Massimo, I've been giving some thought to this idea that no one does wrong on purpose. But really, can't we imagine someone thinking, "I know what I'm about to do is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway"?
Jim, no, I can't imagine. I can imagine someone knowing that *other people* think what he's doing is wrong. But I can't imagine someone who doesn't come up with what they think are good reasons for doing it anyway. Of course, that's often rationalization, not rational thinking, but still. Even Hitler probably genuinely thought he was helping the Arian race, which was the right thing to do, in his mind.
Fair enough. Actually the idea of amatheia as an explanation for "evil" has always been convincing for me. It's getting others to accept it that's the hard part.
The other day, I had this conversation with my very disgruntled colleague.
Colleague :"you are smart, right? How do you feel everyday about being surrounded by idiots?"
Me: well I think I'm pretty dumb. I think everyone is very smart in their own ways."
Colleague :" I see, you have empathy. Guess what, there's no em-pathetic without 'pathetic'!"
Ok so he was stressed and he is usually offensive, and I'm not easily offended, so I just had a laugh with him in the end.
However, it did make me wonder about the "pathetic" part of "empathy". I understand that all of us live in our own constructed mental worlds, and even though we all love virtues, each one of us have very different interpretations of what virtues are (I try following the Stoic interpretation, but my silicon Valley tech bros have very different interpretations haha 😂). Am I pathetic because I'm empathetic? Is being "pathetic" really a bad thing? What if others think I'm pathetic but I don't because I think I'm virtuous? Am I borderline on being nasscisistic that way?
Victoria, there is reason "empathy" and "pathetic" have common etymology is because they both come from "pathos," meaning emotion. I doubt you are pathetic, regardless of what that smart ass of your colleague says. And please do not try to lose empathy, that would make you into a psychopath.
That said, as we discussed in the past, empathy has limits, and it can be manipulated. Which is why the Stoics recommended to cultivate sympathy, rather than empathy: it is reason-based and scales up, unlike empathy.
I worked through the Handbook once (finished mid 2023) and this was one of the exercises that stuck with me. In hindsight, half the battle is coping with my own emotions rising out of impressions - as a result of reconsidering my preconceptions of others. There’s a humility and acceptance that is necessary and yet so dang hard to do, sometimes.
This has been a very relatable exercise. Learning to try to understand things from others’ POV in relation to their concept of good and evil has been one of the most important takeaways from Stoicism for me. Either a person is wrong and I should pity them, they are correct and I should not be angry with them, or perhaps a third option (more epistemologically) is that it’s unclear who is right and who is wrong. In that case why should I be frustrated with them if even I’m not completely sure of who was in the right and wrong?
I think I do fairly well at looking at things from another's perspective, even when I don't agree with them. My wife however is a different story. Whenever she comes across a perceived wrong, she'll say the perceived wrongdoer "should have known better." Or "what gave her the right to speak to me that way?" Or "people are responsible for their own words/actions and should be held accountable for them." I guess you could say she subscribes to a sort of deontological ethics. It seems to me that you need to be oriented towards virtue ethics beforehand to be open to perspective taking, correct?
Jim, not sure that virtue ethics is necessary (or sufficient, for that matter) in order to be able to take another's perspective, but it certainly helps. Stoicism in particular, I think.
Well let's put it this way, I certainly can't imagine my wife doing much to adopt perspective taking with her deontological mindset! Just speaking from personal experience 😂!
Thank you, Massimo. I think this is one of the basis for diplomacy and conflict resolution. Being aware of the other’s motivations and reasons makes it easier reconsidering one’s positions or arguing over the other’s.
Dear Massimo, the weekly exercises are challenging me. And I hope making me a better Stoic. I dispute the Stoic idea that “no one wants to do wrong on purpose”. I guess the definition of doing wrong comes into play. However, my experience as a physician who has been sued for malpractice (and found “not guilty” after 5 dreadful years) raises questions about intent. In this situation, my employer (I’m an ER doc) was a private equity firm that purchased the medical practice from the hospital where I worked. Shortly after I was sued, the PE firm declared bankruptcy of the medical group (the PE owned about 200 ER practices) and it turned out that the owners of the PE firm stopped paying our malpractice insurance premiums (part of the contractual contract with the physicians was to pay this), and when I was sued, I had no coverage and my entire life was at risk. It ended up in federal bankruptcy court, that ruled that each plaintiff in the several hundred cases that were left without insurance would get a small portion of the bankruptcy assets. So that nightmare was over. But the PE firm reorganized under a new name and resumed their ownership of medical practices. So my point is that I can’t see the people who did this as anything but greedy and evil.
Thank you for letting me relate my story, and I would appreciate guidance when faced with greed and evil, especially on the corporate/political level when directed against the individual.
Jill, thanks for sharing your story which, unfortunately, is not too rare these days. So a Stoic would ask themselves: what were these people thinking? Likely possibilities include that they were doing their due diligence toward their employer / shareholders; or that they were entitled to more money because they are special human beings. Or both. In other words, these people likely told themselves a story, which they believed, about why they were still good and decent human beings, despite what they were doing.
That's what Socrates means when he says nobody does evil on purpose. Of course, the ones I mentioned above, and others like them, are rationalizations, not reasons. But rationalizations are the result of the failure to reason properly, which is Socrates's point.
Here is another way to approach the issue: if instead of telling yourself that these people were poor reasoners who engage in self-rationalizations you say "they are evil!" what, exactly, have you accomplished? "Evil" is a questionable metaphysical category, which ends up explaining nothing, I think. But it makes it much easier for *us* to rationalize treating some as sub-human "vermin," to use a phrase adopted by the nazifascists and by some contemporary political figures that shall go unnamed.
Insightful comments! I agree that evil is a poor model for understanding the world, with dangerous pitfalls. Regarding those who are mistaken in their attitudes and beliefs, it is wise to have empathy for our own and others' sakes, but we shouldn't let that get in the way of effectively acting to reduce the suffering caused by their foolish actions, including legal prosecution, imprisonment, and in rare cases more direct action. I am reading a book about abusive men, and one of their common traits seems to be their ability to get others to empathize with *their* emotions and views while refusing to return the favor. Similarly, the unethical actions of a PE firm should be met with some form of empathy to stay our anger and prevent inner turmoil, yes, but they should also be held accountable and, if reasonably possible, prevented from causing further harm. Obvious, perhaps, but I grew up being taught to "forgive and forget," another poor model, so perhaps it's worth being said.
That certainly makes sense to my view of things.I came across this recently : Act virtuously under whatever circumstances because circumstances are the materials the universe throws at us to practice our virtue and strengthen our character.
I know potentially violent extremists and I use this practice to have compassion for them and get along with them in social and family functions. I have come to understand they are parts of an identity group that has a world view that believes violence is justified because they believe the US is under a dictatorship. I obviously do not share their beliefs, but I understand how they came to them through a steady diet of News Max and Info Wars.
They are encouraging me to get ready for a coming Civil War. This time though these Stoic exercises I am hoping to be able to balance my compassion for people who would be otherwise good people (but are planning on participating in activity I see as evil), with a need to be vigilant and participate in the defense of what I hold true and dear. Unlike Marcus, I am no emperor, but I too have responsibilities to a greater good. I am looking forward to a deeper dive this time through the 52 weeks. Thank you.
We should figure out what incorrect notion led them to act how they did.Life experience taught me when you assume why people do what they do 9times out of ten ( two out of three these days ) you are wrong. Step two : do I have the same values? Being human I probably do.Should we just cover our bases and be compassionate and forgiving regardless ?
Yes, we should strive to be compassionate and forgiving regardless, on the basis that human beings make mistakes, and that we ourselves are no exception. The idea is to put ourselves in the other person's shoes and try to understand why they did what they did. It should help us being more understanding.
Feeling sorry for someone has a bit of an edge to me.Being compassionate is a part of becoming a better person hence my interest in Stoicism.So how do I "..go to and mark....." the other person's motivation in practice?
My first thoughts here are love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek,next are some Stoic practices to deal with anger like just walk away from that person.I have poor social skills and can't imagine how to engage this person to find out what motivates them never mind stepping into their shoes.Is feeling sorry for someone equal to showing sympathy
Sometimes stepping away is the best solution, particularly if one thinks that one might make a situation worse.
I think there is a difference between feeling sorry for someone (an inner experience) and showing sympathy (an outward behavior). But the two are obviously related.
Thanks. In our divided partisan politics it is all to easy to feel righteous. Neither group of righteous indignants can find it easy to understand the other, and there is little dialog. Approaching each other finding aspects of mutual concern difficult, but necessity.. I’ll try harder..
Dick, to be clear: I don't believe "both sides" have necessarily equally good arguments. Some times one side is far closer to truth, or justice, than the other. But it is always good to at least try to understand positions different from ours. Persuasion entails genuinely listening to others. And of course, it may turn out that we are, in fact, wrong...
Absolutely listening is essential, on the tv a politician said the concept of hate for the other party is wrong, attempting to understand means discussing common visions of a just word. I tell my octogenarian also friend who thinks now different from forty years ago that we are all in the same boat, want the same for our grandkids.. ironic to hear two politicos saying hate not good, engagement for common grounds necessary. George Packer wrote a book which divided out US world into different groups and said talk to the other find commonality 9 years ago. My friends said no. I found it difficult to discuss with some, quoting Epictetus doesn’t always work
Dick, definitely quoting Epictetus doesn't always work. It works only if one has already accepted the Stoic framework, or is open to it. But it is worth remembering what he said and act accordingly.
Massimo, I've been giving some thought to this idea that no one does wrong on purpose. But really, can't we imagine someone thinking, "I know what I'm about to do is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway"?
Jim, no, I can't imagine. I can imagine someone knowing that *other people* think what he's doing is wrong. But I can't imagine someone who doesn't come up with what they think are good reasons for doing it anyway. Of course, that's often rationalization, not rational thinking, but still. Even Hitler probably genuinely thought he was helping the Arian race, which was the right thing to do, in his mind.
Fair enough. Actually the idea of amatheia as an explanation for "evil" has always been convincing for me. It's getting others to accept it that's the hard part.
I hear you. But of course a Stoic would say that other people's opinions are up to them. Let's start with our own.
What did Marcus look like?? I had to share this with you Massimo!
https://www.royaltynowstudios.com/blog/blog-post-title-one-pxydc-3e4k2-lwr6a
Yup, I've seen it before. Looks pretty cool!
The other day, I had this conversation with my very disgruntled colleague.
Colleague :"you are smart, right? How do you feel everyday about being surrounded by idiots?"
Me: well I think I'm pretty dumb. I think everyone is very smart in their own ways."
Colleague :" I see, you have empathy. Guess what, there's no em-pathetic without 'pathetic'!"
Ok so he was stressed and he is usually offensive, and I'm not easily offended, so I just had a laugh with him in the end.
However, it did make me wonder about the "pathetic" part of "empathy". I understand that all of us live in our own constructed mental worlds, and even though we all love virtues, each one of us have very different interpretations of what virtues are (I try following the Stoic interpretation, but my silicon Valley tech bros have very different interpretations haha 😂). Am I pathetic because I'm empathetic? Is being "pathetic" really a bad thing? What if others think I'm pathetic but I don't because I think I'm virtuous? Am I borderline on being nasscisistic that way?
Victoria, there is reason "empathy" and "pathetic" have common etymology is because they both come from "pathos," meaning emotion. I doubt you are pathetic, regardless of what that smart ass of your colleague says. And please do not try to lose empathy, that would make you into a psychopath.
That said, as we discussed in the past, empathy has limits, and it can be manipulated. Which is why the Stoics recommended to cultivate sympathy, rather than empathy: it is reason-based and scales up, unlike empathy.
I'm not totally sure if I understand the difference between empathy and sympathy? Don't they both stand for understanding the other's point of view?
Victoria, empathy is about feeling (or trying to feel) another’s emotions. Sympathy is about understanding another’s predicament.
I wrote about this from a Stoic perspective here: https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/sympathy-empathy-and-how-a-stoic-should-relate-to-other-peoples-emotions/
There is also this book by psychologist Paul Bloom: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29100194-against-empathy
Thank you for the recommendations! I will read both of them.🙂
I worked through the Handbook once (finished mid 2023) and this was one of the exercises that stuck with me. In hindsight, half the battle is coping with my own emotions rising out of impressions - as a result of reconsidering my preconceptions of others. There’s a humility and acceptance that is necessary and yet so dang hard to do, sometimes.
Jon, it's one of my favorite exercises as well. And yes, hard to do, on occasion!
This has been a very relatable exercise. Learning to try to understand things from others’ POV in relation to their concept of good and evil has been one of the most important takeaways from Stoicism for me. Either a person is wrong and I should pity them, they are correct and I should not be angry with them, or perhaps a third option (more epistemologically) is that it’s unclear who is right and who is wrong. In that case why should I be frustrated with them if even I’m not completely sure of who was in the right and wrong?
Exactly!
I think I do fairly well at looking at things from another's perspective, even when I don't agree with them. My wife however is a different story. Whenever she comes across a perceived wrong, she'll say the perceived wrongdoer "should have known better." Or "what gave her the right to speak to me that way?" Or "people are responsible for their own words/actions and should be held accountable for them." I guess you could say she subscribes to a sort of deontological ethics. It seems to me that you need to be oriented towards virtue ethics beforehand to be open to perspective taking, correct?
Jim, not sure that virtue ethics is necessary (or sufficient, for that matter) in order to be able to take another's perspective, but it certainly helps. Stoicism in particular, I think.
Well let's put it this way, I certainly can't imagine my wife doing much to adopt perspective taking with her deontological mindset! Just speaking from personal experience 😂!
You certainly know her more than I do!
Indeed! But your first reply got me thinking, would you more widely conclude that someone with an ethically deontological mindset could be a Stoic?
Hmm, no, Stoicism is pretty much incompatible with deontology, though see this recent post of mine: https://figsinwinter.substack.com/p/virtue-ethics-rules-and-consequences
That said, Kant, the deontologist-in-chief (after God, I guess), was indeed influenced by the Stoics. He liked their emphasis on virtue and duty.
Mill, the utilitarian, by contrast was inspired by Epicurus.
Much obliged!
Thank you, Massimo. I think this is one of the basis for diplomacy and conflict resolution. Being aware of the other’s motivations and reasons makes it easier reconsidering one’s positions or arguing over the other’s.
Also, I’ve been studying Wagner’s Ring Cycle for the past 10 years or so, and looking at how power corrupts, and the consequences of that.
Dear Massimo, the weekly exercises are challenging me. And I hope making me a better Stoic. I dispute the Stoic idea that “no one wants to do wrong on purpose”. I guess the definition of doing wrong comes into play. However, my experience as a physician who has been sued for malpractice (and found “not guilty” after 5 dreadful years) raises questions about intent. In this situation, my employer (I’m an ER doc) was a private equity firm that purchased the medical practice from the hospital where I worked. Shortly after I was sued, the PE firm declared bankruptcy of the medical group (the PE owned about 200 ER practices) and it turned out that the owners of the PE firm stopped paying our malpractice insurance premiums (part of the contractual contract with the physicians was to pay this), and when I was sued, I had no coverage and my entire life was at risk. It ended up in federal bankruptcy court, that ruled that each plaintiff in the several hundred cases that were left without insurance would get a small portion of the bankruptcy assets. So that nightmare was over. But the PE firm reorganized under a new name and resumed their ownership of medical practices. So my point is that I can’t see the people who did this as anything but greedy and evil.
Thank you for letting me relate my story, and I would appreciate guidance when faced with greed and evil, especially on the corporate/political level when directed against the individual.
Jill, thanks for sharing your story which, unfortunately, is not too rare these days. So a Stoic would ask themselves: what were these people thinking? Likely possibilities include that they were doing their due diligence toward their employer / shareholders; or that they were entitled to more money because they are special human beings. Or both. In other words, these people likely told themselves a story, which they believed, about why they were still good and decent human beings, despite what they were doing.
That's what Socrates means when he says nobody does evil on purpose. Of course, the ones I mentioned above, and others like them, are rationalizations, not reasons. But rationalizations are the result of the failure to reason properly, which is Socrates's point.
Here is another way to approach the issue: if instead of telling yourself that these people were poor reasoners who engage in self-rationalizations you say "they are evil!" what, exactly, have you accomplished? "Evil" is a questionable metaphysical category, which ends up explaining nothing, I think. But it makes it much easier for *us* to rationalize treating some as sub-human "vermin," to use a phrase adopted by the nazifascists and by some contemporary political figures that shall go unnamed.
Insightful comments! I agree that evil is a poor model for understanding the world, with dangerous pitfalls. Regarding those who are mistaken in their attitudes and beliefs, it is wise to have empathy for our own and others' sakes, but we shouldn't let that get in the way of effectively acting to reduce the suffering caused by their foolish actions, including legal prosecution, imprisonment, and in rare cases more direct action. I am reading a book about abusive men, and one of their common traits seems to be their ability to get others to empathize with *their* emotions and views while refusing to return the favor. Similarly, the unethical actions of a PE firm should be met with some form of empathy to stay our anger and prevent inner turmoil, yes, but they should also be held accountable and, if reasonably possible, prevented from causing further harm. Obvious, perhaps, but I grew up being taught to "forgive and forget," another poor model, so perhaps it's worth being said.
Mark, absolutely. To be compassionate toward others does not imply acting like a doormat, or inaction in the face of injustice.
That certainly makes sense to my view of things.I came across this recently : Act virtuously under whatever circumstances because circumstances are the materials the universe throws at us to practice our virtue and strengthen our character.
🙏
Yup, exactly right!
I know potentially violent extremists and I use this practice to have compassion for them and get along with them in social and family functions. I have come to understand they are parts of an identity group that has a world view that believes violence is justified because they believe the US is under a dictatorship. I obviously do not share their beliefs, but I understand how they came to them through a steady diet of News Max and Info Wars.
They are encouraging me to get ready for a coming Civil War. This time though these Stoic exercises I am hoping to be able to balance my compassion for people who would be otherwise good people (but are planning on participating in activity I see as evil), with a need to be vigilant and participate in the defense of what I hold true and dear. Unlike Marcus, I am no emperor, but I too have responsibilities to a greater good. I am looking forward to a deeper dive this time through the 52 weeks. Thank you.
Bob, that's exactly the right attitude. As difficult to implement as it may be.
We should figure out what incorrect notion led them to act how they did.Life experience taught me when you assume why people do what they do 9times out of ten ( two out of three these days ) you are wrong. Step two : do I have the same values? Being human I probably do.Should we just cover our bases and be compassionate and forgiving regardless ?
You'll see the methods you mentioned come up again later in the book. You're ahead of the curve! :)
Yes, we should strive to be compassionate and forgiving regardless, on the basis that human beings make mistakes, and that we ourselves are no exception. The idea is to put ourselves in the other person's shoes and try to understand why they did what they did. It should help us being more understanding.
It’s very difficult to follow the rule of compassion and forgiveness. Being human I believe love for fellow is paramount
Feeling sorry for someone has a bit of an edge to me.Being compassionate is a part of becoming a better person hence my interest in Stoicism.So how do I "..go to and mark....." the other person's motivation in practice?
Not sure what your question is, could you elaborate?
But yes, compassion is definitely a good thing, and something a Stoic should practice.
My first thoughts here are love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek,next are some Stoic practices to deal with anger like just walk away from that person.I have poor social skills and can't imagine how to engage this person to find out what motivates them never mind stepping into their shoes.Is feeling sorry for someone equal to showing sympathy
Sometimes stepping away is the best solution, particularly if one thinks that one might make a situation worse.
I think there is a difference between feeling sorry for someone (an inner experience) and showing sympathy (an outward behavior). But the two are obviously related.
Thanks. In our divided partisan politics it is all to easy to feel righteous. Neither group of righteous indignants can find it easy to understand the other, and there is little dialog. Approaching each other finding aspects of mutual concern difficult, but necessity.. I’ll try harder..
Dick, to be clear: I don't believe "both sides" have necessarily equally good arguments. Some times one side is far closer to truth, or justice, than the other. But it is always good to at least try to understand positions different from ours. Persuasion entails genuinely listening to others. And of course, it may turn out that we are, in fact, wrong...
Absolutely listening is essential, on the tv a politician said the concept of hate for the other party is wrong, attempting to understand means discussing common visions of a just word. I tell my octogenarian also friend who thinks now different from forty years ago that we are all in the same boat, want the same for our grandkids.. ironic to hear two politicos saying hate not good, engagement for common grounds necessary. George Packer wrote a book which divided out US world into different groups and said talk to the other find commonality 9 years ago. My friends said no. I found it difficult to discuss with some, quoting Epictetus doesn’t always work
Dick, definitely quoting Epictetus doesn't always work. It works only if one has already accepted the Stoic framework, or is open to it. But it is worth remembering what he said and act accordingly.