Actual stoicism is kind of darkly funny. Here's a word-for-word (translated, of course) excerpt from Epictetus:
"It's possible to understand what nature wants from situations where we're no different from other people. For example, when a slave breaks someone else's cup we're instantly ready to say 'These things happen.' So when it's a cup of yours that gets broken, appreciate that you have the same attitude as when it's someone else's cup. Transfer the principle to things of greater importance. Has someone else's child or wife died? There's no one who wouldn't say 'So it goes.' But when it's one's own child or wife who's died, the automatic response is 'Oh, no!' and 'Poor me!' It's essential to remember how we feel when we hear of this happening to others."
There are a few (darkly) funny claims in here:
- _ANYONE_ would be pretty indifferent to hear that someone's wife or child has died.
- You should feel the same about your wife or child as someone else's.
- Potentially, you should feel the same way about your wife as you do a cup.
I'm being cheeky with the last one, and I don't think there's _nothing_ to the quote above, however I cannot imagine most people being able to adopt this view, or seeing it as a view which _should_ be adopted.
- The first part says: if you shrug off someone else's cup being broken as just an accident, you should also do the same when yours gets broken.
- Then he clearly says “Apply now the same principle to the matters of greater importance.”
- The last part says that if you respond to someone else's bereavement with platitudes like “Such is the lot of man” or “This is an accident of mortality” (this does not preclude some amount of sympathy and compassion preceding those statements!), then you should respond the same to yours, rather than thinking of yourself as uniquely wretched and unfortunate.
The main point is about being consistent in how you view others' fate and yours: not that you should care equally about someone's wife and yours (or that you should be indifferent to either), just that the story you tell about life and fortune should be the same.
[He's also obviously distinguishing the cup situation (a simple everyday thing where the principle is easy to see and follow, given as an establishing example) from the wife situation (a situation where the principle is harder to apply), by saying “greater things” / “higher matters” / “matters of greater importance”.]
There's logic to prevent you from viewing more than five translations at one time, but I'm happy to see you got right past that by url-hacking. It breaks the layout a little bit and makes the site even worse on mobile.
I see you included all the translations except Stephen Walton's. Yes he took some liberties, but I like it anyway :)
Thanks for making this site; I love it and have returned to it many times. (I don't mind the layout with all translations even on mobile; I just rotate my phone or decrease font size.) I read through the whole thing recently. (https://twitter.com/svat/status/2004591889010643102)
Stephen Walton's translation is actually my favourite! I omitted it here because this is HN and likely someone would complain the translation is clearly incorrect because it talks about “Your neighbor’s car gets hit in a parking lot”. But to include it too just for completeness :) https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:e,ec,twh,twr,gl,...
I'm very glad to hear all that! My goal was to make it easy to use, so the following part of your blog post (2019!) absolutely made my day:
> The software too pleasantly just worked, with no setup or install required: just clone the sample app, change the filenames and <base href="..."> in index.html as it mentions. It’s a joy when that happens.
Suffice to say, many people haven't had as much success as you: they fumbled around for 10-20 commits and ended up with something broken. I think requiring people to edit json is just too much :)
I suppose some of it is also not dark at all, and is simply funny. Here's another excerpt:
"If you're informed that someone or other is speaking ill of you, don't defend yourself against the allegations, but respond by saying: "Well, he must be unaware of my other faults, otherwise these wouldn't have been the only ones he mentioned."
It's stated a bit differently, but this is effectively the exact tact taken by Eminem's competition-winning rap in 8 Mile. "These guys think I'm bad? They missed all this obvious stuff, let me lay out all my faults for you."
Reminds me of Lincoln being called "two-face" by Douglas and replying “If I had another face, do you think I'd wear this one?”
Self deprecation can indeed be disarming. But it must never cross the point of eliminating self respect. That's when you go from easy going to pure loser.
I find stoicism to be Taoism's spiritual sibling in the West. From the Dao De Jing, passage 5, Red Pine's translation:
"Heaven and Earth are heartless /
treating creatures like straw dogs /
heartless is the sage /
treating people like straw dogs..."
and his translation of one commentary:
"Heaven and Earth aren't partial. They don't kill living things
out of cruelty or give them birth out of kindness. We do the same when we
make straw dogs to use in sacrifices. We dress them up and put them on the
altar, but not because we love them. And when the ceremony is over, we throw
them into the street, but not because we hate them. This is how the sage treats
the people."
It reflects a detached, broad perspective on the world, which does not deny our very attached and narrow view, but rather augments it and provides a counterweight to our suffering.
There's some passages in the Zhuangzi (another of the 3 central ancient Taoist texts, along with the Tao Te Ching and Liehzi) that feel very analogous. I'm too lazy to find actual translations right now so bear in mind my recollection may be flawed.
There's a part where it talks any how, if you're sailing on a river and an unoccupied boat comes down the river towards you, you simply avoid it. But if that boat were occupied, you might holler at the person to get out of your way, and it might be upsetting.
There's also a passage where Zhuangzi's wife has died, and his friend find him merrily beating a drum. He asks if this is the proper way to mourn his wife. Zhuangzi replies that he had initially cried and lamented when his wife passed, until he realized that she had become what she was before she had lived, and that to everything there was a season. (There's definitely more here than I remember off the top of my head.)
Tangentially, if one has only read the Tao Te Ching, the Zhuangzi and Liehzi are also great and worth reading. The Liehzi is very short, and the Zhuangzi can be abridged to the first 7 chapters if desired. (Chapter 17 slaps but is mostly a reiteration of chapter 1.) You could read all 3 in a weekend (if you abridge Zhuangzi).
I see it more as being about acceptance. If your wife dies, at some point, you will have to accept that your wife died and move on. This doesn't mean that you are cold or insensitive to it, it just means that you have accepted and processed this sorrow fully and are now ready to move on.
Stoicism for me is about practicing a sort of pre-acceptance of such things. To understand that everything bad that can happen eventually will happen (if you live long enough) and to accept it even before it has happened.
In more modern terms, I would call what Epictetus does here a reframing. It's used in therapy, marketing, PR and presumably other areas as well. Essentially it's saying "well, but if you look at it $this way$, it's not so bad, is it?" .
When strangers tell you that, it's very often with a malicious motivation, but it can be a helpful tool for coping with your own stuff.
How I perceived it, Epictetus wants to say: things happen and you are on a spectrum of emotions based on the context (in case of death, how close you were to the person), try to minimize the length of the spectrum.
I agree in part. You could read Epictetus as saying "just try not caring about people," which I think is the incorrect reading. Instead, I think he's saying something like "take a step back and realize that your deep personal attachments don't look so important when you step outside your perspective. You can use this realization to help get past the deep emotional pain that is normal for people to feel."
However, the line about other's indifference I think can only be read as dark funny to a modern reader:
> has someone else's child or wife died? There's no one who wouldn't say 'So it goes.'
The world being indifferent to your pain is not helping if you're in acute pain. Step outside your perspective, sure. I guarantee you this will not work if you have real issues like physical pain due to terminal cancer.
You should read "A Man's Search for Meaning" sometime. While not exactly Stoicism many of the ideas are similar/related. How a person views and responds to their situation, has a huge impact on them. No one is saying any of this will remove all of someone's acute pain, but as crazy as it sounds, accepting that suffering can lead maybe the pain not being quite so bad.
This reminds me of this Buddhist story about the cup that is already broken. I think I like this a bit better, as it's not that the cup doesn't matter, but rather enjoying it for what it is while you have it.
A monk had a beautiful, delicate tea cup.
His student asked him about the cup. And much to the student's surprise he replied that the cup is already broken. “What do you mean?” – asked the student.
The monk said – “To me this cup is already broken.”
“I enjoy it. I drink from it. It holds my water admirably – sometimes even reflecting the sun in beautiful patterns. When I tap it, it has a lovely ring to it. But when I put it on the shelf and the winds blows it over or I knock it off the table and it shatters on the ground then I say - of course.
When I understand the glass is already broken, every moment with it is precious.”
Great story, but Buddhism is not about cherishing the beautiful moments of life. It is about perceiving the universe as it is. It is about accepting that everything unfolds as it does and having the ability to see things as temporary forms of matter. In this story, the monk sees the cup as clay, a cup, and shards at the same time. So when the cup is broken, it means nothing to him.
I think that’s the wrong takeaway - the point is that when it’s happening to someone else, it’s easier to see the ‘right’ attitude to take regarding misfortune.
Of course it’s awful to have your child die, but also it’s fairly commonly understood, that it can’t be the end of your life as well, you take the time you need to grieve, and then you go on living. “So it goes.”
The point with the cup is the same: it’s easier to council patience and forgiveness when your lap isn’t soaked with wine, when shards of your cup don’t litter the floor.
It’s demonstrating a route to removing yourself from the emotion of the present situation, to examine things rationally, dispassionately, like you would if they were happening to someone else, because it’s easier to see the right thing to do that way.
But imagining oneself from a third perspective has a therapeutic effect that you can't really explain in words. You just do it and it's deeply soothing somehow.
As I get older, I read this entirely differently (as an appeal to empathy) than I did when I was younger (as an appeal to stolidity).
In other words, you should be pained for your neighbor when his slave breaks his cup. Maybe his grandmother left him that cup, and he's developed many fond memories around which he drank a soothing beverage in that heirloom. That empathy how we connect with people, build meaning, and make life richer.
My initial reaction was to disagree, but the man did allegedly take in an abandoned infant. And a woman to care for it[1]. And, our readings[2] of that quote (acceptance vs altruism) aren't in any way incompatible.
[1] You absolutely don't want to be a single woman in 1st century AD.
From just the quote above, I understand more as something intermediate : don't be pained when your cup is broken, like if it it was the cup of some else but be pained when someone else wife or child die, like if it was your
I thought the darkest thing you were going to point to was the matter of fact reference to the role of the slave as the inadvertent cup breaker! Some wonderfully insightful thoughts on how to manage one's emotions when confronted by life's challenges, of which I think are worth reading, but taking for granted the other human whose life is not their own and who is treated as (valuable) property by the philosopher is pretty dark to me.
I'm guessing that the institution of slavery was part of the entire imperial project of conquest so even if their conscience was briefly troubled it would've fallen into the 'so it goes' basket. But it does seem strange to the modern reader.
He was a slave at some point, right? Maybe he was just trying to get people to chill out about their cups, to save some of his former peers an unpleasant time.
> You should feel the same about your wife or child as someone else's.
I don't see why it should be so.
It makes perfect sense to sympathize(?) and understand that somebody is grieving and is likely going through pain/emotions that I would have gone through if my wife/child has died. But that is not the same thing as me feeling those emotions.
Isn't this the distinction between empathy and sympathy?
I'll take this further and I'm not sure if I've seen it anywhere, but I feel like humor is an absolutely necessary component to any philosophy or life practice in this direction.
In a way, this is an idea that to me, rises above perhaps the specifics of all of these isms. People from Dave Chappelle to Kurt Vonnegut really get this.
It's about accepting the bad things that will inevitably happen to us. "Loving your wife" and "grieving when she dies" are two separate things. We need mental framing that does not connect them, even though our default settings are to do so. Or at least that's how I'm reading it.
I think if we did the opposite, where we imagine we are the same person as other people in various situations, I think we would be overcome with debilitating pain, unable to function and just curling up into a ball and crying all day.
I don't see this as particularly dark or particularly funny. Seems like good advice. Most of our negative emotions are a waste of time and energy. I always try to see things in the greater context of the world: all things are brief, beautiful, and utterly without meaning in the greater scheme of things. If I spend a ton of time wailing and grinding my teeth about shit then I'm just wasting time I could be using to enjoy the experience of being alive.
> Most of our negative emotions are a waste of time and energy.
In a different frame, most of our negative emotions are there to help us - by signifying that something is wrong. You could be thankful for having them so that you are prompted to investigate what's wrong. It's only when we forget that feelings are only a part of our experience and start to identify with feelings (positive and negative) that trouble arises.
Some people hold this view not by choice, but by biology. In clinical terms it’s associated with psychopathy, or antisocial personality disorder if you prefer more neutral language. These individuals can perform acts that would emotionally devastate most people while experiencing little to no internal response. Importantly, the vast majority of psychopaths are not violent criminals or serial killers.
This isn’t speculative philosophy. Psychopathy is a well-studied area of psychology and neuroscience, and we can identify brain patterns that allow clinicians to assess psychopathy with a high probability of being correct. This gives us something close to a real-world example of the “perfect stoic,” taken to an extreme beyond what any philosophy actually advocates. What’s striking is that psychopathy is strongly associated not with superior functioning, but with impulsivity, poor long-term planning, and difficulty integrating into society.
The takeaway is uncomfortable but important: emotions are not merely noise that interferes with rationality. They function as behavioral guardrails. Remove them entirely and pure logic alone is insufficient to regulate behavior in a social world. Without those constraints, people don’t become hyper-rational idealists. They become unstable, maladaptive, and conspicuously out of place.
I think the main reason is that social behavior is not rational as a first-order effect. It is irrational at the local level and only becomes rational indirectly, sometimes as a side effect of a side effect.
For example, if I see someone on the street who has just been stabbed, the strictly first-order rational response is to ignore it and keep walking. Helping costs time, energy, and introduces personal risk. From a narrow perspective, conserving resources dominates. Why spend calories calling an ambulance when ignoring it is cheaper?
The second- or third-order effects are where things change. Someone might see you help and treat you differently later, or the person you helped might repay you in some way. But in any single instance, those payoffs are unlikely. Most of the time you get nothing. Likewise, any stigma for not helping can evaporate quickly. People have short memories.
The real effect shows up in aggregate. If you consistently apply this kind of extreme local rationality minute to minute, people notice. Over time, patterns form. You are perceived as cold, unreliable, or unsafe to depend on, and you are gradually shunned. It’s not even the second-order effects that matter most, but the cumulative aggregation of them.
This is where evolution matters. Natural selection is the ultimate trial-based selector. It does not care about what is logically defensible in a single instance. It selects for strategies that survive repeated interaction with reality over long time horizons.
But selection does not operate only at the level of isolated individuals. Humans evolved in groups, and many traits exist specifically to regulate group dynamics. Emotions such as empathy, guilt, shame, and moral outrage function not just to guide personal behavior, but to coordinate groups and enforce norms. They create alignment without requiring explicit calculation.
Just as importantly, groups evolve mechanisms to identify and prune individuals who don’t internalize those constraints. Someone who consistently defects, exploits, or optimizes locally at the expense of others may do fine in isolated interactions, but over time they are marked, excluded, or expelled. This pruning is not moral. It is functional. Groups that fail to do it collapse under free-riding and mistrust.
Seen through this lens, emotions are not optional. They are load-bearing components of social systems. They bias individuals toward cooperation and simultaneously give groups tools to detect and remove those who can’t or won’t play by the same rules.
Natural selection already ran this experiment at scale. Psychopathy illustrates what happens when these mechanisms are weakened or absent. What remains is not a superior form of rationality, but a system that optimizes locally, destabilizes its environment, and ultimately selects itself out.
In that context, stoicism is best understood not as a prescription to remove emotion, but as an attempt to discipline it. Whether it succeeds depends on how narrowly or literally it is interpreted. Taken as emotional suppression or pure rational control, it collapses into the same failure modes already visible in the clinical and evolutionary evidence. Taken more loosely, it functions less as a truth about human behavior and more as a coping framework with limited scope.
"It's possible to understand what nature wants from situations where we're no different from other people. For example, when a slave breaks someone else's cup we're instantly ready to say 'These things happen.' So when it's a cup of yours that gets broken, appreciate that you have the same attitude as when it's someone else's cup. Transfer the principle to things of greater importance. Has someone else's child or wife died? There's no one who wouldn't say 'So it goes.' But when it's one's own child or wife who's died, the automatic response is 'Oh, no!' and 'Poor me!' It's essential to remember how we feel when we hear of this happening to others."
There are a few (darkly) funny claims in here:
- _ANYONE_ would be pretty indifferent to hear that someone's wife or child has died.
- You should feel the same about your wife or child as someone else's.
- Potentially, you should feel the same way about your wife as you do a cup.
I'm being cheeky with the last one, and I don't think there's _nothing_ to the quote above, however I cannot imagine most people being able to adopt this view, or seeing it as a view which _should_ be adopted.