between body (external) and mind (internal) is not valid.
Very, very good. Deep, fundamental thinking. Thanks. It answers a question I posed a few weeks ago. One comment. You write: "One important implication of which is that, so long as we decide to stay, we have no grounds for complaining and we need to do our best for ourselves and for others." But taking one's own life can be very tough, extremely scary and painful. This is where medical assistance in dying becomes very important. To me, not providing it can be extremely cruel. Of course, appropriate safeguards are needed to prevent excesses.
Pierre, thanks for your kind words. Yes, I agree, medical assistance in dying, with proper safeguards, is needed to retain human dignity in the face of death. But I don’t think that contradicts the “so long as we decide to stay…” bit.
Psychology research shows that pessimists tend to be more realistic than optimists. It's a subtle balancing act to hold on to grounded-in-reality aspirations to bring about individual & social improvement, while remembering the constraints inherent in reality, demonstrated by biology & the laws of physics.
Vivian, we need to keep in mind the distinction between psychological and philosophical pessimism. The latter, as you say, maybe closer to realism, but it doesn’t necessarily imply the former.
" In fact, nothing else at all is properly mine other than my body." You are leaving out one's words, one's deeds, and one's thoughts.
Spent a number of times in convalescent hospitals, as a child. To live without my own autonomy, in the manner I can manage, is not to live at all, but simply to exist, not unlike a beast. That is unacceptable to me.
I can accept reductions in my physical abilities, but not my mental ones. We now have euthanasia, which makes it relatively clean, and an easier choice.
We are born into the bodies we have. They may get better than originally exited into this world or not. We deal with what we were dealt. Then we do the best we can with the tools we have. Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't.
Michael, words, deeds, and thoughts are still the result of the functioning of our bodies.
Sorry to hear about your years in the hospital! I agree, and so do the Stoics, that simplifying surviving is not enough for a human being. As I say in the essay, Seneca makes your same point about mental abilities: once they start going, it’s time to consider, as he puts it, “slipping the cable.”
It seems we are involved in a semantics disagreement. For me, the mind is more than just a body part, for you it seems to be just another facet of the body.
Happy to clarify: for me what we call the mind is not a thing, is an activity, specifically the activity of our brains when it interacts with the external world through the senses and the rest of our body. I’d rather use the word “minding,” which is the brain’s analogous activity to, say, the breathing done by the lungs.
If you think there’s more to it than that, could you elaborate?
The mind, unlike the body, is capable of an incredible number of modes of either behavior or thought. The body is much more limited, it can be made more or less healthy, stronger, faster, but there are limits. The mind can explore so much more, and go where, perhaps, no one has gone before.
There may be overlap or not, depending on the state of the mind and that of the individual it is in contact with.
There have been personal experiences of my own, that have convinced me beyond any doubt, that just because one can taste, touch, smell, hear, and see something, there is no guaranty that it is real in the physical sense of the word, that most people accept. If it were only me, there would be much more doubting, but in a number of cases, have been with other people, different one's each time, who have seen and experienced what I did.
Perhaps, it is nearer to the concept of the mind of God, that includes, by definition, everything and everyone, that can descend, and help someone, with no sense at all that that is what is actually happening. Nor is there any indication it was for me alone, but perhaps for those traveling with me.
So for me, mind is something not limited to a given human form. I hope this helps explain my view.
I am of a mind, pun intended, that I am not disconnected from either Nature or the Universe. Rather I am a part of each. The Universe to me, is the physical body of what we call God. It is all one, everything is interrelated.
If there were a soul, it would be separate from both nature and the Universe, which seems very not unlikely so much, as impossible. Separateness is an appearance, but it does not exist ultimately, since everything is connected to everything and everyone else, to some degree. Some of this is born of my study of astrology, some just from basic physics and the Big Bang theory.
With the mind of God permeating everything everywhere.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece on Leopardi's challenge, Massimo! I found the discussion fascinating, especially the connection to modern neuroscience and Seneca's reflections on rational suicide.I wonder, though, if we might be too quick to accept Leopardi's challenge.
While it's true that our mental faculties depend on our brains and can be compromised, doesn't this commit a kind of category error? The fact that our agency could be undermined doesn't mean it isn't genuinely "up to us" when our faculties are functioning normally.
In my work on constitutional psychology, I've been struck by how much we can actually optimize our executive functions through philosophical practice and self-reflection. When our faculties are intact, there really are quite a lot of things up to us—our choices, our responses, how we cultivate wisdom and integrate the different aspects of our nature. The contingency of these capacities doesn't make them any less real or meaningful while we have them.
Maybe the more precise formulation is: "Many things are genuinely up to us until they're not." This seems both more accurate than naive claims about unlimited control and more useful than Leopardi's pessimistic conclusion. We can work skillfully with the meaningful agency we do possess, recognizing its conditions without dismissing its reality.
Chester, I’m in complete agreement. But your rephrasing suggests that Leopardi is right and Epictetus wrong here, since Epictetus insists that our prohairesis is not “conditionally” up to us. The analysis presented here indicates that, just as you say, it is up to us, until it isn’t any longer. But the same can be said for our body: I can take care of my biological fitness, until I can’t. We don’t have to follow Leopardi’s psychological pessimism in order to accept his philosophical pessimism. And we don’t have to give up Epictetus’s advice, just realize that it has limits that even the Master from Hierapolis did not acknowledge.
At first I thought, "it all comes down to whether or not we have immaterial souls". But then I thought "fortune would still decide if you have a noble or weak soul".
Agreed. My father was a psychiatrist who worked with people who had severe mental disorders and from my interaction with them it was clear that a disorder of your brain is a disorder of your entire world. The problem is that to whatever degree our executive function is working now, whatever plans we have for when we are no longer competent require somebody in the world to remember our preferences. Here is an interesting essay on the topic of "being ready to die".
“But death is never neat. A good death should be defined by how well and honestly we care for the dying, not by their performance on our behalf. Expecting them to make death a process full of insight and peace only limits our full emotional and spiritual participation in their death. By sacrificing neatness, we can have a conversation about what the dying truly need from us. Understanding their authentic experiences helps us not only to see them more fully but also to prepare, together, for losing them.”
"Now, as an attending physician, I hear echoes of my younger self when I talk with residents. If they mention that a patient isn’t ready to die, I ask what it looks like for someone to be ready to die. I remind them, gently, that awaiting specific imaginings of readiness may only justify excusing themselves from sharing hard truths with someone whose reactions they cannot anticipate."
So, if I'm on the right track, Epictetus' advice to ignore what's not up to us still holds true if it refers to how much I should stress about Trump, Gaza, Ukraine and the current state of the world.
But it doesn't hold true to say that my thoughts, values, judgements and decisions to act or not to act and how to act are entirely up to me because they are formulated in my brain which is a physical entity and a part of my body and on which my thoughts, decisions etc and consciousness depends.
If my brain fails due to injury or disease then that may adversely affect my thoughts, decisions and ability to reason. So they are dependent on my body ( brain).
BUT. Forgive me. A possible counter argument.
My body is part of me. It is me. So if my body ( brain ) fails in such a way as it adversely affects my ability to reason does that not therefore mean that my inability to reason is up to me in the sense that the failing body part ( my brain ) IS me?
I'm getting confused. Help!
Regardless of the above I still find Epictetus' advice a revelation and the most useful and helpful way of thinking and addressing the trials of life and so I'm staying with him!!
Iain, the problem with that counter argument is that Epictetus himself is very clear that your body is one of those thongs that is NOT up to us…
I agree that Epictetus’s advice to focus on what we are thinking and to realize where our agency actually lies is excellent and very practical. But Leopardi’s objection stands.
So just to clarify, Leopardi is a saying that our minds, and therefore our ability to reason, is as dependant on outside forces and events as our bodies are.
Iain, that’s right. Leopardi puts the finger on something that has bothered me for some time now. The Stoics are not dualists, and yet Epictetus treats the mind as if it were separate from the body. It’s not. So if the body is not up to us, neither is the mind. Of course that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t do our best to take care of both. But the mind is no exception to the universal rule that things can and do happen regardless of our will. Including things affecting our will.
The central paradox, that our eudaimonia depends on what we can control, and yet that the operation of our minds is constrained by the fate of our bodies, seems to me another version of the paradox of "free will;" from which I would agree with you that compatibilism is the only possible escape. Choosing is a fundamental part of our experience, and central to stoicism, and yet the material processes ion our brains when we choose are subject to effectively deterministic physical law.
Paul, exactly. There is, of course, still much value in Epictetus’s advice, but Leopardi’s point struck a deep chord when I read it, as I’ve been thinking the same thing for a while now.
Massimo, as usual, found this post very interesting. Leopardi was new to me and I found his challenge to Stoicism compelling, especially the observation that our minds, like our bodies, are vulnerable to forces beyond our control.
Also been thinking about how modern science reinforces and updates this view. For instance, Robert Sapolsky’s Behave offers an overview of how biological, psychological, environmental, and cultural factors can shape human behavior. Now his book has come in for some criticism as some of the studies he quotes have not held up, but think his general argument holds up. Also disagree with his conclusion of hard determinism as think we are at least some of the time reasons responsive. There may be better examples, this is just one overview I have read.
So, while Stoicism’s emphasis on cultivating judgment remains powerful, Leopardi’s reminder confirmed by modern science feels persuasive: our agency is real, but it’s susceptible to the factors above. Thinking a stance where one continually strives to work on our decision making while acknowledging how fragile that mastery can be for oneself and others makes sense.
Do you think this approach makes sense or any concerns with above argument?
Mark, I broadly agree with you. The mind is an activity of the body, and if Epictetus classes the body among the externals, then so is the mind. Which, as you say, doesn’t mean that his advice to constantly work on improving our judgments is not a good one.
The only disagreement I have with you is that I think determinism is true. Yes, we are responsive to reason (some of the times), but that’s within the bounds imposed by universal cause-effect.
It might be advantageous to re-read Viktor Frankl.
Ron, as a matter of fact, I have Frankl’s book on my list of re-reads, but could you be more specific?
He addresses the suicide question having been in the most extreme situation.
Yes, indeed!
Great essay, but right or wrong I am sticking with Epictetus because it’s a practical way to guide oneself. If you get too technical here (and it’s good to contemplate it, mind you), there can be dangerous cliffs or Rabbit Holes where you could get stuck.
The mind is the body and therefore external like the body—still subject to Fortune. This is why I remind my physician at my annual physical, “May I have a Stoic Exam, too?”👩🔬😊
Mike, I do think Epictetus is the way to go for practical reason. But criticisms like Leopardi’s ought to trigger a bit of humility in some self-professed Stoics who are so cocksure of their chosen philosophy that they admit no alternatives.
Thanks for this wonderful essay.
It was an eye opener for me since it made me realize why - however much I am drawn to stoic philosophy- I feel some unease with stoicism sometimes:
I am a nature scientist (think: no mind w/o a body, a brain) and
I am a pessimist (by heart - more the Charly Brown than Snoopy type, to mention another great philosopher of life: Charles M. Schulz…and by philosophy: Schopenhauer is one of my favorites)
However, cannot quote where I read it: pessimists are more realists than optimists - but they have a harder way until they find out the truth, that‘s why I envy them, like, say, my dog (another unnamed philosopher).
Thanks !
Frank, thanks for the kind words! I’m inclined toward your pessimism. Very soon you’ll see an essay on Schopenhauer and Stoicism here at Figs in Winter. And you know, the advantage of being a pessimist is that you are rarely disappointed, and occasionally even positively surprised…
Does the Dichotomy of Control have to go?
Well, there’s a thought to challenge your equanimity!
I think the science is clear – we live in a universe where cause precedes effect. Our intentions are the product of biological processes performing a myriad of simple functions that in sum, account for everything we think and do. The uncomfortable truth is that we are unaware of most of these biological antecedents, their origins and their influence in any given decision we make. Resolving this discomfort by overlaying an untethered locus of freewill to instantiate a sense of control, is to sacrifice physics and introduce an inconsistency to Reason.
Even if we are able let our grandiose notions of agency go, we are still faced with squaring off the sense that our judgements are deeply personal and reflect a coherent expression of intention.
That is because they do. The capacity for Reason is in our Nature. That we are also self-aware and given to self-reflection is axiomatic. We are, to borrow a phrase, machines that are aware of our machine-ness. It doesn’t matter that our intentions are the product of neurobiology when that state is the outcome of interactions that are particular to an individual. It is the notion that Reason plays out through a self-reflecting individual that provides an inescapable sense of ownership.
While the language of the Dichotomy of Control ‘What is up to us’ and ‘Under our control’ is problematic, the intention, i.e. to focus on prohairesis remains valid. It is to behave according to our Nature and develop our capacity for Reason through self-reflection. The fact that this capacity is part of our machinery does not diminish the need to focus on the quality of our judgements rather than the supposed intrinsic value of the externals to which they are directed. Reason in this sense is the process of choosing between indifferents.
Rob, I agree. No need to let go of the insight that we are better off focusing on our intentions and judgments rather than on outcomes and other externals. But, as I just wrote in a comment to Vivian, Leopardi’s means that—contra Epictetus—what we do is *no different* from when we take care of our body, which he classes as an external.
Yes, I got that more subtle unpacking of the dichotomy of control. My understanding is that subtleties are necessary sequelae to core principles, but may be confusing if introduced too early. Is this correct?
Leopardi rejects the dichotomy of control the way Epictetus presents it, essentially putting prohairesis among the same “externals” to which the body belongs. The advice to take care of our faculty of judgment stands, just like we should take care of our bodies, but both are subject to the same limitations. Does this help?
Thanks, it does. It's an important philosophical point. I was seeing it more as a confounding issue when helping my own or others' psychological confusion. I know my brain is part of my body & the structure and function of both are not under my control. Yet the dichotomy of control is an underlying principle of CBT & common to other therapies such as Logotherapy, Existential Therapy & ACT. My point, perhaps not clearly made, was that qualifying the dichotomy of control with Leopoldi's argument is not practical in easing suffering.
Vivian, I think I understand your concern. But from a philosophical perspective Leopardi’s criticism doesn’t just qualify the dichotomy of control, it completely undermines it. Which is not to say that, for practical purposes, it isn’t still good advice to people. But it does mean that as Stoics we ought to reflect long and hard on the implications for our philosophy.
Oh! I didn't realise that his criticism completely undermines the dichotomy of control. That's a big deal. No doubt you'll keep us informed about how this impacts the development of Stoicism.
I’ll do my best! 😊 So far, as I said above, I think we can retain Epictetus’s practical advice on focusing on what is up to us, as well as that “up to us” translates, mostly, into our faculty of assent. The only proviso is that sometimes even that faculty can be taken away from us by external forces, in which case we may want to consider Seneca’s advice.
A clear & practical thumbnail sketch.
Great argument Massimo. I particularly liked the challenge Leopoldi made that "It is great folly to admit that our bodies are subject to things beyond our control, and nonetheless deny that the mind, which depends on the body in almost everything, is inevitably subject to anything whatever outside ourselves.” This underpins the Stoic view of leaving by the “open door” when our faculties start to crumble. This is honourable, as Seneca says, “because it will be a hindrance to me as regards all my reasons for living”, which include supporting a virtuous existence while being of service to others, instead of a burden.
Vivian, exactly. This, however, creates a significant problem for the famous dichotomy of control, since it shows that the distinction Epictetus makes between body (external) and mind (internal) is not valid.
Very, very good. Deep, fundamental thinking. Thanks. It answers a question I posed a few weeks ago. One comment. You write: "One important implication of which is that, so long as we decide to stay, we have no grounds for complaining and we need to do our best for ourselves and for others." But taking one's own life can be very tough, extremely scary and painful. This is where medical assistance in dying becomes very important. To me, not providing it can be extremely cruel. Of course, appropriate safeguards are needed to prevent excesses.
Pierre, thanks for your kind words. Yes, I agree, medical assistance in dying, with proper safeguards, is needed to retain human dignity in the face of death. But I don’t think that contradicts the “so long as we decide to stay…” bit.
Eh, what's there to be optimistic about? Seriously, interesting stuff, as always.
Yeah, the answer is: “not much, but we keep going anyway!”
Psychology research shows that pessimists tend to be more realistic than optimists. It's a subtle balancing act to hold on to grounded-in-reality aspirations to bring about individual & social improvement, while remembering the constraints inherent in reality, demonstrated by biology & the laws of physics.
Vivian, we need to keep in mind the distinction between psychological and philosophical pessimism. The latter, as you say, maybe closer to realism, but it doesn’t necessarily imply the former.
" In fact, nothing else at all is properly mine other than my body." You are leaving out one's words, one's deeds, and one's thoughts.
Spent a number of times in convalescent hospitals, as a child. To live without my own autonomy, in the manner I can manage, is not to live at all, but simply to exist, not unlike a beast. That is unacceptable to me.
I can accept reductions in my physical abilities, but not my mental ones. We now have euthanasia, which makes it relatively clean, and an easier choice.
We are born into the bodies we have. They may get better than originally exited into this world or not. We deal with what we were dealt. Then we do the best we can with the tools we have. Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't.
Michael, words, deeds, and thoughts are still the result of the functioning of our bodies.
Sorry to hear about your years in the hospital! I agree, and so do the Stoics, that simplifying surviving is not enough for a human being. As I say in the essay, Seneca makes your same point about mental abilities: once they start going, it’s time to consider, as he puts it, “slipping the cable.”
It seems we are involved in a semantics disagreement. For me, the mind is more than just a body part, for you it seems to be just another facet of the body.
Happy to clarify: for me what we call the mind is not a thing, is an activity, specifically the activity of our brains when it interacts with the external world through the senses and the rest of our body. I’d rather use the word “minding,” which is the brain’s analogous activity to, say, the breathing done by the lungs.
If you think there’s more to it than that, could you elaborate?
The mind, unlike the body, is capable of an incredible number of modes of either behavior or thought. The body is much more limited, it can be made more or less healthy, stronger, faster, but there are limits. The mind can explore so much more, and go where, perhaps, no one has gone before.
There may be overlap or not, depending on the state of the mind and that of the individual it is in contact with.
There have been personal experiences of my own, that have convinced me beyond any doubt, that just because one can taste, touch, smell, hear, and see something, there is no guaranty that it is real in the physical sense of the word, that most people accept. If it were only me, there would be much more doubting, but in a number of cases, have been with other people, different one's each time, who have seen and experienced what I did.
Perhaps, it is nearer to the concept of the mind of God, that includes, by definition, everything and everyone, that can descend, and help someone, with no sense at all that that is what is actually happening. Nor is there any indication it was for me alone, but perhaps for those traveling with me.
So for me, mind is something not limited to a given human form. I hope this helps explain my view.
Michael, so you think of mind as something incorporeal? Like a soul?
I am of a mind, pun intended, that I am not disconnected from either Nature or the Universe. Rather I am a part of each. The Universe to me, is the physical body of what we call God. It is all one, everything is interrelated.
If there were a soul, it would be separate from both nature and the Universe, which seems very not unlikely so much, as impossible. Separateness is an appearance, but it does not exist ultimately, since everything is connected to everything and everyone else, to some degree. Some of this is born of my study of astrology, some just from basic physics and the Big Bang theory.
With the mind of God permeating everything everywhere.
Hope this helps clarify things.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece on Leopardi's challenge, Massimo! I found the discussion fascinating, especially the connection to modern neuroscience and Seneca's reflections on rational suicide.I wonder, though, if we might be too quick to accept Leopardi's challenge.
While it's true that our mental faculties depend on our brains and can be compromised, doesn't this commit a kind of category error? The fact that our agency could be undermined doesn't mean it isn't genuinely "up to us" when our faculties are functioning normally.
In my work on constitutional psychology, I've been struck by how much we can actually optimize our executive functions through philosophical practice and self-reflection. When our faculties are intact, there really are quite a lot of things up to us—our choices, our responses, how we cultivate wisdom and integrate the different aspects of our nature. The contingency of these capacities doesn't make them any less real or meaningful while we have them.
Maybe the more precise formulation is: "Many things are genuinely up to us until they're not." This seems both more accurate than naive claims about unlimited control and more useful than Leopardi's pessimistic conclusion. We can work skillfully with the meaningful agency we do possess, recognizing its conditions without dismissing its reality.
Chester, I’m in complete agreement. But your rephrasing suggests that Leopardi is right and Epictetus wrong here, since Epictetus insists that our prohairesis is not “conditionally” up to us. The analysis presented here indicates that, just as you say, it is up to us, until it isn’t any longer. But the same can be said for our body: I can take care of my biological fitness, until I can’t. We don’t have to follow Leopardi’s psychological pessimism in order to accept his philosophical pessimism. And we don’t have to give up Epictetus’s advice, just realize that it has limits that even the Master from Hierapolis did not acknowledge.
At first I thought, "it all comes down to whether or not we have immaterial souls". But then I thought "fortune would still decide if you have a noble or weak soul".
Yup. With the difference that modern neuroscience wouldn’t be very helpful if we had immaterial souls.
Agreed. My father was a psychiatrist who worked with people who had severe mental disorders and from my interaction with them it was clear that a disorder of your brain is a disorder of your entire world. The problem is that to whatever degree our executive function is working now, whatever plans we have for when we are no longer competent require somebody in the world to remember our preferences. Here is an interesting essay on the topic of "being ready to die".
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/opinion/how-to-accept-death.html
“But death is never neat. A good death should be defined by how well and honestly we care for the dying, not by their performance on our behalf. Expecting them to make death a process full of insight and peace only limits our full emotional and spiritual participation in their death. By sacrificing neatness, we can have a conversation about what the dying truly need from us. Understanding their authentic experiences helps us not only to see them more fully but also to prepare, together, for losing them.”
Good article, thank you
"Now, as an attending physician, I hear echoes of my younger self when I talk with residents. If they mention that a patient isn’t ready to die, I ask what it looks like for someone to be ready to die. I remind them, gently, that awaiting specific imaginings of readiness may only justify excusing themselves from sharing hard truths with someone whose reactions they cannot anticipate."
Thanks for sharing the article, saved it for later reading.
Very interesting.
So, if I'm on the right track, Epictetus' advice to ignore what's not up to us still holds true if it refers to how much I should stress about Trump, Gaza, Ukraine and the current state of the world.
But it doesn't hold true to say that my thoughts, values, judgements and decisions to act or not to act and how to act are entirely up to me because they are formulated in my brain which is a physical entity and a part of my body and on which my thoughts, decisions etc and consciousness depends.
If my brain fails due to injury or disease then that may adversely affect my thoughts, decisions and ability to reason. So they are dependent on my body ( brain).
BUT. Forgive me. A possible counter argument.
My body is part of me. It is me. So if my body ( brain ) fails in such a way as it adversely affects my ability to reason does that not therefore mean that my inability to reason is up to me in the sense that the failing body part ( my brain ) IS me?
I'm getting confused. Help!
Regardless of the above I still find Epictetus' advice a revelation and the most useful and helpful way of thinking and addressing the trials of life and so I'm staying with him!!
Iain, the problem with that counter argument is that Epictetus himself is very clear that your body is one of those thongs that is NOT up to us…
I agree that Epictetus’s advice to focus on what we are thinking and to realize where our agency actually lies is excellent and very practical. But Leopardi’s objection stands.
Hi Massimo,
So just to clarify, Leopardi is a saying that our minds, and therefore our ability to reason, is as dependant on outside forces and events as our bodies are.
Therefore, not up to us.
Iain, that’s right. Leopardi puts the finger on something that has bothered me for some time now. The Stoics are not dualists, and yet Epictetus treats the mind as if it were separate from the body. It’s not. So if the body is not up to us, neither is the mind. Of course that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t do our best to take care of both. But the mind is no exception to the universal rule that things can and do happen regardless of our will. Including things affecting our will.
Thank you, Massimo. Very useful.
The central paradox, that our eudaimonia depends on what we can control, and yet that the operation of our minds is constrained by the fate of our bodies, seems to me another version of the paradox of "free will;" from which I would agree with you that compatibilism is the only possible escape. Choosing is a fundamental part of our experience, and central to stoicism, and yet the material processes ion our brains when we choose are subject to effectively deterministic physical law.
Paul, exactly. There is, of course, still much value in Epictetus’s advice, but Leopardi’s point struck a deep chord when I read it, as I’ve been thinking the same thing for a while now.